I move:—
"That in the opinion of the Seanad the time is now opportune for the appointment by the Government of a Committee of experts to examine and report upon the question of introducing an improved system of public accountancy as requested by unanimous resolution of this House on 28th November, 1923."
I am going to confine my remarks mainly to justifying this necessity which, I think, cannot be very obvious or clear to the Government inasmuch as they allowed this matter to remain in abeyance for so long. I might also remind the Minister that he gave an assurance to this House—I have not the Official Report by me, but I think it was on the Appropriation Bill—that the matter was receiving his consideration, and that action might within a reasonable time be expected. I do not confine myself to these as his exact words, but he said he was going to do something in the matter. As far as one with no inside knowledge can see, nothing has been done. We all think our own subjects are more important than other subjects. It strikes me this is a dull matter, but one of infinite importance in regard to all control of Government expenditure which is engaging so much attention at the present time, which must continue to engage attention and on which, moreover, the Minister must carry public opinion if he is going to do any real good. Public opinion must be enlightened and must be able to inform itself on those questions of public finance and my case is it cannot inform itself. There have been some unfortunate and erroneous statements made in public lately and they are justified by the fact that it is so hard to find out facts for oneself. Everything is obscure and public opinion is so misled by confusing figures that I defy any intelligent and diligent student of public finance really to know what is happening in detail. He sees general estimates, totals. The totals are not sufficient for criticism. If you are going to examine expenditure in detail you must have detailed figures. I submit that our detailed figures are most misleading and it is not fair to the public that they should be so misled when the Government really, by very simple changes, can make the matter much clearer. I take this recently issued publication, "The Finance Accounts of the Saorstát," I would first of all point out that these are issued under the Statute of 1854. Of that I will read the operative words: "shall, in each year, cause such accounts to be laid before both Houses of Parliament on or before the 30th day of June if Parliament be sitting, or if Parliament be not sitting, within 14 days after the next meeting of Parliament." These accounts did not appear until some day in December, about six months late. They contain most important information, confused though it may be. Any student of our public finances should have that information promptly and there is no reason for exceeding that statutory period in which this document should be produced by six months. I say there is no justification because these are practically all figures that must be available at the end of the financial year. They are merely totals. As far as I can see, there is no additional work on them at all. They are merely totals on which the Minister must frame his estimate for the current year and it seems to be due to nothing but laxity on the part of the finance branch that this publication should be so much delayed. When we come to examine this publication I would like to justify my statement that the accounts are confusing. You see under the heading of receipts that the Post Office receipts would amount practically to two millions. On the other side, you see the Post Office costing the sum of two and a half millions approximately. Why cannot the Minister in the case of these accounts keep the Post Office quite separate and only bring into the statement of receipts and issues the net deficit or surplus of our Post Office? It would be far clearer, and one would see in that case that there was a loss on the Post Office or a profit, as the case may be. I wish to draw the attention of the House to Account No. 23, which is called "A statement showing the application of the balances of grants of ways and means remaining un-issued on the 1st of April, and of the grants for the year 1922-23." This is a very peculiar account. I have gone through those accounts up to 21, and I think I am right in saying that they represent cash transactions. That is the basis of our Government accounts, —cash transactions,. Every one of those previous entries represents a cash figure, but when you come to Account No. 23 you get into a different region of accounting for the only and almost first time; that is credits.
It is almost impossible for anybody who has not a very intimate knowledge of what this means, to understand it at all. I personally do not profess to understand it in its entirety. I see that a totally different aspect of accounting is introduced here, with no explanation of the method under which the Exchequer puts the Ways and Means Account, or whatever the technical term is, into funds by the creation of certain credits. On those credits departments draw and unexpended balances are "written off," a term I have never seen used before— it is generally "surrendered." Anyhow, whatever it may be, none of them represents cash at all. They represent a special credit account, and anybody who examines that account in the light of all other previous accounts will be most confused as to what is intended. I do not wish to go outside the question of accounting except to say that an examination of these accounts reveals a very large measure of over-estimating, which, I have no doubt, the Minister can, with some justification, plead is due to the difficulties of the times and the uncertain state of policy generally.
There is one other point within that account which also calls for explanation: that is how the issues have been made in the year 1923-24 out of 1922-23 surpluses. I understood that all surpluses remaining over at the end of the financial year were surrendered automatically, by law. In this case there appears to have been certain issues made out of unexpended balances, issues of £11,000.
We come to another most confusing account, No. 27. It is an account purporting to show the capital liabilities and assets of the State. In assets there is no item included for local loans, which is an illustration of how imperfect and confusing the thing is. Local loans are assets, and should appear as such. The local authorities are liable, and in due course the loans will be repaid. Surely such a figure is an asset. Similarly all Government buildings, stores, and capital expenditure of a realisable nature, are assets. Under our present system of crudely dealing with cash items, they do not come within our purview. I am going in a minute to deal with the expenditure aspect of our accountancy.
There has been considerable public interest taken in this question of land purchase annuities, and I defy anybody, however diligent and experienced he may be, to trace the sequence of these land purchase annuities through these various figures. The conclusions appear clearly in the Miscellaneous Revenue. That, I submit, in the first place, is misleading, or rather lacking in lucidity. A sum of four million pounds odd is called miscellaneous. That includes two millions paid by the British Government towards their share of compensation, and it includes one and a quarter millions approximately for land purchase annuities. If these accounts are to be clear, large sums like that should be set out separately and not lumped up as Miscellaneous Revenue—although in Account 13 details are given. But the Post Office has a special heading of its own. Small sums for Excess Profits Tax have a separate heading. These much bigger sums should also be separately set out if lucidity is to be the purpose and aim of the Government. With regard to the expenditure and the payment to the Land Commission, that is where the difficulty arises. When you look under Supply Services you see that under Vote 60 a sum of a million and a quarter approximately has been issued out of a total grant of three millions. That would certainly confuse anybody, that a grant of three millions was made for Land Commission annuities of which only one million odd was drawn upon. Then seeking other information with regard to Land Commission annuities, one finds that the Government issued a statement, through their Publicity Department, in which the following occurred: "Also, contrary to Mr. Dillon's statement, the payment to the British Government in respect of Land Commission annuities is included in the expenditure side of the Exchequer statement under the head Supply Services." That is to say, what I have referred to. Then it goes on to say: "This is readily ascertainable by reference to the published volume of detailed estimates"—a totally different book, of course, from the expenditure volume where provision for the payment is shown as a distinct sub-head to the Vote for local loans. I have examined these votes for local loans and they certainly do not, as far as I can see, include any item specifically set out as Land Commission annuities. Further, it is not possible by implication, to discover that they include Land Commission annuities at all, because they do not include a sum large enough. One million was paid for Land Commission annuities. This estimate only includes repayment to the British Government of sums due in respect of loans from the British Local Loans Fund outstanding from the office of Public Works on 1st April, 1922. Looking at another subhead we find: "Repayment to British Government in respect of loans from the British Local Loans Fund (Land Law Ireland Acts, 1881-1888) outstanding from the Irish Land Commission on 1st April, 1923." That amounts to an annual sum of £210,000.
The Land Commission annuities run to well over £1,000,000. Obviously the Local Loans Fund does not include anything for Land Commission annuities in the year 1924-25. If I take the year previous I find the same thing. The Local Loans Fund represents quite a small sum. Repayments to the British Government, as the sum due in respect of local loans outstanding, is down as a £1,000,000. If that includes Land Commission annuities, surely it should be distinctly stated. Local loans outstanding are not Land Commission annuities, and no intelligent person could be asked to assume that they are. If they are, it should be so stated. On that I base my case that the accounts are not clear. Further, I say that these points I have dealt with here do not necessitate any committee of experts or special investigation at all. They could be done straight away by an order in the Minister's own Department, merely by grouping these things in a manner so that they can be more readily understood. This point, surely, cannot be controversial.
I now approach the other question which, of course, is a much bigger one: the arrangement of our expenditure of accounts on a basis which will show the true cost of each Department and which, when sub-divided, will conform with spheres of responsibility. Take the common case of the Army. We are spending, roughly, ten millions a year on the Army.
