|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 16 Feabhra, 1978.Thursday, 16th February, 1978.The Committee met at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY O’TOOLE in the chair. Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.VOTE 36—FORESTRY.Mr. A. W. Duggan called and examined.262. Deputy V. de Valera.—I would like to make one comment on the note on subhead C.2. It is very satisfactory to have Accounting Officers giving a full note. We have had occasion to complain about notes being inadequate. 263. Chairman.—On page 102 we have an abstract of accounts. Would the Accounting Officer like to comment on any aspect of it? —This relates to the sawmills at Cong and Dundrum. It will be seen at the end of the accounts that we made approximately £20,000 at Cong, and at Dundrum the profit was about £1,000. There is nothing unusual in regard to these accounts. VOTE 39—FISHERIES.Mr. A. W. Duggan further examined.264. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report reads: “Subhead C.3.—Main Fishery Harbour Works including Payments to the Fishery Harbour Centres Fund Reference was made in paragraph 53 of my previous report to expenditure on the development of the harbours at Dunmore East and Castletownbere which had exceeded the amounts approved by the Minister for Finance. In the year under review it was noted that expenditure at Dunmore East and Castletownbere totalled £656,205 and £1,396,922, respectively, at 31 December 1975 while the amounts approved were £559,854 and £913,000. The approval of the Minister for Finance for the excess expenditure has not been obtained at the date of this report.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—At the date of this report expenditure on Dunmore East and Castletownbere harbours exceeded the amounts approved by the Minister for Finance. The necessary Finance approvals for increased expenditure limits have since been received. 265. Chairman.—This concerns port development. I do not wish to seem to be carping on this issue, but it will be appreciated that the Committee, in accordance with its delegated authority from the Dáil, is concerned with accounting propriety. Department of Finance sanction is central to public financial administration and we, the Committee, must uphold this principle. The question of Department of Finance sanction for the excess expenditure on these fishery harbours has been commented on by previous Committees. Has sanction been received and what steps has the Accounting Officer taken to avoid situations such as this in the future—when it would seem that moneys have been expended that might not have been in accordance with normal accounting practice? —There have been difficulties for many years past in regard to figures as between the Fisheries Department and the Office of Public Works. This obtained at the time of the preparation of this report. There have been delays in bringing to notice the fact that sanction might have come to the point of being exhausted or might have been exceeded. The cases with which we are concerned were ones where we had to get retrospective sanction from the Department of Finance for an excess that had been incurred. Quite recently I had a discussion with the Chairman of the Commissioners of Public Works and I think the position has been pretty well resolved. From now on we should be able to get our figures in time and so avoid these cases of excess expenditure. 266. To what extent does the involvement of local authorities compound the problem of these matters? —Very grievously in the case of small harbour works where there is a local authority contribution of 25 per cent or 50 per cent. We will be dealing with such a case in the next note, paragraph 55. 267. Deputy V. de Valera.—Apart from the interest in this from the point of view of proper accounting, there is the matter of proper control by the Department of Finance that they would be in a position to give their sanction at the proper time. Are not the Board of Works more or less directly related to the Department of Finance? —They are. So there should be no difficulty between the two? —Of course they operate in separate compartments. 268. Chairman.—Even though there are three parties involved, you as Accounting Officer would be responsible for the contributions from local authorities, over which you have no control in practice? —It is a position of some difficulty and this difficulty has been continuing all along. Indeed it will be arising in concrete fashion on the next paragraph. 269. Deputy V. de Valera.—You have pointed out that the matter just raised by the Chairman is a complicated one. That has not been pleaded, so to speak. Would it be possible therefore for the Committee to have a note showing the relative proportions of expenditure? —That can be done.* 270. Chairman.—Paragraph 55 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report reads: “The estimated cost of an improvement scheme at Killala Harbour, towards which a contribution of 25 per cent was payable by Mayo County Council, increased from £26,800 in 1969 to £98,000 in 1973. In that year work was suspended because of difficulty in reaching agreement with the County Council on the amount of its contribution towards the cost of further reinforcement works. The overall cost of the project was estimated at £179,500 in August 1975. It was noted by my officers during a stores inspection at these harbour works in 1975 that steel sheet piling to the value of £20,000, approximately, had been ordered by the Office of Public Works and delivered to the site in late 1974. I understand that this material was still on the harbour site in April 1976 and that work on the project had not been resumed.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph deals with expenditure on an improvement scheme at Killala harbour. The Accounting Officer informed me in June last that no progress had been made since the date of this report, July 1976, towards the completion of this project because of the difficulty in reaching agreement with Mayo County Council as regards the amount of their contribution. I understand that the revised estimate for the completion of the scheme is now of the order of £230,000 and that the expenditure incurred when the work was suspended was in excess of £140,000. As this is an ongoing matter I have referred again to it in my report on the Appropriation Accounts for 1976. Deputy V. de Valera.—Here the local authority does come into it. —Very much so. 271. Has the Accounting Officer any more specific remarks to make here? —First, there has not been any real progress since the Comptroller and Auditor General reported in the form of note 55 except that we have had discussions with the Board of Works about the further work which would be necessary to complete this harbour. We have been in touch recently with the Mayo County Manager and we have written asking for a meeting with him and the Mayo authorities. We hope that will take place within the next week or two. We have to resolve the matter of local contribution and then we have to get Finance sanction. Our anxiety in the Department of Fisheries is that this work is incomplete and there is a danger that storm damage to the harbour could result in the work that has been done being brought to naught. We are anxious to have work continue but at the same time we have to deal with the matter of the local contribution and finally we have to put forward a scheme acceptable to the Department of Finance. 272. In effect, it is a refusal of the local authority to co-operate with you in the matter of the increased contribution? —There has been a reluctance on the part of the local authority to put further money into it. 273. Then the local authority must take responsibility for this if anything happens and that should be made known? —To a certain extent this is true but the history of the matter, as one can see from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s note, is most unfortunate. The works were originally estimated to be of relatively minor cost and they have now increased to a projected estimate of £230,000. The cost falling on the local authority, and on State funds, has been considerably increased from the original estimate. The Department is prepared to bear its cost and only 25 per cent was required from the local authority. This Committee will have to point out that local authorities cannot just default and expect the central Exchequer to pay. This should be noted. 274. Deputy Kerrigan.—Has the manner of financing this project changed since the alteration in the rating system and will this mean more money coming from the Exchequer? Chairman.—We may be into an area of policy here. Deputy V. de Valera.—With all due respect, there is something more than policy involved. The policy was obviously deciding to give 25 per cent. The local authority have defaulted and this is causing expenditure to the central administration which is a matter for this Committee. I ask that the matter be resolved. I am also making the comment that it is not right that local authorities should not, if an agreement is made and work undertaken, supply their part of the contract. There may be difficulties and questions of adjustment but as we have it here before us 25 per cent is payable by Mayo County Council and Mayo County Council apparently have defaulted with the result that the work is in jeopardy. In the last resort the bill will come to the taxpayers as a whole. It is certainly a matter for the Committee to take account of. —These are the kind of views we would of course be urging on Mayo County Council. This will be the line we will be pursuing. Chairman.—Perhaps I should declare my interests. I am a member of the local authority referred to. —I was conscious of that. I feel obliged to declare my personal involvement as a member of this local authority. Deputy N. Andrews.—A very legitimate involvement. Deputy V. de Valera.—That is why I tried to take the load off the Chairman. Chairman.—There is indeed a very complex problem involved here. The cost of this operation was originally estimated in 1969 at £26,800 and the projected cost is now of the order of £230,000. The local authority, naturally, are anxious to have these works completed but, because of the enormous escalation in cost and their dissatisfaction with aspects of the scheme already carried out, they are apprehensive about further financial involvement lest they would be throwing good money after bad. This would seem to be the accepted opinion of the local authority. —Of course, one comes to the stage where one wonders whether it is worth throwing good money after bad but at the same time there has been expenditure there to the extent of £140,000. This is made up of about £100,000 in direct expenditure and the balance is, mainly, the cost of the sheet piling which is there on site and is utilisable. It is a question of whether we are going to let that money be wasted and abandon Killala as a harbour completely. 275. Deputy Woods.—In principle an agreement was made to contribute 25 per cent and is it a case now that the works intended, as far as the Department are concerned, will continue and that the people locally are not quite sure about the desirability of continuing? In principle, as far as the extent of the money is concerned, there is obviously an obligation on people locally because they entered into a commitment. When they entered into that commitment they should have made their case by saying, for instance, that the scheme did not look like a good one. Quite often business people will enter into a scheme with somebody and it will look quite good when starting but when one is a little bit along the road it is not quite as good looking as it was. The risks may become higher or other circumstances change, whether it is the international climate or the Government’s behaviour. In a case like that the shares are in from both sides and they are both at risk and at stake. From the public service point of view, there must be some sort of responsibility in relation to that and certainly if it has not been proceeded with yet it is a question of the two partners in the scheme coming to a resolution as to whether the thing goes on or not. The question of contributing the 25 per cent of what is being done would be a burden on the local authority as one of the partners in the scheme. I do not see that one can have reason in any of the arrangements with authorities or bodies otherwise because the question of the responsibility of the decision making lies on a public authority, the same way as it does on an individual or on a company. That is the essence of this situation as far as we are concerned. Deputy N. Andrews.—I think it is appalling that this kind of thing can go on. We apparently have an unresolved dispute between the Department and the local county council and the result is that thousands of pounds worth of material is lying unused on the quayside. I do not know whether this material has been paid for but if it has taxpayers’ money is being wasted. This sheet piling should be put to some productive use. I cannot speak strongly enough about this issue. The Committee should use whatever powers it has to do something about what is happening here. Deputy de Valera, obviously, has more experience in this area than I have. Chairman.—The whole history of this project has been unfortunate from the beginning. I endorse what the Accounting Officer has said that direct contact with the county manager of Mayo County Council is the best approach to ensure that a mutually satisfactory arrangement is arrived at and that work may be completed expeditiously. Any further investment is a matter of policy, of course. 276. Deputy Kerrigan.—Are we not in a position now that the taxpayers’ money is being wasted. Was the study the first day wrong in the estimate of the cost and did that cause all the problems? Deputy V. de Valera.—There is a broader aspect—I do not want to appear to cast general aspersions—but if the habit of mind is adopted that in partnerships of this nature—it is really a partner transaction— in the long run if one defaults, the other is going to carry the can and there could be very serious difficulties. It was from that point that I approached it in the first instance. I agree with Deputy Andrews. As regards the powers of this Committee, this Committee merely reports to the Dáil. The executive arm in these matters is the Department of Finance in regard to supply but it has not any more authority in regard to getting the work done or compelling the local authority than the Accounting Officer. The unfortunate Accounting Officer is now in the middle and taking the rap for everybody. We suggest that this matter be cleared up, particularly in view of the point emphasised by Deputy Andrews and what the Accounting Officer has said. The Chairman has used a significant phrase, “throwing good money after bad”, and the Accounting Officer has pointed out the danger of the expenditure to date being completely wasted through storm action. —In regard to Deputy Andrew’s point about the fact that the taxpayers’ money has been expended, the sheet piling has been paid for. It was bought at a favourable price and it was considered wise to stock it in anticipation that this work would be going ahead. I gather that it is not subject to deterioration, it is not the kind of thing that will waste quickly, but nevertheless, the point made by Deputy Andrews is perfectly valid. The taxpayers’ money has been spent and nothing is being done about it. We are most anxious to have the work completed if some final arrangement can be made with the local authority. I hope that something will come of our meeting with the county manager and the local authority, which will take place within the next week or two. Deputy Woods.—I would be concerned about the element of dual responsibility and the lack of accountability on the local authority’s part in relation to this. If one accepts such a principle, then a local authority or a local group of one sort or another, can participate in the scheme and, if the scheme does not seem to be going well, back out at some stage. If that principle is allowed to pertain, when one comes to analysing the project in the first instance and decides whether to go ahead or not, there could be considerable irresponsibility at the local level about whether one should go ahead or not. There is not this element of accountability subsequently or even shared participation in the accountability. There is a risk very often in these situations. Local knowledge and local experience can be important and it is important that these be brought fully to bear on the proposals at the outset. It is in that sense that the irresponsibility could enter into it, if the accountability is not clearly resting with the people. It is even more important because of what the Deputy has mentioned in relation to the change in the system of the supply of moneys from the local rating authority to the Minister supplying money. With that change one does not want to lose the local accountability and the fact that, out of the lump sum or parcel of money which a local authority receive, there would be accountability for such a project or any other project. In other words, that responsibility still lies to an extent locally. That is a very important principle and even more important because of the way in which the funding will be changing. 277. Chairman.—On this specific issue, the problem as I see it is a matter for the Accounting Officer to resolve. The principle is one thing but in absolute money terms, due to escalating costs—we have an initial cost of £26,800—we are now talking of a sum of £230,000. In absolute money terms the input by the local authority here will, naturally, on the basis of a percentage, be much greater than anticipated by them and anticipated with agreement at the time by the other parties involved. I think the reservations of the local authority, must be acknowledged. It is a question of trying to come to an equitable arrangement based on some figure? —The cost estimate was £102,500. The present cost estimate is £225,000. It is a huge increase. One must sympathise to some extent with the position of the local authority in this kind of a transaction. Is that completely due to delays? —The scope of the work has changed completely from the original scheme. 278. Deputy N. Andrews.—I wonder if instructing the county manager would have done any good? Deputy Woods.—That is the problem: the county manager can do very little. We are wasting our time—we are virtually impotent to do anything about it, or are we? I do not think we should be wasting our time. It is the public purse that is paying and nothing can be done out of the public purse without accountability and responsibility. Ultimately, that principle must be built in, and if there are cases in which this has not applied it is the responsibility of the Oireachtas to ensure that this cannot happen in the future and to so alter the arrangements. Deputy N. Andrews.—I wonder what sort of agreement was arrived at with the council in the first place. I am sure the Accounting Officer came to some agreement with the local authority, and there are obligations on both sides. Is not this the weakness in the line? Chairman.—As I said earlier, I am familiar with this as a member of the local authority, and I should like to point out that the initial cost mentioned by the Accounting Officer—— —I should like to correct the figures which I quoted earlier to the Committee. 279. The initial cost of the scheme was £26,800 of which Mayo County Council were responsible for a 25 per cent contribution, but due to unforeseen engineering difficulties what appeared to be a relatively minor improvement scheme has now taken on the proprotions, particularly the financial proportions, of a major scheme. The estimate now is approaching the £¼ million mark? —The original scheme was costed at £26,800 in 1969. The estimate of £102,500 which I quoted earlier was an estimate made at the end of 1973. Now it is £225,000. The difficulty of the site conditions at Killala only emerged as the work went on. Marine works are notoriously subject to difficulties of estimation. That happens all the time. There were particular problems with this work which only became apparent as the work progressed. Deputy Kerrigan.—I can appreciate the county council’s position in this matter. It is not the first time a council have come up against a situation where the local contribution has been increased by thousands of pounds because of some unforeseen circumstances, but in such cases somebody should be in a position to make a decision. 280. Chairman.—Is the piling still on the site, or has it been used? —It is still on site, unused. 281. Deputy Kerrigan.—On Subhead C.1. why is it so difficult to get suitable people for training? —In regard to the training scheme for boys, to train them as deckhands, we are now getting the required numbers and that scheme is going quite well. We have never had full success in the training scheme for skippers. There has been reluctance on the part of fishermen to give up their normal pursuits and to take this additional training. We have been discussing the schemes, particularly in relation to skippers, with BIM and there may be some changes. Chairman.—That completes this Vote. Thank you, Mr. Duggan, for your co-operation. The witness withdrew. VOTE 37—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.Mr. L. Tóibín called and examined.282. Chairman.—Paragraph 45 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads: “Subhead D.—Tithe Gaeltachta Reference was made in previous reports to the decision of Roinn na Gaeltachta, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, to increase certain grants above the statutory limits in anticipation of amending legislation. The increases were effective from 1 June 1972 in the case of improvement grants and 1 January 1973 in other cases. The legislation to validate the increased grants has not yet been enacted.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The need for amending legislation to validate the payment of Gaeltacht housing grants in excess of the statutory limits has been stressed by the Committee in recent reports. The Accounting Officer informed the Committee in 1976 that the necessary legislation was ready but that there was a difficulty about arranging to have it brought before Dáil Éireann. In his Minute on the Committee’s latest report the Minister for Finance stated that the matter was being taken up by his Department with Roinn na Gaeltachta. 283. Deputy V. de Valera.—What is the present position? —There is no change in the position. The Bill has not yet been introduced but I sincerely hope it will have been enacted before I appear here again. You are aware of the difficulty the Committee have had with this matter? —I fully accept the Committee’s point of view. There is the importance of the control of the Department of Finance in this matter? —Yes. 284. Chairman.—I should like to comment briefly on the fact that the statutory limits were exceeded in relation to payments of housing grants. The question of validation of payments by specific legislation, as distinct from relying on the annual Appropriation Act, has been considered at great length by previous Committees. The present Committee is ad idem on this issue. The Minister for Finance, in his Minute on the Committee’s Report for 1974, fully endorses the view of the Committee. The Committee must look on this as one of its obligations to insist on compliance that this important principle is adhered to. The situation has not yet been rectified? —It has not, but I hope it will be rectified before I appear here again. 285. Deputy V. de Valera.—This instance has not been rectified at all but there has been no repetition, or has there? —There has. Grants were increased again last year. 286. Has financial sanction to be obtained for this? Has financial sanction to be formally granted before these grants are given? —They are in the same position as the grants previously increased. 287. I am asking a very simple question, is it necessary to apply to the Department of Finance for financial sanction and to have it before payment is made on foot of these grants? —Yes. I thought the Deputy was referring to Dáil sanction. Then it is back to the question as to why the Department of Finance will make these advances in spite of the continuing situation and in view of the resolution of the subject as we have had it before. We appreciate transition problems but I want to make the point that this cannot be allowed to continue and that one would expect the Department of Finance to bring the matter to a head by withholding sanction. They are quick enough to withhold sanction in other cases. —Of course, it was the Government’s decision to increase the grants and I do not think that, when it is a Government decision, the Minister for Finance alone—— 288. Accounting Officers, and the Department of Finance, have certain statutory responsibilities in the scheme of things. If this matter continues we will have no alternative but to bring this thing to a plenary session of the Dáil. It is a very serious matter and the Committee did not accept before, and it is very difficult to accept now, the suggestion that amending legislation is not available. Can it be done, even if it is an ad hoc Bill to regularise the situation? Deputy Woods.—In the practice of business one can understand the matter arising on an occasion but to say that it was still continuing at that stage in 1977 without the legislation to validate the increased grants or that kind of an arrangement is not a tenable position at all. Chairman.—I presume the Accounting Officer is in agreement with the principles adopted by the Committee? —Yes. 289. In the absence of amending legislation do you envisage the situation continuing indefinitely? Obviously, you have no control over legislation. —That is the difficulty. The unsatisfactory position will continue indefinitely? —I hope the Bill will be introduced very soon. In the absence of a Bill being introduced? Deputy V. de Valera.—I am sceptical about the excuse that legislation is not forthcoming. It is certainly not a question of Dáil time. Bills are prepared by Departments. General ministerial decisions are given. It is all right to hide behind the Minister up to a point but if the legislation was ready for the Minister to put before the Dáil I find it hard to believe that there would be undue delay, taking into account what is rushed through the House. —I feel I should reply to that. The legislation in this case was ready years ago. Then why has it not been brought forward? Chairman.—We are bordering on policy. While I appreciate that there is a problem confronting the Accounting Officer it is a serious one and one which cannot be allowed to continue. The strong attitude adopted by this Committee will possibly become even stronger unless something is done to rectify the position. 290. Deputy V. de Valera.—I have sympathy with the Accounting Officer, but the Accounting Officer under the 1866 Act, and all the others, is an entity with particular responsibilities. It raises the question as to whether an Accounting Officer should take the initiative in paying out these moneys without the authority. This also raises the question that if he does, whether the Department of Finance are behaving properly in automatically giving sanction in a case like this. I pose this question: what is the status of an Accounting Officer and what are his accounting duties, quite apart from policy? He should not spend money or seek to spend money without the necessary proper authority and a ministerial say-so is not sufficient authority. Neither is the sanction of the Department of Finance if it is not properly backed. There are three steps involved in this. Is the authority there for the Accounting Officer to justify him making the requisition? Is the authority there to justify the Department of Finance giving the requisite sanction and if the authority is not there is it sufficient for the responsible officers concerned, the Accounting Officer in question and the Accounting Officer in the Department of Finance, in his capacity as overlord, to plead policy in that case or to acquiesce without some form of action on his part to place the responsibility where it belongs if the matter is not regularised? I make this point strongly because in the term of office of two Governments it would appear that the matter has not been regularised as yet and payments in excess of statutory authority are being made and the case is being made that the legislation is not being brought before us. I make these points more in the nature of questions for serious consideration. It raises, in another form, the whole question of efficient functioning of the mechanisms provided by the 1866 and 1921 Acts which depend essentially on the responsibility of Accounting Officers as statutorily recognised entities who have been known to be surcharged if they exceeded their authority. Secondly, there is the responsibility of the corresponding officer in the Department of Finance, who is responsible for giving the sanction. The third is that if this is not adhered to the whole functioning of this Committee becomes a farce. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s reports are in effect virtually ignored; the Department of Finance are unable to exercise their executive role, and they are the people who do things, because this Committee have no power to do anything except to move the Dáil to do something very extraordinary which I think would be unprecedented. Indeed the Committee are wasting their time talking about these things. I put these matters by no means without understanding the position of the Accounting Officer and the Department of Finance who are, I am quite satisfied, as anxious as the Committee to set matters right. I should like to say finally that the differentiation between accounting responsibility and proper accounting authority as would happen in an outside business firm in respect of policy or management direction should be studied to see where the fault lies in the overlapping in these matters of accounting procedures. —Do you expect me to comment? No. What I have been saying has not been in the nature of asking a question. It was comment on the part of a member of the Committee. —I should like to make just one point. Over a number of years the general authority of the Appropriation Act was regarded as sufficient. Even though this has been going on for years, it was only recently that it has been accepted as not sufficient to rely on the Appropriation Act. I have noted the Committee’s view at all times but the point was being disputed. The Committee were right, of course. This has been happily amicably resolved and we do not wish to reopen it. As we said at the beginning, the past instances are not worrying us. Everything was cleared with the last Finance Minute. However, we are concerned about the continuance of the abuse and are anxious that it be amended as quickly as possible. Chairman.—We appreciate the difficulty of the Accounting Officer. Hopefully, the matter will be rectified in the not too distant future. Deputy N. Andrews.—There is a message for us all in this. Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Tóibín The witness withdrew. VOTE 46—FOREIGN AFFAIRS.Mr. R. McDonagh called and examined.291. Chairman.—I should like to put a general question. What control do you exercise over expenditure of grants-in-aid? There are two in this Vote. —Cultural relations is one of them. There is very tight control on that grant-in-aid because the recommendation for each proposed item of expenditure must be approved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The other grant-in-aid—grants to these bodies in Ireland for the furtherance of international relations—is based on submissions made to us by these bodies about their financial positions. The sums are not very large in relation to the Vote as a whole. For example, the general basis for the payment to the Irish Council of the European Movement is based on information received from them about their debts and about their plans for the future. I believe that grant now stands at £2,500. In the case of the other body concerned, the United Nations Association, the grant is even smaller, it is only £500. Of course, both bodies submit their accounts to us. 292. Deputy Woods.—On subhead B.— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—I assume that the nature of the expenditure was on travelling expenses. There is a fairly substantial amount less than granted but I presume that that is, as the note states, difficult to estimate. Could the Accounting Officer enlarge on that please? —It is difficult to foresee what travel is involved, and it is therefore very difficult to estimate accurately. In the year in question we were experiencing for the first time a very big factor, our Presidency of the EEC, which involved us in an enormous amount of travel. There were other factors such as international conferences, for example, the Conference on European Security, the conference on energy and raw materials, and the producer and consumer conference. We found it very hard to estimate expenditure with any accuracy. Then of course the value of the £ was swinging adversely during the year. It was a bad year for the £ and there was inflation generally. I am sure the Accounting Officer understands that it is more than one would find in other Votes generally but the explanations are interesting and, obviously, very logical. I suppose when there is something like the period of the Presidency it is difficult to know how much we are going to be involved in in advance and it is important to make sufficient allocations. —Especially when it is the first time. The second time it might be easier. VOTE 47—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.Mr. R. McDonagh further examined.293. Chairman.—The absence of any comment by the Comptroller and Auditor General is a favourable reflection in itself of the accounting procedures adopted by the Accounting Officer. I want to thank you Mr. McDonagh for your co-operation. Have you any comment to make? —I am very grateful to you for those kind remarks. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
