Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1937 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1935 - 1936

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 9adh Meitheamh, 1937.

Wednesday, 9th June, 1937.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m

Members Present:

Mr. J. Maher (Office of Comptroller and Auditor-General), Mr. A. D. Codling, Mr. T. S. C. Dagg and Mr. C. S. Almond (An Roinn Airgid).

Deputy Smith.—In the absence of the Chairman, I move that Deputy McMenamin take the Chair.

Deputy Goulding.—I second.

Deputy McMenamin took the Chair.

VOTE 54—LANDS.

Mr. M. Deegan called and examined.

938. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in connection with this Vote, which reads as follows:—

“The position, referred to in previous reports, regarding the repayment to the Exchequer of £130,000, the balance of an advance of £200,000 made to the Land Commission in March, 1925 to enable payments in lieu of rent to be made as required by the Land Act, 1923, remains unaltered, no repayment having been effected in the year under review. I observed, however, that there has been charged to this advance an amount of £713 16s. 6d., being sums paid by the Land Commission for payments in lieu of rent under Section 15 (3), Land Act, 1933.”

Mr. Maher.—The latter portion has been regularised by a Supplementary Estimate passed in February, 1937. The position as regards the first part of the paragraph is, as the Auditor says in his report, still the same as in the previous year.

Mr. Deegan.—In connection with that, there has been correspondence between ourselves and the Department of Finance, and I think it should all be cleared up very soon.

939. Chairman.—I presume, Mr. Deegan, that it is just a matter of book-keeping?—Yes, it is a matter of book-keeping, pure and simple.

940. Chairman.—The next paragraph of the note reads as follows:—

“In paragraph 45 of my report last year I mentioned that in the case of sales for cash of certain holdings and parcels of land the Land Commission accepted 45 or 50 per cent of the nominal purchase money but that the Land Act, 1933, did not appear to contemplate such reduction of the purchase consideration. The Land Act, 1936, Section 15 (2) (b), has now given legislative sanction to the practice of the Land Commission regarding such cash sales.”

Was this transaction not covered, Mr. Deegan, at the time referred to by the Auditor?—We considered that it was, but there was a sort of doubt about it, and it was in order to make the position perfectly clear that this section was introduced in the Land Act of 1936. Some people had a doubt about it; we had not.

941. Now, the first paragraph of the next part of the note of the Auditor, which is headed “Subhead I—Improvement of Estates, etc.”—reads as follows:—

“I referred last year to expenditure out of the provision for the improvement of estates in cases in which such expenditure improved not only unvested but also vested lands, and for which the approval of the Minister for Finance had not been sought, as required by subsection (3) of Section 22 of the Land Act, 1927. I also referred to certain payments made by way of contribution towards the cost of a sewerage scheme and a drainage scheme, respectively, for which I asked that the covering sanction of the Department of Finance be obtained. In paragraph 10 of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee the view was expressed that the question at issue should form the subject of a discussion between the Department of Finance and the Land Commission with a view to arriving at an agreed basis. I have since been informed by the Accounting Officer that he is in communication with the Department of Finance on this matter.”

I think that Deputy Smith pressed this to some extent last year. How does the matter stand, now Mr. Deegan?—We have been in communication with Finance, and we have had quite a long conference with them, and they are still considering the matter. It may take some time to settle it.

942. Is it not merely a matter of authorisation, and is it not in order to make sure that there will be no ambiguity about it?—There are legal questions involved.

943. That is to say, you want to reserve to yourself the right that you think you hold under the law?—Yes, that is so.

944. You think you have legislative authority to do this, without Finance— is that it?—Where unvested land is concerned, yes; but there is some difference of opinion between our view and the view of our legal advisers, and the view held by the Auditor and, perhaps, by the Department of Finance.

945. I understand that your position is that, where you have obvious authority, and where that obvious authority covers the major portion of the work, then when you come in to deal with land where there is a doubt about it, you think you have the right there to do it?— Yes, we have gone on that principle. We have always gone on that principle. Of course, that is a rather broad and general way of putting it.

Yes, it is, but I do not want to narrow it down too closely.

946. Deputy Crowley.—What types of sewerage and drainage schemes are referred to here, Mr. Deegan?—These were the two definite items of expenditure on which the Auditor raised this general question last year. There was a sewerage scheme in a town in the West of which we are the owners, and there was a drainage scheme here in the East. In both of these cases, as you, Mr. Chairman, will remember, last year, our contention was that the the expenditure we had made was expenditure on unvested lands for which the sanction or concurrence of the Department of Finance was not necessary. Take the case of sewerage in a town in the West. It was all unsold and still in our hands; but there might have been one or two or three houses in that town which, for one reason or another, had become vested in the tenants. Consequently, the expenditure was bound to benefit those very few vested properties in that town.

947. Chairman.—You could not prevent that?— No. The contention of the Auditor was that, on the strict law, we should have the authority of the Department of Finance for expenditure on any lands that had been vested, and we understand that the Department of Finance are looking into it as a result of a very long discussion we had with them on the matter.

948. Deputy Goulding.—The vesting of the houses in this case was purely incidental, I take it?—Yes. It could not be avoided. If you do any sewerage in a small town of 300 or 400 or 500 houses, our property, you must benefit these others. You cannot avoid doing so.

949. Deputy O Briain.—The Land Commission does not generally undertake sewerage schemes?—No. In this case we are the owners.

950. And it would be their duty as owners, I presume?—Well, we do not indulge in it, if we can avoid it.

951. But it was a good thing to have done, anyway?—Oh, it was, in this particular case.

952. And, instead of holding the scheme up, you thought that you had power to go ahead with it?—Well, in this case there was an undertaking of many years standing.

953. Deputy Smith.—I think the whole thing really arose as a result of the transferring of certain sums of money for the purpose of doing certain work instead of another type of work. Of course, the case of the sewerage scheme in the West is a case that one can understand, but I remember that last year we discussed the question of the drainage of a river in County Kildare —at Monasterevan, I think—and it occurred to me then, that, once you admit the right of the Land Commission to do that, you can carry the thing a far distance, even though one admits that in a particular case it might be justified. My point is that you might widen its scope in that way and do quite a lot of work that would affect vested holdings all over the country. Is not that so, Mr. Deegan?—You could, I suppose, if you pushed it too far; but in that particular case, if I may repeat what I said last year, we are dealing with tenanted land estates passing through the Land Commission for the purpose of resale. If we had dealt with those estates ourselves with our own staff, and had done any necessary improvements, including this drainage, I do not think that we would have the same argument against us.

954. Deputy Smith.—I do not think that members of the Committee would have been so inquisitive with regard to this matter were it not for the experience every rural Deputy has had. Every rural Deputy has experienced a difficulty in getting the Land Commission to improve unvested holdings and in carrying out necessary improvement work. Then when we see that they are prepared to come along and contribute to the improvement of vested and unvested holdings, it raises to our mind a very awkward point and, naturally, those of us who came up against that kind of thing very often, were anxious to get all the information we could. That, at least, was my position.

955. Deputy Goulding.—I suppose it was somewhat analogous to the sewerage case, that these other lands were incidentally benefited?—In the case of the drainage scheme we were dealing ourselves with unvested land. Our expenditure was on unvested land but we took the opportunity, to save our staff and perhaps to save expenditure to the estate, to work in with a large scheme of drainage which the Board of Works were carrying out and we persuaded them to do our job for us.

956. Deputy Smith.—We discussed last year another case in which a vested holding was being enlarged and the Land Commission proposed to erect a house on the portion that was being added to the vested holding. The Land Commission contended that when they were enlarging the holding they had a right to incur the necessary expenditure to provide a suitable house and suitable accommodation for the tenant. The awkward part about it is, that while one would like to see the Land Commission having such a right, the drainage question in Monasterevan seemed to go a little bit further—and what I say is, that when that right is insisted upon, it opens up a very wide avenue. I mean, that the Land Commission can carry that very far and they can insist, in many cases, that in improving unvested land or tenanted land that was not vested, they cannot avoid improving a number of other holdings that were already vested.

Mr. Deegan.—In the case of drainage and embankments particularly, it is impossible to do any considerable job of improvement on unvested lands without improving some vested lands that are interlocked with them.

957. Deputy Goulding.—It is purely incidental?—It is. You can see the legal point raised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. That is the point we are discussing with the Department of Finance and on which further legal advice will have to be taken.

958. Chairman.—The next sub-paragraph of the report reads:—

“I also referred to the basis of payment of paymasters, whose duty it is to pay the wages of workers employed by the Land Commission, and to my inquiry as to whether, having regard to the increased expenditure on wages in connection with improvement works, the question of revising the scale of remuneration and the percentage payments for travelling expenses had been considered. In reply to a recent inquiry as to the present position, the Accounting Officer informed me that this matter was still the subject of correspondence with the Department of Finance.

Mr. Deegan.—That is still the position. We are still in correspondence with the Department of Finance.

959. Chairman.—The next sub-paragraph reads:—

“Expenditure in connection with land reclamation schemes inaugurated by the Land Commission for the economic development of the Gaeltacht is charged to this sub-head. Reclamation schemes were also operated by the Department of Agriculture out of moneys available from the Relief Schemes Vote. The Department of Finance, however, considered that in the interests of economy and of uniformity in administration all such schemes should be administered by the Department of Agriculture. Accordingly schemes of land reclamation are now carried out under the directions of that Department, but the Land Commission Vote bears in appropriate cases the cost of general preliminary improvement works which may be found necessary before the reclamation work proper can be begun under the Department of Agriculture scheme.

Mr. Maher.—That paragraph is intended for the information of Deputies and with a view to showing what the effect of the change has been in transferring to the Department of Agriculture work hitherto done by the two Departments.

960. Chairman.—This last paragraph means that the whole thing has been put under one Department. Why not hand it all over to them?—This is done for the purpose of administrative convenience. There have been a few cases in which before a small portion of land could be reclaimed under the Department of Agriculture scheme, a small accommodation road or kesh had to be made. Our staff are experts in that work, and do that work, but they are not experts in reclamation work.

961. Deputy O Briain.—Was there a special sub-head for that?—No. These works all come under the improvement sub-head.

962. Chairman.—The next paragraph of the report deals with sub-head V— Payments under Section 18 (9) of the Land Act, 1933:—

“The charge to this sub-head, £8,042 13s. 7d., represents the loss of income arising in the Church Temporalities Fund by reason of the operation of Section 18 of the Land Act, 1933, during the two years ended 31st March, 1936. Of this sum, £3,421 4s. 0d. relates to the year ended 31st March, 1935, and the balance, £ 4,621 9s. 7d. to the year ended 31st March, 1936. From an examination, however, of the accounts of the Church Temporalities Fund for the year 1934-35, it would appear that arrears discharged under that year under the provisions of Section 18 amounted to £710 13s. 7d., and not £768 14s. 1d., as shown in those accounts, and that there has been, therefore, an overcharge to the Vote of £58 0s. 6d. In reply to an inquiry, I am informed that the over-payment will be repaid to the Vote for 1936-37 by the Church Temporalities Fund. The accounts of the Church Temporalities Fund for the year 1935-36 have not yet been examined.”

Mr. Maher.—As soon as we have completed the examination of the accounts for the year 1935-36, the Audit Office will be in a position to say whether the over-payment has been regularised or not.

Mr. Deegan.—That is being rectified by a refund of an equivalent amount in this year’s account. The error was purely clerical, the placing of certain figures in a wrong column.

963. Deputy O Briain.—In connection with the Church Temporalities Fund, there are cases where tenants’ contributions are still collected by a person who was formerly the landlord’s agent and paid over to the Land Commission by that agent. I have come across a case or two of that kind where the amounts due under this healing are collected by an agent and paid over to the Land Commission and where the tenant is as well paying rent to the Land Commission.

Mr. Deegan.—Is there anything irregular in that?

964. Deputy O Briain.—What I want to know is, why is not the whole thing consolidated and paid over to the Land Commission in the ordinary way?—I could not answer that.

965. Chairman.—Perhaps if you have cases of that kind, you should ask the tenant to apply to have the provisions of the Land Acts applied to him. He is still paying his first rent, but he is not getting the benefit of the Land Acts. He is not getting the benefit of the Land Act with regard to the Church Temporalities Fund portion, but he has power to make application to have the provisions of the Land Act applied to him.

Deputy Smith.—Are there not certain of these Church Temporalities Fund cases that are not covered by the Act?

Chairman.—The same applies to fee-farm grants.

Deputy O Briain.—This is a different matter.

Deputy Smith.—It is a terribly involved matter.

Mr. Deegan.—It is exceedingly involved. If there is any particular case in which the Deputy is interested, he might bring it before me. Generally speaking, the Land Commission does not care who pays as long as they are paid.

966. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note under sub-head Y — Assistance to Migrants from the Gaeltacht:—

“In connection with the scheme whereby certain lands in County Meath, available for the relief of congestion, were reserved for allottees from the Gaeltacht, there was, in addition to the charge under this sub-head, expenditure out of sub-head I—Improvement of Estates, etc. The total expenditure borne on the Vote of the Land Commission in connection with the scheme from its inception in 1934-35 to 31st March, 1936, was:—

“The expenditure under sub-head I is made up as follows:—

“There was also incurred from sub-head I, Vote 52—Agriculture, a charge for the services of an Assistant Agricultural Overseer who was appointed to give the migrants practical instruction in the development of their holdings, and from sub-head I, Vote 56— Gaeltacht Services, for the services of a Domestic Economy Instructress who paid periodical visits for the purpose of advising the migrants on matters of domestic economy. In addition, expenditure amounting to £1,437 6s. 1d. was incurred in the erection of a school-house. This amount was subsequently recouped to the Land Commission by the Office of Public Works.”

Mr. Maher.—The purpose of that paragraph is to bring under one heading the total expenditure incurred on this service.

Chairman.—There is no question on it? This is only in order to bring it before the Committee?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

967. Chairman.—There is the following note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General under sub-head AA—Losses:—

“As will be seen from a note appended to the account, a sum of £69 10s. 6d. was, by the direction of the Department of Finance, charged to this sub-head. It appears that the Land Commission included in a sale of land a piece which had never been vested in the Land Commission. The buyer instituted proceedings for trespass against the claimant to the land in question and, as it was recognised that the buyer could not succeed in his action, the case was settled by the Land Commission agreeing to pay the costs of both parties and, in addition, a sum of £25 as compensation.”

This is where you included in a holding for sale a piece of land which you discovered you were not entitled to include?

Mr. Deegan.—Yes; it was a tiny portion which had been included in the sale by an inaccuracy in enlarging a 6-inch map to the 25-inch scale.

968. Chairman.—I myself have come across cases of a row where there were corners of a farm which had not been properly marked. We will now turn to the Vote, at page 161. With regard to sub-head H—Payments under Section 11 (7) of the Land Act, 1923, those are statutory payments?—That is the interest we have to pay on the 10 per cent. additional and on the 2 per cent. for the Costs Fund. That is the charge borne by the State; it has to be met every year.

969. Deputy Smith.—With regard to sub-head I—Improvement of Estates—in the case of tenanted lands what is the practice regarding improvements? Is it the State makes provision for such improvements, or is there any deduction from the advance made to the landlord in question?—In some cases you will find a deduction made from the advance to the landlord.—In some cases you will find the landlord liable for the upkeep of, say, embankments. In those cases, if a capital sum is found necessary for the future upkeep and maintenance of those embankments you will find a sum of £500 or £1,000 or £2,000 deducted from the purchase money, and set up in the hands of the public trustee—sub-head D.

970. The upkeep of public embankments would be different to the type of work I have in mind. I have in mind ordinary improvement work such as rights-of-way, perhaps small drainage, and matters of that kind. Is there any deduction made from the landlord in question?—Only where there is a landlord’s liability. The cases where you will find landlord’s liability are generally embankment cases. You will also find some drainage cases.

971. Deputy Goulding.—You deduct 10 per cent. of the purchase money for the upkeep of embankments?—Oh, no. It will depend on the amount needed.

972. I did not think you could exceed 10 per cent. in the case of embankments? —In some cases we have gone very near taking the whole purchase money.

Chairman.—If you take an estate running along the shore it is a very serious matter.

973. Deputy Smith.—How is the landlord’s liability shown there?—From the practice and experience of the past. In fair rent returns and the proceedings of the old courts you will find embankments are referred to as a liability of the landlord. In some cases where fair rents were fixed you will find an allowance was fixed for the embankments, and that in future the tenant has to bear the cost of upkeep. You will get a lot of evidence of that sort in the old records. You must take the evidence of people who are able to prove that in the past the landlord did this work.

974. If you had no evidence of that character, I am sure the landlord would not be very helpful in telling you what his liabilities were with regard to this?— You must have evidence.

975. Chairman.—Of course you have another check. The Land Commission engineers, when inspecting the land, would report to you?—We have a very full report, of course, but we must have evidence as to liability before we can go before the Judicial Commissioner and demand that a certain amount of the purchase money shall be retained as a future fund.

976. In regard to sub-head L—Deficiencies on Realisation by Government Department of Land Bonds—does that arise through market fluctuations?—Yes.

977. Deputy Goulding.—In regard to sub-head P—Advances to Provide Funds for the Maintenance of Embankments or other Works, how is it you expended nothing on that?—If we find a case in which it is necessary to call upon the tenants to repay us the cost of repairing embankments we have to set up a fund. We have to advance the money, and the tenants will repay us later on. It is out of this sub-head P we find the money to make those advances. If we find it is necessary to repair an embankment for the benefit of a number of tenants it may cost us £1,000. We may decide that the tenants can reasonably be called upon to repay half of that.

978. Deputy O Briain.—In regard to sub-head Z—Appropriations in Aid, who pays the contribution for cost of management of Church property?—It is a book-keeping transaction; it is simply a transfer from one branch to another.

VOTE 55—FORESTRY.

Mr. M. Deegan further examined.

979. Chairman.—There is the following note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General under sub-head C 2—Cultural Operations, Maintenance, etc.:—

“In the course of my audit I observed that payment of mileage allowance was made to foresters for use of their own bicycles and motor cycles on official business. It would appear that the bicycles and motor cycles are used necessarily and constantly in the performance of official duty, and that, therefore, in accordance with the general regulations regarding travelling allowances the question of fixed allowances to these officers in lieu of mileage rates should have been considered. I understand that when certain investigations have been completed it is proposed to submit the matter to the Department of Finance with a view to having the position regularised.

Mr. Maher.—The position, generally, is that when officers use their own means of transport it is more economical that fixed allowances should be granted rather than mileage allowances. As they are using the cycles and motor-cycles almost continuously, I think it is much better that fixed allowances should be made by the Department of Finance?— We are dealing with that. We are investigating it very closely, but the question is not quite so simple as it looks. We are not yet in a position to put proposals before the Department of Finance, but shall do so soon.

980. Chairman.—If you paid a mileage basis in the case of ordinary bicycles, in a short time you would have paid the cost of the bicycles which would be used generally?—I suppose the same applies to other allowances for travelling. The thing is to get value.

981. Deputy Smith.—You have no maximum or minimum amounts?—No.

982. What are the rates paid?—For pedal bicycles 1½d. a mile, and for motor-bicycles 3d. a mile. The sums paid are very small.

983. The officers in question have to make returns of the places to which they travel?—Every detail has to be returned, and not a penny is paid otherwise.

984. And the cost is shown?— Every item for travelling has to be shown.

Mr. Maher.—We realise that this is difficult in connection with the Land Commission, but it is simple in the case of the Revenue Department, where fixed allowances are common on the Border?— It is very difficult for us, but we have to get the utmost value.

985. Deputy Smith.—The position would be more difficult for the Land Commission than with forestry?—Forestry is not as simple as is thought.

986. If there are centres there should not be the same confusion in forestry. The position is not like that in the Land Commission, where there might be a roving commission?—Our centres are not as difficult now as they will be in a few years’ time.

987. Chairman.—If a man is using a bicycle, and if there is normal wear, the cost of the machine might be divided over a number of years, during which, of course, repairs would be wanted. Could you arrange it in that way?—We are trying to work the matter out so as to get the utmost return for the money and, at the same time, to see that we get efficient work out of the forester when covering the district. If you make a fixed allowance of a couple of pounds a year the tendency of human nature will be to do the least possible amount of duty, but if you give something per mile we will get better value for the money. At the same time we have to get the work done at the least possible expense.

988. Deputy O Briain.—On sub-head C (2)—Cultural Operations, Maintenance, etc.—the note says that the saving was due to: “(1) failure to secure additional foresters, (2) failure to complete as large a planting programme as had been anticipated, due mainly to shortage of plants to be obtained from outside sources.” The grant was £109,714 and the expenditure £92,004 18s. 11d.?— We are still short of foresters. It will be some time before we will have a full technical staff. Men are being trained in the new school and in a couple of years we will be able to provide all the men required. We tried to get men through the Civil Service Commission and could not get them.

989. Deputy Smith.—What does “timber conversion” mean?—That relates to saw-mills and the sales in general of timber.

990. On land acquired?—In some places we have small travelling saw-mills and at other places, like Dundrum, we have fixed saw-mills, where we turn timber into firewood for sale.

991. The method employed for disposing of timber where you have no saw-mills does not seen to be a very good one?—In what way?

992. It occurred to me that where the Forestry Department takes over land for forestry purposes, and finds matured timber, they proceed to dispose of it, often in a way that the ordinary man would consider not likely to get the most out of it?—I would be very glad of any suggestion dealing with that.

993. If the price at which the timber is sold is all that it is worth, then, from the economic point of view, forestry would not be very convincing. If the Forestry Department go into a place and sell a tree that might not appear to be valuable to a man not knowing much about timber, but that was worth a fairly substantial sum, that would not be economical. In some cases they sell trees for 3/-, 4/- or 5/-, and there is no public competition. A person just goes to the forester and asks for a tree at what he considers it is worth and gets it?—That only applies to small sales.

994. Why should it apply to any sales? —You cannot sell one or two trees by public auction.

995. You could sell 100 or 200 trees by public auction?—We always do so. You will constantly see, where there are sales of any importance, that the sales must be by public auction or by tender.

996. I have seen both courses taken. I have seen sales without competition where one would think that should be essential. It would occur to one that forestry could not be a paying proposition if a tree was only worth what was got for it?—You may take it that there could not be any sales of any importance without public competition. We sell firewood and individual trees to farmers in a district. If a farmer is in a hobble for trees we sell him one or two. It is part of good forestry to sell out the thinnings. When we take over an old wood that has reached the stage that it should be replanted, we sell it by public auction. In the Appropriations-in-Aid you will find a large sum set down from small sales.

997. It is easy to say that thinnings could be sold, but if you take the remnants of an old forest, containing ash or oak or different kinds of trees, you might find an ash tree there that was very valuable. Sometimes these trees are sold as “scrap”?—Suppose you had only a few ash trees there, could you sell them by public auction? Every case must be considered on its merits. Before we advertise timber for sale by public auction we must have something worth selling— £25 or £30 worth. Our foresters are authorised to put through small sales.

Chairman.—Deputy Smith does not believe that anyone should get a bargain from the Land Commission.

998. Deputy Smith.—I do not believe in any method of disposing of State property except by competition?—That is perfectly right, but there are small cases where you must sell if you are to do business.

Chairman.—If you have a small wood what are you to do? You have to look to the cost of advertising and paying an auctioneer.

Deputy Goulding.—The same policy is pursued in the case of private sales.

Deputy Smith.—It is different, as different as day and night. There is a type of supervision and control in privately owned estates that is altogether different from what happens in connection with the State.

Deputy Goulding.—If a tenant wants a tree the estate forester sells it.

999. Chairman.—Are you able to let the shootings mentioned in the Appropriations-in-Aid?—Everything worth while is let. I understand that after a number of years forests will not be worth much for shooting purposes, but in the early years we get something out of them.

1000. Are you doing anything with regard to gamekeepers and the extermination of vermin?—We have an expert trapper on our staff.

1001. Does he shoot?—Yes, and exterminates vermin generally.

1002. Do you attend to that closely to see that he does it?—Yes; so far as one trapper can. We have a large area for one man. He trains the forest staff. We have our own caretakers, foresters and head labourers.

1003. Does he shoot scald crows and hawks?—He has a gun and ammunition, and I am sure he makes use of them.

1004. Do you get a return from him?— Yes, a full return. We have also deer to exterminate in some forests.

1005. We would all go down to help you at that.—I wish some of the members would.

1006. Deputy Crowley.—On sub-head D (2), how is it there is such a difference between the amount of the grant, £1,400 and the expenditure, £294 12s. 7d. ?—The number of schools dealt with dropped from 1,300 to 900 in the year under review.

1007. Some of the schools did not make application?—Yes. We supply the trees. It is not always easy to put down trees year after year. Some schools used up all the ground they had during the first and second years. We had from 500 to 600 schools working during last year, which took advantage of the offer of trees.

1008. Deputy Smith.—Do private individuals take much advantage of the grant? —They do not. It is a great pity it is not taken advantage of to a far greater extent.

1009. Deputy Goulding.—You spent only £30,000 in acquiring land for afforestation?—We got about 14,000 or 15,000 acres for that. We do not pay very much for forestry land.

1010. Have you a standard price?—We have not a standard price. The maximum works out at about £4 per acre and our average price works out at about 50/-per acre. It begins at a couple of shillings and the top price would be about £4.

1011. Do you lease the land?—It is purchased outright. Anything above that would probably be agricultural land which would be used for ordinary farming purposes.

VOTE 56—GAELTACHT SERVICES.

Mr. S. Moran called and examined.

1012. Paragraph 61, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

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

“The Department of Finance sanctioned the employment of a temporary forewoman at an industrial centre at a salary of £2 a week for the period of six months, to instruct and supervise outworkers in the making of lace gloves for a co-operative society operating in the Gaeltacht. I observed that in the submission to the Department of Finance it was represented that the acceptance of the proposals of the co-operative society for the appointment of such a forewoman would result in an expenditure in wages among the workers of about £30 a week for approximately nine months. It appears, however, that the wages actually distributed during the six months that the forewoman was employed amounted, in all, to £27.”

1013. Chairman.—That was rather a miscalculation?—In point of fact, the circumstances are peculiar. We got authority for this about the beginning of August, 1935, and at that time most of the girls were away in Scotland. They came back about the first week in November. Then the Arranmore disaster happened about the middle of November and that kept the people on the island disturbed until about Christmas, so that they did not start until after Christmas. There are 34 girls on the roll, and about 15 to 20 are getting continuous employment since.

1014. Are these hand-made?—Yes.

1015. Did you start a sort of technical class for them—did you get them into a centre?—No; we used our centre on the island and got in a temporary in-structress.

1016. Deputy O Briain.—What would be the average weekly wages of girls?— Not very high—about 10/-. It is mostly done at home.

1017. In their own time?—Yes.

1018. Paragraph 62, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

Sub-head F (3)—Kelp, etc.

“I referred in previous reports to the payment of rent for the storage of kelp. Additional payments under this head were debited to the Vote during the year of audit, £94 2s. 6d. being paid for storage in London and £372 12s. 0d. for storage in Galway. As stated in last year’s report, the stocks of kelp in respect of which the storage charges were incurred have been disposed of. I have requested that the terms of the sale of 188¼ tons of the kelp held in store in London may be reported to the Department of Finance and covering sanction sought.”

Mr. Maher.—That brings forward from last year what has taken place during the year. That question of storage has been referred to on several occasions on account of the high cost. I understand that 188¼ tons were sold at an inclusive price of £5 per ton in the year under review. For that reason, we considered that the Department of Finance should be informed and their sanction sought in view of the low price obtained.

1019. Chairman.—Did you get sanction?

Mr. Moran.—No. We have not got sanction yet. Of course £5 per ton in London, apart from the storage, represented more than the value of the kelp at the time it was sold.

1020. Deputy O Briain.—The market value was not by any means as much?— The market value in London was about £2 10s. per ton at the time it was sold.

1021. Chairman.—What did you pay for the 188 tons?—It cost a good deal more than that—about one and a half times that or about £8 per ton.

1022. Are you buying any kelp now?— About 600 tons last year. This year the supply has been rather disappointing; it is only about 400 tons while we could take 1,000 tons.

1023. What price are you paying?— About £4 per ton.

1024. What do you attribute the falling off to?—It is a very laborious job, particularly the winter weed which we want.

1025. Of course these men always did it in these districts. It is not laborious to them. I have seen old men over 80 years of age gathering kelp?—I am afraid the old men are dying off.

Deputy O Briain.—You will see very few people over 80 gathering kelp or anything else—it is very exceptional.

1026. Chairman.—Have you any other explanation of it?—No, I have no other explanation.

1027. Did you make any inquiries?— Yes. We cannot get them to make kelp— that is the plain fact.

1028. Have you sought the cause of that?—I am afraid I could not give any further explanation.

Deputy Crowley.—Increasing prosperity.

1029. Paragraph 62, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report (continued):—

“In paragraph 39 of my last report I referred to the fact that a considerable sum was due by a kelp buyer, but that a large amount had been claimed by way of set off. I have now been informed that, with the sanction of the Department of Finance, the buyer has paid a sum in full settlement of all claims and counter claims.”

1030. Chairman.—That matter has been settled up?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

1031. Paragraph 63, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

Sub-head F (4)—Carrageen.

“With the sanction of the Department of Finance there has been included in the charge to this sub-head a sum of £102 18s. 10d. for carrageen purchased in 1932, and for which the vouchers are now missing. From an examination of the relevant documents I am satisfied that the expenditure was properly incurred and duly vouched in the first instance, and I have accordingly admitted the charge to the Vote.”

Mr. Maher.—The point there is that it is the practice of the Audit Office not to pass expenditure unless it is supported by vouchers. In any case in which the Auditor considers it desirable to pass expenditure without vouchers he calls attention to it in this way.

Chairman.—That is very proper.

1032. Paragraph 64, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

Sub-head J (1)—Housing Grants.

“In my last report I referred to the grants and loans which may be made under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 and 1934, and to the fact that the aggregate amount of such grants and loans which may be made is not to exceed the sum of £650,000.

“I am informed that at the 31st March, 1936, the position regarding such grants and loans was as follows:—

(i) Total amount of grants sanctioned £334,941 0s. 0d.

Total amount of actual payments £224,016 6s. 0d.

(ii) Total amount of Loans sanctioned £132,939 0s. 0d.

Total amount of Loans for which certificates have been issued to the Commissioners of Public Works £99,226.

“In one case a grant was made in circumstances which did not appear to me to comply with the requirements of the Acts.”

Mr. Maher.—That was a case in which the Auditor considered that the applicant in his application did not come within the terms of the Act and we have been in communication with the officer about it. There is a slight difference of opinion as to what the qualification under that Act means.

1033. Chairman.—Was it in the Gaeltacht area?

Mr. Maher.—Yes, but the question arose whether Irish was the habitual language of the household and as to what is the meaning of the word “habitual”.

1034. Chairman.—I am not going to sit here and inquire into that.

Mr. Maher.—The Auditor thought it better to bring it under your notice.

Mr. Moran.—From our point of view, we are satisfied on the point. We have had two inspections made—one before the issue of the sanction and one since the query was raised. The fear was 60 and the bean 75. There were five girls and two boys and all in the house were Irish speakers, so that I take it Irish would be the habitual language of the household.

1035. Deputy O Briain.—What is the position in the district?—It is near Killorglin. It would be quite good.

1036. Deputy Goulding.—There is only one case out of all of these?—That is all.

1037. Chairman.—Is it the Fior-Ghaeltacht?—No, it is on the edge of the Fior-Ghaeltacht.

1038. Is it the Breac-Ghaeltacht?—Yes, near the Fior-Ghaeltacht area. All in the house are Irish speakers.

Mr. Maher.—It is really a question of the interpretation of the Act—whether “habitually” means that Irish only is spoken in the house. According to the information in the application form, it would appear that Irish and English were being spoken in the house—not exclusively Irish.

Mr. Moran.—We submit that it need not be exclusively Irish to come within the Act.

1039. Deputy Goulding.—If the children are Irish speakers, surely it proves that Irish is spoken in the house?—Yes.

Mr. Maher.—We got an opinion on the interpretation of the Irish phrase, which says: “Though the applicant and his wife were Irish speakers Irish is not the home language of the household.”

Mr. Moran.—The application form was apparently filled up on behalf of the man and he only made his mark. We do not quite agree as to the interpretation of the Irish. We say it is definitely unintelligible—the last couple of words are unintelligible to us.

Deputy O Briain.—Nobody could understand from this application form what exactly is meant by the reply. It is evident that the form was not filled in by the applicant himself but by somebody on his behalf.

Chairman.—Are the Committee satisfied on that?

Deputy Goulding.—I think so.

1040. Chairman.—We know that this Act was passed for the purpose of rehousing the Gaeltacht and we should not start hair-splitting over small points in a question of that kind.

There is a paragraph—paragraph 65, sub-head JJ (1)—which reads:—

“The expenditure of £39 charged to this sub-head, which has been opened with the approval of the Department of Finance, relates to extra-statutory grants made for the erection or improvement of poultry houses and piggeries where the provision in the Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Act, 1934, restricting such grants to cases where Irish is the habitual language of the household, was not complied with.”

This paragraph has been dealt with in the Act of 1936. It had been thought during all these years that piggeries and hen-houses were included. Is not that so?

Deputy Goulding.—Yes, we thought so.

1041. Deputy O Briain.—It is the same question, the question of the habitual language of the household.

Mr. Maher.—Yes, it is whether the Irish language is the language of the household.

1042. Chairman.—Under the heading of Rural Industries, paragraph 66 reads:—

“In paragraph 42 of my last report I referred to the preparation of certain accounts and balance sheets the form of which had been approved by the Minister for Finance under Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1921. The accounts for Rural Industries and the statement of account in respect of Industrial Loans have been recently submitted to me for audit, but I have not yet received the trading accounts and balance sheets for the kelp and carrageen development schemes.”

Mr. Moran.—We had considerable trouble in working out the accounts, but we put on some pressure and the accounts were finished last night. They will be with the Department of Finance in a few days.

1043. Chairman.—That is satisfactory. Under Industrial Loans, paragraph 67 reads:

“I have been furnished with a schedule concerning the Industrial Loans from which it appears that advances made during the year ended 31st March, 1936, amounted to £176 16s. 6d. Of this £28 relates to cash advances charged to sub-head H, while £36 represents the value of looms, machines, etc., issued on loan repayment terms. In addition looms valued at £112 16s. 6d. were issued to workers on hire purchase agreements. Exclusive of the amounts due under these hire purchase agreements, the arrears due at 31st March, 1936, amounted to £9,519 5s, 9d. as compared with £9,513 6s. 6d. on 31st March, 1935.”

These sums appear to be repaid fairly regularly of late.

1044. Deputy O Briain.—This balance of £9,000 odd goes back for a number of years?—Yes, back to 1917.

1045. Is there any hope of recovering it?—No, it has gone, but we will try to liquidate the account in some way. Probably it will not appear next year at all.

1046. Chairman.—On the Vote itself does this figure under sub-head A, £17,409 11s. 0d., cover salaries, wages and allowances in the case of all the operations under the Gaeltacht Services, housing and all?—Yes.

1047. Deputy O Briain.—Under subhead E (3)—Machines and Plant—you spent £1,390 6s. 7d. and the grant was only £750?—Yes we are replacing the old machines by more up-to-date machines.

1048. Chairman.—Does this figure of £23,989 0s. 9d. for material include the stock that you hold at Beggar’s Bush?— No, but the actual cash purchases during the year to provide materials for Beggar’s Bush and the centres.

1049. This all goes to Beggar’s Bush and is distributed?—Part of it goes direct to the centres.

1050. Deputy O Briain.—On subhead F (3)—Kelp—could you tell the Committee how much kelp you purchased last year—I see the expenditure there is put down at £6,568 8s. 2d.?—We purchased nothing last year. We made some payments in respect of the previous year.

1051. Chairman.—To What does this item, G (3)—General Expenses—refer?— The amount is £1,171 13s. 10d. for packing and other services of that kind.

1052. Deputy O Briain.—I notice that for sub-head H—Loans for Industrial Purposes—you only spent £28 out of a grant of £1,000?— Well, in addition to that there is some expenditure on looms.

1053. Chairman.—What is the item £246 12s. 9d.—Domestic Instruction—for? —That is the payment of salary and travelling expenses to the domestic instructress in the West of Ireland, in the Connemara area. She has been there for years and years. She looks after the people in their homes and tries to encourage them to improve their operations.

1054. Could not that be co-ordinated under the Department of Technical Instruction?—Well, she has been there for 20 or 30 years and she has become part and parcel of the district.

1055. Deputy O Briain.—Under Appropriations-in-Aid I see that £24,318 was realised on the net sales of products of rural industrial centres and the estimate was £17,000. Were these sales effected through the Central Marketing Depot?— Yes.

1056. In the matter of repayment of industrial loans you estimated for £100 and you realised £724?—Yes, in that matter we departed from the normal practice and took the repayment in the best way they could give it to us.

VOTE 65—ARMY.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon, Accounting Officer, called and examined.

1057. Chairman.—Paragraph 83, page xxix, reads:

“With a view to promoting thrift it has been the practice to permit members of the Forces to draw only a part of their pay and to allow the balance to accumulate in their accounts. These credit balances have shown a tendency to increase as reflected in the amount of the undischarged liability in respect of pay at the end of each financial year. As their existence has led to some irregularities, I understand that it has been decided not to permit them in future. I also drew attention to various infringements of the regulations governing the issue of pay and allowances. It appeared to me that a more effective departmental audit of the pay accounts would help to ensure a stricter observance of the regulations on the part of pay officers and I am informed that better arrangements have now been made to attain this object.

“During the year a case came to light in which a non-commissioned officer, who had charge of the pay rolls of his unit, took advantage of some defects in the method of issuing and recording pay to appropriate certain sums and charge them to various members of the unit. When some of these members afterwards disputed the correctness of the credit balances shown in their pay accounts, the irregularities were revealed. Of the sum of £30 5s. 0d. involved, £13 15s. 0d. was recovered by withholding moneys payable to the non-commissioned officer concerned, leaving a sum of £16 10s. 0d. to be written off as a loss in the Appropriation Account for 1936-37.”

1058. Chairman.—General MacMahon, have you a copy of the Appropriation Accounts with you?—Yes.

1059. When was this practice of retaining portion of the pay instituted?—It commenced 14 years ago.

1060. It commenced 14 years too early? —It was in force up to the end of the financial year 31st, March, 1937.

1061. Do you not think it was a rather an obtruse way of doing things?—Well, it had certain advantages attached to it from the soldier’s point of view. I admit that it might give rise to irregularities.

1062. Was not the machinery wrong and weak?—At that particular time there was no other method by which the soldier could be encouraged to save his money. The soldiers saved considerable sums as a result of that arrangement and they had considerable sums to credit when they left the Army.

1063. Could you not have induced them to open Post Office Savings Bank accounts or to take Savings Certificates? There were no Savings Certificates at that time.

1064. But you had the Post Office Savings Bank?—You could not bring a soldier to the post office—he would probably spend the money on the way to the post office.

1065. Chairman.—This was a scheme that was so obviously weak that it invited opportunities for the falsification of accounts?

1066. Deputy Crowley.—Surely the Post Office Savings Bank itself is open to the same type of irregularity—has there not been falsification of accounts there too?

Chairman.—But that is all right. You have got an audit there.

Mr. Maher.—The funds deposited in the Post Office are sent on daily to the Head Office, whereas in these cases the pay officer would have anything from £200 to £300 on hands.

1067. Deputy Crowley.—But notwithstanding that, there have been misappropriations every year in the Post Office.

Mr. Maher.—If you look it up, you will find these are a very small percentage in relation to the whole funds in the Post Office—is not that so?

General MacMahon.—Yes, I know the misappropriations are very small at the Post Office.

Mr. Maher.—On the whole battalion a sum of £360 outstanding in a particular day is too high. The falsification arose through the misappropriations of sums due to individual soldiers.

1068. Chairman.—Have you put an end to this arrangement?—Oh, yes.

1069. I think it was very proper to do so. It is very hard to save people from themselves. It was a very dangerous thing to allow so much money to lie in the hands of a pay officer?—Yes

1070. Now we come to the third paragraph of paragraph 83, page xxx.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Special leave for periods varying from two to 16 days was granted to certain officers, N.C.Os. and men in consideration of services rendered by them in connection with the military tattoo and the emergency transport service provided during the Dublin transport strike. The grant of special leave with full pay to members of the force in exceptional circumstances, as in the case of death or serious illness in the family, is provided for by regulation. As the regulations do not authorise the grant of special leave in the circumstances cited above, I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Mr. Maher.—We have since got a reply from the Accounting Officer in which he says the covering sanction of the Minister for Finance is being sought. I do not know whether that has been obtained.

1071. General MacMahon.—It has not yet been obtained.

1072. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Officers on full pay are entitled to treatment in hospital or sick leave or both combined up to a period of 12 months in any four consecutive calendar years; and officers who contract tuberculosis are afforded treatment in approved sanatoria up to a maximum period of 12 months. In some cases which have come to my notice the authorised limits were exceeded, but where sanatorium treatment is afforded to officers in addition to hospital treatment or sick leave the regulations are somewhat ambiguous, and I have inquired whether it is proposed to clarify them.”

Mr. Maher.—Since the report was written, the Accounting Officer has notified us that the promulgation of new regulations to deal with this matter is under consideration. I am not quite sure whether these have yet been issued.

General MacMahon.—They have not actually been issued. It was necessary to submit them to the Attorney-General and they will soon be ready for submission to the Audit Department.

1073. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“The State liability for the maintenance of the families of married soldiers is restricted by regulation to the payment of marriage allowance as provided for under sub-head B in respect of the wives and families of soldiers who have been admitted to the married establishment. The word ‘children’ has been defined for the purpose of this regulation as including boys under the age of 16 years and girls under the age of 18 years. Medical treatment of the families of all married soldiers at public expense is authorised by Defence Force Regulation No. 1 of 1931, and is provided for under sub-head X (2), but for this purpose the word ‘children’ has not been defined, and some persons who had attained the ages of 22 and 23 years were maintained at public expense in civilian hospitals as soldiers’ children. Also, continuous treatment was afforded to some children for prolonged periods and, in addition to the payment of the hospital charges, marriage allowance was issued in respect of them. The payment of marriage allowance in the circumstances would appear to give rise to a double charge on the public funds in respect of the maintenance of soldiers’ dependants during the periods of treatment. I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on those matters and also on the method of verifying the correctness of hospital claims, as it was not apparent that some individuals for whom treatment was provided were members of soldiers’ families.”

Mr. Maher.—There are quite a number of points involved here and probably it would shorten the discussion on them if I mentioned that the Accounting Officer notified us, subsequent to the writing of that paragraph, that a number of those cases are under consideration with a view to issuing regulations. I do not know whether these regulations have yet been issued.

General MacMahon.—They are not issued, but they are ready for issue.

Mr. Maher.—This matter relates to deduction from a marriage allowance in respect of a soldier’s wife or children when they are in hospital, the view apparently being that there is a double payment if you issue the marriage allowance and provide free hospital treatment for a soldier’s family. Our view of that is emphasised by one of the clauses in the Regulations which says: “For the period during which a member of the family is in a military hospital, subject to such deduction in respect thereof as may be authorised from time to time.” We noticed that rarely was any deduction made, but the Regulation is there. The word “children” should be more accurately defined, especially where treatment as being afforded to people of 22 and 23 years of age.

1074. Chairman.—Were they the sons or daughters of Army men?

Mr. Maher.—I should say so, in all cases, although it may be a little difficult to identify children where the soldier is not on the married strength.

General MacMahon.—I may say we have identified every case.

1075. Chairman.—What about the last sentence in the paragraph of the report just quoted?

Mr. Maher.—The last sentence relates to identification, where hospital treatment is provided and claims are sent in. The main point is the method of verifying the claims. General MacMahon has informed us that this thing is under consideration and probably it would be just as well to await the issue of the Regulations, as I presume they will cover all the points in that paragraph.

General MacMahon.—They will.

Mr. Maher.—In that case the Audit Office will be satisfied. We queried a number of cases where we found wrong Christian names and there was no method of linking up the name of the patient with the soldier. There was a danger that the child or the person getting treatment might not be eligible as a member of a soldier’s family.

1076. Chairman.—Did you verify every case?

General MacMahon.—We did, and they were all children of soldiers.

Mr. Maher.—The report was issued in January and the Accounting Officer wrote in February indicating that, taking one example, the name “John Byrne” should have read “Eamon Byrne.” It showed, at any rate, that the matter was more or less in order.

1077. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Though the cost of conveyance of members of the Reserve to and from training is provided for under sub-head Y (2), a sum of £5,629 has been charged against this sub-head in respect of the conveyance of members of the Volunteer Force, who were mobilised on two special occasions in the year of account.”

Mr. Maher.—That is merely a note to say that the expenditure which was apparently provided for in one case was charged under another heading. It is more or less a matter of book-keeping.

1078. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:

“During the period of the Dublin Transport Strike, which lasted from March to May, 1935, emergency transport was provided free by the Department of Defence to assist the public. According to the statement supplied to me, the cost of this service has been estimated at £1,585, the total mileage travelled being shown as 148,657 miles, and the number of passengers carried as 2.189,635. I have asked for a copy of the authority supporting the charges included in the Appropriation Account in respect of this service.”

Mr. Maher.—We have now got sanction for the charges.

1079. Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:

“Statements have been furnished to me showing the cost of production of bread at the Curragh bakery, and of meat at the Dublin and Curragh abattoirs. The unit costs are as follows:

“Fluctuations in the departmental expenses and the payment of levies amounting to £470, under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act, 1934, in respect of cattle slaughtered for the Dublin area, are reflected in the unit cost of meat.

“Actually 462 cattle purchased for the Dublin area at a cost of £6,604 6s. ld. produced 392,603 lbs. of beef while 495 cattle purchased for the Curragh area at a cost of £6,411 3s. 9d. produced 368,965 lbs. of beef. These figures appear to suggest that the purchases for the Dublin area were more economical.”

Mr. Maher.—We found the cost of the meat at the Curragh was, roughly, £205 more than the Dublin purchases. Probably there is an explanation for it.

General MacMahon.—It is possible you did not take into consideration the carriage from Dublin to the Curragh in arriving at that figure. If we sent a beast from Dublin to the Curragh there would be the cost of carriage and it is quite possible that was not taken into consideration. The main point is that the Minister has decided as a matter of policy to purchase the beasts locally, if they are suitable.

1080. Chairman.—If you adhere rigidly to that, advantage may be taken of it in regard to prices?—It so happens that in this particular year beef may be dearer in the Curragh than in Dublin, but in previous years it was cheaper at the Curragh. If we find that what you suggest is likely to happen, we will purchase the beef in Dublin.

1081. Deputy Smith.—Are the animals purchased by hand or by weight?—By weight.

1082. Chairman.—These purchases are made contemporaneously. How can you explain the difference?—The only explanation is that a beast that is taken to the Dublin market and is in the market all day will probably lose a certain amount of weight compared to the beast purchased locally at the Curragh and driven a couple of miles to the abattoir.

1083. Deputy Smith.—There is the possibility that the beast purchased here would be more likely to be better finished than a beast offered at the Curragh?— There is that possibility, too.

Chairman.—The price should follow accordingly.

Deputy Smith.—Not necessarily, because you might be buying bones instead of meat.

Chairman.—The man purchasing the animal would take that into consideration.

Deputy Smith.—It is really a matter of opinion. The beast might not be finished to the point that you would get the most out of him and still you would be buying by weight.

Deputy Crowley.—Do the figures given here refer to a particular period? There are variations in the prices of cattle from time to time.

Chairman.—It is the same accounting year.

Deputy Smith.—The Accounting Officer’s explanation refers to the distance that stock have to be taken to the Dublin market, while in the case of the Curragh you are buying in the stalls and the animals have to walk perhaps only a mile or two. That might account for loss of weight.

Deputy Goulding.—The Dublin purchases were cheaper.

Deputy Smith.—They were, possibly because there would be a better return from the animals purchased.

Deputy Goulding.—One would imagine that the beast purchased in the stall at the Curragh would be in a better condition.

Chairman.—The beast offered in the Dublin market might have very little waste, whereas the beast in the stalls might have a half-cwt. or a cwt. of waste.

General MacMahon.—We are examining the matter closely.

1084. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“As it was noted that the expenditure incurred on telephone calls by Area Officers engaged on similar duties showed a very wide variation, and in some instances appeared to be unduly heavy, I have inquired regarding the method of controlling expenditure under this head.”

Mr. Maher.—The expenditure here was, I think, very abnormal in some of the areas. For instance, for nine months in one area it was £62, in another area it was £27 10s., and in other areas the amounts were quite small, just a few pounds. I understand steps are being taken to remedy that. Since this report was written, the Accounting Officer informed us that a Defence Force Regulation is being considered to deal with this and its issue is being expedited.

General MacMahon.—Two cases can be explained. In one case we were using the telephone at a Gárda barracks which was half a mile from the Area Administrative Officer. In this case the Area Administrative Officer was ill and the N.C.O. was acting for him. Very often a telephone message came to the Gárda barracks and they had to send to the N.C.O. and the N.C.O. had to make a second telephone call. It was really due to the fact that the Area Administrative Officer was ill. The second case was a case of Kilkenny Barracks. In addition to the Area Administrative Officer, there were two other units there also using the telephone.

1085. Chairman.—The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General proceeds:—

Sub-head Y (2)—Army Reserve.

“The Regulations pertaining to the issue of pay to members of the Reserve provide that pay shall be paid to a reservist only in respect of the days of his actual attendance when mobilised or undergoing additional voluntary training. This provision does not appear to have been strictly adhered to, as pay has been issued in excess of the amount to which reservists were entitled for the period from the recorded hour at which they reported to their unit headquarters to the recorded hour at which they left on termination of training. Also, reservists when being conveyed to and from their homes by military transport for training in week-end camps or for annual training are regarded as military personnel on duty. As the views expressed by the Department of Defence in reply to my inquiries on those matters do not appear to me to be consistent with the existing Regulations, I think it desirable, for the purpose of pay and allowances, that the position should be clarified as regards the place and point of time at which mobilisation and demobilisation are actually effected.”

Mr. Maher.—The object of this paragraph is to call attention to the fact that if a reservist or volunteer reports just before midnight, he gets paid for that day, although, under another Regulation, it would appear that, say, in respect of an overnight camp a period of training of not less than 24 hours and not more than 36 hours for the purpose of pay would be regarded as equivalent to one day. The Auditor feels that a little more clarification is required in the definition of what a day really means for purposes of pay.

General MacMahon.—I think that anyone with experience of mobilising and demobilising a battalion would understand the difficulties. The first day is taken up in getting the man’s hair cut, in getting him bathed, and in issuing him with his uniform, bedding, and his knife, plate, mug, fork, etc. If you put yourself in the position of a battalion commander who has 400 or 500 men to equip on the first day, you will see the difficulty. He arranges that the local men arrive in the morning and he will probably have them equipped by lunchtime. The men who have to come a distance come in in the afternoon and are equipped in the afternoon. The reference to men coming in before midnight is not quite fair. They all have to come in time for equipment, and the first day is devoted to equipping them. If we insisted on all the men reporting at 10 o’clock on the first day, half of them would be kicking their heels around the barracks until mid-day and, in addition, we would probably have to pay the men who came a considerable distance a subsistence allowance, because they would probably have to travel on the previous day, so that the State loses nothing by this arrangement.

1086. Chairman.—In practice, you find that this is more efficient and more convenient?—That is so. The same applies in the case of demobilisation. The men whose kits are taken up first on the final day are allowed to go off. If they did not they would have nothing to do, and it is usually arranged that the men who have a long journey to travel are demobilised first and the local men are retained until the last.

Mr. Maher.—I quite agee with what General MacMahon has said, but the Audit Office’s point is somewhat different. We feel that there should be a more definite clarification of the word “day.” I have a note here that “large numbers of reservists report for training at 11 p.m. and they are paid for that day.” We do not dispute that that is proper, but we think it should be more definitely defined, as I notice here in one of the Regulations relating to reservists the phrase “for the days of his actual attendance.” It is doubtful, to my mind, if a soldier reports between 11 p.m. and 12 midnight that could be regarded as a day of actual attendance in view of the definition of a day of your Defence Forces Regulation, issued in 1936. The point is not that a soldier should not be paid for that day but that the Regulations might be more clearly defined.

General MacMahon.—I am afraid it is impossible. If you define a day, you will have to say that the local men shall come in at 10 a.m. and the men from a distance shall come in the afternoon. You really cannot define a day. If you do, it means that you pay subsistence allowance to a considerable number of men in the unit. They can do no work while they are there because they can do nothing until they are equipped and the first day is taken up with that.

1087. Chairman.—Did the Department carry out any test as to whether a man arriving at 11 o’clock would be travelling all day to reach the appointed place?

Mr. Maher.—I think that all the cases of arrival at 11 p.m. relate to people in the Dublin area.

General MacMahon.—In the case of a Dublin battalion, you might have some of the men coming from Donegal.

Mr. Maher.—The cases we took up were only those of people from Dublin, in the Dublin area.

1088. Chairman.—Had you cases of men getting paid for a day when they turned in at 11 o’clock?

Mr. Maher.—We had a number of cases. We should be quite satisfied if the Accounting Officer were able to assure us that there was economy in the present practice.

1089. Chairman.—The question of subsistence would not arise in respect of the Dublin area

General MacMahon.—The main consideration of the Minister and the senior officers is to get the men in and to equip them on the first day. I should like to meet Mr. Maher’s point if it were possible, but it is impossible to define a day because you have to define several hours. You have to define hours for various men in various units, and the only consideration that is affected here is: Is a man in on the day he should be in, and is he equipped and ready for his training the next morning?

1090. Chairman.—If a man comes in at 11 p.m. and is paid for that day, he is not in that day?

General MacMahon.—There may have been a case of one man coming in at 11 o’clock—I do not know the particular case—but it is certainly very exceptional.

Mr. Maher.—The note I have here is: “Large number of reservists have reported for training after 23 hours,” that is, 11 p.m. It really turns on this: Is that a day of actual attendance? Might a man coming in at that time be regarded as giving a day of actual attendance? If so, he should be paid; but I doubt whether that could be regarded as a day of actual attendance.

1091. Deputy Crowley.—It is unlikely that they would work on that day.

Mr. Maher.—If it is correct that a day of actual attendance is any time he comes in before 12 o’clock, midnight, he should be paid.

1092. Deputy Smith.—Any day he comes in to satisfy the authorities that he is ready for the following day can safely be regarded as a day of actual attendance.

Mr. Maher.—We thought it might be possible to amend the Regulations to make it definite that a man who reports any time before 12 o’clock midnight is entitled to be paid for that particular day. General MacMahon points out that that might not be economical.

General MacMahon.—I am certain it would not be. You would have to define a number of hours instead of a particular hour.

1093. Deputy Smith.—Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I think the safest courst is that if a man can satisfy the authorities that he is in to-day and fully equipped for to-morrow, to regard that first day in respect of which he is entitled to be paid.

Mr. Maher.—I agree, if he is in and ready, but you have to keep in mind the Regulation in which you say that a period of not less than 24 hours or more than 36 hours is one day.

General MacMahon.—There is really no connection between the two.

Mr. Maher.—I know, but it is an indication of what we might take in this case.

General MacMahon.—You could not suggest that a day should be 36 hours. What we are defining there is an overnight camp and in doing that, we must keep in mind the fact that a Reservist cannot be called up for more than 30 days’ training.

1094. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General in his report proceeds:

“The Officers’ Training Corps, which was disestablished as from November, 1935, had not been called out for training during the 1933-34 training year, but a proportion of half the annual grant of £8 was paid to its members in respect of weekly parades and overnight camps. Payment of those grants had not been completed by the 31st March, 1935, and no provision for them was included in the Vote for 1935-36, but a sum of £798 disbursed during the year has been charged to the sub-head with the sanction of the Department of Finance.

Special Sub-head—Vessels.

“This sub-head has been opened on the instructions of the Department of Finance to record the charge to the Army Vote of a sum of £560 17s. 9d., being the amount of the payments made by the Department of Defence in 1922 in connection with the seizure of the S.S. “City of Dartmund.”

Sub-head Z—Appropriations-in-Aid.

“After protracted negotiation an agreement has been reached on the question of the rent payable in respect of two sites at the Curragh let under lease to the proprietors of the Soldiers’ Institute. The non-receipt of rent from this property was the subject of comment in my reports on the accounts of previous years, and the accumulated arrears had amounted to £1,223 12s. 6d. on the 30th September, 1934. The Department of Defence, with the approval of the Department of Finance, has now accepted £532 in full discharge of this claim and has reduced the rents from £86 to £56 a year.

“I noticed that certain sums, which have now been credited to this sub-head, had been received by local Slaugh Committees in respect of unauthorised lettings of volunteer halls and a drill field, and that the provisions of the State Lands Act, 1924, had not been observed in connection with the letting of the drill field. I have made enquiries regarding the adequacy of the departmental action taken to prevent the recurrence of irregularities of this kind.” Has that been observed?—It has.

1095. Chairman.—The Report continues:

Stores.

“With reference to the comments in my report on the accounts of the previous year regarding the method of accounting for technical stores at the Air Corps headquarters, a complete stocktaking and survey of all technical stores and equipment was carried out during the year, and the results are reflected in the Statement of Losses appended to the Appropriation Account. In addition to the deficiencies of non-expendable stores brought to notice, no expense vouchers were available to cover the expenditure of approximately £69 worth of consumable stores. All obsolete and surplus stores have now been set aside for disposal and Regulations have recently been issued providing for better financial control and a definite accounting procedure in this service.

“Regarding the reference of the Public Accounts Committtee in its report on the accounts for 1933-34 to the surplus stocks held for barrack service purposes, I understand that the Committee which was set up to examine the position has completed its survey of all barrack service stores throughout the Army, and has arranged for the collection of all stocks which were found to be surplus to requirements. This Committee happens to be in a position to make its final recommendations regarding the disposal of those stocks at an early date.”

Mr. Maher.—I understand that the Committee has reported.

General MacMahon.—Yes. In actual fact, we have submitted our proposals to the Department of Finance and we are awaiting a reply.

1096. Chairman.—That covers this whole question of stores?—Yes.

1097. Chairman.—The Report proceeds:—

Statement of Losses.

“Losses written off during the year are detailed in a statement appended to the account. The total is made up of:—

The latter figure includes £13,578 1s. 6d. in respect of loss of or damage to stores and equipment on charge to the Air Corps, reference to which is made in the preceding paragraph.”

Some of this amount represents loss and some damage. What is the suggestion about damage?—Accidents to aeroplanes.

1098. Chairman.—Who are the civilians who are covered by sub-head C (Pay of civilians attached to units)?

Mr. Maher.—They are tradesmen.

1099. Chairman.—To what hospitals does sub-head X (2) (Contributions to hospitals for treatment of wives and families of soldiers) refer?

Mr. Maher.—That item refers to dependents of soldiers who are sent to outside hospitals for treatment.

General MacMahon.—That is so. It refers to Dublin and Cork.

VOTE 66—ARMY PENSIONS.

Lieutenant-General McMahon further examined.

1100. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has a note on this Vote as follows:—

“In the course of audit of the grants of pension made under the Army Pen-Act, 1932, it was noted that the Military Service Registration Board had, in some instances, amended its original certificate issued under Section 8 of the Act. I am now informed that the law officers have advised that the board is not empowered to amend its certificate and that no further payment of pension will be made in the particular cases affected until the awards are regularised by amending legislation. Of the total amount involved (£808 12s. 3d.) a sum of £218 15s. 0d. was charged in the Appropriation Account for 1934-35.”

Probably that has been amended?

General MacMahon.—It has been covered by the Amending Act of 1937.

1101. Chairman.—Are they given powers to amend their certificate?—Yes.

1102. Are any conditions specified under which they can amend?—Yes, availability of evidence. If new evidence is available, they can amend.

1103. Chairman.—The note of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote proceeds:—

“Part II of the Army Pensions Act, 1932, contains no provision for the medical examination of applicants whose degree of disability has already been assessed, and awards refused. But in a case which came to notice the original medical examination of the applicant was carried out by a medical practitioner who had not been duly appointed a pensions medical officer in accordance with the Army Pension Board Regulations. This defect in the procedure of the Army Pensions Board was held to invalidate its original report and the applicant was re-examined and a pension awarded appropriate to 100 per cent. disability.”

Mr. Maher.—We merely called attention to that matter and I do not think that there is anything to add to the note. I understand that this applicant was residing abroad and was examined there by a medical practitioner who had not been appointed a pensions medical officer.

1104. Chairman.—What happened then?

General MacMahon.—The applicant came to Dublin and was examined by the Army Pensions Medical Board. As a result, he got a pension.

1105 Chairman.—I notice that the grant for military service pensions under sub-head A was £237,000, while the expenditure was only £193,332 0s. 8d.?—These are military service pensions granted under the Act of 1934, and we could merely estimate what number of cases would be dealt with during the year.

1106. On what basis do you make allowance for expenses of applicants and of witnesses attending for examination, as provided for by sub-head M?—A scale has been laid down by the Department of Finance and we adhere to that. It depends, to a great extent, on the earning capacity of the individual called up.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 4—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL.

Mr. J. Maher called and examined.

1107. Chairman.—You also audit the National Insurance accounts?—Yes, but that does not really come within the duties of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Auditor is appointed by the Department of Finance.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 73—WIDOWS’ AND ORPHANS’ PENSIONS.

(No question).

The Committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m.