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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 12adh Bealtaine, 1938.

Thursday, 12th May, 1938.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair.

Mr. J. Maher (representing the Comptroller and Auditor-General), and Mr. T. S. C. Dagg (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

1. Chairman.—There is no need for any preliminary observations, as we are all experienced members of the Committee, and so we can get to work. I think we should begin by expressing our appreciation to the gentlemen who have accommodated us. We have asked them to accommodate us, and they have done so.

VOTE 10—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. J. Connolly called and examined.

2. Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Sub-head A: there seems to be a very substantial sum less expended than was granted, Mr. Connolly. I see the note is that it was due to vacancies unfilled in the establishment, and to less expenditure on fees to land valuers, etc., than had been anticipated?—There was a saving of £6,690 17s. 11d. due to vacancies unfilled in the establishment, and to less expenditure on fees to land valuers, etc., than had been anticipated. Unfilled vacancies and staff variations accounted for £5,800, and unexpended fees for land valuers, etc., for £830. The Cost of Living bonus was paid throughout the year in accordance with the estimate, viz., 60 for three-quarters and 65 for one quarter of the year. We have, of course, additional positions created; I mean it is a very variable thing. We apply for the staff, and it takes a certain amount of time to get it sanctioned.

3. Deputy Brasier.—Why is it that you have not filled the vacancies in view of the statement with regard to drainage schemes, etc.?—The difficulty is sometimes one of getting the right technical men—engineers and others. There is a very big demand for competent technical officers, owing to the various activities that are going on throughout the country.

4. Has this shortage of staff extended over a long period?—It has.

5. Chairman.—However, these vacancies will be filled as soon as you can get it done, and you are only too anxious to see them filled at the right rates?—We have no difficulty in making the ordinary Civil Service appointments which come from the Civil Service Commissioners.

6. Deputy Corry.—What steps were taken to provide men with experience for work under the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Act?

Chairman.—How does that come within Mr. Connolly’s authority, Deputy?

7. Sub-head B. This sub-head is intended to cover travelling expenses?— This sub-head is intended to cover the travelling expenses of all officers whose salary is borne on Vote 10.

The Estimate and the expenditure were divided as follows:—

A total of £9,437 was expended out of £10,250 estimated. In this matter you get as close to the expenditure in your Estimate as you can, but it is not always possible exactly to say how the expenses will work out.

8. Deputy Brasier.—Why is there such a big difference between the Estimate and receipts for Appropriations-in-Aid?

Chairman.—You will find the full details on page 23. The amount recovered as administrative expenses in connection with employment schemes takes in the bulk of the excess receipts.

Mr. Connolly.—These receipts are based on the actual expenditure borne on this Vote as administrative expenses in connection with schemes for the provision of employment and the relief of distress.

9. Chairman.—You see the Act concerned with sub-head F, paragraph 5, was not anticipated.

Mr. Connolly.—The Act was only introduced, I think, during the year after the Estimates had-been made.

10. So that you laid out money that you did not expect to lay out and got it back again as an Appropriation-in-Aid?— Quite.

VOTE 11—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. J. Connolly further examined.

11. Chairman.—On this Vote there are notes by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

The first note is Number 7:—

“The Legation premises in Madrid were vacated in August, 1936, and have not since been re-occupied. These premises are held under lease terminable at one month’s notice, at a monthly rent of 2,083.35 pesetas, which has been paid through a bank in Madrid since the premises were vacated. The necessary funds are transferred to the bank from time to time by the Department of External Affairs. The amount paid in the year in respect of the period subsequent to date of vacation was £299 6s. 0d. In addition, the sum of £69 6s. 1d. is charged to this sub-head for cost of alternative accommodation taken at St. Jean de Luz.

“The sum of £469 14s. 9d. was expended during 1935-36 and 1936-37 in providing office and household equipment at Madrid. In reply to an inquiry, I am informed that the Department of External Affairs has been requested to furnish information regarding the position of State property in the Madrid Legation.”

Now, I understand, Mr. Connolly, that this is a nugatory payment. We have paid money here and have received no service. The premises are closed, and not, in fact, being used?—That would really be a matter for the Department of External Affairs, but I believe that is the position. Their intention, apparently, was to keep on these premises.

Our note on that after making inquiry is: “The expenditure borne on the Public Works and Buildings Vote for the rent of these premises represents a refund made by the Commissioners by direction of the Minister for Finance to the Department of External Affairs in respect of rents paid by that Department. From inquiries which we have made, it appears that the Minister for Finance has authorised— through the Department of External Affairs—the payment of rents by the Banco Hispano Americano, Madrid, unless the bank has reason to believe that the premises have been destroyed or seriously damaged. For these payments the bank is put in funds by the Department of External Affairs, to whom the Commissioners refund the outlay. The Department of External Affairs receives and retains the documents vouching the payments. We were informed on the 25th February last, by the Department of External Affairs, that they had no information regarding the current position of the Legation premises in Madrid.”

Our function is the refunding of that rent.

12. Deputy Corry.—Is there any evidence that these premises are still in existence, physically in existence?— I think that that would be better answered by saying that there is no evidence of that, but that they possibly believe that they would have evidence if the premises were not in existence. There are properties of the Department there within these premises.

13. Chairman.—We have no representative in Madrid.

Deputy Linehan.—If we have nobody in Madrid, how is it that money was spent in 1936-7 when apparently they only occupied the premises for three months of the financial year?

14. Chairman.—Mr. Connolly is required to do certain things under the direction of other Departments. All he can answer is whether he has carried out these instructions. I think we should look into this general question when the Vote for the Department of External Affairs is discussed but I doubt if Mr. Connolly can answer questions on the matter.

15. Mr. Connolly.—That is the position. As a matter of fact, in this particular case we tried to satisfy ourselves as fully as possible. I do not know whether I am strictly in order in giving the reasons I have got from the Department of External Affairs but the reply that we got from the Department of External Affairs was that the reasons were:

“(1) The uncertainty of the period of the war.

(2) The fact that State-owned property, as well as the personal property of the Minister Plenipotentiary, was stored therein.

(3) The Irish flag floated over the building, thus securing better protection of the property stored therein.

(4) The cost of the removal of all the property to a store and the cost of storage would be considerable without any corresponding benefit as regards safe keeping.

(5) On the cessation of hostilities, the Minister Plenipotentiary could return to the Legation premises without having to seek fresh accommodation in a city where conditions would not be normal.”

For what it is worth I give you these reasons, and I think on the whole they are satisfactory reasons. However, it is a matter for the Department of External Affairs.

16. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. O’Toole would draw our attention to this matter when the Vote for the Department of External Affairs comes before us, and we can inquire further into this matter.

Sub-head J (3).—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:

“The expenditure within the year on the Barrow Drainage scheme was £12,544 18s. 8d., offset by receipts from the disposal of plant and stores amounting to £516 12s. 11d. The total expenditure on the scheme to 31st March, 1937. (including £2,202 6s, 11d. expended on preliminary investigations in 1925-26) was £521,686 12s. 3d. Of the net expenditure of £519,484 5s. 4d. chargeable to the cost of the scheme under the Barrow Drainage Acts, 1927 and 1933, £259,884 5s. 4d. has been met out of voted moneys, the balance, £259,600, being provided out of Local Loans Advances. The total expenditure sanctioned under the Acts for carrying out the works is limited to £550,000, one half to be provided out of voted moneys and the other half to be advanced by the Commissioners of Public Works from the Local Loans Fund.”

17. I understand that that note is merely to direct attention to the fact that the expenditure authorised is net expenditure?—Yes.

18. Chairman.—There is a note on Sub-head L, Appropriations-in-Aid:

“The amount of £23,279 2s. 0d. credited to appropriations-in-aid as Rents and Fines is made up of Rents, £20,976 12s. 0d. and Fines, £2,302 10s. 0d. The receipts include £150 recovered in respect of a period during which certain premises were irregularly entered and occupied without the cognisance or approval of the Commissioners of Public Works. I have inquired whether periodical surveys and perambulations of the properties administered by the board are carried out.

“A complete register and rental of all properties in charge of the Commissioners is not in existence but lists of such properties are available in numerous records and files. I am informed that the question of systematising the records and of compiling a complete rental is under consideration.”

What were the circumstances under which the premises were irregularly entered? That is a grave matter. Apparently some unauthorised person entered premises occupied by the Board of Works. Perhaps Mr. Connolly would tell us by whom the irregular entry was made?—The irregular entry and occupation was by a firm to whom part of the Dundalk military barracks had been leased for use as a factory. The firm took possession without authority of a part of the barracks which was at that time in the administration and control of the Army but the Army subsequently declared that particular part of the barracks as surplus to their requirements and with the sanction of the Minister for Finance we arranged a lease to the occupying firm. The £150 referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor-General was a payment for use and occupation during the period up to the grant of the lease. Now the position is that when the military are in occupation of a premises we do not inspect and perambulate the building.

19. What really happened was that we leased part of these premises to the factory and the factory occupied not only that part of the premises but another part as well?—Which at the time was in the hands of the Army authorities.

20. The Army gave it up and the Army people thought that the Board of Works was looking after it and the Board thought that they were looking after it? —No. I think there was no question of the Army having given it up. The encroachment was made to a vacant place from premises which had been leased to the factory. They had encroached on what was an Army possession. It was as a result of a rather accidental inspection by us that the irregular occupation was discovered by one of our inspectors who reported it.

21. Deputy Linehan.—Was it done deliberately or accidentally?—By the firm?

Yes.—I could not say that. I am quite sure that they looked upon it as a place that was not being used.

23. Deputy Smith.—They had a map of the premises they leased from you?—Yes.

Deputy Smith.—Then it must have been deliberate.

24. Chairman.—Do you want to say anything, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The reason for the Auditor calling attention to the matter was that he viewed with some concern a position under which it was possible for a firm to occupy State property and remain in possession of it for some time. He addressed an inquiry to both the Departments concerned as to whether an annual perambulation and survey takes place in respect of the property under their care. The Commissioners of Public Works replied that it does take place, and the Army authorities stated that it was done only to a limited extent and that they are giving the matter consideration. The Auditor was of opinion that if there was greater co-operation between the Departments it would not be possible for an unauthorised firm to occupy State property. That is the object of calling attention to the matter.

25. Chairman.—Is not there a note on paragraph 90—that is on Page 36, Roman numerals. You see where the Auditor-General refers to the need for a regular perambulation and survey.

Deputy Smith.—I take it that portion of this Barracks was handed over by the Army to the Board of Works and that they were authorised to lease it out. Well, after they leased out this portion and when an inspection was being carried out by an inspector of the Board, how did it come that he regarded himself as having any responsibility for the portion of the Barracks that was still in the hands of the Army?—He did not take any responsibility for it. He was on inspection and observed the encroachment by this firm, and then he naturally reported it.

26. Then the Army authorities are responsible for the maintenance and all that of whatever portion of their Barracks is under their control?—Yes.

27. He did not draw the attention of the Army authorities to the fact that this firm had occupied this portion of the barracks?—He would have to report to his immediate employers, the Board of Works.

28. What I find it hard to understand is that while he was the representative of the Board of Works and the Board of Works claim to have no responsibility for that building, he took it on himself to go outside his functions and jurisdiction.

Mr. Maher.—I think I can help on that matter. I understand that the part of the barracks which the manufacturing company entered was a portion of the barracks of which the Army people were not in occupation, but which they had not formally surrendered, but they were not using that portion of it.

29. Deputy Smith.—Then it is obvious that the responsibility for this rests on the Army authorities, because if they were giving up any portion of the building the obvious course was for them to notify the Board of that fact.

Mr. Maher.—That is probably so, but I am not in a position to say what the officer responsible would reply to that. But I understand that it had not been formally surrendered. Therefore the Commissioners of Public Works are entitled to disclaim responsibility. On the other hand, the Army people may have assumed that as it was portion of a barracks, part of which had been surrendered, this portion would have been taken over by the Board of Works.

30. Deputy Smith.—The fact is that it was still in the custody of the Army, and so the Army have some responsibility for it. We understand that the person who handed over the key to the factory was an Army official.

Chairman.—I think we should rather compliment the officer of the Board of Works who was so competent as to perceive this irregularity and re-acted to it and reported the matter to the Board, so that the Board might take action and direct the attention of the Department of Defence to it.

31. Deputy McMenamin.—It might help if this lease was in duplicate and a copy given to the Army authorities?—I do not think that that would be done in the ordinary way.

32. But you see how important it would be, if the Army authorities were under the impression that a certain part of the barracks was leased, whereas in fact it was not, for them to get a copy of the map. Was there a copy of it all?—You may take it that there was a copy of the map. The procedure is that the Army declare certain portions of the barracks as surplus to their requirements, and it is only on that declaration that we become responsible for surplus property. Otherwise we do not interfere with the barracks.

Then there would have been a new plan prepared for this lease. Would it not be wise to hand a copy of that to the Army authorities and make clear the responsibility?

33. Deputy R. Walsh.—Would the Army authorities not know their responsibility?—That is a question for the Army.

34. Deputy Linehan.—Is it not perfectly clear that the correction could not have been made at the period when the illegal occupation was made for the simple reason that the Army did not surrender it to the Board and they apparently just handed it over. There was never any surrender of that particular portion of the barracks?—Not of that particular portion.

35. Deputy Corry.—The key of the premises was actually handed over by an Army official?

36. Chairman.—Mr. Connolly has made his position quite clear so far as his responsibility is concerned. Another point arises on the paragraph—that it does not seem that the Board of Works has any record which is easily accessible of all the real property, if I may so describe it, which is under their control. I wonder would he tell us whether he thinks it would be possible to extract from the various records and files a complete schedule of the properties that are under his control?—The question of systematising the property records and of the compilation of formal rentals has been under consideration for some time, but the task is one of magnitude and difficulty which it will take a considerable time to complete.

This question of a stock-taking of all the properties, rentals and stores held by the Commissioners of Public Works has been giving us a good deal of anxiety. There has been a gap over a certain number of years. Perhaps, Mr. Dagg, you would be able to tell the Committee when it started?

Mr. Dagg.—It goes back to the change of Government almost; it started really during the war.

Mr. Connolly.—We are working hard to compile a complete rental, but I want to be quite frank about the fact that it is going to take a very considerable time to compile it in the form that the Commissioners and the Department of Finance would like. Similarly we want to take stock of the stores in Government Departments. That arises on the next note, but we want to get it complete, and it is going to take a considerable time to do it, mainly due to the fact that there was this long gap.

37. Chairman.—Might we distinguish between what might be described as real property and chattels? I fully realise the great difficulty that is going to arise in regard to the chattels. While there will be substantial difficulty in making an inventory of the chattels, might I say that it will not be so difficult to make an inventory of real property as it would be to make an inventory of chattels?— Probably that is what we will do, but in getting a record of the chattels and furniture of each Department we are hoping to get the co-operation of the Departments, and therefore a certain amount of responsibility will rest on each of the Departments themselves. In other words, we will take stock in conjunction with them of what they have got under their care. With regard to the real property, it will take some time, but we are quite confident that it can be done when we get the necessary staff. I would not like it to be inferred that there is no record in the possession of the Commissioners of Public Works of all the property that is owned by the State, but it is not in that readily available form that the Commissioners can put a hand on it. That is what we are aiming at. We want a proper compilation of that kind in stock book form.

Deputy McMenamin.—That should exist.

Chairman.—I hope we will have something more definite to report next year. We are all anxious to have it.

Paragraph 10.—The note is:—

“Stores, etc.—As stated in the account, the value of stocks held in the Central Furniture Stores at 31st March, 1937, was £3,460, and the approximate value of stores held for drainage and other works at the Central Repair Workshop and Stores, Athy, at that date was £3,600..

A complete inventory or register of plant, machinery and contents of buildings has not been compiled, but I am informed that the question of extending the inventory system to cover all plant, machinery, or contents of buildings in the Board’s charge is under consideration.”

That is generally covered by your statement, Mr. Connolly?—Yes, and we have progressed a fair distance in that direction.

38. Now we will take each Sub-head. There is a very large discrepancy under Sub-head B, which you put down to inadequate staff?—That again is mainly technical staff; it is not entirely due to lack of staff, but it was a big factor. Sufficient staff was not available.

39. Deputy Heron.—What particular kind of technicians are hard to get?—To start with, our architectural staff is very difficult to maintain to the strength necessary to carry out the amount of work we are doing. One can understand that, with the boom that is going on, architects are very difficult to get at anything like reasonable rates.

40. Deputy Brasier.—Is it essential that they should be Irish nationals?— The Civil Service Commissioners deal with the applications, but I understand that they are not confined to this country. As a matter of fact, we have a number of very competent architects who are not Irishmen.

41. The point I am making is that if you cannot get them locally you can get them in an extended field?—I am not sure that they are always available even there.

42. Chairman.—Are you allowed to call in architects who are not on your staff? In your Estimate you have provided for a number of architects and seven additional architects—that is one more additional than the last year. If these were insufficient, are you free to call in others? —We have to get the sanction of the Minister for Finance in each specific case.

43. May we take it that the discrepancy which appears in this sub-head is not likely to arise again?—I would not say that because this expenditure does not lie entirely with us. The estimates are prepared some months in advance and then very often some snag arises afterwards—say, the Department concerned decides that they will not go on with the work. We are providing for certain needs of other Departments and their decision, of course, rules subject to the finance authority. We often make provision and then there is a change of the decision. We are not entirely the controlling element in this matter.

44. Deputy Brasier.—Do you advertise for this special class of service when it is wanted?—All the appointments come to us through the Civil Service Commission and all these positions have to be advertised and the staffs we get are the result.

45. Deputy Smith.—That is in the case of permanent employment. In the case of temporary employment when you call for a technician, what happens?—In that case the Board makes its decision and puts a recommendation before the Department of Finance.

46. You can only get such sanction when you have a specific job?—Quite.

47. I take it you must say to the Department: “We want a man for a period of a month for looking after some specific job?”—Yes, you bring in either a consultant or a special man for a specific job.

48. You cannot take him on for six or seven or a dozen different jobs that may be interesting your Department?—He may come on the unestablished staff for that time and there will have to be a Civil Service appointment.

49. Chairman.—The effect, I think, is this: if you bring in a consultant architect you must appropriate him to one particular job and you cannot bring him in and attach him to the staff?—You cannot.

50. And if you bring him in as a supernumerary he must come through the Civil Service Commissioners?—Yes.

51. Chairman.—But of course if you bring him in for a specific job, you need not get him there. Do I take it, Deputy Smith, that you think that it would be a good plan if the Board were able to do the other thing?

52. Deputy Smith.—I think that outside assistance could not be brought in satisfactorily unless they were allowed to attach him to the staff.

53. Chairman.—That is a matter that might be raised in the Dáil and I think it is a matter we ought to make a note of.

Sub-head C, Sub-head CC, Sub-head D (1), Sub-head D (2), Sub-head E, Sub-head EE (1). What is the exact nature of that Sub-head, Mr. Connolly?—These are outstanding claims for compensation for premises that were commandeered by the Army. The outstanding claims were estimated to amount to about £17,000.

54. All these would be claims going back into the old days during the Anglo-Irish war and the civil war?—That is right.

55. And as they come to fruition they appear on the Vote?—Exactly.

56. Deputy O Briain.—How is it that these claims are outstanding so long?— The chief difficulty is that these claims are usually settled ultimately by agreement, and often a claim goes on for years before agreement is reached.

57. Chairman.—Would not some of these claims arise, perhaps, out of recent Compensation Acts?—I expect so.

58. Chairman.—Can you help us, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—I am not quite clear, but I think some are due to recent Acts.

59. Mr. Connolly.—Is there not a provision under which claims arise, Mr. Dagg.

Mr. Dagg.—I do not think so. I think these are in respect of properties handed back to the owners years ago—most of them—and it is a question of arranging some figure.

60. Deputy McMenamin.—And they are squabbling about the figure all the time.

Mr. Dagg.—It is generally small.

61. Chairman—We may take it that the reason for the delay, if there is delay, is that there is a desire to arrive at the amount of the compensation by agreement rather than by compulsion.

62. Deputy Smith.—Are we to take it that if there is no provision for agreement there must be compulsion?—I think that if we did not agree we would have to go to the Courts.

63. Deputy O Briain.—If there is £17,000 still to be disposed of, it would take years to deal with it.

64. Deputy McMenamin.—All these claims are extravagant.

Mr. Connolly.—This is purely an estimate based on the claims presented. In some years we have very little on this Vote but we always make provision.

65. Chairman.—EE (2). Perhaps you would tell us something about that, Mr. Connolly?—That is compensation on resumption of leased premises. To this sub-head, which, was opened with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, were charged the following payments made on the resumption of premises, which had been leased as surplus to requirements:—

The premises at 126 Pembroke Road, Dublin, were required for an extension of the Veterinary College and the site in Kildare Street was required in connection with the new Headquarters building for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

66. What actually happened? Did you take a lease of 126 Pembroke Road and then throw up the lease?—No, we gave the lease. We had the property surplus to requirements and then we required it for the Veterinary College and we resumed possession.

67. Deputy McMenamin.—In connection with that Kildare Street business, when do you expect to begin this business; are you going to build?—The Department is not strictly going to build. You will remember it was an outside architect got the work of designing it. As a matter of fact we have the tenders in at the moment for that building and probably we would have been ready to start but we are examining the position in view of the recent development to try to get the full benefit, if any, of the new position.

68. That is with regard to material?— Yes, we are practically ready to start any time now, or at least the contractor is.

69. Chairman.—What is the position in regard to the River Shannon Navigation Grant-in-Aid?—It was not found necessary to draw on the grant-in-aid during the year. The balance in the fund at the 31st March, 1937, was £1,121. The receipts during the year were £6,403, and the payments £6,961. We provide in case there is a shrinkage in the receipts that would make it necessary to call on funds to meet the deficit.

70. So that in effect the fees from navigation met all the outgoings for the navigation, works?—Not quite last year, but we showed a surplus from the previous year and we carried it forward.

71. Sub-head J (1)—Drainage Maintenance. Is that a token vote?—That is a token vote in case any grants would arise during the year.

72. What exactly does J (1) refer to?— In case any grant was sanctioned for maintenance work.

73. Maintenance of what?—Drainage.

74. What sort of drainage?—We sent you a memorandum on that question last year. We had a good deal of discussion on it.

75. Deputy Brasier.—Is there not always a clause for maintenance inserted in every scheme?

76. Chairman.—Mr. Connolly is perfectly right. If we look at the report of the Public Accounts Committee of the previous year at page 175, so that we need not trouble Mr. Connolly further on that point now.

Sub-head L—Appropriations-in-Aid. Is there any other question that any Deputy wants to ask?

77. Deputy Corry.—I think there is a very large amount here. I would draw your attention to the fact that the surplus to be surrendered seems to be unduly large, £215,255 14s. 10d. Do you care to make any comment on that?—The bulk of that is, of course, down under Sub-head B, with which I have already dealt. There is £171,096 down there. There are various causes for delay, and the other departments for whom we are operating are concerned in this matter.

78. Deputy Brasier.—Would the greater part of that be due to having insufficient staff?—Not entirely, we have certain difficulties owing to the shortage of staff, but there are other factors. We have got to provide for a department that decides that they are going to have a certain work done. They send in their estimates, and we make provision for it. There may be causes for delay—for instance a strike takes place, and it is not possible to go on with the work. It will not be possible to estimate with certainty or even with close approximation, particularly on Sub-head B in this Vote, which is the main sub-head.

79. Deputy McMenamin.—Are school buildings included?—Yes.

VOTE 27—HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.

Mr. J. Connolly further examined.

80. Chairman.—Then we turn to Vote 27—Haulbowline Dockyard. On that there is a note:—

“The receipts, amounting to £5,946 15s. 3d., realised in connection with this service during the year include £2,500 which was accepted from outgoing tenants in settlement of a claim for dilapidation and repairs for which they were liable under the terms of their lease. A sum of £1,100, recovered from an Insurance Company for loss of plant and gear, the property of the Board, is lodged in the Bank of Ireland in the joint names of the former lessees and the Commissioners. A decision has not yet been reached as to the final disposal of this amount.”

Mr. Maher, have you anything to say as to whether any decision has yet been reached; can you or Mr. Connolly state has any decision been reached as to the disposition of this amount?

Mr. Connolly.—No decision has yet been reached but we have reached the point that we have no alternative but to take legal proceedings, and we propose to do that.

81. Deputy Corry.—I would like to know who estimated the damage at £2,500 in the Board of Works?—It was estimated by the Board’s engineers and a compromise settlement for this amount of £2,500 was secured.

82. Do not you think that that was a rather extraordinary compromise?—There may be something in that but the securing of this money happened to coincide with my arrival at the Board of Works, and I know I felt that they were extremely lucky in collecting £2,500; in other words, they were lucky to get anything.

83. The point I would like to raise is this: the outgoing tenants actually tendered for repairs to bring back that dockyard into the condition in which they had taken it over and their tender was £12,000. We had a special sub-committee of the Harbour Commissioners and invited estimates as to what it would require to put that dockyard into the condition in which they took it over and the outgoing tenants tendered £12,000 for the damage for which the Board have accepted £2,500.

84. Chairman.—From the people who actually tendered £12,000.

Deputy Linehan.—And who did the damage.

85. Deputy Linehan.—Is not the position that a person may estimate £12,000 on a contract but that it may not be so easy to recover the money from him?

86. Deputy Corry.—These people removed a lot of property, not their own property, and we were lucky in getting £2,500 out of £12,000, and we left them with property which afterwards they were able to take away.

Chairman.—I do not want to limit anybody’s right to ask questions, but we must remember that Mr. Connolly is here to answer questions and not to listen to our remonstrances. When we are discussing our report we can discuss all he has said, and we can incorporate in our report any remonstrances we may wish to make. We can ask for any information we want from Mr. Connolly, and even ask him to give us a note on the matter. Would you like to ask for that?

Deputy Corry.—Certainly.

Chairman.—Would it be convenient for you to give us a note on the circumstances surrounding this matter?— Surely; but I would like to explain that there is not very much more to say. We have all known bad tenants, and that seems to sum it up. You get an undesirable tenant, and you are anxious to get rid of him. You know you are being “done in the eye,” so to speak, and you get out as easily as you can.

87. Deputy Corry.—The point I am raising is undoubtedly if you look at the Estimate for the Board of Works you will see a certain amount of money for the dockyard for maintenance. It meant the employment of a caretaker, or foreman, who was supposed to see that the occupying tenants did not damage the Government property. Despite that fact, £12,000 of damage was done.

Chairman.—Is there any other information you want?

Deputy Corry.—With regard to the sum of £1,100, how is it that that was not handed over, seeing that we had £12,000 worth of damage done and are only getting £2,500?

Chairman.—He has told you that they are about to institute legal proceedings.

Mr. Connolly.—Perhaps the Committee would like to hear more fully about this matter. This refers to a sum of money paid by an Insurance Company following the loss of Board’s plant being used by Messrs. Petersen and Albeck (our tenants in Haulbowline at the time) and lost overboard in salvage work on the s.s. Celtic. The money was paid by the Insurance Company in February, 1931, and lodged on deposit in the head office of the Bank of Ireland in the joint names of the Commissioners and Messrs. Petersen and Albeck. Messrs. Petersen and Albeck were subsequently converted into and succeeded by Haulbowline Industries Co., Ltd., and that company claimed that the insurance money covered their own heavy expenses of transport and erection, as well as the value of the lost plant. We have, however, been advised by counsel that we have a good claim to all of the money, and as the Haulbowline Industries Co. has refused to release the deposit we are taking legal action to recover it. The position in the case is that the usual summonses have been issued and service accepted. The statement of claim has been submitted to and is still under examination by Senior Counsel. Efforts are being made to hasten the case. The delays were due to unusual difficulties, e.g., the ascertainment of the parties to be named, the subsequent death of one of the parties who was a Danish subject, etc.

88. Deputy Smith.—There seems to be no reason to ask for a note since Deputy Corry is the only member of the Committee who wants it, and he has given us to understand that he knows all about it.

Deputy Corry.—I have every reason for wanting a note.

Chairman.—I think it should be the practice on this Committee that if any member asks for a note the Committee should concur in seeking that information for his special information. I feel sure that no member with a sense of responsibility will unnecessarily request for a note, but when a member does so request, surely he should have the support of the Committee. Do you want a note, Deputy Corry?

Deputy Corry.—Certainly.

Chairman.—I am sure you will be glad to give us a note.*

Mr. Connolly.—Yes. Does the Deputy wish for a note on the £2,500 or does he want it on both these sums? With regard to the £1,100, it will be simply a repetition of what I have said.

Deputy Corry.—Just simply on the £2,500, because I am told that several bodies have looked into this matter.

Deputy Smith.—But we should not ask for notes without having sufficient cause, having regard to the fact that preparing them means a certain amount of trouble.

Chairman.—I have no doubt neither Deputy Smith nor Deputy Corry will ask for a note in any irresponsible way.

Deputy Corry.—What I am anxious to do is to clear up a very decided opinion that exists in my constituency that there has been a dereliction of duty on the part of the Board of Works in the manner in which these premises, when they were leased to these people, were looked after. And I would like to know whether the individual responsible for looking after these premises is still in the employment of the Board.

Chairman.—Sub-head A—Dockyard Maintenance. Sub-head AA (I) Renewal of Submarine Water-main.

89. Deputy Corry.—Is it intended to complete this work, the water-main?— Yes, we were successful in securing a contractor and fixing the contract this week.

90. I think you will realise the necessity for it?—It is needed in the new circumstances.

91. Deputy Brasier.—What rents and rates were payable on Haulbowline Dockyard? I thought that there was no such thing as rates on Government property— The rates on Haulbowline are quite substantial.

92. Chairman.—Does that mean paid by the Government?—No, collected by the Government.

93. Deputy Brasier.—Is that rents and rates payable by the Government?—Subhead D is rents and rates payable by the Government. The Board have to pay rates on certain houses which are subject to the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928.

94. Are there rates on Government property?—Where we let property and where we as landlords are liable for rates we have got to pay the rates.

Chairman.—Is there any other question on Haulbowline Dockyard?

Then we need not detain you any further, Mr. Connolly.

VOTE 40.—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. W. Smyth called and examined.

95. Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Sub-head A, has that vacancy been filled, Mr. Smyth?—Yes, it was filled in July.

VOTE 23.—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.

Mr. J. Herlihy called and examined.

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

Deputy O Briain.—I do not know whether it would be in order to ask questions with regard to the methods employed by valuation officers in carrying out valuations for the purpose of death duties and administration.

97. Chairman.—I am sure that Mr. Herlihy would be glad to inform us within limits.

98. Deputy O Briain.—I have come across a number of cases where the valuation on the part of the Valuation Office seems to be entirely excessive particularly in the case of small farms and shops. Is there some basis on which it is made, particularly in the case of probate and death duties?—The basis is simply one of the selling value in the open market. Naturally there is always a certain amount of controversy; perhaps there is always bound to be but the tax-payer has the right of appeal to the Referee and in point of fact it is only in one per cent. of the cases that appeal is taken to the Referee.

99. But in the case of new houses, what standard do you go on; is it on the valuation extending over a long number of years or is there a new standard for new houses? I mean in some cases the valuation of houses built under a housing scheme is very much higher than the valuation on the property that may adjoin them?—Well, in many cases such a long period has elapsed since we had a general re-valuation that it is almost inevitable that you will have anomalies. Our general policy is to keep them on a line with similar properties in the same area.

100. You spoke of the right of appeal to the Referee and you mentioned that there are very few appeals. I imagine that the reason is the cost of such appeals to the person who would be involved in the appeal?—I scarcely think that that is right, Deputy, because we have very few appeals both in the case of large estates and small estates.

101. Deputy Corry.—Do you consider that it would be very popular to engage some of the Land Commission valuers and send them down for probate purposes?

102. Deputy Linehan.—We would get the correct value then.

103. Deputy McMenamin.—When asked about the uniformity of valuation you stated that it was a long time since there was a general re-valuation?—In most areas.

104. Do I take it that there is a separate standard applied to new houses as distinct from houses that are already in existence?—No. On the contrary, we try to get them on a level.

105. Do I understand that you adhere to the pre-existing basis of valuation?— Yes.

106. Irrespective of what it costs to build them?—Yes.

107. Deputy Smith.—Is there not some definite standard as to size and capacity that is adhered to, or is the valuation officer free to pick a number of valuation factors—about which the owner of the premises would know nothing—in determining the valuation?—It is a question of value, and it is a question of attractiveness, and all such matters as the commodiousness of the rooms, the structure of the house and its size—all these matters enter into it.

108. That seems to be very vague. I would like to get the information more definite. You get complaints from time to time from men who have built new houses, and I was under the impression that when these houses were being examined as to valuation there was a hard and fast rule from which the valuation officer would not depart irrespective of whether the house was situated in a certain place. If it was 30 feet by 20 feet and had six rooms, and so on, the valuation would be determined on that basis rather than on a number of things upon which different men would give a different decision?—Oh, no, there is no rule of thumb.

109. I want to be sure that there is no rule of thumb from which no man can depart?—There is no such rule.

110. Deputy McMenamin.—You used the word “attractiveness”: assume that Deputy Smith built a house on his farm which is a quarter of a mile away from mine, and that I built a house by a lake and there is beautiful surrounding scenery—is that what attractiveness would be?—When speaking of attractiveness, I was thinking more of houses in towns.

111. Deputy Cole.—It would be the letting value that would be the basis of valuation?—That is the legal basis.

112. Deputy Linehan.—Am I correct in saying that it is covered by this: when you mentioned “attractiveness,” it meant you would take into consideration the question whether one house happened to be erected nearer a town than another? —Certainly proximity value would be taken into account.

113. Deputy Smith.—All these are rural areas. Am I to take it that a farmer who would erect a house in close proximity to a town of 1,000 population without an urban authority would be liable for a higher valuation than I who live further away?—Certainly situation value is taken into account.

114. Deputy McMenamin.—If I am a farmer who lives in close proximity to another farmer who builds the same type of house, am I going to be penalised because my house is nearer a town?—The difference at most would not be very considerable.

115. But I do not want it to be anything?—You think that situation value should be ignored?

Deputy McMenamin.—Of course.

116. Chairman.—Mr. Herlihy is not responsible for the law.

117. Deputy Smith.—But it is a very important point.

118. Chairman.—We may ask Mr. Herlihy for any information we require, but we must not press him to attempt to criticise the law.

Mr. Herlihy.—It would scarcely come within the definition of an accountant’s duties.

119. Deputy Smith.—My objection to this is that it would seem as if discretion exists or resides in the hands of the particular individual who would be called upon to determine the valuation, and I do not like that type of discretion given to individuals because every man would have a different way of exercising it. I think that in valuing premises like that I might take one view and make a decision upon such matters as Mr. Herlihy has referred to and you might come along and take a different view entirely. I thought, especially in rural areas, there was a more hard and fast rule. In fact I would say this: I would like that there was a more hard and fast rule, and that these things to which Mr. Herlihy has referred would be left out of consideration.

120. Mr. Herlihy.—But you can scarcely leave out the relevant factors. If you have a valuation system providing that people are to pay rates in relation to letting value, I do not see how you can leave out of consideration matters related to letting value.

121. Chairman.—I think we should transfer the discussion of the merits of the system of valuation to the Dáil, where we can tackle the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Finance and recommend that the basis of valuation be changed, and if Mr. Herlihy then does not conform to the law we can take him to task.

122. Deputy Corry.—Can we take it that the Committee’s view in regard to the matter will be taken into considera tion, Mr. Herlihy?

Chairman.—We can ask Mr. O’Toole to direct our attention to that matter when we are making our report, and then decide whether we will mention it or not.

VOTE 24—ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. Herlihy further examined.

123. Deputy Brasier.—I would like to know what activities are going on in connection with Ordnance Survey. Has it been completed or is it still going on?—In one sense, of course, it was completed in the last century, that is the 6 inch and 25 inch maps, in so far as it has been completed at all, because the 25 inch was not pushed into the mountainous and moorland areas. The face of the country is constantly changing; you have building schemes, new fences are put in, so that the map commences to become obsolete as soon as it is made, making it necessary to keep on revising.

124. Deputy Heron.—As part of the expense appears on the Army Vote, there are soldiers employed on the work?—Yes, we have soldiers engaged on the work. Their pay is borne on the Army Vote, and certain allowances on this Vote.

125. Deputy R. Walsh.—These manuscripts are in the possession of your Department?—You mean the finished product.

126. It does not say here what it is?— Well, we have to borrow the original manuscript in order to copy it, but directly it has been copied it is handed back.

127. I take it that these manuscripts are old leases and things of that nature? —Well, books of the nature of the Book of Kells. I do not think we have, in fact, reproduced the Book of Kells, but it is manuscripts of that nature.

128. Chairman.—Sub-head G, Appropriations-in-Aid.—In connection with the receipts for the sale of maps, are these maps sold at a profit, or are they sold at specially cheap rates?—Well, it is a little difficult to answer that, Sir. You see, they are not sold at a profit, because, after all, if they were, our takings should be equal to our expenditure, and if you glance at page 75 you will see that our takings fall enormously short of our expenditure. As against that, it is to be remembered that they are used to a very large extent by Government Departments such as the Land Commission and the Valuation Office, and we supply these maps free of charge to these Departments.

129. Chairman.—I see you state that the value of maps supplied to other Departments was £5,414 17s. 6d., for which you received no payment.

130. Deputy McMenamin.—Is that cost price?—Yes, that is the price they would pay if they paid the cost price. Even adding that on, Sir, you will see that the thing is run at a loss. The fact is that maintaining and establishing a department for the preparation and publication of ordnance survey maps is not an economic proposition, which is possibly one of the reasons that it is done by the State in the public interest.

131. Deputy Cole.—You run it in connection with other things?—No; it is a separate matter.

132. Chairman.—Has there ever been any aerial survey? That is, photographing the country from the air with a view to finding old forts and so forth by the contours of the land?

Deputy Walsh.—There were some experiments.

Chairman.—It has been done extensively in America.

Deputy Walsh.—I think there was an aerial survey.

Mr. Herlihy.—I do not know, but I should scarcely think that there are very many ancient monuments in this country which could be traced on the surface of the ground which are not already marked on the survey maps. I should think that this country has been more closely mapped than the United States; for example, the area there is so enormous that naturally they could not do it.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix. III.