Committee Reports::Report - Appropriation Accounts 1973 - 1974::27 November, 1975::MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA / Minutes of Evidence


	HOME Baile
	COMMITTEE REPORTS Tuasascálacha Coistí

Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1975 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1973 - 1974

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 27 Samhain, 1975.

Thursday, 27th November, 1975.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Members Present:
Deputy	Crotty,	Deputy	C. Murphy,
„	H. Gibbons,	„	Toal,
„	Griffin,	„	Tunney.
„	MacSharry,

DEPUTY de VALERA in the chair

Mr. S. MacGearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

GENERAL REPORT.

Mr. C. H. Murray called and examined.

75. Chairman.—Paragraph 1 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Outturn of the Year

The audited accounts are summarised on page xxxi. The amount to be surrendered as shown in the summary is £22,747,746 arrived at as follows:—

Gross Expenditure						Estimated	Actual
					£	£	£
Original estimates	..	..	..	..	759,747,292
Supplementary and Additional estimates				..	73,143,910
						832,891,202	811,720,294
Deduct:—
Appropriations in Aid
Original estimates	..	..	..	..	51,783,292
Supplementary do.		..	..	..	9,811,320
						61,594,612	63,171,450
Net Expenditure	..	..	..	..		£771,296,590	£748,548,844
Amount to be surrendered						£22,747,746

This represents 2-9 per cent of the supply grants, as compared with 2 per cent in the previous year.

In no case has the provision made by Dáil Éireann been exceeded and no excess vote is, therefore, necessary.”

Mr. MacGearailt.—This paragraph gives the usual information regarding the overall outturn of the Appropriation Accounts for the year. I have no further comment to make on it.

76. Chairman.—Your Supplementary and Additional Estimates amount very roughly to 10 per cent, slightly under 10 per cent, of your original?

—Yes.

From an overall point of view, I think everyone can concede that in the year in question inflation had started and I take it that that was a big contributory factor even at that stage in the increase in Estimates, or is there any increase in gross expenditure? Would you agree with that or would you say that some other factor was more important?

—It is very hard to break it down or to sum this up in a single statement. Inflation, as you say, is a major factor, not least in so far as it affects remuneration and typically in recent years there have been some special Supplementary Estimates for remuneration. In addition you have what might otherwise have been relatively small supplementaries for individual Departments which are increased by the pay element. The other major factor is, of course, that it is not always possible to cover at the beginning of the year all the contingencies that will arise during the year particularly when you take account of the fact that the Book of Estimates is prepared months before the commencement of the financial year. The third general factor which pushes up the Supplementary Estimates is that these are very often required to give effect to budgetary decisions. The most obvious example here would be the social welfare increases effected in the budget.

77. And that would be indirectly an inflation result. I quite appreciate that a precise answer to that question cannot be given. Would you say that you are experiencing and the State is experiencing a problem that is being experienced by practically all managements, namely, a great difficulty now in estimating with any degree of accuracy for any time ahead? Is it much more difficult to estimate closely than it was in the past?

—This is undoubtedly true. Even looking forward 12 months it is extremely difficult to get a close estimate of the inflationary factor.

78. Formerly, up to the last decade, I think it is fair to say that the Estimates were within reasonable tolerances, a fair forecast of budgeting of the actual expenditure that would be incurred in a year. That would have been the general experience, would it not?

—It is hard to generalise here, too. For example, at the commencement of the last decade the balance to be surrendered amounted to over 3 per cent of the net supply grant. It is a figure which varies significantly. In any one year it can be heavily influenced by factors that are special to that year. In the year we are looking at we find that a limited number of Departments accounted for most of the amounts to be surrendered and in fact two of them accounted for one half of the total. There were special circumstances in these two Departments.

79. Could I put it to you this way? You have an uncertainty element in personnel costs which can make a difference to them, including the indirect personnel costs like social welfare and things like that? There are elements of uncertainty there which you have not had before?

—That is so.

80. You would also, in any Department that was involved in substantial purchases, have an uncertainty element?

—That is right.

It would not be an unusual experience to find that an anticipated cost or purchase was greater at the end of the year than it was when you foretold it? There is greater difficulty now, even for the State, in getting firm contracts?

—Yes, this is so. On the other hand, taking account of the wide variety of paying agents, if I may call them that, who are involved in the 50 or so separate Votes, the time factor, which I have already mentioned, and the general uncertainties, if we can keep our outturn to within 2 or 3 per cent of our Estimate we are not too dissatisfied.

You are not doing badly.

Deputy MacSharry.—Is that including supplementaries?

—Yes, including supplementaries.

81. Chairman.—Do you think you can maintain that standard? Or are you apprehensive that your difficulties are increasing?

—I feel moderately optimistic that the position will not deteriorate much; it will fluctuate; we will have improvements, some disimprovements, but I would be surprised if in three or four years’ time the figure were significantly different from what it is now.

82. The next question is: are you satisfied that your control of expenditure and of revenue—the fiscal control of the State’s affairs—is being maintained and that you have the same control as your Department always had notwithstanding all the adverse factors that must be working against you in this decade?

—I would have some difficulty in giving a short answer to that. I must address myself to the volume of Estimates as introduced. That may or may not represent what I would regard as desirable, but that is what has been decided and approved by the Dáil. In regard to the control of expenditure, by reference to that volume of expenditure, then the short answer to your question is “yes”.

That was really the question I was asking. As you say, the actual production of the book is not completely in your control. I meant, based on the Estimates, you are still confident your Department have control and are able to maintain the control they traditionally had over all State expenditure?

—Yes.

We will leave the Revenue side over; that is another day’s work. It is really the Revenue Commissioners?

—Yes.

83. Paragraph 2 of the Report of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Exchequer Extra Receipts

Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer as recorded in the Appropriation Accounts amounted to £4,810,428.”

Mr. MacGearailt.—Paragraph 2 gives the total of Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer collected by the Accounting Officers in the year under review. These are brought to credit of the Exchequer under the heading Sundry Receipts.

84. Chairman.—Paragraph 3 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Surrender of Balances on 1972-73 Votes

The balances due to be surrendered out of Votes for the public services for 1972-73 amounted to £12,903,853. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered. I further certify that the excess on Vote 24 referred to in paragraph 3 of the report for the year 1971-72, amounting to £7,664, has been made good by a Vote of the Oireachtas granting a sum of £7,664.”

Mr. MacGearailt.—As moneys are voted by Dáil Éireann for the service of a particular year it follows that any balances remaining unspent at the end of the year fall to be surrendered to the Exchequer. This paragraph certifies that moneys due to be surrendered in respect of 1972-73 have, in fact, been so surrendered.

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

“Stock and Store Accounts

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

Mr. MacGearailt.—Stocks and Stores Accounts kept by Departments are required to be audited by me on behalf of Dáil Éireann under the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1921. This paragraph informs the Dáil that the accounts were duly audited in the year under review with satisfactory results.

Chairman.—I suppose a comment is not in order; I should be asking questions. But having regard to the complexity of the State’s operations nowadays, that is a very pleasant paragraph to read.

—I agree.

86. Paragraph 5 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Statement of receipts into the central fund for the year ended 31 March, 1974.

Revenue:—

											£
Customs and Excise Duties				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	254,215,000
Estate, etc., Duties and Stamps				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	27,941,000
Income Tax, Sur-Tax and Corporation Profits Tax							..	..	..	..	244,379,000
Value-Added Tax (including Turnover and Wholesale Taxes)								..	..	..	137,015,000
Motor Vehicle Duties			..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	24,349,619
Post Office	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	46,300,000
Interest on Advances from the Central Fund						..	..	..	..	..	34,945,461
Sundry Receipts		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	21,997,031
Agricultural Levies		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	1,771,370
											792,913,481

Repayments in respect of issues under the following acts:—

								£
Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1927 to 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	1,506,809
Nítrigin Éireann Teo., Acts, 1963 and 1970			..	..	..	..	..	50,598
Sea Fisheries Acts, 1952 to 1970	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	166,988
Shannon Free Airport Development Co. Ltd., Acts, 1959 to 1970						..	..	22,310
National Building Agency Ltd., Acts, 1963 to 1974				..	..	..	..	31,493
Tourist Traffic Acts, 1939 to 1955		..	..	..	..	..	..	117
Insurance Act, 1953, Section 2 (4)	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	31,767
Turf Development Acts, 1946 to 1968		..	..	..	..	..	..	615,067
Industrial Credit Acts, 1933 to 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	260,732
European Communities Act, 1972	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	688,083
Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	295,000
Taiscí Stáit Teo., Act, 1963	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	100
Broadcasting Authority Acts, 1960 to 1973			..	..	..	..	..	433,500
								4,102,564

Money raised by creation of debt:—

Telephone Capital Acts, 1924 to 1973					..	..	..	..	..	..	24,000,000
Savings Certificates		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	9,840,000
Ways and Means Advances				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	525,077,602
Exchequer Bills		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	468,000,000
Prize Bonds	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	3,000,000
Tax Reserve Certificates			..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	473,490
6½% Investment Bonds			..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	580,000
National Instalment-Saving				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	4,842,176
Ireland 6½% Notes, 1973-81				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	19,905,308
11% National Loan, 1993-98				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	21,207,352
9½% Investment Bonds			..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	2,590,000
9% Algemene Bank Nederland Loan					..	..	..	..	..	..	15,515,904
Other Borrowings		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	7,386,487
											1,102,418,319
Total receipts											£1,899,434,364

Statement of issues from the central fund for the year ended 31 March, 1974

Central fund services:—

Public Debt Services			..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	125,853,681
Road Fund	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	16,167,200
Annuities, Pensions, Salaries, Allowances, Returning Officers’ Expenses and
Miscellaneous		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	1,051,403
Contribution to E.E.C. Budget				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	5,972,277
Supply services	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	752,186,031
											901,230,592

Issues under the following acts:—

Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1927 to 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	1,300,000
Local Loans Fund Act, 1935 to 1972		..	..	..	..	..	..	68,680,000
Telephone Capital Acts, 1924 to 1973		..	..	..	..	..	..	24,000,000
Sea Fisheries Acts, 1952 to 1970	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	1,132,000
Transport Acts, 1964 to 1974	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	3,126,000
Insurance Act, 1953, Section 2 (4)		..	..	..	..	..	..	31,767
Tourist Traffic Acts, 1939 to 1955		..	..	..	..	..	..	71,680
Broadcasting Authority Acts, 1960 to 1973			..	..	..	..	..	602,500
National Stud Acts, 1945 to 1969	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	249,000
Industrial Credit Acts, 1933 to 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	2,500,000
Shannon Free Airport Development Co. Ltd., Acts, 1959 to 1970						..	..	3,156,000
Gaeltacht Industries Acts, 1957 to 1971		..	..	..	..	..	..	2,000,000
Finance Acts, 1953 (Section 16) and 1954 (Section 22)				..	..	..	..	1,625,000
Fóir Teoranta Acts, 1972 and 1973		..	..	..	..	..	..	3,261,000
National Building Agency Ltd., Acts, 1963 to 1974				..	..	..	..	1,000,000
Agricultural Credit Acts, 1927 to 1972		..	..	..	..	..	..	8,000,000
European Communities Act, 1972							..	4,736,971
Redundancy Payments Act, 1967		..	..	..	..	..	..	235,000
								125,706,918

Issues for the redemption of public debt:—

Ways and Means Advances				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	330,453,879
Exchequer Bills		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	468,000,000
Prize Bonds	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	3,349,000
Savings Certificates			..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	9,700,000
Tax Reserve Certificates			..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	1,925,059
6½% Investment Bonds			..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	3,835,000
National Instalment-Saving				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	2,695,386
7½% Exchequer Stock 1973				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	1,771,411
8½% Conversion Stock, 1973				..	..	..	..	..	..	..	41,884,605
Other Borrowings		..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	8,880,000
											872,494,340
Total issues										..	£1,899,431,850”

Mr. MacGearailt.—This paragraph shows the breakdown under various heads of moneys received into and paid out of the Central Fund in the year under review.

87. Deputy MacSharry.—On the Third section, where it refers to Money Raised by Creation of Debt—is that all in the one year or is some of it carried over from other years?

—This represents the amounts brought to account or received in this particular year.

Money borrowed, et cetera?

—Yes. There may be cases in which a certain amount of a particular loan is received in the first year and the balance received in other years. This statement records only the amounts actually received in the year in question.

88. On the last section—what is the position there? It deals with Issues for the Redemption of Public Debt.

—Yes, the same remark applies. This statement is confined solely to what happened in the year in question.

Chairman.—In other words, paragraph 5 is a summary of your revenue and expenditure?

—Yes.

Which, in a sense, is the basis of all Profit and Loss accounts?

—Yes, you could say that.

We can analyse that in another place when we have more time. There is nothing arising here for this Committee to question in regard to accuracy or appropriateness.

Deputy MacSharry.—We would be some professionals were we were able to go through it.

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

“The Revenue from Agricultural Levies, as shown in paragraph 5, £1,771,370, represents the following receipts into the Central Fund in respect of ‘Own Resources’ collected under E.E.C. Regulations:—

			£
(1) Revenue Commissioners —Levies under the Common Agricultural Policy (see also paragraph 11)			990,000
(2) Department of Agriculture and Fisheries— Monetary Compensatory Amounts (see also
paragraph 41)	..	..	573,489
(3) Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teo.—Sugar
storage levies	..	..	207,881”

Mr. MacGearailt.—This paragraph is for information.

90. Chairman.—Paragraph 7 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Contribution to E.E.C. Budget

Reference was made in paragraph 9 of my previous report to the issue of £1,172,084 from the Central Fund in 1972-73 towards Ireland’s contribution to the European Communities’ budget for 1973. Further issues amounting to £5,164,983 were made in 1973-74 to bring the total payments in respect of that budget to £6,337,067. The balance of the issues from the Central Fund under this head in the year under review, £807,294, represents payments towards Ireland’s contribution to the Communities’ budget for 1974.

Community regulations provide for the refund to a Member State of any sums paid by it to the Communities’ annual budget in excess of its liability as finally established following the closing of the annual accounts. The sum of £1,038,860 paid by Ireland to the Communities’ budget for 1973 in excess of its established liability was applied towards the contribution to the 1974 budget.

Ireland’s contribution to the Communities’ budget is regarded as being fully derived from the Communities’ “Own Resources” (viz. Agricultural Levies and a proportion of the Common External Customs Tariff). Community regulations also provide for a 10 per cent refund payable by the Communities to a Member State to cover the cost of collection of “Own Resources”. In the year under review a refund of collection costs amounting to £528,611 was received from the Communities and brought to credit as sundry receipts.”

Mr. MacGearailt.—This paragraph refers to Ireland’s payments in 1973-74 to the European Communities’ Budget, £5,164,983 towards the Budget for 1973 and £807,294 towards the Budget for 1974. It also refers to two refunds payable under Community regulations.

91. Deputy MacSharry.—On that point—I see it explained—it is finally decided what Ireland’s contribution is for a given year. If it is found that it was too much, do we get that money back in lieu of next year’s contributions?

—It is set off against the next year’s contribution. The Community operates on an income and expenditure account system. We operate on a receipts and payments basis. The two systems are working satisfactorily together.

92. Deputy C. Murphy.—Would that mean the Community might have use of surplus money we might have paid them?

Chairman.—That is so. For a short time.

93. Paragraph 8 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Issues under the European Communities Act, 1972

Issues amounting to £4,736,971 were made in the year and comprise:—

(1) £4,336,226—this amount was advanced to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to enable him to discharge his function as the Communities’ official Intervention Agency.

(2) £250,000—this represents the second instalment of Ireland’s subscription to the capital of the European Investment Bank.

(3) £129,217—this represents the second instalment of Ireland’s contribution to the European Investment Bank’s statutory reserve and to such of its provisions as are equivalent to reserves.

(4) £21,528—this represents the first two instalments of Ireland’s contribution to the reserve funds of the European Coal and Steel Community. Protocol No. 24 to the Accession Treaty provides that Ireland’s contribution to the funds of the European Coal and Steel Community shall be fixed at 77,500 units of account (equivalent to £32,292 at the applicable exchange rate of 2.40 units of account to the Irish pound) and shall be payable in three equal annual instalments.”

Mr. MacGearailt.—This paragraph gives the breakdown of the Issues “below the line” during the year from the Central Fund under the European Communities Act, 1972. The main item, £4.3 million, consists of advances made to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to meet expenditure in relation to beef and milk powder offered for intervention.

VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

94. Chairman.—On Subhead D—Motor Cars, replacement grant-in-aid, I see there is a figure of £200 for replacement.

Deputy C. Murphy.—As an item in the news and as an interest has been shown in motor cars, which it is felt might be of some value, what would happen in the event of this car coming up for sale or auction if it were being disposed of? Would this money be recouped to the President’s establishment?

—Perhaps I might take the opportunity to explain that during the course of this year new arrangements were brought in for dealing with this particular aspect of the President’s establishment. Before June, 1973, the position was that the President’s State car was maintained by the Army and driven by an Army driver and the costs were borne on the Vote for the Department of Defence. In addition to the State car, an annual grant-in-aid was made from this Vote towards replacement of the President’s private cars. In June, 1973, that position was changed. From that date the transport arrangements in respect of the President are precisely the same as those for Ministers—a State car and a Garda driver are provided. In addition, a Garda driver is provided for the President’s private car when required and the cost of that is borne on the Garda Síochána Vote. That answers the question indirectly; in effect, as from June, 1973, the transport arrangements for the President are broadly the same as those for Ministers.

Chairman.—That means that there has been a transfer to the Department of Justice?

—Yes, that is so.

95. Deputy C. Murphy.—I was wondering about the late President de Valera’s car; this has been in the news lately. It is felt that it would realise quite a sizeable sum. Would a sum so realised be recouped to the Department of Justice?

—This is the State car. I must confess that I have not addressed myself to the possibility, but I imagine if it were sold that the proceeds would be credited as an Appropriation-in-Aid of the relevant Vote.

Chairman.—It is a State car and it is State property, so it would be treated exactly as any other State property?

—That is so.

96. Deputy C. Murphy.—I was wondering would it be your function to make a decision on this matter?

Chairman.—As to whether it be sold or not? Probably, depending on the economics of the situation. It would be subject to sanction of the Department of Finance and the normal procedures would apply. It is a State car.

Deputy C. Murphy.—Perhaps it could go to the Museum?

Chairman.—It is a State car and it would be a matter which would have to be taken up through the proper channels. This is not the proper channel for it anyway.

Deputy C. Murphy.—I came around it indirectly, through the Department of Justice.

Chairman.—I am sorry, Deputy, but it is an irrelevancy at this meeting, except to the extent that since it has been raised the Accounting Officer should be in a position to say that the matter will be dealt with in the regular way if it arises.

—That is so.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

97. Chairman.—Paragraph 9 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

Reference was made in previous reports to payments into the above Fund from which grants and advances are made to assist economic projects in western counties. A further £325,000 was provided in the year and, as shown in the account of the Fund appended to the appropriation account, grants totalling £308,400 and repayable advances amounting to £315 were issued. Repayments of principal amounted to £21,292, interest received, £12,510 and refunds of unexpended grants, £85.”

Mr. MacGearailt.—The account of the Development Fund for the year is appended to the Appropriation Account and appears on page 14 of the Volume. Also appended are schedules giving details of the grants and the repayable advance made in the year and the advances outstanding at 31st March, 1974.

98. Deputy MacSharry.—On subhead B— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there is additional cost, £25,000, for computer rentals. Could I ask for the views of the Accounting Officer on the possibility of purchasing this equipment? I know it was not possible to purchase it in the past but is it possible now to buy most of this equipment outright, rather than have it on a rental basis?

—From our point of view the major consideration here is, which is the most economical way of proceeding. Many computers have a relatively short life in that they can become outdated. You do not avoid these costs by renting—the costs have to be borne and met somehow or another—at least you minimise the year-to-year cost. Frankly on the technical pros and cons of buying as distinct from renting, I must admit that I am in no position to give an answer. Although I am Accounting Officer for this aspect of the Department’s activities for 1973-74 it is my colleague, the Accounting Officer for the Department of the Public Service, who would be in a position to give Deputy MacSharry a definitive answer.

99. Chairman.—But, in any event, the users of computers heretofore were faced with these problems, or would you agree? I have to put my comments in the form of a question. Would you agree that users of computers have to weigh up purchase and, shall I say, the additional cost that renting is estimated at as against the purchase price; that has to be weighed up against the fact that, if you have a rental, then the liability for the continuous maintenance in action of the installation remains with the supplier? Is there not an advantage in that—if you purchase outright you always run the risk of finding yourself, especially in the present day, held up for want of essential replacement, proper servicing or something like that? Therefore, this is a factor, is it not?

—I would imagine it would be. But again I have had no contact with this part of the Departments’ activities.

—That is appreciated.

100. Deputy MacSharry.—The reason I asked the question was that it arose here one day on various Departments, not necessarily in relation to computers but to copying machines and all that sort of equipment. The answer we got at that time—which was true— was that you could not purchase this equipment outright. Recently I read or heard somewhere in the last two months that the companies concerned are now allowing the purchase of this equipment.

Chairman.—Not only allowing but, in some cases, anxious to sell.

—As a broad generalisation, policy in regard to computers has not been necessarily inhibited by the factor Deputy MacSharry mentioned. In fact in some instances, the State has purchased computers. I would imagine that the decision is made on an ad hoc basis by reference to a specific Department.

As you say, you are coming into a very technical area here?

—That is so.

101. Might I ask this question? How many computers—and I do not mean location, in the sense of where they are, but location in regard to what Departments they are associated with—have you and where are they located in that sense?

—Do you mean within the Civil Service?

Yes.

—I could not give you an answer to that but I could very readily find this out.

It might be a useful bit of information. If for any reason you would prefer to have that as confidential documentation——

—I do not think it is confidential. The people in the trade know it very well.

I know, but there is one reason that perhaps you might not wish to say exactly where every installation is located and for what precise purpose it is used. I do not want to elaborate on that but I can see one reason why you might not wish to disclose that information?

—I know that there are at least five organisations which have computers—the Department of the Public Service, which operates a central data processing unit, the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Defence, the Department of Education and the Department of Lands. I think that is comprehensive.

102. You give us the impression that the responsibility for these is with your colleague, the Secretary of the Department of the Public Service, rather than with you so that any questions directed towards the supervision of the operation and the control of these installations, which can be a very important matter, would be more properly directed to him? Is that the situation?

—That is so. On the other hand, may I say that, in a formal and indeed in a real sense, in regard to this year we are considering, 1973-74, I would not wish to avoid any responsibilities that lie on me.

We appreciate that.

—I merely mention that the up-to-date knowledge could better be obtained from the Accounting Officer of the Department for the Public Service.

103. Dealing strictly with the accounts for the year before us, there have been no serious accounting discrepancies come to light through the use of computers? We all know the errors that can happen.

—In regard to this particular accounting period, the computer operated by the Department of Finance, as it was in 1973-74, was involved only marginally in formal accounting operations.

But you are not aware, in any of the computers as part of the accounting system of the State, that there were any serious errors or accounting mistakes?

—I think not, not in this year. On earlier occasions I had to acknowledge the usual running-in problems which accounted amongst other things for delays. But these are now being surmounted.

104. Deputy Griffin.—Just one question to the Accounting Officer. Perhaps it may not be altogether relevant here. It deals with travelling and our commitment to Europe, through membership of the EEC, and the necessary comings and goings to Brussels. Is the Accounting Officer satisfied that we are getting the best value from Aer Lingus? Has the idea of an executive jet purely for members of the European Parliament been completely discounted, or would there by any savings in having such a jet?

—The answer to your first question is “yes”. We are getting good commercial service from Aer Lingus. As far as the second point is concerned, I know your Chairman will forgive me if I say that that raises issues of policy on which I would not wish to comment.

Chairman.—You are entitled to that.

105. Deputy C. Murphy.—Do the EEC reimburse some of the expenses in relation to Ministers travelling?

—Yes. There is a complicated arrangement under which, in certain circumstances, the travelling expenses of certain people are reimbursed by the EEC. In our case this comes in as an Appropriation-in-Aid. Could I just say, in extension to that, that I am not sure what amounts they would reimburse if the expenses exceeded what they considered to be the normal commercial fare.

It refers to attendance at EEC and Council of Ministers’ meetings. Would all this cost be met by the Commission? In other words, will you have in this year a complete appropriation-in-aid from them to cover all his costs for the term of presidency?

—I think that the arrangements for reimbursement are not affected by whether or not the country in question holds the presidency.

106. Chairman.—On subhead C—Post Office Services—I presume that under the existing arrangements we can anticipate further increases in the public service account under subhead C in all estimates for the coming year?

—Yes, that is so.

107. Deputy MacSharry.—On the note on subhead D—Management of Government Stocks—could the Accounting Officer submit to us, not now but some other time, the actual borrowings of the State and where they came from in this year?

—In this year, certainly.

Could I ask further if these are some consultants that you use or are they management staff?

—No. Speaking generally, payments under this subhead go primarily to the Central Bank which holds the registers of the national loans and then to a lesser extent to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs which incurs expenses on our behalf in respect of the small savings scheme.

What about foreign ones?

—The registers for foreign loans are held by the Central Bank.

You will give us a list of the total operations in 1973-74?

—Foreign and domestic, yes.*

108. Chairman.—Do they not appear in the statement of receipts or money raised by creation of debt paid into the Central Fund?

—They do, yes.

Chairman.—So the Central Bank is excluded——

—It holds the register. There is a distinction between holding the register and holding the money.

109. Deputy C. Murphy.—Does any of this money go abroad to foreign governments or foreign companies or do they meet their own legal expenses and other expenses involved in these loans?

—I find that I was wrong in saying that the registers of foreign debt are held by the Central Bank. These are held by the foreign financial institutions which raise the money for us and therefore some of the money under this subhead would go to those bodies. The amount involved in this particular year would not be more than about 10 per cent of the total.

110. Chairman.—The question I was asking there about the Central Bank was because paragraph 5 lists the money raised by creation of debt——

—I have in mind giving a detailed list.

Of some of the heads?

—Yes, and also giving you the net position because there is borrowing on one side and repayment on the other. I think the important point is what net amount did we receive in the year from our borrowing operations.

Deputy MacSharry.—This is what I wanted to know.

111. Deputy C. Murphy.—A certain sum of money is just paid out abroad to meet the fees of the various companies or bodies who are lending money to us?

—Yes, just the same as the bulk of the money under this subhead is paid to the Central Bank in respect of the domestic debt for which they hold the registers.

112. Chairman.—If there is any further information on that we would be glad to have it as Deputy MacSharry requested. On subhead E—Institute of Public Administration—and on subhead F—Economic and Social Research Institute,—this is a policy matter, I suppose— are these institutes, from the point of view of assisting the administration, management and accounting of the State organisation, contributing substantially?

—I think so.

I mean as regards advice, information and all the rest. Are they contributing substantially?

—Undoubtedly. In some instances the contribution is an indirect one but we are satisfied that the expenditure involved here serves not alone a broad, national interest, but indirectly and, to some extent directly, also contributes to the better functioning of the public sector. The prime purpose in both is the national interest. One might, to some extent, refer to the analogy of the public funds that are made available to the universities which are for a national interest. The universities too can contribute in many ways to the better functioning of the public service. I make that very broad and crude analogy.

113. The net question is whether, from your point of view, as an executive charged with the accounting of the State, you consider this is of assistance to you in that function? If you say yes, then we are glad to hear it.

—I have answered you in this somewhat indirect way.

I appreciate that.

—If I might make the point that, for example, in the case of the Economic and Social Research Institute, this is an independent research body and it would be wrong to give the impression that the money we pay them is paid solely because of work they could do for us and that if they did not do that work they would not get any money.

There was no suggestion of that. I do appreciate that research cannot be research unless it is free to be research. There must be independence if there is to be bona fide research at all.

—Finally, I might add that I am on the executive committee of the Economic and Social Research Institute and there is fairly close liaison and communication between the Department and the Institute.

114. There is a note on subhead M.—Science and Technology. Has the Accounting officer any comment to make on the reasons for the delays that are responsible for the saving, £31,848, as explained in the note?

—Possibly—and I do not want to be too defensive on this—delay may not be the only factor in explaining this saving. The note says, for example, that there was a change in the method of payment from that of payment in advance to payment in arrear. This is the second biggest factor in explaining the saving. The biggest factor is that certain projects under the European Co-operation in Science and Technology programme moved more slowly than anticipated. I would not find that surprising. These matters move more slowly than one would expect when one is dealing solely with a domestic jurisdiction, or administration. If one moves outside the country, matters rarely move as quickly as one expected.

But there were no, shall I say, internal frictions that cause delay?

—None that came to my notice.

115. On Extra Remuneration, you will in future be putting the lower limit at two hundred pounds. You agree that that is a reasonable figure?

—Yes, and thank you for agreeing to our suggestion.

VOTE 9—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

116. Chairman.—There is no paragraph from the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is very largely a Revenue service is it not?

—Yes. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are also very heavily involved.

117. I take it the note on Subhead A refers to chemists?

—Yes. In fact the saving arose because of unexpected retirements.

118. Deputy MacSharry.—On subhead C— Post Office Services—does anybody know in any Department the extent of Government use of the post office services? What would be the percentage? Would it be 10, 15 or 20 per cent?

—That information is available but I cannot give the Deputy the answer now. I could obtain it, or perhaps it might be more satisfactory if this question were put to the Accounting Officer of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

VOTE 13—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

119. Chairman.—This is a straightforward Vote. It is intended to be a mystery.

Deputy MacSharry.—Only to the extent that Ministers are concerned, who are they?

—On occasions in the past that question has been answered. On other occasions it has not. If the Chairman were agreeable, I would prefer that this should remain part of the mystery.

Chairman.—In the particular circumstances of the time, I would suggest to the Deputy that we agree with the Accounting Officer. We do appreciate his reasons. We shall proceed then to the next vote.

VOTE 14—AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. C. H. Murray called.

No question.

VOTE 16—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

120. Chairman.—Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“Subhead B.—Additional Aid to the Theatre

The charge to the subhead, £141,200, comprises:

(1) £67 400 paid to the Gate Theatre. In 1969 the Minister for Finance approved an annual grant, based on a subsidy per public performance, to the Edwards Mac Liammoir Dublin Gate Theatre Productions Ltd. towards the running costs of the Gate Theatre. In the year under review the grant to the Theatre included £12,000 to enable it to reduce its bank overdraft. Audited accounts will be made available for inspection.

(2) £8,000 paid to the Irish Theatre Company.

The company was incorporated in March, 1974 as a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital. Its main object is to tour the provinces with high class theatrical productions and a subsidiary aim is to provide employment for actors and technical theatre staff. The accounts of the company will be audited by me.

(3) £25,800 paid to the Dublin Theatre Festival.

The Minister for Finance agreed to subsidise the 1973 Dublin Theatre Festival to the extent of £28,700 of which £2,900 was paid in 1972-73 and £25,800 in the year under review. Audited accounts will be made available for inspection. A grant of £3,000 was also paid to the Festival Committee by An Chomhairle Ealaíon towards the expenses of the 1973 Festival.

(4) £40,000 paid to the Irish Ballet Company.

The company was incorporated in March 1974 as a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital. Its main objects are to establish, promote and maintain a professional ballet company in Ireland to provide productions of classical, modern and Irish ballet in cities and towns throughout Ireland and, if thought desirable, to tour abroad. The Articles of Association of the company provide that its accounts and auditor’s reports shall be available for inspection by me.

Subhead I.—The Dublin Grand Opera Society

Provision was made by way of supplementary estimate in March, 1974 for the payment of a grant of £8,750 to the society towards its general expenses. The society also received a grant of £19,500 from An Chomhairle Ealaíon in the year under review.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—These paragraphs are for the information of the Committee.

121. Chairman.—As far as this Committee are concerned, these are informative paragraphs. The mechanism by which the grants were given is, from a statutory point of view, in order; the necessary authority for giving these funds is in order and it is not our business to question whether the policy decision was appropriate or not. There is only one question that I would like to ask the Accounting Officer. The supervision over grants-in-aid, which was the subject of so much discussion at this Committee in recent years, has it been maintained?

—Yes.

You, as the overall Accounting Officer, are supervising the individual Accounting Officers in the various Departments on this matter?

—Yes. I think that in recent years procedures have been reviewed generally and the arrangements that are necessary in this respect have been updated and communicated to accounting officers, after discussion with the Comptroller and Auditor General. I must emphasise that the administration of these rules is primarily a matter for the accounting officers in question but we think that the comprehensive review that was made has certainly helped to make clear to them the nature of their responsibilities.

You have a supervisory capacity?

—Yes, on this and on all other aspects of the control of public expenditure.

I think the Committee would like to reiterate the necessity for always maintaining the highest standards of supervision.

122. Deputy MacSharry.—Could I ask if investigation of a particular grant-in-aid is now complete and if the final report on that particular situation will come to the Committee of Public Accounts? In other words, there were some outstanding queries——

—This is an issue which arises from the last report of the Committee, and indeed from earlier reports. The Committee asked to be kept informed of developments, and my Department have undertaken to inform them of developments. I cannot answer your question this morning, Deputy, but we will be answering that and other issues raised, arising from the last report of the Committee.

Chairman.—That these matters be brought to finality is the anxiety of this Committee.

—An anxiety which we share.

We can all co-operate to that end.

—We shall be glad to.

We are due a Finance minute on our last Report. We are all interested in the same end.

VOTE 49—GALWAY TEXTILE PRINTERS LIMITED.

Mr. C. H. Murray further examined.

123. Deputy Crotty.—As there are no questions on this Vote and before we finish, can I ask as to the relevance of these documents we have received relating to semi-State bodies under the aegis of the Minister for Finance. May we ask questions on them?

Chairman.—Deputy Crotty has raised an important point. Take Irish Life, for instance, which is practically owned by the State——

—The Minister for Finance owns 90 per cent of the shares.

They are a semi-State body. We cannot ask questions in the Dáil because of the statutory position which the Dáil has set up.

Deputy Crotty.—There are questions I would like to ask about Irish Life.

Chairman.—Neither can we ask the Accounting Officer for details regarding these matters. He would very properly answer that that does not fall within his competency here. Nevertheless, the Accounting Officer, as Executive in charge of the Department of Finance, has in fact a certain control and positive influence. It would be correct to say that? You act as the controlling shareholder? I do not mean you personally but the State.

—Could I give perhaps an indirect answer and explanation, just to draw attention to two things. One: Deputy Crotty asked why the members of the Committee were furnished with these documents and what function they have in relation to them. On that particular aspect I would merely say that some years ago it was arranged with this Committee that each Accounting Officer would make available to the members of the Committee copies of the accounts of the State bodies which fell within the jurisdiction of his particular Department. In doing so, it was made clear to the Committee—and I think accepted by them—that this was for information and was on the clear understanding that the Accounting Officer would not be expected to answer questions arising on them. The second is, I hope, a more positive point. I merely want to remind this Committee that the Government have accepted, in principle, that a special Committee of the Oireachtas should be established to examine issues arising from the activities of commercial State bodies. The Minister for the Public Service has stated that a Motion will be tabled in due course to bring this issue before the Dáil. I cannot say when that motion will be tabled. I know that matters arising from this issue are being examined. I would expect that the motion would be tabled very shortly. I emphasise that to make it clear that all these matters will come before the Dáil, and, very likely, before a newly-established Joint Committee. Therefore, the affairs of commercial State bodies and issues arising therefrom will be the subject of examination by a parliamentary committee.

124. Deputy Crotty.—Just one further query? The Department of Finance hold 90 per cent of the stock of Irish Life. Do Irish Life have to account to the Department of Finance for their accounts during the year, like any board would have to account to their shareholders at an annual meeting or some such gathering? Can they merely operate with nobody having any control over them as to what they do during the year, whether their operations were successful or unsuccessful or whether they took the right decisions in certain things?

—I hope I will not be misunderstood if I say I would prefer not to answer that question, partly because issues like that—if this Dáil motion is accepted—will be the concern of another committee and partly because I would personally wish—if I were to speak on this matter—to have some prior notice so that I could look at the facts and consider to what extent I could or could not answer the Deputy’s questions. In other words, the Deputy is taking me unawares.

Chairman.—You are taken unawares having regard to the functions of this Committee and the understandings on which these documents were made available.

125. Deputy Crotty.—The question I am asking is: do these people have to account to anyone, I mean apart from the committee that is going to be set up?

—They have to account to their board of directors.

Chairman.—Can I intervene Deputy?

Deputy Crotty.—To whom do the board of directors have to account?

Chairman.—Their shareholders. It is perfectly obvious the difficulty the Accounting Officer is in here. I am going to take it on myself to say that it is—as Deputy Crotty says—perfectly obvious that the State and its organisation is a responsible business body. We can read between the lines. We must also appreciate that the Accounting Officer is put in a very difficult position.

Deputy Crotty.—I did not want to put him in such a position.

Chairman.—I know that. I can appreciate that the Accounting Officer has this difficulty. I would have it were I in his position—that even what might appear to be a perfectly safe answer, such as I have given to you, coming from him, might, so to speak, involve further possible questions or put him into the field of precedents or something of that nature. We have to accept that the fault is not really that of the Accounting Officer.

Deputy Crotty.—I am not saying it is.

Chairman.—The responsibility lies with the Dáil that set up the machinery. The Accounting Officer and the Comptroller and Auditor General are merely carrying out their duties.

Deputy MacSharry.—It is all in the sphere of policy.

126. Chairman.—I think the Committee understand completely. In fact it is unnecessary for the Accounting Officer to say that he is not prepared because I think he would not be in a position to answer.

—I would not be in a position to answer.

You would not be in a position to answer many of these questions and it would not be fair to ask them.

—Thank you for looking at it from my point of view. May I say that I am aware that this Committee has, for many years, raised this particular issue. The matter is now coming to a head. It is not for me to say what the decision will be. If this motion is accepted, and if this Joint Committee is established, there will then be an opportunity to go into these matters. Not alone would it be premature for me to do so but I am not in a position to do so.

Might I finally put it this way. We appreciate where the Accounting Officer stands on this. We do not desire to press him. Secondly, we know our own limitations in this, on a matter of policy and where we can go. But we are entitled to say—and we take the opportunity of this vote to say—in general terms, this Committee considers it an extremely unsatisfactory position that the considerable financial activities of State bodies are not available to an investigation committee. That renders nugatory much of the investigation and work of this committee. That comment is directed, not at the Accounting Officer or the Comptroller and Auditor General, who are constrained as much as are we. That comment is directed where it should be directed, at the legislature which we are serving. We are directing that comment at the body for whom we are functioning. We are a committee of Dáil Éireann. We are reporting back to the Dáil that the system we are operating we consider to be very unsatisfactory in this regard. That involves no reflection whatsoever on the Accounting Officer or the Comptroller and Auditor General who are similarly confined. Is that a fair statement from your point of view?

—Very fair. Thank you.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix 5.