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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 16 Aibreán, 1970

Thursday, 16th April, 1970

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

1176. Deputy Barry.—As the Chairman is unavoidably absent this morning, I move that Deputy Treacy be the Chairman of the Committee for this meeting.

Question put, and agreed to.

Deputy Treacy took the Chair accordingly.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. L. O’Neill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 34—LANDS

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

1177. Acting Chairman.—On subhead M.— Appropriations in Aid—could we have some information on item 1 in regard to receipts from the Church Temporalities Fund?

Mr. O’Brien.—The £7,000 in the first part of this item represents the recoupment of salary costs in respect of staff serving in the Church Temporalities Branch. There has been a standing arrangement that the Church account pays its own way; it even pays its own postage. The second item is £22,095; the situation there is that there is a capital sum of about £2½ million in the Church Temporalities Fund and that is invested in a variety of securities. The dividends in 1968-69 were £99,170 and this, together with the current rental of £10,921, and a few small miscellaneous items gave £112,564 as receipts to the fund. The outgoings are in the form of statutory charges against the fund. These are grants to various Departments —£30,000 to the Department of Education, £26,598 to the Department of Finance as a contribution to the National Teachers’ pension fund, £10,000 to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and £10,000 to the National University. At the end, after meeting some further small charges, there is a surplus of £22,095 left over and that was surrendered to our Department as an appropriation-in-aid. Originally, the agitation against the payment of tithes in Ireland arose not because of any feeling that they were a penal imposition but because at the time of the agitation the tithes were paid to the minority Protestant Church. The agitation was a success not because it succeeded in abolishing tithes, which it did not, but because of it the minority Protestant Church was disestablished, a commuted sum of £10 million having been paid in lieu of their former income, and thereafter the tithes were no longer paid to it; instead they were paid to the Land Commission and used for the various purposes which I have outlined.

1178. —What will be the eventual fate of this fund? Is it to be wound up, and, if so, when?

—At the moment the capital, some £2½ million, is under the control of the Department of Finance and my information is that they have £1 million of it in the form of ways and means advance. There is a small amount of rental still payable to the church account and we propose to mount a campaign for the redemption of that.

1179. Deputy Tunney.—On the notes, there are outstanding sums, ranging from £3 to £121 in respect of grazing and conacre rents?

—There are five instances altogether. The biggest amount is £121; they were all small save that sum.

1180. I would be more concerned with the small cases. Is it a situation in which somebody had been grazing stock and was not able to pay the remaining £3? It strikes me as being a little strange. Was this a balance of a bigger indebtedness?

—It was the residue of a sum of £73. The tenant in question had died. I have an explanation of the bigger amount, if you wish to hear it.

I was more concerned with the smaller items.

VOTE 35—FORESTRY

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

1181. Acting Chairman.—Paragraph 42 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead C.2.—Forest Development and Management.

42. Payments amounting to £44,000 have been made to Bord Fáilte Éireann towards the cost of improvement works, including tourist amenities, at Lough Key Forest Park, Boyle, Co. Roscommon. The estimated overall cost of the project was £196,170 and the Department of Finance agreed to a contribution of £52,910 from the Forestry Vote in respect of certain aspects related to forestry. It appeared to me from an examination of the departmental papers that the amounts paid to Bord Fáilte may have been excessive in relation to the total amount of work completed by 31st March, 1969 and I have inquired as to what evidence of expenditure was obtained prior to the payment of the contributions from the vote.”

1182. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The development of tourist amenities at Lough Key is in accordance with a directive by the Minister for Lands to open up areas of State forests for public recreation and enjoyment and is being carried out in consultation with Bord Fáilte. The works which were to be carried out by Bord Fáilte with contributions from voted moneys included such items as new roads and paths, car parks, camping grounds, swimming and boating facilities and general landscaping of the amenity area. The accounting officer informs me that Bord Fáilte’s statements of expenditure were accepted as satisfactory evidence that the expenditure incurred was at the levels stated. He gives the level of expenditure at 31st March, 1969, according to Bord Fáilte’s figures, as £76,636. These figures indicate that the sum payable from the Forestry Vote was £18,663 up to 31st March, 1969. Normally, contributions from voted moneys towards the cost of projects such as this are based on the actual expenditure on work already carried out, but the accounting officer informs me that the payments in this case, amounting to £44,000 at 31st March, 1969, did not represent a proportionate share of total expenditure up to that date but constituted a contribution at a level agreeable to both parties to expenditure already incurred and an element of funding against further pending expenditure. This latter arrangement was contrary to normal Government accounting. In the earlier stages of this project, Bord Fáilte acted as principals in relation to work being done on contract, but the accounting officer now informs me that arrangements have been made whereby the Department have taken over direct responsibility as principals in all further contract work. He also states that a financial adjustment was made with Bord Fáilte in October, 1969, under which An Bord paid £27,199 to the Forestry Vote and that a further sum of £11,000 was received from Bord Fáilte last week. As I did not receive until Monday last the accounting officer’s reply to my query issued on 31st July, 1969, I have not had an opportunity of examining the full financial implications of the new arrangements made with Bord Fáilte Éireann, but it would appear that at 31st March, 1969, £25,337 had been overissued from Voted moneys and, accordingly, should not have been charged to the Vote.

1183. Chairman.—Perhaps the accounting officer may wish to comment on that?

Mr. O’Brien.—Of course, the Comptroller and Auditor General is keen on having strict financial purity right through the progress of the work and in seeing to it that the incidence of charge will occur only as the work progresses. In that principle he is quite correct and I do not quarrel with him in that respect. We had an itemised allocation of work on the basis that some items would be paid for by us and some by Bord Fáilte. This gave a ratio of three to one. The Department of Finance queried some of the items in so far as some for which we were paying might be more appropriate to Bord Fáilte. We explained that the division of items was made between us and I quote “… less on the appropriateness of one or other item of charge as between the two bodies than of convenience for both parties”. The original objective had been to secure a three to one division of the total cost. As planning proceeded it became evident that allocation of items to pigeon-holes was not practicable and we have been working jointly to achieve a three to one division of expenditure as between us. To illustrate the impracticality of the working of the itemised allocation the Forestry Division were to be responsible for the demolition of the buildings while Bord Fáilte were to be responsible for the erection of new buildings. At the more detailed planning stage it was found that part of the old buildings, the basement, could be used in the new building and the two matters became so intermingled that it became impracticable to have specific itemised distribution of money between the two. In the final analysis we would be happy enough to arrive at an overall division of three to one but, the Comptroller and Auditor General is obviously not satisfied with this. In 1968-69 we put in more money because it was convenient for us to do so. We had advised the Department of Finance that convenience of time would enter into the incidence of charge as between the two bodies and as it stands, as at 31st March, 1970, we are almost at a three to one division. Total expenditure at that date had been assessed at £144,000 of which amount the Forestry Division had contributed £40,000. This is reasonably close to a three to one ratio.

1184. You have a further comment, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—My interpretation is that it is only possible to charge against the voted appropriation expenditure actually incurred and in this particular case the Forestry Division had paid to Bord Fáilte much more than their liability. In effect, the Department were financing Bord Fáilte to some extent in that eventually in October, 1969, they had to get a refund of £24,000 in overpayments. As I see it, this is why an excessive payment of £23,000 by the Department to Bord Fáilte should have been struck out of the account at 31st March, 1969. If I had known of the position earlier I would have insisted on that course having been taken but there was a delay of eight months in getting an explanation from the accounting officer. In fact, it was only on Monday last that his explanation was received?

Mr. O’Brien.—Convenience of time entered into this. As we happened to have money and Bord Fáilte did not—

Mr. Suttle.—The accounting officer had no right to finance Bord Fáilte. Any surplus of money must be surrendered to the Exchequer. Money cannot be paid in advance. If Bord Fáilte are short of money it is up to them to go back to the Department and ask for more money.

1185. You have further comment, Mr. O’Brien?

—From his own point of view, the Comptroller and Auditor General is quite right in seeking exact precision in point of time with regard to incidence of payment. However, if the Department engaged in this sort of precision they would be charged by public representatives in the Dáil of being guilty of red tape but when they depart from such precision they are challenged by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

1186. Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—It is a basic principle of Government accounting that a charge can only be made against the vote in respect of actual expenditure incurred. In this particular case the expenditure incurred was less than the amount charged to the extent of £24,000. I know that Bord Fáilte were short of money and were delighted to receive this amount but the Department had no authority to incur the expenditure?

Mr. O’Brien.—As a practical working matter it was a sane and sensible arrangement.

Mr. Suttle.—When the £44,000 was given over to Bord Fáilte, the Department had no idea whatsoever of what the money was spent on and it was only afterwards when the accounting was being done that they realised that Bord Fáilte had spent only £18,000 on their behalf.

1187. Mr. O’Brien?

Mr. O’Brien.—We would have been satisfied with an ultimate division of three to one.

Mr. Suttle.—The accounting officer is talking about a division over years whereas Government accounting is based on a 12 month period. In voting the money the Dáil does so for no longer than 12 months so that money cannot be carried forward from one year to the next?

Mr. O’Brien.—I do not wish to quarrel with the Comptroller and Auditor General on a matter of strict financial purity but in practice one cannot expect exact precision from day to day and from month to month in a project of this size. The Comptroller and Auditor General can be said to be extra cautious and taking excessive care in regard to this matter.

1188. Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—There is no question of that. The figures vary too much. If there was a difference of only £1,000 or £2,000 one way or the other on an expenditure of £44,000, I would not mind but the Department paid more than twice the amount of their liability?

Mr. O’Brien.—We got a refund in due course.

Mr. Suttle.—Yes, but six months after the account had been closed so that it went into the next year’s account.

1189. Deputy Tunney.—If normal regulations had been adhered to would there have been any effect on the project?

Mr. Suttle.—No, none at all.

Mr. O’Brien.—It proceeded in the normal way.

Mr. Suttle.—I am not being finnicky in relation to this matter but had the accounting officer adhered to normal Government accounting practice the amount charged in the account would have been £23,000 less than is shown?

Mr. O’Brien.—The Comptroller says he is not being finnicky but I take the personal view that he is at least being fussy in this matter.

1190. Chairman.—I can appreciate the difficulty with regard to cost in a big project such as this and, especially, when there is a State body such as Bord Fáilte involved. I have been impressed by the practical demonstration which we have had here this morning but perhaps this is a matter about which we could do something when making our report.

Mr. Suttle.—I audit the accounts of Bord Fáilte myself. I know there is not the slightest difficulty in knowing how they stand exactly. Bord Fáilte knew they were getting more money than they were entitled to. Bord Fáilte keep quite as good accounts as the Forestry Division. They know exactly how they stand from day to day. They knew exactly what had been spent on their behalf.

Mr. O’Brien.—It took quite some time to find out recently how much they had spent.

1191. Deputy Briscoe.—Might I suggest we might get a note from the accounting officer on this whole business rather than get involved now in the matter because it is a bit complicated? For me, as a member of the Committee, it seems a difficult matter. It would probably help some of us to understand what has taken place. From my understanding of it, money has been overpaid to Bord Fáilte other than the money voted to them in the Dáil. Am I correct?

Mr. Suttle.—As at 31st March.

Mr. O’Brien.—Over a period of three years, there will be no overpayment.

Mr. Suttle.—Government accounting is for a year only—and no further. If you want to carry money forward, you will have to go to the Dáil and make a grant-in-aid and have it transferred to a separate account.

1192. Deputy Briscoe.—This money was paid more or less so that the continuity could be preserved, is that so?

Mr. O’Brien.—Yes, there would be regular continuity. We could afford to pay at the time. Convenience of time, as regards the incidence of the charge, was known. We explained that at the time to the Department of Finance.

1193. Would the Department of Finance sanction this?

—They accepted the overall situation so long as the end result would be 3:1. All the Comptroller and Auditor General wants, I think, is a 3:1 division each year rather than a 3:1 division over the entire period.

Mr. Suttle.—I am not interested in 3:1 divisions at all. I am interested in what is charged to your Vote as being a proper charge. There was no question that that £44,000 was not a proper charge.

Mr. O’Brien.—It was a project on our own land. If this was some outside body, over which the State had not some control, the Department would be very precise about it. It seems to me that the Comptroller and Auditor General was being very fussy over it but I accept his word that he was not.

1194. Acting Chairman.—It must be difficult to work in conjunction with another body in a matter of this kind. Might we look at this matter again on Report Stage? In the meantime, we might have a statement from the accounting officer on the matter?

Mr. O’Brien.—Certainly.*

1195. Paragraph 43 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead G.—John Fitzgerald Kennedy Memorial Park.

43. The John Fitzgerald Kennedy Park to which reference was made in paragraph 33 of my report for the year 1964-65 was officially opened on 29 May 1968 and dedicated to the memory of President Kennedy. The general aim is to form, in the setting of an amenity park, an arboretum which will comprise a comprehensive collection of trees and shrubs scientifically arranged and fully labelled and documented and a series of forest plots in the form of a forest garden in which the silvicultural requirements of a wide range of species can be tested.

I have been supplied with a statement which shows that the total capital expenditure incurred in establishing the park amounted to £264,000 at 31 March 1969 and that voluntary contributions, mainly from Irish organisations in the United States, totalling £37,000 were received towards the cost of the project.”

1196. Deputy Briscoe.—Has the Children’s Corner been opened?

—An area beside the picnic ground is being developed as a Children’s Corner. Here we have placed rocking logs, climbing logs and a large climbing tree. A number of logs have also been moved to this ground from other areas of the Park and future plans include the placing of slabs for jumping competitions and the provision of small seats.

1197. The previous year there were 80,000 visitors. How many were there in the year under review?

—I do not think we have a figure; roughly it would be about the same. The car park accommodation has been trebled.

1198. Acting Chairman.—Is a charge made?

—No.

1199. Deputy Briscoe.—Subhead C1 refers to the Acquisition of Land (Grant-in-Aid). How many acres of land have the Forestry Division now got?

—Altogether, the Department now owns 660,000 acres.

1200. That is an increase of roughly 35,000 acres from the previous year?

—Yes, over a two year period. Of that, 580,000 acres are plantable and, of that, 530,000 acres have in fact been planted at 220 different forest centres throughout the country.

1201. That is an increase of 40,000 acres over the previous figure. You had 490,000 acres which had been planted at 209 centres. These would be 1968-69 figures?

—I am talking of two years later, now—as of 1970. In the past two years, 40,000 to 45,000 acres have been planted.

1202. It is a very substantial increase. How many acres were destroyed by fire?

—570 acres were destroyed by fire. 636 fires were reported in that year. Of these, 67 caused damage to 570 acres. The natural danger period is generally March with dry undergrowth and bracken. The human danger periods are the long dry spells in summer, particularly in the tourist amenity resorts in Dublin and Wicklow. There is press, radio and television publicity against forest fires.

1203. Under what subhead would the cost of advertising be shown?

—Subhead B1—Travelling and Incidental Expenses.

1204. What would be the cost of the advertising programme?

Mr. Suttle.—The estimate was £5,000.

Mr. O’Brien.—That would include all advertising. The cost of advertising fire prevention would be only about £1,500.

1205. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you consider that £1,500 does the job satisfactorily?

—It does, yes. We get a good deal of free publicity, too. The papers are very kind to us and awaken the public conscience in relation to fire dangers. We will always have a bad case or two in a year. The biggest fire that year was in Inchigeela, Cork—in May, 1968—when 100 acres were burned at a cost of £3,180. It resulted from a cooking fire lit by a local who was prosecuted, convicted and fined £5. He was an unemployed labourer and it was clear that no recovery of damages would be possible. However, we continue, by propaganda and persuasion, to keep the public alert to the danger of forest fires.

1206. Malicious damages would be paid by the local authority?

—Yes. We could not hope to escape 100 per cent clear; we do our very best.

1207. Acting Chairman.—With reference to subhead C.3—Sawmilling—how are the mills prospering?

—There was a profit at Cong this year of £4,598. At Dundrum, County Tipperary, there was a small profit of £220. Cong is a modern plant; Dundrum is not.

1208. Do you contemplate modernising Dundrum?

—I doubt it. If we were to spend a lot of money on it the commercial trade might get disturbed at the idea that we were entering into competition.

1209. It provides valuable employment in the area?

—It provides regular and constant employment for 24 people. It is well-equipped with saw-benches and wood-working equipment. A fair amount of material is sold to general merchants and builders’ providers. Material is also sold to farmers for gates and fencing posts; it is a useful asset to the area.

1210. The work of the Department is very much valued at Dundrum. On subhead D.— Grants for Afforestation Purposes—we do something there by way of encouragement?

—Yes. We give lectures and demonstrations. We are speaking about private planting here and that year 709 acres were planted. The grant is £20 per acre, £10 on first planting and £10 after the plantation has been satisfactorily maintained for five years. The Department’s propaganda and publicity campaign and technical advice scheme were continued during the winter months. There are lectures on private planting given at many centres. Private planting takes place on a very small scale; for a number of years it has not reached 1,000 acres. The State’s own programme is 25,000 acres.

1211. How would the costs compare as between planting the few private acres of this kind vis-á-vis the State’s own forests?

—It is difficult to find out. On our plantations we must take into consideration the amount paid for the land which farmers would not be reckoning. I would imagine that for the private planter £20 per acre would be sufficient to buy the plants and have a little left over for fencing. Our own costs of planting at the moment could be £50 per acre—that is the cost of land purchase, ground preparation and planting.

1212. On Extra Receipts Payable to Exchequer, there is an item of £1,000 as a gift for the purposes of John F. Kennedy Memorial Park?

—We got £1,000 from a particular individual as a contribution towards the John F. Kennedy Memorial Park. This man wanted his name kept confidential.

1213. Deputy Tunney.—When we speak about forestry we are thinking of places outside Dublin. Have we given any thought to the other Departments acting in the same way? Is there any compensatory planting in respect of trees which have been removed from the Dublin area? Does your Department operate at all in the Dublin area?

—We have some forests in the Dublin Mountains.

1214. Is there any encouragement given for planting trees around schools or football pitches?

—There is what is known as Arbor Day. The Corporation generally look after the urban trees. We encourage poplar planting; the grant is 3/- per tree. This would be for planting rows of not less than 50 trees. Inside the urban perimeter we leave these affairs to the Corporation.

1215. The Corporation do not benefit from moneys available for tree planting?

—No. They finance themselves.

Mr. Suttle.—This is purely commercial forestry.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 17—Stationery Office.

Mr. B. Ó Brolcháin called and examined.

1216. Deputy Briscoe.—In subhead F, Office Machinery and Other Office Supplies, what does the term “other supplies” signify?

Mr. Ó Brolcháin.—They would be small supplies such as paper clips, pencils, the various type of things used in offices from pins upwards —ink, biros, staplers, et cetera.

1217. What proportion of the total figure of £347,000 would refer to machinery?

—About 80 per cent.

1218. Where would the machines be used?

—Throughout the service.

1219. Does this apply to the whole Civil Service?

—We supply the whole Civil Service. We supply typewriters, duplicators, calculators and so on up to the computer range. We have three computers.

1220. In the matter of typewriters, is there a tendency to move to the electric machine?

—There is but it is a move we do not foster.

1221. Why?

—From a survey carried out we believe that largely the movement towards electrical machines is a prestige one, not an efficiency one.

1222. Would you not consider you would get more output from the electrical machine?

—We found from the survey carried out that the increased output was not material. There is, of course, a certain improvement in quality because, as you know, if a typist is not an even-finger typist, there is an uneven quality in the work, whereas a properly handled electrical typwriter will give a perfectly even quality.

1223. I am thinking of the question of staff shortages throughout the Civil Service and I was wondering whether through the acquisition of electrical typewriters there might not be a greater output?

—Up to date we have not been convinced that there is any material increase in output from electrical typewriters.

1224. Was there a work study on it?

—The Finance O & M people went into it fairly deeply.

1225. Deputy Tunney.—Do we have any dictaphones?

—We have a considerable number.

1226. Is there a movement towards the dictaphone?

—Yes and it is extending. The difficulty of recruiting shorthand typists is well known.

1227. Deputy Briscoe.—Are army supplies included in this subhead?

—Yes, office supplies for every branch of the Public Services.

1228. Would this include the semi-State bodies?

—No. Semi-State bodies come to us sometimes and we supply from stock, or buy for them on occasion, when they come to us. Normally, we buy only for the Public Services.

1229. I should like to ask the Comptroller and Auditor General if costs could be kept down if all buying, including that for the semi-State bodies, were done through the Stationery Office.

Mr. Suttle.—The semi-State bodies when set up were given independence and if you attempt to force them to go to the Stationery Office you will take away their independence. As the accounting officer has said, in regard to the question of electrical typewriters, you will find semi-State bodies using them throughout, from the point of view of prestige. They make a difference from the point of view of the look of the correspondence and it has a certain prestige. The difference in efficiency between the output of an electrical typewriter and a manual one is comparatively small.

1230. From a rationalised buying point of view I would have thought the Stationery Office would be providing a service and that it would not be considered as interference?

Mr. Suttle.—Particularly nowadays, in the matter of stationery supplies it is a prestige business. The quality of the material used by the semi-State bodies is higher than that in the general service. The general service is run on the lowest economic basis that can be operated. In the semi-State bodies they look at this question of prestige and they have much better quality material altogether. Adopting the Deputy’s suggestion would not help the position economically because I think you have allowed a certain amount of latitude to the Departments to buy small items which, in the old days, were purchased 100 per cent through the Stationery Office. The position is under continuous examination.

Mr. Ó Brolcháin.—I might add, in support of what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, that it could be an embarrassment. Our paper quality is low and the paper used by outsiders is often of high quality; also, we lean to the purchase of Irish paper and we are not certain that the semi-State bodies would do the same. Consequently, there could be a conflict of policy. I might add that we supply quite a number of semi-State bodies from time to time to help them out, including the ESB, RTF, Bord na Mona, Gaeltarra Éireann, the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards et cetera.

1231. Acting Chairman.—I should like to assure the accounting officer that anything said here was not in the slightest way a reflection on him or his officers. Indeed I should like to comment on the wonderful efficiency of the Stationery Office which we, as Deputies, know at first hand. I have often been astonished at the speed with which you dispatched the Dáil Reports and other items necessary in the House. We have always been impressed by your efficient staff and service.

Deputy Tunney.—I should like to express agreement with the Chairman.

1232. Deputy Tunney.—With regard to the Government Publications Sale Office, the Accounts of which we have been furnished with,* can the accounting officer say if the accommodation is adequate there?

—We have been trying for about three years to acquire suitable premises on the main street and if we succeed in our efforts we shall, we hope, have more accommodation. This matter is causing some concern. We would like to develop our publications sales and in order to do that it would be desirable to have premises in a more advantageous position. Our sales have increased, money-wise, over the years; although we have not increased our prices during the past decade our gross income from sales has doubled.

1233. One gets the impression that the Office are hiding their talents as it were. It would be much better if the office were less isolated?

—From 250 to 300 people visit the Sale Office each day and I agree that the accommodation is rather limited.

1234. Chairman.—The Office do not seem to place much emphasis on advertising media. Perhaps it would be worthwhile seeking the help of booksellers generally with regard to the sale of Government publications?

—Departments advertise their own publications. Also we have a list of people to whom we circulate a note of our publications every week. This list is comprised of trade unions, booksellers, professional people and people whom we believe would be interested. If anybody wishes his name to be placed on the list we do so. At present we circularise about 500 people every week.

1235. Are schools circulated?

—To a very limited degree. The Department of Education deal with schools.

1236. Do booksellers help out to any extent?

—I do not think they display them except occasionally. Usually our books do not have the same appeal as the generality of books being sold by booksellers—with certain exceptions, such as, The Third Programme, Economic and Social Development.

Chairman.—It seems a pity that the publications are not prominently placed on the booksellers’ shelves because a lot of the publications are of great importance.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix 32.

*See Appendix 33.