Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1970 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1967 - 1968

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin 5 Feabhra 1970

Thursday 5th February 1970

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. C. H. Murray (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

GENERAL REPORT.

Mr. C. H. Murray called and examined.

1. Chairman.—We welcome Mr. Murray whose first time this is to come before us.

Mr. Murray.—Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

2. Paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“general

Outturn of the Year

1. The audited accounts are summarised on page xxxiii. The amount to be surrendered as shown in the summary is £8,488,128 arrived at as follows:—

This represents 2.6 per cent of the supply grants, as compared with 2.2 per cent in the previous year.

Excess Vote

2. An excess vote will be required in the case of Vote 22—Prisons. While there was a saving of £4,786 on the gross provision made by the Oireachtas there was a shortfall of £8,632 in appropriations in aid realised resulting in a net excess of £3,846. (See also paragraph 29 of this report.)

Exchequer Extra Receipts

3. Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer as recorded in the Appropriation Accounts amounted to £2,667,778.

Surrender of Balances on 1967-68 Votes

4. The balances due to be surrendered out of votes for the public services for 1967-68 amounted to £6,191,763. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered.

1966-67 and 1967-68 Accounts

5. I hereby formally certify that I have obtained all the information and explanations that I have required to enable me to complete my audit of the accounts of the Garda Síochána Votes for the years 1966-67 and 1967-68.”

3. Deputy E. Collins.—On Paragraph 5, was there difficulty about departmental files this year?

Mr. Suttle.—No. Since the statement to the Dáil by the Taoiseach on this question I have had no difficulty. I got all the files I required.

Deputy E. Collins.—The back files?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. There was no question about the files.

4. Chairman.—Paragraph 6 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Stock and Store Accounts

6. The stock and store accounts of the Departments have been examined with generally satisfactory results.”

5. Deputy E. Collins.—I see the words “generally satisfactory results”. Have you any comment on the word “generally”? Does not “generally” suggest that something was not satisfactory?

Mr. Suttle.—We have another comment further on in the report. It was a question of stores. I qualified it to say it was “generally satisfactory” except for that one case which will come up later.

Deputy E. Collins.—Have you pursued that?

Mr. Suttle.—That will be dealt with later when we come to the Department of Defence.

6. Chairman.—Paragraph 7 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“7—Statement of Receipts into the Central Fund for the Year ended 31 March, 1969.

Money Raised by Creation of Debt:—

Issues under the following Acts:—

Issues for the Redemption of Public Debt:—

7. Deputy E. Collins.—I think it is intended under the new Central Bank Bill that the Government will make greater use of the Central Bank from the point of view of banking. Would this include the registrar of shareholders or stockholders?

Mr. Murray.—That is taking place already, in advance of the Central Bank legislation, in regard to new loans that are coming out. In time, the Central Bank will assume the functions of registrar in regard to all national loans.

8. Do you anticipate any trouble in the transfer?

—No, it is purely a question of building up administrative capacity within the Central Bank to handle this.

9. Under the new Bill greater use will be made of the Central Bank by the Government. Will you have any difficulty in transferring accounts from the Bank of Ireland to the Central Bank or is that intended?

—It is intended under the new Bill that the Central Bank will become the Government’s banker. This will be a phased operation over a relatively short period. No great difficulty is contemplated.

10. Will there be much expense involved, from the point of view of the Exchequer in this transfer?

—No greater I should imagine than in the present position because the Bank of Ireland must be paid for its services.

11. Will the Central Bank also have to be paid for its services?

—Yes, but, of course, the full profits of the Central Bank innure to the Exchequer so there will be no net loss as far as the Exchequer is concerned.

12. Do you feel that you will have the same expert advice available within the Central Bank as you had in the Bank of Ireland?

—I am quite satisfied about that. In anticipation of this transfer the Central Bank has been adding to its expert staff.

13. Is it recruited from abroad or from within the country?

—I am not very conversant with its recruitment policy. I could not say from where it has been recruiting its staff but from inspection I would say it is mainly Irish nationals.

14. I say this because I think it is intended to create a money market in the long term in Ireland. Have they got many experts in that field?

—Yes, they have. They have sent their staff abroad for training.

15. Chairman.—Paragraph 8 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“8. In addition to those shown in the previous paragraph, issues of £200,000 and £150,000 were made from the Capital Fund to the National Building Agency, Ltd. and the Agricultural Credit Corporation Ltd., respectively.”

16. Paragraph 9 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“9. £4,720,329 repaid in respect of issues under the Industrial Credit Acts, 1933 to 1959, comprises £3,273,115 in respect of moneys provided for the Industrial Engineering Co. Ltd., Dundalk (see paragraph 95) and £1,447,214 in respect of the transfer to Taiscí Stáit Teoranta of an investment by the Industrial Credit Company in Verolme Cork Dockyard Ltd.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—£3,273,115 has been advanced by the Industrial Credit Company to the Industrial Engineering Company, Dundalk, to finance the Dundalk Company’s activities. In order to clear its liability to the Central Fund this sum was voted under Vote 51 in the year under review and paid over by the company. £1,447,214, advanced by the same company to Verolme Cork Dockyard was transferred to Taiscí Stáit; this is shown, therefore, as a repayment by the Industrial Credit Company and is included in the sums, £2,490,126, advances to Taiscí Stáit.

18. Deputy E. Collins.—In relation to the Industrial Engineering Company, Dundalk, what is the present position?

Mr. Suttle.—It is in receivership which is not yet complete. We will be dealing with that later on.

19. What is the position with regard to Verolme Cork Dockyard? How is the State involved in this?

Mr. Suttle.—That is something current. I do not think there is anything definite about it yet. We are dealing with the position up to 31st March, 1969, and we do not go beyond that. At that stage Verolme owed Taiscí Stáit £1½ million.

20. Chairman.—Does this money represent a loss?

Mr. Suttle.—No, it is a liability of Verolme to Taiscí Stáit Teo. at the moment. Whether it is a good liability or not I could not say.

21. Does the money in respect of Dundalk represent a loss?

Mr. Suttle.—It is really a loss, yes.

Mr. Murray.—A large part of it represents a loss but when the receiver was appointed he succeeded in selling some of the assets directly and selling others as a going concern. On foot of those transactions about £600,000 will be received. Some of it has been received already and, in fact, I think £200,000 of it is recorded in the 1968-69 accounts.

22. Deputy E. Collins.—What security is held for the loan to Verolme?

Mr. Suttle.—I would say that it is a mortgage on the assets.

—A general mortgage?

Mr. Suttle.—I think so.

Mr Murray.—There is a debenture charge.

Deputy E. Collins.—A general frozen debenture?

—How frozen it is I could not say but there is a debenture charge.

VOTE 1—PRESIDENTS ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

23. Deputy E. Collins.—On subhead C.— Post Office Services—what are these services?

Mr. Suttle.—This was a change in accounting. Previously all postal services were free to Government Departments. There was no charge. Some years ago to bring the post office more into a commercial line it was decided that the Department now has to pay for every letter it sends out and every telephone call it makes.

24. It is quite an amount?

Mr. Suttle.—It is really an assessed figure. The post office has calculated that the cost of telegrams and telephone calls amounted to this. We do have a look at these estimates from time to time to see that they are reasonably correct, but instead of billing them in detail we work out the estimate beforehand.

VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

25. Deputy Tunney.—On subhead B.— Travelling Expenses of Comhaltaí—I understand that a case has been made for Dublin Deputies travelling expenses?

Chairman.—That I’m afraid is a question of policy.

26. Deputy E. Collins.—Are there any allowances for travelling by air?

Mr. Suttle.—The allowances would cover any manner of travelling; it is up to the individual.

Deputy P. Barry.—Sixpence per mile.

Deputy Briscoe.—You would be saving the State money travelling by air instead of travelling by car.

27. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead F.1— Post Office Services—Does that refer to all the postage that the Deputies would send out?

Mr. Suttle.—I think so.

It is not a high figure. I am rather surprised it is so low?

Mr. Suttle.—It would cover all postage.

Mr. Murray.—It would also cover the postal expenses of the staff of the Oireachtas.

Deputy P. Barry.—And the telephones?

—Yes.

28. Deputy Treacy.—On subhead F.2— Incidental Expenses and Travelling of Officers and Staff of the House of the Oireachtas —what does incidental expenses mean?

—This would cover travelling expenses of the staff of the Oireachtas. It would also cover their subsistence allowances. In addition, it covers expenditure on books, newspapers, and periodicals and on uniforms for ushers and messengers.

29. Deputy Nolan.—It would cover this too?

—Yes. Incidental expenses and travelling of officers of the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The examples I have given illustrate what is meant by incidental expenses.

Chairman.—Details are in fact given in the Estimates Volume.

30. Deputy Nolan.—On subhead H.— Expenses of the Restaurant (Grant-in-Aid) —that goes to the restaurant?

Mr. Suttle.—The Restaurant Committee.

31. Deputy Briscoe.—How long has the grant of £9,500 been paid? When was the last increase?

Mr. Murray.—This figure has operated only comparatively recently. Three or four years ago it was of the order of £3,000 to £4,000.

32. Deputy Treacy.—Could we have an indication of how the restaurant expenses are working out?

—I can give Deputies figures for the most recent years. In 1967-68 the loss was £8,397, and in 1968-69 it was £7,818.

33. Deputy Keating.—Does this figure include an effort to compute the cost for the premises occupied or is this made available to the restaurant without charge?

—My understanding is that it is made available without charge.

Deputy Keating.—It is not a real loss; the real loss would be higher than that.

Deputy E. Collins.—I do not think the Restaurant Committee should be subsidised.

Chairman.—There is a Restaurant Committee which deals with all that.

34. Deputy P. Barry.—On subhead I.— Allowances to certain Former Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas—what does the £1,100 relate to?

—Ex gratia payments to former members who did not come under the Ciste Pinsean either because they had retired beforehand or had not enough service to qualify for the pension scheme when it was introduced.

35. Deputy Keating.—Ex gratia is by somebody’s grace, by whose grace? How is it decided upon?

—There is a committee of Members representative of the three major parties.

Mr. Suttle.—It is on page 5 of the Estimates volume.

Mr. Murray.—It is determined by the Minister for Finance after considering the recommendations of the Committee.

36. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead J.— Ciste Pinsean Thithe an Oireachtais (Comhaltaí) (Grant-in-Aid)—under the new arrangement I think widows of deceased Members of this House now get half of the pension; it no longer dies with them.

37. Mr. E. Collins.—To what does subhead K.—Witnesses Expenses—refer?

—This is more or less a nominal provision to cater for the contingency that a Committee might decide to summon witnesses and there might be travelling expenses involved.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. C. H. Murray called.

No question.

VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

38. Deputy Briscoe.—Under subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—what is the latest position with regard to vacancies? I understand from previous years that there has been certain difficulty in filling vacancies?

Mr. Murray.—Yes, this is a problem which arises at two levels. One is the professional level of statistician and the other the level of clerical assistant. With regard to the professional level, the position has improved somewhat and there is now only one vacancy. At the moment a committee are working on the question of statistical requirements and priorities. Their report is likely to show the need for more economic and social statistics, and professional staff requirements will probably be increased. In relation to that type of staff we are always on the watch out to see whether our system of releasing executive officers to universities on scholarships to undertake agreed courses of study could be used to provide us with people having mathematical experience. However, to sum up, the position is somewhat better than in previous years but it could become worse as our needs become greater. On the question of staff at the lower levels, the position has also improved somewhat partly because of the steps that were taken about this time last year to change the recruitment procedures. That improvement is shown, not alone in the Central Statistics Office but also in other Departments such as the Office of the Revenue Commissioners where there was a big backlog of arrears.

39. Deputy Treacy.—Does this mean that quite a lot of overtime may have to be worked in order to cope?

—In general, yes and, of course, to some extent this is inevitable because of peaks and valleys in the volume of work.

40. I take it that no essential work is held up?

—No, in that the normal stream of Central Statistics Office publications are appearing all the time.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

41. Chairman.—Paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead F.—International Institute of Administrative Sciences

10. The 14th International Congress of the Institute was held in Dublin in September, 1968; the local arrangements were made by the Institute of Public Administration which was recouped its expenditure.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This charge comprises a subscription to the Institute of £126, expenses of the congress paid to the Institute of Public Administration amounted to £10,500 and there was a sum of £25 for minor expenses.

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

“Subhead L.—Payment to Special Regional Development Fund (Grant-in-Aid)

11. Reference was made in paragraph 8 of my previous report to the payment of £250,000 into the above fund from which grants or advances could be issued to assist economic projects in western counties. A further £250,000 was provided as a grant-in-aid in the year under review and was likewise paid into the fund. As indicated in the account of the fund appended to the appropriation account, grants totalling £103,002 and repayable advances amounting to £35,740 were issued during the year.”

44. Have you anything to add. Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—A copy of the account on pages 12 and 13 gives details of all grants and loans there.

45. Deputy E. Collins.—What happens to the balance at the 31st March of £232,407?

Mr. Suttle.—It is carried forward to be available this year for further grants and loans to be requested.

46. It was voted last year?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes, this is the second big subvention. The first subvention was one of £250,000. This is the second one in this year and this money is put aside for these purposes so that it is not necessary to revote the £232,000 which will be carried into the current year.

47. Should the balance not have been given back?

Mr. Suttle.—No. This is a grant that the Minister decided should be put aside and used without reference to time. Therefore, it is not confined to a particular year.

48. Do you approve of this?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes, in certain circumstances because there might be cases that would have taken some time to build up to the state of making an actual grant and the whole amount of money could have been committed at the 31st March, 1969. In other words, grants and loans that have been under consideration but had not reached the stage of payment at 31st March.

49. What type of grants are given?

Mr. Suttle.—Miscellaneous grants. These would include grants to small industries or to local development of mines and so on.

Deputy P. J. Lenihan.—Ferries and fishing harbours?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

50. Deputy E. Collins.—Why cannot it be dealt with by the Industrial Development Authority?

Mr. Murray.—May I come in on a point of explanation? This fund, I think, has to be related to the activities of the county development teams which were established to foster economic development in the west to the extent that development could not be done appropriately or effectively by any of the existing State agencies. The county teams’ secretaries and the county development teams were charged with co-ordinating the activities of the development agencies in the west. Apart from that general explanation as to why the teams were doing things which, to some extent, might seem appropriate, shall we say, to the Industrial Development Authority, there is also the factor that in general they are working at a level far below the level at which the Industrial Development Authority works. The type of schemes with which they are concerned are normally very small indeed and, if one looks at the details of the expenditure out of the fund, one sees that, apart from four or five cases where the amounts were £10,000 or over, most of the cases are measured in a few thousand or a few hundred pounds.

51. Chairman.—Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I personally do not think there is any reason why the Industrial Development Authority should not do this. I believe it could be done by the Industrial Development Authority. The Minister decided this as a matter of policy.

52. Deputy E. Collins.—I think I am entitled to question this. Would it be more efficient from an accounting point of view if it were done under the Industrial Development Authority?

Mr. Suttle.—That is a matter for the Committee. They could make a recommendation.

53. Deputy P. J. Lenihan.—The IDA expanded their small industries programme. They are regionalising the IDA but this is duplication. This is like hand-outs to Rev. Fr. So and So. I think it should be handled by the small industries division of the IDA?

Mr. Murray.—There are two points. One is that the regionalisation of the IDA’s activities did not take place during the period covered by these accounts. In fact, now that it is being regionalised, the relationship between the IDA and the activities of the county development secretaries is being examined. Secondly, most of the activities financed through this fund are activities which normally would not be financed by the IDA at all, irrespective of the size of the activities, because many of them relate to quasi-agriricultural projects, to small hotel projects, to handcraft industries and things like that, so there was a gap, shall we say, between the activities financed by the IDA and the type of activities which it was considered desirable to support for the overall economic and social development of the west.

54. Deputy P. Barry.—The item refers to Clare County Council and Kerry County Council. Would the landing stages for this ferry service be a normal part of the set up of the ferry service? The B and I supply their own landing stages?

—The IDA have nothing to do with the B and I ferry service.

55. If these people were looking for grants they would go through the IDA?

—No, because in fact the IDA normally would not provide landing facilities or related types of activity in regard to projects which they subvent. That would be done by the local authority in question. In fact this is what happened in this particular case. The fund was used to support the local authorities financially in providing facilities which they otherwise might be somewhat reluctant to provide.

Mr. Suttle.—That would come under tourism and Bord Fáilte. It is mainly a tourist facility.

Mr. Murray.—In practice it did not work out like that. This fund and the activities of the county development team secretaries must be seen as an effort to ensure that, amongst the array of administrative facilities available, a gap would not be left in dealing with the small type of case which normally would not come before these agencies dealing with larger projects.

Deputy P. Lenihan.—I was just making a recommendation for the future.

56. Deputy E. Collins.—I do not see why there should be duplication of expenditure. Would you accept a recommendation, chairman, to the IDA?

57. Deputy Treacy.—I should like to ask Mr. Murray if he is satisfied that the local authorities generally are aware of the facilities available under this scheme and could we have some idea as to the number of applicants who were not successful?

—On the first point, it is of the essence of this type of activity that the local authorities are closely involved in it and, in fact, membership of the teams, who are very intimately involved with expenditure from this fund, consists of the county manager, the county engineer, the chief agricultural officer, the chief educational officer and the chairman of the county council in question. The secretary of the team, although he is a civil servant, works locally so there is very close involvement by the local authorities. The whole idea of these teams was to encourage the involvement not only of the local authorities but also of the field offices of the State agency concerned. On the second point as to the extent to which applications are refused, I am sorry I have not that information available but I will give the Committee a note about it.*

58. May I ask who, in the final analysis sanctions these schemes?

—The Minister for Finance in principle. There is some delegation. Could I just make one further point? There is no duplication in expenditure between that type of activity and the IDA. It may be questioned whether there is duplication of activity but there is no duplication of expenditure as such.

59. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is it the case that there are really three levels: industrial grants, small industries grants and these grants here?

—Not quite because, in general, the type of activities financed through the fund are not the type of activities financed through the small industries division of the IDA.

60. What is the distinction because it seems to me from recollection that some of the firms who have received grants or loans are ones which had in fact been assisted by the IDA?

—It may be in respect of related expenditure.

61. Deputy FitzGerald.—It seems administratively untidy if a firm looking for grants for a factory must go to two different places for grants for two different parts of what it needs for the factory rather than having one body deciding the overall needs. I could quite see the reason if these grants were given to projects which are not covered at all and, in fact, grants over 50 per cent were given for tourist projects of one kind or another which are not covered by industrial grants. Perhaps, that should have been the task of Bord Fáilte but that is a different question. However, when one comes to the others, many of them seem to be industries—some agricultural industries but still industries. I am not clear on the nature of the distinction?

—In general, the approach is that cases that could come within the Small Industries Division of the IDA are not handled through this fund. In fact, great care is taken to avoid not alone duplication of expenditure but also duplication of administration, because, in fact, the county team secretaries have acted as officers for the IDA in regard to the small industries activities of the IDA in their areas.

62. They then go to two different sources for money for the same firm depending on the kind of activity?

—I think the extent to which that would take place would be very limited indeed.

63. Chairman.—Has it ever occurred that money was got from both sources?

Deputy FitzGerald.—There are several examples here—Irish Rough Diamonds Ltd. Ennis for instance.

Deputy P. J. Lenihan.—I am sure GWI of Collooney got money from both sources. They are quite a big industry.

—It would occur in this way—in very exceptional cases the fund has been used to come to the rescue of a firm in difficulties where the normal grant criteria would not be met. To keep a project in difficulties going could contribute to western development as much as the establishing of a new project.

64. Deputy FitzGerald.—If a firm is likely to survive would it not be entitled to a grant or are grants given here to recoup losses or for working in capital? Is that the distinction?

—It could be a mixture of both. The recoupment of losses, for example, could be made in a case where it was thought that there was some reasonable opportunity of a firm surviving if it were given a breathing space but that, of course, would not be a fit subject for an industrial grant. Perhaps, I should say that, as was indicated in the Third Programme for Economic Expansion, it is proposed to bring in legislation to try to put on a more satisfactory basis the machinery required for dealing with the rescue operations. For want of any better machinery in the case of projects in the west, they were dealt with in this way but this was not very satisfactory and legislation is being introduced to provide more permanent machinery for dealing with this sort of case.

65. Deputy E. Collins.—It will lay down more specifically the type of firm and case that would be eligible?

—That is so.

66. Deputy FitzGerald.—When the State participates in a rescue operation does it have any share in the equity or, say, in the running of the firm to ensure that it does survive?

—This will vary from case to case. It seeks the best security possible but by definition this security may not be completely satisfactory. In other cases, depending on the type of operation, it may get a nominee director on the board for example.

67. Would it take shares?

—I cannot recall whether it has done that in any of these types of cases.

68. Deputy Keating.—There is a sum paid to Bord Fáilte of £10,300 odd in respect of miscellaneous small tourist ventures. I should like to have more information on that?

—The two main projects involved, accounting for most of the expenditure, were support for riding stables on the basis that they would provide a facility for tourists and would enhance the tourist attractions of the area in question, and another was a grant for a deep sea angling boat, again on the same basis.

69. This is useful, but surely it would be desirable for us to know the names of the people who had the riding stables and the name of the person who got the boat?

—Raheen Riding Stables and in the other case J. B. Healy Limited, Cahirciveen.

70. Deputy E. Collins.—Why were those names not put down instead of Bord Fáilte? After all they benefited from the grants?

—Because Bord Fáilte is responsible for paying out these moneys.

71. Deputy Briscoe.—It is at their discretion?

—Yes.

72. Deputy E. Collins.—Then why is it not in the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power?

—That is a question, I would suggest, that should be put to the Secretary of the Department of Transport and Power. With reference to the decision in regard to the fund, may I say that where there is a State agency which is clearly and solely responsible for the type of activity—I have Bord Fáilte in mind—my preference would be that it should be directly responsible for all related to that activity and it should publish details of this in accordance with its procedures. We would regard subvention from this fund to Bord Fáilte as a feature of the fund’s activities which we would not be very anxious to see maintained year in year out.

73. Deputy P. Barry.—Would Bord Fáilte not already have funds available for this type of thing, angling and riding schools, without coming to the Special Regional Development Fund?

—In this particular year their funds were fully committed, but in the normal course we think it should be Bord Fáilte’s responsibility to look for State support for this type of activity. It must be remembered that in the early days of this fund we were to some extent feeling our way.

74. Deputy Keating.—Is the payment of £10,000 to Clones Meat Packers for the year ending March, 1969?

—Yes.

75. The point that worries me here is that there is now a very considerable excess capacity in meat plants and this is quite a serious thing for the farmers who have invested heavily. I am a little concerned to see expenditure under a special fund creating an excess capacity. Is it possible to know at what stage in the financial year 1st April, 1968 to 31st March, 1969 this money was, in fact, committed?

—I have not that information available.

76. Deputy FitzGerald.—The decision could have been made earlier?

—I shall get the information for the Committee.*

77. Deputy E. Collins.—On subhead D.— Management of Government Stocks—what does this relate to?

Mr. Suttle.—This refers to payment to the banks for the recording and registration of Government stocks.

78. Deputy E. Collins.—What are the terms of appointment of the Government stockbroker?

Mr. Murray.—The Government stockbroker’s salary is included under subhead A. Subhead B covers mainly expenditure to the Bank of Ireland for management of the Government stocks outstanding.

79. Chairman.—This will be taken over shortly under the new Bill by the Central Bank?

—Yes. It would also cover particular expenditure incurred in the year in respect of new issues.

80. Deputy Briscoe.—I understand it does not cover commissions to the stockbrokers?

Mr. Suttle.—That is under subhead A?

Mr. Murray.—May I correct my previous statement? Expenditure in connection with the issue of Government loans during the year is not covered here. This item covers the expenditure in connection with the management of the total corpus of Government loans.

81. Deputy FitzGerald.—What is the payment to the Government stockbroker?

—He is paid £3,750 a year.

82. What is the total plus out of pocket expenses? What, in fact, was the sum paid?

—The £3,750 also covers his expenses.

83. Deputy E. Collins.—A fixed salary?

—Yes, but it is revised from time to time.

84. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is there commission on transactions additional to that?

—No.

85. Deputy E. Collins.—The margin which the Government stockbroker gets was very much criticised in the Central Bank Survey. Who gets the margin? He does not get the margin, does he?

—No, it is not a personal perquisite. I am just trying to work out who would get this. In general, this would go to the benefit of departmental funds on the principle that if they buy cheap and sell dear they make a capital profit. It goes back to departmental funds, that is, in respect of the stock that is held by the fund.

86. On subhead H.—Comhlacht Comhairleach na Gaeilge—why was the grant not taken up?

—Comhlacht Comhairleach na Gaeilge was terminated before the end of the year. It has been replaced by a somewhat similar body, with a shorter title, called Comhairle na Gaeilge.

87. Deputy Treacy.—On subhead I— Savings Committee—how are the savings committee getting on? Are they still as active as ever?

—Very active.

88. Deputy E. Collins.—Is the savings committee purely advisory?

—Not quite. They employ staff, which is very actively involved in the encouragement of savings groups in factories, schools, etc.

89. How is the rate of interest determined for these groups?

—There are no special securities available for savings groups. The Committee promotes the sales of saving certificates, investments in the post office savings bank, trustee savings bank and so on.

90. Subhead J.—Civil Service Arbitration Board—to what does this refer?

—This is part of the conciliation and arbitration system in the Civil Service and the expenditure recorded here relates mainly to the chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Board.

91. Subhead M.—Public Services Organisation Review Group—shows a substantial amount of £30,000 in fees to consultants. What sort of consultants were employed and what is the result of the review group in terms of something we can lay our hands on?

—In fact, there are hundreds of pages of a report on which one can lay one’s hands but not the results as such of the consultant’s activities.

92. Deputy Keating.—Will this review group remain in being?

—It reported about September, 1969, and there will be some residual expenditures appearing in the 1969-70 accounts.

93. Will not any of the deliberations of this group, apart from the published report, be available to public representatives?

—I understand that they will not be available.

94. Deputy Briscoe.—Under subhead O. —Decimal Currency Board—have you any ground for concern as to whether the business community are taking up the tax free offer by the Minister for Finance to change their office equipment?

—I can only speak generally in this respect because this is the immediate concern of the Decimal Currency Board which is an independent board, with a chairman who is an assistant secretary of the Department of Finance, but I understand that the board are reasonably satisfied with how things are going. The coming 12 months will be the most important period but I understand there are no particular grounds for concern.

So that there is favourable reaction so far?

—Yes.

95. In the Table on page 11, £107,999 is shown as expenditure in respect of the Public Services. How did this figure arise? It seems quite an amount of money for a review group?

Mr. Suttle.—The bulk went to consultants.

96. Were you satisfied with the scale of fees paid to consultants?

Mr. Suttle.—There was a contract with the consultants and the committee.

Mr. Murray.—I understand that the review group invited tenders and went very fully not only into the choice of consultants but into the scale of fees.

97. Deputy E. Collins.—How much of the total figure was paid to consultants?

—Perhaps, I could answer that in this way. The total cost came to £124,000, that is, taking into account the expenditure in the present year and of that amount something of the order of £100,000 was paid to consultants.

98. Who sanctioned these consultants?

—The Minister for Finance.

99. So that it actually went back from the review committee to the Minister for Finance?

—Yes. He sanctioned the proposed expenditure.

100. A figure of £100,000 out of a total of £124,000 to consultants seems quite exceptional?

—It extended over quite a period and there were a number of staff concerned.

101. Deputy P. J. Lenihan.—The results of their labours will not be made public?

—They have been very fully taken into account by the review group in arriving at their conclusions and, perhaps, I should say just for information that when a corresponding review was carried out in Britain, there was extensive recourse to consultancy services.

102. Deputy E. Collins.—I am not very happy about a figure of this amount being paid out to consultants?

Mr. Suttle.—That matter would have been dealt with in the Dáil on the Estimate for the Department of Finance.

103. Deputy E. Collins.—Are you satisfied with the scale of fees paid?

Mr. Suttle.—The scale of fees in the case of consultants is something about which we cannot be very definite. One could engage consultants at a very low rate but they would not be worth while. It is a question of deciding on the quality of the consultants to be engaged.

104. How many firms of consultants does that figure cover?

Mr. Murray.—One firm, but the staff concerned was quite numerous. What they did was to go around to each Department and spend quite a number of days there. They then saw many hundreds of individuals—senior officers.

105. Was it an Irish firm or an English or American firm?

—It was not an Irish firm. As I said, my understanding is—and I can only give you this by hearsay because I was not directly concerned—that the Committee did invite tenders.

106. Deputy Treacy.—May I ask Mr. Murray, in view of the fact that the reports of these experts will not be published, how do we determine whether, in fact, we got good value for the large expenditure involved?

—I suppose ultimately the responsibility for this lay with the review group. Official responsibility and ministerial responsibility would, I think, stop short at satisfying ourselves on such information as was available to us that the scale of fees sought was not unreasonable. We now have some experience in this field because a number of public bodies have engaged major international consultants but, as to the way in which the consultants actually carried out the job, this would be a matter for the review group because this was an independent review group. It was not a question of a review of the public service being carried out from within the public service. The job was given to an independent body. It was their responsibility to ensure that they got good value.

107. Deputy P. J. Lenihan.—Taking the normal industrial consultants’ fees, it is not excessive. It was a review of the whole Civil Service.

108. Deputy Briscoe.—That is quite an undertaking?

—Not only of the whole Civil Service but also to some extent of the public service, in other words including the local authorities and the State sponsored bodies.

109. Deputy Keating.—I should like to add my voice to that of Deputy Collins. This was an extremely important exercise. If the work was as indicated, the charge seems to be not unreasonable but what does seem unreasonable is that the details of this very large amount of public expenditure in a very important public investigation should not be available to reasonable people—I do not mean the public at large—but people like ourselves, public representatives, because while we accept that there was a semi-independent review group, it smacks of judge and jury that the whole of it should be concealed —“concealed” perhaps is too strong a word—and leave us in a situation in which we have no way of telling whether we got good value or not for expenditure of this size. We have no way of knowing anything about it. This is a pity because this is something we need to have access to.

110. Deputy FitzGerald.—It is not normal practice for the Government to publish the conclusions they reach although it was done in the case of the Second Programme. I am wondering whether in this case there might not be some merit in our being able to see what advice was given by the consultants and relate this to the review groups. We might get a better perspective of the whole problem as we did in the case of the First Programme?

—Could I say three things? First of all, this body was not a semi- or quasi-independent body. It was an independent body. The second is that in any event the initial decision not to publish the consultants’ report was taken by the review group and it was their decision. I am not saying that was the final decision. The question of publication has not been raised up to now. The third point is that, again by hearsay, my understanding is that a lot of of their work was done orally, that there were many sessions, indeed, with the review group in the course of which views formed by the consultants were argued and discussed with the review group, so that it could well be that the formal written material submitted by the group would not be a full measure of the benefit which the group got from the consultants’ activities. But having said all that, I should also like to make it clear that I will certainly have inquiries made as to what would be the position in regard to publication of the documentation received from the consultants.*

111. Deputy Briscoe.—Could this also be done by question to the Minister for Finance in the Dáil?

Chairman.—Yes.

VOTE 9—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

112. Deputy E. Collins.—On subhead D. —Apparatus and Chemical Equipment— why is there over-expenditure?

Mr. Murray.—This is certainly a relatively large over-expenditure but it is difficult to estimate or to know in advance whether particular pieces of equipment will not alone be required but available. I think what happened in this case was that up-to-date equipment became available and was necessary and had to be bought.

113. The State Laboratory is well equipped with modern equipment I take it?

Deputy FitzGerald.—Do they get it? They must be unique in the public service.

114. Deputy Treacy.—With regard to A of the Explanations what steps were taken to try to fill these important positions? How do we stand in relation to these vacancies?

—There has been a marginal improvement since the period covered by these accounts but, as in so many other instances, the scale of remuneration is involved and there is at present a claim by the chemists awaiting arbitration and it might not be proper for me to comment on it.

VOTE 10—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

115. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead B.— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—may I ask what the increase in mileage allowances was?

Mr. Murray.—Relatively small. A penny or twopence a mile.

116. What is the allowance per mile?

—This varies according to the car but for a fairly typical car, a middle range car, it would be about a shilling a mile up to a certain figure of, say, 4,000 miles in the year and about eightpence after that. The higher rate is to allow for depreciation and replacement allowances.

117. Chairman.—I take it this Vote covers the Local Appointments Commission also?

—It does.

118. Deputy FitzGerald.—On Appropriations in Aid, the only Department contributing appears to be the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?

Mr. Suttle.—Again this is the question of the post office. Now every Department must pay the post office for services rendered and if any Department renders a service to the post office, as the Civil Service Commission does in recruiting their staff, they must pay for that service. It means now that the post office pay for everything they get and that they recover from every Department any expenditure they incur on their behalf.

119. Deputy E. Collins.—Was the Department of Posts and Telegraphs the only Department to use the Civil Service Commission?

Mr. Suttle.—No, the Civil Service Commission recruits staff for the whole service, for every Department, but the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are the only people who pay for it.

120. Deputy Keating.—How is the amount they pay estimated?

Mr. Suttle.—It is assessed on the numbers recruited and the staff employed. It is impossible to calculate the cost of recruiting any particular grade.

121. The total expenditure for the whole of the Civil Service plus Local Appointments was £133,000-odd and the amount paid by Posts and Telegraphs was £52,000, about 40 per cent. Are they charged pro rata?

Mr. Suttle.—They are, but what is included in the Vote is only the direct expenditure on salaries, etc. In calculating the amounts charged to the post office one takes into account accommodation, heating, lighting, the whole cost of running the Civil Service Commission. Apart from that, the post office represents somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent of the total Civil Service.

VOTE 11—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

122. Deputy Keating.—Is this Grant-in-Aid not higher than heretofore?

Mr. Murray.—Yes, it used to be £40,000. It has increased gradually over the years.

Mr. Suttle.—It has been £60,000 for the last two years. I audit the accounts of the Arts Council and they are laid before the House.

VOTE 12—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

123. Chairman.—Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General relates to Vote 12 and reads as follows:

“Subhead A.1.—Pensions for Widows and Children of certain Officers

Subhead J.—Appropriations in Aid

26. Under a scheme approved by the Minister for Finance pensions are payable to the widows and eligible children of civil servants who died on or after 23 July 1968, including those who retired after that date. Contributions are deducted from the pay of serving civil servants who opted to enter the scheme and from their lump sums payable on death or retirement. No pensions were paid in the year 1968-69 but pending legislative authority a supplementary estimate made token provision for payments and authorised the appropriation of contributions in aid of the Vote for Superannuation and Retired Allowances. Deductions from lump sums commenced from 23 July 1968 and from the pay of serving officers from 1 January 1969.

The total amount of contributions to 31 March 1969 was £118,600 comprising £20,500 deducted from lump sums and credited to appropriations in aid, £68,300 deducted by Departments but not paid over until after the end of the year and £29,800 accounted for by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs which provides for the pensions of its own officers.”

124. Does this cover local authorities?

Mr. Murray.—No, not directly. There is some marginal related expenditure but local authority pensions as such are not covered.

125. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead B.— Additional Allowances and Gratuities in respect of Established Officers—is this roughly the same every year?

Mr. Suttle.—No, it depends on the incidence of retirement. It is the lump sum a man gets on retirement.

126. How many civil servants are there altogether?

Mr. Murray.—That depends on the question of definition. On the normal definition there are about 34,000 but, as Mr. Suttle said, about half of these would be in the Post Office.

Mr. Suttle.—And this relates to people other than the post office.

127. Deputy Briscoe.—There would be roughly 17,000 civil servants who would come under this heading?

Mr. Murray.—Yes, but of course, the number of retirals would be only a fraction of that.

128. I suppose it would be very difficult to assess how many civil servants this would refer to?

—About 3,000.

129. Deputy P. J. Lenihan.—On subhead C—Compensation Allowances under Article 10 of the Treaty of 6th December, 1921—is it still functioning?

—It is a long time functioning.

130. Deputy E. Collins.—On subhead D —Agency Payments in respect of Compensation Allowances—what is that?

—We make payments on behalf of the British Government and they recoup us. The recoupment is shown under the Appropriations in Aid.

131. Deputy Treacy.—On subhead E— Gratuities in respect of Unestablished Officers and other non-pensionable Persons— could we have elaboration on that, the circumstances in which gratuities are paid to unestablished officers?

—These gratuities are payable because the officers not being established are not entitled to pensions. A gratuity is normally payable where there is a minimum service of seven years and is related to years of unestablished service. I have not got the exact terms, the basic amount payable for each year of unestablished service, but I could make this available to the Committee.*

Deputy Treacy.—I would welcome that.

132. Deputy E. Collins.—On Extra Remuneration—what does the sum of £3,047 remuneration for services rendered refer to?

—A similar amount has been paid for some little time past. The gentleman in question, a former deputy chief inspector of taxes, was re-employed as a senior inspector because of the acute shortage in the inspectoral grade.

133. Deputy FitzGerald.—Does this affect his pension?

—There is a very complicated procedure which was changed in the last few years. There was an abatement of pensions Act brought in and by and large that Act relaxed considerably the circumstances in which abatement takes place.

134. Chairman.—This particular individual would not suffer?

—I have mentioned that it is a very complex procedure. I would hesitate to say in this particular man’s case, I am speaking generally that the abatement procedures are now less rigorous than they used to be.

Mr. Suttle.—If in the interests of the public service a man should be re-employed there is no question of abatement.

135. Deputy E. Collins.—When a retired officer comes back to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries his pension is very much abated?

Mr. Murray.—I think the Deputy may be speaking perhaps, of the earlier practice. In general the key question is: is it in the national interest that this man be maintained?

VOTE 13—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

136. Deputy E. Collins.—Are you satisfied with the account, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I accept the certificates given by the Ministers that so much money has been spent on the Secret Service.

137. Deputy FitzGerald.—I thought there was some business about the accounting officer having to certify it as well?

Mr. Suttle.—Automatically Mr. Murray takes the certificate from the Minister and makes the payment. I see only the paid dockets.

138. Deputy FitzGerald.—What about the accounting officer of the Department?

Mr. Suttle.—No, it is the Minister direct to Mr. Murray.

139. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is this Vote unique in not being certified by the accounting officer?

Mr. Murray.—The reason I am here in connection with this Vote is that I am the accounting officer in respect of this Vote. All Secret Service expenditure is taken together, so to speak; it is not divided up amongst the Votes.

140. Deputy Nolan.—Is it possible to be told which Department has spent what?

—I think not. On the procedure, the money is spent on the signed requisition of a Minister and on the signed authorisation of expenditure by the Minister for Finance and armed with both of those signatures I make out a cheque on a special bank account and it is these documents which come before the Comptroller and Auditor General in due course.

141. Deputy FitzGerald.—One can quite understand why it is not certified in great detail, but it would seem normal, if a Minister is responsible for expenditure under this heading that it would be certified by the accounting officer of that Department and that nobody should have to look, or be able to look, behind the certificate of the accounting officer or seek details. I do not understand why it is solely on the signature of the Minister and no accounting officer has had the opportunity of satisfying himself of the situation in the relevant Department?

—This is a procedure which has stood the test of time and many changes in administration.

142. That does not convince me that it should be retained. It seems to me a matter of principle, is obviously a matter of practice, that no information should be divulged. I could even accept that we need not be told what Department got what and who certified what, but I would like to feel your certificate was based on the certificate of an accounting officer in each Department who had satisfied himself and was prepared to say to you that the money was used to the benefit of the State. You would accept that without going any further and we would accept your signature certifying that.

Mr. Suttle.—It is a minor sum in the total.

VOTE 14—AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

143. Deputy Nolan.—On subhead C— Employment Allowance—is that a rebate given to farmers?

Mr. Murray.—Yes. In principle it works on these lines. There is employment relief of £17 per man in respect of all adult male workers over 16 years of age employed full time for the whole of the previous year. Relief is given retrospectively.

VOTE 15—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

144. Deputy E. Collins.—On subhead E —Fees to Counsel—what does that refer to?

Mr. Murray.—Fees payable to counsel in cases where the State is involved. Murder trials are a very obvious example.

145. Are counsel employed full time?

—No.

146. Are they paid professional fees?

—Yes, in accordance with the normal scales.

147. Chairman.—How are they appointed?

—This is a matter for the Attorney General.

Deputy FitzGerald.—We cannot be told of the objective criteria he applies.

148. Deputy E. Collins.—Is the Attorney General subject to sanction by the Minister for Finance in the appointment of counsel?

—No, but where the Minister for Finance comes in is in regard to the scale of fees. The Attorney General has delegated sanction to pay up to a certain figure which, I think, is about 100 guineas.

149. Chairman.—I understand that a judge may appoint counsel to somebody who might not have any money?

—This matter arises under the Vote of the Office of the Minister for Justice under the Free Legal Aid subhead.

150. Deputy FitzGerald.—Are fees paid on the same basis in both of these cases?

—It would depend on the type of case. These would be cases ranging from habeas corpus to drunken driving, murder trials, and patent cases. I would not think the fee would vary for the same type of case.*

151. How are fees determined in these cases?

—As in most professional activities there are scales of fees.

152. Surely the fee charged by counsel would depend on eminence and skill and so on?

—I cannot really say but I can say that a typical fee for a senior counsel might be 100 guineas on the brief and 75 guineas for each day.

153. Deputy E. Collins.—Under subhead G.—Defence of Public Servants—does this refer to a specific case?

—I am told that the expenditure covered by this item related to the case of a number of gardaí against whom civil bill actions were taken by NFA members arising out of a protest in Co. Leitrim. In general, the type of expenditure covered by this item would arise where public servants might render themselves liable to legal action in respect of activities which, according to their judgment, related to their public responsibilities but where it might be held that they had gone outside the specific boundaries of their responsibilities.

154. Under subhead H.—Appropriations in Aid—costs and fees recovered—how could this arise in the case of the Attorney General?

—This Vote also covers the expenses of the Chief State Solicitor. Receipts under this particular heading would arise, for example, in cases where the court might award costs to the Attorney General or to the Chief State Solicitor.

VOTE 16—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

155. Paragraph 27 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead H.—British Special Import Deposit Scheme

27. Following the imposition of the British Special Import Deposit Scheme, an agreement was reached between the Department of Finance and the Irish Banks’ Standing Committee that the commercial banks would provide the necessary deposits for exporters and the State would compensate the banks by paying an agreed interest rate on outstanding deposits. Claims submitted monthly by the banks show the total day to day transactions and are subjected to a test examination by the Department’s officers. Full vouching is available to me and the accounting arrangements appear to me to be satisfactory. Interest paid and charged to this subhead amounted to £63,566 in the year.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The scheme commenced on the 29th November and the total amount of deposits at 31st March was £11,341,000. The amount charged to this subhead represents interest up to the end of February, 1969. The deposits are repayable after six months and the amount of deposits outstanding at 31st May, 1969, was £17,971,000. That would roughly represent the payment because, as further deposits are made, others would be repaid so that 1969 should be around the highest point.

157. Deputy E. Collins.—What rate of interest was charged by the banks?

Mr. Murray.—The rate was agreed by my Department in conjunction with the banks after examination of the relevant accounts of the commercial banks to give us some idea of the alternative use of the money and what would be the alternative rate on that money. The rate of interest was related to the Central Bank deposit rate plus seven-sixteenths per cent.

158. That would be rather lower than the commercial overdraft rate?

—Yes. That basis changed after the end of this period when the Central Bank introduced a number of different deposit rates. The rate paid to the banks on these special import deposits is now tied to the Exchequer Bill rate.

159. Chairman.—What was the actual Central Bank deposit rate?

—This varied from time to time but it was agreed that it would be reasonable to both parties to relate the rate of interest to the Central Bank deposit rate and this is why it was not necessary to re-calculate it as interest rates generally changed. It fluctuated with the Central Bank deposit rate.

160. Deputy E. Collins.—Are you satisfied, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The position was that the accounts from the banks were fully checked by the staff of the Department of Finance and it was arranged that if I wanted to go direct to the banks myself and investigate the charges I could do so. In fact, I did not. I accepted the certificate of the office of the Department of Finance but facilities were available to me to go direct to the banks and check on their books.

161. Deputy FitzGerald.—On subhead C. —Bounties (Triplets and Centenarians)— what is the authority for paying this?

Mr. Murray.—The vote we are now discussing.

162. There is no statutory authority?

—Not to my knowledge. The Vote gives the Minister authority.

Mr. Suttle.—This is a continuation of the old king’s bounty which was paid by the king or queen in the old British days. The State, in effect, took over that liability.

163. Deputy FitzGerald.—I appreciate that but I was wondering how the sum is determined. It simply goes on as what it was in something or other century?

Mr. Murray.—It has been changed.

Deputy FitzGerald.—I am not aware of that. To what?

—It has doubled.

Deputy FitzGerald.—I am not actually in either line of business at the moment?

Mr. Murray.—Members may be glad to know that the triplet’s bounty has now been increased to £100 and there is £150 for quads.

164. Deputy P. Barry.—What about centenarians?

—For centenarians it has gone up from £5 to £25.

Deputy E. Collins.—That is not much.

VOTE 50—INCREASES IN PENSIONS.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

165. Deputy E. Collins.—Is there any delay in paying pensions to national school teachers?

Mr. Suttle.—That does not come under this Vote.

166. Deputy FitzGerald.—In relation to the question of increases in pensions and delays, the procedure seems to be very slow for paying increases in pensions in cases I have come across. Is there any reason why it could not be speeded up because in the case of pensions there is a particular feeling of hardship if people have to wait for a long time before receiving them?

Mr. Murray.—One of the complicating features is that, up to the year we are dealing with, pension increases took the form of percentage increases and were relatively easy to calculate but the Minister, in the 1969 Budget, accepted the principle of what is very roughly called parity of treatment of pensioners. In effect it means that if an officer retired and if there was a general increase in salaries subsequent to his retirement, his pension would be adjusted accordingly. In fact this has given rise to quite a number of difficulties because you had, for example, such difficult cases as the suppression of posts after a man retired and we had to get the nearest equivalent comparable post. Remember that we are dealing with many thousands of cases here so this, coupled with the introduction of the widows’ and orphans’ pension scheme, and the introduction of ex gratia widows’ and orphans’ payments in the case of officers who died before the introduction of the contributory widows’ and orphans’ pension scheme, have thrown quite a burden of work on the staff concerned. We are very conscious of the fact that we are dealing with retired people and people who, in many cases, are in somewhat necessitous circumstances. Special efforts are being made, and have been made, to try to clear off the arrears quickly.

167. Deputy FitzGerald.—That explains a good deal but it does not explain the particular case I had in mind. I am not sure if it comes under this directly. It relates to the local authority side. A decision was announced in the Budget that a pension increase would take place in August and the Department concerned did not decide on the amount until December. The local authorities took two months to do the calculations. These are straightforward pensions with none of the complications you mentioned. Eventually, they were not paid until the end of February which is ten months after the date they were announced and six months after the date they were due. One wonders whether it is not possible to do better than that. There appears to have been an administrative hold up. The decision was not taken as to the precise amount. The interpretation of the ministerial budget decision was postponed for nine months even though it was then overdue by four months as regards payment.

Mr. Suttle.—If it is the local authorities the Minister for Local Government is responsible.

168. Deputy FitzGerald.—It struck me by analogy that, if that could happen in one case, it might happen in another.

Mr. Suttle.—It has been difficult in the Civil Service. In local government there have been changes in the status of some people.

169. Deputy FitzGerald.—This would explain why there is delay in certain cases but, unless it is suggested that no one should be paid until everyone is paid, it does not explain why the perfectly straightforward cases should be held up. What I am concerned about is the delay between the announcement of the decision and the turning of it into a clear-cut precise amount in straightforward cases where there are no complications. That that should take nine months and over-run the period when payment is due by four months seems to be disturbing. If it could occur in one Department it could occur in other Departments.

170. Chairman.—It has happened in straightforward cases in local government?

Mr. Murray.—Perhaps I might say in regard to pensions for which my Department are directly responsible, that the procedure is adopted of dealing with straightforward cases but, at the same time, trying to make progress with the difficult cases because one has to do equal justice to both. In fact, the cases that are now outstanding are all cases where difficulties of the sort mentioned exist.

VOTE 51—INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, DUNDALK.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

171. Chairman.—Paragraph 95 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“95. Following the termination of services by the Great Northern Railway Company the Industrial Engineering Company Limited, Dundalk, was established in 1958 to promote alternative industrial activities at the former railway engineering workshops at Dundalk. The company, which operated as a holding company, was financed by advances from the Industrial Credit Company, Limited, the amount so advanced being £3,273,115. By direction of the Government a Receiver was appointed in February 1966 by the Industrial Credit Company to carry on the business of the engineering company, including its manufacturing subsidiaries, with a view to the sale of the latter as going concerns.

In the year under review the Minister for Finance took over debentures held by the Industrial Credit Company and provided by supplementary estimate for a grant of the entire amount that company had advanced. This grant was used to reduce the company’s liability to the Exchequer for repayable advances; accordingly no issue from the Exchequer was involved (see paragraph 9). I understand that arrangements for the sale of the engineering company’s assets are nearing completion and that it is expected that some £626,000 will be realised by the Receiver. £200,000 was received in the year under review and has been brought to account as an Exchequer Extra Receipt.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The company’s activities were financed through the Industrial Credit Company by arrangement with the Government, on the basis that the necessary funds would be advanced from the Central Fund under the Industrial Credit Acts in the normal way; the question of interest on these advances was deferred. The company had five manufacturing subsidiaries: Dundalk Engineering Works, Dealgan Steel Founders, Frank Bowser, Heinkel Cabin Scooters, Commercial Road Vehicles. Trading losses by the group had mounted to £1,800,000 by 31 March, 1965, and following a further trial period the Government in January, 1966, decided that a receiver should be appointed to carry on the company’s business with a view to its disposal as a going concern. As indicated in the Estimate it is expected that £626,000 in all will be recovered. £200,000 was received in the year 1968-69 and £25,000 in 1969-70. The receivership is not yet complete.

173. Deputy Treacy.—What is the present position with regard to this company and its subsidiaries? Are any of them going concerns?

Mr. Murray.—Yes, there are two of them going concerns and employment is increasing since the date of the reincarnation of these two companies from 300 to over 500.

174. Deputy FitzGerald.—What are these companies making?

—One of them is an American company and one of them is in effect run by one of the former employees of the Industrial Engineering Company.

Mr. Suttle.—Road Vehicles was a profitable concern and it has been taken over by a local group in Dundalk.

Mr. Murray.—The other one was an American firm making corrugated paper machinery.

175. Deputy Treacy.—Could we have information as to the original labour content of the company and the present labour content?

—Ten years ago at the time of the Dundalk Railway Engineering Shop, the employment was close to 1,000. The Industrial Engineering Company started off with an employment content of about 900. This fell steadily according as it became clear that the operations were uneconomic and, when the receiver was appointed, the employment had fallen to 673. It is now around 500 and expanding.

176. How many, if any, of the employees, qualified under the Redundancy Acts?

—Special arrangements were introduced to provide redundancy payments for the people concerned in advance of the redundancy scheme. Then in due course they became entitled under the Redundancy scheme itself.

177. I take it the benefits were comparable to the benefits under the Redundancy Act?

—More or less.

VOTE 52—REMUNERATION.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

178. Chairman.—What is the nature of this Vote?

Mr. Murray.—This Vote covers the expenditure to meet the 11th round increases to public servants. The increase was nine per cent from the 1st June, 1968, with certain minimum amounts for lower-paid staff. It also covers the cost of a common scale for teachers as recommended by the Ryan Tribunal and there was an addition, a minor element, relating to the post office. There were three elements in it.

179. Chairman.—We received only this morning the minute of the Minister for Finance on the report of the last committee so it may be necessary to ask you to come back, Mr. Murray, if the members of the committee wish to ask you questions in connection with it.

—Certainly, I will be glad to.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.20 p.m.

* See Appendix 4

* See Appendix 5

* See Appendix 6

* See Appendix 7

* See Appendix 8