Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Jul 1925

Vol. 12 No. 20

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:—

"That the Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts, dated 19th December, 1924, and April 2nd, 1925, which have been printed and circulated, be now considered."

In the early stages of the part that began in January this year of this Session, there was an understanding that an opportunity would be provided during the Session for discussing the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts. The opportunity has not occurred until now. It was hoped that the comments expected to be made and submitted by the Ministry of Finance would have been made available before the adjournment. But, by what I may call a misfortune, the Department of Finance have not yet prepared or circulated any comment of that kind. We have, therefore, to proceed without any knowledge of the views of the Department of Finance upon the Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts. It has been well said in this House that the work of the Committee of Public Accounts does provide a practical object lesson in the working of Parliamentary institutions, and the real check by which a democracy can influence public administration. I think that any Deputy who has time or opportunity or inclination to read any portion of the evidence contained in the volume which has been circulated will realise that there is a great deal to be said for that view.

Perhaps it is no harm to remind the Dáil of the course of procedure by which the Dáil does maintain some kind of control over public expenditure. We have recently gone through an examination and discussion of the Estimates. And, in fact, it is only to-day that we passed the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is the method whereby the Department of Finance may raise money to be expended in a certain direction, that direction being contained in the Appropriation Act, after discussion of the Estimates. It remains for some one to be satisfied that the expenditure of the money raised by taxation has been according to law and according to the directions of the Oireachtas. As expenditure proceeds, accounts are presented and the Comptroller and Auditor-General and his staff make current and final examination and make a report at the end of the examination and audit to the Dáil on the Appropriation Accounts.

The account for the year 1922-1923 was submitted with the Auditor-General's report in March, 1924. There was, as is well known, a delay in the preparation of that report, owing to the circumstances of the time. The report has received a certain amount of attention. The Committee of Public Accounts, which inquired into the report of the Auditor-General for the year 1922-3, beginning in April last, met, I think, on about fifty occasions and examined these accounts, particularly the accounts to which attention was directed by the Auditor-General. The important point that I want to make is that it is the privilege and responsibility of that Committee to call before it for examination, and to answer any questions, the Accounting Officers responsible for the expenditure of the money under the different Departments of State. These particular officers are not merely formally responsible, but, in fact, responsible to the Dáil, acting by the Committee of Public Accounts, for the proper expenditure of the moneys committed to their care. The report of the Committee of Public Accounts is a report to the Dáil. It is a practical necessity that the report of the Auditor-General should be examined by a Committee of the Dáil rather than by the Dáil itself. As I say, it is a practical necessity, and one which makes it desirable that that Committee should be representative of the House as a whole. It has become the practice that the Chairman of that Committee shall be one who is not a supporter of the Government of the day. I am drawing attention to this, because it provides, I suggest, a real check. While it may seem to be somewhat belated, the very fact that there is such an examination imposes, throughout the Civil Service, a very salutary check. Every officer in the Civil Service realises his position. He has a definite sense of responsibility and he has the knowledge that he may be called to account for any faulty administration. In that way the Committee's investigations have a valuable disciplinary effect. That, at least, is the experience, after a good many years, of Great Britain. I think it is recognised by those who have experience of the Civil Service in this country to be very valuable also.

The report for the year 1922-3, which we are now dealing with, would seem to have been of a very voluminous kind, and the Committee would seem to have gone into very much detail— much more than, I think, will be required in future years. There are several reasons for that. One reason is that the Committee itself was entirely new to the procedure, and had to learn as it went along, what were its duties and responsibilities. The second reason was that the whole administration was new to its work and that even some responsible officers had not previous experience of the requirements of the public service and, consequently, did not maintain a proper grip upon the expenditure of public moneys. Then, further, and perhaps more important, as a cause of the prolonged examination, was the fact that the period in question was one of very great trouble in the country. A great deal of money was expended without a recognition of what the public services demanded. It will be seen by Deputies that in this volume there is a memorandum on the general financial procedure, and there are appendices, some of which deal with financial procedure and the general work of administration on the financial side. I think it may be said that that volume would provide a few hours light reading during the holidays for any Deputy interested enough. I am quite certain that a good deal of trouble next Session would be saved to the Departmental officers and the Ministers if the main lines in respect of procedure and departmental responsibility were understood, as explained by the Departmental officers in the course of the evidence given.

As I said, the fact that we were all new to the business, led to a good deal of detailed inquiry, which, it is to be hoped, will not be necessary another year. In the course of the Auditor-General's report and in the course of the evidence contained in this volume, there will be found a great deal of criticism of the administration. Very much is said which could be used to the detriment of the country, the Government of the country and the general administration, and I have no doubt it has been so used, and will be used again in many cases, perhaps unfairly, and in other cases quite fairly.

But I want to point out, to forestall criticism and comment, perhaps, on what I may have to say later, that the very fact that this examination takes place, that it is part of the normal procedure, and that the examination takes place in such a way that it is reported verbatim, is recognition of this, that normally and as a matter of regularity the public service on the financial side is well administered, and is expected to be well administered, and those responsible have faith in that administration being honest and fair. I think, as I say, I may forestall criticism by saying that if every other body in the country claiming power and responsibility were able to say: "We will submit our accounts to the same kind of criticism at the hands of our political opponents and will allow these political opponents to demand the appearance of witnesses and to call for papers," they would then have the right to utter criticism of the work of these departments. That I put forward as a kind of challenge to those who may be said, not unfairly, to be malicious critics, those who merely pick out details of maladministration and set them up as typical.

It will be seen that these second and third reports—the first was quite an ordinary one, dealing with a small matter which was disposed of without any difficulty—contain recommendations. I do not propose to go through the various items seriatim—there are Deputies, no doubt, who will desire to call special attention to particular paragraphs—but there are two or three paragraphs in the second report to which I think it necessary to direct special attention. In paragraph 7 attention is drawn to the fact that certain moneys which were expended by the State, but which were not moneys voted by the Dáil in the formal way that has been followed since the establishment of a Constitution, must be taken into account, and though they have been expended by Departments of State they have not been examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The accounts of the expenditure from the Dáil Eireann Loans Funds for the period from January to June, 1922, were presented to the Dáil in, I think, September, 1922, but between that date and the merging of the Dáil funds with the Central Fund there has been no accounting to the Dáil of the expenditure and no examination of that expenditure by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It is recommended by the Committee that authority should be given to them to examine those funds and accounts, if for no other reason than to establish the principle of continuity. Then in paragraph 8 reference is directed to the fact that moneys were expended by the Provisional Government from what was known as the Local Taxation Adjustment Fund. These have not been examined in a formal way by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, because they were not voted moneys, and the Committee desires that authority should be given to have these accounts audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and presented to the Dáil, and that the usual procedure with regard to voted moneys should be followed.

I said that there was a certain actual and real responsibility on the part of the accounting officers, and I want to emphasise that by referring to paragraphs 30 and 32 of the second report, from which it will be seen that the Committee recommends that certain expenditure, comparatively small in amount, should be disallowed. In one case it is a sum of four guineas, being an overpayment to a certain typing staff of the Ministry of Local Government, and in the other case it is an overpayment of the sum of £16 6s. 6d. in respect of a part-time teacher attached to the School of Art. I do not propose to examine the evidence or the reasons why the Committee recommends that these payments should be disallowed, but if it is the will of the Dáil that the recommendations of the Committee, which coincide with the decision of the Ministry of Finance, should prevail, the effect will be that the officers of the departments concerned will be obliged to pay over these moneys themselves. So that there is in fact a personal financial responsibility for the correct administration of the funds as well as a moral responsibility.

I want also to draw attention to paragraph 6 of the report and the appendix to the report referred to in the paragraph. Certain sums of money were voted and expended under departmental heads, but it appeared from the report of the Auditor-General and the accounts, as presented, that in addition to the sums voted and allocated to the various departments a sum of £212,442 was expended from Dáil Eireann funds for the year ended 31st March, 1923. Some of this expenditure was not allocated to specific departmental accounts, but it is necessary for the purpose of comparison of one year's account with another that the Dáil should understand that this sum of £212,000 was spent in different departments in addition to the sums voted by the Dáil. I have said that in his report the Comptroller and Auditor-General drew attention to a good many faults of accounting, a good many items of unauthorised expenditure, and in many cases expenditure which was beyond the authority of the officials, but that in the greater part such expenditure was explainable by the conditions of the time. That applied more particularly to new departments, and the Committee was prepared to support the view of the Department of Finance that in the great majority of cases the expenditure, though it was irregular, should be finally sanctioned in the faith that such wrongful expenditure could not be repeated. The final report of the Committee makes special reference to the faults in expenditure and accounting in respect of the Army and Army accounts. The Committee's view was clearly that a great deal of the expenditure in connection with the Army was quite unjustifiable and indefensible in the manner of its spending, but that circumstances of the time may have justified or at least excused the method.

We reported that the circumstances attending the transformation of the Irish Republican Army into the National Army and the preoccupation of the Provisional Government and the heads of the Army with other more urgent and serious matters arising out of these divisions of the Army into rival conflicting sections might have prevented attention being given to the necessity for a proper accounting system, and the Committee has, I think, fairly and reasonably, taken all these factors into account, and has overlooked much that might in other circumstances have been very strongly commented upon, and which could not but for those circumstances have been justified in any way. We came to the conclusion that in place of a proper accounting system and a proper check it had to be left to the honour of the officers concerned in buying and in the distribution of purchases, and it had also to be left to the honour of the traders who were supplying the goods, and we recognised that probably no other course was left open to the authorities responsible. It is the view of the Committee, however, that faults occurred and that in too many cases the trading public took advantage of the lack of experience of the purchasing officers of the Army and, in too many cases, grossly overcharged. The fact that the purchases were made and delivered, and that prices were fixed, made it necessary in most cases that the accounts should be paid notwithstanding the fact that it was believed that overcharges took place. If we refer to paragraph 3 of the final report, it will be seen that reference is made to the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report regarding the amount of unvouched expenditure and expenditure only partly vouched amounting to a sum of £128,000, but that sanction had been given by the Ministry of Finance that this sum should be charged to the Appropriation Accounts. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this led to a considerable amount of public comment. The Committee made a close examination of the facts referred to in paragraph 35 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report. We came to the conclusion, however, that with respect to by far the greater portion of this sum—£100,000 of it—the references to unvouched expenditure had to deal with the pay of soldiers, and that the Committee were satisfied that the money was, in fact, expended in the way prescribed, the fault being that no vouching was made and no receipts could be produced. The circumstances explaining that absence of vouching were examined and the explanation will be found in the evidence. The Committee, having made a very close inquiry, came to the conclusion that it was justifiable on the part of the Ministry of Finance to sanction this expenditure. I think it is necessary to draw special attention to that because of the comments that were made on this large amount of unvouched expenditure.

If we refer to paragraph 4 of the final report it will be seen that special attention is drawn to an agreement that was entered upon with respect to the purchase of cattle and sheep for killing in the abbatoirs at the Curragh and in Dublin and that special arrangements were made by the Quartermaster-General to pay a commission of 10/- per head for cattle. The Committee came to the conclusion that there was lax supervision in the Quartermaster-General's department which allowed an agreement to be made at such a high rate of commission. While saying that I want to draw attention to the evidence and particularly to the comments made, in respect of this item and to other matters which I shall refer to, by the ex-Chief of Staff who was Quartermaster-General, which all appear in the minutes of evidence.

Paragraph 45 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report goes into some detail in respect of purchases made amounting to a total of £275,000 from a single firm of suppliers to the Army. The observations of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in respect of this were very closely examined and the Committee's final considered view of the matter was that sufficient care was not exercised by the authorities to ensure either that the goods supplied were required or that the prices charged were reasonable. I must direct special attention to the fact that during this period the Army was a financial law unto itself. There was no control by the Finance Ministry. The Finance Ministry was not set up until April, that is at the beginning of the year in question. The Army had been running on the old lines and continued to run on the old lines, having had allocated to it a certain sum of money and was spending that sum of money under its own authority and without any outside check. Even the check that was provided later in the year by the appointment of an Army Accounting Officer was not apparent in the early stages of the National Army's existence. Speaking for myself it appears that the buying power was rather too much for the persons responsible and they did not realise the necessity for putting a check upon their command of material through the possession of money. It was the view of the Army authorities apparently that they had to prepare for the equipping of an army for any possibilities and from the beginning of the National Army it appears that authority was given to the trading firm in question to supply an almost infinite variety of goods. It is said on behalf of the Army authorities that no purchases were practically made without prices having been quoted and samples in some cases being shown. But I am obliged to make the comment that there was a very generous interpretation on the part of the buying authority of their powers and privileges. The view of the Committee was that in so far as this particular account was concerned that however justifiable or unjustifiable the expenditure may have been, the terms of purchase and the conditions under which contracts, if they were contracts, had been made were such as to leave no option but to allow the expenditure as finally sanctioned by the Department of Finance.

I think, perhaps, I should draw attention to one or two of the items to which attention was directed to show the justice of the Committee's comments and the reason which animated the Comptroller and Auditor-General when he made his references to the account. In July, 1922, it will be remembered that the Army had not only just begun its career as a National Army, had taken possession of barracks and was organising itself, but it also entered into a period of strife and civil war.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think it was at this time that the headquarters of the Army thought it necessary to set about furnishing quarters, and I think it will be seen, if one turns to page 407 and onwards in this report, that there was not exactly a Spartan view of the position of the officers in the National Army at that time.

I will not detail the items. Deputies have the report before them, and the appendix contains the particulars of expenditure on furnishings. I want to emphasise the fact that in furnishing officers' quarters it was the view of the Committee that necessary expenditure was justifiable and allowable expenditure for ordinary service conditions, but that it was unjustifiable to consider that the elaborate furnishings indicated in these reports were justified in addition to the officer's pay.

To illustrate the point respecting the large sum of £275,000 expended in the purchase of miscellaneous stores with what we believe to have been a looseness and absence of check, I will just refer to page 290. It can hardly be sad that any responsible officer of the Army, after a sample was shown, would order 12 tea sets at £7 14s. per set, each set containing only four items, or six tea sets, each set containing three items, at the price of £5 4s. 6d. My comment in respect to that is that the Army authorities did not order them, but that they were received from the firm in question, signed for, finally approved by the Army authorities, and eventually taken in; but there was no valid check, and consequently very much money was spent out of State funds in this line which ought not to have been spent. The absence of the memoranda which would in the ordinary course, and will no doubt eventually be produced by the Ministry of Finance, commenting upon these reports, makes it somewhat difficult to understand the point of view of the Army and of the Ministry of Finance.

I want now to direct special attention to the paragraph 8 in the last two pages, pages 3 and 4, of the Final Report. I direct special attention to this, because the Ministry of Finance and the Executive Council, as a whole, are even more intimately affected by that item than in respect to other items. Though it is true that the purchase occurred about the same time, the settlement of the account did not take place until very recently, January of this year, and apparently under the direction of the Executive Council. The paragraph in question refers to the purchase of chemicals and arms. It appears that even prior to the setting up of the National Army a certain firm in London had been supplying chemicals, chloride of potash, barium nitrate, and D.N.T., and possibly other items also. From June onwards it appears that orders were given to this firm to supply chemicals in considerable quantities. Records have been submitted showing that up to the end of April, 1923, 32 tons 1 cwt. of chloride of potash, 11 tons 5 cwt. of barium nitrate, and 38 tons 16 cwt. of D.N.T. were delivered in Dublin. In addition to that, 11 tons 4 cwt. of chloride of potash, 9 tons of barium nitrate, and 5 tons 8 cwt. of D.N.T. were charged to the Army but remained in store in London.

The important consideration in respect of these chemicals is that the prices were all uniform at 56/- per cwt., or £56 per ton. Notwithstanding that the deliveries took place over a series of months, there was no change in the price. The prices were stable, though it is a fact that the market quotations in respect to chloride of potash fell to £28 per ton, or 28/- per cwt. We have not been able to ascertain the ruling market price of barium nitrate or D.N.T., but it is noticed that the price as invoiced for D.N.T. was at the rate of 2/- per lb. even when a consignment weighing as much as 11 tons was invoiced. Neither the Army authorities nor the Ministry of Finance have been able to give any evidence that any price was arranged or fixed, or that anybody knew what the price ought to be. No question appears to have been raised when a settlement took place as to whether the price charged was a fair price or a reasonable price. The Committee's view is if no price was fixed then attention should have been paid in making the settlement to what was a fair and reasonable price. No such questions appear to have been asked and a settlement was made without reference to a price.

Then the same firm was concerned with the sale to the Army of arms. It appears that 10,000 rifles were the subject of a purchase or of negotiations for a purchase. Orders were given apparently by the Chief of Staff for these rifles and authority appears to have been given to pay a deposit to a negotiating firm of £2,250. This £2,250 was paid over by the firm which eventually came under our review, the firm known as Senior Crozier & Co. It was a firm professing to be engaged in the sale of chemicals; that appears to have been their normal business. This firm here, of Senior Crozier & Co., was engaged in the sale of arms, and they had negotiations with another firm to whom they paid a sum of £2,250 as a deposit for ten thousand rifles received by that firm for the sole purpose of enabling them literally "to secure a definite option on them, (the rifles) from the Disposals Board." The rifles were never delivered. The Army was anxious to obtain them, but some reason or other prevented delivery of the rifles.

The Army being anxious to obtain the rifles and the money having been deposited by the firm who wanted to sell the rifles to the Government, one would have imagined that when the contract for the delivery of the rifles was not fulfilled, any loss that would be occasioned would be borne by the firm which failed to deliver, but it appears in the settlement the Government made that they accepted responsibility for the loss of £2,250, on account of rifles which they were always ready to receive, but which for some reason not disclosed, they were not able to obtain possession of. An important consideration arises in connection with this, inasmuch as that, in making a settlement, although the Government had legal advice, apparently, and a solicitor attending the settlement in London, no proof was called for that this sum of £2,250 had been, in fact, paid to anyone. The receipt was not in possession of the firm who was making the claim. It was not produced for the evidence of the Government or their solicitor, and apparently only the word of the claimant was called for or relied upon to satisfy the Ministry that this sum of £2,250 had been paid. But even if it were by any chance regarded as a Government liability to pay this £2,250, one would naturally have expected that they would satisfy themselves by the production of a receipt that such a sum had been paid over.

Then there is again, with the same firm, the question of the purchase of five Hotchkiss guns. There is something not understandable in respect to this purchase. The memory, without records, of the officer primarily responsible was that the price was named at £750, but in the accounts which the Ministry of Finance were ultimately called upon to deal with the guns were charged at £1,000. It appears clear that £750 was the price paid by the firm in London to the selling firm and the sum of £250 profit, or shall I say addition, surplus, whatever you may call it, was added as gross profit on to the £750 and this sum of £1,000 for the £750 worth of guns was accepted by the Ministry as a liability. There is a question of 2,500 revolvers in respect to which evidence has not been made available and in respect to those, I do not propose to say anything now. But the facts are clear that the firm with whom the Government was dealing had been entrusted to supply commodities such as chemicals and ammunition, practically without any check upon the price to be charged. It was found in the course of the inquiry that the Government had questioned the reasonableness of the charges that were being made, or rather shall I say the accounts that were being submitted were not accepted as valid and I think I am right in saying, though I am not quite sure if it appears in the evidence, it was because of the non-delivery of some of the chemicals and some of the ammunition or arms, that legal action was entered upon. The Ministry for Defence appears to have initiated legal proceedings. These proceedings were stopped and a settlement appears to have been arrived at just prior to the entry upon this portion of the Inquiry by the Committee of Public Accounts. While the information made available was not complete, very far from complete, and apparently neither the Minister for Defence nor the Ministry of Finance was in a position to give the whole of the facts, the evidence that was produced before the Committee satisfied us that there was something very unsatisfactory in respect to this whole transaction.

Perhaps not the least satisfactory fact in the matter was the agreement that was made in respect of the £2,250 in the final settlement. I have explained that this sum of £2,250 was part payment for 10,000 rifles. The receipt states:—

"Received the sum of £2,250 ... this amount representing a deposit on the said 10,000 rifles and is received by me for the sole purpose of enabling me to secure a definite option on them from the Disposals Board, and as a result of such deposit I undertake to purchase outright and deliver these 10,000 rifles to a public warehouse to be selected immediately and as soon as the balance of the purchase money, namely, the amounts mentioned in my letter of July 24th, 1922, less the £2,250 above mentioned, have been placed in a bank by you in the form of an irrevocable credit, the terms of which have already been stipulated by me to you."

That is signed by Horace W. Soley and is dated the 2nd August. The final settlement entered upon in December, 1924, had, to some extent, to deal with this £2,250. Apparently, the Ministry was not satisfied that it was a real liability, though they paid it. They paid it on these terms. The gentleman who carried on the business of Senior Crozier & Co., and who was the firm, and the gentleman who had to deal with these various transactions was named Francis W. Fitzgerald. It will be found on page 387 of the Minutes of Evidence that he signed this undertaking, which the Government say they were advised was the utmost that could be secured.

"I undertake, in the event of my recovering from H. Soley & Co., the sum of £2,250, or any sum, to pay to the Minister for Finance of the Irish Free State 50 per cent. of such sum recovered, less the cost of action in recovering from H. Soley & Co., having regard to the fact that they have paid the sum of £2,250 to me, which I have paid to H. Soley & Co. on the contract for the purchase of 10,000 rifles."

It is quite clear that the Government had no feeling of responsibility, and that when they entered upon legal proceedings they must have been advised that they had a solid ground for their claim. They entered upon an agreement by which this gentleman, Mr. Fitzgerald, was to be paid, or allowed in the settlement, the sum of £2,250, on the understanding that if he cared to endeavour to recover that sum from H. Soley & Co., then the Government would pay the costs of the legal proceedings leading to that recovery, and would be satisfied with 50 per cent. only of the sum recovered, less the costs of the proceedings—that is to say, the Government would bear the costs of the legal proceedings and Mr. Fitzgerald would be allowed to retain 50 per cent. of the moneys which the Government had no responsibility for paying, in the first instance. It is the most extraordinary settlement that I can conceive. I have felt it my duty to direct special attention to the evidence given by officers of the Army and of the Ministry of Finance, and to say that the whole position is most unsatisfactory. It is possible that explanations may be given, explanations that have not been even hinted at, explanations that I know nothing of, but it will be difficult to disabuse the public mind of the thought that the Ministry had been affected by personal considerations when I say that the Mr. Fitzgerald in question is a brother of a Minister of the Executive Council. I say that with very great regret, but the fact that it is within my knowledge and that, if not disclosed, it would leave us all open to the charge of cloaking knowledge which we had, makes it incumbent on me to state that fact. I would be the last person to impute responsibility to one person for the actions of a relative, but I cannot but think that before this settlement took place, there should have been, at least, one resignation from the Executive Council. The Committee expects that this matter will have to receive further consideration and further inquiry, because of the fact that moneys will appear as having been paid in the succeeding accounts. But it is not right that matters of this kind should be allowed to run over from one year to another without the facts being brought to the knowledge of the Dáil.

I have stated now all I know of this matter. I have drawn attention to the evidence and I have met what, I think, may be said to have been the curious absence of criticism in respect of the last report of the Committee of Public Accounts. The watchdogs of public expenditure seem to have been strangely silent since that last report was presented. I certainly feel that the putting off of any discussion in the Dáil of these reports until this date and, then, its taking place only under special pressure from me, is strangely significant.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would like to deal with one point before we go further. I would like to say that no personal considerations were taken into account in the settlement of the particular claim dealt with in the last pages of the third report of the Committee of Public Accounts. We had regard only to the public interest. I can certainly say that if Mr. Francis Fitzgerald had been somebody whom we had never heard of before, nothing different would have been done. I regard the whole position in regard to this matter as highly unsatisfactory, for the reason that I believe—I do not want to put a tooth in it, but I do not want, on the other hand, to be taking up the position of being wise after the event— that after the Treaty not one of these purchases should have taken place. Arms should not have been got or sought, nor should explosives have been got or sought in this way. I do not want to seem to be wise after the event in saying that. Many people were confused after the Treaty, many people took up an equivocal position, and many people were forced to do things that, I think, they would say now were things that ought not have been done. I say that the position is unsatisfactory in that respect and that it should not have arisen. After the Treaty was signed, this business was no longer necessary and should have ended. But there is no use in talking about details in the settlement of a claim which should never have arisen. When we found ourselves in those circumstances and with these claims, we had only to consider what was the best thing to do, having regard to the public interest. I could go at much greater length into the matter, but I have said enough, I think, to indicate to members of the Dáil what were the considerations in mind in arriving at that settlement.

General MULCAHY

There is one point that, perhaps, Deputy Johnson would make clearer to us. He leaves me under the impression that he and the Committee were of opinion that in July—I think he mentioned the year 1922—the Army authorities had rather tall ideas of the type of furniture they would like to have around them in their quarters. He pointed to one or two appendices in the report of the Committee of Public Accounts, suggesting to us that, at that time, the quarters of the Adjutant-General and of the Chief of Staff were very sumptuously furnished. I would like to know if I got a correct impression of what the Deputy said in that regard.

Mr. JOHNSON

I can only draw my conclusions from the items charged to State funds in respect of the various quarters. One has no objection, of course, to expenditure—even lavish expenditure—at the expense of the persons enjoying the use of the furniture. But this expenditure was out of State funds. I see, for instance, for the Adjutant-General's quarters the following: Three occasional chairs and one table, £14; blankets, satin quilts, etc., £16; mahogany bureau bookcase, £30; mahogany bedroom suite, £65; one Jacobean sideboard, six oak dining chairs, two carving chairs, one oak dining table, £90; one Axminster carpet, £31 10s.; one Chesterfield and two easy chairs, £39 10s.; one Wilton carpet, £42 10s.; one plain mauve carpet, £25 10s.; one Axminster carpet, £17 10s. Then the items for the house of the Chief of Staff at Portobello are set down in the Minutes of Evidence. I do not think it is wise for me to go into details. For Templemore military barracks there are items which include: Two satin walnut pairs, £25; two ditto, £25; two ditto, £25; two bedroom suites, £50, and so on. I refer Deputies to the appendix to the Minutes of Evidence for further particulars of these items.

General MULCAHY

If the Deputy wishes the House to draw the conclusions to which apparently he has come, from an examination of these schedules, I desire to repudiate the suggestion which is made. I think that persons who wish to charge the Army authorities with sumptuous ideas in the way of furnishing should examine their premises more closely. They should see the places where those officers do live. To suggest that in 1922 Army officers were thinking of the kind of chairs they sat on, or what kind of price was paid for their carpet, or to suggest that they are thinking of that now, is to suggest something that is not a fact. It would be well to examine even these schedules more closely to see exactly what they do mean.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like the Deputy to understand that I am acting entirely on what is presented in the accounts, and that "sumptuous furnishing" is simply a matter of comparison. If I used the word "sumptuous" I had in mind the comparison between what may be said to be expenditure which is reasonably charged to the State, quite apart perhaps from what an individual may think desirable for his own household requirements.

Mr. ESMONDE

I do not think it is possible for the Minister to reply to the innumerable small points which crop up in the course of this report. He has after all, only the information at his disposal which the Accounting Officers had when they came before the Committee. I would like to draw attention to one aspect of the Public Accounts which is referred to by the Committee in paragraph 11 of their report—the only paragraph which was not unanimously agreed upon by the Committee. I endeavoured to have it amended but unfortunately without success. I have no desire to advocate any radical change in the system of public accounts, and I am aware that the Minister is rather impatient of such discussion, as a distinguished Senator, I think, discovered some time ago to his cost.

Mr. BLYTHE

No, only with the Senator.

Mr. ESMONDE

I can assure the Minister that I have no diatriable intention in what I have to say. This paragraph deals with the problem of the appropriations-in-aid which appear in the Estimates of Public Services as sub-heads in thirty of the Votes, about half the number, and these appropriations-in-aid in the aggregate come to a fairly large sum. During the year under review they amounted to over £300,000; in the next year they came to over £500,000, and in the present year they are actually in the aggregate about £700,000. That is to say, there is a turn-over of nearly a million and a half pounds which does not appear on the general balance sheet of the State; £700,000 is collected and £700,000 is expended in excess of the figures which are given in the Budget statement. That is one way of looking at it; the Minister may look at it in another way, and of course there is no attempt at hiding anything, because one has only to read the Estimates to see these various appropriations-in-aid in the Votes. But the practice is growing and has been growing for the past three years, since the establishment of the State. The practice is sanctioned by the Public Accounts Charges Act of 1891. That Act only sanctioned the practice which had been growing up for some time previously. I happened to look up Hansard in connection with the introduction of that Bill, which was passed without discussion, and I found that the Secretary of the Treasury at the time stated:—

Up to 1881 the system of dealing with extra receipts was not uniform in the various Departments, and the Public Accounts Committee had been for some time drawing attention to the fact....

In 1881 a Treasury minute re appropriations-in-aid was adopted by the Public Accounts Committee. Since that time a considerable step has been taken in the direction of using these extra receipts and appropriations by way of reduction of the Estimates rather than paying them into the Exchequer.

The Act then sanctions this practice of retaining these moneys from the Exchequer by the authority of the Treasury, but in a sub-section of the Act it is stated that this can only be done by the Treasury placing a minute to that effect before Parliament. The third sub-section of the Act reads:—

Where any fee, penalty, proceeds of sale, or other money of the nature of an extra receipt is, by virtue of this Act or of any other Act (whether passed before or after this Act), or otherwise payable into the Exchequer the Treasury may, by a minute to be laid before Parliament, direct that the whole or any specified part thereof shall be applied as an appropriation-in-aid of money provided by Parliament for the service mentioned in the minute.

When we consider this Act under which these moneys are withheld from the Exchequer and used to reduce the Estimates we must also take into consideration, as is referred to in paragraph 11 of the report, Article 61 of the Constitution, and in my opinion the practice which has been pursued by the Government is definitely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Article 61 of the Constitution states:—

All revenues of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) from whatever source arising, shall, subject to such exceptions as may be provided by law, form one fund, and shall be appropriated for the purposes of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by law.

I think that it was the intention of those who passed the Constitution that all moneys should be paid into the Central Fund, subject to such exceptions as might be provided by law, and that meant in the opinion of those who passed the Constitution, subject to any law which was passed subsequently, specifically in order to go outside the original provision of the Constitution. I am sure that when the Adaptation of Enactments Act, which I think was the second Act that was passed by the Oireachtas, was passed Deputies could not have realised the number of Acts which they were adapting to the circumstances of this State, and they had no idea that in passing that Act they were to a certain extent nullifying this Article of the Constitution, because by re-enacting, so to speak, the provisions of the Public Accounts and Charges Act they were to a certain extent nullifying the provisions of Article 61 of the Constitution. Since that time the appropriations-in-aid have actually doubled in value: in the year we are considering they were a little over £300,000; now they are £700,000. Not only have they increased, but new appropriations-in-aid have been made without any specific legislation, and not only that, but these new appropriations-in-aid have been made without any Treasury minute being placed before the Oireachtas, as is provided by the Public Accounts and Charges Act of 1891. I do not know what the explanation of this procedure is. There seems to be a tendency on the part of the Department of Finance to increase this system of appropriations-in-aid, which, in my opinion, is not a good system. It has grown up largely from a mistake by the British Treasury, and it is not pursued, as far as I can make out, in the public accounts of other countries. I do not think it is very advisable, and whatever advantages it may have in a large country I do not think the necessity exists in a small country, where the revenue and all the moneys which are paid to the State can easily be brought to the Central Fund in a very short time.

The Minister may not be aware that these new appropriations-in-aid are being made, but I would refer him to the appropriations of the Department of Agriculture which have been introduced as a result of the new legislation, the Dairy Produce Act, and the various other Acts which impose fees for their administration. Quite apart from the constitutional and legal aspect of this question of appropriations in aid I should be very grateful if the Minister would adopt a definite policy as to whether it is to be continued or reduced and ultimately put an end to. It was stated to the Committee in the course of the evidence that under the British regime extra receipts of less than £1,000 are not allowed as appropriations-in-aid. It was proposed in Ireland to reduce that figure from £1,000 to £200. The policy is evidently not being pursued at present, because I notice even in this year's estimate there is an appropriation-in-aid of £45 in Vote 35. The policy is evidently not being carried out if that was the policy. At present, as a result of appropriations-in-aid there is very great confusion in the Estimates and the accounts as they are placed before the Oireachtas. There are actually over 30 Votes in which appropriations-in-aid appear; that is to say, in which the extra receipts are not paid into the Exchequer. There are 15 Votes in which extra receipts are not used as appropriations-in-aid, but are paid into the Exchequer. There are five Votes in which extra receipts are half applied for appropriations-in-aid and half paid into the Exchequer. There is one Vote where they are used as appropriations-in-aid but are described otherwise. They are not described as appropriations-in-aid in the Estimates. Deputies must naturally look upon public accounts from a different point of view from the Government. The Minister for Finance is, I am sure, anxious to save as much money as he can, but Deputies are more anxious to see that the accounts are so simplified that they can be clearly understood by the mass of the people. They should be unified and simplified in a manner that would in an intelligent democracy enable the people to understand how their money is being collected and spent. This practice of appropriations-in-aid grew up gradually in other countries, for instance, in Italy, and one of the greatest blessings which Mussolini and his Ministers conferred on the Italian people was to do away with all those appropriations-in-aid. By unifying the finances of the country, he brought them within a reasonable grasp of the mass of the people, so that they could take an interest in their own finances.

The Minister may say that his Department is hard worked, and that he is not in a position now to indulge in any adventures or new schemes of public accounting, but I suggest if it is his intention to do away with those items and to have a unified system it would be better to do it now in order that in future years we might be able to compare actually the expenditure of the State with former years and it would be much more simple in the end if this change were made as soon as possible. I do not know whether the Minister has made up his mind on this matter. I hope if he has not that he will be willing to receive memoranda and suggestions from Deputies as to improvements in the public accounts on the lines I suggest.

Mr. HEWAT

The motion proposed by Deputy Johnson asks that the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts in the hands of Deputies for some time should get consideration. I think Deputy Johnson's persistency and urging to have this matter considered by the Dáil is very commendable because the Committee that sat to consider these accounts were practically, I might say, new brooms for Committee work, and I think it must be recognised that a Committee that sat and considered the accounts or considered any matter of importance—I suppose if we measure the importance of the work of this Committee by the size of the volume issued we will come to the conclusion that their work must be very important— would be apt to pall, if I may say so, if it is treated in the way the recommendations and the consideration of the question under review have been treated by this House, when the reports came up. In no case was any consideration given to those reports. The final volume has been in the hands of Deputies for some time and we must recognise that the consideration of these accounts would not have been undertaken this session at all but for Deputy Johnson's persistence in having a promise, made some time ago to him, carried out. This matter comes on what I might call a tired House. Personally speaking, I do not feel any particular inclination to go into the whole details of the Committee's Report. A postponement until we resume after the Recess might have added to the interest of the members in considering the details. However, in this case it comes up practically on the last day of the session. I only support what I think Deputy Johnson's contention was, that the matter was very belated as far as the Government was concerned and has not got the consideration it deserves. I will only say the Committee recognise that they were dealing with a period in which very grave difficulties arose. I think the Committee have duly given consideration to that fact and recognised that some of the things that occurred in connection with the accounts were to be explained in that way. I think the Minister for Finance has recognised, also, that the period dealt with has been an exceptional period and for that reason, perhaps, it is as well that the accounts have come on a tired House without any inclination for analysis of the reports in detail.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. HEWAT

I urge on the Government the importance of dealing with the subject matter of the report of their Committees as promptly as possible. One must recognise that Committee work very often is not very congenial, and want of recognition of the work of the Committees of this House will, of necessity, I think, lead to a want of full recognition of the responsibilities by members of the Committees in connection with the work they undertake. I think it is due to our Chairman to recognise his indefatigable zeal in any matter he undertakes, and more particularly the work of this Committee. As he thought it right and proper that this matter should be raised to-day and not carried over until the House resumes, I, as one member of the Committee, support him. I spent a considerable amount of time on this Committee, and I support his claim for full consideration of the matters into which he has gone in greater detail.

General MULCAHY

I never did expect to go into the question of these Army accounts that have been examined by the Public Accounts Committee. I have not gone very exhaustively into the statements that have been made with regard to them; I do not intend to do so. There are, however, one or two remarks I would like to make here. It has been suggested that after the beginning of 1922 the Army accounts began to be carried on, or the handling of the Army moneys began to be carried on, in the old way, and that the old way was a way that led to a very undesirable state of affairs. In so far as the handling of moneys in the pre-Treaty days went, an examination of the accounts by the Public Accounts Committee showed that the pre-Treaty Army was about the cheapest run Army there ever was. The accounting machinery that was run in connection with that Army was not a very elaborate one, although the present Comptroller and Auditor-General will tell you what he often told us who were responsible for the Army accounts, that the Defence Department accounts in pre-Treaty days were the most satisfactorily rendered accounts he had come to. As I say, the machinery was not very elaborate. Personally, I pulled the threads of the accounts together every month. I remember on one occasion having a kind of toss-up with General Collins as to whether an accounts clerk, who appeared on a very empty horizon, as it was at that time, should go to him or should go to me. Because General Collins had the handling of general finance matters as well I agreed that he should keep him.

We began in 1922 with no accounting fabrics of any kind in the Army. We continued for some months with very little of an accounting fabric except such as grew up of necessity in the Quartermaster-General's Department. If there is anybody responsible—and there is a person responsible for nothing systematic being done to organise an accounts department since 1922—that person is myself. It is very easy to be wise after the event. A lot of people are very wise after the event and are possibly full of nice theories. If their theories were put into operation at the time of the event, perhaps quite a lot of other matters could now be raised. You must take it that those who were responsible in the beginning of 1922 rose to their responsibilities, whether they were in the accounting, the political or the military branches. They rose to their responsibilities as best they could. I am not going to suggest that in 1925 there are any matters of accountancy belonging to 1922 that require to be apologised for. If you are going to examine the 1922 situation and say, "You must apologise for that and for that," I hold there is a very big credit side to the account.

Mr. JOHNSON

Hear, hear.

General MULCAHY

I do not accuse Deputy Johnson of any unfairness in the matter. I say, however, he is coming to wrong conclusions. The people who, from the public point of view at any rate, find themselves held up by Deputy Johnson to-day as requiring sumptuous surroundings in their department in 1922, are not going to ask you to examine the credit side of the account. Speaking for myself, I am very unmoved when the debit side of the account is being examined, and I do think—Deputy Hewat seems to be of the same opinion—that even from the point of view of being real critics, critics that will get results in better administration here, the people who set themselves out to teach lessons and give headlines to those around them, could be doing very much better things to-day than inquiring how it came about that potassium chloride was bought in a surreptitious way during 1922, or even in 1923.

Mr. JOHNSON

Nobody said that it was got surreptitiously.

General MULCAHY

Well, it was put in a queer kind of way.

Mr. JOHNSON

That statement was never put up.

General MULCAHY

If I understand anything, it was put in a way that Deputy Hewat would call not businesslike. As I say, we might be doing much more useful things to-day, if we want to make improvements, than by looking back to 1922 and seeing why this, that or the other thing was done in a particular way. I have looked up the index of the report to get at the word "grapes," but I cannot find it. I am told that the Comptroller and Auditor-General found it necessary to inform the Committee that the Army fed on grapes.

Mr. JOHNSON

I never heard of it.

Mr. ESMONDE

Perhaps you will see it indexed next year.

General MULCAHY

Very likely we will find it indexed next year. As a matter of fact, the Army did not feed on grapes. I just wanted to say that as regards our accounting system I, personally, was responsible in the beginning of 1922. The roots of a proper accounting system were not set up in the Army, and I was justified. It was not because it was necessary to oil any particular kind of machine here by pouring money into it, but because you could not be encumbered by machinery at that particular time. If I object to the suggestion that Army officers and the Army authorities in July, 1922, wanted to set themselves up sumptuously, I object to it, because a statement like that suggests that if moneys were unaccounted for or unvouched in the earlier portion of that year, they found their way into the pockets of persons who had something to do with the Army.

Mr. JOHNSON

I hope that Deputy Mulcahy does not take that out of any-think that I, or members of the Committee, have said. We have gone to some trouble to disavow any such suggestions. We are quite satisfied that so far as personal utilisation of moneys by staff officers, officers of the headquarters staff, is concerned, there is not the slightest reason for believing that any such misuse of moneys was undertaken.

General MULCAHY

I am sure the Deputy will quite understand that I do not for a moment consider that any opinions like that have been entertained by the Committee. I am speaking of the public effect of statements that would suggest that Army officers were doing themselves well. That would be read in conjunction with the fact that there was of necessity, in the earlier part of 1922, money utilised that, when it came to settling up your accounts, could not be accurately vouched for, although it must have been, and naturally was, spent in a proper way. Actually in the beginning of 1922 a system was put into force by which every soldier had to sign for his money and it broke down. Many things broke down in June, 1922. I have to take upon myself considerable responsibility for the fact that there was not a better accounting machine put into force in the Army early in 1922. I readily take that responsibility. I say that no useful purpose can be served in July, 1925, by sitting down here or anywhere else, to discuss why some other arrangement was not come to.

Mr. JOHNSON

Why was the Public Accounts Committee set up?

General MULCAHY

The Public Accounts Committee was set up for a very useful purpose and the Public Accounts Committee I am sure has examined everything that has to be examined. I do not object to the Dáil in its own way taking the Public Accounts Committee's report and spending the next fortnight or three weeks in discussing it, but I do suggest that there are many more useful things they might do.

Mr. BLYTHE

I would like to say that I agree fully with what Deputy Johnson and Deputy Hewat have said in regard to the importance of the work of the Public Accounts Committee. I would also say that there has been no lack of consideration of the work of the Public Accounts Committee. It is obvious that this last month or two, the period since the 1st April, was not the period when either I or the officials in my Department have had the best opportunity of dealing with the first report of the Public Accounts Committee. The Budget has been under consideration, the Estimates have been under consideration, and legislation has proceeded by rapid steps. We will as soon as possible deal with all the points raised in the Public Accounts Committee's Report and present our minutes to the Public Accounts Committee. We will act on the recommendations where they can be acted upon. If there are any recommendations that we think should be modified or should not be acted upon we will give our views on them to the Public Accounts Committee and enter upon the discussion that is usual with them. As a matter of fact, it is not essential at all for the proper discharge of the work of the Public Accounts Committee, that their report should be discussed here.

In Great Britain for a prolonged period while the Public Accounts Committee was doing a most useful work, and while its importance and power was increasing, its reports never came before the House of Commons. It is only since 1905 that they have been considered, and even since then they have been considered only intermittently— by no means every year. Perhaps one year out of every three they have come up for consideration. The discussion here may serve to underline the remarks of the Public Accounts Committee. It will also call the attention of Deputies to the importance of the Public Accounts Committee. It will act in the same way on officials in the various departments. It will impress them with the importance of acting in such a way that no criticism upon them can be passed by the Public Accounts Committee. Once the Public Accounts Committee has issued its report it substantially has done its work. There is no doubt at all that if we had not the Public Accounts Committee going into the accounts with the patience and in the detail that it has done in its first year here, the financial machinery that we have would lose a great deal of its efficiency. If we had simply the Comptroller and Auditor-General as an independent officer reporting without the further examination that the Public Accounts Committee gives, and without the support that he gets from the Public Accounts Committee, there is no doubt that the checks which make for proper, honest and efficient administration would not exist in any effective way.

We know now that any departure from the proper allocation of money, any expenditure that is not in accordance with the Vote, and expenditure that is in any way improper, any expenditure that is negligent or grossly excessive for its purpose, is going to be brought to the attention of the Dáil and to the attention of the public by the Public Accounts Committee. An officer working by himself, like the Comptroller and Auditor-General, without the support of the Public Accounts Committee, might do that sort of work in a way, but there is no doubt that he would not have any force behind him. Technically speaking, not only is it not essential that the Public Accounts Committee's report should be discussed in the Dáil, but there is no reason why their recommendations should be adopted. The facts in England have been such that it is impossible for the Treasury to ignore a recommendation or to refuse to comply with a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee unless they have some good reason, on considering the matter, which was not present to the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee has been entirely non-political. It is certainly an institution that, running on non-party lines, doing work which does not get very much publicity, has grown in influence steadily as years went on.

I have no doubt that our Public Accounts Committee here will be recognised—as I do not think it is recognised at present—as the most effective guardian the public have for the proper expenditure of money. It is quite a different thing to have your accounts dealt with as our accounts are dealt with, and have them dealt with as, say, the accounts of a public company are dealt with, where there is a sort of vague report presented by an auditor which may mean anything or nothing. Deputy Johnson indicated its importance when he said that you might compare the arrangement we have with the arrangement that would exist if a shareholder in a company who was opposed to the directors was able to take the report of the auditor of that company, go into it, summon before him the officials of the company, question them, demand that all the papers they have be submitted to him, and then publish his report. You will see that the accounts of a great many public companies could not be presented in the form they are now presented if they were to stand that ordeal. That ordeal that the Public Accounts Committee is able to submit the accounts of the State to, is the greatest possible safeguard for the public. It is the greatest possible safeguard for the taxpayer and the Exchequer. It does ensure discipline amongst officials in regard to financial matters and obedience to financial regulations that could not possibly be got in any other way. There is no doubt that the members of this Committee and particularly the Chairman, deserve recognition for the tremendous work they have done. The very bulk of the volume of the minutes of evidence shows the time and the care that was spent on investigating the various points that came up for consideration. I would like to say that I appreciate it, and I know this much— that just as the work of the Comptroller and Auditor-General could not be satisfactorily or efficiently done without the help, the backing and the co-operation of the Public Accounts Committee, neither could the particular sort of work that the Ministry of Finance have to do, be done satisfactorily without the Public Accounts Committee.

It would be impossible to get compliance but that people are liable to the censure of the Committee of Public Accounts for their negligences and their failures. If there are any points in this Report that should be dealt with further, they can be dealt with when it is possible for the Department of Finance to submit its minutes on the reports that have already been presented.

As Deputy Johnson said, the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report was late for various reasons. Then the report of the Public Accounts Committee was late. That being their first experience, they were obliged to take a great deal longer period for examination of the accounts and of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report than would normally be required. The final report only reached the Department of Finance and the Dáil about the beginning of April, that is the beginning of the financial year. That was the very busiest period for the Department of Finance. We are dealing now, for the first time, with the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. When we have dealt with two or three reports of the Committee, we will be able to deal more expeditiously with them. This time, we must have the most responsible officials of the Department of Finance directly dealing with the matter. They have not only been concerned with the Budget and with the Estimates, and with matters arising out of the legislation that has been passed, but the new Committee of Public Accounts has been sitting and a certain amount of the time of the officials has been taken up in attending those sittings and preparing matter for the new Committee. I would put it to Deputy Johnson, therefore, that in the circumstances it cannot be alleged that there has been any undue delay in dealing with these reports on the part of the Department of Finance. I had hoped that on one or two specific points, minutes would be prepared, even if I could not get minutes covering the whole report, so that it could be satisfactorily dealt with by the Dáil, the two aspects of the case being before it. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to have these points dealt with up to the present. One of them at least was a matter that could not be dealt with by the Department of Finance alone. It would have required wider consideration, because it had elements in it that were not purely financial elements.

Certainly before the Dáil reassembles the minutes on the matters dealt with will be available for the Committee of Public Accounts. They can be considered by that Committee. Then any matters that may require further discussion or may require decision by the Dáil, can be brought forward. I want to say in the plainest language that so far as I am concerned I have the highest appreciation of the work of the Committee of Public Accounts. I have the most lively sense of the importance of its work, and of the importance of the due discharge of its functions. So far as I am concerned, I will certainly neither slight it nor hinder it in the due discharge of its duties, nor will I resent full discussion in the Dáil. I would like to say this: that with a country like this, with a smaller Parliament than they have in Great Britain, it seems to me that we ought to arrange that automatically every year, there would be a day or two for discussion of the reports of the Committee of Public Accounts.

We are not pressed for time. For instance, we do not pass Estimates en bloc and use the guillotine as in Great Britain. There is no reason why we should squeeze out a discussion on the report of the Committee of Public Accounts as they do there. I am thoroughly in favour of having an opportunity given annually for discussion of the report.

With reference to the point that was put up by Deputy Esmonde, I am very conscious of the force of the argument that he put forward in favour of reviewing that feature of many Estimates—"Appropriation-in-aid." But in the case of certain Estimates, I think there are reasons why it would be difficult to do it. For instance, we have, in the case of the Department of Agriculture, brought the whole service on the Vote, and what was formerly the Endowment Fund now comes in as an "Appropriation-in-aid." I do not think we could do anything in that case without further legislation. Generally speaking, I am of opinion that we ought to simplify our accounts by the abolition of the "Appropriation-in-aid." On the other hand, there is the argument put forward by the Committee of Public Accounts in favour of the retention of Appropriation-in-aid, and it is obviously one of the matters that must be further discussed with the Committee of Public Accounts before any definite policy can be decided on.

Mr. JOHNSON

I appreciate the position of the Minister for Finance, and on behalf of the Committee, if I may, I thank him for his appreciation of our work. I would point out, of course, that the Report which called for comment by the Minister for Finance, is last December's report, not the April one. I am not finding very much fault with the failure of the Ministry of Finance to make these comments up to this date, I know that they will come, and I know that they will be very valuable when they do come. But I wanted to draw attention to the fact that, if we were to discuss the reports, we were doing so without the assistance which these comments would have given. Yet, I felt that, adjourning as we are for four months, in justice to the whole service and to the Committee of Public Accounts, the reports should be brought to the attention of the Dáil in a formal manner, as has been done this afternoon.

On the point that Deputy Esmonde raised, I would say that I do not think that the Committee of Public Accounts —even last year's Committee—was very positive in its view of the question of Appropriations-in-Aid and how they should be dealt with. They certainly were not convinced that a decisive case had been made for any change. Being novices, we are naturally conservative, and being conservative we thought it well not to advise or recommend any change until more experience had been gained and until better foundation for a proper judgment had been secured. I still think that that should weigh with us and that we should not make the drastic change that Deputy Esmonde advocates, until we have had more experience of the value, or otherwise, of the device of "Appropriations-in-Aid."

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the motion to be put?

Mr. JOHNSON

It is only a formal motion. Somebody suggested that it was merely preliminary, or intended to be preliminary, to a prolonged discussion. That was not the intention. The object of the motion was to bring the reports formally before the Dáil so that the Deputies would have an opportunity of discussing them if they wished. That opportunity has been given and I do not think there is any more to be said.

Question put and agreed to.