Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1938 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1936 - 1937

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 10adh Mí na Samhna, 1938.

Thursday, 10th November, 1938.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Messrs. Seóirse Mag Craith (Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste), C. S. Almond, T. S. C. Dagg, J. L. Lynd, O. J. Redmond, and D. P. Shanagher (An Roinn Airgeadais), called and examined.

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.

383. Deputy Smith.—I move that Deputy Dillon be elected Chairman of the Committee.

Question agreed to.

Deputy Dillon took the Chair.

384. Chairman.—I am much obliged to you for the honour you have done me by re-electing me to this position. I think we are almost all experienced members of the Committee so that it is unnecessary to go into detail as to what our procedure is. Nearly all of you have been on the Committee before so that we know what our terms of reference are.

VOTE 39—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. J. F. Morrissey called.

No question.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. W. O’Brien called and examined.

385. Chairman.—There are some notes from the Comptroller and Auditor-General in connection with this Vote which we shall deal with first. Paragraph 4 of the Report states:

“A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out with satisfactory results.”

Paragraph 5 states:

“I have been furnished with the schedule of the several cases involving a loss of £50 and upwards in which claims for duty or interest receivable under the Revenue Acts were remitted during the year ended 31st March, 1937, without statutory authority, from motives of compassion or equity arising out of particular circumstances in individual cases. The reasons given for remission appear to be satisfactory. The total amount shown as remitted during the year is £6,335 12s. 11d. as compared with £9,587 8s. 0d. in the preceding year. Of the total, £5,345 10s. 9d. has been remitted in respect of income-tax and surtax. £1,131 7s. 4d. related to 11 cases in which the assessed parties died insolvent or were destitute and recovery was impossible; £1,106 2s. 11d. related to three cases in which the assessed parties became bankrupt and there were no assets to meet the claims; £3,108 0s. 6d. related to ten cases in which assessments were raised but subsequent evidence revealed no net liability to tax. The remission also include sums in respect of Estate, Legacy and Succession duties and interest on such duties amounting to £547 8s. 4d. and customs duties £442 13s. 10d. The above figures do not include duty passed as irrecoverable for various reasons.”

Have you any estimate of the amount of duty passed as irrecoverable at all?—No, Sir. It would be impossible to give an estimate. There would be thousands of small cases.

386. With regard to these irrecoverable “for-various-reasons” items, are they written off finally or are they reserved for future action should an opportunity present itself?—As far as we are concerned, they are written off, but of course they are always alive because nobody has any power to write them off permanently as long as they are legally due.

387. Are these other sums under the heading of remissions not written off finally?—They are, technically, but there is no power to discharge them. Before we could write them off permanently we would have to discharge them under the law and we have no power to discharge them under the law.

388. Are all remissions since the Revenue Commissioners were instituted still recorded and still legally collectable?—They are recorded, but that is all. Of course, if a man left this country in 1937 and owed us at that time £1,000 it would have to be passed here as irrecoverable, but if the man came back two years afterwards we would naturally go to him for that £1,000 despite the fact that it had been remitted. There was no legal remission.

389. Chairman.—The next paragraph states:

“In the course of my examination I observed a case in which payment of drawback, amounting to £50 5s. 0d., on certain dutiable fuel was made although the conditions set out in Section 2 (1) (c) of the Finance (Special Drawback) Act, 1936, did not appear to have been fully complied with. The Department of Finance has given covering authority for the payment.”

Can you tell us anything about that, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—As the Committee will see, the Department of Finance has given authority for this repayment. When the Audit Office first examined it, they thought that there was a peculiarity about it inasmuch as the person to whom the rebate was made was a representative of four different undertakings and, according to the Act, the drawback was payable “on all dutiable fuel in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners—(a) that such dutiable fuel was imported into Saorstát Eireann by a registered importer; and (b) that coal duty was paid on such dutiable fuel; and (c) that such dutiable fuel was in the ownership or possession of the said registered importer at the expiration of the 24th day of January, 1936.” We thought it would be impossible for the fuel to be in the possession of this one particular person when he really represented three or four different gas companies. The Audit Office quite understands that the payment is equitable but we thought it was extra-statutory and that it should be noted here.

390. Chairman.—You are satisfied, Mr. O’Brien, that the payment reached the person whom the statute intended it should reach?

Mr. O’Brien.—I think so. I do not think it is extra-statutory at all. I should have passed it as a matter of course. This man was the managing director of the company. Some one has to represent a company. He was acting for the company and got the licence for the company. He was the man that paid the duty, and therefore the man entitled to get it back, of course, for the company. I think it would be quite wrong to refuse the payment.

391. The real net question is as to whether four separate pay orders should have been made out to four separate gas companies, or whether one pay order should have been made out to one company or to one common officer of the four companies and leave the distribution to him. Seeing that the Department of Finance has given covering authority for the payment, I think the matter is probably in order. I am grateful to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for directing our attention to the matter.

392. Deputy McMenamin.—Was this man registered as representing the four companies?—As a matter of fact he was not. He was registered in his own name, but the only coal he got was for the company. There was a bit of a slip, I think, in not giving a complete registration. He should have said, whatever his name was, that he was acting for the Kilkenny Gas Company or the Castlecomer Gas Company. If that had been done, I do not think the question would have arisen. It was obvious, on the face of it, that he was representing the company. However, that would not weigh very much with me because we could not very well keep the money.

393. Chairman.—No, but the Department of the Revenue Commissioners is such a powerful body that it might have held the money, until the letter of the statute was conformed to. However, we are satisfied that the money has gone where it was intended to go. I think that we may now take the sub-heads of the Vote. For the information of new members of the Committee, I should perhaps make it clear, at this stage, that any member of the Committee is entitled to ask Mr. O’Brien any relevant question about any sub-head.

394 Deputy Walsh.—On sub-head D— Poundage to Distributor of Stamps— would Mr. O’Brien say what does that mean?—We have a Stamp Distributor on the Stock Exchange, and he gets poundage on all the stamps he sells.

395. Does that apply to stamps given to local officers for the registration of deeds, etc?—No, only to the stamps he sells on the Stock Exchange.

396. Deputy Childers.—On sub-head JJ —Motor Cars for Frontier Patrols—may I ask if it would be in order for us to discuss the adequacy of the patrols?

Chairman.—At this stage we must ask Mr. O’Brien nothing but questions designed to extract information. When we come to discuss our Report we can then consider the desirability of making any recommendations that the Committee sees fit. Mr. O’Brien is simply here to give us information.

Deputy Childers.—May I ask how many motor cars were used for this purpose?—I understand 17 cars.

397. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that the number of cars is sufficiently effective to carry on the patrol?—I think so.

398. Deputy MacMenamin.—Of course, these cars are only suitable for a particular kind of work?—Purely for patrol work.

399. Chairman.—I notice that some of your cars used on this work are 24 h.p. and others 30 h.p., the latter being, of course, the more expensive to operate. I take it that you considered it necessary to have the more powerful cars in certain cases?—Yes.

400. Chairman.—On sub-head L—Law Charges, Expenses of Prosecutions, Fees, Rewards, etc.—there was an excess expenditure of £666 odd. Is there any exceptional reason for the excess?—No, nothing exceptional. There happened to be some big cases that swelled the figure.

401. Deputy McMenamin.—It all depends, I take it, on the number of prosecutions?—Yes.

402. Chairman.—Are we to assume from the figure that there were unusually heavy awards paid to common informers? —They were pretty heavy, I think.

403. On the Appropriations-in-Aid there appears this item, “Moneys received from Merchants, etc., for special attendance of Officers, £12,538 3s. 0d.”, the estimated amount being £11,000. Roughly speaking, what was that attendance for?—Overtime—work done outside regular hours.

404. Would these be officers attending at bonded stores and the like?—Not so much in connection with stores as with Customs work.

405. Such as the fees one pays to the man at the Border if you want to cross it at 11 o’clock at night?—Yes.

406. Deputy Childers.—On the Appropriations-in-Aid, Sub-head P, there is a note with reference to the “Registry of Business Names.” The sum estimated is £300, and the sum realised £297 1s. 0d. I should like to draw attention to the fact that a very large number of firms do not comply with the law in regard to the “Registry of Business Names,” and equally that they do not carry out the law in placing the names of directors on their letter notepaper. The matter is constantly coming to my attention as Secretary of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers.

Chairman.—Are you satisfied, Mr. O’Brien, that the law is being complied with fully by all persons who should register business names?—We really only record particulars relating to membership of firms. The other matter is one that comes under the control of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

407. That Department is responsible for the enforcement of the law?—Yes.

This is a matter, therefore, that Deputy Childers can raise further on the appropriate Vote. That concludes our examination of Vote 6.

VOTE 7—OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. W. O’Brien further examined.

408. Chairman.—There is no note to this Vote by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I think I am right in saying, Mr. O’Brien, that you are not responsible for the administration of this Vote at all, but merely for the payments?—We are partly responsible for the administration. We have the general administration in our hands. The pensions, of course, are actually awarded by the local pensions committee, and finally decided by the Department of Local Government and Public Health in the case of appeals.

409. I see that under Sub-head A— Pensions—the expenditure was £37,373 10s. less than the sum granted. Can you say whether that was partially due to slowness in determining applications for pensions from blind persons?—No. The number of pensioners was less than we anticipated.

My suggestion to you is that the reason the expenditure was less was because numbers of blind people were unable to get certificates of blindness?— That may be, but I do not think it would account for this amount of money.

410. Deputy Corry.—It may be accounted for by the activities of the inspectors in the Department of Finance.

Chairman.—I do not think they have anything to do with it. I take it the Deputy has in mind the pensions’ officers.

411. Deputy Childers.—May I ask, in connection with the very large figure for pensions, whether it is the custom of the Department to make any kind of a general check on the expenditure under this head; whether, after a person has been awarded a pension of any kind, an after-cheek is made as to his circumstances. A person for instance, is awarded a pension because the number of stock he has is not sufficient to debar him from getting it. What I am anxious to know is, if some kind of an after-check is made, say some months later, to see if that person has an amount of stock on his land, what would debar him from continuing to get the pension. I think there is very considerable fraud practised by people who should not have pensions from the point of view of means. I think that very often persons get pensions who should not have them, and on the other hand that people who deserve to get pensions fail to get them. Is there any sort of an after-check as to the means of people in receipt of pensions?—We always keep our eyes open in this matter. We know perfectly well what is happening, and we do everything we can to stop it.

412. Deputy O Briain.—Some of us are very well aware that the Revenue Commissioners have their eyes open in these cases. I do not agree at all with my colleague about this.

413. Chairman.—Deputy Childers’ question was as to whether there was any check made by the officers of the Revenue Commissioners after a pension has been awarded?—I would not say there is a check made in every case, but there is a check made in a great many cases. If anything comes to light, or if an officer finds that a mistake was made, it is always up to him to go back and re-examine the case and bring it up for further investigation.

414. Deputy O Briain.—If you get an anonymous letter, for example?—Yes.

415. Deputy Corry.—Does Mr. O’Brien consider that the officers doing this work are competent to value means in regard to old age pensions?—I think they are as competent as anybody else.

416. Deputy Childers.—What I am anxious to know is whether the Department has ever made a special effort to examine a particular area—to take a number of cases in which pensions have been awarded—the award depending finally on the amount of stock in the possession of a pensioner—to see whether the amount of stock he held was sufficient to debar him from continuing to receive a pension. What I am anxious to know is whether a number of cases of that kind have ever been taken and deliberately re-checked. Similarly, in the case of people with small shops. The first examination of their invoices—the amount of business they were doing—may result in the award of a pension. Is there any after-check of their invoices to ascertain whether the amount of business that person is now doing would debar him from a pension?—The old age pensioner has to make a declaration every time he gets a book. If the declaration is not considered satisfactory there is always an opportunity for further enquiry. Cases are not investigated one by one. If we were to do that we would have to treble the staff, and we would lose more money than we would gain. When all is said and done, the fraud is not colossal. It was bad enough, but nothing extraordinary.

417. Deputy McMenamin.—I think there are not many flies on the officers when dealing with these matters?—You do not always get the truth. There is bound to be some fraud. You cannot get rid of that.

418. Deputy Walsh.—Are there not numerous cases where the pensions are taken away, when it is discovered that the circumstances of the pensioners have changed?—Yes. The Appropriation Accounts show that we collected £1,295 12s. 6d. from people who were not entitled to pensions.

419. There are many cases where they had to pay back the money?—Yes. In many cases where pensioners got pensions at 65, and drew them for two or three years, when they reached 70 the pensions were not given until the amount had been repaid. There is a good deal of counteracting in that way.

420. Deputy O Briain.—Arising out of sub-head B—Expenses of Pensions Committee—what do these expenses consist of?—The hire of rooms, lighting, heating and payment to clerks.

421. How are the clerks remunerated? Is it so much per claim?—No, they receive salaries.

422. Deputy Smith.—What is the maximum salary paid these clerks?—I could not say.

423. Would it amount to £20, £30 or £40?—It would be more in some cases.

Deputy McMenamin.—About £45 or £50.

Deputy Walsh.—I think the average would be about £25.

Deputy O Briain.—Are the clerks under the control of the Revenue Commissioners?—No, they are under the control of the local pensions committees.

424. Chairman.—Are their salaries on this Vote?—Yes.

425. On sub-head E, there is reference to grants on grounds of equity. It is stated that they amounted to £197 5s. 0d. Could you give me some details of this note.

£147 5s. 0d. in cases where the provision of Section 5 (b) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1911, precluded statutory payment …?—

These are cases where the orders were not cashed within three months and new orders had to be got out. The others were out of date.

426. The Appropriations-in-Aid represent recovery of amount of pensions improperly paid?—Yes.

VOTE 8—COMPENSATION BOUNTIES.

Mr. W. O’Brien, Accounting Officer, further examined.

427. Chairman.—On sub-head A— Bounties from Sugar made from Home-grown Beet—are you aware of any reason why foreigners should benefit on the manufacture of articles made from sugar? —I have no official knowledge, but I understand there was a shortage of home-manufactured sugar for this purpose.

Deputy Corry.—The bad prices.

428. Chairman.—On sub-head C— Bounties on Home-made Mineral Hydrocarbon Light Oils—what is the explanation there?

Deputy Childers.—These oils are manufactured by the Greenmount Oil Company principally.

Chairman.—Is this petrol?

Deputy Childers.—No, oils and grease? —I do not know where the materials come from.

429. Chairman.—We do not know exactly what is the nature of the oils?— The substance referred to here is the difference between the Customs duty and the Excise duty. If the Committee likes, I could send in a memorandum* on the subject.

430. I would be very glad if you would do so?—I only look at the matter from the financial side.

431. Chairman.—Before calling the next Vote another matter arises. The Committee of Public Accounts was instituted and was acting up to the last General Election. This new Committee has been appointed by Dáil Eireann to deal with the Appropriation Accounts, and has these Accounts and the evidence that was taken by the last Committee before it. I take it that the Committee does not want to re-open all the evidence taken by the previous Committee, and that we will just go on from where the previous Committee left off when the General Election was called.

Agreed.

VOTE 43—DUNDRUM ASYLUM.

Dr. G. W. Scroope, called and examined.

432. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General has the following note:

“In paragraph 25 of my last report I referred to certain overpayments of lodging allowance made in 1935-36 and previous years to married attendants who are not provided with quarters. These irregular payments continued up to August, 1936, the total charged in this account being approximately £56.

Mr. McGrath.—I have since received a report to the 31st March, 1938, and it states that the total overpayment amounted to £211 11s. 0d., out of which there has been since refunded £103 15s. 0d., leaving a balance due of £107 16s. 0d. I understand that a weekly sum will be paid by the attendants until the full amount of the overpayments has been met, and that, in future, attendants will receive a flat allowance of 5/- per week. That is in accordance with the authority of the Department of Finance, and the matter is now in order.

433. Chairman.—This is a matter that engaged our attention at some length in the report for 1935-36 and it was subsequently raised in the Dáil. If it has now been disposed of, I do not think the Committee wish to bother further about it.

434. Deputy Walsh.—On sub-head F— Allowances to Patients and Gratuities on Discharge—what amount is allowed to such patients?—They get a penny for each working day of eight hours.

VOTE 63—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.

Mr. P. S. O’Hegarty, called and examined.

435. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General reports:

“74. With the approval of the Department of Finance certain changes have been made in the form of the appropriation account for Posts and Telegraphs with a view to bringing it into conformity with that generally used for other comparable votes.

75. The losses borne on the Vote for the year ended 31st March, 1937, amounted to £1,209 7s. 8d., of which £1,082 1s. 9d. was charged to sub-head H (2) and £127 5s. 11d. to sub-head O (6). Classified schedules of these losses are set out at pages 200 and 203. At pages 201 and 202 particulars are given of eighteen cases in which cash shortages or misappropriations amounting to £1,763 10s. 8d. were discovered; the sums in question were made good and no charge to public funds was necessary.

Does any question arise here?

Mr. McGrath.—No, only that I am bound to draw the attention of the Dáil to these matters.

436. Deputy O Briain.—What are “test” letters?—Letters made up by Post Office investigators in order to test an officer who is under suspicion for pilfering.

437. Deputy Walsh.—Could you give me some information on a matter about which I got into trouble with some of my constituents? People send gold articles through the post and in order to ensure delivery what have they to do?—They have to register them.

438. Would they have to declare the articles and show them to the postal officials, or could they simply walk in with a parcel and say that it contained articles valued for £10?—If the parcel was for delivery within our area they have not to declare the contents.

439. Have they to show the actual contents?—Not for delivery within our area, but for outside.

440. Chairman.—Would a postmaster have any discretion, supposing he suspected that the parcel contained articles which the Post Office were not prepared to carry, such as explosives or liquids, would he be entitled to ask the consigner to show the contents of the parcel?—Yes.

441. So that, in that way, he could get access to its contents?—Yes.

442. In regard to sub-head H (3)— Incidental Expenses, paragraph 76 is as follows:—

“As stated in the account, the charge to this sub-head includes an ex gratia payment of £100 made with Department of Finance authority to a member of the public who was accidentally injured by a departmental motor van, and also £280 in respect of legal costs incurred in defending an action brought by the injured party. The total costs charged to the vote in this and earlier years in connection with this case amount to £388 2s. 10d. The action did not succeed, and in view of the necessitous circumstances of the plaintiff the claim in respect of the costs legally recoverable, amounting to £254, has been abandoned with Department of Finance sanction.”

Are we to understand, Mr. McGrath, that this man, having taken action against the Department and having failed, received an ex gratia payment?—

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

443. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. O’Hegarty could tell us why the Department became so generous all of a sudden.

Mr. O’Hegarty.—The case eventually came before a jury, and the jury decided that both sides were in fault, that both sides had been careless, both the plaintiff and the defendant, but that the defendant, with a little more care, might have avoided the accident. The jury awarded damages, but the case was appealed, and was decided in favour of the Post Office on the ground that as the proceedings were not taken within six months of the date of the accident, they were barred under the Public Authorities (Protection) Act. That is why the ex gratia payment was made.

444. Chairman.—What was the amount of damages awarded by the jury?—£450.

445. Deputy McMenamin.—You won on technical grounds, then?—Yes, but apart from that, the Post Office does not think the jury’s verdict was a correct one. We do not think the defendant was to blame.

446. Chairman.—The Department was under the impression that there was no negligence on the part of the Post Office driver?—Yes.

447. Deputy McMenamin.—The jury found otherwise?

Mr. O’Hegarty.—The juries are often wrong in cases of this sort.

Deputy McMenamin.—I am afraid if we start to overrule all these things——

448. Chairman.—It seems a peculiar proceeding, having failed, and having incurred the additional cost of an appeal, then to make an ex gratia payment. It would have been almost as cheap to pay the jury’s award in the first instance.

Mr. O’Hegarty.—Yes, but you have to take into account a whole lot of circumstances. The plaintiff was in very poor circumstances.

449. Deputy McMenamin.—Was the technical objection only raised on appeal? Was that the reason why you succeeded there?—It was raised in the very beginning.

450. Deputy Cole.—Would it not be very unfair for a State Department to deprive an individual of a verdict given to him by a jury?

Chairman.—I do not know whether we should discuss it now, but it seems to me that if there are laws laid down that the public cannot take action against the Post Office unless they start within six months of the date of the accident the Post Office is entitled to assert its legal rights. If Dáil Eireann does not want them to have those rights, then Dáil Eireann should repeal the relevant statute which gives them the right, but it does appear to me that it would have been better for the Department to make up its mind before it started to appeal what it was going to do, and give the money to the injured party rather than to the lawyers. In the result did the Department save anything?

Deputy McMenamin.—Of course in that respect you would not actually know all the facts of the case until it came into court.

Mr. O’Hegarty.—The Department made an ex gratia payment of £100 and paid £280 costs.

451. Chairman.—Did that include your own costs?—Those are the defendant’s costs.

452. That was £380 and then you had to pay your own costs?—We would have to pay our own costs anyway.

453. What was the first claim the plaintiff made? What did he want after the accident?

Deputy McMenamin.—Was it to the Circuit Court, Mr. O’Hegarty, or the High Court?—It went finally to the Supreme Court.

454. I know, but where did it begin?— Of course it began where all these cases begin—in the Circuit Court.

455. That would be £300 at the most?— It was in all three courts, Circuit Court, High Court and Supreme Court.

456. Chairman.—I gather that the total sum charged in respect of costs is £388 2s. 10d. Did you then, in addition to that, pay £254, defendant’s costs, or does the £388 include the £254?—The £254 apparently is our own costs.

457. Chairman.—And are in addition to the £388?

Deputy McMenamin.—That is not right. The plaintiff’s costs are £254.

Chairman.—I think Mr. O’Hegarty has his papers before him. He will tell us.

(To Mr. O’Hegarty).—I think it is clear that the £383 2s. 10d. includes the £254? —I do not know. Mr. McGrath will be able to tell you. He wrote the note.

Mr. McGrath.—The £388 2s. 10d. is the total amount of the costs paid by the defendants, that is the State, and we are entitled under the verdict of the court to recover from the plaintiff £254 as he had lost the case. That is the plain way of putting it. £388 was the total amount of the costs, out of which we are entitled to recover from the man who lost the action the sum of £254. We have foregone that right and have written off our right to recover from the plaintiff.

458. Chairman.—If the Department had paid to the plaintiff the sum awarded by the court in the first instance and foregone the appeal, they would have saved money?

Mr. McGrath.—I think if I were to answer that as I would like to answer, I would be interfering with the Department’s right of administration. I mean, the Department of Finance and the Post Office Department fought this case from the beginning because they thought they were entitled to defend themselves against the accusation.

459. Chairman.—I quite understand that; but perhaps somebody from the Department of Finance will tell us whether, if the damages had been paid to the plaintiff after the verdict of the court in the first instance, that would have been cheaper than going to the Supreme Court and ultimately giving this man £100 by way of ex gratia payment in addition to paying the costs of the action.

Mr. Shanagher.—No, Sir. The damages were £450 and we would have had to pay the costs in addition. The damages plus the costs would have reached a sum greater than the amount actually paid.

460. Deputy Walsh.—This raises an interesting point. What is the position of vehicles belonging to Government departments in their liability to the public, because I have experience of one case—I would rather not mention names —where a departmental vehicle ran down a little boy. The child was injured for life and, as far as my knowledge goes, the father never got anything.

Chairman.—I think I am right in saying, Mr. O’Hegarty, that under recent statute any citizen has a right of action against a Government department now.

Mr. McGrath.—I think the Minister is not legally liable.

Mr. O’Hegarty.—In this particular case the Minister was not legally liable. The action was against the postman driver.

461. Chairman.—Is it not so that under recent statute a right has been given to every citizen to sue Government departments?

Mr. O’Hegarty.—I think the right always existed subject to the Attorney-General’s consent. I do not know whether that condition of consent has been taken away or not.

462. Chairman.—Perhaps somebody from the Department of Finance might tell us?

Mr. Shanagher.—The Minister for Finance may be sued now in such cases under the Road Traffic Act. That provision in the Road Traffic Act gives for the first time a right to sue the Minister; and the Minister for Finance is the Minister that is sued in all cases.

Mr. O’Hegarty.—That applies to one particular class.

Mr. Shanagher.—It applies to accident cases—traffic accident arising out of the performance of a man’s duty, driving of cars on duty.

463. Chairman.—Does that answer your question, Deputy Walsh?

Deputy Walsh.—It does.

464. Deputy Cole.—Are these motor drivers not insured?

Chairman.—Are your motor drivers insured, Mr. O’Hegarty?—No.

I take it that the Government prefers to conduct their own insurance in these matters, Deputy Cole. In view of the fact that the Department of Finance saved money on the transaction I think we may pass on to to the next matter.

465. Chairman.—Paragraph 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report deals with compensation for destruction of premises at 29 Henry Street, Dublin, in 1916. It says:—

“During the financial year, 1933-34 a supplementary estimate was passed providing a sum of £1,000 for an ex gratia payment to a former tenant of premises acquired in connection with an extension of the site for the new General Post Office. The payment was authorised subject to the former tenant effecting a satisfactory arrangement with mortgagees of her interest in the premises. As this condition was not complied with, only £250 was paid and charged to vote in 1933-34. In the year under review it was decided with Department of Finance sanction to pay to the mortgagees the amounts due to them, £560 9s. 7d., and also certain legal costs amounting to £34 8s. 0d., and to charge the payments to a special sub-head to be opened in this account.”

How could the mortgagees acquire title to an ex gratia payment?

Mr. McGrath.—I think I should read out a statement of this case, which goes back to 1916. Mrs. —— was the tenant in possession of 29 Henry Street when the premises were burnt, at Easter, 1916. She commenced rebuilding operations and received an ex gratia grant of £1,100 under the Dublin Reconstruction Act, 1916. In 1918 the Post Office acquired the landlord’s interest in the premises. In 1922 it was learned that Mrs. —— had mortgaged the premises for loans raised, had failed to pay the interest, and that the mortgagees were about to apply to the court for an order for possession of the premises. The Post Office then stepped in and got a decree for possession on account of arrears of rent; and a formal transfer to the Post Office was made on 23rd April, 1923, when the rent due by Mrs. —— amounted to £729 13s. 5d. In 1934 the Executive Council decided to treat the case sympathetically in view of the hardship Mrs. —— had suffered by the destruction of the premises, and arranged to make an ex gratia grant of £1,000 to Mrs. ——, subject to a satisfactory arrangement between her and the mortgagees. To enable this to be done a Supplementary Estimate was presented to the Dáil. The Supplementary Estimate was passed, and out of the £1,000 thereby authorised £250 was paid over to Finance as a repayment to the Contingency Fund which had advanced that amount. Mrs. —— refused to comply with the conditions of the grant, and the remaining £750 was surrendered. In 1936 Finance instructed the Post Office to pay the mortgagees the amounts due to them— £560 9s. 7d.—and to charge the payments to a special sub-head; also £34 8s. to the solicitor who had acted for Mrs. ——. A warrant for the balance—£155 2s. 5d.— was issued to Mrs. —— in full and final settlement, but she refused to accept it.

466. Chairman.—How was such a payment properly made out of the Contingency Fund?

Mr. McGrath.—The Contingency Fund is used, as you know, for sudden contingencies, emergencies. It is used as the medium of payment and the amount taken out of it is refunded when the Dáil votes the amount.

467. Chairman.—The Dáil voted the amount of £1,000 in consideration of Mrs. —— carrying out certain conditions?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

468. Chairman.—She refused to carry out the conditions and she negatived the ex-gratia payment. Mrs. —— had already received part of the ex-gratia payment out of the Contingency Fund—is not that so?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

469. Chairman.—Although she refused to carry out the terms prescribed by letter? Have you any observations to make on that, Mr. O’Hegarty?—No. The Post Office was carrying out a decision of the Executive Council on the instruction of the Department of Finance.

470. Chairman.—Perhaps the Department of Finance could indicate what justified them in their attitude when the conditions were not actually complied with?

Mr. Redmond.—The lady in question had agreed to comply with the conditions before the payments on account were made.

471. Chairman.—Were steps taken to recover the money from her?

Mr. Redmond.—No.

472. Chairman.—Why were not steps taken?

Mr. Redmond.—It was assumed she would eventually comply with her undertaking to make an arrangement with her mortgagees.

473. Chairman.—She never did?

Mr. Redmond.—She never did.

474. Chairman.—Then the ex-gratia grant advanced by Dáil Eireann to this distressed lady eventually went to the benefit of her mortgagees, money lenders. I very much doubt that if the Government came into the Dáil and said they wanted £750 in order to pay moneylenders, that Dáil Eireann would provide the money. Is the Department of Finance now satisfied that the purpose of the Supplementary Estimate was effectively fulfilled?

Mr. Redmond.—Yes, except to the extent that the lady in question has declined to accept the balance remaining over, when you take account of the £250, plus the amount paid to the mortgagees, and the costs; and the offer has been withdrawn.

475. Deputy Cole.—Was any effort made to recover the money when she did not fulfil her obligations?

Mr. Redmond.—No attempt was made. It was considered it would be useless.

Deputy Walsh.—The same as trying to knock blood out of a turnip.

476. Deputy Smith.—Are the negotiations still going on with this lady?

Mr. O’Hegarty.—No.

477. Chairman.—Are we to assume, Mr. O’Hegarty, that the matter is closed?— The matter is now closed.

Chairman.—Very well, gentlemen, I do not suppose we can do very much more about it as the matter has been finally disposed of. Sometimes these matters go on for years.

478. Mr. Shanagher.—With regard to the previous paragraph, Mr. Chairman, you asked me if we were satisfied that there was a saving by the step taken as compared with the payment of the damages. I find that your question was based on incomplete knowledge of the facts, because the jury awarded damages of £450 in the High Court, but the Judge, on a plea of the claim being statute-barred under the Public Authorities Protection Act, entered judgment for the defendant with costs. There was no judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

479. Chairman.—Did the matter go then to a higher court?

Mr. Shanagher.—The matter went to the Supreme Court on appeal by the plaintiff.

480. Deputy Cole.—In any case, the plaintiff only claimed something less than £300 at the beginning.

Mr. Shanagher.—He claimed over £500 in the High Court. The claim was never in the Circuit Court.

481. Deputy Cole.—But in the beginning it went to the Circuit Court?

Mr. Shanagher.—I think Mr. O’Hegarty made that statement under a misapprehension. The claim was for over £500 and proceedings were taken in the High Court in the first instance.

482. Chairman.—The case went to the Supreme Court at the instance of the plaintiff and not the defendant. Therefore the Post Office were not in the position to avoid going to the Supreme Court. I think that is quite clear.

483. Paragraph 78 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

A test examination of the store accounts was carried out with satisfactory results.

In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix II as valued at £96,933 on 31st March, 1937, engineering stores to the value of £1,068 were held on behalf of other Government Departments. Stores other than engineering stores held at that date were valued at £58,508; included in this amount being a sum of £19,328 in respect of stores held for other Government Departments.

Mr. McGrath.—That is purely for the information of the Committee.

484. Paragraph 79 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

A test examination of the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services was carried out with satisfactory results.

With the authority of the Department of Finance, sums amounting to £5,971 1s. 4d. due in respect of telephone rentals and fees and apparatus destroyed were written off during the year. Of the total, £5,824 related to rentals and fees due in respect of telephone exchange lines and private wires provided for light houses during the period 1st April, 1923, to 31st March, 1936.

In addition, various sums due for telephone services, amounting in the aggregate to £204 14s. 0d., were written off during the year as irrecoverable under the authority of the Secretary.

Chairman.—Against whom was the claim made for the rentals and fees due for the exchange lines and private wires provided for lighthouses?—The Department of Finance could not make up its mind against whom the claim should properly be made and they decided eventually that it was to be shared between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Commissioners for Irish Lights; and payment was to date from 1st April, 1935, in the case of the Irish Lights and from 1936 in the case of Industry and Commerce and the arrears were written off. Those are really book entries. No money would have passed in any case; it would be simply services rendered.

485. Paragraph 80 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December, 1936, were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results.

486. Paragraph 81 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

The accounts of the Post Office Factory for the year ended 31st March, 1937, have only recently been furnished to me and my audit of these accounts has not yet been completed. A copy of a report arising from a Departmental examination of the factory accounts has also been submitted to me. The examination disclosed certain irregularities which are still under inquiry.

The accounts show that expenditure on manufacturing jobs, including work in progress on 31st March, 1937, amounted to £9,448; expenditure on repair works (other than repairs to mechanical transport, amounted to £15,918, and expenditure on mechanical transport amounted to £2,149.

Chairman.—Have you any observation to make, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—In going through the Post Office files we noticed a certain criticism by an officer of the Post Office on the manner in which the Factory costing account was kept. It caused us a little bit of concern when we read the comments of this Post Office officer, with the result that the Audit Office had an independent investigation, and while they were satisfied that the matters under notice were not of grave consequence, they were concerned to observe the numerous instances of erasures and obliterations in the Time Cards, and were glad to note that steps had been taken to terminate this very undesirable practice. The Factory accounts will be kept in future under special observation. I wish to say that the report that we saw on the files exaggerated the slight irregularities that we noticed. The officer concerned drew attention to erasures and alterations in the workmen’s Time Cards. At first it was difficult to believe that the operatives could have made so many incorrect bookings of their time, but when it was shown that several jobs of a similar nature were being done concurrently it became easier to understand how mistakes could be made. Owing to the time which had elapsed it was impossible to prove that the alterations to the Time Cards had been made for the purpose of correcting errors. Taken altogether the alterations would have little effect on the general balance statement, though they may have had the effect of showing up particular jobs in an unduly favourable light. As regards these erasures and alterations in the workmen’s Time Cards, we believe that these changes were not as bad as they looked to this particular officer. The workmen make up entries on the cards. They are engaged on three or four different jobs in the day and it is easy to imagine how a man could make a mistake and go to the wrong card. However, we are keeping the matter under observation and we intend within the next accounting period to keep it under special notice. There was a further comment by this officer about tenders being accepted from factories after outside tenders had been opened. Four cases came under the notice of the Audit Office. It was stated that the late Controller of Stores had given the contracts to the Factory with the object of keeping the work in this country. The point was made that the Factory had been treated no better than any other Irish manufacturer would have been. As shown by details which follow, the total money involved was small, and the late Controller might reasonably believe that he was acting within the scope of the discretion vested in him as a contracts officer. Nevertheless, there is much to be said why such powers should be sparingly employed.

In the four cases that came under our notice we found the following were the facts:—In the first case the amount of the factory tender was £14 10s. 0d. The tender was dated 7th December, 1936. The lowest outside tender received against that was £16 10s. 0d. and the date of that tender was the 8th October, 1936. The point is that the factory tender was received two months after the outside tender. In the second case the factory tender was for £9 7s. 6d. as against the outside tender of £10 1s. 5d. The outside tender was received on the 11th November, 1935, and the factory tender on the following February. In the third case the factory tender was £45 4s. 0d. That was received on the 28th February, 1936. The outside tender was received twenty-five days earlier and the amount of the outside tender was £53 0s. 8d. In the fourth case the factory tender amounted to £140 12s. 6d. as against an outside tender of £143 15s. 0d. The outside tender was received five days earlier than the factory tender. The point at issue is whether the factory tender should be opened subsequent to the outside tender. What I feel about it is that the whole thing shows that they had the interest of the factory at heart and they gave the benefit of the doubt to the factory on a few occasions. I do not think, on the whole, that there is a lot to be worried about. Another contention was that the factory tendered for certain jobs and that the actual cost of the job turned out to be greater than the tender. In the first case that I gave, the amount of the tender was £14 10s. 0d. and the actual cost of the work was £24 13s. 10d. In the second case the factory tender was £9 7s. 6d. and the actual cost of the job was £15 6s. 1d. In the third case the factory tender was for £45 4s. 0d.; the actual cost of the job was £40 19s. 9d. In the fourth case the factory tender was £140 12s. 6d. and the actual cost of the job was £142 6s. 0d. So that, on the whole, I think the tenders and the actual cost of the work worked out at about the same. There were some discrepancies between the figures in the tender and the actual cost of some small jobs, but, on the whole, for the entire year, the factory has worked out more or less on the basis of the tenders.

487. Chairman.—There are two matters to which attention has been called. One is the erasures on the time sheets and the other is the matter of tenders. When you referred to erasures did you mean that the original figures were rubbed out or obliterated, or that a stroke was drawn through them?

Mr. McGrath.—Well, no; I did not actually see the changes made myself. My officer informed me that there were changes made by the workmen who do not understand figures. The workman did not actually do as a clerical officer would have done; he did the best he could to rub it out with his fingers.

488. Chairman.—Perhaps you would have some observations to offer on that matter, Mr. O’Hegarty?

Mr. O’Hegarty.—It arises through the difficulty of apportioning time. When a man is engaged on several jobs he may have a few minutes on one job and then go on to another. The erasures were, in all cases, obliterated or erased instead of the pen being struck through the figures. It is probable that there was a certain amount of manipulation in the sense that the workman would be trying to keep the cost within the estimate.

489. I think you would agree that the workman should be instructed with regard to any alteration to be made in the time sheets—that there should be a stroke drawn through the wrong figure and the right figure inserted above it?— Those instructions have been issued now.

490. Deputy Smith.—What is the purpose of the Department tendering two months after the outside tender has been received?—That was a misinterpretation by the Controller of his powers. I do not think it should have been done and it will not be done in future.

They could have juggled about with a tender; and if they found that they had tendered for the job at £10 and that the job was then going to exceed £10, or if they tendered for another job at £50 and found that it could be done at £40—if they were free to do that sort of thing it seems extraordinary; it is extraordinary that they should wait so long to put in their tender after the outside tender had been received. One would have thought they were waiting so as to see what the actual job was going to cost them?—Oh, no, I do not think so.

491. Chairman.—The procedure now approved of is that the tenders of the Post Office factory and the tenders of the outside factories are put in simultaneously?—Yes.

492. Deputy Smith.—Is there a tender in connection with Central Purchasing— what is the relation between the Post Office and the Central Purchasing Committee?

Mr. O’Hegarty.—The Post Office Stores buys its general stationery, bicycles, clothing and things like that through the General Purchasing Committee.

Chairman.—I think in the light of the fact that you have issued certain instructions it would be right to say that this officer who directed the attention of the Controller and yourself to the irregularities he observed, has been vindicated.

493. We come now to the various subheads. With regard to Sub-head BB, I gather that you were unable to arrive at any satisfactory arrangement at the International Conferences in the matter of wave-lengths?—Well, the question of new allocation of wave-lengths is still on the tapis. There are various questions to be worked out before the International Conventions, at which the Post Office will be represented.

494. Deputy Walsh.—With regard to Sub-head B, Travelling Expenses, what exactly is this £8,737 13s. 10d. for travelling expenses?—Well, the Post Office maintains a staff which is continually travelling, visiting post offices all over the country. The head postmasters have also to travel around their areas.

495. Deputy McMenamin.—With regard to this item Subhead C.—Furniture, or Office Fittings—is this all new?—No, it would be renewals, etc.

496. Deputy Childers.—In connection with this Sub-head, I notice that the excess was mainly due to the increased consumption and cost of turf for heating. What type of turf is used or could you tell us whether there is a choice between one class of turf and another? Can they purchase coal?—No, we cannot purchase coal. The turf is supplied to us by the Board of Works.

497. Chairman.—Then you are precluded from buying turf locally for the Post Office use?—Yes.

498. Does that really mean that turf is shipped down, say, to a place like Frenchpark, which is in the middle of a bog district—No, in the provinces they make their own arrangments for fuel. I was thinking more of the headquarters office.

499. Deputy Childers.—With reference to Sub-head E.1, Conveyance of Mails by Rail, is it possible for you to make any comparison as to the rate paid by the Post Office here for the conveyance of mails by rail—is the contract made annually and how does it compare with railway charges in other countries? Could we have some information as to the basis on which the payments are made?

500. Chairman.—Have you any basis of comparison as to the relative cost in this country and in Great Britain?—I think with regard to Great Britain the cost is about the same as here. The payment to the railway companies here is at about the same rate as in England. These contracts go on for a number of years. There are specific terms with the railway companies.

501. Now, with regard to Sub-head E.2, Conveyance of Mails by Road, how is that matter arranged?—These are partly carried by our own vehicles but the work mostly is done by contract.

502. In Sub-head E.3, Packet Services at Home, what is this for?—That would be for services for the conveyance of mails to the islands.

503. Deputy Childers.—Is there in existence in the Post Office any organisation for doing what might be described as a scientific analysis of the cost of dispatching mails—I have read in a magazine of savings that have been effected in places where there has been a scientific examination made of the matter of the cost of transport and so forth. Is there a special Department for that purpose rationalising the mails delivery, or does the Post Office proceed on a basis in which no attempt at economy is made?— Well, a section of the headquarters office deals with that particular question. That matter is constantly under review and attention must be given to it.

504. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head E.5—Conveyance of Mails by Air (Foreign and Colonial)—I understand that in Great Britain one can now send a letter by air mail to any part of the Commonwealth of Nations for 1½d. Have we any reciprocal agreement with the other Dominions for similar facilities?— We have; we get in on that same service.

I was recently in Australia and a friend who wrote to me from Ireland had to put 1/3 on the letter and a friend in England who wrote to me sent the letter for 1½d?—Surely that is some time ago.

505. About two months ago. He need not have put 1/3 on the letter at all?— I should like to look into it. I have an impression that he need not have.

506. Can we send a letter to Australia for 2d. by air mail?—I should rather look it up.

507. Perhaps you could send us a note on that point. If I send a letter by air mail to Berlin, does the letter go by aeroplane from Dublin to Croydon, and thence to Berlin, or does the air conveyance start at Croydon?—It starts at Croydon.

508. Our mail does not go by air from here to London?—No.

509. Is it intended that our mails should in future be despatched by aeroplane from here?—It is practically certain that they will eventually. That question is being examined at the moment.

510. Deputy Cole.—What do you mean when you say “eventually”?

Chairman.—I think we must not press Mr. O’Hegarty. That is a matter of policy for the Minister. With regard to Sub-head F.—Railway Companies, etc. for Services in Connection with Telegrams —what services does the railway company render in connection with telegraphs?—They accept public telegrams at certain railway stations and transmit them.

Deputy Walsh.—Places like Athlone and Mullingar, for instance.

Deputy Childers.—With regard to Sub-head G.2—Uniform Clothing—I am of the opinion that the condition of the clothing of postmen in this country is inferior to that of any country in Western Europe, with the exception possibly of France. It is grossly inferior to that of Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and England. Is any attempt made to economise on that Vote by insisting that clothing should be properly cleaned, maintained and repaired and is any effort made by the Post Office to bring up the standard of the clothing and general appearance to the level obtaining in other countries in Europe? —I do not quite see what the Post Office could do in regard to that. We cannot exercise control over postmen outside their hours of duty. We cannot put them under military discipline, but I do not think the clothing here is materially worse than in other countries.

511. You mean that the actual clothing is not inferior?—I do not think it is kept materially worse.

Deputy Childers.—I beg to disagree with Mr. O’Hegarty.

512. Deputy Walsh.—You say that you cannot put them under military discipline. Would it not be true to say that if a postman turned up to start his delivery in the morning with his uniform dirty, he would be liable to be censured for doing so?—I do not think they do, as a general rule, turn up for duty in a dirty condition. It is part of the regulation that they should turn up clean and I think most of them do so. If a man does not, he will be spoken to.

513. Chairman.—Are you of opinion that all the postmen of this country turn up as neatly attired as you would wish them to be?—I think you can carry this question of people being neat a little too far. Especially in a country like this which is a purely individualistic country, you cannot carry it very far. The main thing we want is that every postman should do his duty properly and deliver letters promptly.

514. Deputy McMenamin.—It is very difficult for postmen, who have to walk four miles through a bog in wet weather, to keep that heavy clothing in order. I know of cases in my own constituency where it is impossible. The material is thick and heavy and it retains all the water.

515. Deputy Smith.—And most of these postmen would be in receipt of less than £1 a week.

Chairman.—Mr. O’Hegarty is of opinion that they are neat enough and if any appeal is to be taken from that view, the matter must be raised with the Minister in Dáil Eireann.

Deputy Smith.—They are very good value for the money, I think.

516. Chairman.—With regard to Sub-head L.1—Maintenance by Railway Companies, etc.—what does that mean?— Post Office lines running along railways.

517. The railways do that for the Post Office?—Yes.

518. With regard to Sub-head L.2— Wayleaves—does that refer to points at which your wires cross a private individual’s premises or where you have a pole on a private individual’s premises?— Where we have a pole on private premises.

519. Do you pay an annual rent for that?—Yes, if the lessor insists on it.

520. I am sorry I did not know that when you were putting a pole on my premises?—I should not have told you.

521. Deputy Cole.—What is the payment?—The lowest we can make. As a general rule, it is a nominal payment of 1/- a year.

522. Chairman.—I am afraid, Mr. O’Hegarty, you are now heel-tapping?— No; I always say the truth.

523. Deputy Walsh.—With regard to Sub-head L.4, what does the item “rates on wires” mean?—We pay rates on wires to local councils as a sort of property.

524. Chairman.—Do you pay rates on the wires to all local authorities through whose jurisdiction they pass or only to some?—It is mainly in the case of wires which were paying rates under the National Telephone Company and are still paying rates under the Post Office.

525. It is a survival from older times? —From the time when the telephone business was private property.

526. With regard to Sub-head N.3— Agency Payments in Respect of Compensation Allowances—I take it that that is a token sub-head?—Yes.

527. Sub-head P refers to deficiencies due to the withholding by the British Government of sums in connection with claims for superannuation payments and telephone annuities disputed by this Government. Has that matter been disposed of in the recent Financial Agreement with Great Britain?—It has.

528. And that sub-head will in due course disappear from the accounts?—It will.

529. With regard to Sub-head Q.3— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—in respect of civil aviation and meteorological wireless services, are there any Appropriations-in-Aid derived from these services?— The whole of this section is an Appropriation-in-Aid. It is actually charged to Industry and Commerce for services rendered. We carry out these services for that Department.

530. And the appropriation goes to them?—We charge them for services rendered.

531. And you get then an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Department?—Yes.

532. Representing the entire of these amounts?—Yes.

533. With regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid—Receipts from Widows’ and Orphans’ Fund for Administrative Expenses—is that in connection with sending out cheques to the widows and orphans?—Yes. It is the general work we do in connection with that scheme.

534. What is the exact significance of the Appropriation-in-Aid in respect of receipts from British administration for the staffing of wireless stations?—It refers to the staffing of wireless stations at Valentia and Malin Head which this administration staffs and controls, and which are nominally the property of the British administration.

535. Deputy McMenamin.—Have you complete control of these staffs?—Yes.

536. Though they pay them?—Yes.

537. Chairman.—I am afraid we shall have to have a ceremony at Valentia before we finish the job we started at Spike Island.

538. Deputy O Briain.—Did you say that the staffs were under the control of this Government?—Yes.

Deputy O Briain.—Then there is no necessity for any ceremony.

Chairman.—I see. Even though the British pay them.

539. Deputy Walsh.—How does the item “Void Money Orders” in respect or Appropriations-in-Aid arise?—It refers to orders which have not been claimed after three years and which are just wiped out.

540. Deputy Cole.—Can they run over three years?—Yes.

541. You pay a postal order up to three years?—Yes—That is, subject to satisfaction as regards the postal order.

542. I thought it was six months, was it not?—That is a regulation, but we are not strictly bound to it if we have a proper case to consider.

Chairman.—If there are no other questions, gentlemen, we shall now pass on to Vote 64.

VOTE 64—WIRELESS BROADCASTING.

Mr. P. S. O’Hegarty further examined.

543. Chairman.—On this Vote there is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, so we can pass on to the subheads.

544. Deputy Childers.—In connection with Sub-head A.—Salaries, Wages, Allowances, etc.—are we allowed, Mr. Chairman, to ask for the individual items of salary?

Chairman.—Yes.

Deputy Childers.—For instance, Mr. Chairman, can we ask for information about the salaries paid to the Announcer and Assistant-Announcer?

545. Mr. O’Hegarty.—That information will be found in the book of Estimates. I have not got the figures in my head.

Chairman.—The information with regard to salaries, wages and so on will be found on page 302 of the book of Estimates for the year 1936-7. I see that it is £400 for the Assistant Station Director. However, I am sure, Deputy Childers, that you will find the information you require on page 302 of the book of Estimates for 1936-1937.

546. Deputy Childers.—Yes, Mr. Chairman. Now, in connection with items A and B, having had something to do with the Broadcasting Service, I was struck by the fact that a great deal of the examination of moneys to be spent on the programmes is done, through the Ministry of Finance, by persons technically unacquainted with the matter.

Chairman.—I think, Deputy, that that matter would be more properly raised on the Estimate itself in the Dáil than with the Secretary here. That is a matter of policy, I should say, and matters of policy must be dealt with through the Minister.

Mr. O’Hegarty.—In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I may say that there is a loosening up in finance, and the financial powers entrusted to the Post Office in regard to broadcasting are being widened.

547. Deputy Childers.—At present?— Yes.

548. Deputy Walsh.—Is there a set fee, Mr. O’Hegarty, for people who do broadcasting, such as singers, and so on?— There is no set fee, but there is a maximum amount fixed.

549. Chairman.—What is the fee, Mr. O’Hegarty?—It varies in different cases. I think the maximum for an individual is about six guineas, but, of course, the fee paid depends altogether on what the person concerned is thought to be worth.

550. Deputy Cole.—Who decides that? The Director of Broadcasting.

551. Deputy Walsh.—If persons are brought up from the country—say, from my own county, Mayo, or from Donegal to Cork—do they get their travelling expenses?—They get an inclusive fee, which includes provision for travelling expenses.

Chairman.—Sufficient to pay for their return ticket, I presume.

552. Deputy Walsh.—Do they get maintenance allowance, Mr. O’Hegarty? —I do not think they get maintenance allowance; they get an inclusive fee which is supposed to cover their expenses and a little over.

553. In other words, they only get their railway fare?—Oh, they get a little more than that. I cannot see anybody coming up from Cork, let us say, merely for the railway fare.

554. There is a fee for their actual performance?—Yes, they get a fee for their performance, apart from such allowance, but in such a case there is an inclusive fee.

555. Outside of that, however, they only get their railway fare—am I right there?—I could not really say if they only get the fare.

556. Chairman.—In fact, may I say that what happens is that, if a person is coming from Gweedore, he gets his fee, whatever that fee may be; he gets no other allowance at all, and if his fee is sufficient to pay his railway fare and expenses, that is fine, so far as he is concerned, but if it is not sufficient, well, it is just too bad.

Mr. O’Hegarty.—That is not quite accurate. A person coming from Gweedore, let us say, would get an inclusive fee, and that would be a higher fee than he would get if he were merely walking in from Dublin to the station or studio. Allowance is made for the fact that he is travelling.

557. Chairman.—Quite. Now, Mr. O’Hegarty, with regard to Sub-head F.— Plant, Equipment, and so on—are your experts satisfied that the plant and equipment we have in our station is as good as it could be, or are we embarrassed for the wants of funds?—We think the plant is quite good.

558. But could it be improved?—Well, of course, you could strengthen it, increase the power and so on, and things of that sort.

559. But the present power is as good as money can make it?—On the basis of its present organisation, I think it is as good it could be.

560. No equipment is lacking for want of money to buy it?—No.

561. Deputy Childers.—As I am a newcomer here, Mr. Chairman, I should like to know what procedure is adopted if a member of the Committee disagrees on such a matter as the question of equipment.

Chairman.—The Deputy is quite free to ask Mr. O’Hegarty any question he wants.

Deputy Childers.—Well, personally, as a listener, I could not possibly agree with Mr. O’Hegarty when he says that the equipment is as good as it could be.

Mr. O’Hegarty.—I said, on its present basis of organisation.

Deputy Childers.—Does Mr. O’Hegarty imply, Mr. Chairman, that this discussion is taking place in connection with the reorganisation of the service and that it will further improve equipment?

Mr. O’Hegarty.—No. I say that you will have to spend a lot more money if you want to have a bigger station, but there is no necessity, from the point of view of the circumstances here, for having a bigger station. Nobody can expect the same kind of thing here as you have in Great Britain, with its revenue of about £12,000,000. It would be absurd to expect it, and we should not be expected to do it. I think that the service is reasonably satisfactory, subject to certain blind spots which are inevitable and intelligible in the circumstances.

562. Deputy Walsh.—Is there not something in the way of a short-wave station contemplated?—Yes, an experimental short-wave station is in process of being erected.

Chairman.—Since there are no other questions in connection with this Vote, we shall now proceed to dispose of Vote 51. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. O’Hegarty.

VOTE 51—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Dr. G. J. Furlong called and examined.

563. Chairman.—As there is no note from the Comptroller and Auditor-General in connection with this Vote, we can proceed to the sub-heads. Now, Dr. Furlong, with regard to Sub-head B— Purchase of Pictures—have we, as a matter of interest, any work by Van Gogh in the Gallery?

Dr. Furlong.—No, we have not.

Chairman.—Since there are no other questions, we shall not trouble you any further, Dr. Furlong, and we are very much obliged to you.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix VII.