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, 29adh Abrán, 1936.

Wednesday, 29th April, 1936.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

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

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.

Deputy Smith.—I propose Deputy MacEoin for the Chair.

Deputy O Briain.—I second.

Question agreed to.

1. Deputy MacEoin.—I thank you, gentlemen. I shall call on the Comptroller and Auditor-General to say a word before we start.

Comptroller and Auditor-General (Mr. McGrath).— The Committee meets because it was ordered by the Dáil that the Appropriation Accounts, together with a report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, for the year ending 31st March, 1935, be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts for examination and report. It would be as well for me to say that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is an officer of the Oireachtas and he makes his report to the Dáil. In other words, he may be described by saying that he is a check acting on behalf of the taxpayer upon the spending Departments. He is dependent upon the Dáil as to the means for carrying out his duties. His main duty is to report on the Appropriation Accounts. He must see that the payments in the accounts are in accordance with the authorities granted. The authority is granted in this case in the Appropriation Acts. He sees that there is proof of payment in every instance and that the computations are correct. His great and main function is to see that the payments made are in agreement with the intentions of the Dáil. He must see that the sums spent are charged under their proper headings. There are certain matters which he must report on—for instance, an excess over a grant or any clear irregularity. He has certain discretionary powers. He reports in such a way as to assist the Dáil in making its way through a considerable volume of accounts, and in doing this, he reports anything which, in his opinion, should be made known to the Dáil. In doing that, he must act with care and discretion, as it is not his function to criticise administrative action or to criticise policy. The Departments are responsible for their own actions as regards general administration, but if he finds that the result of administrative action has been a loss or a waste of public money, then he thinks he is not going too far beyond his duties in reporting these matters. Now, the Public Accounts Committee has the right to require the attendance of witnesses and the power to send for all documents, papers and records relevant to the matters referred to them. It has no Executive power. It reports on its findings and recommendations to the Dáil. Further action rests with the Administration. The Committee’s power lies in the fact that the officers who are responsible appear before the Committee each year to answer any questions that may be put to them, and also in the potential results of their reports. The Committee has a duty to report to the Dáil, and it is the business of the Department of Finance to write Minutes on its reports. There is no obligation on the Department of Finance to adopt recommendations in the report but it is required to state in its Minutes the reasons for any differences of opinion it may hold.

Chairman.—We will take Vote No. 10 —Office of Public Works—and call on Mr. Kent.

VOTE 10—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. P. Kent called and examined.

1a. Chairman.—In connection with Vote 10—Office of Public Works—the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in paragraph 8, reports as follows:—

“In paragraph 8 of my last report I drew attention to the fall in revenue on the Shannon Navigation and the consequent reduction of the balance on the account. It will be seen from the statement appended to the appropriation account that expenditure during the year was £2,020 in excess of the receipts, leaving a debit balance on the account at 31st March, 1935, of £1,205 6s. 9d. which, it would appear, was met out of general balances on the Public Works Votes. I have inquired as to the authority under which the deficit on the account was provided for in this manner.”

Mr. McGrath.—If the Deputies will turn to page 24 they will see, at the bottom of that page, a list of balances in which it is stated that the balance at the 1st April, 1934, was £814 5s. 0d. The receipts during the year amounted to £3,850 6s. 4d., the payments out amounted to £5,869 18s. 1d., and at the end of the year there was a debit balance of £1,205 6s. 9d., which is referred to in my paragraph already read by the Chairman. Now, this is a very unusual state of affairs. I think it is almost the first time on which there was a debit balance on the foot of this Account. The Shannon Navigation is a scheme taken over by the Board of Works, and the navigation is worked so that the receipts will balance the expenditure. The receipts are made up of tolls and rents, and the expenditure is made up of repair works, wages, and that sort of thing. It was not required. previous to the present time, that there should be any profit, but it always paid for itself and it has never been necessary for a Vote to be taken to pay for any excess expenditure over receipts. Now, on this occasion it was necessary for the Department to use money from other sources, and it appeared to the Audit Office that they were using the money without proper authority. I do not say that they have not made provision for the future, but at all events there has been a technical irregularity, and perhaps the Accounting Officer will explain what are the functions of the Department in connection with the Shannon Navigation. It would appear to the Audit Office that this is not a temporary affair, and that it is not at all unlikely that the Shannon Navigation will in the future show excess expenditure over receipts.

Mr. Kent.—In this year—1934-35—the Account showed a deficit, but the deficit was really more apparent than real in that year, because there was a large sum which we expected to be paid to us by the Department of Industry and Commerce and which we have since received. If that sum had been brought to account in the year in question, there would have been no deficit. As a matter of fact, on the 1st April this year the account is in credit. However, when I say that, I do not say that the Shannon account is as healthy as it used to be in former years, as the operations of the hydraulic scheme have affected it to some extent, but provision has been made in the current year’s Estimate—1936-37 —to supplement the Shannon fund by £1,000 if necessary. The Shannon Navigation is being worked as economically as possible, and we have been successful in making some economies recently. We also hope to get an extra income from a fresh source, so that it is possible that the Shannon Navigation Fund may be run without any help from voted moneys in the future. I would not be too certain of that. There is a provision made for it in the current year’s Estimate, but it is quite possible, as I say, that the Fund may be run without loss in the future—just possible.

2. Mr. McGrath.—The Audit Office is concerned only with the question of principle—whether the debit balance here is wiped out.

Mr. Kent.—It is wiped out. There is no debit balance at present.

3. Mr. McGrath.— I presume the Accounting Officer will, if necessary, go to the Dáil on future occasions, if there is a debit balance?

Mr. Kent.—Yes. As a matter of fact, in the course of the financial year 1934-35, we reported this deficit. It was reported just after the beginning of the second half of the financial year. When the report was made to the Department of Finance they urged the other Department who owed the money, to hurry up with the payment, but we did not succeed in getting it until after the end of the financial year, 1934-35.

4. Mr. McGrath.—Was that a claim on the basis of capital loss?

Mr. Kent.—Loss of revenue to the Shannon Navigation Fund owing to the operations of the hydraulic scheme.

5. Mr. McGrath.—You will not be able to make a similar claim to that in subsequent years?

Mr. Kent.—That is so, but, as I say, we have made some economies—not very large, because the scheme does not admit of being run much more cheaply; but we have made some economies. We have also secured, as I say, an assured income that we had not got before—a somewhat substantial payment annually from the Electricity Supply Board in connection with the regulation of sluices mainly. There was a loss in the year 1934-35 of some £2,000, which was quite exceptional. There was a strike that year on the system of the Grand Canal Company, who are our best customers, and there was a loss of income due to that. The loss in the subsequent year, 1935-36, was only about £600 or £700. As against that, we have those economies coming along which will reduce that —I do not say it will wipe it out altogether. However, if things go on as they are going, I do not anticipate that there will be a big loss on the Fund in future.

6. Deputy Crowley.—In respect of what type of transaction was the money due from the Department of Industry and Commerce?—They have paid us that money. It was for losses incurred by the navigation owing to the interference of the Shannon Power Scheme.

7. Deputy Keyes.— Is the Shannon Navigation Company not responsible still for the maintenance of the banks, as they had been previously?—Yes, we maintain them.

8. If they fail to maintain them, irrespective of a decrease in revenue, would they not be incurring serious liability to the outside public?—Yes. It is a matter of policy for the Government. In the current year’s Estimate the Government have voted money to keep this Fund in credit.

Deputy Keyes.—As far as this Committee is concerned, if the Government felt that they were not going to have a continuance of sufficient revenue to meet the expenditure, it would be a matter, to my mind, for the Government to change their policy. As long as they have responsibility for maintaining the banks, to my mind it would be a bigger loss if they refused to spend the necessary money, because they might involve themselves in serious loss with the outside public.

Chairman.—I am afraid that is outside our function.

Deputy Keyes.—It should be our function.

Chairman.—It is not our function. As the Comptroller and Auditor-General has pointed out, we are only supposed to comment and report on the expenditure and not on future administration or policy.

Deputy Keyes.—I should like to know if the fact that there has been an over-expenditure can be treated as an irregularity.

9. Chairman.— Had you authority from the Department of Finance for this expenditure?

Mr. Kent.—Yes. When the account was going into debit we reported the matter to the Department of Finance and they took steps to put the account in credit. If we had got in the money due to us there would have been no debit even in that year. There was a sum of £3,500 due to us and we were paid that sum after the end of the financial year. If it had been paid at the beginning of the financial year, or in the course of the financial year, there would have been no debit. It was due for a long time.

10. Deputy Goulding.—Will the payment for work done for the Electricity Supply Board be a continuing payment? —Yes, we will get a certain sum of money every year from them—not a big sum, but £200 or £300 per year.

11. That is for maintenance?—For the regulation of the sluices on the navigation.

12. That will be a regular source of income?—Yes, which we had not before.

13. Chairman.—Can we take it that when you made this issue from this Fund you had authority from the Department of Finance for it, or what exactly was the authority for making the issue?—We reported it the moment it came about. I think it was in October.

Mr. Dagg.—Perhaps I should explain. We got a report from the Board of Works in October, 1934, that there was likely to be a deficiency on the Shannon Navigation Fund at the end of the financial year. We immediately wrote to the Department of Industry and Commerce, as there was a very big outstanding claim against the Shannon Electricity Scheme Deposit Account. This claim was under examination and they more or less undertook that they would pay over to the Board of Works. before the end of the financial year, a sum of £2,000 on account, which would be sufficient to meet the deficiency. Unfortunately, they did not. The claim was not fully examined and the payment was not made until after the end of the financial year, when the claim was settled for £3,500. The expenditure had been met out of a Suspense Account up to then, and that payment enabled the Suspense Account to be cleared. It was really, one might say, remissness on the part of the Department of Industry and Commerce not to have made the payment they had undertaken to make.

14. Chairman.—Or the Department of Finance for not issuing the authority?

Mr. Dagg.—It is a matter of where the blame really lies.

15. Chairman.—What was the likely deficit reported to you?—About £1,200. We arranged to get £2,000 paid over in time to meet that.

16. Chairman.—What was the amount of the claim that they had against the Department of Industry and Commerce?

Mr. Dagg.—The original claim was over £30,000. When that was examined by the two Departments, a final agreement was reached to take £3,500. That was all they got in the end.

17. Deputy Smith.—If the Department of Industry and Commerce had paid the sum they undertook to pay, the authority would not have been called for at all?

Mr. Dagg.—No.

18. Deputy Smith.—You failed to issue the authority simply because you regarded the assurance given by the Department of Industry and Commerce as above board and that the money would be made available?

Mr. Dagg.—Yes, if they paid over in time. There was this excuse, however, that they were in the middle of the examination of the claim, and it took a longer time to examine it and to come to a final settlement than was anticipated.

19. Deputy Smith.—As it was only to be a payment on account, is it not a wonder that they did not do it?

Mr. Dagg.—We understood they would do it. We fully expected that they would pay in time.

20. Chairman.—Do I understand that the claim was for £30,000 odd, and that a sum of £3,500 has been accepted in final settlement?

Mr. Dagg.—Yes.

Mr. Kent.—There were offsets.

Mr. Dagg.—Yes, there were offsets.

Mr. Kent.—We were saved a lot of money in annual maintenance. That was capitalised and it reduced the claim to £3,500. The construction of the works saved us a lot of maintenance. For instance, on the canal from Limerick to Killaloe, we have no maintenance now. We saved on that. That was a saving due to the construction of the works. One was set off against the other, and the net claim was settled at £3,500.

21. Deputy O Briain.—Do you anticipate that the deficit will be done away with altogether as a result of the arrangement made?—I would not like to be a prophet. I think there may be some deficit but it may not be very big.

22. The income from the Grand Canal Company, owing to the settlement of the strike, would be better for the year following?—Yes.

23. Chairman.—What do you estimate will be the loss in future years, or have you made any estimate of it?—Speaking from memory, I think the loss in the subsequent year, 1935-6, was between £600 and £700. With the economies I spoke of, and the annual sum we are to get in future from the Electricity Supply Board, assuming that the year 1935-6 was a normal year, the £600 loss should be very nearly neutralised in future.

24. Then do we take it you have a Vote of £1,000, along with that, to cover that?—Yes, that is so; but that may not be necessary.

25. As regards sub-head A, is there any explanation as to the overestimation of £6,674 18s. 9d.?—It is due to two causes, vacancies in the establishment— there would be temporary vacancies and it takes some time to fill a vacancy—and then there would be the variations in the cost-of-living bonus.

26. In the case of sub-head B—Travelling Expenses—there was an excess there?—Yes, an excess of £770 5s. 6d. That was mainly due to the fact that when the Estimates were being prepared we did not allow for travelling expenses in connection with relief works. That practically accounts for the full excess.

27. Deputy O Briain.—There is a reference here to extra remuneration:— “An established assistant engineer in charge of drainage works received £203 18s. 7d. as a temporary non-pensionable allowance in respect of the period from the 17th January, 1933, to the 6th May, 1934, for additional duties and responsibilities principally in connection with the Barrow Drainage Scheme.” Was that in addition to his ordinary salary?—Yes. The chief drainage engineer had died at the time. The assistant engineer carried on the work until a new chief engineer was appointed. He got a special allowance, which is quite a normal thing in the circumstances.

VOTE 11—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. P. Kent further examined.

28. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General reports as follows with regard to the sale of a Gárda Síochána barracks:—

“A note appended to the appropriation account refers to the sale of a hut and site for the sum of £131. The site was originally purchased in 1925, and the sum of £1,791 17s. 4d., including £80 for the purchase of site, was expended on this building during the period of occupation from September, 1925, to April, 1932.”

Do you know what happened in this case, Mr. Kent?—We were directed to erect this hut in 1925. We got sanction at the time to spend £1,700. We purchased the site and erected the hut at a total cost of £1,791 17s. 4d., which includes the cost of the site and the cost of maintenance during the six or seven years it was occupied. The cost of maintenance amounted to £366. That high sum was due to the fact that, in the last two years of occupation, we had bad weather and the hut was in a very exposed place, and the maintenance cost was unusually high. In connection with the disposal of the hut, it was decided to sell it in 1931-2. We advertised it for sale and got very poor offers. Then we tried to let it and we got ridiculously low offers. We thought in the end that the best thing was to get rid of it for the highest price we could obtain, and we sold it for £131. We did that after reporting all the facts to the Department of Finance—we reported to them before we closed the sale.

29. Was it that this hut became redundant—it was no longer required?—Yes.

Mr. Dagg.—It was an emergency post originally.

30. Deputy Smith.—Where was it situated?—At Scartaglen, County Kerry.

31. What did the site cost?—It cost £80.

32. How much land was acquired for the site?—I have not got the details, but I can get them for you.

Mr. Dagg.—A quarter of an acre.

33. Chairman.—When the hut was sold was it dismantled, or is it still there?— I believe it is taken away.

34. Deputy O Briain.—You sold it as it stood, and you let the buyer do as he wished?—That is my recollection.

35. Deputy Smith.—What did you do with the site?—The site went with the hut.

36. But, if the hut was taken away?— It was not taken away—I was wrong in saying that.

Deputy O Briain. — A sum of £1,791 17s. 4d. was expended on the building from the time it was erected until 1932—an average of over £250 a year. It was better business to get rid of it.

37. Deputy Smith.—What was the original cost of the hut?—It was £1,355.

38. Then the maintenance is represented by the difference between £1,355 and £1,791. The original cost—was it not very high?—It was a difficult under-taking.

39. Chairman.—The original cost was £1,355 16s. 0d. and £80 was paid for the site. Then there is a sum of about £300, which shows it must have been difficult to maintain the building?—That was due to storm damage mainly. It was in a very exposed and remote place.

40. Deputy Smith.—Was it erected by contract or how was it erected in the initial stage?—I could not say, but I could let you know later.

Mr. McGrath.—It was erected by a contractor. When the job was finished it was certified by one of the Board’s architects as being satisfactory.

41. Deputy Smith. — What was his tender?

Mr. McGrath.—There was no question about cost in the beginning. It cost £1,355 16s. 0d. in 1925.

Deputy Smith.—If it was erected by an outside contractor would there not be tenders invited, and would not the lowest be accepted?

Chairman. — The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not questioning that. The only point is that the hut was erected and the cost of erection and maintenance came to £1,791 0s. 0d., and now the hut has been sold or disposed of for £131. The Comptroller and Auditor-General wants an explanation as to why a place which was supposed to be value for approximately that amount was sold for £131.

42. Deputy Keyes.—How long had the hut ceased to be occupied before it was eventualy sold?—It was occupied up to 1932.

43. Deputy O Briain.—It was sold soon after it was vacated?—We took some time to get the best price possible.

44. Mr. McGrath.—Perhaps I can give the Committee a little more information about this matter. I took some notes in relation to it. When the Deputy Commissioner inspected the barracks in May, 1930, he reported: “The barracks consist of an Army (double) hut, and when the wind and rain prevail it is a most uncomfortable and unsatisfactory house.” The Assistant Commissioner of the Civic Guard reported to the Department of Justice in November, 1930, that “the walls were of corrugated iron, and that the space of six inches between the outer walls and the sheeting inside created a draught that was unbearable in cold and frosty weather. The floors, which he described as bad and dangerous, were raised about 4½ feet above the ground level. The space underneath was empty, so that the draught penetrating upwards was even more intense than that coming through the walls. The men, he added, were frequently obliged to leave their beds and walk about the hut to keep themselves warm. The local Clerk of Works inspected the barracks in February, 1931, and reported that the sheeting of the outer walls was badly shrunken and the joints quite open, allowing the wind free admission through the open joints. The structure appears to have been of the ‘shanty’ type, with a corrugated iron roof, erected in a very faulty and unserviceable manner. Less than twelve months of the date the barrack was completed the flooring required repairs costing £17, and during the following three years over £316 was spent on repairs. The cost of erecting and converting the hut for barracks was £1,355 16s. 0d.; maintenance and repairs during the six years of occupation cost £333 15s. 3d., and the sum of £81 3s. 8d. was paid for the purchase of the site, making in all £1,770 15s. 6d.”

Deputy Smith.—Are we not entitled to try to discover, as best we can, how a building of that kind could possibly cost £1,300 odd? It is only concrete and iron. Why not have built a substantial house or barrack or whatever they wanted?

Deputy Crowley.—I think the amount got for the building itself would be satisfactory. In my place in Ballylanders we got a timber shed erected in 1920, and it cost £500. We sold it afterwards and only got £25 for it, because the cost of taking down such buildings is very great.

Chairman.—We have not had a statement that it was taken down. The land and all was sold. If we were told that it was sold as a dismantled hut the price of £131 would be fairly satisfactory. It costs nearly as much to dismantle as to erect. Deputy Smith put a question as to whether we should discuss why a building of this size should cost £1,300.

Deputy Crowley.—In considering the accounts for 1934-35, why should we go back to what occurred in 1931-32?

Deputy Smith.—Because when the matter came before a previous Committee they did not know what has been told us about the sale of the premises. If a building cost £2,000 this year, the public may have got good value until, in the course of four or five years, the building is sold. It is only then you can realise what value the public has got. I would like to know, for my own information, how it was that a building of that kind. whether of wood or iron, cost £1,300 odd.

Deputy Crowley.—The timber structure to which I referred cost £500. If a building erected in 1932 was double the size of an army hut, it would cost very much more.

45. Deputy Goulding.—Was this purchased from the army?—I have not got the particulars by me at the moment, but, if the Committee wish, I shall be only too pleased to supply the fullest information, explaining how the cost was so high and, also, how the hut was erected, whether by contract or otherwise. I shall give the fullest information, if desired.

Chairman.—And finally as to whether or not it was dismantled and how it stands at present.

Deputy O Briain.—It is possible it is used as a dance hall at present. Was it advertised for sale?

Deputy Smith.—We also want to know if outside contractors were invited to tender—how many tenders there were and the specifications?

Deputy O Briain.—Shall we go back to this matter when the witness is able to give fuller information?

46. Chairman.—Yes. We shall now go on to paragraph 10 in the Auditor-General’s Report. He says there:

“I observe that the sum of £554 3s. 4d. was expended on building and improvement works in connection with premises held on a lease of five years from January, 1934. In view of the short term lease and the heavy outlay, I have inquired whether the prior sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained for this expenditure.”

Mr. McGrath.—I should explain to the Committee that it is a recognised rule that in cases where there is a very short lease, expenditure of £200 and over requires special sanction from the Department of Finance. The Committee will notice that I say: “I have inquired whether the prior sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained for this expenditure.” I know that sanction was obtained ex post facto. The Audit Office thinks this is a very important principle, but the Accounting Officer may have some special circumstances to relate in regard to this particular item which will explain why such a delay took place before obtaining the sanction of the Department of Finance?

47. Mr. Kent.—In the first place, this sum of £554 odd included a sum of £131 which had to be paid in settlement of a claim which arose in connection with the work, so that the work itself would be represented by a sum of £420 odd. I should say we did get sanction before expending the money. Early in December, 1933, the Board of Works were informed, for the first time, that accommodation, equipment, fittings and furniture had to be provided for the housing of officials under the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933. We were told only in November, 1933, that, in 22 places throughout the country we had to acquire, equip and adapt houses for these officials and to have them ready by January, 1934. Early in December, 1933, after some informal conferences with the officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce, who wanted these buildings got ready, and after discussing the matter with the Department of Finance, we got from the Department of Finance a general authority to proceed to acquire, equip, extend and adapt the premises that were required. That was prior to expending any money in this particular case. There was a terrible rush. We were asked to provide these premises by the 1st January, 1934. Finance realised the situation and gave us this general authority to go ahead, and we did the best we could. It was in pursuance of that authority that we acquired these premises. In taking a premises, we must always have regard to the particular locality. In this particular case it was almost impossible, strange as it might appear, to get any suitable accommodation. We had an employment exchange there already, but we had to extend it considerably. The best we could do was to get the house next door to the one we had, belonging to the same landlord. We secured the best terms possible. We took a five years’ lease. It was very hard to get any accommodation at all there. In the circumstances, we did the best we could. The existing exchange house was held on a yearly tenancy. We converted that into a new tenancy, taking the two houses together for five years. We had power reserved to ourselves to break at the end of the third or fourth year. The expenditure incurred was over £400. When we started out we did not contemplate spending more than £100. We had to make some changes in the premises, of course, to suit employment exchange purposes. Some partitions had to be removed, a counter had to be put in, some decoration had to be done, additional sanitary accommodation had to be provided because there was a big staff, including both sexes, and we had to build an extra w.c. It was while making a new drain to connect with the existing drain that the trouble arose. The existing drain was then found to be in a parlous condition, but, strange to say, although the officials were in occupation of the place for a considerable time, there had been no complaint about the drainage. We had then to do additional drainage work, and the whole thing ran into £400. But the work we did there was mostly for our own benefit. Every penny spent was good from our own point of view; some of it, of course, but not much, was improvement from the landlord’s point of view. The thing was done in a great rush. We had got general sanction from Finance and we reported and got special covering sanction in due course.

48. Deputy Keyes.—Have the premises now reverted to the landlord?—No; we still retain them.

49. Chairman.—You do realise that expenditure of this sum without the prior approval of Finance should not be indulged in?—We certainly do, and we always go to the Department of Finance for sanction.

50. The sum of £13 was paid to an employee engaged on the work?—Yes, the contractor put this charge up against the cost of the work, and we were advised by our own legal advisers to settle the claim.

51. Deputy Goulding. — One would imagine that the employee would have been insured by the contractor?—The employee claimed against the contractor, and the contractor represented that he had a right to action against us. We were advised that such was the case, the fact being that, when the contractor commenced to do this work, he opened a drain in the course of a day. We gave the contractor the keys of the gate leading into these premises, which are back some distance from the road. The drain ran from the road into the house. The contractor had the key from us, and the work of the Exchange was being carried on all the time. The Employment Exchange people had given a key to the cleaner who came there in the evenings to clean the place. When she was there previously everything was all right, and when she opened the gate in the evening she fell into this place and hurt herself. We were advised that, as this woman had the key and the contractor had not been made aware that she had it, a question of liability arose. We took legal advice and did the best we could in the circumstances.

52. Is this leasehold property?—It is held on a five years’ lease.

53. Mr. McGrath.—The Accounting Officer will realise that, in cases where expenditure exceeds £200 and where premises are held on short leases, it is necessary, as a matter of principle, to go to the Department of Finance for sanction?

Mr. Kent.—That is accepted absolutely.

54. Deputy Keyes.—It seems to have been an extraordinary lapse on the part of the engineer to estimate the cost of this work at about £100. Apart from the money paid on account of the accident, the cost was £400 or £420. Surely the engineer should have been able to estimate more closely the cost of making the premises available for unemployment insurance purposes and providing the necessary sanitation?—The engineer never contemplated that this drainage question would arise, and you could hardly blame him. The house in which the drainage proved to be bad had been in the occupation of Government officials for ten years and no complaint had ever been made regarding it. It turned out, however, that a number of members of the staff came along later and said that they had been suffering from sore throats and never realised that the cause was bad drainage. There was nothing to show our architects that anything was wrong with these drains.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General, par. 11—“Grants for building National Schools. Grants amounting to £543 4s. 11d. were made during the year in respect of fees paid to architects and quantity surveyors for preparing a national school building scheme which was subsequently abandoned. I have asked that the sanction of the Department of Finance be obtained to these payments.”

55. Chairman.—Has that been done? —It has been asked, but it has not been accorded yet. It is at present under consideration by the Department of Finance.

Mr. Dagg.—We have made special inquiries into this matter, and we got a report this morning regarding it. Judging by the report, our sanction will probably be given.

56. Mr. McGrath.—Perhaps I should explain this matter further. Grants amounting to £543 4s. 11d. were made during the year in respect of fees paid to architects and quantity surveyors for preparing a national school building scheme. The grant made by the Department happens to be only two-thirds of the total cost of these fees?

Mr. Kent.—Two thirds of the total fees of the quantity surveyor and two-thirds of the reduced sum estimated as architect’s fees. The architect would, strictly speaking, be entitled to 5 per cent, of the total cost of the work, as estimated. Technically, he would be entitled to £730. He got exactly two-thirds of £400— about £266—for the reason that we must draw a distinction between the quantity surveyor’s fees and the architect’s fees. The quantity surveyor did all the work he was required to do.

57. Mr. McGrath.—These fees are in connection with proposed national schools that were not built?

Mr. Kent.—That is so.

58. Mr. McGrath.—A new scheme was adopted?

Mr. Kent.—Yes.

59. Mr. McGrath.—I asked that the Department of Finance be approached for their sanction as the payment was in the nature of a nugatory payment. You got no value for it. A new scheme had to be adopted and new fees paid in connection with that scheme. I quite understand that the Department had a reason for paying out this sum and a reason for asking for a new scheme. The question, I understand, arise in connection with schools at Cabra, near Dublin?

Mr. Kent.—Yes.

Mr. McGrath.—It seems that the original scheme provided for only 900 children. In the course of time it became plain to the Department of Education that, instead of providing for 900 children, they should provide for 2,000 children or more. The whole scheme had, therefore, to be abandoned. As this was a payment in respect of a scheme that was not proceeded with, it was my business to make a note of it and to ask you to go to the Department of Finance for sanction. The Department of Finance have delayed a good deal over the matter. Perhaps the Accounting Officer will inform the Committee as to all the circumstances.

60. Deputy O Briain.—There was no return whatever for this expenditure?

Mr. McGrath.—No.

61. Mr. Kent.—It might be said that there was a return in this way: The first scheme was abandoned. When tenders were received they turned out to be very high for a school for 900 children. By this time the Manager had found that there were about 1,600 children to be provided for. I should like to emphasise that the Board of Works have no responsibility in this connection. We are not the people to say how many school-going children there are in any locality. That is a matter for another Department. In these matters, we are simply an executive body; we do what we are told. When tenders were invited for a school for 900 children, the lowest tender was regarded as altogether too high. Then, it had become apparent that 1,600 children should be provided for. Our architects were taken into consultation with the Manager’s architects and they evolved between them a much cheaper school. In the end, it turned out that, by abandoning this first scheme and adopting the second scheme, there was a considerable saving— close on £5 per child. In a way, therefore, it was not all lost money.

62. Mr. McGrath.—You saved money in another direction?

Mr. Kent.—A considerable amount.

63. Chairman.—All we ask is that Finance sanction be obtained. The work was done by the architects and quantity surveyors?—The quantity surveyor could have sued us for the money.

64. Deputy O Briain.—Were the quantity surveyors and architects employed by the Manager of the school or were they officials of the Board of Works? —The architect was appointed by the Manager.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General, paragraph 12: “Stores and Furniture. Under the present system of accounting for receipts and issues of furniture and stores, it is not possible to ascertain the value of stores and furniture on hands. I am informed that arrangements have been made to introduce a new system of store accounting which will enable this information to be furnished. It was observed that considerable stocks of furniture and stores surplus to requirements were held, but I understand that it is proposed to dispose of such surplus stocks by auction in the near future.”

65. Mr. McGrath.—In connection with these stores, the Audit Office became aware that an account of the stores on hands could not be made out without a physical stocktaking. Our idea of store accounts is that the books, when balanced, should show the amount of each article, or set of articles, on hands and that the balance on foot of each of these accounts should be checked by a physical stocktaking. We are aware that the Department had an extraordinary time in connection with the different changes. They have work suddenly thrown on them in furnishing certain offices. Sometimes they have to take back old furniture, and they do the best they can under the circumstances. However, I think the time has now arrived when the Commissioners should have a system under which they would be able to tell at any time the furniture they have on hand without having to make a physical stocktaking. It was with a view to having that done that this paragraph was written.

Mr. Kent.—As the Comptroller and Auditor-General knows, we got in touch with his Department regarding this matter about 12 months ago. Since then, the accountant of the Board of Works has been in very close touch with the Department of the Comptroller, with the result that a system has now been devised and is being put into operation as from the 1st of the present month to enable the things the Comptroller said were necessary to be readily done, not only with regard to all the articles of furniture in the store at a particular time, but with regard to any individual article. There has been a complete stocktaking and valuation of every article in the store, and it is hoped that the Comptroller will have no fault to find in future with the arrangements. We intend to keep in touch with him and his officials, and to let him know how the system is working, so that any suggestions for its improvement which he cares to make may be considered.

66. Chairman.—On sub-head J 3, Barrow Drainage, the Comptroller and Auditor-General has this note:

“The expenditure of £6,876 13s. 3d. in the year brings the total expenditure on the Barrow Drainage Scheme, including cost of preliminary investigations, to £509,631 10s. 8d. Of the next expenditure chargeable to the cost of the scheme under the Barrow Drainage Acts, 1927 and 1933, £253,729 3s 9d. has been borne on Votes moneys and £253,700 was provided out of Local Loans advances. As the scheme was practically completed during the year, machinery, no longer required on the Barrow, values at £5,128, and stores to the value of £5,251 5s. 7d., were transferred to other arterial drainage schemes. The sum of £351 12s. 5d. was realised by the sale of surplus plant, tools, etc.”

Mr. McGrath.—That paragraph is for the information of the Dáil and is written every year.

Deputy Goulding.—I do not think it calls for any further comment.

67. Deputy Smith.—What kind of surplus plant was sold?—All kinds of plant and various classes of tools.

68. Deputy O Briain.—On sub-head CC —Compensation in lieu of Registration of Lands taken over under Emergency Powers—a note says: “The payments made within the year related to the Killeagh Airship Station”?—That was taken over from the British. It was in our hands until we got rid of it. We had to pay compensation for the damage done.

69. Sub-head D refers to furniture, fittings and utensils. Does that cover expenditure for all Government Departments?—Practically all, except for new buildings.

70. Chairman.—Sub-head E—Rents— what type of places had to be taken on which there was an excess over the estimated expenditure?—Two premises which we could not anticipate, one in Dawson Street and the other in O’Connell Street practically account for all of this amount.

71. Deputy O Briain.—Sub-head H— River Shannon Works—what does this refer to?—The item of expenditure £101 9s. 9d. is merely for works in connection with drainage on the Shannon. It was really maintenance of the sluices, painting and keeping them in repair.

72. Deputy Keyes.—Sub-head HH— River Shannon Navigation Improvement— what was the nature of the works that entailed an expenditure of £132,450?— Apparently the Shannon Navigation Fund benefited to the extent of £132,000 which it was claimed was properly chargeable on the Fund. The Shannon Navigation Fund was not able to bear that capital charge.

73. Deputy Goulding.—Sub-head J 3 —Barrow Drainage—£3,576 13s. 3d. I take it that that was maintenance work? —No, that was capital expenditure on works in that year.

74. This is not recurrent expenditure? —No, it is part of the £550,000 scheme.

75. Deputy Keyes.—In sub-head J 4 — Arterial Drainage — Purchase of Machinery—the note says: “The expenditure represents the value of certain items of machinery originally acquired for the Barrow scheme which were taken over for use on other arterial drainage schemes.” What does that mean? Is that transferred from the Barrow?—Yes, and credited to the Barrow scheme. The machinery was taken over for arterial drainage generally.

76. Deputy O Briain.—In sub-head L —Appropriations-in-Aid—£18,969 6s. 1d. was realised from harbour tolls and dues? —Practically all that sum, or 95 per cent. of it, is for Dun Laoghaire Harbour tolls.

77. Deputy Goulding.—From the sale of old materials and stores £1,806 17s. 8d. was realised. How are these things sold? Is it by public auction?—Yes, they are advertised.

78. Mr. McGrath.—Hire of excavators to drainage district realised £3,808 18s. 1d.?

Mr. Kent. — When excavators are employed on a scheme a charge is made against the scheme. It includes capital depreciation and everything else.

79. Deputy O Briain.—Sales of farm and garden produce realised £2,087 14s. 3d. Is that in connection with the preparatory colleges?—No, mainly from the Phœnix Park and from the park in Killarney.

80. Deputy O Briain.—Arising out of No. 8—lettings of sporting, fishing rights, etc.—are these sporting and fishing rights in the possession of the Board of Works?

Chairman.—You will get an explanation of that in the note on page 30, which says:—

“Included under this head are the following sums realised at the Bourn-Vincent Memorial Park: shooting and deer-stalking rights (not let in previous year), £250; licence for salmon fishing, £50; sales of fish, £301.”

VOTE 27—HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.

Mr. P. Kent, further examined.

Chairman.—There is no note on this Vote from the Auditor-General. I presume we shall simply go through the subheads.

81. Deputy Goulding.—Arising out of sub-head A—Dockyard Maintenance—is there any revenue from this dockyard?— There is. You get an account of it on the next page under the head of Extra Receipts.

82. On sub-head C—Alterations to plant and buildings, etc.—what plant would that be?

Chairman.—The work apparently was not done. In the note on page 80, it is stated that it was found unnecessary to undertake all the works for which provision was made.

83. Deputy Goulding.—Arising out of sub-head D—Rents and Rates—what properties would be sub-let? Is there any sort of industry carried on there?—We let portion of the island to a ship-breaking company, and we let the oil tanks to an oil company which distributes oil to steamers all round the coast.

Deputy Goulding.—It is not a wasting asset altogether then.

VOTE 32—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche, called and examined.

84. Deputy Keyes.—I note that on sub-head B—Travelling Expenses—there is a very considerable reduction. Did the Department reduce the classification for travelling officers?—No, there has been no such change. The note on the sub-head states that the travelling expenses incurred by Inspector of Court Offices, Immigration Officers and District Court Examiners were less than anticipated. There has been no change in the rates or in policy. I think, speaking from recollection, that the explanation is that the Circuit Court Offices inspector did not go out very much. He was kept busy at home.

VOTE 33—GARDA SIOCHANA.

Mr. S. A. Roche, further examined.

85. Deputy Goulding.—Arising out of sub-head G, what exactly is meant by barrack maintenance?—That is a very minor item. It covers the cleaning of ashpits, chimney cleaning and that sort of thing.

86. Deputy O Briain.—Sub-head J— Medical Expenses—covers the expenses. I take it, of medical officers for Headquarters and the various barracks?— Yes.

87. Sub-head L—Telegrams and Telephones—covers the expenses, I take it, also, of Headquarters and the various barracks?—Yes. There are 714 out of 800 stations with telephones, but practically the entire charge is for rentals and not for calls.

88. Deputy Crowley.—In the case of the shotguns that were taken up recently, where are they kept? Are they kept in the local Gárda station?—I think they have a store for them in the depôt at Headquarters. They are kept there.

89. Deputy O Briain.—What is the explanation of item (2)—payments for services rendered by the police—under sub-head O?—The explanation is that when the police are lent to private bodies, such as Race Club Committees and football clubs, we charge so much for their services.

90. Deputy Goulding.—Item 4, under the same sub-head, refers to the “proceeds of sale of forfeited property and cast uniform.” What would forfeited property be?—Suppose, for instance, a gun were declared forfeit by a district justice, the Guards would take possession of it, and we would sell it.

91. Deputy Smith.—I imagine that the greater pat of the sum realised was on the sale of cast uniforms. How is the discrepancy between the estimated amount and the realised amount accounted for?— I really cannot say except that they must have a large quantity to dispose of and waited for a good time to sell them.

Deputy Smith.—They seem to have been very successful because the amount realised is substantial.

92. Deputy Goulding.—Apart from firearms, what would forfeited property be?—It would be some small item.

VOTE 34—PRISONS.

Mr. S. A. Roche, further examined.

93. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note to this Vote:—

“The statement of the manufacturing and farm account appended to the Appropriation Account has been examined, and local test examination of the conversion books and other records dealing with manufacturing operations have been carried out with satisfactory results.”

Mr. McGrath.—That is merely a formal report that I make every year in connection with prisons.

94. Deputy O Briain.—I take it that sub-head A, which deals with pay and allowances, covers all the prisons and the Borstal institution?—Yes. Mountjoy, Cork, Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Waterford, Portlaoighise and the Borstal at Clonmel.

95. What are the industries referred to as being carried on in the prisons?—The main ones are, mail-bag making, mat-making, boot-making and the cutting up of wood. There is a very full account of the work done given in the annual report dealing with prisons.

VOTE 35—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche called.

No question.

VOTE 36—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche, further examined.

96. Deputy Smith.—What is the explanation of the item of expenditure— £61. 7s. 3d.—expenses of election petitions at Cavan, under sub-head FF?—There was an election petition in Cavan, and we had to send down a Commissioner. This item is in connection with his travelling expenses, and of the clerks who had to go with him.

97. What was the cause of the petition? —I really forget, but I think it was something about the method of election.

98. And your Department immediately accepted responsibility for the cost. How did you come to arrive at that decision?— It was not quite as simple as that. There were proceedings in court. I knew about them, though as Accounting Officer I was not interested in them. The only question that arose for me as Accounting Officer was, who was going to pay the expenses of the High Court Commissioner and of his clerks. There was a considerable dispute about it. There were two local bodies involved—the county council and the urban district council.

99. But is not the returning officer responsible for the proper conduct of an election?—Yes.

100. And if he does not carry out his duties properly, then, of course, he is responsible to your Department?—No. As a Department, we are not interested in elections at all. That is a matter for the Department of Local Government. We have no control over elections. We do not become interested until someone goes to the High Court and says that an election has been wrongly conducted, and that there is going to be a petition. The High Court then sends down a Commissioner, and someone has to pay his expenses. If everything had been done in proper order there would have been no charge on the Vote in connection with this petition. The local authorities or somebody else would have paid all the expenses, but there was confusion. As far as I remember now, the two petitions were to be heard, one on Monday and one on Tuesday. The first petition was heard on Monday; the petition which was to have been heard on Tuesday was settled at the last moment, but the Commissioner and his clerks remained in Cavan on Tuesday.

I am speaking from recollection now. When they came to ask for expenses the people who would ordinarily have paid said: “We are not going to pay you; we settled the matter.”

Deputy Smith.—I am only interested in this matter, Mr. Chairman, because I feel that the returning officer is responsible for the proper conduct of elections. If a mistake is made, then it should be brought home to the person responsible for the making of that mistake, and that person should be liable for whatever expenses are incurred.

101. Chairman.—In this case, as the Accounting Officer has pointed out, the expenditure was due to the fact that a Commissioner was sent down to hear a petition. An expenditure of £61 7s. 3d. was incurred, but the case was not heard. Nobody was found innocent or guilty, responsible or irresponsible.

Mr. Roche.—The matter is coming back to my recollection more clearly. What happened was that what I will call the Tuesday petition was never heard. Notice was given to the High Court that that petition would be withdrawn. If that information had been conveyed to the Commissioner he would have come back on Monday evening, but for some reason or other he was told to go to Cavan and sit on Monday and Tuesday. He was not told in time: “You need not sit on Tuesday; that petition has been withdrawn.” He was not told until some time on Tuesday afternoon: “The petition has been withdrawn. What are you waiting for?” The people who normally would pay said: “We will not pay,” and the only question was who was negligent in not telling the Commissioner in time that he need not sit on Tuesday. It was not the petitioner.

102. Deputy Smith.—Who are the people who would normally pay?—The petitioner would pay if he had been found in the wrong. If the case had been heard and the petition rejected, the petitioner would have to pay.

103. Deputy Keyes.—In view of the explanation of the Accounting Officer, may I take it that the figure shown is purely subsistence allowance for the Commissioner and his clerks for Monday and part of Tuesday?—It is mainly for fees.

104. Deputy Smith.—Apart from the explanation you have given, this expenditure would never have been incurred if it were not for the fact that somebody made a mistake in the carrying out of the elections?—I cannot even say that, because the petition was withdrawn. It might be said: “There is no proof of that.”

105. There is proof of that, inasmuch as a new election was held?—I do not know about that. All I know is that there was a petition to the High Court; the petition was withdrawn and there the matter ends for me. I am not interested in the election as such.

Chairman.—In the case of the County Council, the petition was successful. As regards the Urban District Council, counsel for the petitioners explained that his clients had withdrawn the petition. The application for withdrawal duly came before the High Court and leave was granted. No order was made that the expenses incurred should be paid by the petitioners. As the petitioners did not pay, and were not bound or compelled to do so, the Department of Justice had to pay.

Deputy Smith.—It is a nice way of palming it over.

106. Deputy O Briain.—You spent £61 7s. 3d. and recovered £31 17s. 0d.?— Yes. My point of view is very simple indeed. The Commissioner travelled under an Order of the Court. Nobody is liable to pay him; the petitioner said: “I withdraw my petition.”

Deputy O Briain.—The expenditure seems rather high.

Deputy Keyes.—The subsistence allowance does appear to be unreasonably high.

Chairman.—The petitioners held that no expenses were incurred by them by reason of the petition, as notice of withdrawal was given a reasonable time before the hearing, and the court did not sit to give a decision.

107. Deputy Smith.—That is not the point I am dealing with at all. The question of what the court did or did not do does not arise. My whole point is that a mistake must have been made locally by the person who was charged with responsibility for the proper conduct of the elections. A mistake was made, and some local person responsible for the making of that mistake should have been responsible for whatever extra charges were incurred as a result. Here we have the Department of Justice assuming responsibility for portion of that expenditure of £61 7s. 3d.?—It is not our duty to apportion the blame. The High Court could have said: “You may withdraw the petition, but you must pay the costs.” They did not say that.

Chairman. — The amount paid is £31 17s. 0d., so the amount which was not paid is roughly £30 10s. 0d. The petitioners got out of it by saying that the petition did not go to court.

108. Deputy Smith.—But an inquiry was held there?—All I know about the matter is that we sent a man down to hear the petition on Tuesday. He was told. “There is no petition; you need not have come.”

109. Can you say whether an inquiry was held by some other Department?—I do not know.

110. Chairman.—Up to the present the discussion has been conducted as if the total sum of £61 17s. 0d. were charged to public funds. There is no such expenditure, so we are arguing on a wrong basis.

Mr. McGrath.—You will find under Appropriations-in-Aid that £31 17s. 0d. was received on account of that sum.

Deputy Smith.—The amount does not matter so much as the principle which seems to me to be involved. I was always under the impression—and I am anxious to find out what the real position is— that the returning officer was responsible for the proper conduct of elections, and that if a mistake was made which was attributable to any of his actions or to any neglect on his part, he was held responsible for making it. In this case we find a Department of State coming along to take the responsibility off his shoulders in this connection.

Chairman.—But no court has held him so responsible.

Deputy Smith.—But why should the Department pay until they see whether or not the court can hold him responsible?

Chairman.—The High Court sent a bill of costs to the Department, and the Department of Finance instructed that the expenses were chargeable to the Vote.

Deputy Smith.—Is it not an extraordinary thing that the Department of Justice, which is not directly responsible, should pay the amount in question before getting in touch with the Department of Local Government, which is directly responsible for the conduct of those elections by the Returning Officer?

Chairman.—You are now getting on to the question of administration, and I cannot allow you to proceed on those lines.

111. Deputy Smith.—Is it not the normal thing for one Department, which has no direct responsibility, to get in touch with the Department responsible in order to see what the position is? Is not that the normal thing?—Not in this case. If I may repeat myself, we sent a man down to hear the petition. We were responsible for paying him. He was told: “There is no petition. It was withdrawn with the consent of the High Court. We will not pay.” We had the alternative of saying: “Nobody will pay you at all,” or “We will pay you.” We paid the amount.

Deputy Smith.—I am glad to know you are fairly generous.

Chairman.—You cannot say that. A letter from the Department of Finance, dated 17th October, instructed—it is not a question of giving sanction—that the expenses were chargeable to the Vote. That ends the matter.

112. Deputy O Briain.—In regard to sub-head A, does that amount cover the salaries of all officers of the Supreme Court and High Court?—Yes.

113. Including the salaries of judges? —No.

Mr. McGrath.—The salaries of judges are charged on the Central Fund.

VOTE 37—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

114. Deputy O Briain.—In regard to sub-head B—Replacement of Maps—are those maps that were destroyed?—Yes. The item covers replacement of maps destroyed in the Four Courts.

115. What is covered by sub-head F— Transcription of Memorials?—“Memorial” is a technical terms. When you present a deed for registration, you present also a memorial stating shortly what is in the deed. That is copied in longhand into the books. It is merely a summary of the deed.

VOTE 38—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

116. Chairman.—On this Vote the Auditor-General has a note, which reads as follows:

“Sub-head B—Travelling Expenses— Included in the charge to this sub-head are payments totalling approximately £500 made to certain court messengers in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses incurred in the execution of Court Orders and Land Commission Warrants. The vouchers indicated that the journeys were performed by rail and cycle, and numerous absences from headquarters overnight were included. I have ascertained that the claims were prepared on a hypothetical basis, the journeys having in fact been performed by a motor car owned by one of the court messengers and that subsistence allowance was paid which was not warranted by the actual periods of absence from headquarters. I understand that a report on this matter will be submitted to the Department of Finance.”

Mr. Roche.—That matter is still the subject of discussion with the Department of Finance, and I am afraid it will be the subject of discussion for some time to come. I do not know whether the best thing would not be to wait until the Department of Finance has pronounced definitely that the allowances were wrongly paid. If you like to hear what really happened, without waiting for the end of the discussions with the Department of Finance, I shall be pleased to tell you. The matter is essentially very simple. It is the case of a chief court messenger who had an enormous amount of travelling to do, and had an assistant court messenger to help him. Those two men presented bills to us, saying: “We travelled to such and such a place by bus, stayed all night, and came back next day by train. We paid that bus fare; we paid the train fare back, and subsistence allowance for the night.” This went on for over a year. At the end of the year we found out for the first time that they were not travelling by bus or train. What happened was that the chief messenger had bought a motor car and made a private bargain with his colleague, saying: “We will not go by bus or train. It is inconvenient. We will go in my car, present bills as if we had gone by bus, or train, and I will take all the money.” That is what happened. We only discovered it because the two men fell out, and one complained about the other. Although it was very irregular, I am satisfied about two things. First, it was not dishonest. I believe that the man is an honest man. He saw no harm in it. His attitude was: “What does it matter to the State? We are entitled to travel by bus or train. If I use my motor car, what harm does it do to anybody?” The second point I want to make is that I am satisfied that he travelled during that year 24,000 miles. That is an enormous figure, but I believe it is correct. If we had allowed him to use his car, if he had told us the full position in the beginning and said he was going to use it, we would have said: “Yes, use it,” and we would have paid him 6d. a mile for using it. In that way, he would have made £600 instead of £400 odd. I believe he was honest, and that he said to himself: “What does it matter to anybody how I travel?” But if he had told the truth at the beginning, he would have got permission to use his car.

117. Deputy Smith.—You would not have known in advance that he would have that distance to travel, if he had made application for permission to use his car?—In that year, we knew he was running into a band time. We are speaking of 1934-35, and the winter of that year was a very bad time for these messengers. The land annuities were a very big problem, and if he had come to us and said: “I cannot travel by bus or train. I am on my feet day and night. May I use my car?” we would have said: “Certainly.”

118. If he had gone by bus or train, as he said, it would have been necessary for him to remain over at night?—That is so, but the Department of Finance rule is that you cannot do that sort of thing. If you are obliged to travel by train, and not by car, and if you actually travel by car, and, by that means, save staying out for a night, the Department will say: “We will pay your bus fare, but not your subsistence allowance which you would have incurred if you had travelled by train.” They take the benefit of your speedy travel but deny you any quid pro quo for it.

119. Chairman.—Court messengers who are collecting from people on foot of decrees or making distraints get their expenses too. Is that in addition to this? —No. The court messenger collects, as you say, from the person he goes to, but on an artificial basis. As a rule, he does not say: “I travelled 10 miles.” He claims a certain fee, and sometimes 12/6 for travelling expenses. He might have travelled 100 miles, but anything he gets in that way comes to us. He does not get it. A court messenger is not supposed to get, and so far as I know, does not get a penny from anybody except the State.

120. A court messenger to-day charges 2/6 a mile on a distraint. Who gets that? —The State. If the county is one where there is a separate under-sheriff, as in Cork—in other counties the duties of under-sheriff have been taken over by the county registrar—the 2/6 would go to the under-sheriff. That is his perquisite. He takes all fees and gives his court messenger whatever they agree upon between themselves. In other counties, we take the 2/6 and pay the court messenger whatever mileage rate is agrees upon.

121. A court messenger starts off and makes five distraints at the end of a tenmile run. He collects at the rate of 2/6 per mile from each of the five persons for the ten miles?—Yes.

122. Who gets that? Where is it?—It is in the Appropriations-in-Aid in this Vote. We get it.

123. Deputy O Briain.—Do they get 2/6 a mile?—Roughly, what the Chairman says takes place in many counties —that the charge is 2/66 a mile against each of the people he visits; but subject to a maximum of £2 in any one case.

Deputy Smith.—What that man did was entirely irregular, but you say that you are satisfied he is an honest man. He need not have been an honest man?

124. Chairman.—In view of the fact that that case is still under consideration, I do not want to pursue it. I merely want to hear about it from the Accounting Officer. I do not think we should pass any comment whatever on the matter until it is settled one way or another. It could be raised again next year, if the Comptroller and Auditor-General will bring it forward.

Mr. McGrath.—I should say that it is irregular to charge for anything that does not take place—in this case, a bus fare, a railway fare or even a charge for using his own bicycle. He also charged subsistence allowance.

Chairman.—I have ruled that it is finished.

125. Mr. McGrath.—As the paragraph is written, it books a very serious affair, but the Accounting Officer has had different points of view put to him in connection with it. I have a paper in front of me which almost puts a different complexion on the matter altogether, but I am not going to prejudice the Deputies by reading it, because it is only one side of the case. As I said before, it looks serious on the face of it, but, as the Accounting Officer says, the man may have done it with the best intentions, and it may be argued afterwards from the administration point of view that the better thing was to go by motor car. The thing, however, is irregular as it stands.

126. Deputy O Briain.—With regard to the item for publicans’ licences in sub-head E is that the total amount realised?—Yes, but it does not refer at all to the Excise tax. It is a fee of 2/6, an old traditional fee, which is paid to the county registrar by the publicans.

127. Deputy Smith.—What about the jurors’ list, which also appears in this sub-head? How does that arise?—The county registrar has the duty of revising the jurors’ list for the county every year. He is paid fees for doing it and the fees come to us.

128. Chairman.—With regard to the execution of court orders, the Estimate was £8,270 and the actual amount realised was £20,241. I suppose that proves that you have accounted for the half-crowns?—It is the result of a very important fact—that fact that the Land Act, 1933, came into operation with us by the issue of warrants in connection with this somewhere about March, 1934, and thereupon the county registrars and under-sheriffs became busier than ever they were in their lives before. They became almost whole-time land annuities collectors and, therefore, the fees collected were out of all proportion.

Chairman.—That concludes the Votes for the Department of Justice.

The Committee adjourned at 1.25 p.m. until Wednesday, 6th May, 1936.