asked the Minister for Finance, in relation to the answers given by him in the Dáil on the 17th May and the 7th June, 1950, as to the total capital liability of the State as at 31st March, 1950, whether or not the sum of £152,360,000 given by him, in fact includes twice the same sum of £8,500,000, once under the heading of External Liability and once under the heading of Ways and Means Advances.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - State's Capital Liability.
As I informed the Deputy on 7th June, the figure of £152,360,000 includes a sum of £8,500,000 being part of our external liability on foot of dollar borrowings under the United States Loan Agreements and a similar sum which is an internal liability in respect of Ways and Means Advances obtained from the American Loan Counterpart Fund. The double entry is offset by assets held in the American Loan Counterpart Fund which is credited with the full amount of the proceeds of the dollar borrowings.
Am I to understand from the Minister that Table 6 of the tables published in connection with the Financial Statement includes two entries both of which show as a liability the sum of £8,500,000?
I do not know what the table is, but there will be one account which will show a double entry. It does not mean that the money is in twice.
Is it not correct to say that this sum of £8,500,000 was charged twice?
No, it represents two different borrowings. One cannot consider one side of an account without considering the other. The asset side includes the full amount of the Counterpart loan. Part of it is invested and part of it is cash and the part which is invested relates to the £8,500,000 lent to the Exchequer for the time being.
The sum of £15,000,000 which is shown against the Ways and Means Advances includes the £8,500,000.
Yes.
And is it not similarly correct to say that the £21,000,000 of dollar borrowing under the United States Loans Agreement also includes the £8,500,000?
Yes, but on the asset side it shows the whole sum of £21,000,000, the whole of it not depleted by £8,500,000. Otherwise it would be false accounting.