Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1965 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1963 - 1964

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 2 Nollaig, 1965.

Thursday, 2nd December, 1965.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An t-Ard Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), and Mr. J. Whelan, Mr. M. Ó Murchadha and Mr. J. McGartoll (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 44—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.

Mr. L. Ó Broin called and examined.

493. Chairman. Paragraph 81 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead F.—Engineering Stores and Equipment

81. Reference was made in the previous report to the fact that, of the total purchases amounting to £2,083,534 in 1962-63, stores to the value of £558,469 had not been paid for at 31 March 1963. As indicated in the statement of receipts and issues of engineering stores appended to the account (Appendix II) the position at 31 March 1964 shows improvement, creditors standing at £141,260 on purchases amounting to £1,961,843.”

I notice, Mr. Ó Broin, that your review of these procedures has been successful? —Yes. We have succeeded in reducing the stocks not paid for on hands. This effort was facilitated by the fact that the development programme is now levelling out.

494. Paragraph 82 of the Report of the comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Stores

82. A test examination of the store accounts was carried out with satisfactory results.

In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix II as valued at £2,232,392 on 31 March 1964, engineering stores to the value of £34,255 were held on behalf of other government departments. Stores other than engineering stores were valued at £493,123 including £200,513 in respect of stores held for other government departments.

Including works in progress on 31 March 1964, the expenditure on manufacturing jobs in the factory during the year amounted to £59,199, expenditure on repair work (other than repairs to mechanical transport) to £71,783 and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs to £15,869.”

Do you employ many on manufacturing jobs in the factory?—Yes. We give a rather steady volume of employment. There are 156 employed at present.

495. Paragraph 83 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Revenue

83. A test examination of the accounts of Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services was carried out with satisfactory results.

The net yield of revenue for the years 1963-64 and 1962-63 is shown in the following statement:—

£12,100,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £577,328 at 31 March 1964 as compared with £586,971 at the end of the previous financial year.

Sums amounting to £3,028 due for telephone services provided in prior years were written off during the year as irrecoverable.”

496. Paragraph 84 of the Report reads:

“Post Office Savings Bank

84. The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31 December 1963 were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results. The balance due to depositors, inclusive of interest, amounted to £120,061,460 (including £18,139,338 in respect of liability to Trustee Savings Banks) on 31 December 1963 as compared with £114,615,404 at the close of the previous year. Interest accrued during the year on securities standing to the credit of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund amounted to £4,848,308. Of this sum £2,952,107 was applied as interest paid and credited to depositors, management expenses absorbed £294,884 and the balance £1,601,317 was set aside towards provision against depreciation in the value of securities.”

How is the mechanised accounting system going?—It is going very well. We gave you a note last year which you incorporated in last year’s Report describing what we had achieved, and there has been no new development since. Our Organisation and Methods staff are engaged on an extensive survey of the departmental accounting system to see what further progress can be made. All the indications at present are that we are moving towards full scale computerisation, but developments of that kind, as you understand, will take some years to come to fruition.

497. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary.—Could I have some information from the Accounting Officer as regards the general trend of small savings as indicated by the Post Office Savings Bank Account?* Has the trend been satisfactory or has there been a falling off recently?—I do not know whether this is a matter for me to deal with here but what the Deputy suggests is true. There has been a falling off in small savings and there is a working group, of which we are a member, organised by the Department of Finance looking into this whole question and seeing whether anything can be done to improve the small savings position.

To make it more attractive?—Yes.

Deputy Byrne.—You are up against quite a lot of competition?—Yes, there is a good deal of competition.

498. Chairman.—On subhead C— Accommodation and Building Charges— the note says that there was less expenditure on building works and fewer international telecommunications accounts received than expected. Was there any special reason for that?—No, except that the British Post Office sent in only eight monthly accounts during that year of account. Presumably, they, like ourselves, are short staffed in the Accounts Branch and are in arrears in presenting accounts.

499. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—As a point of general information, I notice that the net total expenditure is £13 million odd and the revenue, as set out in paragraph 83 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, from postal, telegraph and telephone services, amounts to about £12 million. Does that not suggest that the Post Office is breaking even?

Mr. Suttle.—Mr. Ó Broin publishes a commercial account annually. You cannot judge this from the Appropriation Accounts. As I say, he publishes commercial accounts each year showing the actual position, taking in creditors and debtors, indicating the commercial standing of the Post Office with regard to postal, telegraph and telephone services.

Mr. Ó Broin.—In 1963-64, on a commercial basis, we estimated that we lost £164,000, having had surpluses in each of the preceding seven or eight years back to 1956-57, taking one service with another. Our aim is to pay our way.

500. Chairman.—In regard to Appropriations-in-Aid, item 9(g) shows that receipts are up from renting of Post Office premises. What is the reason for that?— During the course of the year we finalised the position with Radio Éireann in regard to the accommodation we provide for them in the GPO. This explains the variation between the amount we estimated and what was realised. It also involves the cost of heating the premises.

501.—Deputy Byrne.—On losses, dealt with on page 130, we are not apparently insured against these losses?—No, we carry our own losses. Of course, losses are infinitesimal compared with the amount of money we handle.

Do we just meet the losses as they occur? Do we find it necessary to make an allocation annually to build up a fund? —We make provision annually in subhead I. In the year of account we worked very close to the figure, spending only £437 less than the amount provided.

502. Chairman.—In the notes on page 132, at the end of note 2, it is set out that in 49 cases of damage to official vehicles in which no claim against members of the public arose, the drivers were held to be guilty of negligence. The cost of making good the damage was £3,604. A total of £16 was recovered from the officers concerned in six cases. Was the amount recovered not small in relation to the damage?—This is only one form of the disciplinary action we take against drivers. They may be disciplined in many ways— by deduction from pay, deferment of increment or something of that sort.

Deputy Healy.—The £16 is taken from the drivers concerned who are regarded as having been negligent.

Deputy Kenny.—How are the vehicles covered by insurance?—We have an arrangement of the knock for knock kind with the insurance companies. On the question of the individual drivers, as I have said there is a variety of forms of punishment, if I may use that word. We can make deductions from pay or defer increments or we can remove them from driving duties, with consequent loss of driving allowances, a form of discipline as often applied as anything else.

Deputy Healy.—If the penalty is deduction from wages, would that not be entered against the sum mentioned for damages? Would that not be included in the £16 recovered from the officers concerned?—I am not quite sure.

I do not wish to linger on this because the information may not be available now. The sum of £16 seems small and I can understand that it is taken from the drivers in the manner Mr. Ó Broin has indicated as one of the punishments. I should like to know if the sum could be a considerable one or if it is not worth recording. There were 49 cases and I should like to know if there were 20 of those in which money was taken from salaries or wages. Would the amount be of any appreciable proportion over a period of time?

Chairman.—The witness said there might be deferment of increments but it might not be in actual money.

Deputy Healy.—Would the £16 then represent the total amount taken from them?—Yes.

503. Chairman.—Appendix No. 11 on page 134 shows the value of stores on hand on 31st March 1964 as being £2,232,392, including stores worth £350,573 awaiting repair or condemnation. The latter figure for 1963 was about £284,000. Was there some reason for this increase?—Yes. This of course parallels what is happening in the development of the telephone system. The increase in the value of items awaiting disposal is the result of the growth of recovery by the engineering branch because of modernisation and extension of the telephone system.

Chairman.—We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Ó Broin.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 40—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.

Mr. L. Tóibín called and examined.

504. Chairman.—This is Mr. Tóibín’s first appearance before the Committee. I should like to take the opportunity of welcoming him. I hope he will be coming along on many occasions to assist the Committee in its deliberations on this Vote.

Mr. Tóibín.—Thank you very much. I am already indebted to the Committee for authorising a new format in the current year’s Estimates.

505. Chairman.—Paragraph 50 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.—Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht

50. The charge to the subhead comprises:—

Expenditure under the head “Agriculture” consisted of

(a) £7,824 on the grasslands improvement scheme referred to in paragraph 40 of the report on the accounts for 1962-63

(b) £7,101 on a Farm Buildings scheme introduced from 1 July, 1963. Under the scheme Roinn na Gaeltachta may supplement the grants paid by the Department of Agriculture by sums equivalent to 50 per cent. of the grants

(c) £2,181 on the extension of the special Connemara Land Project Scheme to other parts of the Gaeltacht, and

(d) £1,088 on minor agricultural projects.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The paragraph analyses for the information of the Committee the expenditure charged under subhead D.

506. Chairman.—In regard to the first item, Roads, £35,568, is much of this spent on accommodation roads?

Mr. Tóibín.—Most of it. At one stage we did assist with county roads but the emphasis now is almost completely on accommodation roads.

Deputy Kenny.—Do you operate through the Special Employment Schemes Office?—Mainly through the Special Employment Schemes Office and in some cases through the county councils, the Land Commission or any body capable of doing this type of work.

507. Chairman.—I notice glasshouses still figuring here. Are these the ones we had some trouble with?—The expenditure there includes replacement of some houses we had trouble with.

Deputy Kenny.—These are in Tourmakeady?—In Connemara. There would have been no expenditure in Tourmakeady in that particular year. We replaced ten of the damaged houses in Connemara and the expenditure for replacement in that year would be on those.

Are they producing now?—The replacement houses are producing but I am afraid the experts are not completely satisfied with them yet.

With the structure?—No. The architects designed a building that will stand up but the horticultural advisers wonder if they will give complete satisfaction in growing tomatoes.

You mean the houses?—The houses will stand up but apparently the amount of light they let in is absolutely vital and that is why it was such a disaster when the aluminium houses were damaged. They were perfect from the point of view of letting in light but they did not stand up to that exceptional hurricane. We now have replacement houses that will stand up but will not let in as much light as the horticulturists would like. At the same time they are producing tomatoes successfully at the moment.

This does not apply to Tourmakeady at all?—No; this year’s expenditure does not apply. No replacement house has been provided in Tourmakeady.

508. Chairman.—Was there not some talk about getting material saved from the actual location?—There was, but we have not done anything about that so far. The position as it then stood was explained by my predecessor in writing a couple of years ago when you put him a question about salvaging materials. His reply is on page 205 of your Report on the Appropriation Accounts for 1961-62:

“It is not possible to estimate the salvage value of materials from the glasshouses pending settlement of the question of their reconstruction. In general, with the possible exception of the heating plants, it is doubtful if any substantial amounts could be realised from salvage.

If the houses are reconstructed, the boiler-houses, the heating plants and the foundations of the houses will be re-used.”

That is all right where the houses have been reconstructed but, where they have not, I think we would be inclined to say now that, in general, it seems unlikely that the cost of salvaging materials could be recovered on sales of those materials. The reason is that there is no longer demand for heating plants so that we could throw good money away on taking out and storing the plants, and then have no sale for them. That would apply to the 20 houses that have not been reconstructed in Tourmakeady and Connemara.

You regard them as a complete write-off?—It may result in that eventually.

509. Deputy Molloy.—Surely £18,281 was not spent solely on renovating the ten glasshouses you mentioned?—No, the major part of the expenditure in that year was on installing heating plants in Donegal in houses that have existed for quite a while.

Deputy Healy.—Are they still operative?—Yes.

510.—Deputy Molloy.—What form of heating is used?—The usual type of heating—with turf. Apparently heating is more effective in Donegal perhaps for geographical reasons. It produces proportionately better results in Donegal than in Connemara. The position now is that there are several glasshouses in Connemara with heating plants which are not being used. It is a matter of economics involving the cost of the turf and the extra amount recovered on the sale of the tomatoes.

511. Deputy Byrne.—By and large would you say the glasshouse scheme has been a success?—We could not claim success for this recent extension of the scheme—in which the houses were damaged in Connemara and Tourmakeady —but of course there are about 100 houses in Connemara and about 100 more in Donegal for quite a while and they are reasonably successful.

512. Do they give a worthwhile income to the owners of the houses?—Some of them do. It is rather like farming or any other activity. You find a number excellent, a number not so good and a number pretty poor.

How do they market the tomatoes?— In those cases they are marketed through the Department of Agriculture central stations at Inverin and Gortahork.

Deputy Molloy.—You would not have an average figure of the profit per year to these farmers?—I am afraid I have not got it but it may be available in the Department of Agriculture.

Deputy Byrne.—It might be helpful if we had that figure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Suttle.—I do not think the Department of Agriculture would have the figure for profit. All they would have is the difference between what the farmer gets and what he must pay to the Department of Agriculture in respect of repayment charges.

Mr. Tóibín.—Yes, but they would have the gross income for all the tomatoes put through the central station.

Deputy Byrne.—That would give a rough idea of the kind of money involved.

Chairman.—Would you be able to get that for us, Mr. Tóibín?—We will get that for you, sir.* There may be some cases where the whole crop does not go through the central station. In those cases the income from tomatoes sold otherwise would not be available. These growers are not entitled to sell otherwise, but it does happen occasionally.

513. Deputy Kenny.—The heading “Sow Distribution” refers to Scéim na Muc, I take it? The amount spent seems to be very small. Are there many applicants?—There have been quite a number. About five hundred sows have been given out altogether. The demand has been dwindling since the early years. The scheme at that stage had been in operation for four or five years and the demand had generally been satisfied.

It appears the number of applicants is dwindling every year?—That is true. In any type of scheme like that there is a fairly big initial demand and, when that is satisfied, the demand tends to dwindle away.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— That is rather disappointing. One feels that a sow is more indigenous to that part of the country than tomatoes.

514. Deputy Molloy.—What system do the Department employ to let farmers know that this scheme is in operation? Is the reduction due to lack of knowledge of it?—I would not think so. We have stiúrthóirí for every area. They make contact with the people and address groups at meetings. We have been around ourselves to various places. I do not think it is a question of lack of knowledge. In some cases, perhaps, it is lack of experience of this type of work.

Deputy Kenny.—Would they not have advice from the committee of agriculture as well?—They could have advice from the committee of agriculture.

It is not through the committee of agriculture you supply these sows?— No, it is through the Pigs and Bacon Commission.

515. Deputy Molloy.—These stiúthóirí are something new to me. Are there many of them employed?—One in the west, one in Donegal and one in Munster.

The west would cover?—Galway and Mayo. We also have housing inspectors and so on who would disseminate information if necessary any time they meet the people concerned.

516. Chairman.—Sub-paragraph (b) of the paragraph says there was expenditure of £7,101 on a Farm Buildings scheme introduced from 1 July, 1963. Under the scheme Roinn na Gaeltachta may supplement the grants paid by the Department of Agriculture by sums equivalent to 50 per cent. of the grants. Is that available to every farmer or what conditions apply to the scheme generally? —There is an Irish-speaking test. Irish-speaking farmers in the Gaeltacht qualify for a supplementary grant which is in addition to the grant they get from the Department of Agriculture.

You say “Irish-speaking farmers in the Gaeltacht.” Do you make a distinction?—We do in this case. There are a number of non-Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht as officially defined. They do not get the benefit of many of our schemes.

517. Deputy Byrne.—Does that give rise to dissension as between neighbours? —It is a matter of how you look at it. If English speakers in the Gaeltacht were to get everything that is going, the Irish speakers would have no special incentive to continue speaking Irish.

Deputy Kenny.—Do you examine the applicant or his children?—The applicant in this case. He is examined by our stiúrthóir.

It is a matter of conversation?—Yes, to establish if Irish is the language normally used.

Usually they examine the children?— We operate the scheme for children through the inspectors of the Department of Education. That is for the deontas—formerly £5, now £10.

The same applies in the case of housing grants?—Except that it is done by our own housing inspector.

518. I had a case concerning two houses. In one house there were no children but the father and mother were native speakers. In the second house, the parents were native speakers but the children did not come up to the expectations of the inspector, and the second house was refused the grant. The mere fact that there were children in the second house deprived them of the grant although the parents were native speakers?—Being native speakers does not necessarily mean that they habitually speak the language.

It is the language of the household that counts?—Yes, at the time.

519. Deputy Molloy.—I have another case, but maybe we should not discuss these cases here. It concerns a man, a native speaker in the Gaeltacht, who left the Gaeltacht to go to England, where he married a girl from the Gaeltacht. They reared two children in England but, when the children were five or six, they decided to come back to the Gaeltacht and they applied for a grant to build a house. The children were English-speaking. They never had the opportunity of learning Irish, except what words they had from the parents. These people will not be given the grant even though they will become a household in which Irish is spoken every day?—We have to take the position as it stands at the time. It is a question of whether Irish is the language habitually used as the home language of the household.

There is a very strict interpretation of it?—I would not say we are too strict.

Chairman.—I think at this stage we shall have to confine our remarks because we are indulging in something that might be discussed elsewhere. However, I think Deputy Molloy has some idea of what exactly is implied.

520. Deputy Kenny.—There is a reference here to minor agricultural projects. What is that?—That would represent projects to encourage soft fruit growing and so on. We give grants through the county committees of agriculture. The scheme has not been a marked success. We have tried rhubarb, carrots, early potatoes, onions, celery, strawberries and blackcurrants in different places.

521. Deputy Molloy.—Could I have an explanation of the special Connemara Land Project Scheme referred to at subparagraph (c)?—Special terms were provided originally by the Department of Agriculture for Connemara alone. These were extended in that particular year to all the Gaeltacht areas. In other words, a higher proportion of the cost of the work is payable by grant and additional expenditure on lime and artificial manures of up to £8 per acre is also met. Originally, that applied only in Connemara but now it applies to every place in the Gaeltacht.

522. Deputy Molloy.—Have you a booklet explaining the different grants under your Department?—We are about to get one out. I hope you will have it before I appear before you next time. I should say that the schemes are neatly summarised in the White Paper on the Restoration of the Irish Language. There is an Appendix which gives, quite briefly, the whole picture.

523. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—On subhead C.—Tithe Gaeltachta—there is an expenditure of £188,229. Is that in addition to the ordinary housing grants which are available to county councils and local authorities?—It is a separate scheme administered by us. It operates within the several Gaeltacht areas and extends to some other districts, provided Irish is the spoken language of the household. The only State grant in these cases comes from Roinn na Gaeltachta. The various local authorities have schemes of supplementary grants which they pay to supplement our grants, just as they do in the case of the grant from the Department of Local Government. Our grants are more generous than those from that Department but we think the local authorities could, in some instances, be a little more generous than they are.

Deputy Kenny.—Do they all give pound for pound? My local authority do.

Some of them do not, although they are statutorily empowered to do so.

524. Deputy Byrne.—On subhead D. Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht —what are these Improvement Schemes? —These include the agricultural schemes we have already been discussing.

525. What is covered under subhead E. —Seirbhísí Cultúrtha?—We give prizes Feiseanna and so on and grants for various cultural activities such as Dámhscoileanna. We also assist in the purchase of musical instruments by groups in the Gaeltacht.

Whom would you assist in purchasing a musical instrument?—In that particular year we assisted two pipe bands, one in Arranmore, County Donegal, and another in Ballingeary, County Cork.

Would they have to contribute part of the cost themselves?—Yes. We do not contribute more than 80% of the cost or £100 for these musical instruments in any particular case.

526. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead F. —Seirbhísí Iompair—is this for school transport services?—Yes. It is for transport to secondary and vocational schools. The vocational schools came in for the first time in that particular year and that is why we did not spend as much as had been estimated.

Chairman.—Would this be in addition to whatever sums would be made available by the Department of Education or the vocational education committees?— No. The Department of Education assist transport to primary schools. These are post-primary schools. They are, in the main, secondary schools.

527. Deputy Kenny.—Do you give the grant directly to the head master or principal of the school?—He has to produce a scheme and give us full particulars, and he has also to collect contributions from the pupils travelling, but we pay the grant to the school authorities.

Do you leave the route to the discretion of the principal of the school and assume that he will choose the route most convenient for the majority of the pupils?—Yes, but, of course, it must be approved.

I have in mind one specific case of a grant which was given directly to the principal and the principal then submitted a scheme to the Department for sanction?—The scheme would have to be approved before any payment is made. We do not pay the contractor who provides the transport.

You pay against the contractor’s vouchers?—Yes, but not necessarily the full amount vouched.

In other words it is not a lump sum grant?—No, while it is usually paid in one lump sum at the end of the year, it is on the basis of a full set of figures submitted to the Department.

528. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—What contribution are pupils expected to put up?—Something like a shilling a day. We have a limit of not more than 80% of the cost and £50 per pupil per year on our grant. If it costs more than the grant plus the pupils’ contributions, the school authorities have to find the money from other sources.

529. Deputy Byrne.—Can you tell us how many children were, in fact, transported to school in the year in question under this scheme?—I can give you the number of schools involved. In that particular year there were 12 secondary schools and four vocational schools.

Can you provide us with a note of the number of pupils? It would be very helpful to us.—Yes. I shall do that.* The actual payments to secondary schools in that year reached £5,393 and to vocational schools only £635 because they came in late in the year.

530. Deputy Molloy.—If, say, there was one bus serving an area is it possible to carry pupils to more than one school? —Yes.

In other words, one person would be appointed manager of the scheme. Are you very strict in the operation of this, for instance, if there was one child involved who did not know Irish?—There are several cases where children who do not qualify for grants as Irish speakers are transported if there is room for them. However, we do not contribute in respect of non-Gaeltacht children.

531. Chairman. Under subhead G.— Deontais do Thuismitheoirí nó Caomhnóirí Leanaí áirithe sa Ghaeltacht nó sa BhreacGhaeltacht—are the numbers coming down?—Of course the number of payments in any particular year is inclined to fluctuate. Sometimes there is delay in getting in forms from inspectors. This year we are paying a £10 grant for the first time, instead of a £5 grant, and it will not surprise us if the numbers increase. There is no very marked decline in the actual numbers: the total is generally around the 9,000 mark.

Is this increase an incentive, or is it because of other factors?—It was a recommendation of the Commission on the Restoration of the Irish Language and the Government agreed to increase the grants.

532. Deputy Molloy.—Again, on subhead G.—I have had several complaints that the Department have been slow in inspecting some of the schools. Is it a fact that some of the money due in respect of the deontas is being paid this year for last year?—The normal procedure would be to pay this year for the last school year, because one of the conditions of the scheme is that the children would have attended school for the greater part of the year and that cannot be certified until after the end of the school year. We would not have started paying for the last school year until July of this year. That may give you the general picture.

Is there any back-log then?—Yes; I am sorry to say there is. In all cases we are dependent on inspectors of the Department of Education to help us in operating this scheme. Owing to pressure of their other work some of the forms are not coming in as speedily as we would like.

In fact, the figure shown here is not a true reflection of the actual demand? —Except in so far as we might have the same arrears at the end of one year as another; there would not be much fluctuation.

533. Deputy Byrne.—Could you tell us what it costs to administer the scheme? —There is no great cost in administering the scheme. I do not think there are additional inspectors, for instance, employed by the Department of Education because they have to do this work. We have just a few officers in our Department concerned with checking the forms that come in and preparing payments, and so on. I think the cost would not be significant.

It does not require any extra time to be spent by the inspectors of the Department of Education?—It does, yes.

In terms of man hours?—Yes. particularly in a few districts where they may have 1,000 to 2,000 children to examine.

I am just wondering if you would not in the long run, perhaps, save money by paying the grant to all the children in the Gaeltacht and cut out the administrative expenses?—This point arises again! In so far as we would be paying the grant to people who were not speaking Irish there would no longer be the same incentive for the others to continue to speak Irish.

534. Deputy Molloy.—You mentioned in relation to the housing grants, and I think it would also apply in the case of the deontas for speaking Irish, that you do not confine these schemes to the actual Gaeltacht. that there are places outside the Gaeltacht?—They are not confined to the Gaelacht districts as defined in 1956. They had more extensive coverage before that and they have not been pulled back into the districts as defined.

That is news to me.—We have quite a number of schools outside the defined Gaeltacht and that is why the term “Breac-Ghaeltacht” also appears. The areas for housing grants were defined in 1929 and range quite a bit outside the Gaeltacht as now scheduled.

I have cases of people being refused housing grants, even though they were speaking Irish, just outside the borderline. I was given the impression that it was by reference to a map that they lost the grant?—That could be. The areas were statutorily defined in 1929 and the people could be just outside those areas.

In that case they would not get it?— They would not get it because we are confined by the terms of the Acts.

535. The third greatest expenditure in this Vote is under subhead I—Gaeltarra Éireann (Deontas-i-gCabhair)—the grant of £100,000 to Gaeltarra Éireann. Could you explain this £100,000?—It is a Grant-in-Aid.

Chairman.—It is a Grant-in-Aid and the only thing the Accounting Officer has to do is pay it out.

Mr. Suttle.—The accounts are submitted to the Dáil and they are available in the Dáil Library.

Deputy Byrne.—Do you also see the accounts?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

Deputy Molloy.—Can we ask no questions on the Grant-in-Aid?

Chairman.—The Accounting Officer is only responsible for paying it out. The accounts are laid on the Table of the House and they are available in the Library.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— May we ask what is the trend of the Grant-in-Aid?

Mr. Tóibín.—This has been almost static for a number of years at £100,000 but in the current year it was increased to £120,000. Gaeltarra Éireann also get repayable advances for capital purposes but these are not reflected in the Vote at all.

536. Deputy Byrne.—In regard to subhead L.—Taispeántais Drámaíochta Gaeilge (Deontais-i-gCabhair)—is the Vote confined to groups in the Gaeltacht? —Yes, in that particular year.

Has it been extended since then?— In the current year we have wider terms of reference for the Vote generally. For subhead L in that year I should have said, of course, that it includes Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe and Amharclann Ghaoth Dobhair in Donegal as well as various small groups throughout the Gaeltacht.

537. Deputy Molloy.—In relation to Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe, I understand that the subvention is £2,500?—That is right—in that year.

Have you any control over the actual spending of the money?—Only a rather general type of control in the sense that, if one is giving any authority money to carry on, one should have some say in the matter.

Chairman.—They submit accounts?— They submit accounts, and we inspect the books.

Deputy Molloy.—Are the accounts available to us?—They are not published.

We cannot see them?—I suppose they could be made available. They have never been published so far.

Deputy Molloy.—I should like to see the accounts?—I would need to look into that. They are not submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Deputy Byrne.—Are they audited?— They are audited by one of our own staff.

Chairman.—I think Deputy Molloy could apply for the information.

Mr. Suttle.—The grant is made available to Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe on the basis of information supplied to the Minister. The Minister can, if you like, inspect the accounts with the agreement of the Taibhdhearc. I think the Accounting Officer would have to get permission of the Taibhdhearc.

Chairman.—I think he would. This is a grant-in-aid.

Mr. Suttle.—This is not making good losses. It is a grant fixed by the Minister and the Dáil on the basis of the information the Minister has but in order that the Committee should get the accounts I think the Accounting Officer would have to get permission of the Taibhdhearc.

Deputy Molloy.—I would like to say that some dissatisfaction has been expressed about the way this money is spent.

Deputy Byrne.—Is the Comptroller and Auditor General satisfied that these accounts have been audited?

Mr. Suttle.—I think so. We see these accounts ourselves every year in our examination of the grant-in-aid. We have the papers dealing with it and see the accounts.

Deputy Molloy.—For six productions a year it seems a lot of money.

Chairman.—That is an opinion that the Deputy may express in another place.

Deputy Molloy.—There are other people with ears. They hear me.

Mr. Tóibín.—If the Deputy has any suggestions for improving the situation, we would like to receive them.

Deputy Molloy.—Very good.

538. Chairman.—Subhead N.—Deontais chun cabhrú le Daltaí Gaeltachta atá ar Chúrsaí Oiliúna áirithe (Deontais-i-gCabhair)—is a new subhead?—That is right. It is for apprenticeship schemes.

Are there conditions on which these grants are payable?—The pupils have to be attending recognised apprenticeship courses; they are selected by the vocational education committees in the Gaeltacht counties. It is an effort to provide training away from home because of lack of facilities in some Gaeltacht areas. There were twenty apprentices involved in that particular year.

Deputy Kenny.—Apprentices to what? —To any type of trade. We are not really concerned about the actual trade involved if the requirements are met.

Are they apprenticed to recognised tradesmen?—Yes. The apprenticeships would have to be acceptable. They would have to be engaged in practical work and attending some lectures in vocational schools also.

Chairman.—Are these all worked through the Apprenticeship Board?— They are not, but we have regard to the policy of the Apprenticeship Board. The scheme is not as successful as we would like it to be possibly because of the limited vacancies for apprentices.

539. Deputy Kenny.—Can you give us an outline of the scheme. Suppose a boy starts at 16 years of age and he has left school, what happens after that?—He would have, in one way or another— possibly through his teacher—to arrange contact with somebody who would accept him as an apprentice to become, say, a carpenter, a mechanic in a garage, or an electrician.

Or a plasterer or bricklayer?—That is right. Assuming that the vacancy was not available near his own home in the Gaeltacht there would be a certain amount of expense involved in going to a town some distance away. He would have to pay for lodgings, and so on. The purpose of these grants is to help him in that respect. He gets a grant of £100 in the first year and it is reduced to £50 in the second year but, of course, his earnings go up, so he does not necessarily lose out on it; the idea is to bridge the gap.

Deputy Kenny.—I see. That is not generally known in the Gaeltacht. Is it, Deputy Molloy?

Deputy Molloy.—I am not so sure. Many of these schemes are not known in the Gaeltacht. They are bringing out this booklet, presumably to give such information.

Mr. Tóibín.—On going around in Gaeltacht areas during the summer we got the impression that these schemes should be more widely known. For that reason we are getting out the booklet.

Deputy Kenny.—I am sure you would have had more applications than you had in 1963-64 if it were more generally known.

Deputy Molloy.—Perhaps the onus is on us to let the people know.

Chairman.—We are moving away from the Appropriation Accounts and getting into matters of policy. We had better confine ourselves to the Appropriation Accounts.

540. Deputy Byrne.—Subhead M— Scoláireachtaí Saoire agus Scoile sa Ghaeltacht (Deontais-i-gCabhair) — is largely for holiday schools. Could we have an outline of this?—This is perhaps one of our most successful schemes. The number of children going to the Gaeltacht every summer is increasing quite considerably, at the rate of approximately 1,000 a year. In that particular year the number would have been over 5,000 and in the current year it is up to 8,000. We contribute a grant of £5 in each case and the scheme is operated through local committees, outside the Gaeltacht, who send groups of children to the Gaeltacht. The children spend up to four weeks in the Gaeltacht.

Deputy Kenny.—Are there not two sections to that scheme?—That is the more successful section I have been describing. The other one is where children spend a complete school term attending national schools in the Gaeltacht.

You do not pay for that?—We operate through approved committees; the only one at present is Gael Linn. We contributed £19 per pupil per term under that scheme; the figure is now £20.

Deputy Byrne.—Do the children spend a full school term there?—Yes. The number of such children in that particular year was down considerably. It was only 289. It is usually about 400 or 500.

541. Could we have a breakdown as between those who spend a term in the Gaeltacht and those who spend a few weeks there in the summer—in other words, those who receive £19 and those who receive £5?—There were 5,696 for the £5 grant and the expenditure was £28,470. There were 289 who spent a school term there and the expenditure was £5,472.

Is there any overlapping with the Department of Education? I seem to recall that the Department of Education provide grants to Irish colleges? These are capitation grants for the teaching of Irish in Irish colleges. We are interested in this because it has often been put to us that we pay annual grants to colleges in the Gaeltacht. We do not do any such thing. We pay grants to those committees who send children to the Gaeltacht. The Department of Education pay capitation grants to Irish colleges, whether they are in the Gaeltacht or not.

Deputy Kenny.—Do you not pay grants to colleges during the summer session?—No. We pay capital grants to help establish Irish colleges in the Gaeltacht; that would be under subhead H.

Do you not pay capitation grants for the number of scholars who do summer courses in recognised Irish colleges?—No. The Department of Education pay such grants to Irish colleges inside or outside the Gaeltacht.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. S. Réamonn called and examined.

542. Chairman.—Paragraph 9 of the Report of the Controller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.—Remuneration, etc., to Collectors and Assessors of Taxes, etc.

9. Under the provisions of Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1963, a Collector-General was appointed during the year under review to take over the functions of a number of collectors of taxes and it is intended that he will take over the functions of the remaining collectors as from 1 January 1965. Included in the charge to the subhead are payments totalling £34,225 made with the sanction of the Minister for Finance to certain collectors by way of compensation, comprising £19,225 paid to 7 collectors in final settlement and £15,000 paid to 15 others as advances of compensation.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The system of tax collection has been centralised under the supervision of a collector-general appointed during 1963-64 to take over the collection functions formerly exercised by collectors of taxes. These collectors were appointed annually on a contractual basis and were not entitled to awards under the Civil Service Superannuation Acts. With the sanction of the Minister for Finance a compensation scheme for collectors of taxes has been drawn up and this paragraph shows the total amounts paid under the scheme in the year under review.

543. Chairman.—How many collectors have you?

Mr. Réamonn.—Perhaps you might like me to amplify a little on what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said. You will remember that the Commission on Income Taxation, in their second report, which they signed on 10th June, 1959, recommended that where a taxpayer had income from more than one source, he should, instead of receiving various communications from various inspectors of taxes, be provided with a single composite notice of assessment and a unified demand notice. The Government, in their first White Paper on direct taxation, which they published on 19th April, 1961, accepted this. They went further to say that they would institute, as the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, a system of centralised collection of income tax in substitution for the former system of contract collectors. The Minister for Finance brought in the necessary provisions in the Finance Bill, 1963. All this meant that the previously existing system of collecting income tax was to disappear on 31st December, 1964. May I say in direct reply to your question, Mr. Chairman, that under the old system we used to have 55 collectors. In view of the fact that the old system was going to disappear from the picture, the Minister for Finance approved a scheme for compensation which was later on laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The new system did not affect the entire of the year which we are now considering, 1963-64. I should have said the new system was to be operated with the use of electronic equipment and it was to be tried out, as it were, beginning at 1st January, 1964, in ten pilot tax districts. In other words, the new system was to be in force for three out of the twelve months of 1963-64 in ten pilot tax districts. The electronic tabulator and computer had been ordered I suppose about three years before. It arrived in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners in June, 1963, and we began work in September of the same year. To get back directly to your question, Mr. Chairman, we started off with 55 collectors and of these 34 functioned in the normal accustomed way throughout the entire currency of the year 1963-64. There were two cases where a son succeeded a father so that in reality 36 individuals were involved in 1963-64. On the other hand, seven of the collectors, I suppose on account of their age, retired permanently in 1963-64 and received varying amounts of compensation in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2) of the scheme. The total amount which the seven received was £19,225. As well as the seven who retired permanently, there were fourteen who, under the terms of the compensation scheme, accepted a contract of employment for the year 1964. I should explain contract collectors were engaged by the calendar year. Fourteen of the collectors accepted contracts of employment for the year 1964 and under paragraph (10) of the compensation scheme they were entitled in each case to an advance of £1,000 compensation. Of the fourteen, ten were employed as local agents of the collector general and four on the new Turnover Tax. One collector who was re-engaged as such had to change his residence. They were difficult circumstances for him so we obtained the sanction of the Minister for Finance specially in his case to get an advance of compensation. Therefore, you see how the £15,000 was made up. In other words, each of the fifteen got £1,000 advance of compensation.

Chairman.—Thank you very much for a very full explanation indeed.

544. Paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Revenue Account

10. A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out with generally satisfactory results.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Matters arising out of my examination of the Revenue Account are referred to in paragraphs 15 to 18 of my Report.

545. Chairman.—Paragraph 11 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“11. The net yield of revenue for the years 1963-64 and 1962-63, under its main heads, is shown in the following statement:—

£146,796,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £49,597 as compared with £2,021,166 at the end of the previous financial year.”

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph gives the net yield of revenue under its main heads for the year 1963-64 together with the comparative figures for 1962-63. Turnover tax appears as one of the heads of revenue for the first time in 1963-64 and I refer to the introduction of this tax in paragraph 16.

546. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—I notice that at the bottom of paragraph 11 it is stated that there was a balance of £49,597 as compared with £2,021,166 at the end of the previous financial year. Could you explain that?—

Mr. Réamonn.—For many years the revenue balance, as it used to be called, stood at about £2 million and it was intended to augment revenue during the early and lean part of the financial year but following the introduction of PAYE there was a more even flow of revenue. This caused the Minister to decide that the necessity for maintaining such a large balance no longer existed. The effect of his decision was that at the end of 1963-64 the figure stood at £49,597 as compared with £2,021,166 at the end of 1962-63.

547. Chairman.—Paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“12. I have been furnished with the following analysis of amounts of Income Tax, Sur-tax and Corporation Profits Tax outstanding:—

Comparative totals for the previous year are—Income Tax, £4,870,251; Sur-tax, £1,580,275; Corporation Profits Tax, £697,472.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph contains an analysis of the amounts of income tax for 1962-63 and earlier years outstanding at 1st June, 1964, and of surtax and corporation profits tax outstanding at 31st March, 1964. In deference to the wishes of the Committee the form of the statement has been changed with a view to showing more clearly the position regarding the outstanding taxes

548. Chairman.—Paragraph 13 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and other Duties

13. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties, £10,119, Excise duties, £7,510 and Stamp duties, £363 were made during the year.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— How does it arise that extra statutory repayments were made?—Mr. Réamonn. —This is chiefly to do with the matter of diplomatic privilege. For example, the total customs extra statutory repayments in 1963-64 were £10,000 roughly and of that approximately £9,000 has to be attributed to diplomatic privilege. The same applies to the excise extra statutory repayments. There were other cases as well.

549. Chairman.—Paragraph 14 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“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 1964.

The total amount of the items included in the schedules, £209,566, is made up as follows:—

The distribution according to the grounds of remission or write-off is:—

I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with generally satisfactory results.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Again, this is for the information of the Committee and I have no comment to make.

550. Chairman.—Paragraph 15 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“15. In the course of my scrutiny of the documents relating to a case in which income tax amounting to £340 was passed as irrecoverable under the heading ‘liability not enforceable, etc.’, I noted that £866 due by the same taxpayer but not collected was not included in the schedules. This tax had been deducted from interest payable to a mortgagee resident outside the State and it appeared that a repayment claim had been met. I have communicated with the Accounting Officer.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—In reply to my inquiry the Accounting Officer has informed me that the liability of £866. 1. 7 under General Rule 21 was not included in the schedule of amounts written off as irrecoverable for the reason that it was not “assessed” tax. Prior to the enactment of section 9 of the Finance Act, 1963, this liability could only have been recovered under section 2 of the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891, as a debt due to the Minister for Finance for the benefit of the Central Fund by court proceedings at the suit of the Attorney General under section 38 of the Finance Act, 1924. The Commissioners were satisfied that there was nothing to be gained by embarking on such proceedings. Since the enactment of section 9 of the Finance Act, 1963, it is competent to raise assessments to bring this liability into charge to tax but again the Commissioners are satisfied that the circumstances are such that an assessment under that section would not be warranted. I am not aware of what the legal position is in regard to the repayment by the Revenue Commissioners of tax which they had not collected.

Mr. Réamonn.—The first point I would make, in support of what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, is to recall what we mean when we speak of balancing the income tax books of account. I am speaking of the charge. The starting point is the total of tax which has been assessed; in other words, the total of the assessments. On the other side, we put sums paid, sums discharged, sums written off, sums remitted. To achieve the balance between the two sides, we include here sums outstanding; in other words, payments, discharges, and so on, are balanced against assessments. The position in this case was that there was no assessment. In fact we had simply what is described in law as a chose in action, in other words, a debt due to the Minister for Finance for the benefit of the Central Fund which we would have had to recover through the courts. As regards the repayment, the position is that we have with Britain, since 1926, an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation as between our two countries and it is known generally as the residence agreement, in other words, it is based on the reciprocal exemption of the non-resident. So that a person who is solely resident in Great Britain—and when I say “solely resident,” I mean he is resident in Great Britain for a particular year and not resident in Ireland for the same year—is entitled under the agreement to a repayment of Irish tax on any Irish income he may possess and, reciprocally, a person who is solely resident in Ireland, in other words, a person who is resident in Ireland for a given year and not resident in Great Britain for the same year, is entitled to a refund of British tax on any British income that may be flowing to him. The effect of the agreement, in the case of the British resident concerned, was that he was entitled to claim a refund of the Irish tax charged by deduction on the interest although we were unable to recover that tax on account of the poor circumstances of the two ladies who made the deduction. We were therefore obliged to repay in this case—it was not on the whole of the interest in the case but on the greater part of it—because the recipient of this greater part of the interest was solely resident in Great Britain and the income in question was income which was chargeable to Irish tax and, therefore, he was entitled to approach us with a claim for a refund.

551. Chairman.—Paragraph 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Turnover Tax

16. The Finance Act, 1963, provides for the registration of persons accountable for Turnover Tax and regulations require every registered person to furnish each month a return of his taxable turnover for the preceding month and to remit to the Collector-General the amount of tax appropriate to that turnover. The Accounting Officer has furnished me with particulars of the procedures to check the accuracy of the returns of turnover, but it will not be possible to test their effectiveness until at least a full year has elapsed.”

Mr. Suttle.—The procedures adopted to check the accuracy of returns include the comparison of the total turnover of each firm for the accounting period as shown by the returns relating to that period with the figures for turnover shown in the firm’s annual accounts. I understand that this comparison is now being carried out but that results are not yet available.

Mr. Réamonn.—The Committee might be interested to know that before this turnover tax was brought in we were obliged, in the ordinary way, to make careful calculations as to what would be the yield on a full compliance. We had recourse to the information compiled by the Central Statistics Office in relation to the number of retail, wholesale and manufacturing concerns in the State and also in relation to consumer expenditure under the headings contained in the National Income and Expenditure tables. We held discussions with the officers of the Central Statistics Office and the result was an estimate for the year 1963-1964, the first year—this meant an estimate of the yield for five months—of £3.5 million. The actual yield, in the event was just under £3.7 million. Similarly, the estimate for the first full year, 1964-65, was £13.5 million and the yield turned out to be £13.417 million.

Chairman.—Very good estimation.

Deputy Healy.—That is better than the weather men can do.

Mr. Réamonn.—I hope we would never be so rash as to be completely satisfied with the collection of any taxes or duties under our care and management.

552. Chairman.—Paragraph 17 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“P.A.Y.E.

17. The P.A.Y.E. scheme for Income Tax deductions was introduced from 6 October, 1960. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the reconciliation of tax deductions, as shown in the annual returns furnished by employers, with the sums brought to account in respect of these deductions and the number of employers from whom annual returns have not been received.”

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that annual returns on forms P35 made by employers under PAYE are balanced against the payments received from each employer in respect of the year involved and also against the tax deducted as shown on the individual tax deduction cards forwarded with the employers’ returns. This procedure has been followed for each of the years 1960/61, 1961/62 and 1962/63, and is now being carried out for 1963/64. It is considered that this procedure affords adequate safeguards because steps are taken to ensure that all employers return completed forms P35 for each year. The balancing operations are being pursued energetically but delay is inevitable in some cases owing to deaths. cessations of business, and so on. Those still outstanding are all small cases and there is no reason to believe that they will not be settled satisfactorily in due course. In the absence of the overall reconciliation to which I have referred, it would not be practicable for me to satisfy myself that the individual returns were in fact being balanced. You will note from Paragraph 19 of my Report that PAYE is not dealt with by the Electronic Computer.

Mr. Réamonn.—I should like to add that we contemplate approaching the Minister for Finance in the reasonably near future with a view to securing a much larger and more sophisticated electronic apparatus to do more work. This will include the complete mechanisation of PAYE.

553. Deputy Kenny.—Does this computer ever go out of order?—It has constantly to be watched and maintained and there is a very strict scrutiny. In fact, before we feed programmes into the computer we have to have very numerous trial runs. We take every care to ensure that it functions properly. It has never been reported to me that it has gone completely out of order.

554. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—Is PAYE dealt with entirely by computer?—We hope to do that when this new apparatus is delivered and when we are using it, subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. It will not be earlier than about the spring of 1968 because these machines have to be built specially. You place an order and then you wait for a number of years. We would hope, all going well, to place the order by about March, 1966.

555. Deputy Byrne.—Are you contemplating renting a computer or buying one?—We would rent it. The advantage of renting it rather than buying it outright is that you are able to substitute advanced and improved machines for the ones you are using. We considered this all very carefully at the beginning and decided that the most profitable thing to do was to rent the computer.

Deputy Kenny.—What does it cost per annum?—The annual cost of the computer in terms of hire is as follows: the cost of the hire of this 1301 computer is £16,260; there has to be added to that the cost of hiring the peripheral equipment, £8,874, which makes a total of £25,134. From that would be deducted the savings on our previous punched card equipment. In 1956/57 we brought in a mechanised system which was not electronic but which had to be manually operated. If the savings on the punched card equipment are deducted, that is, £7,561, the net annual cost of the hire of the computer comes to £17,573.

556. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Schedule E.—Balancing Statements

18. The Central Collection Branch was set up on 1 January 1952 to collect tax assessable under Schedule E in the Dublin General District for 1950-51 and subsequent years. In reply to my inquiries regarding the preparation of balancing statements for this tax the Accounting Officer has furnished me with statements prepared as at 26 March 1962 in respect of the periods 1950-51 to 1954-55 and 1955-56 to 1959-60.

For the period 1950-51 to 1954-55 the overall position is shown as follows:—

The Accounting Officer informed me that the total amount discharged had to be estimated in the absence of detailed vouchers, but that test checks had been made against documents relating to a large number of the relevant assessments.

The statement in respect of the period 1955-56 to 1959-60 shows the overall position for these years as follows:—

The balancing operations in respect of this period resulted in an excess of £235 over the original charge of £24,719,911. I have accepted the view of the Accounting Officer that the further expenditure which would have been involved in attempting to reach a more exact balancing figure would not have been justified in the circumstances but I expect that the introduction of the computer should result in prompt and accurate balancing for subsequent years.

The Accounting Officer has also informed me that the balancing of the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 as at 31 March, 1964 is in progress.”

Mr. Suttle.—Balancing statements for Schedule E tax in the Dublin General District were prepared as at 26th March, 1962, in respect of the periods 1950-51 to 1954-55 and 1955-56 to 1959-60. This paragraph gives the overall position in respect of each of these periods as shown in the statements furnished to me by the Accounting Officer. Within the past fortnight, I was furnished with a statement setting out the position as at 31st March, 1965. This shows that of the total, £1,275,813, outstanding at the 26th March, 1962, all but £83,751 had been paid, discharged, reported for recovery under Pay-as-you-earn or passed as irrecoverable. I have not had an opportunity to carry out an examination of this statement. I have not been informed whether the balancing of tax for the four years to March, 1964 has yet been completed.

Mr. Réamonn.—As regards the balance that we have achieved for the ten years 1950-51 to 1959-60, you will see when it comes before you an amount passed as irrecoverable, £1,235,009, and I should like to point out that it represents less than 3 per cent of the charge. We have completed the full balances for 1960-61 and 1961-62 and they show only minor discrepancies. However, the three years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65 present special complications, and the task of balancing these three years may take some time. The whole difficulty is the ledger balancing and not the balancing of the charge. The ledger balancing is the last in a series of checks. Here is the difficulty we used to have. When a taxpayer would remit a sum in discharge of tax, very often we would not know precisely from the letter he would send in—or perhaps he might not send in a letter at all—to what year or years of account that tax was to be attributed, and as between the punched cards, in which the receipt of the money would be originally noted, and the ledgers for the various years of account, we found discrepancies. This was due to the fact that, in the first instance, when the money came in we used not to demand the machined documents which would have enabled us without any difficulty whatever to attribute the tax correctly to the particular years of account. We used simply to receive the money and do the best we could as regards this attribution in the ledgers. We had then staff which had not very much experience. Very often they would be merely birds of passage who would come into our service and, perhaps, after three or four months they would leave. They were not as careful as they might have been and the result is that mistakes were made as between the information put on the punched cards and the information noted up in the ledger for the particular years of account. From the current year, 1965/66, onwards when money comes in in satisfaction of tax, if it comes in without the machined documents we shall return it and say they must supply us with the information on these documents. Therefore, from the beginning of 1965/66 we should have no trouble at all in regard to this reconciliation of the amounts in the ledgers for the different years of accounts. I should like to repeat that the whole difficulty arises as regards the ledger balances and not in any way as regards the balancing of the charge.

Deputy Healy.—It should be noted that it is a revolutionary decision to return the taxpayers’ money.

557. Chairman.—Paragraph 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Central Collection Branch. Work performed by Electronic Computer

19. I have been furnished with the following particulars of the work being carried out by the electronic computer which was brought into operation in the Central Collection Branch during the year under review:—

(a) Income Tax and Sur-tax (other than P.A.Y.E.)—arithmetical calculation of liabilities, preparation of assessment books, notices of assessments and tax demands and general accounting and statistical work.

(b) Turnover Tax—preparation of tax reminders, printing of remittance books, etc., and general accounting and statistical work.

(c) Conversion Work—the conversion of basic data, previously used under the manual scheme, into punched cards, etc.

(d) Testing programmes and correction of flaws—these take up a substantial amount of time on the computer and will continue to do so for some time to come.

(e) Work for other Departments— a limited amount of programme testing on behalf of the Meteorological Office.”

During what period does the computer work?—We are using it full time at the moment. We do one hour per week for the Meteorological Office and two hours per month for the Department of Education. The computer is now working at full capacity.

Is that for 24 hours?—I think it is during the normal working hours of the staff. As I have said, we should like to instal a much larger and more sophisticated machine which would fully mechanise PAYE and deal also with salaries and wages of the Revenue staff, with Revenue accounts and statistics relating to imports and exports.

Should it not be used over a much longer period—full time for 24 hours—in order to get the most out of it, and could we not provide staff to ensure this?— Do you mean staff working overtime?

No. I mean shift work around the clock?—I should like to have that question more fully examined. I do not think I can answer it now. I shall certainly have it examined.

Mr. P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— Have any consultations taken place with other Departments to see if it could be utilised by them?—I should be very happy to look into that point.*

VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.

Mr. K. M. Fowler called and examined.

558 Chairman.—There are no questions on the Vote and we therefore thank Mr. Fowler for his attendance.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee deliberated.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XXVIII.

* See Appendix XXIX.

* See Appendix XXX.

* See Appendix XXXI.