Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1936 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1934 - 1935

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 20adh Bealtaine, 1936.

Wednesday, 20th May, 1936.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. S. Mag Craith (Ard-Sgrúdóir); Mr. W. Doolin(An Roinn Airgid); Mr. C. S. Almond and Mr. T. S. C. Dagg, called and examined.

VOTE 46-PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mr. S. Preston, called and examined.

317. Chairman.—Mr. Preston is in attendance to answer questions arising on Vote 46. Mr. Morrissey, who intended to discharge this duty, is unable, through illness, to be present to-day. There are several notes in connection with this Vote. The first note is in connection with sub-head A (1)—Training Colleges under Private Management-and will be found on page ix, paragraph 24. It reads as follows:—

“Persons admitted to Training Colleges who do not complete their course of training or who, having completed their training, do not serve as National Teachers for the period of time stipulated in their agreements, are required to repay the cost of their training. Liability to repay also attaches to students of Preparatory Colleges (sub-head A (3) ) and to Pupil Teachers (sub-head A (4) ) where such students do not complete their courses and proceed to Training. Colleges. I have been in communication with the Accounting Officer on certain cases in which liability appeared to have arisen but recovery had not been effected, and agreement has now been reached between the Department of Education and the Department of Finance on the procedure to be followed generally in this connection. I have asked for particulars of the cases which fall to be dealt with under this agreement.”

318. Mr. McGrath.—The question of the recovery of the costs of training arises when a trained teacher either fails to take up employment or, having taken up employment, fails to serve for the period of time stipulated in his agreement, or when a student fails to complete his training in the Preparatory College, or fails to qualify in circumstances not warranting exemption. To simplify this matter, I would like to give examples of cases where the pupil is exempted, such as, for instance, in the case of the death of a student, or his withdrawal from the course owing to illness, or failure at an examination, or removal from college for causes held not to be within the student’s control. Other examples would be genuine failure to secure employment as a teacher, or compulsory retirement, on marriage, in the case of women teachers. These are among the cases where exemption would apply. In all cases not covered by such exemption, the claim will be held to lie either against the student or the parent. Procedure has been agreed upon in which non-exemption cases will be proceeded against, and, regarding the matter of supplying particulars to the Audit Office of the cases which ought to be dealt with under this agreement, the Audit Office is aware that the matter is of such a nature that a reply cannot be sent for some time.

319. Mr. Preston.—Yes. The reason for the delay in furnishing the comptroller and Auditor-General with the lists is that there are still one or two points of detail outstanding which we are in process of discussing with the Department of Finance. We have reached general agreement on the subject, but we have put up one or two smaller points, and until we get those settled we are not in a position to give the lists. However, I think the Comptroller and Auditor-General may be assured that he will get the lists within the next few months.

320. Chairman.—The second paragraph of the note in connection with subhead A (1) reads as follows:—

“A claim for refund of £75 was made against the guardian of a student who was dismissed from training in 1930. The guardian has since died, and I have inquired whether any steps have been taken towards the recovery of the amount from the estate.”

Mr. Preston.—This is the case of a young man who was admitted to a training college and was subsequently found to have falsified his birth certificate. Of course, we could not let conduct like that go unnoticed, and the student was required to withdraw from the college. The cost of his training up to the time he left was £75, and we made a claim for that amount both against the young man himself and against his father. Before anything could be done, the father died, unfortunately, and we then went after the son, but the Civic Guards reported to us that the son had no means. Apparently, the father had a fairly comfortable and well stocked farm, but the youth in question does not seem to have connected with any of it on his father’s death. The Comptroller and Auditor-General, very properly, then raised the question as to whether or not there would be a claim against the estate of the deceased father. We submitted that question to the law advisers, but, apparently, it is a rather knotty problem, and we have not had a reply yet.

Chairman.—Very probably, it will cost you more than £75 to establish the claim.

321. Deputy Haslett.—Is the young man of age, Mr. Preston?—Yes.

322. Deputy Smith.—What evidence had you as to the young man’s failure to connect with his father’s property?—Well, we consulted the State Solicitor and had legal advice, and the Civic Guards made all inquiries and gave us a very full report. I think there is no doubt whatever that no action can be taken in that connection.

323. Chairman.—The next item is sub-head A (3)—Preparatory Colleges—and reads as follows:—

“The boarding cost per head for the school year 1934-35 ranged from 6/4½ per week to 7/10½ per week, showing increases in the majority of cases. Accounts have been furnished showing the receipts and expenditure in connection with the farms and gardens for the school year 1934-35, an excess of expenditure over receipts being disclosed in each case. The average fee paid by the students for the school year 1934-35 was £10 1s. 3d. Nine students were admitted to the special Preliminary Course for Fíor-Ghaeltacht students conducted during the academic year 1934-35, and the net expenditure on outfits, travelling expenses, and school fees in the financial years 1934-35 and 1935-36 was £619 7s. 10d. Seven of the students secured admission to preparatory colleges, and one obtained a secondary scholarship.”

Mr. McGrath.—This paragraph is merely written for the information of the Dáil.

324. Deputy Haslett.—The high cost of living does not seem to operate in connection with this.

Mr. McGrath.—They do things very well in those places, I believe.

325. Chairman.—The next item is subhead C (1)—National Schools—and the first paragraph reads as follows:

“In my reports for the year 1932-33 and 1933-34 I referred to payments made to a teacher who had been convicted by the Tribunal established under Article 2A of the Constitution. The teacher in question was granted a free pardon by the Executive Council on the 11th December, 1934, and, accordingly, the disqualification imposed by Section 31 of the Article is annulled as from that date. It appears that the payments made to the teacher in respect of the period of his disqualification can be regularised only by legislation and steps towards the preparation of a Bill to deal with the matter have been taken. The amount charged against the Vote in respect of service given prior to the 11th December, 1934, is £320 3s. 0d.”

Deputy McMenamin.—This legislation was promised last year.

326. Mr. Doolin.—I take it that the Committee are familiar with the facts of this case. It is a matter that has given rise to a great deal of difficulty in the Department of Finance, and since this matter was last before the Committee the question of the preparation of a Bill in accordance with instructions received from the Executive Council to regularise the payments made to this teacher during the period of his disqualification has been under active consideration. From recent advice received from the Attorney-General it now appears that there are the gravest legal doubts as to the practicability of promoting any legislation which would be aimed at amending the Constitution retrospectively.

The Minister has thus found an unexpected legal obstacle which prevents him from giving effect to the undertaking contained in paragraph 8 of his Minute of the 6th July last. He is, however, most anxious to take every step that is open to him to regularise the payments made by the Department of Education to this teacher, and in view of the opinion of the law officer, this can now be done only by a surcharge on the Accounting Officer or by means of a supplementary estimate. In the circumstances the Minister feels he would not be justified in calling on the Accounting Officer, and he accordingly proposes, subject to what the Committee may say, to bring in a supplementary estimate to regularise the payments made in the period prior to the date of the free pardon. That is the only line the Minister can take now after the advice he has received from the Attorney-General.

Chairman.—Any further comment on that?

Deputy Haslett.—It seems to me a sensible view of the case, as far as legislation is concerned.

Chairman.—I think it is a matter to deal with in the report.

Deputy Smith.—We discussed this case fully last year.

Chairman.—What was decided on then has not been done.

Deputy Smith.—If the Attorney-General recommends that it could not be dealt with in that particular way, I imagine we cannot go any further.

Chairman.—We can. The Department of Finance has declared definitely that we have to see to the bringing in of the Estimate.

Mr. Doolin.—That is the only practical means we see of regularising it. We want to regularise it.

327. Chairman.—We will leave it for our report. In the second part of paragraph 26 the Comptroller and Auditor-General says: “At the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts held on the 29th May, 1935, reference was made to the case of a teacher referred to in my report last year whose salary had been adjusted following interruption of service owing to political causes. The formal sanction of the Minister for Finance has not yet been furnished in this case.”

Mr. McGrath.—I received the following communication on the 11th May, 1936:

“I am to inform you that the Minister for Finance, after careful and prolonged consideration, has decided to endorse the view previously arrived at by the Minister for Education that the interruption of teaching service within the dates last mentioned—from July, 1924, to October, 1928—was, in fact, due to political circumstances, and I am to convey to you accordingly his covering sanction for the action taken by your Department in the readjustment of Mr. ——case.”

Deputy McMenamin.—What is the meaning of being “adjusted?”

Chairman.—This was not a case of paying for services rendered in the years mentioned.

328. Deputy McMenamin.—Was he paid for a period during which he was not teaching?

Mr. McGrath.-No, but the period during which he was not teaching was counted for increment purposes. That was the point at issue.

329. Deputy McMenamin.—What is the rule?

Mr. Preston.—The rule was that where a case was definitely held to be political, the man did not receive pay for the time he was out of the service, but when he came back he got credit for that period in reckoning increments in his salary. In other words, he was put in the same position financially when he came back as if he had not been out of the service at all.

330. Deputy McMenamin.—Assume a case where a teacher has been ill for a period longer than the rules permit, or for some other cause was not attending school, he would not be paid?—Yes.

331. Does that operate with regard to superannuation?—It does.

332. It means that such a teacher has to serve a longer period afterwards?— Yes, to get the full time.

333. Does that apply to this man?— That is another question altogether and is dealt with by a special clause in the superannuation scheme. We have power in the superannuation scheme to reckon the period of absence due to political causes as pensionable service. There is special power in the superannuation scheme to do that.

Chairman.—In this case the Department of Finance has given the necessary covering sanction.

Deputy McMenamin.—I am not concerned with that. I wanted to know if it was equitable and applied to a teacher who through no fault of his own, say illness, over a period in a particular year was absent, who at the end of his teaching period, would have to make up the period of absence in order to get his legal pensionable rights.

Chairman.—I do not know how we can deal with that here.

Deputy McMenamin.—I know that these rules are very rigid.

Deputy Haslett.—I think Deputy McMenamin made a point in what I said. We are here as the Public Accounts Committee to see that each Department gets value for the money expended.

Deputy McMenamin.—That is not so much my point, but to see that the rules are equitably administered between all teachers.

Deputy Smith.—There is no analogy between a teacher who was sick and another who deliberately went out for a stated purpose and undertook certain work.

Deputy O Briain.—We discussed this fully last year.

334. Chairman.—The next paragraph in the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report says:

“In my report last year I stated that in view of the statistics of attendance at a certain school, I had inquired why salary was continued to a junior assistant mistress, whose retention was dependent on the maintenance of an average attendance of 30 boys. Owing to the method by which effect was given to the rules governing the retention of teachers in cases of insufficient average, over-payments amounting to £67 3s. 6d. were made in this case, and, as stated in the note appended to the appropriation account, it was decided, with Department of Finance sanction, not to press for recovery. Other unascertained over-payments will also have arisen from time to time in similar circumstances, but the rules have now been amended to extend the period during which assistant teachers may be recognised notwithstanding the insufficiency of the average attendance.”

Mr. McGrath.—The regulations deal with the salary of an assistant teacher after the expiration of two consecutive quarters with an insufficient average, and provide that where the insufficient attendance was due to an epidemic of sickness, the salary might be continued for not more than four consecutive quarters. It appears that the required average could not have been maintained in this case in any circumstances; that is, whether there was an epidemic or not, the average could not have been there. We found on looking up the matter that the Department had been treating cases where an epidemic occurred by passing over that particular period without having regard to whether the average was correct or not. In other words, the epidemic always saved a teacher from discontinuance of employment. The Audit Office considered that that state of affairs could not be allowed to continue, and got into correspondence with the Department of Education, with the result that a revision was made in April, 1935, so that the Department should be satisfied that the decrease in attendance was in fact due to an epidemic. Later on, in December, 1935, a further revision was made retrospective to January, 1935, so that all salaries might be continued for four quarters.

335. Chairman.—The next paragraph from the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report says:

“I observed that a second assistant teacher was appointed to a school in January, 1935, the required average attendance (95) having been secured in each of the two preceding quarters. It appeared that pupils who had left the school were readmitted in September, 1934. with the express purpose of raising the average to the required point, and as it would appear that their enrolment was not primarily for the purpose of their education, I consider that their attendances should not be reckoned for the purpose of the appointment of a teacher. I have, therefore, deemed it desirable to draw attention to the matter.”

336. Deputy McMenamin.—Is this allegation of the Comptroller and Auditor-General justified?—The facts as stated by the Comptroller and Auditor-General are strictly correct. The question as to whether we would be justified in disallowing the attendance of the pupils is really a legal one, and in connection with that case we have got an opinion from the Attorney-General that under the rules the Department would not be justified in disallowing attendances which were permissible under the regulations. In this particular case the matter was pressed by the Teachers Organisation, with the result that we got the Department of Finance sanction to allow these payments on the average, which included the attendance of the pupils to which reference has been made.

337. Deputy Haslett.—Were these pupils within the prescribed age?—Yes, their attendance was perfectly regular in every respect.

338. Deputy McMenamin.—Is it the suggestion that these pupils were brought to the school at the behest of someone interested?—The suggestion is that the pupils were brought to the school, but not with a view to their education.

339. Of course they would be getting education?—That was not the object of the teacher in inducing the pupils to attend. The object was to get sufficient average to enable him to have a second assistant. He succeeded in that object, and has got away with it.

340. Deputy O Briain.—Was the Manager aware?—The thing was done with the Manager’s approval.

Deputy Keyes.—Is it not possible to have re-entries of children at schools for other occasions? Is a teacher to be taken as guilty in such cases? There are numerous cases where for one reason or another children who leave a school are re-entered in it afterwards, and I do not think cases of that kind should be treated on the basis of the teachers being guilty.

341. Chairman.—How has the average gone since in this case?—The average has fully justified the attention that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has called to the matter. We find that having been 95 for two quarters, that is the necessary period to qualify for the extra teacher, it immediately dropped to 88, 81, 88, 86. It has never reached 95 since these two quarters.

342. Deputy McMenamin.—Is it your allegation that these children were brought from outside districts?—We are making no allegations.

343. You allege that children were brought there for a particular period?— The allegation is that the enrolment of these children was not primarily for the purposes of education.

Deputy McMenamin.—To make an allegation is quite a simple matter, but have you reasonable proof of it?

344. Deputy Smith.—There are other circumstances surely in the case that should make that allegation fairly clear. It is surely known to the Department whether the principal could have any ulterior motives in doing what is alleged? —I think I can go so far as to say that the Department is satisfied that the teacher did this for the purpose of getting an average for a second teacher. It was admittedly an abnormal average for these two quarters, but we have been advised by the Attorney-General that in his opinion we have no power under our present regulations to disallow this attendance.

345. Chairman.—Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor-General has something to say on this matter.

Mr. McGrath.—I should like Deputies to know a little more about this case. The pupils were readmitted to this school in order, admittedly, to create the average necessary for an additional assistant teacher, to which post the principal’s wife was appointed.

Deputy McMenamin.—Was she a qualified teacher?

346. Chairman.—The sanction of Finance appears to have been got for it? —The Department of Finance have given us a covering sanction for the recognition of this teacher.

347. Deputy Haslett.—Even though sanction was given that does not stop us from discussing it.

Mr. Almond.—Sanction was given in that particular case because there had been no actual irregularity according to the rules. We are arranging for amending rules which will prevent any sudden influx of pupils being treated for the purpose of increasing the average. It is manifestly unfair that a sudden influx of pupils which does not continue should permit the appointment of a second teacher or a higher salary being paid.

348. Deputy Goulding.—These children must have been withdrawn from some other school.

Mr. Almond.—They were. That might not necessarily mean that there would be a teacher less at the other school.

Deputy Goulding.—And it might.

Deputy O Briain.—Was this not a case in which pupils who had left the school in question were brought back?

349. Chairman.—It would appear so. They were pupils who had left the school previously?—They were.

350. Deputy Haslett.—Would not this rule operate to prevent the continuance of the teacher in her post if the average fell again?-The point is that if there is an average of 95 on her appointment, once she is in, she can carry on with 85.

Deputy Haslett.—It is good strategy.

351. Deputy O Briain.—Many cases like this do not occur?—I am afraid there are a good many cases.

352. Deputy Smith.—It appears to be quite common?—Yes, and we must take steps to prevent it.

353. Chairman.—The next sub-paragraph states:

“Over-payments amounting to £96 7s. 3d. were made to a principal teacher in the period 1st January, 1931, to 30th June, 1933, owing to falsification of school records. The amount overpaid has been recovered, and the teacher has been declared ineligible for recognition in any capacity in a National school.”

I suppose that needs no comment.

Mr. McGrath.—We merely bring that to the notice of the Dáil. We desire to bring cases where attempts have been made to get money that was not due and where recovery has been made, to the attention of Deputies. We merely want to put it on record.

354. Chairman.—The next paragraph states:

“Over-payments amounting to £14 1s. 1d. were made in the year 1924, consequent upon the falsification of school records by a principal teacher. The sums overpaid have now been recovered and £50 was withheld from the salary payable to the teacher concerned.”

355. Deputy Goulding.—Is that not a similar case to the previous case, and why was not the same penalty imposed? In the first case the teacher was declared ineligible for employment in a school, and in the next case there was merely a fine of £50. Are they not parallel cases?—Perhaps I could explain that, Mr. Chairman. The cases are anything but parallel. The Committee will observe from the note that the irregularities in this case took place as long ago as 1924, and they came to light in a rather curious fashion. There was a woman teacher in the school at that time, and she apparently had some grievance against the principal. Ten years later she wrote a letter to the Department telling us that in 1924 Mr. So-and-So had been tampering with the school records. I must say we felt that it did make a difference that he was the victim of this piece of spite on the part of the lady in question. We did, as a matter of fact, submit this case to the Attorney-General with a view to seeing whether it was a case where a criminal prosecution should take place, and the Attorney-General was most definite. He said: “I have no desire to interfere with them (that is, the Department) in their discretion, but I have given a good deal of weight to the view put forward by the Manager. Also they should make the punishment proportionate to the offence having regard to this man’s means.” He also says that it is reasonably certain that a prosecution would be unsuccessful. The reasons he adduces are, first of all, the length of time that had elapsed since the offence, and the fact also that the teacher’s wrong-doing was confined to one period of months, and that since 1924 he had conducted himself in an exemplary manner. The Department, acting on the Attorney-General’s opinion, dealt with the case in a less severe way than they might otherwise have done.

356. Deputy O Briain.—And the offence was connived at in the first instance by the other teacher?—Yes, by the person who subsequently made the allegation.

357. Chairman.—We can pass from that. The next sub-paragraph states:—

“Overpayments amounting to £134 5s. 1d. were made to a junior assistant mistress in the years 1932 and 1933 owing to the fact that, consequent upon the irregular transfer of pupils from a neighbouring school in the quarter ending 30th June. 1932. salary was continued for a period of one year beyond the period warranted by the regular averages. I understand that this case is still under consideration by the Department of Finance.”

Has Finance anything to say to that?

Mr. Almond.—The Department of Finance pressed the Department of Education to refuse recognition of this teacher. General proposals are before us from the Department of Education for dealing with all cases of irregularity, and it will take some time to complete the examination of the proposals. We think that these outstanding cases might be considered in conjunction with the general proposals. We expect to be able to give a decision very shortly.

358. Deputy Goulding.—These irregular transfers of pupils are taking place in many cases?—It looks as if the thing were general.

Mr. Almond.—In the proposals submitted by the Department of Education is a draft of a new rule which will prevent similar occurrences in future.

Deputy O Briain.—I do not think it would be fair to say that the thing is general.

Chairman.—You are having a fair amount of them in this report, and these are only the ones who were caught.

359. Deputy Smith.—I thought there was already a rule in existence which prevented the transfer of pupils from one school to another?—Except on the first day of the quarter. On the first day of the quarter any pupil can be transferred from one school to another. What happened in these cases was that the pupils were transferred during the quarter, and their transfers were irregular under the terms of the School Attendance Act. We felt bound in these cases to disallow these attendances, and the result was the salary which had been paid to the junior assistant mistress was properly not payable, and we had to look for the recovery of the amount. If that person gets another position we can deduct the amount from her salary.

360. Deputy Keyes.—How was it that these transfers were not found to be irregular until later?—The discovery was not made until a later stage. The moment we did discover it we took action.

361. Chairman.—The next sub-paragraph states:—

“I observed that pupils were transferred from a certain school at different dates between December, 1926, and February, 1928, to two other neighbouring schools, and it appeared that the attendances made by the pupils so transferred operated, in the case of one school, to retain a second assistant teacher, and, in the case of the other school, to secure payment of salary on the full scale to a junior assistant mistress. I have inquired whether the transfers in question were regular, having regard to the provisions of Section 6 (4) of the School Attendance Act, 1926, and whether the attendances were proper to be included in the computation of the averages. Further transfers of pupils to one of these schools were made in 1933, apparently with a view to maintaining the average necessary for the retention of a junior assistant mistress, and I have inquired as to the action taken in this connection and the amount of any over-payments which may have resulted.”

Mr. McGrath.—I may say that I have not received any reply to my letter dated 9th July, 1935, in connection with this matter.

362. Mr. Preston.—That is explained by the fact that the case is one of extreme difficulty and complexity. We have now put up the whole facts to Finance. We have put up the facts again to the Attorney-General. There is a point in this that seems to deserve some consideration, that the pupils referred to in the first part of the paragraph were pupils who admittedly were transferred during the quarter, and not at the beginning of the quarter. But the Manager has pointed out very cogently that the pupils in question would, normally, attend the school but that the footbridge over the river which intervened between the homes of the pupils and the school had broken down. The footbridge was mended on the 12th July, and the pupils resumed attendance at the school on the 13th July. Now the Manager claims that this constitutes a full justification for the children’s resumed attendance at their own school. That, of course, is a legal point as to whether that can be brought into conformity with the School Attendance Act, and we have put the matter up to the Attorney-General.

363. Deputy Smith.—I take it that the Manager must have consented to the transfer of the children from one school to the two other schools, but how would that affect the position of the school from which they were transferred? It might seriously affect it?— The Deputy must understand that you may have a school where they have a surplus block of pupils. Instead of having, say, 85 pupils, a school may have on roll 100 pupils. That school could easily spare 10 or 12 pupils, and they could be transferred to another school in which, from the attendance point of view, some teacher’s position was in jeopardy.

364. I find it hard to understand how the attendance position at one school could be held to be so abnormal as to permit of that being done without doing damage to the school from which the pupils were transferred?—Yes, because there is a margin of 35 pupils between one teacher and the next.

365. What was the position in the school from which the children were transferred?—The position there was that the teacher was perfectly safe.

366. Was it only a one-teacher school? —It was a two-teacher school, and there were plenty of pupils to spare for this purpose.

Deputy McMenamin.—This question of maintaining the average attendance at schools is a very important one from the teacher’s point of view. It is often hard to avoid doing what has been referred to here. It is human nature.

Deputy O Briain.—When a teacher is faced with losing his employment and salary and finds that he is up against it he may not adhere too strictly to the regulations.

367. Deputy Keyes.—In view of the fact that the footbridge had broken down and that the children would be running a risk in attending that particular school, the Manager took responsibility as regards getting the children to attend the other schools. I think that if he had notified the Department he could have pleaded considerable justification for his action. The date on which the footbridge was repaired is rather significant. It would be interesting to know in what locality that footbridge was located?—There is no doubt that if the Manager had written to the Department and explained about this footbridge, and said that he was proposing to enrol the children in this particular school now that the footbridge was mended, the Minister would have no hesitation whatever in giving his sanction, which he has power to do under the Act. He has the power to give special sanction for the enrolment of pupils during a quarter, but the Manager thought that it was a foregone conclusion that he himself had the right to act on his own responsibility, and it is that that has given rise to this particular difficulty.

368. Deputy McMenamin.—There was nothing illegal about that?—That is for the Attorney-General to say.

369. Mr. McGrath.—It should be noted that there was an illegality there, because there was a breach of the School Attendance Act. Is that not so?—Yes, there was a technical breach of the Act.

370. There was a definite breach of the School Attendance Act. This matter has been going on since 1928, and the bridge was not responsible for it all the time.

371. Chairman.—The matter has now been referred to the Attorney-General, and I think we can now pass from it. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note to sub-head C (7):—

“The charge to this sub-head includes sums of £153 16s. 6d. and £213 18s. 0d. for 32 sets and 47 sets, respectively, of indoor equipment for rural science classes, which were taken into stock in September and October, 1934. The revised programme of primary instruction which was issued in September, 1934, provides that this subject shall be optional in all schools, and I have inquired as to the basis on which sets of equipment are now issued.”

Mr. McGrath.—Deputies will see that a new state of affairs exists now, as the subject of rural science is no longer compulsory. Sets exist in all schools, I understand, and it appears to the Audit Office that an arrangement could be made by which the sets that are not required in the schools should be brought back to the head office, and that future requirements should be supplied from the stock there. Instead, we found that new purchases were being made, and we thought the matter worthy of noting.

374. Mr. Preston.—Subject to any further remarks that the Comptroller and Auditor-General may have to make, I would like to correct the impression that the statement he has just made may have created. Once the subject of rural science was made voluntary instead of obligatory in the schools we ceased ordering equipment sets. Now the Comptroller and Auditor-General very properly took note of the fact that we paid for a certain number of new sets after the date on which this change in the programme took place, but we explained in a reply that we sent to him on the 23rd March that these sets had actually been ordered before the change in the programme was made: in fact, before we knew of the change in the programme. We got into touch with the Post Office Stores, which, in turn, got into touch with the contractor, and found that the Post Office Stores could not get out of the contract that had been placed. The contractors would not take back these sets. They said that they had no re-sale value for them. They said that the sets had been made up specially for this particular purpose, and had no re-sale value. The Post Office Stores had no option but to take delivery of the sets. The sets, although paid for subsequent to the change in the programme, had been ordered long before the change in the programme took place. As regards the sets in the country, the Comptroller and Auditor-General thinks that they should be brought back here and taken into store. The Department, I may say, was not slack about this matter. They went thoroughly into the whole business the moment the change in the programme took place. It was discussed at a conference with representatives of the Post Office Stores. On balance, it was decided that the cost of bringing these sets up to Dublin and of storing them here for goodness knows how many years would really be unprofitable. It was, therefore, decided to leave the sets in the schools to which they had been supplied, and, following that, a circular was issued to all the teachers giving them instructions as to what they were to do with the sets: as to the care that should be taken of them—the way in which they should be packed and stored —and as to how delicate instruments should be treated with vaseline in order to keep them free from deterioration. Having got those new sets, we thought we might as well use them. In the case of any school that now takes up the subject of rural science, we supply it with one of these new sets in store. Eventually, when the supply of new sets is exhausted we will transfer sets from schools which are not teaching rural science to schools which take up the subject. I think the Committee can be satisfied that the Department went into the thing very thoroughly and did what both they and the Post Office thought was the best thing that could be done in the circumstances.

375. Deputy Haslett.—Do you supply these sets free to the schools?—We do.

376. Mr. McGrath.—Under the new conditions, do you not think it necessary that you should have gone to the Department of Finance for sanction before supplying these new sets to schools? The subject was compulsory before, but now it is voluntary?—No. We have Finance sanction to supply sets to any school which is teaching rural science. We do not need any further sanction from Finance. The sanction for the supply of sets is not dependent on whether the subject is compulsory or voluntary. Any school which teaches rural science is entitled to a free grant of equipment from the Department.

377. Deputy Smith.—Why do you insist on distributing the sets from the Post Office stores instead of using up the sets that are not in use in schools which have given up teaching the subject?

Chairman.—Mr. Preston has already dealt with that. The actual cost of each of these sets works out approximately at £5. It would almost cost that to bring a set up from a country school to Dublin and then have it brought back to some other school which took up the subject.

378. Deputy Smith.—That is not the question that I am asking. We may take it, I suppose, that the sets that are in the Post Office stores are being well-cared for. I imagine that they are being cared for in a better way than sets down the country which are not in use. If you send a set from the Post Office stores down to a country school it means that a certain amount of expense will be involved in doing that. Would it not be a more sensible way to distribute the sets, at present in the country and not in use, to schools taking up the subject rather than to send out sets from the Post Office stores?—Perhaps I may answer the Deputy’s point in this way: A school may, on the introduction of the revised programme, have dropped the subject of rural science, but we must not assume that it will not take it up next year or the year after. In fact, we have organisers going around the country doing their best to get schools to take up this subject even on a voluntary basis. We do not want to discourage them, so that if we were to take the sets away from them the danger is that they would throw the subject on one side and would never think of reintroducing it in the schools.

379. But there is nothing in the point that the sets would be better cared for in the Post Office stores than down the country when they are not in use?—As I have said, we have organisers going around the country. In the course of their work, they inspect the sets and see that the teachers are carrying out the terms of the circular to which I have referred, so that the sets not in use will not be allowed to deteriorate.

380. Deputy McMenamin.—I desire to refer to what the Comptroller and Auditor-General deals with under sub-head C (1) at the end of page xi. He says that he has inquired whether the transfers—he is referring to the transfer of children from one school to two other schools—in question were regular, having regard to the provisions of Section 6 (4) of the School Attendance Act, 1926.

Chairman.—We have already passed from that.

381. Deputy McMenamin.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General asked whether these changes complied with the School Attendance Act. I thought that, normally, if the circumstances arose, a person could do that, but it is laid down that a child to whom the Act applies shall only be transferred from one national school to another national school on, or on the first opportunity after, the following days:—the 1st January, 1st April, 1st July, or 1st October. Take it that I had a child who had been attending a particular school, and that child got ill. I attribute the illness to the condition of the school, and I decide not to send that child to that school any more. Assume that that happens on the 1st February. Am I not entitled to send that child to another school?—The expression “on the first opportunity” in the School Attendance Act is intended to provide for the eventuality of the school being closed for holidays on those dates.

382. Chairman.—On sub-head D— Superannuation, etc., of Teachers—the Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following comment (paragraph 28):—

“It was provided by the National School Teachers’ Pension Fund (Winding-up) Order, 1934, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1934, No. 43, made under Section 10 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924 (No. 16 of 1924) that the Pension Fund established under the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, should be wound up as on and from the 1st April, 1934. The Order further provided that the capital and income of the fund should be disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance might appoint, the securities held in the fund to be disposed of for capital purposes. Payments in respect of pensions, and other sums, formerly chargeable on or payable out of the fund are payable out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas from 1st April, 1934.

Paragraph 6 of the National School Teachers’ Superannuation Scheme, 1934, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1934, No. 23, provides for the continuance of the provisions of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879. in so far as these relate to the payment and collection of premiums due in respect of salary for service given before 1st April, 1934, and these premiums are repayable to the teacher, or his legal personal representative, in certain circumstances. The Department of Finance has decided that amounts coming in course of payment after 31st March. 1934, in respect of periods up to that date, should be paid less the appropriate pension deduction, which remains unissued from the Exchequer. A sum of approximately £30.000. being the equivalent of the total of the pension deductions made in the year ended 31st March, 1935, is accordingly included in the saving under sub-head C (1).

Sums of £52,767 7s. 6d., being the interest on the securities mentioned in Part I of the Schedule to the Winding-up Order, and £26.598, being the amount referred to at Part II of the Schedule, have, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, been credited to appropriations-in-aid, and are available for surrender to the Exchequer together with the sum of £30,000 already referred to.”

Mr. McGrath.—That is for Information.

Chairman.—We shall now turn to the different sub-heads of the Vote.

383. Deputy Haslett.—Is the amount under sub-head A (4) (Pupil Teachers) a diminishing amount?—That item will disappear in the course of a couple of years. We are not going to appoint any more pupil teachers after this year.

384. That avenue of approach to the training colleges will be closed?—Yes.

385. Deputy O Briain.—Under sub-head C (2) (Model Schools—Miscellaneous Expenses) what is included?—We put in the words “miscellaneous expenses” to indicate that that is not the whole cost of the model schools. Teachers’ salaries are borne under sub-head C (1). Out of sub-head C (2) we pay the rents of the model schools, we provide charwomen and ink, maps and all sorts of school requisites.

386. How many model schools are there?—There are 17 model schools established in the State.

387. Chairman.—Are they distributed all over the country?—Yes. We have schools at Athy, Birr, Bailieboro’, Enniscorthy, Clonmel, Dunmanway, Sligo, Monaghan, Kilkenny and Waterford.

388. Deputy O Briain.—Is there not one in Limerick?—Yes. The list I read out is that of schools attended mainly by Protestant pupils. There are also the Central Model Schools, West Dublin schools and schools at Glasnevin, Inchicore, Cork, Limerick and Trim.

389. Deputy Smith.—Why should there be any differentiation between model schools and the ordinary national schools? —These schools are a legacy from the British administration.

Chairman.—I am afraid we cannot discuss that matter.

390. Deputy Smith.—I should like to know if it is the intention of the Department to continue this system?— It is not the intention of the Department to continue the system on the same lines as obtained under the British administration. In fact we have already handed over a number of the schools to clerical management. In the case of the Central Model Schools, the Administrator of the Pro-Cathedral is now associated with a divisional inspector in the management. Similarly in West Dublin. The Inchicore school has been handed over to the local parish priest.

391. You intend to continue that policy in respect of the remaining schools?—We do. The model schools are being gradually eliminated.

Chairman.—A big question connected with the Statutes of Maynooth and other matters of that kind would arise if we pursued this discussion.

392. Deputy O Briain.—Are the grants mentioned in sub-head C (6) (grants towards the cost of heating, etc., of schools) available for every school?— They are.

393. Deputy Goulding.—Who controls the expenditure?—The Manager is solely responsible for expenditure on heating and cleaning of schools. He furnishes us with an annual account showing how much he has spent in that way, and we recoup him up to 50 per cent. of his expenditure, subject to a maximum laid down in the code.

394. Deputy Smith.—Have you introduced central heating in any of the new schools?—We have, in some of the bigger schools.

395. In rural areas?—Only in the case of two or three big convent schools in rural areas.

396. Deputy O Briain.—Does the item under C (8)—Teachers’ Residences— refer to residences in the Fior-Ghaeltacht? —The Fior-Ghaeltacht scheme, of which the Deputy is thinking, is quite a different scheme. That is a scheme under which loans are being made to teachers at present to build houses. The loans referred to in this sub-head were sanctioned prior to 1914 and are still being paid off. It takes 35 years to pay off these loans.

397. Deputy Goulding.—Were these free grants made to teachers for erection of houses?—No, they were loans.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. J. F. Morrissey called and examined.

398. Chairman.—What is the general nature of the records which you keep?— The more important section consists of certain legal records which have been salved or which have been transferred from the different courts on reaching an age of 20 years and upwards. The great bulk of the records at present being transferred are testamentary records and records of the Clerks of the Peace which are being received from the County Registrars. The records formerly in the Record Office included court records of all classes, census returns, a certain number of parish registers received on the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland and miscellaneous State Papers from the Chief Secretary’s Office when they reached the age of 50 years. The records salved in 1922 included a certain number of ancient rolls and other court records, testamentary records, some census returns and a few Parish Registers. We have also the State Paper Office at present.

399. What State papers do you deal with?—The great bulk of them were received from the Chief Secretary’s Office and from the Council Office, dating back to 1814. The earlier papers had been transferred to the Record Office. There are some 18th century records amongst them.

400. To the Record Office in London?— No the Records Office here. Under the Public Records Act, when the records in the State Paper Office reached the age of 50 years, and were certified to be fit for removal, they were transferred to the Public Record Office.

401. Deputy Haslett.—You do not touch the records of births or marriages? —That is a separate registration.

402. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head B—Saving on Purchase of Historical Documents—what does that refer to?—£79 was the amount allowed, and the number purchased depends on what comes into the market.

403. It depends on what you can get or what are available?—The great bulk of them are purchased at Sotheby’s in London. In a particular year a number might come in while in another year very little might come in.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. W. O’Brien called and examined.

404. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General comments on this:—

“A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried but with satisfactory results”

I am not surprised at that.

“I have been furnished with a Schedule of the several cases involving a loss of £50 and upwards in which claims for duty or interest receivable under the Revenue Acts were remitted during the year ended 31st March, 1935, without statutory authority, from motives of compassion or equity, arising out of particular circumstances in individual cases. The reasons given for remission appear to be satisfactory. The total amount shown as remitted during the year is £12,340 5s. 7d., as compared with £3,954 11s. 1d. in the preceding year. Of the total, £9,355 16s. 8d. has been remitted in respect of income-tax. £1,571 4s. 2d. related to nine cases in which the assessed parties died insolvent, or were destitute and recovery was impossible; £1,273. 10s. 11d. related to four cases in which the assessed parties were bankrupt and tax was given up on the Official Assignee’s certificate of ‘No Profits’; £6,246 16s. 7d. to 11 cases in which assessments were raised, but subsequent evidence revealed no net liability to tax, and £264 5s. 0d. to a case in which a compromise settlement was effected with a person who had left the country. The remissions also include Estate and Succession duties and interest on such duties amounting in all to £1,849 15s. 10d., Customs duties £91 14s. 9d., and Excise duties £1,042 18s. 4d.

The above figures do not include duty passed as irrecoverable for various reasons.”

405. I take it the increased number of remissions this year was due to the offer of the Minister for Finance with regard to disclosures?—No, it was just a fluke. It might be £25,000 next year and it might not. It just happens to be the number of cases dealt with.

406. Apart from these insolvent people, you deal with every case on its merits?— Yes.

407. And only when you are convinced that it is absolutely essential you give it? —Every case of £50 and upwards has to come to me. I decide every such case before the Comptroller and Auditor-General gets it. It is well looked into.

408. Deputy O Briain.—It takes convincing, I suppose?—It does.

409. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head D—Poundage to Distributor of Stamps—what exactly is that?—That is at the Stock Exchange. There is only one place.

410. Deputy Crowley.—With regard to sub-head I—Uniform Clothing—what kind of uniform is that?—Customs officers and court messengers.

411. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head L, which refers to rewards, on what type of service do you give rewards?— They are given to informers and also to officials—to the preventive staff.

412. Deputy Smith..—Preventive officers get certain awards for seizures?—Yes.

413. Chairman.—Do they amount to much in the year?—No, they are comparatively small.

414 With regard to the law charges portion of the sub-head, that would be in respect of ordinary cases of prosecution for evasions of Customs duties, income-tax, etc?—Customs and Excise. It covers all the Revenue.

415. What are the incidental expenses in sub-head M made up of?—They are odds and ends. There are notes explaining them in page 13.

416. With regard to sub-head O— Losses by Default, Fraud and Accident —what happened in the case of the former collector? Was it remitted or is he still collecting?—If you look at page 13 you will see how the thing was dealt with.

417. Deputy O Briain.—He did not get away with much?—No.

418. Deputy Haslett.—With regard to sub-head Q — Appropriations-in-Aid— there is a figure given for moneys received from merchants, etc., for special attendance of officers. That would include extra time at Border posts and so on?—Yes.

419. Deputy Crowley.—With regard to the heading, “Proceeds of Customs Sales (Seizures, etc.),” you auction off material from time to time?—Yes.

420. Do these auctions take place anywhere else but in Dublin?—Yes, in Limerick, Cork and all the centres.

VOTE 7-OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. W. O’Brien further examined.

421. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has a comment on page v:—

“In paragraph 8 of my report on the accounts for the year ended 31st March. 1933, I referred to the large number of appeals which was then awaiting decision. I have been informed that the number of appeals outstanding has now been reduced to normal.”

How many appeals are outstanding now?—I understand that there were 1,550 at the end of March. It has gone down since 1933, when there were 9,000 outstanding. Of course the Committee will understand that we have nothing to do with these appeals. They are dealt with by the Department of Local Government.

422. What is the general nature of the appeals?—Appeals either by the officer or by the old age pensioner against a decision by the local committee.

423. Is the appeal generally on means? —Not necessarily. It may be on anything.

Deputy O Briain.—Generally, It is an appeal by the pension officer.

Deputy Smith.—And generally an appeal on means.

424. Deputy Haslett.—It is inevitable that there would be a substantial number on hand?—Yes, but 1,550 out of a total of 130,000 is not too bad.

Chairman.—There were 9,000 in 1933.

Deputy McMenamin.—There was a new Act passed and everybody in the country became blind quite suddenly.

425. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head B—Expenses of Pension Committees, £7,300—do you consider that sufficient for the expenses of the Committees?—Apparently that is an estimated figure. The expenditure amounted to a small amount less. The estimate seems to have been fairly accurate.

426. In sub-head D, there is under the column “expenditure” a figure of £62 1s. 0d. returned as sums irrecoverable. I presume these were pensions paid in error?—Yes.

427. I suppose it is generally taken for granted that any old age pension moneys paid are irrecoverable? They are recovered from people who have means. Sometimes the people are prosecuted. Quite lately I came across a case where an old age pensioner had £2,000.

428. Chairman.—It was easy to recover the money in that case.

429. Deputy Smith.—The amount here is very small?—Yes. These are mainly cases where people got pensions in error.

Deputy O Briain.—Would it not be easy to prove that they were entitled to the old age pension, unless it happened to be a question of age?—It was a question of age.

430. Chairman.—Sub-head E—Extra Statutory Payments—£66 12s. 0d.— what are these?—These are payments that have arisen in this way—that the paying orders got out of date. A paying order is out of date three months after it is issued, and the payment can only be made by special arrangement after the three months have elapsed. The people, of course, are entitled to the money.

Chairman.—It is a very small sum, anyway.

431. Deputy Haslett.—Sub-head C— Appropriations-in-Aid—show an estimate of £400, and the sum realised £1,230 5s. 0d. How did that arise?—If you look at Note C in page 16 you will find that is explained.

Deputy Haslett.—Yes, that note covers it.

Mr. O’Brien.—There is one other Vote. the particulars of which I have here. I do not know whether you will deal with it now.

VOTE 73-COMPENSATION BOUNTIES.

Mr. W. O’Brien

432. Mr. McGrath.—There is nothing down for expenditure there?—No, but I thought I might mention it to the Committee.

Chairman.—Very well, we will look into it now.

Mr. McGrath.—It is merely a matter of having it before the Public Accounts Committee.

433. Chairman.—How is it that there has been no expenditure?—It is because the Act was passed only a few days before the end of the financial year. It was passed on the 28th March.

Chairman.—That is all right.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 43-DUNDRUM ASYLUM.

Dr. G. W. Scroope called and examined.

434. Chairman.—About how many patients or inmates would you have at the moment?—Do you mean at the present time or when the accounts are made up?

435. At this particular period, this year?—We have 96 men and 12 women at the present moment.

436. I suppose the numbers do not rise or fall very much?—No, about five or six during the year.

437. I expect the falling is caused by deaths more than anything else?—Yes, death, admissions and discharges.

438. What are the travelling and incidental expenses in sub-head G?-They include such things as advertisements, but tobacco for the patients is the chief thing. The patients get an allowance of one ounce and some of them one and a half ounces of tobacco per week. The travelling expenses are not much. The chief part of the expenditure is tobacco for the patients, which amounts to £160. The remainder, £61 17s. 6d., is for travelling expenses.

439. I suppose that would be in the main bringing patients from the country. No. This is provided for under sub-head E. There is included in that the cost of entertainments and amusements for the patients.

440. The appropriations-in-aid, which were estimated at £700, realised £551 0s. 2d. I suppose these are receipts from the farm and garden?—Yes, exactly, and from attendants for rations provided.

441. Deputy Haslett.—How does the number of discharged and cured patients compare in your institution with the outside ones?—They are not nearly as good in our institution. On the other hand, it is very difficult to make a comparison, because the patients in Dundrum are not exactly like the others. They are criminals, and they are not discharged for a considerable time after they get well; they have to remain well for a considerable period before they are discharged. The average patient is committed on a very serious offence. The numbers there are very small compared with the numbers in the county mental homes.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 40-CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. W. Smyth called and examined.

442. Chairman.—The expenditure in this particular Vote is for supervision?— Yes, we hold about £1,300,000 and this sum is constantly being increased at the rate of about £30,000 to £40,000 a year.

443. Is the net total £2,749 16s. 6d. the total net expenditure on the administration of this Department?—Yes, it represents the salaries of the staff for administration. The Commissioners are not paid.

444. Deputy Haslett.—Do you use your discretion in regard to advertising donations and bequests?—The Act of 1867 was mainly intended to ensure that all donations and bequests should be advertised.

445. Do you use discretion in the case of small bequests?—Yes, small bequests are sometimes exempted on the production of the receipts but that is only in very small cases.

446. Of course, you understand that in some cases the advertisements would swallow up all the funds available?—Yes, it is for that reason the Board use discretion in exempting small bequests.

447. Deputy Goulding.—Do you actually control the advertising?—We see that the particulars required by the Act of 1867 are shown.

448. These moneys, I take it, are invested in the trustee class of security only?—Yes. We have 57 different kinds of investments, nearly all of which are in securities authorised by the Trustee Act of 1893.

449. Chairman.—The law costs amount to £10 3s. 5d. What are these for?— These are costs that we pay to our solicitors for doing work, such as attending court on behalf of the Board, and so on. We, ourselves, do a lot of the legal work and also the work of preparing schemes in certain cases.

Deputy Haslett.—The solicitor is kept very well down.

450. Chairman.—There are other costs attached to the funds themselves?— There are no other costs. We administer everything. Except for the item represented by law costs, the only other costs would be for transfers of investments. They come out of the funds invested and are not charged on the Vote.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 51—NATIONAL GALLERY. Dr. G. J. Furlong called and examined.

451. Chairman.—What were the type of pictures that were purchased?—We bought two Austrian pictures and one 17th century Italian.

452. Did you succeed in buying all the pictures that you would like to buy?— Not by any means. There ought to be some arrangement by which, when pictures in Irish collections come out on the market, they could be bought. There is no arrangement of that kind here. In London there is a list of certain important pictures in England, which, when they appear on the market, the London National Gallery must buy, irrespective of what they otherwise purchase. There is no such arrangement here at all. We have not a list of the pictures, nor have we any way of getting them if they suddenly appear on the market. We have no way of buying them, and there should be some arrangement.

453. Deputy Haslett.—Would it not be for your Department to put up a proposal?—Well, I have only just come here. What I have referred to would be quite separate from what we get each year. You could never estimate in that connection, because you could not say in what year pictures would appear on the market or what they would cost.

454. Deputy Goulding.—Do you mean pictures by native artists?—No; I mean important pictures. old pictures, not pictures by Irish painters. There are certain pictures which should not be allowed to leave the country. In most countries you cannot take certain pictures out without permission.

455. These would be very expensive?— They would be. In England and Ireland you can take pictures out without asking anybody’s permission. In the case of England, when pictures come on the market the London National Gallery would buy them by an arrangement.

456. But when pictures are sold it would be unfair to prevent them being taken out of the country?—That is the way they regard it here and in England. In other countries they let you take the pictures out but you must get their permission. For instance, in Austria, where we got two pictures, the dealer had to pay the Government a certain amount for getting permission to let them out of the country. You could not buy any picture and walk away with it in those countries, but you could here and in England buy a picture and nobody would know where it went.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 27th May, 1936.