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, 27adh Bealtaine, 1936.

Wednesday, 27th May, 1936.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. S. Mag Craith (Ard-Sgrúdóir); Mr. J. L. Lynd (An Roinn Airgid); Mr. D. P. Shanagher (An Roinn Airgid); Mr. T. S. C. Dagg and Mr. C. S. Almond called and examined.

VOTE 56—LAND COMMISSION.

Mr. M. Deegan called and examined.

Deputy Smith.—I move: “That Deputy McMenamin be Chairman of this meeting of the Committee.” —Agreed.

457. Chairman.—Paragraph 44 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report states:—

“In previous reports I referred to an advance of £200,000 to the Land Commission made in March, 1925, of which only £70,000 had been repaid. The balance of £130,000 is still outstanding, no repayment having been effected in 1934-35.”

Mr. McGrath.—A sum of £41,029 of the amount outstanding is, I understand, funded?—Quite so.

458. There is a sum of £14,483 in cash on hands after allowing for it?—About that.

459. And there has been written off under the authority of the 1933 Act a sum of £72,431?—These are the figures. We have written to the Department of Finance and asked their authority to write off a sum of £72,400 odd which has been remitted under the 1933 Act, and the £41,000 odd which will come back by way of funded annuities.

460. Chairman.—These are arrears?— These are arrears written off and arrears funded.

Mr. McGrath.—The figures I have given amount to about £128,000. We are in correspondence with the Department as regards the balance and we understand the matter will soon be settled.

Mr. Deegan.—We have a sum of £16,000, of which we can surrender to the Department of Finance straight away about £13,000. We can safely let them have £13,000 any time they want it.

461. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads:—

“I observed in the course of my audit that the Land Commission, having sold for cash, to tenants, holdings on estates purchased by the (late) Congested Districts Board and, to allottees, parcels of untenanted land, principally bog plots, has accepted 45 or 50 per cent. of the nominal purchase money. The Land Act of 1933 provides for the reduction by 50 or 55 per cent., as the case may be, of annuities payable by purchasers in respect of advances and for corresponding reductions in the redemption price of such annuities. The Act does not appear to contemplate the reduction of the purchase consideration when the sale is effected for cash, but the sanction of the Department of Finance was, however, obtained.”

Mr. McGrath.—It will be noted that the sanction of the Department of Finance has been obtained, but on reading the Act it appears to us that the Department had no power to make these sales at these rates for cash. We thought it a matter that should be brought to the notice of the Dáil.

462. Chairman.—Has this reference to post-Act sales—sales subsequent to the passing of the Act?—Yes.

463. Surely they are entitled to the 50 per cent. reduction. Assuming that my annuity had been fixed and that after the passing of the Act I said: “I am going to redeem my holding,” am I not entitled to get the benefit of the 50 per cent. reduction?—You are. A number of these holdings have been on hands since the time of the Congested Districts Board and the sale prices were fixed 20 or 25 years ago. Now that they are being sold for cash, it would be quite unfair to demand the full cash payment from tenants like these when, if we were to sell by way of annuity or advance, we would only get half of the amount. We went to the Department of Finance for their concurrence in selling at the 50 per cent. reduction.

464. The man who redeemed prior to 1933 does not come into this at all. He does not come back looking for half of the purchase money that he has paid ?— No, he has finished with it.

465. Quite a number of farmers redeemed their land under the Ashbourne Act and the 1903 Act. They are biting themselves now for redeeming their land at that price ?—So I am told.

466. Deputy Smith.—Are we right in thinking now that, in the event of a man redeeming his holding the amount of the purchase money is calculated on the 50 per cent. reduction?

Chairman.—Yes, since the passing of the 1933 Act?—Yes, certainly.

Chairman.—Without that the thing would be inequitable.

467. Deputy Smith.—I thought that while the annuity was actually reduced by 50 or 55 per cent., if there was any question of redemption it might not be on that basis?—You will find it provided for in Section 22 of the Land Act of 1933.

468. Chairman.—Would it not be straining the meaning of the Act if it were operated otherwise? Assume that I own a farm and that I want to leave it as a freehold to my son. If I proceed to redeem the annuity why should I be called upon to pay the full amount, whereas if I pay by, say, 50 instalments I will get a reduction of 50 per cent.?— It is provided for by the statute.

Chairman.—As well as being the law it is only equitable.

469. Deputy Smith.—There was no question of an annuity in these cases at all? They were sales for cash?—Yes. Of course you understand that we only sell for cash small areas like plots for men who have no land. We take half of what would be the ordinary price.

470. Chairman.— Did not some point crop up during the year about your power to acquire these things. You took over these bog plots under a Redemption Order?—I do not quite follow.

471. I mean that you took over these bog plots on resumption orders?—They were part of untenanted land.

472. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads:—

“The powers conferred on the Land Commission by the Land Purchase Acts to expend moneys for the improvement of land are restricted by sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Land Act, 1927, which provides that no such expenditure shall be incurred by way of free grant in respect of the improvement of lands which have been vested save with the approval of the Minister for Finance. I observed, however, that a free grant for the purpose of rebuilding “an existing house on an old holding” had been given in a case where the holding in question had been vested, and in another case that the expenditure incurred in the erection of a bridge appeared to benefit mainly vested holdings. As the sanction of the Minister for Finance was not sought for these charges to the subhead, I have addressed an inquiry to the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

473. Mr. McGrath.—The Audit Office. on examining the expenditure on the improvement of estates, came across certain items which they thought might involve vested holdings. We had to make reference to the section I quote here, Section 22, sub-section (3) of the Land Act of 1927, which states that:

“No such expenditure, unless previously sanctioned, shall be made by the Land Commission by way of free grant after the lands to be improved have been vested in a purchaser save with the approval of the Minister for Finance.

We wrote to the Department in connection with these two cases. One had reference to an advance of £50 and a free grant of £150 to a tenant to rebuild an existing house on an old holding. We are taking the wording we find in the Department’s own record. We stated that:

“As the holding in question is a vested holding the Comptroller and Auditor-General would be glad to know whether, in accordance with the terms of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Land Act of 1927, the authority of the Department of Finance was sought for the free grant of £150.”

The Accounting Officer on receiving that stated that:

“A parcel of untenanted land acquired by the Land Commission on the Dyas Estate was allotted to (—) for the enlargement of her existing holding and to be consolidated with it. The Land Commission sanctioned the grant for the benefit of the parcel to enable her to work it properly.”

Then he goes on to state:

“The approval of the Minister for Finance was not sought as the Land Commission are advised that Section 22 (3) of the Land Act of 1927 does not apply to the case.”

The Audit Office has to consider the matter from the other aspect. The improvement took place on a vested holding. There was no doubt about that. The facts are not disputed?

474. Mr. Deegan.—Yes. She built on a vested holding. Might I refer to subsection (3) again which states:

“No such expenditure unless previously sanctioned shall be made by the Land Commission by way of free grant after the lands to be improved have been vested in a purchaser.”

In a case like that, the lands we are improving and in respect of which we are spending money, are the lands which we are dividing. The case of Mrs.— on the Dyas Estate is only one of hundreds or of thousands of cases in which we take over land to make our land division schemes. We use some land for the purpose of bringing adjoining small holders up to an economic level. These small holders have bad houses. They have no out-offices. There may be road accommodation needed; and the only place in which you can build a new house or out-offices or a road for them is on the old holding. The legal advice we have received is to the effect that in spending money in these cases we are doing so for the benefit and improvement of the unvested lands which we are dividing. There are hundreds of cases in which we build houses and out-offices on old holdings.

475. Chairman.—In this case you are building on the untenanted land that you took over?—No, on the old holding which is vested.

Mr. McGrath.—The difficulty of the Audit Office is that the improvement has taken place on the old holding which is a vested holding, and, therefore, expenditure such as has taken place in this case is forbidden unless previous sanction has been obtained from the Department of Finance.

476. Deputy Smith.—Would you please read again sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the 1927 Act?—“No such expenditure, unless previously sanctioned, shall be made by the Land Commission by way of free grant after the lands to be improved have been vested in a purchaser save with the approval of the Minister for Finance.”

477. That makes the position perfectly clear even to an ordinary man. The lands to be improved have not been vested, and, therefore, that would entitle the Land Commission to do what they did in this case. The lands in this case were to be improved by the addition of portion of untenanted land which had not been vested. Therefore, I think it must follow that the Land Commission were entitled to act as they did here.

478. Chairman.—The Accounting Officer’s point, I think, is this. The Land Commission buy a piece of untenanted land and divide it up amongst a number of small farmers. A piece of it is, we will say, added to my holding. The Accounting Officer’s contention is that by doing that the Land Commission are improving my holding?—We certainly are improving your holding, but that is not my contention at the moment. We are not spending money for the improvement of your vested holding, but we are spending money for the improvement of the land which we are dividing and which is unvested. Our expenditure is in respect of an estate which we have taken over and which we are dividing. The legal advice we have received bears out what Deputy Smith has said.

479. Deputy Smith.—As regards the legal aspect of it, I do not dispute your right for a moment, but I would be interested to know how you can justify such a large expenditure for such a small improvement. What was the extent of the improvement?—Well, you cannot build a house for less than £150.

480. I am not questioning that, but what is the amount of the untenanted land that was about to be added to the original vested holding?—I am not able to say at the moment. It varies in all these cases.

481. Chairman.—Take, for example, the case of land along by the sea. The sea wall may get broken down, with the result that a large piece of arable land is flooded. It may cost £300 to repair the bank. You must get work of that kind done in order to save the farmers’ lands adjoining.

Deputy Smith.—We are not dealing with that kind of a case now. We are dealing with a vested holding on which a woman and her family resided. It was proposed to add a portion of untenanted land to her original holding. As a result of that proposal the Land Commission proceeded to give, by way of free grant, the sum of £150 for the building of a new house and a loan of £50. Now I say that the improvement of that holding, by the addition of portion of untenanted land, would have to be very substantial before it would justify an expenditure of this kind.

482. Chairman.—The trouble about that is this: that the primary requirements for a human being are these: a house, food and clothing. How is the Land Commission going to carry out its administration if, in cases such as this, it does not provide a house? You simply must provide a house, and there is no getting away from it?—No matter how small the holding is, a house should be provided with suitable out-offices.

483. It is only a question of keeping within the law?—Yes, it is purely a legal question.

484. Mr. McGrath.—Perhaps I should give some details of the second case before Deputies come to any conclusion on this. This was the erection of a bridge over the Owenmore river, and the construction of a road over the vested lands of— “As it would appear that the holdings benefited by the building of this bridge are mainly vested holdings, the Comptroller and Auditor-General would be glad to learn the circumstances in which, having regard to the terms of Section 22 of the Land Act of 1927, the sanction of the Department of Finance was not sought for the expenditure.” The reply of the Department to that was that “the construction of this bridge was mainly for the benefit of allottees of turbary divided by the Land Commission on the Guthrie estate, so as to give easier access to the bog. These turbary plots have not yet been vested in the allottees.” The audit office case is that this bridge benefits holdings that are already vested.

485. Deputy Goulding.—Incidentally.

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

486. Chairman.—But the bog is not vested.

Mr. McGrath.—That is right.

487. Mr. Deegan.—The case made to us was that in order to enable those people whose holdings were vested to get to the bog which we had given them that we should provide them with means of access to it. They are provided with roads in ordinary cases. The reason why we put up a bridge in this case was because of the existence of unvested turbary to which those people had to have access. The bridge was necessary in order to make the turbary accessible to them.

488. Chairman.—And you are bound to do that?—Yes.

489. Deputy Smith.—It was certainly a bit of a gift to the vested tenants, and I wish them luck with it?—Supposing this were a case in which we found on inquiry that their vested holdings required this bridge—their vested holdings exclusively—we would have approved of a grant, and have gone to the Department of Finance for sanction in accordance with the law. We have no trouble with the Department of Finance in such cases.

490. I do not find the Land Commission so agreeable in matters of that kind, unfortunately?—I am sorry to hear that.

491. Chairman.—I take it that you do this regularly in the case of vested holdings? —We do.

492. I think we may now take the second portion of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note under sub-head I:—

“Where improvement works are carried out by the Land Commission, the wages of the workers employed are paid by Paymasters who are remunerated by way of a commission on the amount disbursed, together with the percentage payment for travelling expenses. Having regard to the increasing expenditure on wages from this sub-head, I have asked whether the question of revising the scale of remuneration and the percentage payment for travelling expenses has been considered.”

Mr. McGrath.—We have received a reply from the Accounting Officer stating that an investigation of this matter is in hands, and that when this has been completed the decision arrived at will be communicated to us. We are quite satisfied that the Department are doing all that they can in the matter?—We have that matter in hands, but we have not yet received all the replies back from our inspectors in the country.

493. Deputy Smith.—How often are the workmen paid?—Fortnightly.

494. Deputy Beegan.—How are the Paymasters paid?—The Paymaster gets 2 per cent. plus 1 per cent. for travelling expenses.

495. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has this further note under this sub-head:—

“The charge to this sub-head includes a payment of £617 12s. 10d. to a county board of health, being a contribution of one-fifth of the cost of a sewerage scheme. Notwithstanding that the Land Commission is the land-lord of the greater portion of the town where the scheme was carried out, I am of opinion that, in view of the nature of this expenditure and of the terms of Section 22 (3) of the Land Act, 1927, the prior authority of the Department of Finance should have been obtained. I have, accordingly, requested the Accounting Officer to seek covering sanction for this expenditure. I also observed a payment of £700 as a contribution towards the cost of a drainage scheme carried out by the Office of Public Works and a payment of £10 to an association for the destruction of vermin. Having regard to the nature of these charges, I have asked that the covering sanction of the Department of Finance for these payments may be obtained.”

496. Mr. McGrath.—In this case the Audit Office requested that the covering sanction of the Department of Finance for the payment of a free grant should be sought. The Land Commission thought fit to say that the queries addressed to them appeared to have been issued under a misapprehension as the holdings, for the benefit or the improvement of which the grant was made, have not yet been vested in the tenants. The information in the Audit Office is that this outlay benefits certain vested holdings in the town of Swinford, certainly half a dozen holdings that are already vested?—Probably, but at the same time the Land Commission are still, as the successors of the Congested Districts Board, the owners of Swinford town. The town is still unsold. There may be an odd person here and there in it who has had his holding vested for one reason or another, such as to complete some legal transaction. But the town as a whole is still unvested. It is a property from which we are collecting over £400 a year and on which we are spending nothing. Consequently we say that sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the 1927 Act does not apply there.

497. Deputy Goulding.—Incidentally, this only benefits certain vested holdings.

Mr. McGrath.—The Audit Office has to have regard to the sub-section of the 1927 Act and would not be doing its duty if it allowed a matter of this kind to pass once it had taken notice of it. Even though the number of holdings benefited may be small, the Audit Office must take note of that.

498. Deputy Goulding.—In a case of this kind, where you set out to improve some holdings that have not been vested, it sometimes happens that you cannot help conferring a benefit on others as well, on people not strictly entitled to benefit.

Mr. McGrath.—I am aware of that.

499. Chairman.—The point here is that, from the legal point of view the estate has not yet been vested?—That is so.

500. Mr. McGrath.—With regard to the payment of £700 towards the cost of the drainage scheme, the Audit Office wrote the Department: “In view of the nature of this expenditure, it is requested that covering sanction of the Department of Finance may be sought for the payment to the Office of Public Works.” The Department replied: “The query appears to have been issued under a misapprehension, as the holdings for the benefit or improvement of which the grant was made have not yet been vested in the tenants.”

501. Mr. Deegan.—It is only fair to the Comptroller and Auditor-General to say that he did not mention Section 22 (3) of the Act of 1927, but as the query arrived at the same time as those other queries and as the facts and circumstances were the same, we naturally assumed he was going on Section 22 (3). That was the reason for our reply. These are tenanted-land estates which are still unvested and passing through the Land Commission. The drainage was necessary. It may be, as in the case of Swinford, that you would have vested holdings under one of the old Acts in the middle of these estates or near them, but the holdings for the benefit of which this work was being done were going through in the ordinary way and were still unvested. We expected that we would have heard something further from the Comptroller and Auditor-General and from the Department of Finance. No doubt, we shall. It was not a question of refusing to consult the Department of Finance.

502. Mr. McGrath.—I quite understood that. If the whole matter were referred by this Committee to the Department of Finance, I have no doubt that a scheme satisfactory to all concerned would be adopted. We would then be able to satisfy ourselves that we were carrying out our different duties. From the Audit Office point of view, the position is that certain expenditure cannot take place without going to the Department of Finance. We recognise the difficulties of the Land Commission and we appreciate that it is hard to apportion expenditure sometimes between vested and unvested estates.

503. Chairman.—Technically, the present method is the simpler method. An estate is either vested or unvested?—We are dealing with holdings in this case.

504. You will get peculiar cases in which some holdings are not vested and others are. Take the case where a county council makes advances under the Small Dwellings Act. They cannot make that advance until the land is vested and registered so as to protect their title. In certain cases some tenants manage to over-ride the other tenants on the estate? —That is really our difficulty.

505. Deputy Smith.—How was this sum arrived at? Is it merely a round figure?—In September, 1931, representations were made to the Land Commission that two streams known as Ballykelly and Cassidy were flooding lands around Monasterevan, and asking the Land Commission to have the rivers drained. In November, 1931. a letter was received from the Office of Public Works asking the co-operation of the Land Commission in cleaning these streams which were rendering the holdings of surrounding tenants unhealthy and unproductive, and inquiring what support the Land Commission would be willing to accord. In February, 1932, a conference was held between representatives of the Land Commission and of the Office of Public Works. Subsequently the ground was thoroughly explored in correspondence between the two Departments, and as the total cost of the scheme which the Office of Public Works agreed to carry out was £3,000, the Land Commission made a contribution of £700. The estates with which the Land Commission were concerned are still vested in the Land Commission.

506. Deputy Smith.—Were the tenants obliged to make any contribution?—No. These are free grants.

507. Where does the Arterial Drainage Act come in in a case of that kind?—We are not concerned with that in the Land Commission. The Office of Public Works would be concerned with that aspect of the question. We were merely concerned with these two estates which were passing through our tenanted-land section. Their resale is going through under the 1923 Act.

508. I was under the impression that no scheme at a cost of £3,000 could be undertaken under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, without a contribution from the tenants affected?—I am not an authority on that question. The Public Works Office would be concerned with that aspect of the matter.

Deputy Smith.—A scheme at a cost of £3,000 is carried out in Monasterevan, and the people whose lands are benefited to that extent are not called upon for a contribution of any kind. How do you reconcile that gift with a scheme costing, say, £1,500 in some other place to which the people benefiting have to contribute through the rates?

509. Deputy Crowley.—These two streams would have some connection with the Barrow drainage scheme and the Board of Works would make a charge in that case?—Yes.

510. I take it that the grant made by the Land Commission is in line with advances made for improvement of estates in the ordinary way where the estates would not be vested?—The assistance we gave was by way of a grant and it was applicable to, and in respect of, the ordinary form of small drainage which we do to improve an estate. We do not do any big drainage work.

511. That would apply in any part of the country to the improvement of estates?—Yes.

Deputy Crowley.—The other portion would be subject to a charge by the Board of Works as a continuation of the Barrow drainage.

512. Deputy Haslett.—The opportune time to apply for a drainage grant would be the transition period-between the time the land is passing from the land-lord to the time of vesting?—Quite so.

513. Deputy Smith.—I am not disputing this item from the point of view of the right to make a contribution in respect of unvested holdings but I have learned for the first time that a scheme of this extent can be carried out without seeking a contribution from the occupiers of land in the neighbourhood. It is admitted that, in addition to the unvested holdings, a substantial number of vested holdings benefited by this scheme?— Perhaps. This was a Public Works scheme and I have no information as to whether a charge has been made on the people whose lands were improved by the scheme or not.

514. Deputy Smith.—I think we have disposed of the Vote for the Board of Works.

Mr. McGrath.—We have.

Mr. Deegan.—I am concerned with this item only in so far as it is expenditure on the drainage of tenanted land passing through the Land Commission for resale.

515. Chairman.—That is the basis on which you gave the grant?—Yes.

Deputy Smith.—That is not the point I am trying to make. I am not disputing the right of the Land Commission to do this, but the fact that they have done it raises another point. For my own information, I should like to be told if these big schemes can be carried through without a contribution from the persons affected.

Deputy Crowley.—Assessments are to be made on the people affected by the Barrow drainage.

Deputy Smith.—This does not come under the Barrow drainage at all.

516. Chairman.—Deputy Smith will have to get his information from the Office of Public Works. The Accounting Officer says that they gave so much money for the improvement of tenanted land and that they are empowered by law to do that. He is not responsible for the action taken by the Office of Public Works?—That is so, but it was very necessary and proper that we should cooperate with the Board of Works. There would be little use in our draining the land unless the larger scheme lower down were carried out. We are draining land every day of the week. We do the work ourselves and, in some cases, we have to hold our hand until a larger scheme lower down is put into operation.

517. Until the larger scheme is carried out by somebody?—Yes.

Deputy Haslett.—I think Deputy Smith is entitled to raise the point he did. What we have been considering in the last couple of cases have been lands which the Land Commission took over to divide.

Chairman.—Not necessarily. One of the cases was of that nature.

Deputy Haslett.—This is an ordinary case of tenanted land which they have taken over to vest in the tenants. What I think Deputy Smith wants to know is whether the Land Commission, during the period when the tenants are paying interest in lieu of rent and when the lands have not been vested, have power to make grants towards the cost of drainage. The Deputy wants to know why that should be when there is no power to make a grant in aid of similar farmers whose holdings are vested.

Chairman.—There is power to do that.

518. Deputy Smith.—The contention is that, in the event of the Board of Works undertaking a drainage scheme by which a number of unvested holdings will be affected, the Land Commission is entitled to make a contribution to the Board of Works towards carrying out that scheme. If a scheme costing £40,000 or £60,000 were undertaken by the Board of Works in any county, it would be bound to affect a very large area, and it would pass through quite a number of vested and unvested estates. Would the Board of Works be entitled to ask the Land Commission to make a contribution in a case like that in respect of unvested lands?—Our contribution was not to the Board of Works scheme as such. We contributed nothing to the Board of Works scheme but we asked the Board of Works, as our agents. to do the ordinary improvement drainage on the estates which were vested in us which, under ordinary circumstances, we would do ourselves.

519. Chairman.—You used their machinery in the work you were going to do?—Yes. The Board of Works were working on the bigger scheme lower down and we asked them to act as our agents.

Deputy Smith.—That is not the point I want to get at. I know at least two or three schemes being carried out at the moment by the Board of Works under the Arterial Drainage Act. I know quite a number of estates not yet vested which are being benefited, and these holdings and these estates are being charged a drainage rate just as estates and holdings which have been vested for years. My point is that if, in Monasterevan, the Land Commission is entitled to come forward with a contribution of £700 in respect of holdings not yet vested, in all other cases where drainage schemes are undertaken by the Board of Works, the Land Commission would equally be bound to make a contribution in respect of unvested estates and unvested holdings.

520. Deputy Harris.—If improvements are necessary in any estate, the Land Commission can contribute in that way? —The Land Commission can do its own work itself or it can ask another Department to do it.

Chairman.—The procedure is that a case is put up to the Board of Works by memorial from the tenants. The cost of the suggested scheme is calculated and submitted to the tenants. they accept the scheme and the work is done, and a rate is struck on the adjoining tenants for that purpose.

521. Deputy Harris.—If all this major drainage work had not been carried out by the Board of Works prior to your coming along, you would have spent that £700?—We would.

522. And it just happened that the Board of Works had all the machinery there to carry out the work, and when they had completed their part of it, you considered that the best thing would be to get them to finish it?—As a matter of fact, the Board of Works did not want to do it for us. They wanted us to do our own job, but as they had the machinery and the men on the spot, we pressed them to do it, because we have more work on hands than we can handle.

Deputy Smith.—That is no answer to my point. Even the Deputy for Kildare is trying to bundle me in regard to this.

Chairman.—It is quite simple. You are mixing up a contract. Suppose we are all in an estate and we say that a certain river should be drained. We send a memorial to the Board of Works, and they make an estimate. It is for us to accept that or reject it, and we do accept it. That is a contract. I say to you, “Will you do that at a certain price,” and you say “Yes,” and that is a completed contract between two parties although there are a number of people.

Deputy Smith.—The position is that representations were made to the Board of Works to carry out a drainage scheme in Monasterevan. The Board of Works made certain inquiries and investigations, and there was a certain estimate made, and it was perhaps found that the Land Commission should in some way be involved. It was estimated that the scheme would cost about £3,000, and there are no two parties in this at all. The Land Commission agreed to make a contribution of £700 towards a scheme costing £3,000. That contribution was in respect of a number of holdings that were not vested in that area, and it was because they were not vested that the Land Commission made the contribution. I am not disputing their right to do that at all, but what I want to know is how it comes about that that should be done in respect of such a large drainage scheme in Monasterevan while it is never done in respect of schemes, smaller and larger, all over the country where unvested holdings are affected.

Chairman.—Mr. Deegan’s case is that it had nothing to do with the Board of Works’ scheme. They had certain work to do and the Board of Works were already working there, and they asked them to do the work for them.

523. Deputy Smith.—That is not right, even on the Accounting Officer’s admission. He has told us that representations were made with a view to having a scheme carried out, and certain correspondence passed between the Board of Works and his Department. It was calculated that a certain scheme would cost £3,000, and, in respect of the carrying out of that scheme, the Land Commission decided to make a contribution of £700, and there is no question of the Board of Works being in possession of the area and carrying out another scheme of their own, and the Land Commission asking them, “Do this for us and we will give you so much.” It is a one-scheme proposition.

Mr. Deegan.—The Land Commission had made their own investigation with their own officers and prepared their own scheme and costs.

524. Was that a separate work from the work the Board of Works was doing? —Separate work and separate estates. It would have to drain into work being done by the Board of Works. They were engaged on the bigger scheme and it seemed uneconomic to have two Departments working in the same district on a job of drainage.

525. But they were separate and distinct works?—In so far as drainage can be said to be separate works.

Deputy Haslett.—You, Sir, said a moment ago that if an estate was going to be vested they would have to drain it.

526. Chairman.—Out of the purchase money of all the estates, a certain sum is retained by the Land Commission for improvement work?—Not quite that.

527. There is some machinery of that nature?—You will find in our Vote a sub-head for the improvements of estates.

528. Deputy Harris.—Deputy Smith would be satisfied if the Land Commission undertook to do that work themselves and spent £700?—The Deputy is not correct in saying that this is not being done elsewhere. We are spending large sums on drainage elsewhere and doing work all over the country.

529. Mr. McGrath.—We have asked the Department to go to Finance in connection with certain expenditure. The Audit Office says that the expenditure benefits vested holdings in some degree, and the Land Commission’s case is that they were merely concerned with unvested holdings. I want to differentiate between holdings and estates. I am merely concerned with holdings, whether they are unvested or vested estates. There have been a lot of cases quoted here, and if they were all put forward and referred to the Department of Finance, it would facilitate the Land Commission and also the Audit Office.

530. Chairman.—What has Finance to say about this?

Mr. Lynd.—Our impression was that expenditure for the benefit of a holding is different from expenditure on the improvement of a holding. Section 12 of the Land Act of 1903 distinguishes between expenditure on improvements and benefiting of lands. I do not think the case made by the Land Commission here can be correct, because Section 43 of the Land Act of 1923 extends the power to expend money on improvements to the providing of rights of way. This expenditure was for the benefit of a holding, but it was not regarded until 1923 as expenditure on improvements.

Deputy Goulding.—I think the mistake arises owing to the nature of the wording of the paragraph: “I also observe a payment of £700 as a contribution towards the cost of drainage scheme.”

Chairman.—It was not really a contribution towards the cost of a drainage scheme, but payment in respect of drainage work done by the Board of Works.

531. Mr. Deegan.—What happened was that there were various estimates. The Board of Works might have had a larger scheme, or we might have had a larger scheme, but the representatives of the two Departments put their heads together and boiled the thing down to a scheme that would cost £3,000 and we said we would give £700 towards that, if they would do our share of the work. Of course, that is a contribution, but is not a contribution to the Board of Works’ scheme. It is a contribution to get our own work done by the Department.

Chairman.—Putting in that word is ambiguous and misleading.

532. Deputy Smith.—And the entire correspondence in relation to the scheme which the Accounting Officer has read, is misleading. He says that their scheme was apart altogether from anything being done by the Board of Works. I suppose that was all right. You were perfectly entitled to spend on these holdings any sum you decided, but I cannot divorce that from this statement here: “I also observe the payment of £700 as a contribution towards the cost of a drainage scheme,” which you have said was estimated to cost £3,000.

Mr. Deegan.—I hope I have made it clear now. Our £700 was for our own work. We have our own plans and our own estates, and we get that work done by the Board of Works, instead of doing it ourselves.

533. Deputy Goulding.—It was not really a contribution towards a larger scheme; it was payment for work done?— Yes. The engineers got together and examined the schemes and decided that good results could be got for £3,000, which was something better than was talked of at first. It was going to be very expensive at first.

Deputy Smith.—If you relate your attitude in this case to other cases I could cite, and of which I could give you the names and particulars if I wanted to, you will find that there is no equity or consistency.

534. Chairman.—Assume that on estate A an arterial drainage work is going to be done. If the people promoting it are cute enough and know the land well enough, they could not go to you and make application for a sum of money for that purpose?—No; we will not touch arterial drainage.

535. But if it is not entirely arterial drainage but drainage?—Our drainage is minor drainage. We do not touch anything else.

536. Deputy Smith.—Any scheme in excess of £1,000 is not a minor scheme, and this is for £3,000?—Our share was £700.

Deputy Smith.—It is definitely stated in the Act of 1925 that any scheme in excess of £1,000 is not and cannot be regarded as a minor scheme. My point is that here was a scheme costing £3,000 to which a contribution was made by the Land Commission of £700. If the Board of Works under the Arterial Drainage Act carry out a scheme costing £45,000, in so far as that scheme benefits unvested holdings, the Land Commission would be liable to be asked for a contribution towards it.

Deputy Haslett.—I think the latter part has become clearer. The Board of Works were doing work which bordered on this and the Accounting Officer said that they had a scheme of their own which would empty itself into the Board of Works’ scheme, and for which they were estimating themselves. His contention is that they had their separate plans and estimates for this scheme, and that the Board of Works had this subsidiary one, so that it was really no part of the larger scheme.

537. Chairman.—Deputy Smith is right to this extent, for I notice here in this document the words “portion of the contribution towards the cost of a drainage scheme to be undertaken by the Office of Public Works”?—Yes.

538. That is a total contribution of £700 for three estates?—Yes, these estates were in our own hands. We were concerned with them and were making our own plans.

539. That is your position and you justify it?—Certainly.

540. Deputy Goulding.—You took advantage of the fact that the Board of Works were doing drainage work in the locality?—Yes. They had their engineers planning big schemes of drainage, and they had their men on the spot, and we pressed them to do the work for us. As a matter of fact, we had trouble in inducing them to do it.

541. I think we had better leave this over until we are drawing up the report, do you not think so?—Is it understood that we are to get in touch with the Department of Finance and come to some arrangement about this matter?

Deputy Harris.—I do not think that would be the wise thing to do, for it would hold up the schemes, and in some cases it would mean that the men and the machinery would be gone away from the area before a decision with the Board of Works would be arrived at. I do not think it would be at all helpful to the carrying through of the schemes.

542. Deputy Goulding.—The result of this arrangement was the saving of a considerable expenditure to you?—Yes, and it saved the time of our staff, which is of more importance to us in recent years.

Chairman.—The trouble is that this figure is put down as a contribution to the drainage scheme. That is the unfortunate thing about it.

Mr. McGrath.—As far as I am concerned, I would be very glad if you would get in touch with the Department of Finance on the whole matter.

Mr. Deegan.—Very well, I will.

543. Mr. McGrath.—I am satisfied that the matter cannot be settled without the Department of Finance coming in and offering their opinion?—I am certain it cannot. We ought to be able to hit on some arrangement that will not interfere too much with our work.

544. Chairman.—There is a reference to a payment of £10 to an association for the destruction of vermin?—That is the very same thing.

545. Paragraph 47, sub-head Z— Assistance to Migrants from the Gael—tacht—reads:—

“The expenditure under this sub-head was incurred in connection with the improvement scheme under which certain lands in County Meath, available for the relief of congestion, were reserved for allottees from the Gael—tacht. To assist the migrants, the first of whom did not arrive until April, 1935, a portion of each holding was sown with wheat, oats, potatoes and barley, and an initial supply of turf and provisions was provided.”

It was fitting that the crops should be put in in time in the spring.

Deputy Smith.—That paragraph, I take it, has been put in by the Auditor-General for information.

546. Chairman.—The second paragraph of 47 reads:—

“In addition, expenditure was incurred from sub-head I—Improvement of estates, etc., in providing the necessary roads, drains and water supply, the erection of dwelling-houses and out-offices and for free grants of stock and implements; and from sub-head I (3) of Vote 52—Agriculture—for the services of an Assistant Agricultural Overseer who was appointed to give the migrants practical instruction in the development of their new holdings.”

Deputy Smith.—That is all right.

Deputy Haslett.—That was entirely free.

547. Deputy O Briain.—This paragraph is not meant by the Auditor-General as a criticism of the Land Commission for bringing migrants to the County Meath?

Mr. McGrath.—No, it was put in for the information of the Committee. That work was done in accordance with the authority of the Dáil.

548. Chairman.—Now we come on to the sub-heads of the Land Commission: there is nothing up to sub-head G calling for comment. Sub-head H has an item “payments under Section 11 (7) of the Land Act, 1923.” What is that for?— That was interest on the Land Bonds.

549. Deputy O Briain.—Sub-head P— Advances to provide funds or the maintenance of embankments or other works. £2,000 was the grant and the expenditure was £328 15s. How is it that more money was not spent out of the grant available?—That is an item that perhaps calls for explanation. That sub-head applies only to advances—where we provide money for advances on holdings improved. We provide under another sub-head for grants for the improvement of embankments. In the one case (sub-head P) we intend to make a charge on the tenant purchaser to repay us afterwards for the money expended but we may have spent out of sub-head I a much larger sum by way of free grant.

550. Deputy Haslett.—In the matter of sub-head Z, “Assistance to migrants from the Gaeltacht,” the seeds and all I take it were free grants?—Yes, all free. The tenant is paying for his land in full. Everything else that we have spent on him and that is found in Vote 56 was a free grant.

551. Deputy Haslett.—“AA—Purchase of Tolls and Customs, Grant £362 and expenditure £362.” What tolls were these?—These were tolls that were bought by the Congested Districts Board several years ago. I think it would be 17 years before the matter of the purchase was completed in 1933. We collected the tolls all the time. We paid the purchase money and interest on it in 1933.

VOTE 55—FORESTRY.

Mr. M. Deegan further examined.

552. Chairman.—The acquisition of land under sub-head C (1) is £50,000. This, I take it, is land for afforestation? —Yes.

553. “Cultural operations, maintenance, etc., C (2).” Is this in connection with nurseries?—It is for foresters, care-takers’ wages, maintenance, labour materials, etc.

554. “Sub-head E—Forestry education.” What is that for?—We take on some trainees every year through the Civil Service Commissioners and we give them a three years’ course of training. Quite recently we opened a place at Avondale, Co. Wicklow.

555. Deputy O Briain.—How many trainees were taken on in the year 1934-35?—We take on 12 per annum.

556. Deputy Smith.—You do not hold out any future to them after their three years’ course is completed—you are under no obligation to them?—No, but we have work for them all at present. We keep moving them up.

567. You have not discarded any of them when their course is finished?— There is a career for everyone of them owing to the development in forestry. Some of them become inspectors in forestry.

Chairman.—I do not think there is any other point to be raised under this Vote.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 57—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

Mr. T. R. Price called and examined.

Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, par. 48:—

“Sub-head L—Peat Fuel Development. The charge to sub-head L (4) includes payments to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society amounting to £2,993 11s. 11d., and to the Turf Development Board, Ltd., amounting to £7,993 10s. 8d. The balance of the expenditure related mainly to purchase of sacks, £11,817 0s. 10d.; advertising, £705 16s. 6d., and to fees for the registration of Turf Co-operative Societies, £89.

With the approval of the Department of Finance the organisation and supervision of Turf Co-operative Societies was entrusted to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. Repayment was made to the Society in respect of vouched expenditure for salaries and travelling expenses of organisers, postage, telegrams, etc., with an addition of 10 per cent. for overhead charges. As from 1st April, 1935, the supervision, etc., of the Turf Societies was taken over by the Turf Development Board, Ltd.

The Turf Development Board, Ltd., was incorporated in July, 1934, to undertake, inter alia, the marketing and publicity work in connection with peat development. The arrangements approved by the Department of Finance provided that, subject to certain conditions, the Company would be wholly subsidised from State funds as regards its staff, office and other administrative expenses.

Imprests were issued to the Board by the Department during the period 1st August, 1934, to 31st March, 1935. After departmental examination of the Board’s books and vouchers relating to that period a sum of £7,933 10s. 8d. was ascertained as the figure proper to be charged against sub-head L (4). An audit of the vouchers referred to has also been carried out by my officers with satisfactory results. The balance of the imprests issued has been refunded to the Department by the Board.

Included in the expenditure allowed were certain payments for engineers’ supplies and office furniture and equipment. I understand it is proposed to recover the cost of these items from the Board.

Certain technical equipment purchased from sub-head L (3) at a cost of £191 11s. 6d. was placed at the disposal of the Turf Development Board, Ltd., with the condition that it will remain the property of the State until such payment as may be arranged has been made by the Company.

It was decided, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to place the stock of sacks on hands, purchased from the vote in 1933-34 and 1934-35, including sacks hired to distributors under the arrangement referred to in my last report, at the disposal of the Turf Development Board, Ltd., on the following conditions:—

that the sacks be now valued at £16,000, and while remaining the property of the Department of Industry and Commerce, be made available for use by the Board; that a levy of 1s. 2d. a ton on each ton of turf sold should be made by the Board with the object of recovering for the Exchequer the entire cost of the sacks within a period of about three years, and that the Board should pay interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum on outstanding amounts until the full charge plus interest has been recovered.

The credit to sub-head O—Appropriations-in-Aid—includes £1,000 paid by the Turf Development Board in 1934-35 in respect of the sacks taken over.”

568. Chairman.—Mr. Leydon, the Accounting Officer, is unable to be present, and Mr. Price has been nominated to answer any questions on the Votes of this Department.

569. Deputy Haslett.—They seem to be very hopeful about the life of the sacks —I mean the Department.

570. Chairman.—They are more hopeful than I would be. Are they good sacks?—They are very good sacks. They are expensive sacks.

Deputy Harris.—They are sticking it pretty well; they have been a couple of years in use.

571. Deputy Goulding.—Reference has been made to a levy of 1/2 a ton on each ton of turf sold?—On any turf sold by the Board they have levied 1/2—they have added the 1/2 to the cost of producing.

572. Chairman.—You are levying that in connection with the sacks, no matter how long they last?—We have taken the capital value into consideration and the probable life of the sacks.

573. You are protecting yourselves financially?—We have taken the life of a sack on an average at three years. If the sacks last longer we gain; if they last a little shorter we lose.

574. Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, paragraph 49:—

“Sub-head M—Industrial Research Council. The expenditure charged to M 4—Special Investigations—amounted to £587 7s. 9d. and related mainly to investigations undertaken by University Colleges in connection with clay deposits, peat, waxes, seaweed, etc. The payments made were covered by Department of Finance sanction.

In connection with payments to University Colleges for plant and equipment, the Department has been asked as to the steps taken to ensure that the ownership of such plant, etc., is vested in the State.

Sub-head N—Production of Industrial Alcohol. The amount provided under this sub-head was £102,000 and was required to defray the cost of erection and equipment of five distilleries and one refinery, and for working capital and the cost of supervision and management. The amount expended to 31st March, 1935, was, however, £9,841 10s. 5d. only, owing, as stated in the note appended to the Appropriation Account, to the erection of the factories not having been started within the financial year, as the localities had not been decided on.

Under the Industrial Alcohol Act, 1934, the Department of Industry and Commerce entered into an agreement with a Dutch Company, with the approval of the Department of Finance, by which the company supervises the establishment and equipment of the distilleries and rectifying plant, and the operation of the industry for a period of approximately five years. The agreement provides for payment to the company for its services and also for royalties; for limits to the cost of production; for payment of liquidated damages by the company in the event of these limits being exceeded, and for arbitration in the case of disputes.”

575. Chairman.—As regards this company, their advisers are in charge of this thing—you entered into a contract with them?—A contract to prepare the plans and to supervise the erection and equipment of the distilleries and subsequently, at a later stage, to produce the alcohol. That was the contract with Noury and Van der Lande. That has nothing to do with the actual construction of the distilleries or the provision of the plant.

576. But the technical advisers are the employees of the Dutch firm?—Yes.

577. They are not paid by you?—Under the terms of the agreement they have to find those people.

578. You have nothing to do with them except that they advise you?—They advise the Minister under the terms of this agreement.

579. Deputy Goulding.—Will these experts be retained in connection with the production of the alcohol?—That might or might not be the case. It is left with Noury and Van der Lande as to whom they will employ. They are responsible for a period from the time the distilleries are completed, so that they may retain the people they had at the beginning during the construction of the distilleries; they may retain them afterwards or they may not; they might change them and get greater experts for the production of the alcohol.

580. Deputy Haslett.—When does the period commence?—From the date of the contract with Noury and Van der Lande and the date is the 29th October, 1934. Under that contract they were to prepare the plans and to obtain the tenders for the construction of the distilleries. The Minister, of course, made the contracts, but they were to obtain the tenders; that is, contracts for the erection and equipment of the distilleries. The company were to supervise the carrying out of the contracts.

581. Chairman.—They undertook the inspection of sites and these men would advise them on that matter?—That was part of the agreement.

582. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General (paragraph 50—continued):—

“The agreement also provided for the appointment of a managing director, on the nomination of the company, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The salary of the managing director is paid directly from the Vote.

Payments amounting to £7,845 11s. 3d. were made to the company under the agreement during the year. The charge to sub-head N also includes payments in respect of salaries (including salary of managing director), travelling, telephones, postage, etc.”

583. Chairman.—Is this their own managing director?—There was a provision in the agreement that the Minister would appoint whoever Noury and Van der Lande nominated to be managing director. He is an official of the Minister’s. The contractors were to name the person to be appointed managing director, but the Minister appointed him and the cost of his remuneration is charged to this sub-head.

584. Is he a civil servant?—No, he is a temporary employee in this capacity for a period of five years. Under the agreement we had to appoint him for five years.

585. Deputy Goulding.—One would imagine the appointment of a managing director would not arise until the company would be working?—He was managing director for Noury and Van der Lande under all the headings of the agreement, for the purpose of the preparation of plans, obtaining tenders and finding the sites. He was to be managing director for all those activities and subsequently managing director when they were producing alcohol.

586. Chairman.—Are they paying him? —The Minister is paying him. He is being paid out of this sub-head; it is included in that figure of £7,845. The payment of £7.845 11s. 3d. represents the fees paid to Noury and Van der Lande under the agreement. The total of the sub-head is £9,841. The managing director’s salary is additional to the fees paid to Noury and Van der Lande. There is the salary of the managing director, and we have some staff on loan, civil servants, to the Industrial Alcohol Office. Their expenses are also eventually charged to this sub-head. They are first charged to sub-head A—Permanent Officials—and we recover from sub-head N and credit it back as Appropriations-in-Aid. The idea is to have all the cost of industrial alcohol under the one sub-head.

587. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General (paragraph 50—continued):—

“With regard to officers of the Department seconded for duty in the managing director’s office, the Department of Finance directed that the salaries and bonus of the officers concerned should be charged to sub-head A of the Vote and recouped, plus a sum in respect of pension liability, from the sub-head for Production of Industrial Alcohol. The amounts recouped are credited to Appropriations-in-Aid (salaries) and Exchequer Extra Receipts (pension liability).

Sub-head P — Compensation for Damages by “Leonardo Da Vinci” Aircraft—51. The Department of Finance sanctioned payment of compensation, within a total maximum of £100, in respect of claims for property damaged or for the provision of materials or hospitality arising from the forced landing of this aeroplane in County Clare on 15th May, 1934. Claims amounting to £32 10s. 0d. were paid in the year under review. Other expenditure connected with the forced landing is referred to in a note appended to the Appropriations Account of Vote 65— Army.

Sub-head Q—Chicago World’s Fair, 1933-52. With the exception of expenditure amounting to 40 dollars, the Department of Finance has given covering sanction for the payments included in the 1933-34 account and referred to in last year’s report, which were either unvouched or related to items of an unusual character.

The Department of Finance also sanctioned the recoupment to the Department of External Affairs of certain other payments which were inadequately vouched or for which no vouchers were submitted, and under this authority a sum of £539 1s. 7d. has been charged in the present account to this special sub-head. This figure represents the amount claimed by the Department of External Affairs less the 40 dollars referred to above.”

588. Paragraph 53. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Receipts in respect of sales and royalties (Official Handbook of Saorstát Eireann) during the year amounted to £14 5s. 8d. and £3 1s. 6d. respectively.

“On the recommendation of the Stationery Office and with Department of Finance sanction all copies of the Handbook remaining on hand (7,700 approximately) were sold for a sum of £150, and this sum was duly received and credited to Exchequer extra receipts.

“As the expenditure on the Handbook amounted to £3,517 12s. 5d. and the receipts in respect of advertisements, sales and royalties totalled £1,901 4s. 3d., the excess of expenditure over receipts on 31st March, 1935, was £1,616 8s. 2d.”

589. Deputy O Briain.—The sum of £1,616 8s. 2d. was actual loss on the publication?

Mr. Price.—We received a small sum in the following year, and we got a small refund of income-tax and a final payment from the publishers in England. The final payment was £6 16s. 0d. and the total loss was £1,609.

590. Paragraph 54. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Sums amounting to £56 10s. 9d. (Fees under the Mines and Minerals Act, 1931), due to the Department in respect of dead rent were waived under the authority of the Department of Finance.”

Mr. McGrath.—In the printing of the Appropriation Account, the note in connection with this matter seemed to be left out and we provided for it here.

VOTE 58— RAILWAYS.

Mr. T. R. Price further examined.

Payments and Receipts under Section 63 of the Railways Act, 1924.

591. Paragraph 55. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“The amount charged to sub-head A represents the final payment to the Great Southern Railways Company under Section 63 (1) of the Railways Act, 1924. Included in the credits to sub-head D—Appropriations-in-Aid—are the final repayments amounting to £19,898 by certain county councils under Section 63 (2), and also the final payment of £6,804 out of Local Taxation Account under Section 63 (7) of the same Act.”

Chairman.—Any questions on this?

Mr. McGrath.—It is purely informative.

Sub-Head C—Payments in respect of Steamer Services.

592. Paragraph 56. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“A draft agreement between the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Agriculture, and the Galway Bay Steamboat Co., Ltd. Provided, inter alia, for the payment to the company of a fixed subsidy at the rate of £300 per annum from the 1st January, 1933, to the 31st December, 1939, and from year to year thereafter, in consideration of the company undertaking to maintain a regular steamer service between Galway and the Aran Islands. Included in the charge to this sub-head are payments to the company, with Department of Finance sanction, amounting to £600 in respect of the subsidy for the years 1933 and 1934. The draft agreement has not yet been completed.”

593. Chairman.—What you are doing is you are paying for work and labour done?—Yes.

594. Will an agreement be come to?— Yes, but legislation will be required. The Minister has no power to enter into an agreement in the absence of legislation, but legislation is on the way.

Sub-Head CC—Payment to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company in respect of Letterkenny and Burtonport, Buncrana and Carndonagh and Letterkenny Railways.

595. Paragraph 57. Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Provision of £2,000 was made in a Supplementary Estimate for a contribution to the above company towards the loss on the working of the railways referred to during the year 1934. The amount paid, with Department of Finance sanction, was £1,717, being one half of the net loss on the working of the undertaking during 1934, as ascertained by investigation of the company’s accounts and vouchers by the Department of Industry and Commerce.

The approval of the Department of Finance for making provision for the above contribution and also for a contribution not exceeding £1,500 towards expenditure on railway fixed charges, and on compensation to disemployed railway workers, in each of the years 1935, 1936 and 1937, was given on the understanding that the Government of Northern Ireland will make a grant of £5,000 to the railway company, payable in three equal instalments in each of the three years referred to. Provision for the contribution of £1,500 referred to above, in respect of the year 1935, is made in the Estimate for the Vote for Transport Services for 1935-36.”

596. Chairman.—I understand this Government and the Northern Ireland Government contribute a sum each year towards the loss on the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway?—Yes.

597. Has the Northern Government carried out its part of the contract?—Yes.

Sub-Head CCC—Losses.

598. Paragraph 58. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Provision for the amount charged to this sub-head representing, as stated in the note appended to the appropriation account,

(1) moieties and percentages payable by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company in connection with the working of the Carndonagh, Burtonport and Letterkenny lines (£52,497 0s. 8d.) and

(2) advances made in respect of losses in working during the years 1924-34 (£54,191),

was made in the Supplementary Estimate passed by Dáil Eireann on the 7th March, 1935. The Supplementary Estimate also provided for the crediting of a corresponding amount to sub-head D—Appropriations-in-Aid.”

Chairman.—This is informative?

Mr. McGrath.—It is the method of writing off some bad debts.

Sub-Head D—Appropriations-in-Aid.

599. Paragraph 59. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Section 15 (1) of the Cork Tramways (Employees Compensation) Act, 1933, provides for the repayment by the Electricity Supply Board and the Cork Corporation, by means of terminable annuities of all monies expended by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Act. As stated in my last report, the total expenditure was £39,605 9s. 8d., and under the section referred to the Minister for Industry and Commerce after consultation with the Minister for Finance has fixed the amount of the annuities to be paid by each of the bodies mentioned at £1,589 0s. 6d. The annuities are to be paid in each year from 1934 to 1953 and the receipts of £3,178 1s. 0d. in the present account relates to the sum due for 1934.”

Mr. McGrath.—That paragraph is merely informative.

VOTE 61—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. T. R. Price further examined.

Sub-Head A-Salaries. Wages and Allowances.

600. Paragraph 60—Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“A Supplementary Estimate was taken to provide for expenditure in connection with the issue, by branch managers and officers in Employment Exchanges of beef vouchers under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, 1934. The extra remuneration paid to branch managers for this service as approved by the Department of Finance was at the rate of ¾d. for each beef voucher issued.”

Sub-Head J—Unemployment Assistance.

601. Paragraph 61—Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“This sub-head, which appears for the first time, provides for payments to persons who are qualified to receive assistance under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933.

At the date of my report my examination of these payments had not been completed, but so far as it had been carried out the results were satisfactory.”

Mr. McGrath.—I should say in connection with that paragraph that we carried out the further examination since and are quite satisfied that the system is working satisfactorily.

602. Paragraph 62—Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

Sub-Head K—Appropriations-in-Aid.

“Under Section 25 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933. a sum of £250,000 is to be transferred to the Minister for Industry and Commerce out of the Unemployment Fund in every financial year commencing after 31st March, 1934. This sum was duly transferred in the year under review and credited to Appropriations-in-Aid with Department of Finance approval.

It is provided by Section 26 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, that in every financial year commencing after 31st March, 1934, county borough and urban area councils shall pay to the Minister for Industry and Commerce certain sums based on the rateable value at the beginning of the immediately preceding financial year of such county boroughs or urban areas. Certificates as to the rateable annual valuations, under the Valuation Acts, of the local bodies concerned, effective from 1st April, 1933, were received by the Department from the Commissioner of Valuation, but the payments received from the local authorities differed in all cases from those due on the basis of the valuations as certified by the Commissioner. I understand that legal advice is being sought on the points involved.

The amount received from the local bodies during the year was £151,005 4s. 6d. and this sum has been credited, with Department of Finance sanction, to Appropriations-in-Aid.

Unvouched Payments.

603. Paragraph 63—Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“As stated in the notes appended to the appropriation account, the Department of Finance has authorised the charge of unvouched payments amounting to £2 17s. 4d. and £351 2s. 9d. to sub-heads C and J respectively. The payments represented poundage on postal orders, and unemployment assistance at an employment exchange on 15th November 1934, on which date all the records, with the exception of certain account books, were destroyed by fire.

I am satisfied that the amounts in question are properly chargeable against the Vote.

Mr. Price.—That was the Dundalk Employment Exchange.

604. Deputy O Briain.—As to sub-head I. these are the people who travel to the Courts of Referees?—The payments out of this sub-head are to enable people to proceed to another centre to take up work. An unemployed person might be offered a job in another town and might not have his railway fare. Under an arrangement, we pay the railway fare and get the employer to sign an undertaking to recover the amount advanced from the workman’s wages when he takes up employment.

VOTE 62—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION OFFICE.

Mr. T. R. Price called.

No question.

VOTE 54—GAELTACHT SERVICES.

Mr. S. Moran called and examined

Sub-Head E (1)—Salaries, Wages and Allowances.

Paragraph 38. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“During the year of audit the Department decided to dispose of one of its industrial centres. I observed that notice terminating the services of the manageress was not given for some months after work at the centre had ceased. In view of the nature of the duties performed I am of opinion that payment of full remuneration to the manageress, after production had ceased, was not justified.”

604a. Chairman.—Mr. Moran represents Mr. Deegan, the Accounting Officer.

Mr. McGrath.—The manageress in this case was kept on over a period between 30th September, 1934, and some time in January, 1935. An agreement to purchase was made out prior to that date and, as far as the Audit Office knows, there was no necessity for keeping her on. Her being kept on entailed the payment of salary for about 15 weeks at the rate of £3 2s. 6d. per week.

605. Chairman.—Was this the Ardara lady?

Mr. Moran.—No, Moycullen, County Galway.

606. How long was she there?—Some years, I understand. The circumstances of the case were peculiar. The centre was being sold to the lady who was the manageress. It occurred about the 17th September. We reached an arrangement to conclude negotiations and from that until about 30th September she was completing orders. Then the matter was handed to the Board of Works to complete the lease, which was completed about December. Notice was given to her on that day. The real reason animating my predecessor appears to be that he had a bitter experience in connection with another centre which was sold under similar circumstances. The main idea behind the authorities is to maintain continuity of employment. If this lady had been given notice and had gone away, the probability is that the workers would have gone to Scotland or somewhere else, as they do in these areas. In that case there was a possibility that the whole thing would fall through—the whole sale of the centre. That was one of the reasons. The difficulty, of course, was to get the legal documents signed in time— that took some little time. I do not see how it could have been obviated.

607. Deputy Goulding.—She was actually working during the period?— There was not much for her to do. She was working for about six weeks of the period.

608. Deputy Haslett.—What time was it handed over?—Some time in February in the following year—1935.

609. Deputy Goulding.—She was still your official?—Yes, and was paid.

610. Deputy O Briain.—The amount involved was £45?—About that.

Deputy Haslett.—The Accounting Officer accounts for about half the time.

611. Chairman.—Had you to give notice?—Yes.

612. How long?—As a matter of fact, she got compensation, I think, at a subsequent date, being a transferred officer.

613. Deputy Goulding.—She was actually working for six weeks of the period?—About that. Somebody had to take charge of the stock in the meantime and you could not give her notice.

614. Mr. McGrath.—I should mention in fairness to Mr. Moran that this occurred before he took charge. It involves a payment to which the Department of Finance have since, I understand, refused to give sanction.

Mr. Moran.—That is right.

Mr. McGrath.—It is a rather serious matter. The Accounting Officer at the time becomes personally responsible for that overpayment.

Chairman.—It is a matter of the Department of Finance recovering the money from him.

Mr. McGrath.—I want to let the Committee know that the matter is rather serious.

615. Chairman.—In other words, the payment was irregular?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

Deputy Haslett.—Will we report upon this?

Chairman.—I do not think so.

Deputy Smith.—Why should we not?

Chairman.—It is the duty of the Department of Finance to recover the money—they are bound to do it.

Deputy Smith.—In view of the explanation given here, is it our contention that the procedure followed is not proper?

Chairman.—It was an irregular payment.

616. Deputy Smith.—Would it not strike the Committee that it was very good business to do this? The place was sold to the manageress, but she did not get possession of it for a certain period, and during that time the Accounting Officer points out that it was necessary to retain her or somebody else, and she was retained and paid.

Chairman.—Somebody to maintain and watch the place?

Mr. Moran.—That is precisely the point.

Deputy Smith.—I would not regard that as irregular.

Chairman.—I agree, but the point is that in law she was not retained as a caretaker. She was there as manageress.

Mr. McGrath.—As a matter of fact, she was minding her own goods.

617. Deputy Smith.—She did not get legal possession.

Mr. Moran.—She did not get possession.

Mr. McGrath.—I am afraid that is how it works out.

618. Chairman.—They were ultimately her goods, but at this period they were not?—They were not her goods, they were the property of the Government at that time.

619. Deputy Smith.—Was she disposing of these?—She was taking them over.

620. What was happening to the goods before she got possession?—Any for sale were being despatched to the depot. The yarns were retained until she got possession.

Deputy Smith.—It seems to me clear that the thing is in order.

Mr. McGrath.—The Department of Finance holds it is not.

621. Chairman.—I think as a centre which was closed down and was being wound up it was not.

Mr. Moran.—I expect it is like many concerns which are winding up. There will always be a hiatus. As far as I have looked into the matter, I do not see what else could have been done. It did not occur in my time. You could serve her with notice and get her out of the premises, but you would have to put in a caretaker and, in that case, the whole sale might fall through.

Chairman.—A caretaker would be of no use in dealing with stock.

Mr. McGrath.—It could have been done in this way. The premises belong to the Government. They could have appointed her caretaker. In addition to the £45, she got housing for 15 weeks which was worth 4/- per week. An arrangement could have been come to by which she would be appointed caretaker during this period.

622. Deputy Smith.—It strikes me that the Department of Finance have sanctioned other things that were much more fishy-looking than that.

Mr. Moran.—I should like to stress one point—that in Keel centre, which was sold previously, notice was served on the manageress immediately and the result was that all the girls went away to Scotland, and it took three and a half years to get the centre going again. I understand it will take 12 months before it will start into operation. Our main concern is to keep the centres going. Once they shut down you will never get them going again.

623. Deputy Smith.—Can we, as a Committee, do anything to save the individual concerned in this transaction? You have given us to understand that this individual will have to pay?

Mr. McGrath.—I do not say that the Department of Finance will hold it up indefinitely. Perhaps, as a result of the arguments put forward here to-day, they may change their minds.

Deputy Smith.—As far as I am concerned, my whole prejudice would be in favour of the individual. I should not like to see him penalised.

624. Chairman.—We can deal with this matter in the Report. There is one point on which I want to be clear. Do you state definitely that in the period following the actual closing down as an operating centre this lady was disposing of stuff?

Mr. Moran.—Yes, for nearly six weeks after that period—up to the 30th September.

625. Deputy O Briain.—Who was getting the proceeds of the sales?—Any sales that were made came to the credit of Government funds.

Deputy Goulding.—She was still acting on behalf of the Department.

626. Chairman.—What was the objection of the Department of Finance?

Mr. Shanagher.—As we saw the case, this lady had no real duties to perform after 30th September, 1934, except those of purely nominal caretaking. Her duties were really in respect of caretaking material which she had agreed to purchase from the Department. Those goods were, if not legally, at any rate in fact, her own.

627. Chairman.—Was it a verbal agreement?

Mr. Shanagher.—She had entered into a written agreement to purchase, dated 15th August, subject to the completion of a lease in legal form. If we on our side were prepared to complete that lease, we could sue her for specific performance under the agreement. After 30th September, 1934, on the information we have, she had no real duties except those of nominal caretaker, and she was being allowed to occupy official premises free of rent; that occupation being valued as worth 4/- a week. For purely nominal caretaking, that benefit of occupation free of rent, worth about 4/- a week, seems to have been adequate. Instead of that, she got wages of £3 7s. 0d. a week for doing nothing.

628. Deputy Smith.—When her services ceased, the Department concerned was not in a position to give this lady legal possession. They were asking her to remain on there to look after what was the property of the Government, and expecting that she should do so simply because an arrangement to sell had been made between her and the Department of Finance—an arrangement which had not been completed or properly effected. We must look at a matter of this kind as between two ordinary individuals, and the Department of Finance is asking something that, in ordinary transactions, would never be asked.

Mr. Shanagher.—Our point really is that she should not have been paid as manageress for a period during which she had no duties as manageress to perform, and an arrangement should have been made with her to carry her service as manageress only up to the date on which they were really required. After that date another arrangement—a much cheaper one—could have been made in respect of caretaking.

629. Deputy Smith.—It is a very technical point. It is too technical a point upon which to victimise an individual. The difference between paying her as manageress and paying her for a period as caretaker would be, to many of us, I think, too technical a point on which to victimise an individual to the extent of the amount involved.

Chairman.—It comes to about £3 4s. a week?

Mr. Shanagher.—£3 7s.

Chairman.—And 4/- as the value of her residence?

Mr. Shanagher.—Yes. The £3 7s. was inclusive of the 4s. in respect of the residence.

630. Deputy Smith.— How do you know, Mr. Chairman, or how does the Department of Finance know how much they would have to give a caretaker if they appointed her for the period mentioned under a caretaker’s agreement?

Mr. Shanagher.—For caretaking duties, payment at the rate proper to a manageress for the duties of a manageress would be too much.

631. Deputy Goulding.—She was actually engaged in selling the products of the company?

Mr. Shanagher.—That was finished after the 30th September.

Mr. Moran.—There is one point which cannot be lost sight of, and that is that the Accounting Officer was waiting from day to day for the lease from the Office of Public Works. The theoretical side of it may be all right, but the practical side has to be looked at. He was waiting from day to day for the lease, and the point I would stress is that the moment the lease came from the Board of Works the lady was served with notice.

Deputy Smith.—How could he be expected to terminate her appointment as manageress, not knowing but that immediately after 30th September he might get this lease any day in any post? It happened that the production of the lease was delayed longer perhaps than he anticipated.

632. Chairman.—That lease may be with me. You would not expect it to be legitimate to pay me £3 7s. a week and give me a free house for that period. I only go in on the day that my legal title begins.

Mr. Moran.—The point is that you have to visualise the difficulties of the Accounting Officer.

Deputy O Briain.—This was a business transaction. We have often heard of cases where managers, manageresses or employees of firms were given notice, and given three months salary or even 12 months salary. That happens even in ordinary business. It strikes me that it is a very small and finicky point for the Department of Finance to raise for with-holding sanction for a payment like this.

Chairman.—We can refer to the matter in the Report.

Deputy Smith.—I hope that what we have said to-day will induce the Department of Finance to examine the whole position again.

633. Chairman.—I am rather sceptical about that. In his note under sub-head F (3), the Comptroller and Auditor-General says:—“In my last two reports I referred to the payment of rent for storage of kelp.” The kelp was all disposed of?

Mr. Moran.—Yes.

634. Chairman.—Paragraph 40 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report under sub-head F (5) is as follows:—

“As the supply of carrageen available to the Department was insufficient to enable it to meet its commitments, covering sanction was given by the Department of Finance for the purchase of French carrageen, the cost to be charged to a special sub-head. I observed from an examination of the vouchers that the substitution of French carrageen for Irish carrageen resulted in a loss to the Department of £62 2s. 9d.”

635. Deputy O Briain.—That meant that you actually paid more for the French carrageen?—I think in general practice that is so, but the additional charges were somewhat heavier as well.

636. Including transport?—Yes.

637. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note under sub-head J (1):—

“Under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 and 1934, grants may be made for the erection of new, or the improvement of existing dwelling-houses, poultry houses and piggeries in the Gaeltacht. In addition, the Minister may certify for the issue of loans by the Commissioners of Public Works in amplification of grants made in accordance with the above Acts. Pursuant to Section 2 of the Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Act, 1934, the aggregate amount of the grants and loans which may be made is not to exceed the sum of £650,000.

At the 31st March, 1935, the position regarding such grants and loans was as follows:—

(1) Total amount of grants sanctioned, £291, 475 0s. 0d. Total amount of actual payments, £180,271 10s. 6d.

(2) Total amount of loans sanctioned, £123,575. Total amount of loans for which certificates have been issued to the Commissioners of Public Works, £85,530.

638. Deputy Smith.—Can the Accounting Officer tell us if there is any co-operation between all the Departments concerned in housing in Gaeltacht areas? —There is.

639. Between the Land Commission and the Local Government Department?— Yes, between all of them.

640. Chairman.—Paragraph 42 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report reads as follows:—

“Since the date of my last report, the Minister for Finance has, pursuant to Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit department’s Act, 1932, approved of the form of accounts and balance sheet for rural industries. These accounts, the first of which will be in respect of the year ending 31st March, 1936, will, in due course, be submitted for audit and subsequently presented to the Oireachtas.”

Is that with regard to presenting commercial accounts?—Yes.

641. Paragraph 42 continues:—

“The Minister for Finance has likewise approved of the statement of account in respect of the loans issued in connection with the Department’s industrial activities, and of trading accounts and balance sheets for the kelp and carrageen development scheme.”

Deputy O Briain.—That question was at issue here for a number of years past. It is fixed up now.

642. Chairman.—Paragraph 43 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report is as follows:— “I have been furnished with a statement concerning the Industrial Loans from which it appears that advances made during the year ended 31st March, 1935, amounted to £125 1s. 6d. Of this, £66 7s. 6d. relates to cash advances charged to sub-head H, while £58 14s. 0d. represents the value of looms, machines, etc., issued on loan repayment terms. In addition, looms valued at £861 10s. 1d. were issued to workers on hire-purchase agreements. Exclusive of the amounts due on these hire-purchase agreements the arrears due at 31st March, 1935, amounted to £9,513 6s. 6d., as compared with £9,277 19s. 4d. on 31st March, 1934.”

643. Deputy O Briain.—Those industrial loans were loans for the purpose of assisting people in the Gaeltacht to establish cottage industries in their homes?—For the hire-purchase of looms and small things of that kind.

644. The arrears have gone up?—Yes. That sum of £9,513 6s. 6d. really includes one large item of £9,143 0s. 0d., which is an old Congested Districts Board loan.

645. That is due for a number of years past?—Since 1917. The company was wound up.

646. Mr. McGrath.—Have you some property in connection with that?—We made some proposals to the Department of Finance, as a result of which we think some of it may be liquidated.

647. Deputy Smith.—Why is it carried forward in that way?—We have a proposal on foot at the moment, and we may recover some of it.

Chairman.—We will now turn to the Gaeltacht Service Vote, which is on page 159.

648. Deputy O Briain.—In regard to sub-head E (1)—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—does that cover salaries of officials and wages of workers?—It covers manageresses’ salaries and things of that kind. It does not cover workers’ pay.

649. In regard to sub-head F(3)—Kelp Development—is there any improvement in the kelp situation or any improvement in the market?—Not in the iodine market. There are certain developments in other directions. In regard to the kelp which we purchased this year, I do not think we will get anything like the quantity we expected, but we have arrangements for the sale of the whole lot of it at a fairly substantial figure.

650. You are not getting as much carrageen as you need?—We cannot get enough carrageen.

651. Chairman.—In regard to sub-head G (1)—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—is that in regard to Beggar’s Bush?—Yes.

The Committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 3rd June, 1936.