Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 1944

Vol. 95 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Excess Vote (Finance Department).

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim nach mó ná £14 10s. 5d. chun slánuithe Iomarcaí ar an Deontas d'Oifig an Aire Airgeadais in aghaidh na bliana dar chríoch 31ú Márta, 1943.

That a sum not exceeding £14 10s. 5d. be granted to make good an Excess on the Grant for the Office of the Minister for Finance for the year ended 31st March, 1943.

It will be within the recollection of the House that, a few weeks ago, the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts introduced an Interim Report pointing out that there was an excess expenditure on this Vote. It is now my duty to come to the House to ask the Dáil to vote the additional sum required, that is, £14 10s. 5d. The total expenditure on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance for the financial year 1942-43 amounted to £75,478 10s. 5d., which was £14 10s. 5d. in excess of the grant of £75,464. The Committee of Public Accounts, in their Interim Report of the 19th October last on the Appropriations Accounts, 1942-43, stated that they saw no objection to the sum required, £14 10s. 5d., being provided by an Excess Vote.

The excess is attributable to an unforeseen increase in the cost of machine tabulation of statistics. These statistics were obtained as a result of the 1942 annual census of the Civil Service. Their tabulation for the Department of Finance was undertaken by the Department of Industry and Commerce, which had the necessary calculating machines. The work was carried out on a repayment basis, and the necessary provision to meet the repayment was made in sub-head C— Incidental Expenses—of the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance for 1942-43.

When the position of the Vote was being examined in December, 1942, to ascertain the probable savings and excesses, it was estimated that there would be a small net saving on the Vote. At this time the cost in 1942-43 of the machine tabulation of statistics was estimated at between £100 and £110: the actual cost proved to be £145. The claim for recoupment was not received from the Department of Industry and Commerce until the 20th March, 1943, and it was then too late to introduce a Supplementary Estimate on the Vote for the additional sum required. The excess was incurred in that way and the permission of the House is now asked to put the matter right.

Mr. Dillon

The amount of the excess and the occasion for seeking it are not in themselves of any serious significance, but the propriety of the procedure in this case is worthy of comment. I do not want to betray the Minister into an unprepared statement on principle in regard to this matter. Nevertheless, I will direct his attention to the importance of the principle here involved. When a Department under-estimates its probable expenditure, it has open to it three courses of action. If it is forewarned of the deficit before March 31st, it can ask the Minister to come to the Dáil and seek a Supplementary Estimate. If the deficiency is on one sub-head only and if there is a surplus upon another, the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, exercise a variation from one sub-head to the other and thus avoid embarrassment in regard to a particular sub-head.

If, however, a circumstance arises in which the inevitability of the deficiency does not manifest itself until the end of the year, two courses are open to a Minister and his accounting officer, one which is clearly right and the other which is clearly wrong. One is to face the music and introduce an excess Vote. If the claim on the Exchequer matures within the financial year and there is no money within the Appropriation Accounts to pay it, the proper thing is to come to the Exchequer to get the money, let the matter be brought before the Committee of Public Accounts and let the Minister come into Dáil Eireann and seek an excess Vote, as is being done in this case.

I would be glad if the Minister for Finance would go on record now as saying that he will sanction no other expedient to meet that rare occasion, that he expresses his disapproval of the practice of postponing claims, which ought to be recognised for maturity within the financial year, into the next year for the purpose of avoiding the bringing of an excess Vote before Dáil Éireann, and that he expressly condemns such postponement. I do not wish to rush him into an expression of opinion, if he would prefer to reserve his judgment and expression of condemnation of any attempt to resort to other funds in order to cover up deficiencies in the appropriations made in the Appropriations Act. I think I am bound honourably to inform the Minister that this is a matter which may be under consideration in another place at another date and, if he prefers to reserve his observations for another occasion, I fully understand his position. However, if he feels free, he may emphasise now how strongly he feels about the rectitude of this procedure, as opposed to any procedure I have outlined. It would be for the good of public finance generally and a useful reminder to all concerned that they may expect no sympathy from the Minister for Finance in any attempt to avoid strict rectitude in matters of procedure of this kind.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think the best reply to Deputy Dillon is that example is better than precept and that I am giving the example. I would add that, as far as public funds are concerned, whether of Dáil Éireann or of a local authority, I have always stood for and hope to continue to stand for the most strict and rigid control by the public authority. No subterfuges of any kind should be adopted by anybody having control of public funds to avoid the fullest public exposure with relation to expenditure, excess or otherwise.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.