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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 25adh Bealtaine, 1938.

Wednesday, 25th 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, Mr. C. S. Almond and Mr. D. P. Shanagher (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE NO. 41—LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH.

Mr. J. Hurson called and examined.

233. Chairman.—On this Vote there is a report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, on page 9:—

As mentioned in paragraph 22 of last year’s report, Section 101 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, provides that the costs and expenses of a Tribunal set up under the section shall, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, be paid to the Minister by the local authorities concerned.

The total expenditure to 31st March, 1937, amounted to £1,291 12s. 10d., of which £518 2s. 0d. is charged in the present account.

Pending receipt of the report of the Tribunal no claim for recoupment of the costs and expenses has yet been made by the Department.

Have you any comment on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The purpose of the paragraph is to show the total cost to the end of the financial year under review, and also to show that no claim has yet been made in respect of the costs and expenses of the Department in connection with the Tribunal. When the inquiry is completed no doubt the claim will be made in due course.

234. Chairman.—That is the usual course, is it not?

Mr. Hurson.—Yes. The amount has not been certified by the Tribunal. Until they certify, the amount cannot be recovered.

235. When do you expect this Tribunal to certify its costs?—I should say within the next three months, within the present financial year.

236. Certainly within the present financial year?—Certainly within the present financial year.

237. On page 10 there is a paragraph in regard to expenses of Tribunal of Inquiry into certain matters connected with an outbreak of fire at 164 Pearse Street, Dublin:—

This Tribunal was appointed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in pursuance of a resolution of Dáil Eireann dated 25th November, 1936. Provision for expenditure in connection therewith was made by Supplementary Estimate and payments amounting to £479 0s. 10d. are charged in the present account. The charge includes fees to the Chairman, fees for verbatim reporting, hire of hall for public sittings, and expenses of certain persons who gave evidence on behalf of the State.

In addition to the expenditure charged to this sub-head, fees amounting to £603 15s. 0d. were paid to Counsel representing the Attorney-General and are charged to Sub-head D of the Vote for Law Charges (No. 26).

Have you any observations to make on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The purpose of the paragraph is to call attention to the fact that the expenses of this Tribunal fall on two Votes, one portion on the Vote for Local Government and the other on Law Charges. It is customary for the Auditor, where expenses are spread over separate Votes, as in this case, to show the total expenditure in a paragraph of this kind.

238. Chairman.—This Tribunal has reported and certified its expenses?

Mr. Hurson.—Yes, sir, the Tribunal has reported some time ago.

239. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 relates to Grants under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 and 1934, and is as follows:—

Under these Acts the aggregate amount of grants to private persons etc., authorised to be made was £1,400,000. By amending Acts, passed in 1936, the aggregate was raised to £2,800,000. Grants made by the Department to 31st March, 1937, totalled to approximately £1,624,000 and as it would appear that the payments made in 1936-37 under the authority of the amending Acts passed in 1936 should have been regularised by the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate, the observations of the Accounting Officer have been requested in the matter.

In addition to housing grants, the charge to the Sub-head includes contributions to annual loan charges of local authorities in connection with housing schemes.

I observed that the basis of calculation of contributions to annual loan charges was not uniform in all cases. I understand that steps have now been taken to ensure that the amounts payable will be calculated on a uniform basis in future and to adjust any over or under payments that may have been made.

I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on certain other matters which came under notice in the course of my test examination of these payments.

In regard to the payments made in 1936-37 have they been regularised by the necessary Supplementary Estimate?— Strictly speaking, it would be impossible to regularise it by means of a Supplementary Estimate relating to that year, but the Supplementary Estimate which was introduced in Dáil Eireann on the 4th February last, and relating to the year 1937-38, regularised it in so far as that was concerned. It would be impossible, without amending legislation, to regularise it as regards the previous year.

Mr. Maher.—When an irregularity of this kind has been regularised in a subsequent year by means of a Supplementary Estimate, in certain circumstances that regularisation has been accepted as applying to the previous year.

240. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Hurson will let us hear his view as to how the irregularity arose.

Mr. Hurson.—Previous to 1936 the amount that was authorised by statute was £1,400,000. A new Bill was brought forward to increase that amount by £700,000 and it was not passed until the 3rd April, 1936. An amount had been brought into the Estimate in anticipation, having received the approval of the Government, and the Estimate was not passed and was not brought before the Dáil until after the 3rd April, 1936, and it was assumed that there was definite statutory authority for the increase in the amount. Strictly speaking, the additional amount should have been regularised by a Supplementary Estimate, but it was overlooked.

241. And, in fact, public money was disbursed for which there was no statutory authority whatever?—Yes, the statutory authority was there.

242. Had the money, in fact, been provided by Dáil Eireann at the time it was expended?—Yes; it was in the Estimate.

243. Had the Estimate been passed?— Yes. The Estimates for 1936-37 included an amount although it did not specify the Act of 1936.

I see. So though the Estimate had been passed to appropriate the money, the money had not been appropriated under the particular Act under which it was spent?—That is so, though the Act had been passed a week previous to the Estimate having been approved of.

244. The Act was not referred to in the Estimate?—It could not have been.

245. It was not an Act of Parliament when the Estimate was being drawn?— That is so.

246. You say the Estimate was brought before Dáil Eireann a week after the Act was passed?—That is so.

247. So that it would, in fact, have been possible to amend the Estimate to include a reference to the relevant Act if the matter had been thought of at the time?—It was a printed Estimate, I mean it was then in the printed volume of the Estimates.

248. So that the only thing would have been to introduce a Supplementary Estimate—would not that have been the correct procedure?—Yes, it would.

249. Chairman.—I think that this is a matter that we may have to deal with in our report, in view of what Mr. Maher says is a general practice—that any previous inaccuracy may be corrected in a subsequent year.

250. Now, the second and third paragraph in this note refers to the fact that the basis of calculation of contributions to annual loan charges was not uniform in all cases and that you have been taking steps to correct that. Perhaps, Mr. Hurson, you would say a word to us on that Act?—Might I have the benefit of Mr. Maher’s views?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. The reason for that paragraph is that in making grants from the Local Loans Fund certain stipulations are laid down by the Housing Act and the regulations made under it. Perhaps a small example might clarify this. If the loan is in respect of houses built on slum clearances the annual contribution from the Vote would be 66⅔ per cent. of the cost. In respect of normal houses, that is houses built not on a slum clearance, the loan would be on a 33⅓ basis. Where the loans are in respect of schemes which are dealing only with slum clearances the proceedings are quite simple, but a difficulty has arisen when the loans are in respect of combined schemes. There we notice a different treatment by the Local Government Department. It was with a view to regularising that and getting down to a uniform procedure that this paragraph was written. Recently the Local Government Department has submitted a new basis of calculation which theoretically was satisfactory, but it will require some time until all the previous cases have been adjusted. Probably if further consideration were deferred until the adjustments have been made it would be better because that would give the Comptroller and Auditor-General opportunity of commencing next year on the practical working under the new basis of calculation. There is a very involved method of calculation there because it brings in so many factors that each calculation takes almost a whole day.

Mr. Hurson.—That is the position, as I understand it. The new basis of calculation refers to cases that include a loan for slum clearances and also normal houses. Where the cost of a house in the case of a slum clearance scheme would exceed £300, or in the case of a normal scheme would exceed £350, the Department holds that recoupment of 66⅔ per cent. or 33⅓ per cent., as the case may be, is applicable to the amount of the loan advanced so long as it does not exceed the specified amount per house. For instance, if a house costs £320 in a particular area, and the amount of the loan advanced does not exceed £300; in that case the Department holds that 66⅔ per cent. of the contribution applies to the full amount of the advance and not the proportion based on the excess of the loan over the maximum cost of the house that can be recouped. To give an example—if the cost of a house was £320, the recoupment would be two-thirds of the loan charges multiplied by 30/32. We hold that where the advance does not exceed £300, that is where the full loan is not advanced, that two-thirds of the loan charges on the amount advanced is payable and not two-thirds of 30/32 of the loan charges.

251. Chairman.—I see that, and I see that we will probably be well advised to adopt Mr. Maher’s suggestion and allow the scheme to operate, as it appears to be a good one in your eyes and in the eyes of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. We might defer its consideration to next year and discuss with you whether in fact your purpose has then been satisfactorily achieved?—I am satisfied.

252. Chairman.—Now we come to paragraph 24 under Sub-head V in page x. The note reads:

The scheme for the distribution of beef administered by the Department of Agriculture under the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Acts, 1934 and 1936, terminated on the 5th December, 1936. From that date the Department of Local Government and Public Health operated a new non-statutory scheme under which vouchers were issued to employment exchanges, branch employment offices and local authorities, to recipients of unemployment assistance, outdoor relief or home assistance enabling them to obtain beef to the value stated on each voucher. The victuallers supplying the beef submitted fortnightly accounts of the amounts due to them, forwarding the relative vouchers with each claim.

Provision for the expenditure on the scheme administered by the Department of Local Government and Public Health was made in a Supplementary Estimate. It is not clear that the ambit of the Vote as defined in the Supplementary Estimate covers this service. I also noted that while in Part II of the Estimate £40,000 is shown as provided for “expenses in connection with the supply of beef to persons in receipt of home assistance and unemployment assistance,” the narration in Part III describes the provision as for “grants to public authorities for the purpose of providing supplies of beef to persons in receipt of home assistance and unemployment assistance.

In the course of my test examination of the payments I verified in a small number of cases from inspection of the records in the Department of Industry and Commerce that the selected vouchers were properly issued to recipients of unemployment assistance. It was not possible to carry out a similar test verification in connection with vouchers issued by local authorities. The scheme ceased to operate at the end of the year under review.

Now, Mr. Maher, the last paragraph in that note affects the whole paragraph in so much as the whole scheme has now come to an end. Nevertheless, it appears to me that a matter of very grave principle was involved here, because it is a matter of great importance that the Vote should clearly cover any expenditure which is undertaken under it, and that the Accounting Officer and the Minister should be vigilant to ensure that the Dáil is not induced to provide money for a purpose which is not within the ambit of the Vote at all. Perhaps Mr. Maher would say a word on this.

Mr. Maher.—In Part I of the Estimate for the year under review no provision would appear to be made for this supply of free beef. Part I of the Estimate reads that it is for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister, including grants and other expenses in connection with housing and grants-in-aid. It is clear from these words that the provision for the supply of free beef or the repayment of the cost of free beef would not come within that definition, and, accordingly, in the Supplementary Estimate to which I referred a few moments ago this was regularised in so far as the year 1937-38 is concerned by inserting in Part I of the Estimate after the words “Public Health” “and of certain services administered by that office.” These words would enable expenses such as are referred to in this paragraph to be included in the year 1937-38, but as regards 1936-37 the provision of the Estimate is unaltered, and, therefore, my remarks as regards the provision of expenses under the 1936 Housing Act, referred to in paragraph 23, would also apply. That is to say, that both irregularities, in so far as approval by Dáil Eireann is concerned, have been regularised as regards 1937-38, but not as regards the year 1936-37.

253. Chairman.—What precaution is taken, Mr. Hurson, to ensure that, where a new service of this kind is established, the ambit of the Vote is adequate to cover it, or is any such precaution taken? —Every precaution is taken to meet the requirements; but in this case I might explain that when the scheme was transferred to the Department of Local Government and Public Health the intention was to administer it in the same way as the free milk scheme; that is, to recoup the local authorities for their expenditure under this scheme. That was the intention. There was very little time to make arrangements for the supervision of the scheme, and, in order that there should be no hiatus in the scheme as administered by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government, it was decided then to administer it centrally, and our Department had to take from the Department of Agriculture a certain number of staff to do so. At the time the Supplementary Estimate was put in, it provided for the recoupment of local authorities.

254. In fact, then. when the Supplementary Estimate was introduced it was in a form, and the intention of the Minister was cast in a form, which came within the ambit of the Vote?—I think so.

255. It was subsequently that the Minister changed his mind and proceeded to administer money he had got from the Dáil. But perhaps I will not ask you to criticise the Minister. Shall I say that the Department subsequently changed its mind and proceeded to administer or distribute money in a different way, which brought the activities outside the ambit of the Vote?—Well, the difference was only one of degree, in so far as payments made by the local authority or the Department would go to the victuallers or the persons who supplied the meat. The change was not much.

256. I profoundly disagree. I think the difference is extremely grave, as to whether an Accounting Officer expends funds for which he is responsible within the ambit of his Vote or outside it?—I admit it is outside the ambit of the Vote, but I consider the Supplementary Estimate for 1937-38 had practically regularised it as regards the previous year.

257. But that Supplementary Estimate was not in existence when this irregularity arose?—That is so.

258. Chairman.—Will you say, Mr. Dagg, if this matter was brought under your attention?

Mr. Dagg.—It was, and perhaps the Department of Finance might accept responsibility to a certain extent, because when it was put before us we thought, following on the precedent of the free milk scheme, as Mr. Hurson explained, that a Supplementary Estimate would not be necessary at the time. So that year passed by and we had to take the Supplementary Estimate in a succeeding year.

259. Chairman.—Are we, then, to take it, Mr. Dagg, that the Department of Finance approved the expenditure of public money outside the ambit of the Vote?

Mr. Dagg.—The question of the ambit of the Vote had not been brought up at that time.

260. Chairman.—I take it the Department of Finance would not approve such procedure?

Mr. Dagg.—Not if we had noticed it.

Chairman.—I know that Mr. Hurson will excuse me if I emphasise this matter. To me it seems an important thing. To some it may appear to be purely a matter of form, but I suggest that matters such as this are of considerable substance and require to be watched closely. We all, of course, appreciate the immense burden of work placed on the Department of Local Government and we realise that oversights of this kind may arise in relation to matters of detail from time to time However, I am sure we will have in future Mr. Hurson’s assistance in preventing anything like this again arising.

261. Now, Mr. Maher, have you any observation to make with regard to the concluding section of the portion of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report which I have just read?

Mr. Maher.—The purpose of that portion of the report is to show that in so far as the payments had been made it was possible to check them through another Department, the Department of Industry and Commerce. But, where the vouchers were issued by the local authorities, the Exchequer and Audit Department could not check them and we had to accept the figures supplied. We are not in a position to call upon the local authorities to furnish us with the necessary information.

262. Deputy Walsh.—Are not the accounts of all the local authorities subject to audit?

Mr. Maher.—Yes, by officials of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, but not by the officers of the Exchequer and Audit Department.

263. Chairman.—Did your officers, Mr. Hurson, concern themselves in the examination of these accounts so as to be satisfied that these vouchers were properly issued?—They would, in the normal course of audit.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

25. A test examination has been applied to the Motor Tax Account with generally satisfactory results. The certificates and reports of the Local Government Auditors who examine the motor tax transactions of the local authorities were scrutinised in so far as they were available, but in some cases this audit had not been completed at the date of the test examination.

The gross proceeds of the motor vehicle, etc., duties in 1936-37, including £10,435 0s. 4d. attributable to fines, amounted to £1,069,839 3s. 2d. A statement of the gross and net receipts of the Motor Tax Account, and of the payments thereout to the Exchequer, appears on page 16 of the Finance Accounts, 1936-37.

264. Mr. Maher.—This is an annual paragraph for information purposes only.

265. Chairman.—With regard to Sub-head F (1), relating to Inquiries, can you tell us, Mr. Hurson, what exactly is the nature of the services covered by that Sub-head?—It refers to the public inquiries held by the Minister’s officials in connection with housing and public health and so forth. You will find a corresponding entry in the Appropriations-in-Aid.

266. That is quite clear. Now, with regard to Sub-head G (1), concerning Vaccine Lymph Supply, I take it you are concerned exclusively with vaccines for the treatment of human disease. The reason I ask you that is because the Pasteur Institute are willing to supply some vaccines which they describe as V.C.G. for the control of tuberculosis, but they will only supply it to qualified medical practitioners or to veterinary surgeons. Under our legislation prohibiting the import of vaccines except by licence to dealers, no individual medical practitioners or veterinary surgeons can import V.C.G., and, so far as the agricultural end is concerned, we are trying to arrange to get the State Laboratory to receive it on behalf of the individual practitioners. I do not know whether there is anybody in your Department, such as your chief medical officer of health, who is himself a medical man, who could act as the person who would receive supplies of this either on behalf of veterinary surgeons or doctors who wanted it. I would be obliged if you would investigate the matter?—I will, certainly. I could not express an opinion at the moment.

267. The matter has not been brought under your notice?—No.

268. It is, I am sure you will admit, an interesting point, and it was quite unanticipated by us when we were passing our Act of Parliament, and it could not have been anticipated because it arose out of the peculiar situation in regard to the Pasteur Institute?—I shall look into the matter.

269. Chairman.—Let me draw your attention to Sub-head G (2), relating to expenses in connection with the Therapeutic Substance Act, 1932. The Act referred to there is the very Act I had in mind.

270. Deputy Brasier.—As regards Sub-head I, referring to a charge under the Irish Land Act, 1909, what does that mean—is that in connection with labourers’ cottages?—That is a contribution towards the cost of labourers’ loans prior to 1922. It represents 20 per cent. of the loan charges.

271. Chairman.—On Sub-head J (2)— Grant for the Supply of Milk to Necessitous Children—is the Department prepared to sanction supplies of pasteurised milk where tuberculin-tested milk suppliers go on strike and will not supply milk except at wholly exorbitant rates?— I could not answer that at the moment, but I will supply the information.

272. I could imagine a situation sometimes arising in which there may be only one or two tuberculin-tested herds in a country area, and the owners simply will not supply milk unless they get 2/- a gallon for it?—We do insist as far as possible on the supply of tuberculin-tested milk.

273. Yes, but it appeared to me that one way to meet the matter would be to provide properly pasteurised milk.

274. Deputy Smith.—Local authorities do not insist on tuberculin-tested herds, do they, Mr. Hurson?—No, but they give a preference.

275. But they do not make it a condition?—No, but preference is always given.

Deputy McMenamin.—Would it not be wise to insist on tuberculin-tested milk and not to provide any money except for the supply of tuberculin-tested milk?

Deputy Smith.—Well, I think that local authorities have sufficient difficulty in getting ordinary milk from registered suppliers, never mind the tuberculin-tested milk.

Deputy Brasier.—It is difficult to get it.

Deputy Corry.—With one man insisting on getting it, another objecting to it, and another man insisting that the price is too high, I do not know where we would be.

276. Chairman.—The next sub-head is K—Medical Treatment, etc., of School-children.

277. Deputy Walsh.—With regard to this matter of medical treatment, etc., of school-children, Mr. Hurson, does this come under the ordinary Board of Health schemes?—Yes.

278. Deputy Brasier.—Does that mean dental treatment and so on?—Yes, all school medical service.

279. Deputy Beegan.—And is it also in connection with this immunisation scheme of which we have heard so much?—No, that is a separate matter entirely.

280. Deputy Brasier.—With regard to Sub-head M—Welfare of the Blind—does that mean that the local authority contributes towards the welfare of the blind? —No, it only relates to grants to voluntary agencies.

281. Such as the Blind Asylum in Cork, and so on?—Yes.

282. Through what fund does that come, and has the local authority anything to do with the administration of it?—The local authority does not participate in any of that. They administer their own schemes, independent of it.

283. Deputy Cole.—How many of these institutions have you?—There are five institutions.

284. Chairman.—With respect to Sub-head 2, Mr. Hurson—Grants in Respect of Training of Native Irish Speakers in Hospital Nursing—I must say that it is a source of unending amazement to me that you cannot get candidates from the Gaeltacht for training as nurses.

Deputy Brasier.—We are getting them in Cork, anyway.

Deputy McMenamin.—What is your position this year, Mr. Hurson?—I regret to say that we have not made the progress that we hoped for.

285. How are you off for applicants?— We have them in sufficient numbers, but the difficulty is in getting girls who have the necessary elementary education to enable them to be trained as nurses. We have gone to Galway and Cork, and it is surprising to find the large numbers rejected both by our own inspectors in conjunction with the Department of Education, and also, when it comes to an educational test, by the hospital authorities.

286. Chairman.—Have you tried West Donegal at all?—Yes, from West Donegal to Dublin we have tried several, but the standard in every case is higher than the standard of general education possessed by these girls. The class we want to get is the poorer class of girl who would not be able to get training in nursing from her own people.

287. Deputy Brasier.—You have insisted on a certain section of the nursing school in Cork being taken from the Gaeltacht?—They must be taken from the Gaeltacht; they must be native Irish speakers.

Well, out of six applicants, there were five from the Gaeltacht in Kerry and Cork at the last meeting.

Chairman.—Well, that is very satisfying, and I hope, Mr. Hurson, that you will have an equal measure of success from West Donegal in the near future.

Deputy Walsh.—What is the custom of the Department with regard to the conditions of the training of nurses in the hospitals?—That is not a matter that is controlled by the Department.

288. Is there not authority issued by the Department?—The training of nurses is under the Nursing Council, and it is not controlled by the Department.

Chairman.—Does Mr. Hurson’s reply dispose of your inquiry, Deputy?

Deputy Walsh.—Well, yes, to some extent.

289. Chairman.—With regard to Sub-head U—Appropriations in Aid—I see that there is an item for the renewal of licences to private mental hospitals. Are all these private mental hospitals periodically inspected by your Department, Mr. Hurson?—Yes, twice a year.

290. Deputy Walsh.—How many private mental hospitals are there?—There are 12, eight of which are licensed under the provisions of the Supervision of Private Asylums Act of 1842, four that are charitable institutions, and one exempt from licensing.

291. Chairman.—Is it an essential condition for that exemption from the necessity for a licence that they should be kept by a religious Order, or could any body of citizens who established a charitable foundation, not for profit, exempt themselves from the licensing provision? —I think so.

VOTE 42—GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE.

Mr. J. Hurson further examined.

292. Chairman.—With regard to Sub-head E—Appropriations in Aid—I observe, Mr. Hurson, that that relates to the fees received in respect of searches for certificates. Do you find that there is less difficulty in finding birth certificates now than there was during, say, the last decade?—I made inquiries into that when you raised the matter some time ago, Mr. Chairman, and I was told that there was practically no difficulty. However, I can get full and accurate information.

293. Well, Mr. Hurson, if you happened to be a T.D.—and God protect you from so unfortunate a fate—you would be amazed at the number of people who are in the difficulty of being unable to find any record of their births in the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Is that your experience still, Deputy Smith.

Deputy Smith.—No, it is not.

Deputy McMenamin.—Well, I have a case at the Custom House this morning.

Deputy Smith.—Oh, of course, we all have cases now and again, but it only occurs here and there.

Chairman.—At any rate, Deputy Smith, your impression is that the situation is very much improved in that regard?

Deputy Smith.—Yes

Deputy Walsh.—There has been an improvement, but so far as County Mayo is concerned, while there has been an improvement, the difficulty is still pretty big and will be so for some years. The Act only came into effect in 1865, and I expect that it was at least five or six years before it actually became operative.

Chairman.—Well, of course, we cannot make Mr. Hurson responsible for what happened so many years ago as that.

294. Deputy Walsh.—There is one question I should like to ask Mr. Hurson: There is a definite fee, is there not, for a certificate established by the Department?—Yes, there is a definite fee.

295. Does that apply in cases where it is got locally as well?—You pay the same fee, but in the General Register Office if the person goes in and makes a search himself, he is charged 1/-. The certificate is 2/6, and there is a penny stamp. making 3/7 in all; but if he requires a search to be made for him, the cost is 5/1

Well, of course, I suppose this would be a more appropriate matter to raise in the Dáil itself, but it seems to me to be a rather excessive charge, in the case of, say, some poor old person who would be looking for the old age pension.

Chairman.—Yes, I think that Deputy Walsh is right in saying that that is a matter that would more appropriately be raised in the Dáil on the Minister’s Vote. In any case, the Deputy will have the Finance Act in front of him.

296. Deputy Brasier.—In the case of a death that has not been registered and in the case of widows’ and orphans’ pensions, how would that be registered?—You can get permission to have it registered after a certain time.

297. Through the local medical officer? —Yes. I am speaking now from memory, but I think the Registrar-General can authorise the local registrar. However, I can supply a further note on that.

298. Chairman.—I do not think we will bother you now about that matter, Mr. Hurson, because I know that any Deputies who may have difficulties of that nature can always get whatever information they want from you at your office. For instance. I know that you will help Deputy Brasier out if he should have any special difficulty?—Oh, certainly.

VOTE 44—NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. J. Hurson further examined.

299. Chairman.—There is a note here by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which reads as follows:—

Sub-head G.—District Medical Referee Service.

“A limited test examination of the payments made from this Sub-head disclosed that certain small claims for expenses were supported by vouchers which, on investigation, proved to have been obtained irregularly. I am informed that the cases have been referred to the Chief State Solicitor for consideration of the question of prosecution.”

Mr. Maher.—We have had no information since that was transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General in December last, as to what the present position is. We are not aware whether the Chief State Solicitor is proceeding with these cases or abandoning the prosecution.

Mr. Hurson.—Perhaps the Chairman would kindly allow Mr. Duffy to answer that.

Mr. Duffy.—These cases were referred to the Chief State Solicitor. In one case the woman was bound over in a sum of £10 and ordered to repay the 12/- obtained under false pretences. In the other case, the accused person was bound over in a sum of £10 and ordered to repay 6/-. These amounts have not yet been repaid, and we are waiting until the cases are cleared to report to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

300. Chairman.—Were these defendants civil servants?

Mr. Duffy.—No. They were ordinary insured people living in country places.

301. Chairman.—So that no question of disciplinary action arose?

Mr. Duffy.—No.

Chairman.—That disposes of that matter. We can now turn to the sub-heads of the Vote. In connection with the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension Fund, which I observe is a separate Vote, there is no charge on that Vote for any administration expenses. All the administration expenses are borne by the National Health Insurance Vote, and they get them back by way of an Appropriation-in-Aid.

Mr. Duffy.—That is so.

302. Chairman.—Is that, administratively, more convenient?

Mr. Duffy.—It is. As the insurance under the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pension scheme is interlocked with national health insurance, it was decided that the staff should be interlocked also.

VOTE 72—WIDOWS’ AND ORPHANS’ PENSIONS.

Mr. J. Hurson further examined.

303. Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote. The Vote simply deals with the payment to pensions investment account.

No questions.

VOTE 32—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche called and examined.

304. Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote. Would Mr. Roche say what was the new position created under Sub-head A (3)? The note to the sub-head says: “Excess due to creation of new post.”

Mr. Roche.—That was a very small thing—merely the appointment of a junior clerk.

305. Chairman.—For the purposes of reference, I would be glad if Mr. Maher would explain to the Committee why the extra receipts, which amount of the comparatively small sum of £584, do not appear on this Vote as an Appropriation-in-Aid.

Mr. Maher.—The question of whether an Appropriation-in-Aid Sub-head should be opened in any particular Vote, or whether the sum so received by a Department should be brought to the credit of the Exchequer direct under the head of Extra Receipts, is one which the Department of Finance is obliged to determine. Generally, the practice is that if the appropriations are very small, and if an Appropriation-in-Aid Sub-head is not opened but the payments are made direct to the Exchequer, or, if the payments are even large but casual, they would be made to the Exchequer direct; or, also, if the payments are of a nature which are not directly connected with the activities of the Department, they would be paid to the Exchequer direct, especially if they are in the nature of revenue items. In this case, while these fees are annual fees, they represent a small amount, and it is not considered essential that a special Appropriation-in-Aid Sub-head should be open for the purpose. Generally, it is more convenient in such cases to pay them direct into the Exchequer and have them accounted for in the finance accounts.

306. Chairman.—Do you fix any minimum sum, Mr. Almond, below which you would not direct the opening of an Appropriation-in-Aid Sub-head?

Mr. Almond.—It is not usual to open a new Appropriations-in-Aid Sub-head. If an Appropriations-in-Aid Sub-head existed, we might take the course of crediting receipts, however small, to that Appropriations-in-Aid Sub-head, provided they did not fall into any of the classes mentioned by Mr. Maher. But it is more convenient, sometimes, to allow the receipts to go direct to the Exchequer than to open a new Sub-head which has never existed in the Vote before.

307. Chairman.—Are we to understand that it is now the practice of the Department of Finance to open no more Sub-heads of Appropriations-in-Aid where do not already exist?

Mr. Almond.—Generally so, but there may be exceptions.

308. Chairman.—So that you look, rather with disfavour on the practice which did obtain in the past of opening Appropriation-in-Aid Sub-heads?

Mr. Almond.—Not necessarily. If it were a new service involving a new Vote in which there were substantial receipts not of a kind normally credited direct to the Exchequer, we would probably agree to the opening of an Appropriations-in-Aid Sub-head.

309. Chairman.—But in the case of an existing service, the Department of Finance would prefer to see any receipts that there are go direct to the Exchequer?

Mr. Almond.—It is not a question of preference. It is largely a question of convenience. Of course, in some cases we do not know whether the receipts are going to be permanent or not. I think that even up to the present, and I am sure Mr. Maher will agree with me it is rather a matter of experimentation as to what course will be adopted.

Mr. Maher.—That is so. The British practice, I understand, is not to open an Appropriation-in-Aid Sub-head for any figure under £1,000. We have not got any relative figure here, but generally the line is as Mr. Almond has stated: that it is a matter very often of discussion, practice and convenience. The great advantage of an Appropriation-in-Aid Sub-head is that it is an incentive to a Department to collect as much as it can, whereas if the money goes direct to the Exchequer the Department very often is not aware of the amount at all except by means of a note or a memorandum.

310. Chairman.—Then I should have expected to see the Department of Finance clasping the Appropriations-in-Aid Sub-head system the more closely to its bosom.

Mr. Almond.—We do not necessarily accept Mr. Maher’s statement.

VOTE 33—GARDA SIOCHANA.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

311. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note this Vote:—

Sub-head C.—Subsistence Allowances.

“The Gárda Síochána Allowances Order, 1926, prescribes the rates of subsistence payable to members of the Force in respect of absence from their stations, and provides for a reduction of the amount otherwise payable if sleeping accommodation is provided in official quarters. I observed that, in certain cases, members of the Force on detached duty were not accommodated in barracks although beds issued to the stations were not occupied at the time. It appears that beds and bedding were formally allocated to individual members of the Force and were not regarded as available for other members when the men to whom they were issued were sleeping out of barracks. The governing regulations have since been modified to the extent that, except in the case of a member permanently residing in barracks, beds and bedding will no longer be allocated to individual members and will be available for the use of any member when required.”

I understand that this matter largely arose out of the fact that when married members of the Guards are not on duty they sleep in their own homes, and that during that time the beds provided for them in the barracks are not in use. Even though these beds are not in use, Guards passing through the station are not permitted to use them, with the result that they have to get a living-out allowance. It is felt, I understand, that when beds in a barrack are not in use Guards passing through a station should be allowed to avail of them, thereby avoiding the necessity for the payment of this living-out allowance.

Mr. Maher.—That is so. Very often Guards, especially inspectors of weights and measures, are on itinerant duty. We came across one or two cases where quite a number of beds were “spare to requirements.” That is to say, they were unoccupied but had been allocated to Guards who had been married and living out of barracks. The result was that the visiting Guard was paid a subsistence allowance of 10/- a night, whereas if he were accommodated in barracks that subsistence would be saved. As there are quite a number of Guards on itinerant duty of this nature, the additional expense for a year would be pretty considerable. As stated in the report, this matter has now been rectified by routine orders issued by the Accounting Officer in September last. In future, we understand that a bed which is not occupied will be available for any Guard visiting a station on duty.

312. Deputy Cole.—The allowance* of 10/- would cover his meals?

Mr. Roche.—That is the subject of a separate regulation. That allowance is paid only in the event of accommodation not being available in barracks. There is, however, a small subsistence allowance made if he is accommodated in barracks.

313. Deputy Walsh.—Does it follow that he gets meals in barracks as well?

Chairman.—What is the position if a Guard is provided only with sleeping accommodation in barracks and if he does not get his meals there?—He gets a subsistence allowance of 2/- a day.

314. I take it that, in fixing these men’s wages, allowance is made for the fact that their duty is of an itinerant character?—I do not think so. Weights and measures inspectors are usually sergeants, and their allowances are measured according to the amount of expense that they actually incur.

315. Are they allowed only 2/- a day to feed themselves?—No. The orders are extremely complicated, and the allowances vary according to whether a man sleeps in barracks and gets his food there or whether he sleeps in barracks and gets his food elsewhere. The scales vary according to the circumstances. I think it is true to say that the food is valued at about 2/- per day. Mr. McLaughlin is more familiar with the figures than I am, and perhaps you would permit him to explain the position.

Mr. J. M. McLaughlin.—Where a man has to spend a night from barracks the ordinary subsistence allowance is 10/-, but if accommodated with a bed in barracks, that allowance is reduced to 8/-. The value of a bed in barracks is estimated at 2/-. On the question of the spare beds, the position was that if a bed were available the man was supposed to occupy it. A difficulty in this connection is now met by their bringing bed linen with them when members are out on temporary service.

316. Deputy Smith.—Is not an allowance of 8/- for food very high? In most cases the man would have food in the barracks, although he would have to contribute towards the mess. An allowance of 8/- seems to be very substantial.

Deputy McMenamin.—It is not excessive if he staying only for a short time.

Deputy Walsh.—Three shillings of that sum would have to be paid for his dinner.

Mr. Roche.—The allowance is, I think, on much the same lines as the Civil Service allowance. A higher civil servant receives 16/- for 24 hours. It could be argued that the allowance of 8/- for food in these cases is too much, and it could be argued that it is too little, but that is the figure.

317. Deputy Cole.—Would it be out of order to compare that allowance with the allowance made to court criers?

Deputy McMenamin.—The allowance of 8/- would be too much if a man were staying in a place for a week.

Chairman.—I do not think that it is the function of this Committee to determine whether the allowance is adequate or excessive. We can deal with that matter on the Estimate or make representations on a suitable occasion to the Minister in regard to it.

Deputy Walsh.—The allowance might be extravagant where a Guard is drafted into a disturbed area and kept there for a few weeks. It would not be extravagant if he were remaining in a place for only a day or two days.

318. Deputy Smith.—I understand that this matter applies mostly in the case of weights and measures officers. To what extent do they do itinerant work? I understand that they operate from one centre. Even though they have to move around a certain area, my impression is that they make some place their headquarters?—Each inspector has headquarters and he moves around in a circle to various places fairly close to headquarters. He has to stay out. sometimes, all day and, sometimes, all night.

319. He has often to use transport. What contribution do you make towards his transport charges?—We pay them.

320. If you pay transport charges, then the officer must be living in some definite centre in his area. Therefore, he must be be living in barracks?—I do not follow you there. He is attached to a station as his normal headquarters. If he is lucky, he may be living in barracks every night or he may be absent every second night or, perhaps, only once a week. That all depends on the size of the district and the circumstances.

321. Are we to understand that the weights and measures officer operating in a particular area has ten or 12 towns to cover and that you pay him motor car allowance for visiting these centres and in addition 10/- per day?—I should not say we pay him motor car allowance. He might be allowed his rail fare or he might be allowed for a taxi. Generally, he travels by ’bus. Whatever he is out of pocket, we have to pay, of course. If he pays 10/- for a taxi and if we consider that is reasonable, we pay that amount. If he can travel by ’bus for 1/-, we pay that. That does not affect the other question— what he should be paid by way of subsistence if he has to stay away for 24 hours.

322. It is only when obliged to stay in these places that you pay him subsistence allowance?—Yes. That is the essence of subsistence allowance. It is paid to men who are of necessity away from headquarters.

323. Each of these officers has a definite headquarters recognised by you and it is only when he is away from headquarters that he gets this allowance?— Yes.

324. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that the regulation made last September has resulted in any substantial economy?—It is too soon to say, but there is every reason to believe it will so result.

325. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has a note on Sub-head D—Locomotion Expenses. The note is as follows:—

“The regulations governing the payment of locomotion allowances provide for a deduction at the rate of £13 per annum where garage accommodation is officially provided. In certain cases, however, locomotion allowances were paid in full, although official garages were available, and I have asked for an explanation of the circumstances in which the official accommodation was not availed of.”

Has that explanation been forthcoming?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. Three cases were involved, and the Accounting Officer has replied that in two of these cases the garage equipment was inadequate, and that, in the third case, the Chief Superintendent utilised the garage which is part of his residence. We are not in a position to say whether use of the garage accommodation provided should have been insisted upon, or whether the Chief Superintendent in this case should have utilised the official garage. That is rather a matter for administration. The position at the date of the report was that the Audit Office had been informed that garage accommodation was provided. A question arises as to the adequacy of that accommodation. On that matter, the Audit Office would not be in a position to give a definite opinion.

326. Chairman.—What is your opinion, Mr. Roche?

Mr. Roche.—This is a point into which it is difficult for me, as Accounting Officer, to go very deeply. I could not say whether a particular garage attached to a station is or is not fit for the use of the officers’ cars. I have, in practice, to take the word of the responsible police officer. If the Chief Superintendent says that the roof of the garage is leaking, and that it is not fit for use, I take his opinion. Otherwise it would be necessary for me to have a staff of inspectors who would go around and check up these things.

327 Chairman.—Do you not think that it is undesirable that the property of the State should be in a leaky and unsatisfactory condition? Surely, it is desirable that the Board of Works should restore State property to a sound and watertight condition at the earliest possible moment? —I do not blame the Board of Works, but they have been unable, for years, to restore to good condition even the living quarters of the men in various places. So long as that state of affairs obtains, the garages will have to wait.

328. You say that it would be impossible for you to maintain a staff of inspectors to check up on the reports you receive from responsible Gárda officers. Surely the Department of Justice might properly say to the Board of Works that they were informed that the garage annexed to a certain barracks was falling down, and that as this involved the Department in an annual expenditure of £13, with the structure itself in jeopardy, something should be done about it?—There is no doubt that that should be done, and I am informed that it is the routine procedure to so inform the Board of Works in these cases.

329. Deputy Smith.—Are all these barracks State property?—They are, in a sense, but the conditions of holding are different. Some are held on leases from year to year, and in other cases they are held in fee simple. I do not know how the barracks in question are held. That might make a difference. The Board of Works might hold that, in the case of barracks which have been taken on short-term cases, it would not be worth while to repair the garages.

330. If it were a case of a house taken for the accommodation of the Gárda which was thought to be in a bad condition, the Gárda would be very alert in drawing the attention of the Department of Justice to the matter, and the Department of Justice would, in turn, draw the attention of the Board of Works to it. Since they are so alert in a case of that kind, you would think they would be alert in a matter of this kind?—Yes.

331. That seems to me to be entirely unreasonable and I do not know how a payment of that kind came to be made. If the garage was there and available for the officer, he should use it. If he does not use it let him put up with the loss?— I do not know that I can agree with you there. If the Chief Superintendent says that the garage is not really fit for use, I do not see how I can refuse to pay the officer the necessary sum.

332. You could not expect the Chief Superintendent to say anything else?—I could not agree with you there either.

333. Chairman.—I agree with Mr. Roche. I believe that if a responsible officer of the Gárda notifies the Department that the garage is not fit for occupation, and the Department notifies the Board of Works that work requires to be done, I do not see how the Chief Superintendent can be shown to be a liar and trying to defraud the Department of £13.

Deputy Smith.—It is the most lame excuse I ever heard put up.

Deputy McMenamin.—A number of the barracks are not fit for occupation by the Guards, much less the garages.

Deputy Smith.—That is a different matter. There is garage accommodation attached to three barracks for these officers and they failed to use it, and they are paid £13 each in respect of the accommodation they provided themselves. I would say that in these cases they should not get a single solitary penny.

334. Deputy Cole.—Was the garage let by an independent landlord? You are not prepared to say whether it was or not?— The landlord should be asked to execute repairs—is that the point? It is very difficult to get them to execute repairs. We have experience of that.

Deputy Cole.—If it was a matter of an ordinary tenant the justice would see that the repairs were carried out or the rent would not be paid.

Deputy Walsh.—The only way to clear the matter up would be if we had any evidence before us that the Department of Justice has acquainted the Board of Works, and if we had any report from the Board of Works as to why the garages were not repaired, or whether they should be repaired.

Chairman.—Mr. Roche has very kindly undertaken to let us have a note to the effect that he has notified, or will notify, the Board of Works of the unsatisfactory condition of this garage. If, on inspection by the Board of Works, it appears that this officer has incorrectly represented the condition of the garage, no doubt Mr. Roche will take steps to make his officer answer for his incorrect representation to him.

335. Deputy Smith.—Would it be in order to ask for the names of the barracks concerned?

Chairman.—I see no reason why we should not have them.

Mr. Roche.—My note relates to Mullingar and Strokestown.

Deputy Smith.—You do not know the third?—Roscommon, I believe.

Mr. Maher.—Two in Mullingar and one in Strokestown.

336. Deputy Smith.—You seemed to make a segregation, Mr. Maher. There was one in respect of which you thought the case was more glaring than in the other two.

Mr. Maher.—In the second case, the case of the Chief Superintendent in Mullingar, the information transmitted to us from the Deputy Commissioner is that the Chief Superintendent utilised a garage which is part of his residence, and not the official garage.

337. Deputy Smith.—Why should he be paid then?—“The official garage at Strokestown is in a bad state of repair and not, therefore, used by the District Officer, who has a garage attached to his residence.”

338. Deputy Smith.—Is the garage in a bad state of repair because he has a garage attached to his house?—I am afraid I could not answer that question.

Deputy Brasier.—Would it not appear that the fact that he has a garage attached to his house is the reason he uses it. When he had a garage attached to his residence, he would use it in preference.

Chairman.—He has no right to obtain an allowance of £13 and that is the point which Mr. Roche has undertaken to look into. We cannot go any further in the matter.

Deputy Smith.—I should be glad to learn from this note how these barracks were held—whether they were held on a yearly tenancy or a lease over a long period.

Chairman.—I think we can depend on Mr. Roche to give a comprehensive note.*

Report of Comptroller and Auditor General.

Paragraph 18—Fees for Verification of Weights and Measures.

“In the course of my audit I observed that certain fees collected by an ex-officio Inspector of Weights and Measures were surrendered only after the Superintendent’s examination of the accounts disclosed that all the fees had not been accounted for and that further investigation indicated sums amounting to £10, approximately, had not been brought to credit. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on the matter.

A case of embezzlement of similar fees was referred to in my report on the Appropriation Account for the year 1933-34. Arising out of the present case, I enquired whether the Accounting Officer was satisfied that the system under which the fees are charged and collected by the ex-officio Inspector could be regarded as satisfactory and I was informed that the system had been specially examined in all its aspects, but that it did not appear that any better one could be devised.”

339. Chairman.—What is an ex-officio Inspector of Weights and Measures?— He is a policeman usually who devotes his whole time to checking up weights and measures. He is a specialist and usually a sergeant.

340. Deputy Walsh.—He has to pass a special examination?—Yes.

341. These fees are fixed?—Yes, there is a statutory scale of fees.

342. Are they published at the place of inspection?—In other words, does everybody going in to get weights and measures inspected know exactly the amount they have to pay on the different instruments? —The inspector is supposed to show the authorised scale when taking a receipt for the money, but I can conceive it possible that he might not do so. If he charged a trader 3/6, and the trader asked no questions, the inspector might not say: “Here is my authorised scale; you will see the scale fixed by it.”

343. Chairman.—Might I suggest in connection with these fees all possibility of defalcation or misappropriation would be overcome if these inspectors were forbidden from collecting fees at all but were required to give a trader a bill for the work done and to send a carbon copy to the Department of Justice, whereupon the Department of Justice could render the account in the ordinary way and receive from the trader direct a postal order or cheque in payment.

Deputy Walsh.—I agree that that would be the best system, because at present what the trader does in most cases —and I have experience of this, having been a trader myself—is to pay whatever is asked, with the result that he does not know the amount for any specific instrument.

Mr. Roche.—I have had unfortunately a lot of experience in the last two years of these minor defalcations by various classes of people, notably people employed by the county registrars to collect fees, the court messengers. It has always been a great problem to devise some system which will not cost more than it is worth and which will prevent petty defalcations. I have not been able to do it. We have tried in connection with the collecting of fees to get a fool-proof system, but we cannot get it. Whatever we do, there is some way of evading it. In the system you suggest I see this difficulty, that if a man is going to be dishonest he will say to a trader: “That is 3/6.” He is paid and puts the money in his pocket, issuing no receipt.

344. Chairman.—Most of these examinations of weights and scales are carried out in the Gárda barracks, and for a Guard who is forbidden to accept money from anybody for his services, overtly, in the presence of other Guards, to accept money would be a very grave risk for him. I submit that if you establish one minor clerk in your Department to open a ledger and to receive from the weights and measures inspectors all over the country carbon copies of their bills, enter them in the ledger and send them out as an ordinary merchant would his accounts, no difficulty can possibly arise?—I think that is well worth consideration and I shall consider it. I should be glad of any system which would help to prevent defalcations.

Chairman.—I think it would prevent them absolutely.

Deputy Walsh.—There is no question but that at present, if a man is dishonest, there is no check. He can ask a trader for 7/- where the bill might be only 5/-.

345. Chairman.—There is always a temptation to these officers to be dishonest under the existing system.

Mr. Roche.—Our great trouble was with court messengers collecting money from small farmers, and in an endeavour to stop dishonesty we require our men to issue a receipt. When our men come back to the office we actually send the party who paid the money a second receipt specifying the amount, so that if he is issued a false receipt he would be caught. It is, however, very difficult to do these things, because we actually found cases where a man was paid 10/6 and issued a receipt for 3/6. We issued a second receipt, and the party took it. put it in his pocket and said nothing about it.

Chairman.—I think you will find that the average country trader will not be so amenable to transactions of that kind.

346. Deputy Beegan.—With regard to Sub-head A.—Salaries, Wages and Pay— there was a sum of £28.000 unexpended. Would that show a decrease in the Force?

Chairman.—The Deputy will find a note which states that the strength of the Force on 1st April, 1936, was below that provided for and that the wastage by resignation, death, etc., was high and only two recruits were attested.

Deputy Beegan.—How is it that the allowances are greater than was estimated?

Chairman.—The note says that the excess is mainly due to rent allowances which vary and are dependent on the number of marriages. I take it that the proportion of married members of the Gárda grew even though the members of the Force itself fell.

347. Deputy Walsh.—What does the item “compensation” under Sub-head M refer to?

Mr. Roche.—I have a note here which says that this Sub-head covers first, compensation to members of the Force for their private property which was feloniously damaged or destroyed—there is only about £10 yearly for that—and secondly, compensation to members of the public for damage or injury as a result of accidents in which Gárda Síochána vehicles were involved. We do not insure police cars. Unlike ordinary private vehicles they are not insured. The State stands the loss. This is the consequence.

348. Deputy Walsh.—What does Sub-head NN mean?

Chairman.—You will find a note dealing with that on page 90. What are the circumstances surrounding the £8 10s. which represents a cash deficiency on an imprest account?

Mr. Roche.—I have a note here that in December, 1935, the Superintendent’s office in Green Street, Dublin, was feloniously entered and a sum of £54 0s. 10d. stolen. Included in that was £14 10s. public moneys, made up of firearms fees and so on.

349. That, I think, relates to the second item in the note?—Yes. I do not want to delay the Committee; I cannot find my note now, so I will give you a special note* on it.

VOTE 34—PRISONS.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined

350. Chairman.—On this Vote there is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which reads as follows:—

“The statement of the manufacturing and farm account appended to the appropriation account has been examined, and local test examinations of the conversion books and other records dealing with manufacturing operations have been carried out with satisfactory results.

“The price fixed for bread produced at the bakery in Mountjoy Prison was increased from 5½d. to 9d. per 4-lb. loaf, in October, 1936, resulting in increased profit to the industry with a consequential increased charge to Sub-head B. It appeared that the increased price was determined on a revised basis as compared with previous years, and I have asked for further information on the matter.”

Did you get that information?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. The first part of the paragraph is merely to show that this test check has been carried out. As regards the second part, we have recently been informed that the price of bread produced at Mountjoy bakery should for estimating and accounting purposes be fixed at a figure corresponding approximately to that paid by other Government institutions in Dublin which obtained bread by contract. This was found at the time to be a little over 9d. per 4 lb. loaf, and that explains the change.

351. What was the old basis for valuing the 4 lb. loaf produced at Mountjoy?—I understand it was the actual material cost.

352. The old basis was just the cost of materials, with no allowance for labour?

Mr. Roche.—Frankly, the old basis was a mystery to me. We have now adopted a practice which at least is capable of being understood—the practice of valuing the bread at its market value. I made several attempts to understand what the old system was, and the reason I abandoned it was that I could not understand what it was. It was something like this: you took the cost of your material and added to it a figure estimated to cover the cost of production, but that figure had no relation to anything. It was generally 5 per cent. or thereabouts and meant nothing. We abandoned the system as being unintelligible to anybody, and adopted the method of taking the actual value of the stuff produced.

353. Deputy Cole.—Are regular master bakers employed there?—It is all prison labour I believe. A certain number of warders have a knowledge of bakery and that kind of thing.

354. If it is free labour the cost should be easily arrived at?—There is a baker warder.

355. Chairman.—But the ordinary labour in the bakery, with the exception of the baker warder, would be free labour? —Yes.

Deputy Cole.—It should not be very hard to arrive at the cost after that?

Chairman.—As the operation is purely an accounting one, I suppose the basis adopted was determined as the most convenient. It does give a firm figure and makes accounting possible.

Deputy Corry.—It seems to be an extraordinary figure all the same.

Chairman.—It is the contract figure prevailing for bread purchased by other Departments.

Deputy Cole.—It should be less if it is free labour.

Chairman.—It does not make the slightest difference, because the operation is taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. It is merely an accounting operation.

Deputy Smith.—Seeing that there is only one man paid a salary in connection with the production of the bread in the prison, surely it should not be difficult to determine the price of the bread. It should not be difficult to keep a record of that man’s salary, plus the cost of the flour purchased.

Chairman.—You will have to allow for light, coal, wear and tear of machinery and so on. In view of the fact that no importance whatever attaches to the figure, is it not simpler to take the current value of the product and value the Mountjoy bread at the same price as all the other bread?

356. Deputy Brasier.—I take it you regard the employment of free labour in the prison as a profit on your accounts? Would that not be so?

Mr. Roche.—Well, I cannot add anything to what the Chairman has said. He has explained the position as far as I am concerned. We buy a certain quantity of flour; we employ warders and prisoners. A certain number of loaves are produced and we have put a value on them. You can either put the real value on them, as we are doing now, or you can start a calculation of the most intricate character. You would have to calculate say the cost of the prisoners’ food, and so on, and all that trouble would be entirely wasted.

357. Deputy Brasier.—Still, I definitely take it that you are making a profit on that account?—Oh, undoubtedly. It is cheaper than buying bread.

Mr. Maher.—The advantage of the new method is that it enables a comparison to be made with the supply of bread to other prisons where the bread is obtained by legal tender and contract from outside sources.

358. Chairman.—We can now pass to the Sub-heads of the Vote. With regard to Sub-head H (1), where was the electric light installation put in?

Mr. Roche.—In the Borstal.

359. Deputy Walsh.—What does Sub-head O mean—Gratuities to Prisoners?— When the ordinary prisoner is being discharged from prison, he gets a very small sum as a sort of payment for his labour, to start him afresh. In most cases it is only about 10/-.

VOTE 35—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche called.

No questions.

VOTE 36—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

360. Chairman.—I suppose that in future the expenses incurred by the travelling Assizes will appear under that Sub-head B?

Mr. Roche.—Yes.

361. Under Sub-head D, was this compensation paid to a District Probate Registrar on retiring or in respect of injury?—No. This is a very old figure, settled long before this State came into existence as compensation to a District Probate Registrar who is still living and still in office in the West of Ireland. It was compensation for certain fees lost away back in the year 1891 or thereabouts through a change in the law.

362. What is “Duty on estates—£5”? —That is a bankruptcy duty. Under Section 88 of an Act of 1853 an ad valorem duty was imposed on every estate sold, divided, exchanged or otherwise dealt with under the Act. The rates of duty were fixed by the Statute. The minimum rate is 10/- per cent.

363. Is it a Bankruptcy Act?—I am not sure. The Statute is 21 and 22 Vic., Cap. 72.

VOTE 37—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. S. A. Roche called.

No questions.

VOTE 38—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

Paragraph 20, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

As stated in a note to the account, three officials of a Circuit Court office, of whom two were convicted and sentenced, were dismissed in connection with charges involving sums of £18 14s. 0d. and £156 13s. 6d. Further investigation has disclosed misappropriations amounting in all to £2,878 5s. 5d., of which £2,857 13s. 5d. related to court funds and the balance to revenue. The total amount of the loss to revenue cannot be definitely determined.

The defalcations had extended over a number of years, and I understand that the circumstances in which they arose are still under consideration.

364. Chairman.—Have you anything further to say on this matter, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The main purpose of the note is to show that the total amount of loss of revenue cannot be definitely determined. I understand that it is quite impossible to arrive even at an approximate figure. The other portion of the paragraph sets out what has taken place —that this matter has been already the subject of criminal proceedings.

Deputy Brasier.—Was not that due to the fact that, in order to exercise economy, a very large number of these departments were more or less amalgamated under one supervising officer and that it was totally impossible to supervise that department?

365. Chairman.—Perhaps we will ask Mr. Roche to say a word on the matter.

Mr. Roche.—It is true, I should say, that the County Registrar for Cork has a great variety of different functions for which he is responsible. He is under-sheriff, local registrar of title and various other things. But I do not think that these defalcations arose because of that circumstance. What Mr. Maher has called revenue losses, I think, is roughly this—that the dishonest clerk took used stamps off folios and stuck them on to new folios, having removed the cancellation mark. That is very difficult to detect. When I was shown the stamp put on again I could not see any sign of its previous use, the thing was so well done. I am afraid that it is the kind of thing no supervision will stop.

366. Deputy Brasier.—If supervision would not stop it, was it not impossible for the officer concerned for all these departments adequately to supervise these departments?—That is a kind of question that is very hard to answer. If I wanted to say it, I could say that it was impossible for me to supervise one-tenth of my departments.

367. Why should the officer be held responsible for the defalcations of those under him?—In the first place, has he been held responsible?

368. He has been removed from office? —I cannot discuss that—that is the act of the Government.

369. Would it not be advisable to say whether he was responsible in any way for these defalcations?

Chairman.—Do not let us prejudge any matter.

Deputy Brasier.—This is a highly respected officer.

Chairman.—I urge you not to do that officer injury. You will observe that the last part of this note says: “The defalcations had extended over a number of years, and I understand that the circumstances in which they arose are still under consideration.” Has that consideration been concluded?

Mr. Roche.—No.

370. Chairman.—Therefore I would not press Mr. Roche unduly at this stage. The matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Roche.—I should like to make it clear that the amount of these very large defalcations which concerns the State directly is small. The enormous bulk of the money belonging to private people in Cork whose money was in Court, generally minors whose estates were being administered. It is not State money.

371. Deputy Walsh.—The public, in other words?—Private people like children until they reach the age of 21.

372. Deputy Brasier.—The supervising officer was not responsible for that, as he could not supervise it?—The question of who is responsible may come before the High Court any day and I could not say anything about it now.

373. Chairman.—It is true that a precedent exists for the Exchequer making good to minors or other wards of Court funds which an officer of the Court has made away with?—I do not know that that is so. I cannot remember any case definitely where that was done. This is unique to me. I never heard of a case like this before

374. Chairman.—I do not suppose we can profitably discuss the precedents now without reference to documents. I think there is a precedent. However, that matter doubtless will be determined in the proper place and at the proper time.

Deputy Walsh.—I thought it strange that Mr. Roche should say that it would be more or less impossible to detect it. I interpret that statement to mean that it could occur in any office and that nobody would know anything about it.

375. Chairman.—What I understood him to say was that no responsible officer, even though these men came daily under his attention, if he were not an expert in this type of crime, would ordinarily advert to the fact that a crime was being committed.

Mr. Roche.—I was talking then of the question of removing the stamps. On the question of the responsibility for the embezzlement of the funds, which is a much bigger question, it would be rash to say a word because it may come before the Court.

376. Chairman.—Your observation, so far as you referred to the inability of anyone detecting this, referred to the technical matter of detecting the fact that a used stamp was being used again? —Yes.

377. That that was being done by a very skilled craftsman?—So skilled that I could not say it had been done when shown to me.

Deputy Brasier.—You acknowledge that there was a very large amalgamation of these offices?

Chairman.—I am certain that Mr. Roche will acknowledge nothing which could be quoted outside this Committee as being relevant to legal proceedings, nor should we ask him to do so.

Deputy Cole.—Could anything be quoted outside from this Committee? I thought it was private and confidential.

Chairman.—The Minutes of Evidence will in due course be published.

378. Chairman.—As to Sub-head E— Appropriations-in-Aid—the execution of Court Orders and Land Commission Warrants seems to have reached a staggering figure. Are these costs collected on Land Commission warrants?—Yes, these are mainly fees taken by the county registrars. In the ordinary way, these warrants would go to the under-sheriff, and the State is not concerned with the fees, as they are the private property of the sheriff. But in about half of the counties the work of the under-sheriff is now done by the county registrar and he collects these fees and puts them into the Exchequer. The more work there is in the way of recovering Land Commission annuities by way of warrant, naturally the more fees they get.

379. Deputy McMenamin.—How many sheriffs are there as distinct from county registrars?—I think it is roughly half and half—13 and 13.

380. Have you a return of the sheriffs’ fees?—No, they are not on our list.

381. Chairman.—Where do the additional expenses arising from the levying of these Court Orders and Land Commission Warrants appear?—The Circuit Court Estimate has been swollen on both sides for years past—swollen on the expenditure side by the additional expenditure, and swollen on the receipt side by the additional receipts.

382. I notice that the extent of the swelling on the expense side is £7,000, and that the swelling on the receipt side is £21,000, so that it seems to be a fairly profitable swelling from the point of view of the Department of Finance?—That may be so in one year, but I think that, roughly speaking, the business just about pays for itself.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m.

*See Appendix IV.

*See Appendix V.

*See Appendix VI.