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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 26adh Bealtaine, 1937.

Wednesday, 26th May, 1937.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Seoirse Mag Craith (Ard-Sgrúdóir), Mr. J. J. McElligott (An Roinn Airgid), called and examined.

Deputy Smith.—In the absence of the Chairman, I propose that Deputy McMenamin take the Chair for this meeting.

Deputy Goulding.—I second. Agreed.

Deputy McMenamin took the Chair.

VOTE 1.—GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

684. Chairman.—There is no note on this Vote. With regard to sub-head B— Allowance to Governor-General for Expenses—could you tell us, Mr. McElligott, if that was an inclusive sum?—Yes. It is a grant that is not vouched. It is a sum for the maintenance of the official residence and the establishment of the Governor-General, and it covered lighting, heating, insurance, and all the other items of expenditure in connection with the house, remuneration of the staff, and so on.

685. I only asked that question in connection with a provision in one of the sections of the new Bill regarding the payment of some extra expenditure. Would that arise out of his leaving the establishment, or what is it for? Would it be extra to this sum of £1,200?—It would be additional to the £1,200, which was intended to cover only normal outlay on the matters to which I have referred. I think that the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Bill states that Mr. Donal Buckley shall get a sum of £2,000 and “such sum as shall be necessary to recoup to the said Donal Buckley all disbursements which were, in the opinion of the Minister for Finance, necessarily or properly made by him in relation to the maintenance of his official residence and the household staff thereof after the passing of the Principal Act or in relation to the closing of such residence and the discharge of such staff.” The Minister for Finance will see that there is no duplication; in other words, that Mr. Buckley is not remunerated on the double for any item of expenditure.

686. I suppose that that does not relate to this Vote in any case, since it was last year that his office terminated?—The office of Governor-General was terminated and the allowance ceased to be payable in 1936-37. There is no Vote for the post in 1937-38. The expenditure on the Governor-General’s establishment in 1936-37 was £1,600, as compared with £1,921 in the year under review. There will be no expenditure in the current year except, of course, such expenditure as may follow if the Executive Powers Bill is enacted.

687. Deputy Haslett.—With regard to sub-head D—Telegrams and Telephones— is that item of expenditure vouched for? —It is a payment made on foot of inter-Departmental arrangements between the Department of Finance and the Post Office, and it relates to the actual business transacted by telegram and telephone. The estimate is necessarily conjectural, but the expenditure is based on the actual service given. The cost of private telegrams and private trunk calls is not charged against the Vote.

688. Chairman.—Are these segregated? —Yes. Well, what I mean is that the Governor-General is expected to indicate such telegrams and trunk calls as are private and to pay for them himself. Copies of all telegrams sent have to be sent to the Department of Finance, and, of course, if, in our examination, we come across any that seem to be in the nature of private communications, we refuse to admit them.

Chairman.—Well, seeing that we are being so generous, I do not think we need trouble ourselves too much about that.

VOTE 2.—OIREACHTAS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

689. Deputy Smith.—With regard to sub-head D—Travelling Expenses of Seanadóirí—it would seem to me, Mr. McElligott, that the Senators were better at travelling than the Deputies?—The allowance was exceeded by £151. The Seanad met more frequently than was anticipated, and had more business to transact.

690. Deputy Keyes.—In regard to sub-head E, what is the explanation of the reduction in the amount expended on the salaries, wages and allowances of officers and staff?—There was a saving of £944 which was due to vacancies on the staff. I mention in the note on the account that the savings were due mainly to vacancies on the establishment, and to the amount payable in respect of the cost-of-living bonus being less than was anticipated. None of the vacancies referred to in the explanation was individually of any great significance, but the cumulative effect, combined with the savings on the cost-of-living bonus, accounted for a gross saving of almost £945 on the sub-head.

691. Chairman.—Is the contribution paid under sub-head J to the Oireachtas Restaurant, in respect of catering expenses, a fixed contribution?—It varies from time to time according to the extent of the loss incurred by the Restaurant. The Restaurant was formerly under the joint control of the Chairman of the Seanad and the Chairman of the Dáil. It is now run by the chairman of the Dáil in consultation with the House Committee. There is a provision in the current year’s Estimate for this expenditure. The Exchequer has been paying each year some sum towards the expenses of the Restaurant in addition to providing a number of items free of charge, such as accommodation, heat and light, except heat required for cooking.

692. Do they pay for the current required for the heating of the ovens?—The heat for the ovens is charged to the contractor, to the people who provide the meals.

693. Deputy Crowley.—Does this £500 represent the actual loss on the running on the Restaurant?—Yes. The total State expenditure to the 31st December, 1932, for which the Joint House Committee was liable was £3,133. This expenditure was offset by a repayment amounting to £1,234, leaving, as you see, a considerable balance over and above the amount of the repayment. Since the caterers took over, the total payments to the 31st March, 1936, in respect of losses on catering amounted to £1,074. The payments in respect of the losses incurred are always made in arrear and on production of audited accounts.

694. Chairman.—They fall to be paid in the subsequent year?—Yes.

695. How does this £500 come out so neatly?—That was the amount provided in the Estimate. There was, in fact, an unpaid balance towards the end of the year which had to be carried over. The liability was found to be somewhat more than £500. So the whole sum of £500 was paid, but there is a balance due after that.

696. Deputy Haslett.—Are we losing less under the caterers than under the direct management?—Yes, we are losing less.

697. Chairman.—Is the sum substantial?—In the current year’s Estimate a provision of only £150 has been made, as far as I remember, for the Oireachtas Restaurant. The same provision was made in 1936-37. That is considerably less than the sum of £500 we are discussing here. The loss on the Restaurant has been falling, but from accounts just recently submitted I think it will probably rise again.

698. That is due to the cost of food?— Yes, and to wages.

699. Deputy Smith.—And to the fact that the Seanad was abolished?—Yes, that is an important item. The Minister for Finance has, in fact, intimated that he will, if necessary, pay in the current year up to £500 in respect of the loss on the Restaurant although the provision in the Estimate is only £150. We hope to be able to meet the additional liability by savings on some of the other sub-heads of the Oireachtas Vote. We have been pressing the authorities responsible to increase the price of meals in the Oireachtas Restaurant.

Deputy Smith.—You will drive us out of town.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 5—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

700. Deputy Haslett.—In regard to sub-head B—Travelling Expenses—are these travelling expenses personal or are they office travelling expenses?—They are office travelling expenses, exclusively. There is a big saving, as you will see, only £4 being spent out of the £200 provided.

VOTE 9—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

701. Chairman.—The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General states in paragraph 6:

In paragraph 8 of their Report, dated February, 1928, the Public Accounts Committee commented on the payment of an honorarium to the Chairman of a Commission, for which there was no provision in the Estimate and expressed the view that, when any payment is made to an individual for what purports to be unpaid and voluntary work, the matter should be brought to the notice of the Dáil. A sum of 250 guineas, charged to the sub-head for salaries, was paid during the year to each of two members of a Commission for what appears to have been voluntary work. As no provision was made in the Estimate for this purpose, I have asked the Accounting Officer for explanation of the charge against the Vote.

Mr. McGrath.—I draw attention to the fact that in a similar case some years ago the Committee expressed the view that, when any payment is made to an individual for what purports to be unpaid and voluntary work, the matter should be brought to the notice of the Dáil. No provision was made in the Estimates for 1935-6 for such a payment as this, and of course it is necessary for me to draw the attention of the Dáil to this matter.

702. Chairman.—Was this intended to be voluntary work?

Mr. McGrath.—As far as I know, it was intended to be voluntary work. Of course, I am subject to the information at the disposal of the Accounting Officer.

703. Chairman.—What has the Accounting Officer to say about it? Does that refer to the payment of an honorarium to the Chairman of a Commission? —No.

704. The report refers to the fact that a sum of 250 guineas was paid during the year to each of two members of a Commission for what appears to have been voluntary work?—I was thinking of the first paragraph of the report, which refers to a payment in 1928. We expressed substantial agreement with the Committee in that matter. As regards the payment of 250 guineas to these two members of a Commission, I think I stated, in a reply that I sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General when he raised a query on the matter, that when the Estimate was framed it was not contemplated that any payment would be made to the members concerned apart from the normal travelling and subsistence expenses, otherwise express provision would have been made in the Estimate for the payments referred to. The decision that special payments should be made to the two gentlemen in question was taken by the Executive Council in January, 1936, as it had been found that the work of the Commission had made much heavier demands on their time than had been anticipated when the Commission was established. It was considered desirable that some payment on account should be made without delay. Due provision for the payment of the balance was made in the Estimate for the following year—1936-37. As a matter of fact, that balance has not been paid because the Commission has not yet concluded its labours.

705. Chairman.—I do not think that is the point made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The point is, was the work intended to be voluntary or not?—It was intended to be voluntary at the outset, when we had certain ideas as to the length of time the Commission would last, and as to the extent of the work that the members would be called upon to do. As time passed and the work of the Commission increased in volume and intensity, the calls upon those gentlemen’s time proved to be very considerable and to take them away from their normal business. To a certain extent—in fact, to an appreciable extent—they were deprived of the possibility of earning moneys in other directions. It was felt that it would be inequitable to ask them to give their services for nothing.

706. Of course, we all fall into traps of that kind in our lives. The point is, was this work originally intended to be voluntary? Did they undertake it as voluntary work?—The answer to that is yes; it was intended to be voluntary, and it would have been voluntary if the amount of time taken by the work of the Commission had not been such as to interfere, as I say, with the earning prospects of the individuals concerned. They had to put themselves to considerable inconvenience in attending the meetings of the Commission. One has to travel from Switzerland and the other from London. They have to do most of their travelling by night, and they otherwise put themselves about a good deal financially. The Executive Council, after taking all those considerations into account, and also taking note of the fact that the services were originally intended to be voluntary, decided on a payment of 500 guineas to each of the two individuals concerned. The matter, in so far as there was any irregularity in it, has been regularised in the following year, 1936-7. I might refer you to page 32 of the volume of Estimates for 1936-7, where I have inserted the words, “Fees to experts.” I think the irregularity in this present instance consists in the fact that there was no indication on the face of the Estimate that there would be any fees paid to experts. That has been regularised in the following year, 1936-7.

707. Have you correspondence from those gentlemen intimating that they would give those services voluntarily?— Yes. The whole correspondence was based on the assumption that they would be recouped only in their travelling expenses and subsistence allowances.

708. Deputy Smith.—Was there any precedent for the payment made by the Executive Council?—Well, there was a precedent referred to in the first paragraph of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report, where the payment of a honorarium to the Chairman of the Commission was questioned. That, of course, occurred some years ago, but it was a precedent at any rate.

709 The Executive Council, having decided that this amount should be paid, was it not possible to wait until 1936-7 and give them in that year the entire sum that it was decided to offer in respect of services rendered?—It would have been possible to wait, but, on the other hand, the Commission had already lasted a very long time, longer even at that time than was anticipated, and it was hoped that the payment on account might stimulate the energies of the gentlemen concerned and so bring about a speedier termination of the work of the Commission.

710. I would have thought that the fact of having got a decision that payment would be made would be sufficient to induce them to proceed with the work, and that you could have made the entire payment in the year 1936-7?—As a matter of fact, we did not make any payment at all in 1936-7. We gave them 50 per cent. of the amount after the decision of the Executive Council had been taken, and said that we would give the other 50 per cent. when the work of the Commission was concluded. It has not yet concluded. The provision that we made in 1936-7 has been repeated in the current year’s Vote. I accept generally the contention of the Chairman and the contention of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that, where services are given voluntarily and it is subsequently decided that payment should be made, such payment should, in fact, be brought to the notice of the Dáil.

711. Chairman.—That is going further than my view. My view is that when a man offered his services voluntarily it does not matter what it involves he should stick to it. I think this is a bad practice because, in my view, you would have men accepting those posts and then putting forward claims of this kind. I object to that on principle.

Mr. McElligott.—I should like to correct an impression which I, unfortunately, may have conveyed to the Committee. Those gentlemen did not put in any claim. The offer of remuneration was made by the Government, by the Minister for Finance. No claim was made by the men concerned.

Chairman.—I am not talking about a claim. Making a claim is one thing. There are a hundred and one ways of doing that without making a claim. I am opposed to the principle of making any payment to men who have offered their services voluntarily.

Deputy Smith.—If a Commission is set up, and certain experts are required, and if it is subsequently found that the work of that Commission is much more substantial than was at first anticipated, I can see no objection at all to offering compensation of some kind in a case like that, provided, as the Comptroller and Auditor-General suggests, that is done in a proper way.

Chairman.—I am opposed to that.

Deputy Keyes.—I am not averse to this payment, because if people volunteer their services on a particular Commission, and it is subsequently found that that work involves more time and delay than was originally suggested, I think the Executive Council ought to be entitled to say that they should not utilise those men’s services indefinitely. But I do not see any reason why it would not have been possible for the Executive Council, when they found it necessary to make this alteration, to get the permission of the Dáil to do so. There should have been a method by which the Executive Council could have got the sanction of the Dáil. I think the point really is that there is a previous decision of the Public Accounts Committee that such payments ought not to be made, where possible, without the sanction of the Dáil. That is really the only point with which we should be concerned this morning.

Chairman.—I still hold to my view. I think that this is a bad principle. Everybody knows that when a person accepts a seat on a Commission of any kind, God knows when it is going to end. Anybody who knows anything about Commissions knows that. Anybody who accepts a seat on a Commission has to take the consequences. I think it is a bad thing to open a door of this kind.

Deputy Keyes.—If it had gone before the Dáil there would be no question about it.

712. Deputy Haslett.—What Commission was this?

Mr. McElligott.—A Commission to inquire into banking and currency, set up in November, 1934, to examine and report on the system in Saorstát Eireann of currency, banking, credit, public borrowing and lending, and the pledging of State credit on behalf of agriculture, industry and the social services; to consider and report on what changes, if any, are necessary and desirable to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and the interests of agriculture and industry. As the members of the Committee will see, the terms of reference are extremely wide.

713. Chairman.—They are wide. It is obvious that it was a Commission which was going to take an indefinite period. If you open a gate as wide as that you can hardly ever close it.

Mr. McElligott.—We have been engaged on it for nearly three years.

714. Deputy Crowley.—Was there any indication to those experts from the Department of Finance as to the possible period during which the Commission would last?—The Department of Finance has so much experience of these special bodies that they refuse to forecast.

Deputy Haslett.—I think, Mr. Chairman, that in this case it would be impossible for us as a Committee to ask the Government to be tied in such a way as your contention would suggest. Our concern is to regularise the payment. There are few people that I know in this country who look on the Government as any charity. If services are being rendered which the Government think are worthy of remuneration, there is a way of doing it. I do not think it is wrong to remunerate people for services rendered.

Chairman.—That is not the point.

Deputy Haslett.—I do not think it is wrong, even though at the start the services were intended to be voluntary. A Commission of this sort is a big development, and I think the only point with which we are concerned is the regularising of this payment.

Chairman.—I am not concerned at all about the amount of remuneration. That is a different thing altogether. I am concerned with the principle of the matter.

715. Deputy Smith.—I think we can leave the point there. There is only one matter involved here, and that is a payment was made to those two gentlemen notice of which had not been given. We can deal with that, I suppose, at a later stage.

Mr. McElligott.—I think there is the further contention that those men were certainly losing opportunities for profitable employment of their time in writing articles on economics and generally enhancing their income.

716. Deputy Smith.—Of course it will have to be said that the anticipation of those responsible was very poor. It was obvious that those men would have to sacrifice a good deal of their time. That should have been obvious from the outset. My view is that one cannot admire the anticipation of those responsible with regard to those two men.

Mr. McElligott.—The men themselves had considerable experience of Government inquiries of one kind of another in various countries. When they wanted some estimate of the length of time which the Commission would last, we were unable to give them an estimate. I think that in itself was sufficient indication that it was likely to last a long time, apart from the terms of reference, which were so comprehensive that it was inevitable that the Commission would last a long time.

717. Chairman.—We will now turn to to Vote at page 17. With regard to sub-head B (1)—Salaries, etc.—is this a nominal Vote?—Yes; an excess of £25 over a provision of £5 for the payment of an allowance to the Secretary of the Board in respect of arrears from previous years. It also includes remuneration in respect of work to be done.

718. Chairman.—Under sub-head C (1) (salaries), the grant was £35 and the expenditure £182 16s. 2d.?—The excess was caused by the payment of a gratuity to the secretary, as indicated in a note in the Appropriation Accounts. There was a gratuity of £150 to the secretary and a gratuity of £30 to the assistant secretary. This was also a Commission which lasted for some years. The gratuities paid to these officials represented to some extent the amount of time that they were called upon to work outside the normal office hours.

719. On sub-head D (1)—Irish Manuscripts Commission—the grant was £950 and the expenditure £1,056 13s. 10d. Does that expenditure arise in the same way?—The excess was due to a change in the personnel and the employment of additional staff. A shorthand-typist was replaced by a female proof reader (who got an allowance of £50 as secretary) and a typist was provided to assist the clerical officer in transcription of the civil survey for the Irish Manuscripts Commission. The additional assistance will, in our view, mean a considerable saving in the end, because it will accelerate the work of the Commission and bring it to a conclusion.

720. There is increased expenditure on the Commission of Inquiry into Banking, Currency and Credit?—There is a saving on sub-head E (2) which more than balances the excess expenditure on sub-head E (1). In connection with the Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial Schools System, that Commission presented its report in August, 1936.

721. On sub-head G (1), the grant for salaries for the Inter-Departmental Committee on Public Works was £10 and the expenditure £346 16s. 3d.?—It was found necessary, as I explain in the note, to assign one clerical officer and one typist to the office of the Committee.

722. Deputy Smith.—That Committee was not set up to make a report?—It was set up and reported to the Minister for Finance and through him to the Executive Council. It presented the final report to the Minister for Finance in November, 1936.

723. Chairman.—The next sub-head deals with the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Marketing of Fruit and Vegetables?— The body conducting this inquiry is the Tariff Commission, and the salaries of the members of the staff are borne on the Tariff Commission Vote, which will come on later.

724. Sub-head I—Commissions and Inquiries not specifically provided for?— The details are given at the foot of page 20.

725. Has the Inland Fisheries Commission reported?—Yes.

726. An explanation of the items connected with this sub-head are given on page 20 of the Appropriation Accounts?— Yes.

727. Deputy Haslett.—The expenditure on the Central Savings Committee, £79,570 10s. 2d. since 1923-24, seems a huge amount?—The expenditure is mainly on State Savings officers in charge of the various districts and organisers sent out by the Committee.

728. Chairman.—They are sent to the various areas?—Yes.

729. Is it only the organisers’ expenses are paid? Are salaries paid?—They have salaries, travelling expenses and subsistence allowances. The secretary is paid £400 to £600, three State Savings officers £300 and one £275. There are five State Savings officers in all, one secretary, one clerical officer, a shorthand-typist and two other members of the staff, making a total of ten on the staff of the Central Savings Committee.

730. This is an organisation in itself?— Yes. It is outside the Department of Finance. It is a separate office and has a separate secretariat of its own. A good deal of the expenditure is due to advertising. For publicity an expenditure of £1,000 a year is provided in the Estimates. There are small grants towards the expenses of county committees, including grants to the secretaries to cover the costs of stationery, rent of rooms, and light and heat if necessary.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

731. Chairman.—This Vote is concerned the holding of examinations for intments up and down the country, also in the City?—Yes. It includes the Local Appointments Commission as well as the Civil Service Commission.

732. It also includes the cost of examinations held for local authorities?—Yes.

VOTE 14—PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

733. Chairman.—There is a note from the Comptroller and Auditor-General on page 6:

I observe a case in which compensation was paid for destruction of property outside Saorstát Eireann on a scale not in accordance with the basis applied in assessing claims under the Damage to Property (Compensation Acts).

Mr. McGrath.—This was a payment of £3,200. I made some inquiries from the Accounting Officer on 29th January of this year, but unfortunately I have not had any reply. It was an ex gratia payment for property losses sustained in Northern Ireland.

734. Chairman.—What is the meaning of that?—The Minister for Finance announced his intention of paying compensation in respect of a certain number of Northern Ireland cases. A statement was made in the Senate on 18th August, 1933, and it was in pursuance of that statement that the payment was made.

The Minister said on that occasion:

It will be remembered that in Dáil Eireann in 1929, the previous Administration decided to admit claims for damage to property in the Six Counties in the pre-truce period where applications for compensation were made to and refused by the Northern courts on the plea of military necessity. The Government has now decided that compensation should be paid in cases of a like nature where the damage was sustained between the date of the Truce and the commencement of the attack on the Four Courts, that is, between 12th July, 1921, and 28th June, 1922. It is proposed, as was done in the instance of the pre-truce cases which I have mentioned, that claims within the category which I have outlined will be investigated and dealt with by the Department of Finance.

735. The claim to which reference has been made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General was one for £15,000 which was made in the Northern Ireland courts under the Criminal Injuries Acts, and it was dismissed in October, 1923. Following the Minister’s statement in the Senate, the matter was then considered by the Department of Finance. The total amount of the claim at the time we came to consider it was £23,278.

736. Did you say that the original amount of the claim was £15,000?-Yes. The increase was due to the additional cost of replacements that would be entailed at a more recent date of a number of items in respect of which damage was claimed.

737. Was there replacement in this case?—The premises were destroyed. Perhaps I had better give an idea of the details of the claim. There were six main items in it: (1) Consequential losses, £10,000; (2) loss of business, £3,000; (3) losses attributed to destruction of account books, £1,450; (4) depreciation of crops, £250; (5) buildings and contents, £8,378; (6) fruit trees, £200; making a total of £23,278. We ruled out the first four items on the ground that they were consequential losses and as such were not admissible under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, and that left a balance of £8,578 for consideration. The details of the claims were assessed by the Office of Public Works as regards buildings and contents, by the assistant superintendent of the Phoenix Park as regards farming implements, and by a military expert with a knowledge of stores with regard to stock in trade. The total assessment of these expert people came to £2,017, the bulk of the reduction from the figure of £8,578 being due to the fact that the premises which were valued by the applicant at £6,000 were valued by the Office of Public Works at £950, on the basis of the market value of the premises. Unfortunately, owing to the lapse of time between 1923 and 1935, when this investigation was being conducted, the various items in the claim were not capable of being assessed with anything approaching exactitude, and the sums estimated by the assessors were to a large extent their personal views on the value of the property and had to be formed without specific knowledge of the place as it had been or the contents as they had been; matters which were within the personal knowledge of some Ministers who knew the house and were aware of the way it had been run and the manner in which it had been kept. Taking all these matters into consideration, including the official assessment, the Minister decided that fair and reasonable compensation would not be less than £5,000. The applicant had already received a payment of £1,500 from the White Cross trustees and £300 from the Dáil Special Fund. These payments were deducted from the £5,000, and the balance of £3,200 was actually paid over to the applicant from this Vote for Property Losses Compensation.

738. Was it proved to your Department how the premises were destroyed?—Yes, there was no doubt as to how they were destroyed. They were destroyed by military action. That was accepted in the Northern Ireland courts, but the claim was ruled out on the ground of military necessity.

739. You had that evidence before you? —Yes.; we had the finding of the Northern Ireland court.

740. Deputy Crowley.—It is not clear what the Comptroller and Auditor-General is complaining about, namely, the basis applied in estimating the damage?

Mr. McGrath.—There was an award of £5,000 for the damage done. If the same basis was applied as had been applied in similar cases within the Free State, an award of £2,017 would have been made. That is my case.

Mr. McElligott.—On that, I might observe that if this case was justifiable by the Free State courts and had come before a judge in this country, we would have to put up our official assessors and they would have to give evidence as to the value they attached to the various items composing the claim. Then the applicant would have to give his idea, and the judge would probably have given a decision somewhere in between. So that, in the cases to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General refers that are heard by the courts here, it is very rarely that the official assessment is accepted entirely. On the standard which he put forward, I think that most of the cliants here receive excessive sums. judges in very few cases accept the partment of Finance’s estimate in to Nearly always they advance beyond that figure.

Deputy Smith.—While the basis referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is quite right, I can say, as one who knew something of these premises, that if the figure mentioned by the Accounting Officer were agreed upon, a great injustice would be done. The figure of £2,017 would certainly not be fair or reasonable.

741. Chairman.—Do you base this on accepting the evidence of the representative of the Department of Finance on the hearing of the cases?

Mr. McGrath.—That would be assessing it on the basis of the 1923 Act. The damage to buildings was assessed on the basis of the amount by which the market value of the buildings was reduced by destruction or injury and not on a reinstatement basis. The applicant in this case had not to reinstate. He got the money without any condition.

742. Chairman.—These premises were not reinstated?—The premises were in Northern Ireland.

743. That did not affect their being reinstated?—We could not send officers into Northern Ireland to certify that work is being done. Besides, the principle underlying the application of reinstatement conditions is that the local authorities should not suffer through loss of rates by non-reinstatement. We were not particularly interested in the rates of local authorities in Northern Ireland. The point was whether you pay on a reinstatement basis or a market value basis.

744. Deputy Smith.—If a man’s business premises were destroyed in 1923 and compensation is given in 1935-36, the question of reinstatement could not very well come up. The man could not possibly have proceeded to erect buildings again. He had lost his business.

Chairman.—There were awards made on the basis of reinstatement and the reinstatements are not yet made.

Deputy Smith.—They are altogether different cases from the one we are discussing.

Mr. McGrath.—I agree with Deputy Smith that there is a good deal to be said for this particular claim, but the Audit Office has to take into account always the powers under which such things are done. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to two other cases in the Six Counties. In case A, the total claim was £1,696 and the compensation paid was £250, or 15 per cent. of the claim. In case B, the total claim was £2,921 and the compensation paid was £690, or 23 per cent. of the claim. In this particular case the claim, after expunging all these consequential items, was brought down to £8,361. The claim, as assessed by the Department of Finance itself, was £2,017, or 24 per cent. Judging it in comparison with the other two cases, it was fairly well treated.

745. Deputy Smith.—If you did not expunge the other four items, what percentage would you have?

Mr. McGrath.—They were expunged in the other cases also.

746. Deputy Smith.—How do we know that there were not items in the other cases also which might have been as unreasonable?

Mr. McGrath.—I am assuming that they all claimed as much as they could and were only allowed what they were entitled to and that consequential items were ruled out in all cases.

Deputy Smith.—There may have been items in the other cases, just as extravagant but not capable of being expunged in the same way.

Chairman.—There are certain things laid down by law that do not come within the Act.

Deputy Keyes.—There seems to be a dangerous precedent being established, if we are going to set aside the findings of our official assessors who are supposed to do their duty on behalf of the State, and are going to constitute a Minister or somebody else as a pseudo-judge and give an increase. It would write down the value of our official assessors’ estimates in future when dealing with the courts if we set a bad headline and do not accept their figures.

Deputy Smith.—As against that, I would point out, as the Accounting Officer has pointed out, that if I were making a claim and the official assessors were called upon to make an assessment I would have the right to go before a judge and get him to report. In all cases of a similar nature that came before the courts here our experience is that what the Accounting Officer stated has actually happened. The judge did not, in any case of which I am aware, accept the evidence of the official examiners of the Department. If a man, say, in Northern Ireland has not the same right to go before the courts as I have here, I think there should be some authority to take the place more or less of the judge, who would have hit on a middle course in my case.

Chairman.—That is not the point involved. It is the basis of calculation.

Deputy Smith.—I am referring to what Deputy Keyes stated, that it was not a right precedent to establish, inasmuch as some authority, such as a Minister or Ministers, had failed to accept the calculation of the officials of their own Department. I am saying that the individual inside Saorstát Eireann has a right to go before a court and that the judge in nearly all cases struck a fair balance between what was claimed and what the premises were calculated as being worth; and that since an individual in Northern Ireland had not that right, then it is not unreasonable that a Minister or Ministers, who, perhaps, knew the circumstances, should more or less take the place of the judge.

747. Chairman.—I understand Deputy Keyes is objecting to the departure from a principle—that he wanted to apply the same principle to Northern Ireland as applies to citizens here.

Mr. McGrath.—As to the Deputy’s reference to cases decided in the courts, if this case were brought before a court the claimant would have to produce independent evidence that it was correct. In this case he had not to do that. My note here says: “Considering the fact that no independent evidence was produced by Mr. — to prove the prices or ages of the various articles, or that the articles claimed for were in fact on the premises when destroyed, and that the investigators had to accept his word on this score, Mr. — could not hope to secure as favourable an award as if he had succeeded originally with his claim in the County Court in 1922.” I have to put all the facts before the Committee. We had to take his word for everything almost.

748. Chairman.—Do you say there was no corroboration of this statement?

Mr. McGrath.—No.

Deputy Smith.—I agree that from your point of view there was no corroboration and from the point of view of the members of the Committee who are discussing it, there is no corroboration. At the same time I take it that the Minister responsible for making the decision could, as a matter of fact, and did, know most of the circumstances that existed at this man’s place. That being so, though I know that personally these could not be accepted by people who did not know, still I think the award in this case was not by any means excessive.

Deputy Beegan.—Probably there was a material witness who was not in court when the case was decided in Northern Ireland.

Deputy Smith.—I agree that from the accounting point of view the case is not absolute.

749. Chairman.—Is there any other claim like this?

Mr. McElligott.—No. We have disposed of all the cases now. All these Northern Ireland claims have been disposed of.

750. Deputy Smith.—As far as you know was the assessment made as to what the property of the premises would be worth in 1923 as against the date on which the actual inspection was made?— Oh, yes, the inspection would relate those figures to the prices current at the time the damage was done.

751. Chairman.—If you look at it according to the claim made, the figure of £6,000 for the premises including out-offices seems to be rather excessive. I this an ordinary country house?—Yes.

752. The particulars as to the house are there?—Yes, we had power, perhaps, to make inquiries as to the place as it stood before the damage was done.

753. Deputy Goulding.—I suppose we might take it now that in case of a settlement in the courts, the judge would very often give an award as apart from the purely legal aspect of it?—Yes, certainly.

754. I can assure you from practical personal experience that one does not always get fair compensation. I myself put in a claim to the British authorities and that claim was backed by the evidence of a contractor who had been doing work for the British Government for years and who had been accustomed to the methods of the British authorities and that claim was cut down drastically though this man gave strong proof that the claim was in accordance with the amount of the damage done. So that in this case we are discussing the claim may not have been too much.

Chairman.—The description of the house shows that it consisted of dining-room, drawing-room, kitchen and four bedrooms. The Board of Works Inspector valued that at £950.

755. Deputy Smith.—What land was attached to the place?

Chairman.—I am talking about the value of the house only.

Mr. McElligott.—There was an orchard with fruit trees.

756. Deputy Goulding.—Was that entirely destroyed?—Yes.

757. Chairman.—There was an assessment of £200 for furniture and the claim was £500. The farm implements and stock were claimed at £1,205 8s. 0d. and the assessment was £707. Then there was some claim for cash and jewellery that could not be allowed for.

Mr. McGrath.—He was carrying on business there up to 1922. The premises included out-offices. I presume the claim for £6,000 included the out-offices.

Deputy Keyes.—Might I suggest that it is hardly competent for us to determine the value one way or another now. The point is: was the basis properly adhered to? I do not think that we could get very far by getting into details.

758. Chairman.—Well, we can deal with the matter when we are making up the report.

Mr. McElligott.—The facts of the case were known personally to two Ministers. They knew the extent of the stock-in-trade and the sort of furniture in the house before it had been destroyed.

759. Deputy Goulding.—Consequential damage was not allowed for?—No, not at all; this was an ex-gratia payment.

760. Deputy Smith.—Consequential loss could be taken into account in making the decision.

Mr. McGrath.—I presume that consequential loss is in the Minister’s award. Of course it was necessary for me to bring this matter before the Dáil. I am merely putting before the Committee the law as it stood and what was done in similar cases in the Free State. This is a very exceptional case and there possibly is information that I have not. I am not at all assuming that the Committee is going to surcharge in this matter but it is my duty to bring the facts before the Dáil.

Mr. McElligott.—If I may be permitted to make a last point, it is that if the official assessment of £2,017 had been adopted as a basis of the amount payable, we would not have to deduct the £1,500 that was advanced by the White Cross and the £300 that was advanced from the Dáil Special Fund so in that case there would be only £217 paid to him.

Chairman.—That would not matter if the award were just.

761. Deputy Goulding.—Probably the Minister when making the award had taken into consideration the equity of the case?

Mr. McElligott.—There is no doubt that equities played a large part in deciding it.

Deputy Goulding.—It is really very hard to assess the actual damage done.

Chairman.—That is not the point. The point is the ex-gratia grant. The actual damage could be proved. The only question was the stock and furniture. You could get stuck in the amount of stock but you could arrive at the other things pretty accurately.

Deputy Goulding.—Some of the Committee may remember the claim for mental and moral damages submitted long ago by President Kruger.

VOTE 14—PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 15—PERSONAL INJURIES COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

762. Chairman.—There is a note on sub-head A of this Vote, paragraph 12, page VI, of the Appropriation Accounts, which reads:

A pension of £261 12s. 1d. per annum, together with a supplementary pension subject to an over-riding maximum of £33 1s. 9d. per annum, was awarded, with effect from the 1st October, 1935, to a former representative abroad. The award also included an additional allowance of £697 12s. 3d. and a supplementary additional allowance of £66 3s. 7d. The representative had not reached the statutory age for retirement, and I have inquired whether the award was by way of compensation for loss of office under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1909, and, if so, whether the conditions contemplated by that Section were fulfilled.

I observed that in the calculation of the award account was taken of the value (assessed at £358 0s. 7d. per annum) of the residence, with fuel and light, with which the representative had been provided. In view of the fact that it had been stated in footnotes to the Estimate that these emoluments were non-pensionable, I have asked for an explanation.

Mr. McGrath.—There was a certain point that I should bring out here and that is that that man is not entitled to a pension. He is a fairly young man. Regarding my question to the Accounting Officer as to whether the award was by way of compensation I got a reply that it was by way of compensation, that is, as distinct from pension.

763. Chairman.—It is down here as a pension.

Mr. McGrath.—Yes, it is down here as pension. The Accounting Officer explained afterwards that the award was made by way of compensation. I asked the Accounting Officer whether there was any saving by determining this official’s services. I merely got the answer “Yes,” so I presume the Accounting Officer will supplement that answer before the Committee now. The second part of my paragraph has connection with another point and that is as to whether the amount of the annual allowances, £358 0s. 7d., for fuel and rent, was to be taken into account when the award was being made. I drew attention to the estimate for the Department in charge of this particular individual for the year under observation, and it states that the Minister in Paris and the representative at Geneva “are provided with furnished residence, fuel and light, non-pensionable.” So that when the Department of Finance presented an Estimate to the Dáil, they said that these allowances are non-pensionable. Yet, when assessing compensation for the allowances they took a different view. I presume the Accounting Officer will also explain that.

764. Mr. McElligott.—As regards the first point raised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, I have to say that the officer was removed from office for the purpose of facilitating improvements in the organisation of the Department, by which greater efficiency and economy could be effected, and that was in accordance with the terms of Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1909. The officer in question was a relatively young man, as the Comptroller and Auditor-General has observed, still he had a fair amount of service. His age on retirement was given as 45½ years and his service as 16 years and 2 months. The officer occupied the position of Minister in a Continental country. His Department came to the conclusion that the organisation and efficiency of the office would be increased by this officer’s retirement. It it difficult to put any figure on the extent to which economy was effected and that was the reason for my somewhat cryptic reply to the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s inquiry, and I am afraid I am not in a position to give the Committee anything in the way of statistical evidence as to the extent of the economy effected following the retirement of the officer in question. I have to accept, in part, the view of the Department of External Affairs that his continuance in the office would mean less economy and less efficiency, and draw the conclusion that his removal entailed the opposite, greater economy and efficiency. As regards the second point raised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, as to the inclusion as pensionable emoluments of allowances for residence, fuel and light, which were distinctly set out in the Vote of the Department of External Affairs as non-pensionable, I must here again throw myself on the mercy of the Committee. The allowances are distinctly stated to be non-pensionable, but this officer was retired under circumstances of a peculiar kind, circumstances not likely to recur. It was felt that he was being rather summarily removed on very short notice and he had certain people depending on him. The pension to which he would have been entitled would be very small and the Minister for Finance felt that, in the circumstances, he might be treated exceptionally by permitting these allowances to be included in his salary for the purpose of assessing the amount of his pension. But he made it clear in his communications with the Department of External Affairs on the matter that this case was to be considered as entirely exceptional and should not be quoted as a precedent. The Department of External Affairs accepted that point of view.

765. Chairman.—Surely, that is not a justification. Certain items valued at £358, which were set out as non-pensionable, were calculated for the purpose of basing a pension. You should take into consideration the fact that you were going to dismiss this man. I cannot see how such a case as that could be regarded as normal?—It was the first case of its kind that happened.

766. But, as a State, we are young in the world?—We have safeguarded the position as far as possible by making it clear to the Department of External Affairs that all officers serving abroad at the present time and in the future must consider these allowances as non-pensionable and that they will be treated as such without exception.

767. But this is something like the case of the man who got drunk and promised never to drink again and took the pledge, and then the next day he was as drunk as ever?—Well, in this case we have taken the pledge for life.

768. It may be an exceptional case, in so far as this is a young State and we have not had much experience of cases of that kind. But a case of that kind could arise any day?—It was the first case that arose in 15 years. We have not had any since.

769. Deputy Keyes.—Was this man replaced in the office from which he had been removed?—He was.

770. This strikes me as being the most amazing explanation we ever heard at this Committee. It seems the man’s efficiency was in question. It was considered by the Department and by the Ministry that the organisation of the office could be improved by this man’s removal because of inefficiency. He has had exceptional treatment meted out to him. If he had been efficient he would have been allowed to carry on, but because of inefficiency he was removed in order, presumably, to make way for someone else. On his dismissal he was given exceptional treatment. It is a most amazing explanation?—As I have indicated, the circumstances were quite exceptional.

771. Chairman.—I quite agree with puty I was making inquiries in e Departments about a man who ork very efficiently and who he aid of the State in circum extreme difficulty. He gets no I think in these cases the per should be put on the same quite agree with the views ex that action of this kind is very ole and should not be repeated.

772. It certainly should not. I have in a case where a man was highly ent and he was not so generously ated ?—Quite so.

773. Deputy Smith.—How much was added to his pension?

Chairman.—It is not a question of the amount; it is the principle.

Mr. McGrath.—If the assessment was made on his salary alone, without taking in the allowances, he would have £190 a year. The difference between the annual allowance that he got and what he should have got in accordance with our calculation is £71 12s. 1d. a year.

774. Chairman.—Here we have the cases of two public servants. One was treated that way, and the other man, in a really hard job, doing slavish work, putting a Department on its feet, gets nothing at all. It looks very wrong to me. The danger about it is that when the State is in a difficult position sometimes, there is no inducement to a man to take the job of adjusting matters in the hope of being equitably treated afterwards.

Mr. McGrath.—There is another factor in the case. I do not know if the Accounting Officer is aware of it; perhaps it does not occur to him at the moment. It is that this particular officer is still employed in the same Legation at a much smaller salary.

Mr. McElligott.—He is employed as counsellor to the Legation in Paris at a salary of £250 a year.

775. Chairman.—Has he the pension, in addition?

Mr. McGrath.—He has a pension and a much reduced salary.

Mr. McElligott.—He is one of the officers referred to in the notes printed in the Appropriation Accounts. On page 62, under the heading “Extra Remuneration.” there is the following: “During the year 27 pensioners received from Public Funds amounts varying from £34 to £742 as remuneration for services rendered.” This gentleman is one of the pensioners in question.

776. Chairman.—With his salary and pension put together, what does he draw? —He is drawing £250 a year as salary, plus £260, plus a supplementary allowance of £33. He is drawing, roughly, £290 a year at present.

777. Is that by way of salary?—That is the pension, plus £250 as salary.

778. That would make £550 altogether? —Approximately.

779. What was his pay before he got the pension?—He was paid at the rate of £800 to £1,000.

Mr. McGrath.—He got £950, plus £358 allowances.

Chairman.—It strikes me as a sort of simpleton performance.

780. Deputy Goulding.—Has he any allowance beyond the £540 now?

Chairman.—His pension and salary bring him to £550.

Deputy Smith.—He has £250, plus £290, making £540 altogether.

Mr. McElligott.—In addition, he got a lump sum of £697 when he retired.

781. Chairman.—How much did he get as a lump sum?—He got a lump sum of £697, plus a supplementary additional allowance of £66, making a total of £763.

Chairman.—We will deal with this matter when we are making our report.

782. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report further sets out:

Sub-head B—Additional Allowances and Gratuities in respect of Established Officers.

“The charge to this sub-head includes a sum of £104 9s. 4d., being a gratuity paid to a female officer on her resignation on marriage. The award was calculated by reference to the officer’s actual pay at the date of her resignation. As she had served for less than three years in the grade from which she resigned, and in view of the practice under which awards in these circumstances are calculated by reference to the officer’s average annual salary over the last three years of service, I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Mr. McGrath.—The Accounting Officer has accepted the view of the Audit Office and the mater is now in order.

Mr. McElligott.—The award should have been calculated with reference to the officer’s average salary over her last three years of service, and the Exchequer have been recouped the difference between the award on that basis and the award on the actual salary, totalling £9 12s. 8d. This has been carried to account in the Superannuation Vote as an Exchequer extra receipt. As the Comptroller and Auditor-General says, the matter has been put in order.

783. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report further proceeds:

Sub-head K.—Pensions, etc., to Members of the Gárda Síochána.

In paragraph 15 of my report for the year 1933-34 I stated that I had asked for an explanation of an award of pension of £287 1s. 5d. per annum to an ex-Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána in the circumstances outlined. In reply to my inquiry I was informed that the original award had been cancelled and that a revised award had been authorised. The award of a revised pension, £279 8s. 6d., with effect from the original date issued on the 12th June, 1935, and the Committee of Public Accounts was so informed at its meeting on the 13th June, 1935.

The amount of pension payable was governed by an ex-officer’s annual pay as defined by the Gárda Síochána Pensions Order, 1930, and as he had been suspended from duty in the period prior to his retirement, paragraph I (b) of the Order applied. It subsequently appeared that the officer had been recalled to duty during the period of suspension and as his suspension had not been expressly reimposed he was held to be entitled to full pay from the date of his recall to duty to the date of his retirement. In these circumstances his annual pay for pension purposes fell to be determined by reference to paragraph I (a) of the Pensions Order, and accordingly, a further award authorising a pension of the original amount of £287 1s. 5d. per annum issued on the 8th February, 1936.”

Mr. McGrath.—These paragraphs have been written for the information of the Dáil. The award was revised, but afterwards certain circumstances came out. These circumstances were that the officer concerned was recalled to duty by the Chief State Solicitor and he gave evidence in court on two occasions. The difference between the two assessments are chiefly on the pay and allowances bet 28th September, 1933, and 14th December, 1933. The law officers, I underst are of the opinion that this officer will have to be credited service between 28/9/33 and That would mean that the cl now drawing the pension refer the beginning of my paragraph, £287 1s. 5d. Those are the I know them.

784. Mr. McElligott.—I agree wit description the Comptroller and Auditor-General has given of the matter. T officer was a Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána who had been promoted within three years of his retirement and who retired after a period of suspension from duty. The average salary which was notified to the Department of Finance by the Department of Justice was based on the three years ending on the date of the officer’s retirement, but the Comptroller and Auditor-General maintained that the salary should have been calculated on the three years ending on the date of his suspension from duty as no pay was issued during the period of suspension. We accepted the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s view and issued a revised award cancelling the original award. The Department of Justice subsequently took legal advice on the matter and the advice was that pay should have been issued to the Superintendent in question up to the date of his retirement, because, as the Comptroller and Auditor-General has said, he had been recalled to duty on one occasion during the period of suspension. Following the receipt of this advice, the pension award fell to be revised again and a fresh award on the basis of the original award was accordingly issued. I think the Comptroller and Auditor-General has not queried the propriety of this latest award.

Mr. McGrath.—No, but on account of the matter being brought before the Committee on a previous occasion, and a certain agreement come to by the Accounting Officer, I thought it necessary to bring the new facts before the Committee.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 19—TARIFF COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 20—EXPENSES UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT AND THE JURIES ACT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 21—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

785. Deputy Goulding.—With regard to sub-head B —The National Theatre Society Limited (Grant-in-aid)—is this the Abbey Theatre Company?—Yes.

786. They get the full £1,000? There is no grant to any other society—the Gate Theatre or any other theatre?—Any theatrical society?

787. Yes?—The Abbey Theatre gets the whole sum and they are free to do what they like with it. They can give it away to some other dramatic society for their productions, if they wish.

788. Chairman.—You just hand it over to them? You have nothing to say to the expenditure of the £1,000?—It is a grant-in-aid and not subject to detailed review by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. We just pay over the sum to the Society and we do not inquire what happens to it.

789. Deputy Keyes.—With regard to sub-head C—Saorstát. Plate—what does that refer to?

Mr. McGrath.—It is a race run at the Curragh.

Mr. McElligott.—It is run annually at the Curragh.

790. Chairman.—It is to replace the King’s Plate or something of that nature? —Yes, to replace the King’s Plate.

791. Deputy Haslett.—With regard to the sub-head dealing with Estate Duty (Acquisition of Land) (Assessment of Compensation) Appeals, to what acquisition of land does that refer?—This deals with the referee to whom people may appeal in the event of their lands being acquired, say, for housing or other public purposes. If they are dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered, they can appeal to the referee, set up under the Estate Duty and Acquisition of Land (Assessment) Acts.

792. Chairman.—Does this refer to some particular kind of land—land on some particular tenure?—Land acquired for any public purpose—by local authorities for housing or by the State for the purpose, say, of the Shannon Scheme, and, in the case of the Liffey Scheme, for example, if people were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation they could appeal to this referee.

793. Is the decision of the arbitrator appointed here final or is there any appeal?—The decision here is final and binding.

794. Deputy Haslett.—That is for all services, such as water, housing, etc.?— Yes.

795. Deputy Smith.—And hospitals and schools, I think?—That is so.

796. Chairman.—Do you lay down that condition that his determination is final? —The Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, provides that all questions relating to disputed compensation for land acquired compulsorily for public purposes by a Government Department or any local authority shall be referred to one of a panel of official arbitrators set up under the Act. This panel of arbitrators is appointed by the reference Committee which, in accordancec with the Land Reference Committee Act, 1925, now consists of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the Chairman of the Surveyors’ Institution. The arbitrator appointed must undertake not to engage or be a partner with any other person in any other business, or engage in private practice or business.

797. Deputy Smith.—And, of course, you are aware that it is a very hard institution to get moving. If you happened to be a member of a local authority, you would understand how difficult it is to get that very body to move in and determine a matter in which they are supposed to move?—Yes.

Deputy Haslett.—To hold the arbitration?

Deputy Smith.—Yes.

Mr. McElligott.—There has been a greater demand on the service of late owing to housing schemes and so forth.

Deputy Smith.—It is the scourge of local authorities, so far as I know.

Chairman.—It seems strange that the decision of an individual of that kind should be final and conclusive on a question of fact. It strikes me as being very arbitrary. We are all human and I think it would be right that there should be an appeal from his decision.

Deputy Smith.—All the experience goes to show that they err on the side of the owner of property in giving compensation. The individual does not suffer as a result of the decisions they give. They are very generous.

Deputy Haslett.—Everybody might not agree with that.

Chairman.—I am afraid there are a lot of cases in which there would be disagreement. I was told by a gentleman of some importance that he was informed by a civil servant at the head of a department that there were three weeks in which to appeal from the award of an arbitrator. My own opinion was that there was no right of appeal.

Deputy Smith.—There is a right of appeal. When a local authority acquires land, the owner of that land is notified. In that notification he is informed that he has a right of appeal against the acquisition. The Department of Local Government send down an inspector to hold an inquiry on the spot and to hear the evidence. He also inspects the site and reports to the Minister. It is after he has made that decision that the appeal comes in.

Chairman.—When the arbitrator has sat and made his award, is there any appeal?

Deputy Smith.—When the inspector has sat and made his award holding that the local authority may acquire the land, the arbitrator simply comes along and determines the amount of compensation to be given. There is no appeal from that, so far as I know.

798. Chairman.—Is that the position, Mr. McElligott?—So far as I know. I do not pretend to be a legal authority.

VOTE 25—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 26—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

799. Deputy Keyes.—What is covered by sub-head F (Defence of Public Officials).

Chairman.—That covers actions against officials.

Deputy Keyes.—It shows a considerable increase.

800. Chairman.—There were a number of High Court actions.

Mr. McElligott.—The sub-head covers the cost of actions brought against members of the Civic Guards by people who allege that they were unlawfully imprisoned or illegally arrested and cases of that kind.

801. Deputy Keyes.—It is not easy to estimate the cost of these cases in advance?— It is not.

VOTE 28—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

802. Deputy Beegan.—What is covered by sub-head C (Grant to Trinity College)? —That is an old payment under the Land Act of 1923.

803. Chairman.—It arises out of the purchase of Trinity College estates?—It is by way of compensation to Trinity College. Under the Land Act of 1903, it was provided that there should be paid to Trinity College out of the Ireland Development Grant a sum of £5,000 a year. At the time of the change of Government, this sum was commuted for a payment of £3,000 a year.

804. Deputy Beegan.—Under the terms of that grant, is Trinity College not liable for rates to the county councils for any land they hold?—The grant had no relation to the payment of rates.

Chairman.—Anybody who has land has got to pay rates.

Deputy Beegan.—This institution is not paying rates to the Galway County Council.

805. Deputy Crowley.—Is the grant to University College a fixed figure?—It is practically fixed. The Vote for that year was £173,000.

The “A” grants are usually fixed. Under sub-head B certain additional grants are provided under the Irish Universities Act, 1908, and they vary from time to time.

806. Chairman.—These are statutory payments?—They are all made in pursuance of various Acts either of the British Parliament or our own Parliament.

VOTE 29.—ELECTRICAL BATTERY DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

807. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has a note in relation to this Vote as follows:

The total sum advanced up to 31st March, 1936, for Electrical Battery Research and Development was £87,913, in addition to which a grant of £1,800 was made from the Relief Scheme Votes for the years 1932-33 and 1933-34. The conditions and terms of repayment of the advances have not, I understand, yet been determined.

Mr. McGrath.—All I desire to point out to the Committee there was that the terms of repayment had not been determined.

808. Chairman.—They have not been determined in respect of any of the advances?

Mr. McGrath.—No.

Mr. McElligott.—The terms and conditions of repayment are at the moment under discussion with the Department of Industry and Commerce and with the Drumm Battery Company. Before the Accounting Officer for these Votes appears again before this Committee, I hope the terms will have been arranged.

809. Chairman.—There was, I suppose, difficulty in arranging terms until you found they could pay?—There would be no use in fixing terms until we were satisfied they would be able to pay.

810. Deputy Haslett.—This money is in the nature of an advance?—Yes, and it is all supposed to be repayable. While we have hopes that it will be repaid, there is, of course, no guarantee. We shall do our best to secure recovery of the money.

811. Chairman.—There would be difficulty in laying down conditions when you were not sure they would be able to pay?—The Minister for Industry and Commerce has indicated, in a recent statement to the Dáil, that the current year, 1937-8, will be the last year in which any provision will be made out of public funds for the Battery Company.

812. Chairman.—Is this £1,800 intended to be repayable?—That was not intended to be repayable. It is the other sum of £87,913, which has since increased to 31st March last to £96,000, which is intended to be repayable.

VOTE 30—QUIT RENT OFFICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 31—REMUNERATION FOR MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 69.—RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

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

I observed that out of moneys allocated to the Office of Works for carrying out relief schemes a grant of £425 (of which £125 was charged in last year’s account and £300 in the present year) was made towards the improvement of the Gaelic playing pitch in the grounds of University College, Cork. I inquired whether the approval of the Department of Finance was given for this expenditure, and was informed that, although specific sanction was not sought by the Office of Works for the payment, covering sanction would not, in the circumstances, be withheld, but that steps have been taken to ensure that the Department of Finance would in future be consulted before allocating from money provided for the relief of unemployment any grants towards works which are not essentially of a public nature.

Mr. McGrath.—Deputies will notice that a grant was made towards the improvement of a playing pitch in the grounds of University College, Cork. It is unusual for a matter like this to be charged to public funds. I made inquiries about the matter and the Accounting Officer stated that the authority of the Department of Finance was not sought, but that if it had been sought it would not have been withheld. I understand that in future, if such a proposal is made, the Department of Finance will be asked for authority.

814. Mr. McElligott.—That is the position. We had not been approached before the Office of Public Works, which was the Office primarily concerned, had undertaken to lay out certain moneys on the improvement of a Gaelic playing pitch in University College, Cork. They were under the impression that as University College, Cork, in common with the other University Colleges, receives subventions from public funds, that this additional assistance from the Exchequer would not be regarded as being given to a private concern: that, as it was in the nature of a semi-public body, it was eligible for a relief grant from public funds.

815. Deputy Smith.—In what form was the grant given? Was it to recoup the institution for wages paid for improvements?—It was in recoupment of actual outlay under the scheme.

816. On wages?—On wages, so far as I know, under the scheme.

817. Chairman.—Were they unemployed people who were engaged to do the work?—As regards the employment of people, that is a matter that would be determined by the Office of Public Works in accordance with their usual arrangements.

818. It was not work of a public nature?—No. That is the only thing. We did not accept the view of the Office of Public Works, and we told them that, while on this occasion we would not withhold our sanction, in future they were not to give any grants of the kind: that we deprecated the allocation of moneys provided for the relief of unemployment to anything but works of a public nature.

819. The second paragraph in the note of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“In the course of my audit I noticed that persons not employed in the public service were provided with imprests to defray expenses in carrying out work on archaeological excavations and peat development under schemes administered by the Office of Works. The Public Accounts Committee in paragraph 17 of their report dated July, 1936, commented on this practice and stated that they viewed with disfavour the issue of imprests out of public moneys to persons outside the public service. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on this subject.”

Mr. McGrath.—The Accounting Officer has accepted the view of the Audit Office that it is not desirable to have imprests in the hands of people outside the public service. I must point out that in these particular cases it was quite excusable that imprests were made to certain individuals. Certain work of an archaeological nature was decided upon, and the work could not be carried out unless somebody had imprests to keep the workmen going. But, in view of the order made by the Public Accounts Committee last year, that the furnishing of imprests to people outside the public service is not desirable, it was necessary for me to draw attention to the matter.

820. Mr. McElligott.—Here again the authority of the Department of Finance was not sought by the Office of Public Works. As the Comptroller and Auditor-General has pointed out, this excavation work was in charge of responsible persons. They were nominated by the Director of the National Museum to supervise the rather specialised type of work that had to be carried out. One was the deputy keeper of the British medieval antiquities in the British Museum, another a professor in Belfast University, another the professor of Archæology in the National University, and the others were archæological students attending the National University. All of them gave their services free. They were recouped their out-of-pocket expenses. In a special condition under which suitable labour had to be engaged and retained, it was considered advisable that they should get imprests for sums varying from £12 to £60—the maximum imprest given was, I think, £60—so that they might be in a position to make prompt payment of wages to the men employed, and to defray the cost of tools and materials that might be required. It would certainly have hampered the work considerably if they had to apply, every time the occasion arose for spending some money, to the Office of Public Works, to communicate with that Department and wait for an answer. Some of the excavations were undertaken in rather out of the way places.

VOTE 71—REPAYMENT OF DAIL EIREANN EXTERNAL LOANS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

821. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has no note on this Vote.

Mr. McElligott.—This is another service that is coming to an end. The provision for it in the current year is only £3,000. We expect that the Office will close down during the year.

VOTE 74—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

The Committee adjourned to Wednesday, 2nd June, 1937.