|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 27 Feabhra, 1975.Thursday, 27th February, 1975.The Committee met at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY de VALERA in the chair. Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin called and examined.127. Chairman.—On subhead C—Post Office Services—charges for these services were less than anticipated. Is there any particular reason for that? Is this simply phoning within your Department? It is pretty self-contained, is it not? —It is pretty self-contained. This figure represents largely a break up for the whole of Government Buildings. So it is an apportionment? —It is an apportionment and it is always wrong. The estimate is always higher. 128. I have raised a question with almost every Accounting Officer about this fiction of the Post Office charging and re-charging and whether trouble would be saved all round if the Post Office dealt with the State services directly. I am informed that there are complications. Beyond saying that, I do not think that at this stage we should say more. It is an apportionment of the charges for the building you work in? —Yes, in relation to posting the letters we send out and in relation to telephones and telegrams. Deputy MacSharry.—It is wrong in the right way. 129. Chairman.—That goes for the whole Estimate. On subhead D—Information and Public Relations Services—the saving is mainly due to delay in the submission of certain accounts. Deputy Governey.—Does it go in in the following year? —That is right. 130. Chairman.—What are the services involved? The Government Information Services are in your Department? —That is not covered by that particular subhead. What is? —What was covered in that year mainly was the Bernhardt or Markpress expenditure —their contract and the expenses going with it. I would say that, except for about £2,000 or £3,000, it was the main item of expenditure. So it was this contract with this firm? —That is right. VOTE 11—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON.Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin further examined.131. Chairman.—This is essentially a grant-in-aid? —It is a grant-in-aid in toto. 132. Deputy Griffin.—How is this £85,000 distributed? —The distribution of the grant, insofar as it does not apply to the salaries and staff or their travelling expenses, is decided on by the Council. It is a grant given to them and they decide how it is to be spent subject to the provisions of the Arts Acts. 133. Chairman.—This question has arisen in another form in another Department and it has arisen in a general form with the Accounting Officer of the Department of Finance. When grants-in-aid are made the Department of Finance has an overall responsibility for seeing that they are applied for their particular purposes but that responsibility is to some extent and in more detail delegated to the Department concerned. I think I am correct in that? —That is right. Therefore, as Accounting Officer—we do not seek to go behind anything that it is not proper for us to go behind—on the question of procedure, I take it you have some responsibility for being informed and some mechanism by which you can be satisfied that these moneys are properly and efficiently spent for the purposes for which they were voted? —Yes. If I followed what you said correctly, that grant is given for the administration of that body and what I might describe as cultural purposes? —That is right. 134. Would I be right in saying that, broadly speaking, the grant for administration, salaries and so on would be totally under your scrutiny and you would consider you had more responsibility for the estimating there? —Yes. If that is couched in terms you do not consider satisfactory, you may answer in your own terms? —I would answer simply “Yes” to that. 135. Then, what I might call the cultural aspect of the matter is left to the discretion of the Council—that is what they were set up for? —That is right. 136. What we are concerned with is that, even where grants-in-aid are involved, there is proper control of public money. I take it especially that the Comptroller and Auditor General, within the terms of grants-in-aid legislation, is satisfied and that you are. We like to say to every Accounting Officer at this stage that there is great necessity for the watching of Estimate provisions and for trying to keep control even there because the whole bill has become so great. —There is a publication every year which gives in detail what they spend. This makes it easier. 137. I know that, but it is the provisions for spending we are talking about. Mr. Mac Gearailt.—We audit them. Chairman.—I know you do. There is no suggestion—it is a question of information. There is no comment the Accounting Officer would like to make on what I have said? —No, thank you. Thank you very much. That is very helpful. The witness withdrew. VOTE 25—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTSMr. J. S. Martin called and examined.138. Chairman.—There is a note on subhead B—Travelling and Incidental Expenses —to the effect that the saving arises mainly in that no payments were made for law costs. There is some very close budgeting here. Would you mind telling us what that note means? Does it mean you had no litigation? —No, but the actual costs refer to cases where the Commissioners have to discharge their legal costs when they instruct their solicitors. These amounts are so small that it would be uneconomic to tax them every year. So, we let them run for a couple of years and we save the cost of taxation by doing that. The differences between the provision and the expenditure is only £127 anyway. It was merely curiosity. —I appreciate that. 139. On subhead C—Post Office Services —in the case of every Accounting Officer here we have been raising the question about administrative complications in charging for these services at all—would there be a simpler procedure? But that, I understand, is a complex problem and I merely mention it now to every Accounting Officer in case he has any comment to make. If he has not, none is sought. —I would thoroughly approve of any suggestion to avoid this sort of business. It is very difficult to estimate the number of letters any Government Department sends out and this is obviously an approximation. I am glad you say that because the Accounting Officer before you had simply got a proportion of a global amount covering the building he was in. There seems to be a certain amount of unreality arising from the fiction that the Post Office is a commercial activity. —I would agree. 140. It obviously involves you in administration, it means that somebody on the staff is keeping records? —I have occasionally carefully checked our output in postage and I have very grave doubts about the accuracy of this estimation from the Post Office. I cannot count everyday postage. One can only have an occasional check and that is unreliable to the extent that one’s output varies from day to day. After a Commissioners’ meeting, for example, at which there might be 30 cases, rulings would have to be sent out and that would increase the output for that week. It is extremely difficult to keep a check on this expenditure. 141. Deputy Moore.—Do you not use a franking machine? —No. Some of our letters are registered. There are probates and deeds. The output varies from day to day. 142. Chairman.—Anybody with business experience outside will tell you there is a great danger in a big organisation in franking machines. It is difficult to ensure that private correspondence is not getting in with official correspondence. You are not using a franking machine? —No. 143. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Is there anything you would like to say to us? —Perhaps some Deputies would have questions to ask about the office generally. My office is generally regarded as an appendage of the National Museum! Practising lawyers do not regard it as such. It is regarded as a very helpful and friendly official watch dog. Any practising lawyer would say that the Office of Charitable Donations and Bequests has done a great public service over the years and it is the efficiency of that service that has brought about the position of no comment you have referred to. —Thank you. The Commissioners’ instruction to me is to give the public every service. I am not going beyond the bounds of reality when I say if every Department in the State was as efficient and helpful it would be very nice. The witness withdrew. VOTE 10—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.Mr. S. Ó Conaill called and examined.144. Chairman.—This is your first time to appear before us as Secretary, Mr. Ó Conaill. —That is right. The Committee look forward to getting great help from you and we hope we will be able to help you too. —Thank you. 145. There is no comment from the Comptroller and Auditor General on this Vote. On subhead A. 1—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—I take it the supplementary estimate was consequent on salary adjustments in the year? —Yes, largely. If no supplementary had been required for any other purpose, the salary adjustments would have been paid out of the general Vote for Remuneration. 146. On subhead C—Post Office Services—I have asked this question of practically every Accounting Officer and various opinions have been expressed. It is essentially a matter for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs but, in the case of the Department of the Public Service, perhaps since they control the public service you would have a closer interest in the question I should like to ask than Accounting Officers in general. We noticed that right through every Estimate this subhead on Post Office Services is included to cover telephones, postage, and such matters. It seems to the Committee that these charges originated in something which was probably true initially but which appears to some extent to be a fiction. The Post Office was, so to speak, to be run as a commercial operation in respect of these matters and was, therefore, charged with getting revenue. Now, for various reasons, the Post Office are as much a State Department as any other State Department. One asks, therefore, whether this charging of the public service with Post Office services is not an unnecessary accounting exercise. Putting it in simple terms, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs being a State Department, why cannot they simply deliver these services to the Departments and account themselves for their own costs and for the revenue they require which would be voted to them? It is something like what the signal corps would be to an army. I am going into a little more detail with you because this is a matter of administration of the public service departments. Would it not lead to simplicity and efficiency if these services were, so to speak, supplied to the proper Civil Service Departments? Now, “public service” may need definition. I will take it for the moment as being everything within the scope of your Department or under the control of your Department. A question arises, but nobody wants a definitive answer now. I understand from the Post Office side that the problem is not simple, and we can see that it is not simple. Having raised it with other Accounting Officers, it is appropriate to raise it with you. The net question is whether one could consider the abolition of this subhead and the accounting involved and get a simpler method of communication within the service and for the service which would eliminate accounting. When this question was asked it appeared that within one Department, when all was said and done, all that was charged on the Vote was a percentage of a global figure for the building in which the Department were housed. If you would like to comment now or to answer that, the Committee would like to hear you, but if you feel the question is too big and requires more consideration from your Department the Committee are perfectly prepared to defer asking for an answer until you have considered it? —The main consideration here is that, in addition to the normal accounting procedures, the Post Office also produce a set of commercial accounts. To enable that to be done properly, it is necessary for the Post Office to pay for the services they receive, such as, in the case of this Vote, the recruitment of staff to the Post Office through the Civil Service Commission. It is necessary, on the other hand, for the various Departments to pay the Post Office for services rendered by the Post Office. While the accounting enters into all Votes, it is not anything very elaborate and the amount of trouble involved is minimal. The net question is whether the Post Office should produce commercial accounts. I would be sorry to see them go because they introduce an element of cost consciousness, of which the Post Office are very aware, into the transactions. 147. Putting a contrary view for the moment—not necessarily the view of the Committee—of course this was perfectly justified up to recent times. I am suggesting a re-look at this to see whether it is not, to some extent, a fiction that the Post Office are a commercial concern. I realise that it would involve a complete look at the Post Office, at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, from this point of view. As I say, different Accounting Officers have expressed different opinions. We are careful not to commit anybody to anything because we are seeking a guide. I should like you to consider that whole question. It seems that most of the bigger Departments would answer that it involves very little accounting. On the other hand, it may be a nuisance in small areas I wonder is there a certain loss of efficiency and concentration and effort. I suppose we should take it up with the Accounting Officers of the different Departments. That would be the proper thing to do but, since you are the Accounting Officer for the Department with overall supervision, I thought we should expand on it a little more with you than with others. —I would be sorry to see it going. Even though the Post Office perform a social service in certain respects, it is very important that their accounts should be set out on a commercial basis to see how much, in effect, is going on the social service. 148. While agreeing with that, does that necessitate this fictitious accounting within the State mechanism? Take a commercial firm or the Army. There is a limit to which you indulge in that kind of internal accounting? —If you are to maintain commercial accounting, you would have to have some figure for the services provided by the Post Office to other Government Departments. 149. Cannot they very easily say the cost of what they are supplying? What is to prevent the Post Office from knowing their own costs and putting down the cost of supplying the public services and, for the purposes of this argument, the public services being the Departments under your supervision and no more, to cut out this fiction that these Departments are paying these and other incidental expenses? It does not stop them being a commercial firm to say: “To supply the public services has cost so much”. —It could be done as an allied service as is done for other allied services but I think the present system is preferable. 150. It is this coming in on the individual Votes which appears to me to make it very difficult for this Committee to really understand the global situation. Apart from that, the motivation behind the question is that it seems an unnecessary exercise. —I am sure if the Committee wish that procedure to be re-examined, the Department concerned would be very happy to do it. 151. We shall talk to the Department and all I would ask you now is to take notice that we have mentioned it and, with an open mind, be ready to come back to us as inevitably would arise if the matter were pursued further with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. —I would be very happy to do that. We could leave it at that for the moment. 152. Deputy Governey.—On subhead D— Examinations—could you say what is involved here? —This is mainly advertising and the cost of hiring halls to hold competitions. 153. Chairman.—It is very closely estimated. On Appropriations-in-aid—Receipts from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs—this would at first sight appear to be related to my first question but may not necessarily be so—I think it is a different thing because I am informed that these are the fees that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs pay for the services of the Civil Service Commission? —Yes. They represent the cost of holding of competitions by the Civil Service Commission for the Post Office. 154. It is a totally different matter to subhead C? —It is the other side of the coin. Not necessarily, I suggest, but is it because it can remain just exactly as it is in the balancing of accounts? However, we shall not go any further than I have gone on this unless you would like to comment? —No. I think the question is whether it should be done this way or as an allied service. Whatever is done for the receipts should be done for the expenditure. 155. I can see that this is a matter that would have to be considered. I was merely suggesting that it is not necessarily involved. If it is involved, it is involved. We accept that. No. 2 of the Appropriations-in-Aid deals with receipts from county and county borough councils and harbour authorities, something of the same nature? —That represents the cost incurred by the Local Appointments Commission in recruitment for local authorities. VOTE 12—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.Mr. S. Ó Conaill further examined.156. Chairman.—Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states: “Subhead B.—Payments under the Civil Servants’ Widows’ and Children’s Contributory Pensions Scheme Subhead C.—Ex-gratia Pensions for Widows and Children of certain former Officers As mentioned in previous reports, a contributory scheme was introduced in the year 1968-69 to provide pensions for widows and children of certain public servants who died on or after 23 July 1968. Ex-gratia pensions were granted to the widows and children of public servants who died or retired prior to that date. Pensions for dependants of members of the Garda Síochána and for dependants of National Teachers, Secondary Teachers, Post Office officials and Army officers are provided from Votes 21, 28, 29, 42 and 44, respectively. I understand that the preparation of the necessary legislation has not yet been completed.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph refers to the contributory scheme which was introduced in the year 1968-69 to provide for the widows and children of certain public servants. It also refers to the ex-gratia pensions payable to widows and children not eligible for the contributory scheme benefits. I understand that the preparation of the necessary legislation has not yet been completed. 157. Chairman.—Does the Accounting Officer wish to make any comment on that? —Yes. The preparation of necessary legislation to cover the widows’ and children’s pension scheme could have been disposed of before now were it not for the fact that a major overhaul of the pensions code is taking place. It was thought better to bring in a comprehensive Bill rather than have two separate Bills. In the meantime the sanction of the Dáil was sought and obtained by specific supplementary estimates to cover any payments under the schemes. 158. What is the attitude of the Comptroller and Auditor General to this? Mr. Mac Gearailt.—It would seem to be in order. The Committee like to have expenditure covered by legislation. Once the Accounting Officer thought it best to do it that way, I think we can suffer it. Chairman.—It was the Accounting Officer who drew attention to it? —No, but he drew attention to the Estimate. 159. You are doing what I might roughly describe as consolidating legislation. It is obviously desirable to have all expenditure of this nature particularly properly authorised. I should like to add that it so happens that up to this year the Secretary of the Department of Finance was usually the Accounting Officer for these matters and last week he had an Estimate dealing with increases in pensions and allowances, Vote 49. When we were dealing with that Vote we asked the Accounting Officer for a list of the statutory authorities for these schemes as the Committee wish to have an overall idea of the rather complex pattern that has developed. That Accounting Officer was to furnish a list of the statutory authorities. Could we ask you in general terms or, could we arrange with you to supplement such information as would be required to complete the picture regarding these various schemes? Of course, we are confined to things as they were in 1972-73 as we are considering this Estimate. Do you wish to make any further comment in view of my remarks and what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said? —I think the Committee are taking the view which I share that it is better to have a consolidated Act. The list to be supplied by the Accounting Officer of the Department of Finance will, I think, meet your requirements. 160. The Committee would be very glad to have a clear provision so that there could be no errors and no necessity for action such as the Comptroller mentioned. It is accepted here that there was compulsion in the way this was approached. —We would be happy to do whatever the Committee wishes. 161. On the other hand, we would like to have your view and then see that the Committee can understand it and have it explained so that we can work together in the common interest. —My view is that it is better to have one Bill rather than two. We would like to ensure in dealing with all expenditure, especially where the public service is concerned, that the most cordial co-operation could be established between this Committee and your Department, which is new, as that would be a great help in dealing with all the accounts that come before the Committee. You will keep us informed? —Yes. 162. Deputy Moore.—On Subhead H— Pensions to Resigned and Dismissed Royal Irish Constabulary, including Widows—are there many still surviving? —The current figure is 102 sergeants and constables and 22 widows. 163. Chairman.—On Appropriations in Aid it says a sum of £38,723 was received too late for lodgment in 1971-72. —It was the repayment by the British Government of the sums paid to transferred officers. 164. There is a Note on page 34 which reads: “In addition to the expenditure charged to Subheads A, B, C, F and H in this Account, sums of £300,010, £10,000 £45,000 and £13,000, respectively, were charged to the Vote for Increases in Pensions and Allowances (No. 49).” Could you tell us what that is? —The budget normally provides for an increase in pensions and this is covered by a global Vote which is afterwards distributed among the various departmental Votes and subheads. VOTE 50—REMUNERATION.Mr. S. Ó Conaill further examined.165. Chairman.—There is no comment from the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is really a supplementary grant because of increases in salaries. Is that not so? —Yes. It saved the time of Departments and of the Dáil to have a global estimate instead of having separate supplementary estimates. The witness withdrew. VOTE 41—TRANSPORT AND POWER.Mr. D. Ó Ríordáin called and examined.166. Chairman.—Paragraph 80 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead S.—Investment Grants for Ships Reference was made in previous reports to the Shipping Investment Grants Act, 1969 under which grants were made to Irish shipowners towards capital expenditure incurred by them in acquiring, for use for the purposes of their business, a new ship or a new part for a ship or in converting a ship for such use. The scheme was withdrawn in October 1971 but payments will continue to be made in respect of grants already committed. Including £61,716 paid in the year under review, the aggregate amount of grants issued to 31 March 1973 was £3,673,956 relating to thirteen ships.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. I have no further comment to make. 167. Deputy Moore.—Why was this scheme of payments to ship owners discontinued? —The whole scheme was discontinued because it was felt that it no longer served its purpose. It was introduced to keep our own ship owners competitive with the British who had a scheme like this. They dropped their scheme and we dropped ours the year after. As well as that, it became apparent that the only people benefiting to any substantial extent were the State companies who were simply getting State money in a different way. It was felt that the scheme was not really living up to what had been expected of it. Chairman.—It was policy? —Yes, to abandon it; and there is still this payment because we asked Irish Shipping to accept part of the grant given to them in instalments over the life of the mortgage on the ship. 168. Paragraph 81 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead V.—Grant to Aer Rianta Teoranta for payment to the Irish Airlines (General Employees) Superannuation Fund The management of Shannon and Cork Airports, formerly under the direct control of the Department of Transport and Power, was transferred on 1 April 1969 to Aer Rianta Teoranta. Civil Service staff at these airports in departmental grades were transferred to Aer Rianta, while those in general service grades were given the option of transferring to the company. Liability for the pensions of transferred staff was taken over by the Irish Airlines (General Employees) Superannuation Fund. A compensation payment in respect of each transferred officer fell to be made to the Fund to enable service prior to the date of transfer to reckon for pension. The payment from the subhead, £341,286, comprised £91,286 in respect of final payments for thirty-three officers and £250,000, on account, for a further one hundred and fifty officers. Final payments are made in accordance with actuarial certificates.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph is for information. The process of absorption of Civil Service staff on transfer to Aer Rianta Teoranta is a continuing one and payments are being made from the Vote to meet the actuarially assessed cost of transferring these officers’ pension entitlements to their new superannuation fund. Final payments amounting to £225,655 were made in 1973-74 in respect of the 150 officers mentioned in the paragraph. Chairman.—Have you any comment to make, Mr. Ó Ríordáin? —No. 169. Before I move to the subheads of the Vote, I should like to refer back to paragraph 80. You mentioned that scheme was discontinued and one of the reasons was that the money appeared to be accruing to the State subsidised companies. While by no means wishing to avail of a frank answer like that to make a point, may I ask this question? We are now doing this in a somewhat different way. For instance, when money was being voted for the last Transport Bill some of us in the House commented that this was a disguised grant-in-aid. It is much preferable to do it that way than to do it under a scheme. I will content myself by saying that the remark brings up this whole question of what is the most efficient way of voting money to State subsidised bodies so as to keep the control with the responsible Department and to bring in an element of accountability by the Accounting Officer to this Committee. I suppose it is better to take that as a comment rather than a question? —In this case, if I may say so, the scheme was conceived as a scheme for the shipping industry but, in practice, it was the State companies who availed themselves most of it as they were perfectly entitled to do and correct in doing. That was not the only determining factor but it was relevant that the scheme was turning out to be a scheme for State companies for whom, perhaps, other financing methods might be more appropriate. Such as the Transport Bill which was adopted the last time. You would agree that that would be a preferable way of doing it? —It was one of the considerations in our minds when we terminated the scheme. 170. On subhead B.2—Post Office Services —there is a note to the effect that the excess is due to payment of arrears of rental of certain private wires for radio, meteorological and air traffic control services. Was this something extraordinary? —No. The excess is not very great in terms of percentage and it is due mainly to the payment of arrears of private wire rentals to the Post Office for the air traffic control service, the Met. Office and the radio service. There is a large number of private wires involved and there are certain difficulties in reconciling the bills between this Department and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It may have been a little worse at that time because the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was probably also going through teething troubles. It was the beginning of their “going commercial”. I think it has been much improved. 171. I have been asking every Accounting Officer this question and wondering where the definitive answer may arise—or even a commitment to an opinion. It is, so to speak, a notice question. The Committee for some time have observed that in Post Office Services substantial sums are charged to Departments and offices. I have been asking Accounting Officers whether there is unnecessary accounting and whether there is not an element of fiction in the Post Office —which is a Department—charging other Departments for postal and telephone services and whether it would not be better simply to supply the services to these Departments. Various Accounting Officers have expressed different views. We are quite aware that the problem is not a simple one and also that it is a problem for the Accounting Officer of that particular Department when it comes up. Yet, since this item appears in every estimate I am giving each Accounting Officer the opportunity of saying if he has any comment to make as to whether there is an element of fiction here. There is justification for system, but when all is said and done might it not be simpler, as far as the State Department themselves are concerned, to treat this as a State service which is laid on just as the signal corps of an army would lay on the signal service for the operation of the army without sending chits for accounts or even messages. That is the general question. It is quite obvious that this is somewhat more complicated. It is simple enough with the Department that is only a Department, such as the Department of the Taoiseach, but it is not simple for you, obviously, when you have these other activities. This note brings out the relationship to air forces and other matters. It is very difficult to define boundaries where you would be concerned as a distinct Department. Therefore, I content myself with advising you to think about this question if it should arise. It does seem to need an answer. For instance, two answers were given at some time to this Committee, one expressing a strong view that this was a bit of red tape, this subhead B.2 in your case. Others have said the system should be continued. It has sometimes appeared that this is a notional figure to this extent that if a number of Departments are housed in the same building, a proportion is struck. It is too complicated to go into it now in any detail and we do not ask you for any further comment unless there is anything you would like to say but we would like to put you on notice that we have been thinking this way and that this question could arise. We suggest that if it did arise you could have a considered opinion on it. —I would volunteer comment, if you do not mind. I see the problem as falling under two heads. One would be the problem of the accounting work concerned and whether the methods and mechanism could be streamlined and improved which would be a matter primarily, I think, for the Post Office and for the Comptroller. I am not an expert on that end of it. But on the principle I think it is essential to ensure accountability and prevent excessive and wasteful use of facilities provided, even the ordinary telephone service. You have to pay the bill; you want to know why it was greater than last year—what extra work was in the Department. If we are taking a private wire for telex purposes we will be more careful about justification if we have to pay for it out of our own Vote; but if we can get it free from the Post Office we may expect the Post Office to worry about the justification. I think the principle, even from our point of view, is clearly in favour of the Post Office charging and, from their point of view, now that they are committed to operating as a commercial body, I think it is absolutely incumbent on them to do this. Thank you very much. That is a very helpful and unequivocal statement. I can see that your Department is one where you find all the problems and that your answer comes from wide experience. —I think all my colleagues in the Department would support me on this. 172. On subhead C—Equipment, Stores and Maintenance—there is a note saying that the savings arose because proposals for the purchase of airborne flight checking equipment were not proceeded with and delivery of radar equipment for the meteorological service was delayed. Would I be right in saying that this is a reflection of a general commercial atmosphere in the environment in which we are today? —Yes. Are there any particular reasons? —In one case there were proposals for putting flight checking equipment in this ill-fated Dove which were abandoned and the whole Dove aircraft operation was abandoned in that year. That accounted for a saving of £20,000. The other was due to a delay in the supply of equipment mainly. This is a very common feature in the supply of complicated equipment like radar. It is not off-the-shelf and it is difficult to be exact. This is what I meant. The day of firm contracts and deliveries has gone—any business concern with any experience in purchasing plant of any complication has precisely the same experience. That is understood. —Particularly in this area. Our long experience is that you can never be certain of dates with radar and electronic equipment. 173. On subhead D.1—Grant to Córas Iompair Éireann—there is no comment to be made. It is a straightforward voted grant and the accountability is in CIE? —Yes. And their accounts are audited and published? —Yes. 174. Two general questions arise on grants and grants-in-aid. One is the status of semi-State bodies which are publicly owned like CIE and the other is the question of grants-in-aid. This question has put this Committee in arrears on which we are trying to catch up now. I take it that as Accounting Officer although you are protected and your Minister is protected from question by the mechanisms the House has adopted, you make it your business to have all the necessary information supplied to you so that you can make a responsible and reasoned decision on what sum is to be voted, that you simply do not sign on the dotted line on a requisition? I think that is as far as I can go, much as I would advocate in the House that one should go further. All we would like is an assurance that there is this responsibility exercised in your Department? —Yes. 175. And that you are in contact particularly with CIE which is not only a commercial undertaking but also a very important social service and in which there are great difficulties? —That is the case. Not only do we examine very closely their estimates and requirements for the year but the cash management throughout the year is kept on a very tight rein. They certainly get no advances on the grant in advance of what they need. The Comptroller and Auditor General is aware of the arrangements that apply in this case. 176. On subhead D.2—Córas Iompair Éireann Redundancy Compensation—I take it that is an automatic requirement? —It is automatic at this stage. These are redundancies which occurred ten or more years ago. 177. On subhead D.3—Additional Grant to Córas Iompair Éireann—I suppose having regard to the year we are reviewing and the Bill that came before the House recently all we can say is that an inflationary situation brought about a greater demand that had to be met and it was met by a Supplementary Estimate. Is that correct? —Yes. 178. On subhead F.1—Grants under Section 2 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1961 (Grants-in-Aid)—I can only make the same remarks that I made in the case of CIE. —Yes. This is very thoroughly examined both in our Department and in the Department of Finance. All Accounting Officers will appreciate the need at present for keeping a very tight rein on expenditure? —I am afraid Bord Fáilte generally get much less than they come looking for. 179. On subhead F.3—Development of Holiday Accommodation (Grant-in-Aid)—all we would like to be sure of is that there is a realistic control of expenditure. They are grants-in-aid but one would hope that any natural tendency to be over ambitious or over enthusiastic would be supervised at your end so far as you can. —The position is that no new grants have been approved since 1969. Since then they have been paying off a backlog of commitments. 180. Deputy Governey.—On subhead G.1 —Acquisition of Land, Buildings, etc., at Airports—what airport is involved? —Dublin Airport. This is the main area of land acquisition at present. 181. Chairman.—Is it going ahead satisfactorily? —Slowly but satisfactorily. The need for a new runway has been receding somewhat with the fall-off in traffic but it is desirable to acquire the land for two reasons: (1) to freeze development that would be more costly to buy out later and (2) the land itself would be going up in value. 182. You must also make sure you have the room there when you need it? —We have the compulsory acquisition powers. We always have the power to get the land, but of course, if people put factories or something on land which today is purely for agricultural use it will cost much more. 183. Deputy Governey.—Has that land been acquired since? —This piece of land was acquired in July. 184. Chairman.—On subhead G.2—Constructional Work at Airports including Furnishing of Buildings—there is a note to the effect that savings were due mainly to a number of projects which had to be deferred owing to shortage of architectural and engineering staff and others which did not proceed as quickly as anticipated. Is that professional staff? —Yes. Is that not an extraordinary situation? —These savings were spread over a very large number of relatively minor works and there was a general delay due to the lack of architects. It was not just the architects’ fees. The delay itself contributed to the savings. 185. The sum is substantial and indicates what the cost of such services can be nowadays —Out of £1.8 million. When it is for professional services for individuals it would depend on how many were involved? —No. This was a saving really on the deferment of the works which were either behind hand or were not undertaken. How much in fees or salaries would be involved in that I could not say but it would be a very small proportion. That is the question I was really asking. It was a deferment of the works? —Yes. 186. On subhead H—Transport of Staff— the note states that savings were caused by a falling off in the use of public transport by State staff at Shannon Airport. Does that call for any comment from you in view of the petrol situation? —The staff are using public transport less and joining together to run cars jointly. There has been a falling off in the use of the public transport service and therefore a saving in the subsidy provided for it. 187. On subhead I—Radio Equipment— the note states that the saving of £22,000 arose because the initial payment for a new navigational aid system at Shannon airport could not be made in March 1973 as anticipated. This is a deferred payment then? —This was a postponement of an instrument landing system. There were siting problems relating to settling the line of the new runway and a number of other things so this whole work was deferred at that time. 188. On subhead M—Technical Assistance —the note states that savings arose because of the failure of some firms to claim grants approved. Deputy Governey.—That is most unusual. Chairman.—The total amount involved in that way is very small. —This was our fuel efficiency scheme. It is now more important than it was then. We still have it going. 189. On subhead N—Rural Electrification —there is no note but it is closely estimated? —This is purely an accounting procedure. The capital money is met from the Exchequer which is recouped each year from the Department’s Vote on an annuity basis. 190. On subhead O—Grants for Bottled Gas Installations—the note states that savings were due to delays by bottled gas company in claiming grants approved plus a drop in applications. There is a big saving there? —The companies have difficulty in some of the western areas with people who cannot be bothered filling up documents or one thing or another. They have a lot of difficulty in establishing the claims. 191. On subhead Q—Grants for the Improvement of Roads to Generating Stations—the note states that one county council made no claim against the allocation. Deputy Governey.—Out of interest, what council was that? —Donegal. It was in respect of the road to Gweedore. 192. Chairman.—On subhead U—Grant to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution— it is a most deserving and important service. —Yes. The grant helps to meet expenditure. 193. On subhead V—Grant to Aer Rianta Teoranta for payment to the Irish Airlines (General Employees) Superannuation Fund —the note states that the transfer of departmental staff to Aer Rianta did not proceed as quickly as anticipated. Would you like to add to that? —All the amounts are certified but this arose because the transfer of employees from the Civil Service to Aer Rianta is not by any means an automatic process. It involves changes in their conditions of service and, therefore, the staffs and their associations are inclined to negotiate for the best terms possible. Some of the negotiations have been very lengthy. 194. On subhead X—Grant to Air Companies—what is the basic purpose of this grant? There is no original but there is a supplementary. —The Government undertook to meet 75 per cent of the cost of war risk insurance premiums which went up to enormous heights at that time. The company were able to show that they are paid by the Government in most other countries. The other was a contribution to the cost of extra security measures which the airline felt should fall on the State and not the airline. 195. There is a note here about an aircraft accident over Wicklow Bay? —It was the helicopter accident. 196. There is a statement of expenditure and revenue for the State Airports. These tables were taken into account in your Estimate? —Yes. And are really supplementary information to your Estimate? —Yes. 197. You would not like to make any comment on the State airports? —No, not in relation to that year. Things are possibly a little worse at present because of the general falling off and inflation. Airports have been hit as well as airlines. Current matters are more important in this regard. —Circumstances have changed very much. That is so and no useful purpose would be served by going further into this. Unless there is anything you would like to say to us that would end the Committee’s inquiries? —No, except to thank you. Thank you very much. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
