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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 28adh Abrá, 1937.

Wednesday, 28th April, 1937.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair.

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

VOTE 32—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche called and examined.

Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

146. Deputy McMenamin.—In connection with sub-head A (4)—Draft of Rules of Court—there is a matter arising on this that I was asked to see the Department about. Perhaps I may be able to do it here. It was suggested to me that, under the old Petty Sessions Act, if a man committed a minor offence he could be tried before a summary court within six months, but if the period that had elapsed were six months and a day, that then he had to be returned for trial. I take it, Mr. Roche, that you saw something about that?—I do not think so. The point is new to me.

147. In other words, this is a matter that comes under the Courts of Justice Act which is still subject to the old Petty Sessions Act. It was suggested to me that this is a matter that might be dealt with, now that the Department is drafting rules for the new Courts of Justice Act.

Chairman.—I do not care to restrict discussion here too narrowly, but I think we must remember that we must not ask an accounting officer to touch on matters that are not strictly relevant to the work of the Committee.

Deputy McMenamin.—It is a small matter, and I want to get rid of it. It was suggested to me that, when the Department is now drafting new Rules of Court, steps might be taken to clarify the position in this matter—that if a man committed an offence six months and a day before being arrested, it will be made clear in the Rules of Court that he can be tried summarily. I hope you will keep that in mind?—Yes.

148. Chairman.—Would the Accounting Officer say what exactly are the licences for dangerous drugs referred to under the heading, “Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer”?—There are a few firms in the country which import dangerous drugs wholesale for retail to chemists. They have to pay a licence fee for the privilege of importing these drugs

149. Is that under the Dangerous Drugs Act?—Yes.

VOTE 33—GARDA SIOCHANA.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General, paragraph 17:

“Rent allowance is payable to members of the force for whom (or, if married, for whose families) suitable official quarters are not available. Paragraph 5 (b) of the Gárda Síochána (Designations, Appointments and Discipline) Regulations, 1924, provides inter alia, that a candidate for appointment as a Gárda must (unless he has had previous service in a Police Force) be unmarried, and as I observed that rent allowances were paid to certain members of the force who were still serving their probation at the Depot, I inquired whether these members complied, on appointment, with that regulation. In reply I was informed that the Gárdaí in question did not comply on appointment with all the conditions prescribed in the paragraph referred to, and that it was understood that steps were being taken to introduce legislation to rectify the position.”

150. Mr. McGrath.—I understand legislation has since been introduced that rectifies the position?—That is so. The Gárda Síochána Act, 1937, regularises all the appointments made, whether they complied with the regulations or not.

151. Deputy McMenamin.—I thought that Act was only meant to cover acts done by the Guards when, perhaps, they were not properly constituted as such. It is notorious, of course, that a Guard must be an unmarried man when entering the force?—Yes. The regulation which the Comptroller and Auditor-General has mentioned forbids the recruitment of married men. Those regulations were broken from time to time over the past 15 years. There was considerable doubt as to whether the regulations were, as lawyers would say, mandatory or directory. It was thought, on the one hand, that the regulations were no more than an injunction to the Commissioner not to do this thing, but that if he did it, it was lawful. Other people thought that it was mandatory, and that if the regulations were not strictly complied with that a recruit, although he succeeded in getting into the force, was not a policeman at all. There were a great number of people involved, and as we thought a serious danger would be created if the courts held against us, we passed this validating Act.

152. Chairman.—Are we to understand that cases coming within the category set out by the Comptroller and Auditor-General have arisen, over a long period— from some date in the early days of the force?—If, on a rigid construction, it were held that nobody was validly recruited because there was no recruitment pursuant to regulations, and if that view were correct, then a very large number of policemen who were recruited many years ago would be invalidly recruited, because there were no regulations.

153. I take it that, in fact, those Guards who were recruited as married men were, largely, men who were recruited in the last couple of years?—I have particulars showing the recruits appointed to the Gárda Síochána between July, 1924, and March, 1932, who failed to conform with the standard set down by the regulations. Nine of them are mentioned as being married.

154. Could you give the figures from 1932 up to date?—My note says that from March, 1932, up to date there were 396 recruits who had not all the prescribed qualifications, and of these 396 the married men numbered 108.

155. Are we to understand that from March, 1932 up to date that these 396 men were recruited?—That is so.

156. I am in a slight difficulty in asking you to help me, because the position of the Commissioner is somewhat peculiar. He has a certain definite discretion in the matter of the appointment and disciplining of the Guards. I take it that the Accounting Officer is here to answer for what takes place in the Commissioner’s Department. The question, I think, does arise on administration. Can you explain why there was this immense increase in such irregular appointments?

Mr. McGrath.—On the point that you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I think the Committee is only concerned with the accounts; that, unless the administration shows that there has been a loss due to maladministration, it cannot touch upon it.

157. Deputy Smith.—This Committee is not so much concerned with the numbers as with the principle involved. I take it that the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in writing this note, had in mind the principle that was involved, and that the question of numbers did not come into it at all. I was always under the impression that marriage was not the only impediment so far as recruitment to the Guards was concerned. There are a number of other impediments as well. I thought, too, that, on a number of occasions over the last ten years, the regulations had and could be departed from in certain circumstances. I understand that, in fact, they were so departed from. To my mind, the question whether 100 men were irregularly recruited since 1932 and 20 men prior to 1932, does not matter a terrible lot. The principle is there, and I take it that it is the principle that we are concerned with.

Chairman.—It appears that recently the Departments concerned have made up their minds that those regulations were mandatory and not discretionary. That gave rise to the Gárda Síochána Act of 1937. That being so, I think it is a question for inquiry why there was such a spate of irregularity after a particular day. Perhaps there is some good reason for that. If there was not good reason for it, the Accounting Officer should tell us.

Deputy Smith.—After which day?

Chairman.—Mr. Roche divides the period of irregularity from 1922 to 1932, when there were 17 cases——

Deputy Smith.—I am not satisfied with the marriage impediment alone. You refer to 17 cases from 1924 to 1932. I take it there are a number of other conditions, such as age and all that kind of thing, that a man must comply with to be considered, really to know the entire figure without any segregation whatever.

Chairman.—If you refer to the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note you will see that his attention was directed to this matter because the question of rent allowances arose, which arises only in the matter of married men.

Deputy Smith.—The rent allowance has led to what we are discussing now. This is a note of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in relation to the instructions issued to the Commissioner in the recruitment of Gárda. There are other questions involved as well as the one raised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

158. Chairman.—Certainly. Therefore I propose to ask each Deputy to inquire into any particular item about which he is not satisfied. I am not satisfied why there should be such a spate of appointments of married men, contrary to regulations, since 1932. Are you in a position to give any reason, Mr. Roche?—As Accounting Officer, I have nothing to do with recruitment. The Commissioner, by statute, has the power of recruitment, and nobody interferes, or should interfere, with him. If he presents me with the name and number of a recruit, I pay the recruit if I am satisfied that he has been validly recruited. When I came on the scene as Accounting Officer I found that a number of men had been recruited who did not comply with the regulations. I knew that this was an old problem in this sense, that I knew men had been recruited before there were any regulations. What I did, in effect, was to say that that could not go on: that we would have to have an Act to validate these recruitments, and I got that done.

159. Deputy McMenamin.—Surely you cannot say they were irregularly brought in if there were no regulations! When did the regulations come into force?— The position is this: the severe view of the law, which I think is right, is that the Act says that nobody should be recruited except in accordance with regulations. A considerable period passed before there were any regulations, and the severe view, which I believe to be right, is that all the people recruited between the passage of the Act and the making of the regulations were invalidly recruited.

160. Deputy Beegan.—Did the regulations regularise the recruitment of these? —No. Here was an Act saying that the Commissioner should recruit people to the Guards subject to the regulations. No regulations were made for a considerable period. In the meantime, recruits were taken in. The view that some people took was that technically all these men were invalidly recruited and were never in the police force and should never have been paid.

161. Chairman.—I take the view that it is relevant for this Committee to inquire into any expenditure improperly made, and in the light of the Gárda Síochána Act of 1937 it appears clear to me that payments to the Gárda enrolled contrary to the regulations were irregular and have only been regularised by this Act. I would therefore be grateful if the Chief Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána was asked for a note to explain to this Committee why recruits were submitted by him for payment when they had, in fact, been irregularly enrolled. Deputy Smith wanted to ask some other question arising out of that general principle.

162. Deputy Smith.—I was rather taking up the attitude that, in the segregation of the period, stress seemed to have been laid on the fact that the number of such irregularities in one period was higher than the number in another. My point was that if the matter of principle was involved, it is the same in regard to 1/- as it is to £1. The principle is there, and the numbers really are not the point which we should discuss. Mr. Roche has stated that it was generally accepted that the regulations were departed from. It has not been finally and absolutely determined that they were departed from?—There is no doubt that the regulations were departed from. There was a doubt as to whether the departure from the regulations invalidated the recruitments. There is no doubt that the regulations stated that married men should not be recruited, and there is no doubt that married men were recruited. The question before us was: Did the regulations mean that if a married man was recruited, he was not a policeman at all, or did they merely mean that the Commissioner was at fault and should be subject to some rebuke for not having obeyed his instructions. There is no doubt the regulations were broken.

163. Deputy Beegan.—Is it not a fact that the regulations can, be waived if they are not included in the statute?—The exact effect is that any recruitment is always open to doubt. That is the point of view I am trying to explain—that some sort of regulations were called directory regulations, that is, what the officer should do; but if he does something else, he is to blame for not obeying instructions, but his acts are valid. Other regulations are mandatory, and if not carried out the whole thing falls to the ground. The better opinion, I think, is that the regulations are mandatory, and, strictly speaking, at least a thousand police officers who thought themselves such were not police officers for over ten years.

164. Deputy Goulding.—Did net the Act of 1937 regularise that?—yes.

165. Therefore the matter is all right? —It certainly is all right from the legal point of view, but, as the Chairman says, the fact remains that payments were made at the time which seemed to be irregular.

166. Deputy Smith.—When did the Accounting Officer draw the attention of the Commissioner to the fact that these irregular payments were made?

Chairman.—I suggest that you should address that to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, because Mr. Roche has a peculiar relationship with the Chief Commissioner. He is not obliged to deal directly through him in certain matters.

Mr. McGrath.—Perhaps I might give some information as to how I came to write this paragraph. In September last we issued the following memorandum to the Accounting Officer::—“From an examination of the monthly pay sheets for the Depot, it would appear that certain members of the force, who had not completed the probationary period of service, were paid rent allowances. A list it attached, giving particulars of these cases. Information is requested as to whether these Guards complied on appointment with the conditions prescribed at paragraph 5 (b) of the Gárda Síochána (Designations, Appointments and Discipline) Regulations, 1924.” Mr. Roche replied: “The Guards in question did not comply on appointment to the force with all the conditions prescribed in the paragraph of the Order referred to. I understand that steps are being taken to introduce legislation which will rectify the position.” I was concerned with 17 Guards who were recruited at the time and who were actually drawing rent allowance, and I thought it was an unusual position to find a recruit drawing marriage allowance.

167. Mr. Roche.—I should like to say that in the year 1935-36, which is the year we are reviewing (I do not mean that the Committee is not entitled to go outside the scope of this particular year), no married man was recruited at all. I should, perhaps, say, in justice to myself, that in addition to urging that a Bill should be brought in I took the precaution of getting the Minister personally to certify for every irregular recruitment. I went through the form of protesting against the payment of any person irregularly recruited and got the Minister to override me.

168. Chairman.—We are primarily concerned, not with the date of recruitment, but with the date of payment. It is an irregular payment. Therefore, I would esteem it a favour if a memorandum were requested from the Chief Commissioner explaining the circumstances under which indentures were made for such irregular payment.

169. Deputy Smith.—I do not see the necessity for that. This thing has been going on for years. Men have been recruited and paid, and men received the marriage allowance who were only recruits and who were not entitled to this allowance, according to the regulations. As a result of protests from the Accounting Officer and the Comptroller and Auditor-General, legislation has now been introduced and passed and the practice must now discontinue. That being so, I cannot see what the Commissioner could possibly have to say to it, because anybody can anticipate what his reply will be. He is going to protect himself by quoting precedent, and there is no point to be gained in asking him.

170. Chairman.—I think you are mistaken in saying that the result of the Act of 1937 is to provide that this can never happen again. This Act merely provided that what has been done irregularly in the past shall be deemed to be regular. There is no reason why, if we do not direct the Commissioner’s attention to our disapproval of such irregularities, another Act of this kind might not become necessary in five years’ time. If, however, we ask the Commissioner to explain to us why he took steps which made the Act of 1937 necessary, we are directing his attention and that of his successors to the fact that we cannot approve of such a course and that we should have preliminary legislation, not retrospective.

171. Deputy Smith.—I am not prepared to the myself to a request or protest with which, in certain circumstances, I would not be prepared to agree. That being so, no matter how you put it to me, I am not satisfied that the Committee would be justified in doing such a thing.

Deputy McMenamin.—It might clear it up if I read Section 2 of the Gárda Síochána Act, 1937:—

“(1) Where a, person who served as a member of the Gárda Síochána at any time before the passing of this Act (whether he is or is not so serving at the passing of this Act),—

(a) was admitted or purported to he admitted as such member before any regulations in relation to the admission, appointment, and enrolment of members of the Gárda Síochána had been made under Section 18 of the Gárda Síochána (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 37 of 1923), or before any such regulations made under that section had come into force, and

(b) duly made and subscribed in accordance with Section 6 of the said Act the declaration mentioned in that section,

the admission or purported admission of such person to be a member of the Gárda Síochána shall not be invalid or be questioned merely on the ground that no such regulations had been so made or had so come into force when such person was so admitted or purported to be admitted . . . .”

It is clear that this refers to the time before the passage of the statute, and nothing else.

Deputy Smith.—I am not questioning the Gárda Síochána Act of 1937 or the regulations made under it.

Deputy McMenamin.—There is nothing to prevent it happening in the future.

Chairman.—The position is, whether we should ask Mr. Roche to convey a request to the Chief Commissioner. As Deputy Haslett has now come in, I should explain that certain irregularities occurred which were subsequently regularised under the Gárda Síochána Act, 1937. I am suggesting that we should ask Mr. Roche to request a memorandum from the Chief Commissioner asking why the irregularities were allowed to arise. Deputy Smith takes the view that, as they went on for a considerable time it is now unnecessary to inquire further into the matter. If Deputies have said all they want to say, I will now make a formal proposal.

172. Deputy Haslett.—Was this question ever discussed before by this Committee?

Chairman.—No. Accordingly I propose that we ask for a memorandum.

Mr. Roche.—It might be as well for the Committee to know that arrangements are being made, and are very far advanced, to make this impossible in future. I do not want to go into details, but that is the position.

Deputy Beegan.—If it is made so water-tight for the future it might, to a certain extent, be dangerous. Circumstances might arise at any time in the future, whereby such large numbers would not require to be recruited, or, in an individual case, it might be necessary to recruit a particular man.

Chairman.—I am afraid that is irrelevant. That is a matter for legislation, and Mr. Roche is not responsible for that.

Mr. Roche.—The regulations when made will be strictly observed.

173. Mr. McGrath.—I would like to try to guide the Committee in this matter. It is a matter of administration that took place prior to the year for which the accounts are under examination. Certain things happened which necessitated legislation being passed to make certain acts legal, and I advise the Committee to be very careful in addressing a note to the Commissioner on the matter, because he is subject to his Minister. The Accounting Officer is here responsible for anything which caused a waste of money, but it has to be proved that it was waste of money in this case. I am merely advising the Committee to be very careful in addressing any note to the Commissioner. They could address a note to the Accounting Officer, but in addressing a request to the Commissioner in these circumstances they are on different ground.

Deputy Goulding.—I am inclined to agree with the Comptroller and Auditor-General. After all, the Act regularised the payments, and why should we go back on the matter?

Chairman.—I do not entirely agree with the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s view. This is a sovereign Committee and its powers are not limited. Its powers extend to the questioning of any payments made, and I submit that it is not correct to say that the Committee is confined solely to investigation of cases in which money was wasted. They are entitled to investigate any cases where payments were made without the consent of the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Smith.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s explanation is not capable of such an interpretation. He explained that we are justified in asking the Accounting Officer and the Minister responsible for the Department for information, but that we are not entitled to go any further; that they are responsible for any irregularities that occurred or any unnecessary payments that were made; and that outside of that, the question of going to the Commissioner does not arise. After all, the Commissioner is subject to the Minister over the Department.

Chairman.—In this case Mr. Roche is in the peculiar position that the Commissioner recruits and then indents to him for payment. He makes the payments, and when we ask him why, he says, because the Commissioner indented for them.

Deputy Smith.—The Accounting Officer stated that when there was a protest the Minister gave overriding authority for payments. Instead of protesting to the Commissioner, as is suggested, I think it is a matter, if we are to protest or to censure anyone, in which we would have to censure Mr. Roche or the Minister through him.

Chairman.—I do not propose to censure anyone. All I want to know is why any ineligible persons were recruited.

Deputy Haslett.—Have we ever made a practice of asking anyone but an Accounting Officer to make a report?

Chairman.—I think this is unique because of the peculiar position enjoyed by the Commissioner.

Deputy Beegan.—At some future date, could not something like this happen, for instance, if an individual came forward, or if something of a serious nature arose where, in view of the fact that information was given publicly, and perhaps there was sworn testimony, and as a result certain people were brought to justice, the only protection for that individual would be to recruit him for the Guards? Could we not question this matter later, and not to be tied up in the way suggested?

Chairman.—If that case is to be provided for, it should be done in a regular way. I do not want to hurry the Committee, but I am asking that Mr. Roche should be requested to ask the Chief Commissioner for a memorandum explaining why the persons mentioned in Note 17 were irregularly recruited.

Deputy Smith.—My position is that irregular payments were made for 10 or 12 years, and that that it is admitted irregular recruitment has gone on over that period. Whether that went on to an extent lesser or greater one year more than another, no criticism by this Committee or by any other authority has taken place, but recently legislation was introduced, and it is now an Act, which regularises what was done over that whole period. Surely we are getting very diligent if we proceed to censure or to ask for explanations on a matter that has gone on for years, and that has now been regularised, from the legal point of view. For that reason, my contention is that we should let the matter pass.

174. Chairman.—As my proposition does not need to be seconded, I will ask the Clerk to the Committee to put the question.

Question put. The Committee divided:

Tá:Deputies Haslett, McMenamin and the Chairman.

Níl: Deputies Beegan, Goulding and Smith.

Chairman.—The voting is three-three, and as the procedure in the event of a tie does not provide for a casting vote for the Chairman, the proposal is rejected.

175. Chairman.—We will now pass to Note 18 by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:

Sub-head D—Locomotion Expenses.

“Inspectors necessarily using their own motor cars on duty are entitled to a mileage allowance, but where the distance travelled in any financial year exceeds a certain mileage, payment of the allowance falls to be at a reduced rate in respect of the excess. I have asked that the covering sanction of the Department of Finance may be obtained for certain payments for cars, hired by an Inspector, for journeys in respect of which the reduced rate would be applied if he had used his own car.”

Mr. Roche.—This is a curious point but not, I think, of any great importance. The position is that an Inspector in the Guards is not an officer, which is a rank above that of Inspector. He is not obliged to keep a car, but an officer is obliged to do so, and you have the position that an Inspector with a motor car, who is not obliged to have it, if he uses it on official work, is paid on a mileage rate. After he has done a certain mileage, the rates under the regulations are reduced, so he says: “That does not pay me, so I will put my own car in my garage and I will use a taxi.” There is nothing to stop him from doing that. That is queried now, and we have not decided what to do. I should like more time to think about this.

176. Deputy Goulding.—You cannot compel them to use their cars if the regulations lay it down that they need not do so.

Mr. Roche.—You could do it by amending the regulations.

177. Chairman.—What does the Comptroller and Auditor-General say about it?

Mr. McGrath.—This question arose when we came across a bill for the hire of a motor car in the month of March, 1936. The bill amounted to £11 17s. for 474 miles at 6d. a mile. In connection with the same officer, for the previous period of 11 months he used a car that was his own and he drove it over 4,500 miles, for which he was allowed at the rate of 6d. a mile, the total sum allowed being £112 10s. If that officer had continued to use his own car and sent in a bill, the rate of 2d. a mile would apply. That is the point. I am of opinion that it is reasonable to take the view that mileage rates for inspectors when using private cars were fixed on the understanding that inspectors, when providing themselves with motor cars, would be required to use them on all occasions when the use of motor cars was permissible. I put this very simple proposition before the Accounting Officer, that I would like to have this matter brought before the Department of Finance to have their sanction for this claim of £11 17s., which is for 474 miles on a hired car at the rate of 6d. a mile. I think under the circumstances that is a reasonable request to make.

178. Deputy Smith.—Is it your point that a man is entitled to get a maximum of 6d. a mile up to a certain point?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

179. Deputy Smith.—After that point is reached he is only entitled to claim in respect of his own car at 2d. per mile?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

180. Deputy Smith.—The same inspector comes along and uses his own car up to the maximum for which he is entitled to 6d. a mile, and when he has reached that, he proceeds to hire a vehicle other than his own, and to charge for it at the rate of 6d. a mile. I certainly agree wholeheartedly with the view expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, because I think it is a mistake to let any man take up the position of having it both ways. Surely this is an attempt to have it both ways.

Mr. Roche.—I think there is a good deal to be said for that. I am discussing this matter with the Department of Finance with a view to an agreement. I would not like the Committee to think that the case against the officer here is any worse than it really is. It must be remembered that police officers work under regulations. They like to know what the regulations are, and they are not a bit slow in protesting when the regulations are overridden in a sense adverse to them. In this case we wrote a note which expressed that point of view. It reads: “If an inspector possess a motor car he may use it on duty in certain prescribed circumstances, but there is no obligation on him to use his car for the purpose of any journey, and no pressure can be brought to bear upon him to do so. Where necessity arises for the use of a motor car in the course of his duty, a car may be hired by him if he does not see fit to use his own car.” If it is suggested to him: “This is cheating the public. If you use a motor car at all you must go on using it.” He will say: “Very well. Put it in the regulations, if you insist on it.” It is not so easy to put it in the regulations. It is easy to make a regulation that a certain officer must keep a motor car for public duties, but it is a different thing, and looks rather a foolish thing, to say that if a man happens to have a car and to use it on official work he must keep on using it.

181. Deputy Smith.—We would not take up the attitude that he should keep on using it but that he should keep on claiming in the manner prescribed, that he should be entitled to claim in respect of his own or another car up to the 4,000 miles limit at the rate of 6d. a mile and that if he exceeded that with his own or with a hired car, he should only be entitled to the rate of 1d. a mile. It is a very nice thing to see officers knowing the regulations and trying to live up to them and trying to ensure that nobody will make them exceed them, but, at the same time, when officers come to interpret these in their own favour, while it might be difficult to amend the regulations, there are certain things that could be done.

182. Chairman.—Might I suggest that really what is required is that regulations should be made of such a kind that superior officers of the Gárda can interpret them without doubt. That is your problem but it does seem clear that an officer of the Gárda is entitled to take any advantage the regulations permit him to take, provided he complies with the law and the regulations of the Force to which he belongs. If Mr. Roche consciously leaves a loophole in the regulattins, that is Mr. Roche’s funeral and we must lean on him and the Department of Finance for that they have failed to stop the loophole. Mr. Roche tells us that he is going to stop the loophole as soon as he can fashion a suitable plug.

183. Mr. Roche.—The question arises as to whether this is so serious that we ought to change the regulations, which is an awkward and a slow process. We have to consult the representative bodies, and the problem I see is, if we cannot deal with this matter under the existing regulations, is the thing serious enough to make us go to the representative bodies and say that we must change these regulations? I am not sure that it is worth it.

184. Deputy Smith.— I hold that it is. It may be a small matter, but at the same time, while the Chairman’s view is right that nobody would expect an officer not to interpret the regulations in the most favourable way so far as he himself is concerned and take the most he can out of them, when regulations are cut too fine I think it is perfectly justified. Whether the matter is small or large, the principle is the same, and I would not allow any man to get out through loop-holes in the way suggested here.

185. Chairman.—Would it meet with the Committee’s approval if we said that in our judgment, if it is at all practicable, the regulations should be revised to meet cases of this kind?

Mr. McGrath.—Before you do that. I should like to point out that there are other officers who are in the same position as this particular individual. They have done journeys in excess of these 4,500 miles, and they have to take 2d. a mile. The question might be asked: Is this particular officer causing all this trouble?

186. Deputy McMenamin.—This man is not an officer; he is a non-commissioned officer.

Mr. Roche.—He is not an officer in the technical sense.

187. And his salary would not justify him in running a car at 2d. a mile?—The curious thing is that his salary apparently justifies him in keeping a motor car, because he has a motor car.

188. Deputy McMenamin.—That is a private matter for himself.

Mr. McGrath.—He is not running a car for 2d. a mile, but for 6d. for 4,500 miles. I think that should be remembered.

188. Deputy McMenamin.— That is assumed to be the running cost of the car.

Mr. McGrath.—If he is under 4,500 miles in the year, he will get 6d., but if he is ten miles over he will have to do these ten miles at 2d., which would be 1/8, added to £112 10s., which he got for, running the car for 4,500 miles at 6d. a mile. That should be taken into account. He is not asked to run his car for 2d. per mile.

189. Deputy Haslett.—How is the ’mileage of 4,500 arrived at?—It is just the fixed rule. Up to that limit, we pay them so much a mile and after that we say; “If you exceed 4,500 miles, we pay you on a new scale which is £75 to start with and 2d. a mile.”

Mr. McGrath.—It should be explained that the £112 10s. is arrived at in this way. This is my information. A superintendent is allowed £75 a year for a car if he keeps the car for his ordinary duties and he is allowed to charge 2d. a mile. £75 plus 2d. a mile on 4,500 miles equals £112 10s., which is the exact amount I am speaking of. The terms are the same for a superintendent as for this individual who is an inspector.

Deputy Haslett.—I think that is helpful to the Committee. One officer might need to travel far more than another by reason of his district. I was wondering how you arrived at the mileage, but if there is this allowance, plus so much a mile, it is reasonable enough. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not making an exception in respect of periods when the car is in hospital, but when he would not be justified in hiring.

190. Chairman.—Let us confine ourselves to asking Mr. Roche for information. We can discuss the information when we get it and incorporate it in our report. The next note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is:—

Sub-head H—Transport and Carriage.

Sub-head N—Incidental Expenses.

“The expenditure charged to these sub-heads includes sums amounting to £50 approximately in respect of the salvage and repair of a motor boat. In view of the circumstances in which the loss occurred, I have addressed an inquiry to the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Mr. McGrath.—It seems that this expenditure was incurred when a boat was left out in the harbour and was swamped. There is a boat-house but the boat-house cannot be used except at certain states of the tide, and if the boat was wanted and the tide was low, it would be impossible to get it out. There seems to be a peculiar position. I merely asked if there was any attempt to avoid the possibility of future expenditure of this nature.

191. Mr. Roche.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has told the story. This boat was left at its moorings, and was sunk during a very severe storm. I think the question is whether the Guards could have prevented it by putting the boat into the boat-house, but they say that the boat-house is accessible only at certain states of the tide and if the boat were wanted in a hurry it could not be got out, and the position of the police would be rather a humiliating one. This boat has a sort of heavy canopy on her which made her rather unseaworthy, and the step they’ have taken to prevent a repetition of this loss is to remove the canopy.

192.* Chairman.—Do you propose to maintain the boat-house in a place and under conditions under which it is impossible to get the boat in or out, because that seems to be a rather unsuitable form of public expenditure?

Mr. Roche.—That point had not struck me, but I will consider whether we can deal with it.

193. Chairman.—I suggest that for the public credit the boat-house ought either to be destroyed or reconstructed in such a way that it will be possible to put a boat in it. With regard to Note A on page 90, is there any reason why there was such a falling off in recruitment below what was anticipated when the estimate was drawn?—I do not think there is any special reason.

The question of recruiting is one that is considered more or less throughout the year. We never quite know in advance when we shall require to recruit another 50 men. It is largely guess-work at the beginning of the year.

194. The provision was made and you did not avail of it?—Our general policy is to try not to, if we can.

195. Deputy Smith.—With regard to Note B, the rate of marriage was not an inducement to recruiting?—I think more Guards married than was anticipated at the beginning of the year. In the note it was stated that the excess was due (1) to £3,615 for Rent Allowances for Sergeants and Guards owing to a conservative estimate of the number of marriages.

196. Chairman.—It is gratifying to know that the estimate was belied by events?—There were 310 marriages during the year of Sergeants and Guards.

196a. With regard to Note E, was there any reason why this clothing was not delivered in time? Was that owing to any fault on the part of the contractor? —It was no fault on the contractor’s part.

197. You say that you had ordered clothing for uniforms and it was not delivered within the specified time?—We get it through the Post Office Stores Branch, the contract being placed by the Government Contracts Committee, and there was probably some delay there.

198. Chairman.—However, it caused the Department no undue inconvenience? —None. In fact, my attention was not drawn to it until I saw the note here.

199. Chairman.—We need not bother about it if it is a matter of no consequence. What do you mean by the reference in Note G to expenditure increasing because of more frequent cleansing work in the interests of public health?—The item covers such things as sweeping chimneys, for instance. Police regulations say that ash pits should be cleared at least twice a year, and my note here suggests that we are paying rather more attention to proper cleaning in Gárda stations than we were.

200. Deputy Goulding.—Note H refers, I take it, to the transfer of Guards?— Not quite that, I think. That includes transport and carriage and the running costs of, a fairly large supply of motor cars which the Guards use. They have a number of Ford cars.

201. Deputy Haslett.—Does sub-head J refer to the Guards’ medical expenses?— That item represents the cost of providing medical attendance for Gárda stations throughout the country, and for the Depot, and salaries of medical attendants to the Dublin Metropolitan Division.

202. Chairman.—I understood that that was done on some kind of contract basis? —It is done in two ways. The older way was to pay a doctor 2/- per man per month, irrespective of whether the man was sick or not. The other way is to ask the local doctors, when a vacancy occurs, what they will do the work for. That system was introduced in the hope of getting the work done somewhat more cheaply.

203. Deputy Smith.—He would be a poor man who would not get 2/- worth of sickness in a month?—The new way is slightly more economical, but it has given rise to some friction with the medical profession.

204. Chairman.—Is that the system which widely obtains at present?—Whenever a vacancy occurs, we are supposed to ask the local doctor what he will do the work for.

205. Do they quote a fee per year?— They quote a fee per visit. The systems are known as the “2/- a man” system and the “fee per visit” system

206. An increased number of visits would, of course, Increase the cost?— Yes.

207. Under the old 2/- a man system, it did not matter how many visits were made; the cost remained stationary?— Yes.

208.* As regards sub-head K (Escort and Conveyance of Children to Industrial Schools and Places of Detention), what is the system whereunder a child on remand by a rural court of summary juristion is detained over the period of remand , if remanded in custody? In Dublin they are sent to Summerhill, but what is the position in the country?—I am afraid that I cannot answer that question with any confidence at this moment, but I shall make a note of the matter and let you know.

210. If destitute children were committed to an industrial school, there would be some delay in making inquiries and, at the same time, it would be necessary to take them under public care?— Yes.

211. Sub-head N N (Losses) covers some case of misdemeanour which has been dealt with?—There is a note dealing with it on page 90.

212. Did this officer’s discharge arise out of his failure to turn in this money? —That, and other things.

213. As regards “extra receipts,” who buys the old cars of the Gárdaí? Are they turned in or are they auctioned?— They are auctioned.

214. These are the old Ford cars and lorries?—Yes. I never heard of their being turned in.

215. Has that question ever been presented to you? Is it more economical to auction them or could a deal be made with one of these contractors for Gárda cars to take in the old cars?—I have no great knowledge of Gárda transport but, when you come to deal with a Gárda car which has been put aside, I think it is too far gone to be taken as part exchange.

VOTE 34—PRISONS.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

216. Chairman.—I notice that under sub-head B (Victualling) thee is a decrease and you say in a note that this is due to a lesser number of prisoners. Has there been a decrease in the cost per head as regards food?—No. The cost varies slightly from year to year. The tendency is towards an increase rather than a decrease. The reason for the decreased cost is that the number are going very low.

217. Has any alteration been made in the diet arrangements?—There are slight changes on the upward scale. We made a few increases here and there.

Deputy Smith.—To coax them in.

218. Chairman.—As regards sub-head C (Clothing, Bedding, Furniture, etc.), what was the anticipated saving that did not come off?—It was considered that the floating stock of clothing would have lasted longer than it did.

219. Under sub-head E (Fuel, Light, Water, Cleaning Articles, etc.), what were the circumstances under which you paid more for coal?—The contracts for coal are placed by the Board of Works and the figure included in the Estimate for each year is based on the price as estimated by the Board of Works. The estimate for coal was based on a supply of anthracite coal which Castlecomer colliery was unable to supply, and the coal had to be purchased at a higher price.

220. Had the Castlecomer colliery entered into a contract to deliver that coal?—I understand that there was no contract. There was merely an anticipation that they would be able to do it.

221. Under sub-head G (Escort and Conveyance) there was a rather large variation—30 per cent.?—My note states that part of the excess expenditure is attributable to the operation of Constitution Amendment (No. 17) Act, 1931.

222. You had to carry prisoners whom you did not anticipate would require carrying?—Yes.

223. What does sub-head M (Maintenance of Children of Female Prisoners) cover?—That sub-head is really obsolete. I hope to drop it next year. It always attracts attention. It is really a relic of the old days when women took children to prison with them. That does not happen now. If a woman came into prison with a very young infant and was to be detained there for, say, two years, provision had to be made for maintenance of the child outside when it got old enough to be separated from its mother.

224. What happens now if a mother gives birth to a child in prison?—I do not think that has ever happened in recent times.

225. If a woman whom it was necessary to detain in penal servitude did give birth to a child, what would happen?—I think we should have to keep the child in the prison with its mother for some time.

226. Deputy Smith.—You cannot take the child from the mother?—For humanitarian rather than legal reasons, we would not part a child a day old from the mother

227. Chairman.—Does sub-head N (Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in District Mental Hospitals) arise from the different procedure which is adopted if a person becomes insane during detention from that adopted if a person is found by inquisition to be insane?—This item refers to maintenance of criminal lunatics transferred from prison to district mental hospitals. I have a very long list here. They are spread all over the country, and the total is 176

228. Deputy Beegan.—Would that principally apply to Dundrum?—No. These are non-dangerous people. The list here refers to Ballinasloe, Carlow, Castlebar, Clonmel, Ennis, Enniscorthy, and mental hospitals all over the country. We send them there and pay for them when they get there. Only cases of a more serious type go to Dundrum. and we do not pay for those cases at all out of this Vote.

229. Chairman.—I thought they all went to Dundrum?—No; the great majority of feeble-minded prisoners go to their own mental hospitals.

230. Deputy Haslett.—You send them to their own counties?—Yes.

231. Deputy Haslett.—Do you make any special arrangements for them in the mental hospitals, or do they go into the wards with the other patients?—I think they go into the wards with the others.

232. There has been a great deal of discussion at the hospital committees about that matter?—Do you mean the association of criminals with ordinary patients? If so, I do not think there is any segregation at the local hospitals.

233. Deputy McMenamin.—I suppose the other patients do not know to what class they belong when they go there?—I could not say. We send them to a mental hospital. They send me the bill and I pay it. That is the extent of my knowledge.

Chairman.—That will probably arise under another Vote if it will arise at all there.

234. Deputy Smith.—I notice under sub-head O—Gratuities to Prisoners—that out of £325 voted only £268 6s. 11d. was expended. How does it arise that they did not earn what was made available for them?—We did not have as many prisoners as we anticipated.

235. Then it is no indication of the conduct of the prisoners?—No.

236. Chairman.—Under sub-head Q— Manufacturing Department and Farms— grant £5,500, expenditure £5,732 19s. 8d., how is it that there is this excessive demand for the products of the prison workshop and farms? There would be great difficulty, I take it, in disposing of these products?—My note does not indicate anything particular with regard to that. It is merely an increase, but I am not aware of any great increase from any source. The Post Office demand for mail bags has apparently increased.

237. With regard to Appropriations-in-Aid shown on page 93, I notice there is a difference between the item there and the item shown under sub-head Q. Is there a greater demand for prison-made articles and are these receipts from the same source?—I do not quite follow.

238. The first item under sub-head Q includes, I take it, the value of the articles supplied for use in the prisons; is that manufacturing department there analagous to the workshops under sub-head Q?—It is the same thing.

239. Why are they segregated? I would like to see these figures dissected—the figures relating to what is done in the prison, including the farm work, are extremely difficult to understand, particularly the precise meaning of those figures on page 94 of the Appropriation Accounts. A large part of the manufacturing work is done for the use of the prisons themselves and is consumed, so to speak, in the prison—such items as making shoes for the prisoners.

240. I take it that the one item would deal with the cost of the raw materials and the other with the money received for the articles when finished?—All the receipts are not in money received. They are calculations of what the articles, when finished, are worth. It is very difficult to understand the figures given there in the account. You manufacture, for instance, boots for the prisoners and uniforms for the officers. You provide so much material. Then you show what you sell and what the profit is. But if, in fact, you do not sell it, you have to fix some sort of value for the purpose of your accounts. It is hard to find a proper basis on which to work. For instance, you know what you pay for flour when you buy it, but it is not so easy to know what you are to charge yourself for turning the flour into bread. You could charge at the commercial price for a loaf, but there are objections to that. If the Committee would like me to do so, I could give them a note on the whole thing, but I could not hope to explain it to the Committee now in a way that would be intelligible.

241. Deputy Goulding.—There is no necessity to go into it. I think we understand it all right?—You have to find what the basis is.

242. You take the officers’ uniforms and value them, and so on with the other officers?—Yes; but there would be shown in some cases an extremely large profit. If you buy material cheaply, as you sometimes might, say, for 1/-, you put a lot of labour into it and when it is finished you may find it is worth £1.

243. Deputy Smith.—I take it your first figure there is an estimate of what is required in the manufacturing department. You estimated that the cost would be so much and you received so much more. Is not that the position?— Yes.

244. I think we do not have to go into the question of how a bag is made or how this, that or the other thing is done. The thing seems clear to us, as clear as it need be?—I am afraid the clearness is deceptive. If it were a question of dealing with cash, we could say that we bought an article and that is what we paid for it and this figure is what it was worth after turning it into the finished product. But that is not the position here.

Chairman.—In this case, Mr. Roche, the Committee think it is clear, and I think we may pass on

245. Deputy Haslett.—The fact that you were using the articles yourself does not make it necessary that you should come as close in your figures as if you were selling the article to someone else.

VOTE 35—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

246. Chairman.—What is sub-head C— Incidental Expenses?—That is mainly the allowance paid to the District Court clerks for the cost of the postal orders in remitting fines.

247. I see a note here that the expenditure on poundage was greater than anticipated?—Yes, that is the explanation.

248. Deputy Haslett.—What is the explanation of “Saving due to posts not being immediately filled”? Is it proposed to fill them?—Yes, but there is always some delay. The vacancy has to be referred to the Local Appointments Commission, and then there is the fixing of the salary, the delay caused by advertising and so on.

VOTE 36—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

Chairman.—There is no note here from the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

249. Deputy McMenamin.—What are the incidental expenses for?—The heaviest expenses would be under sub-head E, viz., the allowances for travelling to medical inspectors in the case of persons of unsound mind.

250. Chairman.—Sub-head D—“Compensation to a District Probate Registrar”—is that non-recurrent?—No; that is compensation that was fixed long before this State came into existence. That was during the British régime when that office was transferred to the Excise and Customs Department. It is for an allowance to an officer who suffered actual loss.

251. Sub-head E—Stenography. I take it this was due to an unusual pressure of business?—Do you mean the small difference between the grant and the amount expended?

252. Yes?—We had to get an extra man in a case of criminal appeals and the work had to be done in a hurry.

VOTE 37—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

253. Chairman.—There is no note here by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. As regards sub-head B (Replacement of Maps), could you tell us what progress has been made there?—It is nearly finished.

254. Do you mean to say that in future any person named on a folio can get a map of the land in that folio?—Yes.

255. But I understand it has been impossible to get such maps up to now?— I heard there were complaints made but I did not think there was any great delay during the last year or so. The reconstruction is almost completed and I know I had no complaints in the office myself nor through the Minister.

256. I may mention a concrete case in which the Sisters of Charity in Ballaghaderreen wanted to convey to the local authorities, under the Housing Acts, a piece of land; they had the number of the folio but it was impossible to get the map from the Office of the Registrar of the lands comprised in the folio, and so it was found impossible to complete the sale and the building contemplated was held up for a long time. The solicitor to the board of health was informed that the reason the map could not be supplied was because it had been destroyed in the fire. Is that difficulty now completely over?—Yes; I think the last thing I saw about this was that the work of reconstruction is now actually finished.

257. Deputy Haslett.—That work of mapping will continue to go on?—Yes, but these were maps that were burned in 1922.

258. Chairman.—There is a note here in connection with a sum of £10 in respect of an officer on loan to another Department and there is a reference to £350, which is divided among other Votes, the sum being in respect of officers on loan to the Land Registry.

VOTE 38—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

259. Chairman.—In connection with this Vote there is the following observation by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:

“In paragraph 21 of my last report, I drew attention to payments totalling approximately £500 made to certain Court Messengers in respect of claims for journeys purporting to have been undertaken by rail and cycle, and for numerous absences from headquarters overnight. I mentioned that the claims had been prepared on a hypothetical basis, that the journeys had, in fact, been accomplished by a motor car owned by one of the Court Messengers, and that subsistence allowance had been paid which was not warranted by the actual periods of absence from headquarters. Payments of similar claims amounting to £100 7s. 6d. made during the following year are charged in this account. I am informed that this matter is still under inquiry.”

Mr. McGrath.—I believe the matter is still under inquiry. I understand the Accounting Officer and the Department of Finance are considering the case. It seems that although this particular individual put in a claim that he was doing what he did not do—he put the claim in on a hypothetical basis—the Accounting Officer thinks that he was not actually trying to defraud the State. The question now arises as to whether the claims that he has put in are reasonable. I do not think the Committee can go any further into this matter until the Accounting Officer gives his version.

Mr. Roche.—This is the case of a court messenger who was employed in County Waterford. He did an enormous amount of travelling, collecting land annuities and that sort of thing. He sent in accounts for his travelling expenses. When he travelled he took a subordinate with him. He sent in the account on the basis that he took the ’bus or the train to a certain place, stayed overnight in that certain place, and then took the ’bus or the train back again. As a matter of fact he did not do that. He had a motor car, and he and his subordinate drove everywhere in that motor car. They claimed the expenses that they would have incurred if they had not a motor car. We have worked out very carefully what it would have cost him to travel by bus and train, and we found a sum a good deal over what he actually got paid. The whole thing has taken a terribly long time to investigate, because it was necessary to reconstruct accounts over a long period. The matter has reached a point when we have almost persuaded the Department of Finance that this man was underpaid rather than overpaid.

260. Chairman.—Is it proposed to leave him in possession of the moneys he has got, or is it proposed to pay him the extra money to which your calculations prove him to be entitled?—The former, I think.

261. I take it that this officer will be warned that irregularities of this kind are very undesirable?—He has been warned, as a matter of fact. I really believe he was perfectly innocent of any intention to defraud. His view was that he could not claim for a motor car. He had not asked permission to use a motor car.

262. Did he claim for being absent from home when, in fact, he was not absent? —I think that is so. If you take the case where he would have to go to a place 50 miles away, his account would show that he started by a fictitious bus or train and came back by a fictitious way. He really might have started from the house at 9 o’clock in the evening, reached his destination, did his work between midnight and 2 o’clock, and returned before breakfast. In his account he would enter it up as indicating that he left by the 2 p.m. train, reached his destination at 7 p.m., and came back by the morning train. That would entitle him to an allowance for being out. If you calculate the money actually paid to him, it is less than would have been paid if he told the truth.

263. Deputy Goulding.—So he actually saved the State a certain amount?—Yes.

264. Deputy McMenamin.—That may be, but the fact is that his statement were not true?—Yes.

265. The whole procedure is not desirable, because his statements on paper are untrue?—It is not desirable, and he has been told not to do it again.

266. Deputy Haslett.—When making a comparison, did you calculate what he would have been entitled to, suppose he asked permission to use his car? How would that compare with what he got?

267. Deputy Smith.—What he got would be less than what he would be entitled to if he were allowed for his car?—That is so. My note on the matter says that the total payments made, based on the hypothetical use of trains, etc., was £1,181 8s. 2d., whereas if a motor car mileage had been paid, the payment would have been £1,250. There has thus been a saving of £69 odd during the period.

268. Deputy McMenamin.—That may be, but it is far from desirable to have statements of that kind. His statements were untrue?—That is so, but there is this aspect. He was travelling by motor car, not having permission to do it. If I were to travel by motor car, not having permission to do it, and if I sent in a perfectly correct claim, I would say: “I travelled by motor car, but not being permitted to do so, I am only claiming what would be the ordinary fare.” This man might have said: “I travelled by motor car, but not having had permission, I am only claiming the rail or bus fare,” and we would have said that was all right. The only thing was that he did not say so explicitly.

269. But the point is that if that procedure is allowed, it opens the door for others to go on to a completely wrong track?—Yes.

270. Chairman.—Is there not a difference between making a false statement in regard to the method of travelling and making a false statement as to whether you paid lodgings while you were absent from home when you were, in fact, in your own home?—There is a difference.

271. That is what strikes me about this matter and that is what I would be concerned to examine closely. I fully see that if he travelled by car when he might have travelled by rail no great damage would be done, but if a servant of the State gives categorical statements such as he has done, that looks very much like a misappropriation of money? —I should like, in fairness to the man, to say that he is a good officer and a good worker and I would not like to put it that his statement would look as you suggest. In his account he would say, “Train fare to so-and-so, 8/6; subsistence allowance, 7/6.”

Chairman.—Perhaps it would be better if we postponed further inquiry until this matter is adjusted between the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance. Then, perhaps, Mr. Roche will give us a note about the whole thing.

272. Deputy Smith.—Was there any danger of this man being refused permission to use his car?—Not in the least. If he asked our permission, we would have granted it readily.

273. Deputy Haslett.—Ordinarily where a claim is made for hotel and travelling expenses, do you ask for any vouchers?— No.

274. Deputy McMenamin.—You calculate it on the requirements of the journey? —Yes. What you pay the man might not quite agree with what he paid the hotel. It would be a hypothetical figure calculated on what ordinarily would be paid. It is based on what a man would be expected to pay if he were away from home, less “home saving.”

275. —Mr. Feeney.—So far as the Department of Finance are concerned, we have had several conferences with the Department of Justice, and they have supplied us with various statements. On the information supplied us generally, the Department of Finance are satisfied that although there have been irregularities there has been no loss to public funds. In fact, there has been a saving of £60 or £70. We would have given authority to this man to use his motor car during the period he used it without proper authority, and in cases where he might have to remain away from home for a night, he would have been allowed the subsistence allowance that is ordinarily given, but we thought it better to await the views of the Committee before issuing our authority.

276. * Chairman.—The views of the Committee have been expressed, and we will await with interest a note from Mr. Roche, after consultation with the Department of Finance, with a view to dealing with it in our report when the time comes to prepare it.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 44—NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. J. Hurson called and examined.

277. Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in connection with this Vote. With reference to sub-head D, I note that there was an excess of expenditure due, amongst other things, to the hiring of rooms at provincial hotels for hearing appeals. Was it not possible to use rooms such as are ordinarily occupied by the Old Age Pensions officers?

Mr. Hurson.—With your permission, I would ask Mr. J. McCarron to deal with that matter.

Chairman.—Certainly.

Mr. McCarron.—Wherever it is possible to use rooms which are available, these rooms are used; but as regards the places where these appeals are heard, they are very frequently heard in towns where there would be no office of any sort available, and the appeals are heard in the most convenient place for the insured person—that is to say, as near as possible to his home. It may be that the appeal is heard in a small village and, where there is no other place available, a room is hired in the local hotel.

278. Ordinarily, however, I take it that you would use the Old Age Pensions Officer’s rooms if they were available?— The ordinary system is to use any rooms, such as that, which are in control of the Board of Works, wherever they are available. For instance, where available, the room of the District Inspector might be used.

279. Deputy Haslett.—Have you any right to ask for the local court-house?— There are cases where we do get the use of the court-house; not perhaps for these particular cases, but for certain other purposes. For instance, in connection with cases of insurability, under Section 66, we can get the court-house sometimes.

280. Chairman.—In connection with sub-head F (2), Mr. McCarron, it is stated here in the note to the sub-head that the expenditure on benefits has fallen. I understood that the benefits had risen very substantially. Is not that so?—Not at that particular year.

281. But they subsequently did?—I would not be prepared to say they had risen subsequent to that. I do not think there has been very much change in the last year, but the position arose that, when this Estimate was made out, it was made on the results of sickness, disablement, and other payments in the previous years. Those payments had gone up considerably in 1933 and 1934, and our Estimate for 1935-36 was based on these. Actually, when the expenditure for 1935-36 was ascertained, it was found to be less than had been anticipated and, consequently, there was this saving on the Vote. We believe that the reason it was up in 1933-34 was that, at that time, unification was either being thought of or was actually in progress, and the result was that the Approved Societies, acting then as individual societies, were less strict in the administration of benefits than they would have been if they were going to continue in existence as individual societies. There is no doubt that the benefits went up very considerably in 1933-34, but they have been coming back to normal since that.

282. Now, with regard to sub-head G (District Medical Referee Service) are you satisfied that the large increase in the number of insured persons referred by Cumann an Arachais Náisiúnta ar Shláinte to the District Medical Referees for second examination, is not excessive? —Yes, we are quite satisfied. We have no complaint to make on that score.

283. I see that there is an excess of expenditure due to the large number of persons referred to the District Medical Referees?—Of course, it is in their own hands as to the number they would refer, but provided that, with the machinery we have at our disposal, we are able to deal with the cases they send in to us, we would not make any complaint. If, however, we found that they were excessive, or appeared to be getting excessive, then we would make representations to them.

284. But you are satisfied that there has been no reprehensible excess to date? —Yes, that is so.

285 Now, with regard to sub-head H (Appropriations-in-Aid), if you look at paragraph (e) on page 115, you will find that it dovetails in with a question that arose on the Board of Works Vote. Deputies will remember that we asked the Department of Finance, in connection with the Board of Works Vote on the last day, to explain how it was that expenditure on office furniture and office equipment should be charged to the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund. The Secretary to the Department of Finance has been good enough to send us a note in connection with that, which reads as follows:

“With reference to the question raised at the last meeting of the Public Accounts Committee regarding the ‘Contribution of £2,200 from the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund,’ shown in the Appropriations-in-Aid sub-head of Vote 11 (Public Works and Buildings, 1935-36), I am directed by the Minister for Finance to state that, in accordance with Statutory Rules and Orders, 1935, No. 635, made by the Minister for Finance in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section 2 of Section 43 of the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Act, 1935, any expenses incurred in the administration of the Act are paid out of the Fund and applied as Appropriations-in-Aid of the Vote bearing such expenses. The sum of £2,200 referred to consisted of non-recurrent expenditure on the provision and furnishing of premises for the staff of the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Office, and recurrent expenditure on rates, supplies, fuel, light, etc. Expenses are also recovered from the Fund and credited as Appropriation-in-Aid of the Votes for National Health Insurance, Revenue Commissioners, Registrar-General, Posts and Telegraphs and Stationery Office.”

We were surprised that the funds of the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Scheme should be made liable for office equipment, because it appeared, to some of us at least, that that was more properly chargeable on the Estimate of the Department responsible for administration. Is it true, Mr. McCarron, that the funds which are derived from the sale of stamps and the Government contribution are liable for the purpose of expenditure on furniture and office equipment, or should those funds be reserved exclusively for the payment of benefit? —No. Under sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the Widows and Orphans Act, 1935, all the sums incurred in administration in any way are payable out of the fund.

286. Was that the way with the old National Health Insurance Fund?—No, except in one section of it—that is, Military Forces Insurance Fund. You will find it under paragraph (c). It pays the expenses as Appropriations—that is, the cost of salaries and so on—and there is a further payment under Extra Receipts for pension liability. In other words, the total cost of that fund is paid out of National Health Insurance.

287. So that provisions under Section 43 of the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Act of 1935 do create a new principle with regard to the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund with regard to the payment of office furniture and equipment expenditure out of the fund, as opposed to moneys voted by Dáil Eireann?—It is on a different principle from National Health Insurance, but I am not prepared to say that it is a different principle from other Votes.

288. Does the Unemployment Fund pay for office furniture and equipment?

Deputy McMenamin.—And then there is the question of the cost of administration.

Chairman.—At any rate, it is an interesting point. Of course, it is a point about which we cannot question Mr. McCarron, except for the purpose of clarifying our minds.

Deputy Smith.—I must say that I do not see any point in it. The Chairman seems to be very interested in this, but I cannot just see the effect of it.

Chairman.—Well, the point is that there is a fund created by the sale of stamps and by the Government contribution. There are moneys voted by Dáil Eireann for the carrying on of public services. The question is whether the expenditure on office equipment, such as chairs, tables and telephones, required for the administration of the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund, be paid out of the stamps which are put on the National Health Insurance cards by the subscribers, or be paid for out of moneys voted by Dáil Eireann.

Deputy Smith.—I can see that point all right, but what I want to know is, how are those who are interested in that Fund affected, in so far as there has been a change in procedure?

289. Chairman.—Well, am I not correct in saying, Mr. McCarron, that if these charges were debited to the Minister’s Estimate, the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund would be £16,000 odd richer than, in fact, it is?—Yes, that is so. There would be more money in it if there were no office expenses.

Deputy Smith.—But is anybody suffering as a result of that?

Deputy McMenamin.—There are bound to be. It means that you have £16,000 less in that Fund than you would have, and that in the Unemployment Insurance Fund you have about £160,000 less.

Deputy Smith.—Well, let us take the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund. Certain sums are legally due to these people, if they comply with the law, and I take it that they are not going to lose any of these sums as a result of the administration being chargeable to the Fund itself.

290. Chairman.—Well, look at it in this way. Suppose that that sum of £16,000 were allowed to accrue to the Fund year after year, I take it, Mr. McCarron, that the time would come eventually when you, Mr. McCarron, or your successor, could go to the Minister concerned and tell him that the Fund was now literally oozing with money and that he ought to reduce the cost of the stamps. I take it that you would then be in a position to tell him that you had too much money wherewith provide the statutory benefit. Of rse, that would happen in, let us say, 100 years. Do you not agree?— It would be approaching the y rate.

291. Deputy Smith.—Well, I take it that, in the amalgamation of all these independent societies the intention was, not so much to run that or take responsibility for it as a State Department, as to perfect its organisation and make it responsible for its own organisation and maintenance charges?

Chairman.—This is the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Vote, not the National Health Insurance Vote.

Deputy Smith.—You have, at any rate, referred to the contribution that is made by stamps through National Health Insurance to the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund. You have also referred to the contribution from the State, so that National Health Insurance is affected even though we are at the moment discussing Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions.

Deputy O Briain.—Is this whole point not covered by legislation? Is it not the actual law? What is the good of this Committee discussing it then? Is it not a matter for the Dáil? It is only a waste of time to discuss it here.

Chairman.—We have tried so far to keep within the Terms of Reference and I think we have succeeded, but the purpose of the Committee’s investigation is to inform our minds. We must not question Mr. McCarron as to the propriety of the regulations, but we may ask what the regulations are and what the results are. It is quite clear, of course, that if you want to amend them you must go to the Dáil.

Deputy Smith.—Whether we are technically correct or not, I do not object to these questions because I like to get information on these matters but, on the question of making the fund responsible for administration charges, if these charges were borne by the State, it is only right to say that that money would be available for the funds; but, after all, the Legislature can come along at any time and increase its contribution to the fund by £16,000, £20,000, £40,000 or £100,000, if the position justifies that course. I can see no objection in making the fund responsible for these charges and if, at any time, the Legislature wants to come to the assistance of the fund by making further sums available, it can do so.

Deputy Haslett.—When the Department comes to the Dáil with certain Estimates, do we not try to make these Estimates self-contained? When this Vote here was before the Dáil, had we not in our minds the intention that everything connected with it should be drawn into it so as to make it self-contained? The point which the Chairman has made is quite interesting, but these charges are apparently contained in the Vote, to my mind.

Chairman.—The whole point is that it is not contained in the Vote. It is not charged on the Vote at all but on the Fund. However, we can transfer our discussion on the merits of that course to the Dáil. We have elicited from Mr. McCarron what the exact position is.

Deputy Smith.—I should not like you to leave the matter with the impression that we were accepting your view that there was something wrong in making the Fund responsible for these charges, because if we were in the proper place to discuss this matter I think a good case could be made for the method adopted here.

Chairman.—I should not dream of expressing any views as to the propriety of this method here. It would be a source of embarrassment both to Mr. Hurson and Mr. McCarron. All we want to know is the facts.

Deputy Haslett.—I think we can get out the facts here much more quickly than in any other place.

Chairman.—We now come to the item —Extra Receipts. There is a note about extra remuneration received by certain officers. I take it that no Deputy wishes to raise a question on that, so that we shall not trouble you further, Mr. Hurson.

The Committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until Wednesday, 12th May, at 11 a.m.

* See Appendix VII.

* See Appendix VIII.

* See Appendix IX.