|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Céadaoin, 13adh Márta, 1940.Wednesday, 13th March, 1940.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Seóirse Mag Craith (Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste), Seán O Muimhneacháin and Mr. T. S. C. Dagg (Roinn Airgeadais), called and examined.ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.Deputy Walsh.—I propose that Deputy Dillon take the Chair, and continue to do the work that he has done so well previously. Deputy Dillon took the Chair. Chairman.—I thank you, gentlemen, for electing me to this position. I do not think it is necessary for me to make any reference to our procedure, because I think it is familiar to the members of the Committee already. The first Vote that we have to consider to-day is Vote 44, National Health Insurance. On that Vote there is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Mr. Hurson is here, and will tell us anything that we want to know, and I see our friend, Mr. McCarron, in the background, and I am sure he will also help us. VOTE 44—NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.Mr. J. Hurson called and examined.1. Chairman.—With regard to subhead AA—Actuary—does he actually ever publish any report, Mr. Hurson, or is he merely an advisory official with regard to national health insurance? Mr. Hurson.—Perhaps you would kindly permit Mr. McCarron to answer that question. Mr. McCarron.—No. He does not publish any report. He merely advises or reports to the Minister here on subjects on which he is asked to report. 2. With regard to subhead F. 2—Sickness, Disablement and other Benefits—does it appear to you, Mr. McCarron, that the disablement benefits claimed here are capable of reduction by closer supervision?—Well, of course, it is a difficult question to answer, but there is very close supervision exercised. In spite of that supervision, however, there is no doubt that the disablement benefit paid in this country is very much in excess of what had ever been expected, and not only that, but greatly in excess of the disablement benefit which is paid under similar conditions in Great Britain. Every effort, however, is made to have the disablement benefit, and, in fact, all the benefits, supervised as closely as possible. 3. Deputy O’Rourke.—What about the medical men in such cases? Are they officially appointed by the Department, or are they just taken at random?—Do you mean the medical referees? 4. No, I mean those who report on the ability of a person to work. I am referring to the doctors, and is there not the possibilty of a lot of abuse there? Mr. McCarron.—One does not like to accuse the doctors, but the fact is that both sickness and disablement benefits are paid on certificates of incapacity issued by the doctors. Obviously, if there is any laxity in the issue of certificates, then there is more sickness and disablement benefit being paid than would otherwise be payable, and the effort that is made to counteract that is that we have four medical referees, and if the Society has any doubt as to whether a man is incapable of work or not they can send in his name to us, and we have that man examined by one of the district medical referees. There are some 30,000 cases per year examined in that way. 5. Deputy O’Rourke.—You examine the women too?—Yes. 6. There would be more likely to be abuses in the case of the women?—I would not like to say that. The fact is that disablement benefit is heavy, but it is still heavier in the case of the women than of the men. That is what I thought. 7. Chairman—On subhead H, can you tell us, Mr. McCarron, before we leave that Vote, supposing that a person becomes entitled to National Health Insurance benefit in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, and returns to Ireland during the period of incapacity, can he or she collect the benefit to which such a person became entitled before they left England or Northern Ireland? Mr. McCarron.—Do you refer to a case where the illness continues after the person came back here? Chairman.—Yes. Mr. McCarron.—In that case they can collect it for six months, if they are temporarily resident here; if they have actually changed their residence and become permanently resident here, they are no longer entitled to any benefit from the English Society. 8. Is that a matter with which you, as Controller of National Health Insurance in this country, concern yourself, or is it a matter which the individual claimant must settle with the approved society in Great Britain?—It is a matter in which we have no jurisdiction, because the money is paid out of the English National Health Insurance Fund by an English Society; but, in any case in which the question has been brought to our notice, we advise the insured person here of the action which he should take. 9. Would you, in any circumstances, make representations on their behalf to the Controller in Great Britain?—We would draw his attention to the facts. Thank you. VOTE 29—WIDOWS’ AND ORPHANS’ PENSIONS.Mr. J. Hurson further examined.10. Chairman.—On this Vote there is no note, and the only Subhead is one representing a payment over to the Pensions Investment Account. As we have obtained all we need from Mr. McCarron, we are quite willing that he retire VOTE 42—GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE.Mr. J. Hurson further examined.11. Chairman.—In this case the Auditor-General has made no note. On subhead E, Mr. Hurson, for a considerable time, as you know, old age pensioners have had difficulties in getting on the General Register. Has that difficulty tended to disappear? Mr. Hurson.—I think so. I made inquiries some time ago as to the existence of such a difficulty, and my information is that no great difficulty ever existed. Deputy O’Rourke.—That it never existed?—It did, years ago, but not now. Mr. Hurson.—I mean, in recent years. There may be occasional cases. 12. Chairman.—So that the Register is now practically complete? Mr. Hurson.—Yes. 13. I know at the moment of a case where two old ladies were quite unable to get on to the Register. In fact, one is off the National Health Insurance on the ground that she is too old, and the other has been refused a pension because she is too young. Mr. Hurson.—Could I get particulars of that case, Sir? Chairman.—I shall try and find them for you. 14. Deputy McMenamin.—That should not happen. If one Department strikes her off for being too old, the other should admit that she is the age for their particular purpose. You cannot have it both ways. Mr. Hurson—I agree, but I would be very glad to have an opportunity of examining the particulars. VOTE 41—LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH.15. Chairman.—In this Vote there are some notes by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Subhead F. 2.—Expenses in connection with the Local Government (Dublin) Tribunal. “The expenditure charged to this subhead represents payment of a gratuity of £100 to the officer who acted as Secretary to the Tribunal. As mentioned in previous reports, the costs and expenses of this Tribunal will, under section 101 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, be paid to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health by the local authorities concerned. The section provides that the amount to be paid by the local authorities shall be such as may be sanctioned by the Minister. In conveying sanction for payment of the gratuity mentioned above, the Department of Finance agreed that it need not be regarded as part of the costs and expenses of the Tribunal for the purposes of section 101 of the Act.” 16. Chairman.—Have you any observation to make on that, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—No. That paragraph is merely for the information of the Dáil. 17. Chairman.—Does this relate to the same subhead that we had a discussion with the Department of Finance about last year as to whether it was properly voted or not?—I think there was some question on that account. 18. Chairman.—There is a note on Subhead S 1—Contributions towards Loan Charges under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932: “I mentioned in paragraph 26 of my last report that a revised basis of calculation of contributions to annual loan charges of local authorities had been adopted, and that the revision of payments already made was in progress. In reply to a recent inquiry I was informed that adjustments, where necessary, have been made in all cases where information as to the financial effect of the schemes is available.” I think we had better deal with the first paragraph first, and then the subsequent paragraphs. Have you any observation to make on the first paragraph, Mr. McGrath?—The first part of paragraph 19 concerns mixed cases that were the subjects of discussion last year and the year before, and as I state in the paragraph, we have been in communication with the Accounting Officer and we find that the agreed method of calculation is now being put into operation. In all cases where it has been found necessary to do so, adjustments have been made, and we are quite satisfied with the position as it stands at the moment. Later on we may have a further report to make on that matter, but as far as we know, at the present moment things are satisfactory. 19. Would you give us a short description, Mr. Hurson, of the nature of these cases? Mr. Hurson.—I think, Sir, I submitted a full memorandum to the Committee on last year’s examination.* I could read from it if you wish. 20. Chairman.—I want the memory of the Committee refreshed as to the nature of these mixed cases?—The difficulty, as far as I can ascertain, did not arise so much from what you call mixed cases, that is where a loan is obtained for slum clearance and also for normal housing. Some difficulty arose in the Department in calculating the contribution to loan charges in respect of loans that had not been completely issued, that is loans in respect of which instalments only had been issued to the local authority from the Local Loans Fund. Some of these instalments would have been issued, say, in October of one year and the interest on that instalment would only be calculated up to the gale day. which I understand, would be the following November. The interest would be quite small, and the calculation was made in the Department without reference to the actual amount of interest payable. The practice now is to obtain from the Office of Public Works the actual interest, in other words, to get the actual loan charges and to base the contribution on that. That is where, I think, the Department’s system had gone a little bit astray. Then the other question arose in the calculation of contributions to loan charges where the cost of a house exceeded the subsidisable limit. The Department held and, I think, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will agree, that no difficulty arises where the amount of the instalment of the loan issued does not exceed the subsidisable limit, and that it is only when the full amount of the advance exceeds the subsidisable limit that you have to go on a proportionate basis. Both these points are now being carefully examined and followed. 21. Chairman.—Has the Department of Finance anything to say to us on this matter? Mr. Dagg.—No, Sir. 22. Chairman.—This was a matter in which the Department of Finance did not intervene?—No, Sir. 23. Deputy McMenamin.—As far as I remember this discussion last year and the year before, it revolved around the rate of interest applicable to the nature of the order. You see, there is a distinction between clearance orders and demolition orders, and the purpose for which the houses were being supplied. So far as I remember, last year the conflict arose as to which was the proper rate of interest. Do you remember that paragraph, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—May I remind the Deputy that we will be discussing these points in the subsequent paragraphs? That point will arise on many occasions in the subsequent paragraphs. 24. Chairman.—In any case, Mr. McGrath, we may take it that so far as matters covered by the first paragraph are concerned you and the Department are now satisfied that everything is in order?—We are working on the same formula and the Audit Office is satisfied that that formula as far as it has been operated is satisfactory. We may have something to say later on. 25. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads:— “Under section 6 (1) (a) of the Act of 1932, contributions at a rate not exceeding 66⅔ per cent. of the annual loan charges may be paid to a local authority in respect of money borrowed by them for housing purposes, where the Minister is satisfied that the houses have been provided for the accommodation of persons displaced by any operations of the local authority under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1931. In other cases the maximum contribution is 33⅓ per cent. of the annual loan charges. “In connection with a scheme for the provision of 47 houses to accommodate persons removed from houses in respect of which demolition orders were made, it was observed that although appeals were brought successfully in the Circuit Court against the operation of the orders in four cases, the full contribution at the 66⅔ per cent. rate continued to be paid on the loan charges. In reply to an inquiry, the Accounting Officer stated that all the houses in the scheme were provided to accommodate persons displaced by operations of the local authority under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, and that although the demolition orders made in four cases were successfully appealed against, the occupants in these cases had already been removed, and it is legally permissible to made a contribution to annual loan charges at the higher rate under section 6 of the 1932 Act for all houses included in the scheme.” Have you any further comment to make on that, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—It will be seen that the operations visualised under the Act were carried out. That is that the local authority gave notice about the demolition of these houses, but that the notices did not operate in the case of four houses owing to the landlord of these houses successfully appealing to the Circuit Court. In dealing with the contributions for these loan charges, we must see some evidence that the 66⅔ per cent., that is the greater contribution, is the proper one to be paid. In examining into this particular case, we saw that four houses which it was intended to demolish were not, in fact, demolished, but that the local authority had done all it could in carrying out the provisions of the Act. I will admit that they did what they could, but still it must be taken into account that these four slum houses still remain and will probably form the subject later on of a further claim for a 66⅔ per cent. grant. I merely bring the matter before the Committee to show the difficulty of the Audit Office in deciding whether this was a proper charge. 26. Chairman.—Perhaps, Mr. Hurson, you have something to say on this matter?—In this particular case I also had my doubts, and I can quite understand the point which the Comptroller and Auditor-General makes—that when a house is the subject of a demolition order, and the demolition order does not become effective, that house may become a slum later on in the eyes of the law, and have to be demolished and a new house then provided for the inhabitants. I therefore got the opinion of the Department’s legal adviser, and I also consulted the Attorney-General. The Department’s legal adviser holds that the Minister must regard only the purpose for which houses are provided. In this case the houses were provided for the accommodation of persons to be removed from houses to be demolished. Therefore, the intention was quite clear. The purpose for which the loan was sanctioned was for the provision of houses for the accommodation of persons that were removed by the operation of the local authority. The law I think is quite clear that in that case the local authority is entitled to the full subsidy on houses provided for people removed from insanitary dwellings. 27. Chairman.—Section 6, paragraph (a) of the Act provides that the Minister may make a contribution, not exceeding 66⅔ per cent., towards the annual loan charges incurred by local authorities for the provision of houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, “where the Minister is satisfied that such houses have been provided for the accommodation of persons displaced by any operations of such local authority under the said Acts.” That seems to me to justify the course taken by the Department of Local Government and Public Health. The persons who were accommodated with these houses were displaced from their former dwelling houses, by the operation of the local authority under the Housing Acts. Mr. Hurson.—And the local authority must provide the new houses in advance. 28. Chairman.—Does it occur to you that there is an ambiguity, which should be cleared up, as to whether the 66⅔ per cent. contribution is contingent on the demolition of the condemned houses, or on the removal of the tenants from the condemned houses?—The law, I am advised, is quite clear on that point. It is a question of whether the law should be more restricted in the interests of the taxpayers. 29. Deputy McMenamin.—To cover the non-demolition of the houses?—Yes. Deputy McMenamin.—The section is quite clear, as far as we are concerned. 30. Deputy Hughes.—In that case, there is no real means of enforcing the demolition of the houses, or to ensure that the demolition order is made effective?—In this case 47 houses were to be demolished. Four were not demolished because the Court held that they were not insanitary to such an extent as to justify their demolition. These houses therefore remained, but the local authority had removed the tenants from these houses to new houses provided for them. A local authority requires to have some assurance before embarking on a scheme of this character as to how the scheme is going to be financed. They will require to know whether they are going to get a contribution of 66⅔ per cent. or of 33⅓ per cent. of the annual loan charges. The advice which I received was that the Minister must regard only the purpose for which the houses are provided. In this case the Minister had evidence, prior to the scheme starting and prior to the loan being sanctioned, that the houses were being provided for persons who were being displaced under the demolition order. 31. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Dagg would say whether the Minister for Finance had a word in this matter? Mr. Dagg.—No, sir, he did not come into it at all. Chairman.—We have all the facts and we can consider them when we come to prepare our report. Personally, I think that the Department of Local Government and Public Health is right in its attitude. Deputy McMenamin.—I agree. 32. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads:— “In another case it was observed that payment of contribution at the higher rate was made in respect of 34 houses which had been let to persons transferred from uncondemned houses. It appears that the 34 houses in question were provided for the accommodation of families to be displaced by the operations of the local authority under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, but the families displaced were not prepared to accept the tenancies. Arrangements were then made with local landlords by which 34 other families in the town were removed to the new houses and the dwellings vacated were occupied by the persons for whom the new houses were originally provided. In this connection, the Department was legally advised that so long as houses were originally provided by a local authority to accommodate persons displaced by any operations of such authority under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, it is not essential under the terms of section 6 (1) (a) (i) of the Act that such persons should, in fact, be the tenants of the houses, and that contribution at the 66⅔ per cent. rate is properly payable. The scheme, of which the 34 houses mentioned above formed part, included six shops with dwellings attached, and for the purpose of arriving at the total all-in cost figure on which contribution to loan charges is based, no discrimination was made as between the costs of dwellings and shops. As the Act appears to provide for contributions in respect of schemes for the provision of housing accommodation only, I have deemed it desirable to mention this matter.” 33. Chairman.—There are two questions here. Where did this incident take place, Mr. Hurson?—In Limerick City. 34. Chairman.—Have you anything further to say, Mr. McGrath, on the first part of this matter, regarding the switching of the tenants? Mr. McGrath.—I think the paragraph explains itself. It was a most extraordinary transaction. It was an extraordinary coincidence to have those 34 families provided for otherwise than by the occupation of the new houses. 35. Chairman.—Can you explain, Mr. Hurson, how this strange coincidence arose in which you found 34 families unwilling to go into the houses that were prepared for them and 34 other families most glad to accept your proposal and to surrender their houses to your intended tenants? 36. Deputy O Briain.—Was it not a question of the rents that were payable on the new houses? Was not the position this, that the tenants who were offered the new houses in the first instance did not feel they would be in a position to meet the rents?—It was partly that and partly because they did not want to leave the locality. 37. That is, that the scheme was too far away?—Yes. 38. Can you mention what scheme it is—is it the Island Field scheme?—I could not say exactly. The same principle is involved here as in the previous paragraph. The scheme was undertaken for slum clearance purposes and, in fact, all the houses in this case were demolished. As regards the 34 houses that were demolished, the tenants went into 34 existing houses that were vacated by tenants accommodated in the new houses. 39. Deputy O’Rourke.—Did that not look natural enough? 40. Chairman.—We all appreciate the circumstances in which the local authority and the Department found themselves, but the principle laid down in the last paragraph was that if the tenants were, in fact, moved without regard to the ultimate fate of the houses from which they were moved, the Minister was justified in making the payment. But here we have an entirely different set of circumstances?—In this case you have had the houses actually demolished. 41. Yes, you have one desideratum fulfilled in this case, but not in the other. In this case the tenants of the demolished houses never went into the new houses and the new houses were provided for persons whose erstwhile residence now accommodates the transferred tenants?—When I said the same principle was involved, I had in mind that the purpose of the scheme in this case was also for slum clearance. 42. But the principle laid down by the legal adviser was that the Minister must have regard to the reason for which the tenants were disturbed, to the manner in which the tenants were displaced from their former dwellings. These tenants were displaced from their former dwellings because they preferred the ones you had built and, having been so displaced, the houses they rejected were occupied by the previous tenants of the demolished houses. Not one of the demolished tenants has gone into the houses?— There were more than 34 houses in the local authority’s scheme. 43. But we are dealing with 34 and I say that not one of the demolished tenants went into the houses?—The scheme was originally for 148 houses. 44. And in regard to them, there is no question as to the propriety of the 66⅔ contribution. But in regard to the 34 houses, no demolished tenant has gone into them. Might that not present you with an extremely awkward precedent in the future?—I took into consideration the fact that all the houses were demolished and that the people were removed, some of them not directly into new houses, but into other houses. 45. Suppose this case is put to you from the town of X to-morrow: We have in our town 20 poor little houses that are not insanitary but that are poor. If you will build us 20 luxurious houses we will move the tenants in these 20 poor houses into the luxurious houses and these 20 poor houses can then be availed of to accommodate the slum tenants. That being so, will you give us a 66⅔ contribution towards our 20 luxurious houses? I think you will reply “No”?—My reply would be “No,” unless you comply with the statutory provisions regarding insanitary houses. You would have to take action under section 19 of the Act of 1931. 46. Suppose I say I will pull down the 20 insanitary houses and put my 20 families into the County Home on condition that you will give me a contribution of 66⅔ to build 20 luxurious houses which I will fill with the tenants of the 20 poor houses in the town, and I will then take my 20 families out of the County Home and put them into the 20 poor houses, would you give me the 66⅔ contribution for that purpose?—If the houses were demolished and new houses provided—— 47. For whom?—For the purpose of accommodating persons to be displaced. 48. Deputy O Briain.—The main point would be the abolition of the slums?— Yes. 49. Chairman.—That is exactly the point—for whom should the new houses be provided?—In most cases they are provided for the persons who inhabited insanitary houses. 50. But in this case they were not?— Well, the local authority proceeded in good faith to provide houses for them, but when it came to the point that the local authority had, in fact, provided the houses, the tenants were unwilling to go into them. Instead, they were willing to occupy houses that were vacated by tenants who would occupy the new houses. I hold that in that case the purpose of the loan was clear; that was, to provide houses for persons who were in insanitary dwellings. 51. Did you take legal opinion in this matter?—I do not think that this case was brought expressly before the legal adviser. 52. Deputy McMenamin.—Can you say, as a fact, if each one of these tenants was actually offered one of these new houses and rejected it?—That is the case. Deputy Walsh.—That is the position. A local authority starts a housing scheme on the basis that Mr. Hurson has outlined, namely, that certain people will take these houses when they are actually built for them. But, when the houses are ready for occupation these people simply say that they will not take them. In circumstances of that kind, would it not be unfair, to say the least of it, to penalise the local authority in respect of a matter over which they have no control? The local authority has no power to compel those people to go into the houses. Chairman.—I can quite see Deputy Walsh’s point, but Deputies will remember that our function here is to ask Mr. Hurson to satisfy us that the letter of the law has been complied with in the disbursement of public money. We may frequently think that the letter of the law imposes an unfair duty on Mr. Hurson, and he will understand, if we press him on the letter of the law without passing judgment as to the equity of the letter of the law. Deputy O Briain.—Would it not satisfy us if the spirit of the law was complied with, as distinct from the letter of the law? 53. Chairman.—No, because our duty is to consider whether the letter of the law has been complied with. It is, of course, open to us to recommend an amendment of the letter of the law in Dáil Eireann if we think that it is operating unsatisfactorily. If we have all the information that we require on this, then I think we may pass to the second portion of the paragraph. Mr. Hurson.—If it is the pleasure of the Committee, I will read for your information a paragraph from the legal opinion we obtained. 54. Chairman.—We should be grateful if you would?—This is not strictly applicable to the Limerick case, but it has a bearing on it: “Before making a contribution in respect of a loan for the provision of houses, the Minister must, of course, satisfy himself that the houses are really intended for displaced persons, and, if the houses are occupied by other persons, inquire into the circumstances which rendered the original purpose of their provision impossible to fulfil. It must be remembered that a house provided for the accommodation of a displaced person must be ready for him on his displacement, so that the loan must be incurred some considerable time before the house is actually occupied by its proposed tenant. Under the section, therefore, the Minister’s contribution can and should commence in some cases before the houses can, in fact, be used for the statutory purpose, and on the assumption that they will be so used. To interpret the paragraph (6 (a) (i) ) so as to require as a condition to the legality of the contribution that the houses should all in fact be used for the accommodation of displaced persons would render illegal any payment by the Minister which had already been made by way of contribution in a case where it became impossible for the first occupant of any of the houses to be a displaced person. No contribution could be made or even promised until after the houses were occupied.” As I stated before, a local authority examines closely what the financial effect of a housing scheme is going to be, as well as the purpose of it, and what contribution is likely to be forthcoming from the Government. In the Limerick case the scheme was approved as a slum clearance scheme. The number of houses involved, I think, was 148. When the houses were built, and the tenants from the 148 houses which were being demolished were offered tenancies, 34 did not accept. An arrangement was come to whereby these 34 tenants would occupy houses that were being vacated by tenants who were prepared to become tenants of the new houses. 55. Chairman.—Have you any further comment to make on this, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—No. 56. Chairman.—Then we may pass to the second portion of the paragraph in which the Comptroller and Auditor-General says that: “no discrimination was made as between the costs of dwellings and shops.” Have you anything to say to that, Mr. Hurson?—On further consideration of that I think I would be inclined to reconsider the view that I put forward and say that some discrimination should have been made and that the cost of each of those houses, including the shops, should not, for subsidy purposes, exceed the cost of an ordinary dwelling-house. The cost of the shop was, I think, £475. The subsidisable limit was £450. I am of opinion that a contribution on £450 would be too high, and that we should reckon the contribution to loan charges on the basis of £400, being the average cost of some of the dwellings under the scheme. 57. Chairman.—Would that cost commend itself to the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Mr. McGrath.—I am of the opinion that the cost of erecting a shop should be separate from the cost of the erection of the other portion of the house, for this reason that the local authority is probably renting the shop at an economic rent. Having regard to the object for which the State contribution to loan charges is given I consider the cost of erection of the shops in question should not have been taken into account in arriving at the figure on which the contributions to loan charges were based. I have gone carefully through the Housing Acts of 1931 and 1932, and I could find no mention in them that provision was being made for the erection of shops. These two Acts were concerned only with the erection of living accommodation. 58. Chairman.—What is your view, Mr. Hurson? Mr. Hurson.—The Housing (Ireland) Act, of 1919, as amended by the 1931 Act, extended the powers of the local authority very much in connection with the provision of houses for working-classes. In fact, a scheme may provide for workshops, places of worship, playgrounds, and for other works or buildings. I am advised that the inclusion of a shop in a dwelling is covered by the existing law. Mr. McGrath.—Well, that is news to me, because I have made inquiries as to whether the 1931 and 1932 Acts covered provision for shops, and the advice I received was that these two Acts were concerned only with the provision of living accommodation. 59. Chairman.—Well, Mr. Hurson? Mr. Hurson.—I agree that shops are not specifically mentioned in the Housing (Ireland) Act, of 1919, but this is mainly a dwelling with a shop, so that you have to take into consideration the fact that each shop is not a shop alone. Each shop contains ample dwelling accommodation. Mr. McGrath.—I must take into account that probably the local authority is letting the shop at an economic rent. 60. Deputy Brady.—Is not Mr. Hurson agreeable to meet that point by segregating the shop from the other portion of the dwelling, so far as the grant is concerned? Mr. Hurson.—I do propose to reduce the cost of such a dwelling to the level of an ordinary dwelling. Therefore, in so far as it provides a dwelling for persons I think it ranks for subsidy, because if I may again refer to the Housing (Ireland) Act, of 1919, the words there are “for works or buildings or for the convenience of persons belonging to the working-classes.” 61. Deputy McMenamin.—Surely, the legislature intended, when making provision for the erection of houses for the working-classes, whether the tenants were to be carpenters, blacksmiths, or anybody else, that fit and proper accommodation should also be provided for workmen of that kind, and intended to include shops? —Shops are not expressly mentioned but they are not excluded. 62. Deputy McMenamin.—The intention of the section was to provide houses for the working classes. Workmen might mean painters, masons, plasterers, and ordinary workers, and the Legislature wisely foresaw that such a man might be working for himself by taking on little jobs. A painter would want brushes, buckets and tins of paint and I take it the Legislature intended to provide accommodation for such a man’s work. 63. Deputy O Briain.—The words in the section are “or for the convenience of persons belonging to the working class.” When these words are given expression to, broadly, they could be given the interpretation of shops for the convenience of working classes in big housing schemes. Are there not cases in Dublin and in other cities of the same kind? Have cases not arisen where the shops were actually part of the original schemes?—I should say so. It was just before the contract was started that plans for six houses were altered to provide for shops. 64. Chairman.—You mentioned in regard to the ambiguity that arose in regard to the first paragraph of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report that you referred the matter to your legal advisor, and subsequently went beyond that to the Attorney General, in order to get a ruling on the point raised. Would you consider it expedient in this case to submit the facts to the Attorney-General’s office for a ruling?—I will.* 65. I think that would probably be the best course, and if you let us know the result of the Attorney-General’s ruling before next June we could consider it when preparing our report?—I will do that. 66. Deputy O’Loghlen.—The difficulty is whether contributions should be paid from the Central Fund for the erection of shops as distinct from dwellings. Is it possible to segregate the actual cost as between dwellings and shops?—No, except in the manner I indicated, that is, to take the cost of a shop and a dwelling as being the cost of an ordinary dwelling in the scheme. In other words, if a dwelling cost £400, and if a dwelling plus shop cost £457, I suggest that the contribution should be based on £400. As regards the question raised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of an economic rent, I might say that under this scheme several of the houses were let at different rents, some fairly low, others somewhat higher, and the shops at about £1 weekly. Taking into consideration the State contribution there is still a loss. 67. Deputy Walsh.—As far as I know it has been customary for the Department to refuse grants to individuals to build houses because they had shops?— That is specially provided for. 68. Deputy Walsh.—It seems queer to give a grant in one case and to refuse it in another case. Mr. McGrath.—The safest way to go about correcting the matter, is to make inquiries as to the method of renting these shops, to ascertain whether the local authorities are actually receiving economic rents for them. It would be very difficult to assess the portion consisting of the shop and the portion of the dwelling attached to the shop. 69. Chairman.—Will you cause inquiries to be made as to whether the local authorities are receiving economic rents for shops and houses and, if not, the rents they are in fact receiving?—I can give the rents now. 70. Deputy Hughes.—In determining the cost of the living portion of a house, is that cost taken as the cost in other dwellings?—No. 71. I mean in determining the portion allowed to rank for grant?—The amount allowed was higher. 72. Was it higher than that in the case of other houses?—It was. Deputy Hughes.—I suggest it should be the same 73. Chairman.—What were the rents? —I was incorrect in saying that the scheme consisted of 148 houses. It consisted of 380 houses, including six shops with dwellings attached. There were 40 houses let at 3/-; 270 at 5/6; 64 at 7/6; and six shops at 24/10d, including rates. If you take the six shops alone, the rents might have been economic. If there was any tendency to adopt a differential scale of rents generally you might find yourself in an awkward position as regards any houses that are let at an economic rent. You have to regard the scheme as a whole, and even with differential rents there was a loss to the rates. I suggest that the modification that I put forward was not unreasonable and that in the case of shop-dwellings they should be regarded as costing the same as the ordinary dwellings in the scheme. After all we are not subsidising shops as shops. We are subsidising dwellings with shops and they are as much dwellings as the dwellings next door. 74. Chairman.—Have you any other comment, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—Not at this stage. 75. Chairman.—And you will be good enough to submit the matter for the Attorney-General’s ruling?—I will. 76. Deputy Hughes.—Can you state the total amount allowed to rank for grant to provide houses in the schemes? Was £450 the maximum?—£399 was the maximum for a private house. 77. There was a difference of £50 a house?—Between £60 and £70. 78. Deputy Brady.—Was there not a grant of 66⅔?—These six ranked on a basis of 33⅓. 79. Six dwellings and shops?—Yes. 80. That is 33⅓ per cent.?—Yes. 81. There is a differentiation there already?—Yes. 82. Chairman.—You will have a further word, Mr. Hurson, with the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this matter, and invite the opinion of the Attorney-General on the whole question?—Yes. 83. Then we come to the final part of paragraph 19: “Section 19 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, empowers local authorities to require any person having control of a house deemed unfit for human habitation to execute such works as will render the house habitable. It was observed that 24 houses included in a re-housing scheme were let to persons who were removed from houses which were the subject of proceedings by a local authority under section 19 and that contributions to loan charges were paid at the rate of 66⅓ per cent. in respect of the houses so occupied. Payment at this rate was made as the Department was legally advised that the houses referred to may be said to have been provided for the accommodation of persons displaced by operations of the local authority under the Housing Acts within the meaning of section 6 (1) (a) of the Act of 1932.” Have you any further comment to make on that, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—It will be seen that the local authority ordered the repair of insanitary houses. It is difficult for me to visualise that the repair of these houses was the cause of those tenants leaving. It may be so. But, why should the local authority proceed under this particular section of the 1931 Act and then put the tenants of these houses, which were ordered to be repaired, in new houses? I can understand the plea that these tenants were displaced. If they were displaced, however, it would only be a temporary displacement. 84. Chairman.—It appears that the local authority required the landlord to put certain houses into a habitable condition and that this was done; the tenants were then taken out of the habitable houses and transferred to new houses, but a 66⅓ per cent. grant was paid on the new houses which ought only to have been paid on houses built for the accommodation of persons taken from houses that were unfit for human habitation. Is there not a contradiction in this procedure? Mr. Hurson.—This is somewhat similar to the previous cases. There was a scheme for 104 houses. The local authority proceeded to acquire the houses, I think, under a compulsory purchase order. The Minister rejected 19 of them as houses that should not be demolished. The local authority then proceeded to require the landlord to put them into a proper state of repair and, in doing so, the tenants were displaced. The operations, under section 19 of the Act of 1931, were caused by the action of the local authority. 85. You take the view that the 66⅔ per cent. is not contingent on the demolition of the houses from which the tenants have been transferred?—In this case I was also legally advised. The local authority provided 104 new houses for tenants and the 104 houses were included in a compulsory purchase scheme. The purpose of the scheme was the provision of houses for persons displaced by their operations and the local authority went forward in the belief that the scheme would carry a contribution from the State of 66⅓ per cent. of the loan charges. I cannot envisage legislation, but the matter does, to my mind, require to be clarified. Very few cases of this kind have arisen, but the matter would really want to be considered, although I am not to be taken as forecasting legislation. 86. Chairman.—Have you any further comment to make, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—Except to draw attention to the possibility later of these houses that have been repaired becoming the subject again of a grant of 66⅔ per cent. 87. Chairman.—What is your view, Mr. Hurson? Mr. Hurson.—I agree that it is open to that, and that is why I suggest that the position should be regularised from the point of view of my position as Accounting Officer. 88. Deputy Brady.—Have the houses actually been repaired?—I believe so. The repairs may only last for two or three years and the local authority might come along then and require them to be demolished, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s point of view is that the State will have to pay 66⅔ per cent. of the loan charges for providing new houses again. 89. Chairman.—It does appear that the purpose of these 24 houses was simply to provide lodging for the tenants while the houses were being put in a habitable condition. It would have been cheaper to take them all to the Shelbourne Hotel and keep them there while the houses were being repaired rather than undertake for 30 years the payment of a 66⅔ grant in respect of new houses?—I am advised that that would mean an unreasonable interpretation to place on the section. Chairman.—We have got as much information as we can from Mr. Hurson and we will consider that when we are preparing our report. 90. Chairman.—Under Subhead S. 2 there is a note on “Grants under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1937.” It reads:— “20. The charge to the subhead amounts to £460,940 and relates to grants to private persons and public utility societies for building, reconstructing, etc., dwelling houses. In the course of my test audit I noticed that two grants of £80 and £45 respectively, for the erection of houses appeared to have been irregularly obtained, and that efforts made by the Department to recover the amounts had been unsuccessful. I am informed that it was decided not to pursue the claims for refunds as the Housing Code does not provide statutory means of recovery, and that the making of explicit provision, with retrospective effect, will be considered when further legislation is being promoted.” I do not suppose you have any further results in that case? Mr. McGrath.—Well, the point there is that we, of the Audit Office, know that the Department of Local Government and Public Health have made applications and successful applications in various cases where irregular payments or overpayments had been made. When their own applications were not successful they sent cases on to the Chief State solicitor. If that failed they should go to the Department of Finance to know whether they could write off the loss or not; that was the procedure. But when they had sent out their own applications in this particular instance they make this plea. We do not quite understand that. We think that the Department could go further. 91. Chairman.—Why has it not gone further in these cases? Mr. Hurson.—I do not want to rely upon the fact that this case occurred long before I became Accounting Officer. This case occurred in 1935. I looked up the cases and I am satisfied that they are in a different category to the cases where we tried to get back grants that had been paid. These two amounts related to two houses that were built together and subsequently converted into one. I doubt if there is anything in the present law that could prevent that. The law enables the grants to be made to private persons and public utility societies for the provision of houses. In this case two houses* apparently were provided and when the grants were obtained the two houses were converted into one house. That is why it was stated that the grants were irregularly obtained. I think that at the time they were covered by the law. A similar position could arise in many other cases. 92. Chairman.—If the person who built these two houses had in mind the purpose of subsequently converting them into one house for the purpose of defrauding, the grants were not properly obtained. Mr. Hurson.—If, in fact, the two houses were complete and were two separate dwellings, would you hold that the grants should not be made? 93. Deputy O’Loghlen.—I take it that there were two separate applications? Mr. Hurson.—There were two separate persons, the father and the son-in-law. 94. Deputy O Briain.—Were the full requirements of the Department met and complied with before the grants were made? Mr. Hurson.—The appointed Officer certified that the houses were completed. 95. Deputy O Briain.—The usual procedure was carried out? Mr. Hurson.—Yes; but the persons may have had the intention at the very start of combining the two houses in one. 96. Deputy O Briain.—The Department could know nothing about that. Mr. McGrath.—Perhaps I could give the Deputies some detailed information in this matter. In the first place, £45 was paid to the secretary of a building society for house A. In the second case, £80 was paid to a farm labourer for house B. These two houses were alongside each other. We found subsequently that A and B were joined, making a floor area outside the statutory limit, and then we found that unsuccessful applications were made to the secretary of the building society to collect the £125. This particular building society has been wound up, I understand. 97. Chairman.—Is that so, Mr. Hurson? Mr. Hurson.—That is so. Mr. McGrath.—This matter is connected with the subsequent paragraph which we will be discussing. I am afraid we must know a little more about the local history of this case. 98. Deputy O’Loghlen.—In the first instance, if both applicants qualified for the grant, as they obviously did, and that the irregularity arose after the grants were paid, how can the question arise whether the grant was subsequently covered or not? Mr. McGrath.—If the facts were as clear as the Deputy has made them, there would be no question about it, but it is not so clear as that. If that were the case that we had to deal with, we would have no trouble at all, but we have to go into further details. 99. Chairman.—I think, Mr. Hurson, this case savours of fraud. It may be well, therefore, to go into it very fully with a view to determining whether other steps should not be taken. The Comptroller states that he is “dealing with an application by the D———— Building Utility Society, ——— and ———. It is observed that an application by the above society for a grant of £80 for the erection of a house for ———, an agricultural labourer, was not proceeded with; a grant of £45 was paid eventually on the 19th February, 1935, to ———, the secretary of the society, in respect of the house in question. It appears also that a grant of £80 was paid on the 1st March, 1935, to the society in respect of the erection of a house for the occupation of ———, an agricultural labourer.” “It is noted that on the 20th September, 1934, that is, before the above grants were paid, the Department’s inspector submitted plans and a report stating that one of the houses referred to above had a bathroom but no kitchen, and indicating that the houses could be joined to form one house, the floor area of which would exceed the statutory limit, and on the 22nd July, 1935, on re-inspection, the houses were found to be joined together, the combined house being occupied by ———. The inspector stated also that the house was then in excess of the maximum floor area, and recommended that refunds of the grants paid be asked for. It would appear that unsuccessful attempts were made to obtain refund from ——— of £125—i.e., £80 paid to him as secretary to the society, and £45 as a personal grant. In view of the foregoing the Comptroller and Auditor-General wishes to be informed whether the Department has decided to abandon the claim for the refund of the grants referred to above and, if so, whether the sanction of the Department of Finance has been obtained.” 100. Surely, Mr. Hurson, in rural Ireland people do not build houses with no kitchen. Did he propose to cook his food by a bedroom fire? Surely, that transaction savours of fraud. Mr. Hurson.—As I say, I had no personal connection with that case until the Comptroller and Auditor-General raised the question. The facts you have read out show that it was in 1934 or 1935 this matter arose. I am not disclaiming responsibility. So far as my evidence goes, I found that the appointed officer certified that the houses were completed as dwelling houses before the grants were paid. 101. Chairman.—Have you had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the person in your Department who is responsible for giving the certificate? —He is not an officer of the Department. The appointed officer is a local officer. 102. He did certify to your Department that these were bona fide houses?— The appointed officer did. I do not remember his name at the moment. 103. Is it not possible to identify this officer?—Yes. 104. And require him to account to you for having certified houses as being eligible for a grant, these houses having no kitchen?—I can call upon the appointed officer, if he is still there, for an explanation. 105. Do you not think that that would be a desirable thing to do?—Yes. I was only asked by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as to the recovery of this amount. 106. If the grants were obtained by fraud, it would certainly be possible to recover them?—I put this point of view to you—that if the houses were certified by the appointed officer as having been properly completed then the grants were properly paid. There is nothing in the law to prevent two houses, built together anywhere, from being converted into one dwelling. 107. Is there not something in the Civil Service regulations which precludes an officer of your Department from reporting fraudulently to you that a house is properly completed when he knows that that house has no kitchen?—That is a proper matter for investigation. 108. Chairman.—We should be glad to hear your report on the result of your enquiries addressed to that officer. 109. Deputy O Briain.—Are these local officers regarded as Civil Servants?— No, but they are appointed by the Minister. 110. They are not officers of the local authority?—They may be. Deputy McMenamin.—Sometimes they are not. 111. Deputy O Briain.—Their selection as officers does not automatically make them officers of the local authority?—No. 112. Chairman. The note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General continues:— “Under section 5 (1) (d) of the Act of 1932 a grant not exceeding £70 may be made to an agricultural labourer erecting a house in any rural area for his own occupation, and under section 5 (1) (e) a grant not exceeding £45 may be made to any person, other than a person to whom a grant could be made under section 5 (1) (d), erecting a house in a rural area. I noticed a case in which grants of £70 and £45 were made under section 5 (1) (d) and section 5 (1) (e), respectively, to the same person, and in reply to an inquiry it was stated that there is no statutory bar to payment of the two grants in question.” Mr. Hurson.—A £70 grant was paid to the person concerned as an agricultural labourer. He built a house adjoining, and it seemed to the Department that he was entitled to the grant of £45. 113. Deputy O’Rourke.—Is not that done wholesale?—Yes, but the position is rather unusual, inasmuch as an agricultural labourer built two houses. I presume it is from that point of view that the Comptroller and Auditor-General raised the question. Deputy O’Rourke.—I know several cases of that kind. Deputy McMenamin.—There is nothing in law to prevent it. 114. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General sent the following note to the Accounting Officer:— “It is also observed that an instalment of £45 was paid on 8th August, 1934, to the society in respect of a grant of £80 for the erection of a house for occupation by ———, an agricultural labourer, and on the same date an instalment of £30 was paid to him in respect of a personal grant of £45 for the erection of another house. In November, 1934, it is noted, the Department’s inspector reported that one of these houses would contain a kitchen and two bedrooms, and the second house one sittingroom and two bedrooms, and that in his opinion the houses would be converted into one house when the grants were paid, and that the floor area would then be in excess of the statutory limit. In the course of a further inspection in May, 1935, the inspector found that both houses were let to French contractors engaged in the deepening of Lough Allen, who were using one house as a store, and the other as an office, and in these circumstances the Department applied, unsuccessfully, to the society and ——— for a refund of the instalment paid to them. Subsequently, the houses were vacated by the French contractors, and on occupation by ——— of the house for which the £80 grant was allowed, the Department paid him, in October, 1938, a sum of £25, making a total grant of £70 for the erection of this house—the reduction of the grant from £80 to £70 being due to the fact that as the registration of the society had been cancelled, it was apparently considered that the case came under the provisions of section 5 (1) (d) of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1932. The balance of £15 in respect of the house for which the £45 grant was allocated was also paid to ——— in October, 1938. This grant was made under section 5 (1) (e) of the Act, although it would appear that no grants are payable under section 5 (1) (e) to persons to whom a grant under section 5 (1) (d) could be made. The Comptroller and Auditor-General will be glad to be informed whether the Accounting Officer is satisfied that, in the circumstances stated above, the grants in question were properly payable under the Acts.” 115. Chairman.—This is the same society?—Yes. 115a. Surely, that is a fraudulent transaction? Deputy O’Rourke.—Indeed, it is not. I know the case, and the man is perfectly entitled to a housing grant. Chairman.—Although there is no kitchen in the house? Deputy O’Rourke.—He is living in the main portion of it. He is living in the house for which he got the £70 grant. I pass the house hundreds of times. 116. Chairman.—In the opinion of the Department, is a dwelling house eligible for a grant under these Acts if, in fact, it contains no kitchen? Mr. Hurson.—No. In this case, the appointed officer certified that the two dwellings were properly completed. As that payment is my responsibility, I have directed further inquiries to be made. I am satisfied that, as regards the grant of £70, the person who built the house was properly entitled to the grant. As regards the second house, in respect of which he was paid £45, I called for a further report from the inspector as to whether it is occupied separately or in conjunction with the other house. 117. If it transpires, as it did in the other case, that these two houses have been knocked into one, will the Department proceed for the recovery of the grant?—I expressed the view to the Comptroller and Auditor-General that the present housing code does not provide adequate statutory means of recovery. If it happened generally, we should want more explicit provision in the law to enable us to recover grants of that kind. 118. The Department would not take the view that there was, prima facie, evidence of fraud, and that the grants could be recoverable at common law?— I submit that when grants are allocated in respect of two dwellings certified as duly completed, and the two dwellings are occupied, they are properly payable. If subsequently—even a month afterwards—the two houses are converted into one, I doubt if we have any power to proceed for recovery of grants. 119. Although it appears that one of the houses in question was improperly certified in that it was certified as being completed when, in fact, there was no kitchen in it?—I do not go so far as to say that it was improperly certified. The Department accepted the certificate of the local appointed officer at its face value. 120. But if a house, in fact, contains no kitchen, you would disagree with the appointed officer in certifiying it as being completed?—I would. 121. Deputy O Briain.—Is there any information that would lead us to believe that a kitchen was not added afterwards and before the grant was paid? 122. Chairman.—I take it that the house was re-inspected. The Deputy asks if there is any evidence that a kitchen was added to this second house before the grant was finally paid in 1938?—That evidence is obtained from the certificate of the local appointed officer. It is his responsibility to see that the house is properly erected as a dwelling-house. 123. You are aware that after the local appointed officer issued his certificate, the house was inspected by your inspector and found to contain no kitchen?—That is not quite so. 124. Deputy O Briain.—That was the preliminary investigation. Half the grant is payable when about half the house is completed?—When the roof is completed. 125. Chairman.—“In November, 1934, it is noted, the Department’s inspector reported that one of these houses would contain a kitchen and two bedrooms, and that the second house would contain one sittingroom and two bedrooms, and that, in his opinion, the house would be converted into one house when the grants were paid, and that the floor area would then be in excess of the statutory limit. In the course of further inspection, in May, 1935, the inspector found that both houses were let to French contractors engaged in deepening Lough Allen, who were using one house as a store and the other as an office, and, in these circumstances, the Department applied unsuccessfully to the society, and for a refund of the instalments paid to them. Subsequently, the houses were vacated by the French contractors, and on occupation by ——— of the house for which an £80 grant was allowed, the Department paid him in October, 1938, a sum of £25, making a total grant of £70 for the erection of this house.” I omit a short paragraph referring to the first house, and then the report goes on to say:— “The balance of £15 in respect of the house for which a £45 grant was allocated was also paid to ——— in October, 1933.” Two points arise—firstly, was he entitled to get a grant under section 5 (1) (e) and under section 5 (1) (d), and secondly, was he entitled to get a grant at all in respect of the second house which contained no kitchen, and which the Department’s inspector stated was, in his opinion, built for the purpose of subsequent incorporation in the original house? 126. Deputy O Briain.—Have you got the inspector’s final report? The report you have read is only the preliminary report for the purpose of dealing with ———’s application for payment of half the grant? 127. Chairman.—That is all the information contained in the file of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but Mr. Hurson, when he looks into the matter more closely, will be able to get further information. 128. Deputy O’Rourke.—I submit that a person is entitled to the £70 grant as an agricultural labourer, and also to the £45 grant in respect of a further house. 129. Chairman.—You will note, Mr. Hurson, that Deputy O’Rourke takes the view that this was a perfectly bona fide transaction, so far as he knows. Deputy O’Rourke.—If it is wrong, everyone in the country is wrong. 130. Chairman.—I take the view that both these cases were fraudulent, and that the person responsible for them should be proceeded against under the common law. Perhaps you will inquire into the cases, and let us have the benefit of your advice in a memo* relating to them, when you have completed your inquiries, Mr. Hurson?—I have directed inquiries to be made in the latter case in respect to the payments made in 1938 for which I am personally responsible. 131. Would you be good enough to extend it to both cases with a view to determining whether there was a system of fraud obtaining in connection with the operations of this public utility society? —There is no public utility society at the moment. 131a. There are these two cases which appear to be fraudulent, and I should like inquiries to be made into them with a view to your satisfying yourself that no fraud was perpetrated?—I will do so. I have already expressed the view that if houses are amalgamated after grants are paid, the housing code does not provide adequate means of recovery. Once the Minister makes a grant in respect of a dwelling-house, he cannot recover the grant if that house is joined with another. I think it would need further provision. The Comptroller and Auditor-General referred to other cases in which the Department take steps to recover. That is so, and the Department has, in fact, recovered certain amounts, but those cases relate mostly to grants for reconstruction, and involved the giving of false information as regards valuation to the Department. You are on a stronger ground there, I suggest; but in the case of a grant to a private person, or a public utility society, the question of recovery of the grant, once it is properly obtained, cannot, I hold, be successfully followed up, if, at a later date, the houses are converted into larger dwellings, or if two houses are combined and constitute, superficially, an area in excess of the statutory limit. 132. I do not want to press you further but I should like you to have a full and exhaustive inquiry made into these cases? —I will do so. 133. Deputy O Briain.—Is there anything in the Housing Acts to prevent a small farmer or agricultural labourer in a rural area from building a house for himself, and getting a grant in respect of it from the Department, and then, if he has a couple of hundred pounds to spare, building a house as a speculation and letting it when he is able, and getting a grant of £45 from the same Department?—I should say that he would be entitled to the £45 grant in the second case. 134. Chairman.—Always provided that he puts in a kitchen?—I do not suggest for a moment that grants have been allocated in respect of dwellings which are not proper dwellings. Chairman.—All I can say is, that I want any man who builds a house for me to put a kitchen in it. 135. Deputy O’Rourke.—It is possible to have a house with electricity in D———, or in any other town. 136. Chairman.—I think we can pass on now to the next paragraph: “Section 5 (1) (h) of the 1932 Act provides for a grant not exceeding £40 to any person reconstructing a house in his own occupation if such person derives his livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture, or is an agricultural labourer. A case was observed where an applicant applied for a reconstruction grant, but was considered ineligible as she did not come within the definition of a small farmer or an agricultural labourer. A son of the applicant, who resided with her, subsequently made application as an agricultural labourer for the grant, -which was allowed. In reply to an inquiry I was informed that it was considered that the requirement in section 5 (1) (h) that the house to be reconstructed shall be in the applicant’s occupation had been fulfilled.” Has the Comptroller and Auditor-General any comment to make on that? Mr. McGrath.—Yes, in this way: I thought that the grant was paid because the son of the tenant made application. 137. Chairman.—Is that so, Mr. Hurson? Mr. Hurson.—The mother of the applicant was a widow. I do not say that the son was the owner or tenant, but in any case the Act does not require the rated occupier to be the applicant. Any person who is an agricultural labourer can apply, and this agricultural labourer applied for the reconstruction of the house in which he lives. The law does not stipulate the head of the household, or the mother, as in this case. 138. Chairman.—Is it true that the person who makes the application for a repairing grant need not be the tenant of the house to be repaired?—The words are “in his own occupation,” and the son occupied the house in this case. 139. —Surely, if I were blessed with an infant child of seven days old, it would not be correct to describe that infant child as the occupant of my house?—This is not the case of an infant child at all, but of a working man. The person who applied for the grant is really the person who was the agricultural labourer, and depending for his living on his earnings as an agricultural labourer. 140. Then, if I wanted to get this grant and was not eligible myself, I could take an agricultural labourer into my house for, let us say, a week, and he would make the application and I would get the grant?—I would not say so. I think that is an unreasonable interpretation. 141. Deputy Brady.—I take it that this man was the chief support of the house and, as the breadwinner, entitled to get the grant, and probably he would succeed to the ownership or the tenancy of the house when his mother died. I do not think there is any comparison whatever between such a case and the example you have given, Mr. Chairman? Mr. McGrath.—The Deputy says that he might become the successor to the ownership of the house, but neither the son nor the mother might own the house and yet get this £40 grant. 142. Deputy O’Loghlen.—Is the house not the property of the mother of the applicant? 143. Chairman.—Yes, is this house the property of this woman or her son? Mr. McGrath.—As a matter of fact, that question was put to me in my own office, and I said I would bring up the matter, because I was not certain who was the owner. Mr. Hurson.—My information is that the father was the rated occupier, and that neither the son nor the mother is rated. The deceased man was the rated occupier at the time of his death. 144. Chairman—And no administration had been taken out in the case of the deceased man?—That is so. 145. I see. Now we come to the next item. Subhead T.T.—Expenses in connection with the supply of beef to necessitous persons in 1936-37: “21. This special subhead was opened under direction of the Department of Finance, to provide for a remanet payment of £5 9s. 10d. in connection with the above service.” That is just an informative paragraph. The next paragraph:—Fees for Licences under the Milk and Dairies Act, 1935—is as follows: 22. “Regulations made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health under the above Act prescribe the General and Special Designations which may be used in connection with the sale of milk for human consumption. Part IV. of the Act, which was brought into operation on 1st January, 1939, by Statutory Rules and Orders, 1938, No. 1, provides that the Minister may make regulations for the issue of licences for the sale of milk under Special Designations, and for the payment of fees by the applicants for such licences. Fees in respect of these licences, amounting to £52 10s. were received during the year, and were, by direction of the Department of Finance, credited as a separate item to the appropriations in aid subhead.” 145a. That also is a purely informative paragraph. 146. The next item, Motor Tax Account, is as follows: “23. 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 1938-39, including £12,222 1s. 7d., attributable to fines, amounted to £1,174,700 14s. 9d. This amount also includes fees received, on behalf of the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, under the Road Traffic Act (Parts VI. and VII.) (Fees) Regulations, 1937. 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, 1938-39. “Deficiencies of revenue amounting to £15 11s. 6d have, with the authority of the Department of Finance, been written-off as irrecoverable. I observed that further sums amounting to £200 10s. were misappropriated, but that the amount in default had been made good The defaulting officer absconded, and a warrant has been issued for his arrest.” Well, I suppose we may take it that all proper steps are being taken in that case. We now turn to the Vote itself. 147. With regard to J. 2—Grants for the Supply of Milk to Necessitous Children—are there many cases, Mr. Hurson, in which milk powder is being distributed instead of Grade A milk? Mr. Hurson.—I could not cite the actual number of cases. I take it that when you mention Grade A milk, you are referring to the highest grade? 148. Yes. The districts would be mainly in Galway, Kerry, and possibly in Donegal. There is a shortage of new milk there at certain times of the year. 149. Have you a discretion to distribute pasteurised milk where the highest grade milk is not available?—I could give you a list of the districts where pasteurisation can take place. It is not universal, and the highest grade milk distributed is largely confined to Dublin City and County. 150. Perhaps you would consider the practicability and desirability of providing pasteurising facilities in those areas where the highest grade milk is not available and where you are constrained to issue milk powder at the present time?— I would remark that pasteurisation would hardly provide a means in those districts where we have to give milk powder temporarily. It seems to me that it would raise the question of transport, and that would be rather difficult. In counties like Donegal you cannot get the railway facilities for the proper distribution of the milk. 151. Chairman.—In those areas a variety of circumstances make it essential to use milk powder instead?—Yes, but only to the smallest extent possible. 152. Deputy McMenamin.—On subhead Q—Grants in respect of training of native Irish speakers in Hospital Nursing— was it through failure of applicants that the cost was only £110 14s. 5d.? I thought there was quite a number of such people?—There was quite a number, but very few were suitable. 153. Deputy O Briain.—You could not say the reason they were unsuitable? Would one of the reasons be that they do not know English?—No; in general education they are rather of a lower standard than is required for the training of nurses. 154. Deputy Brady.—Is it a fact that these Irish-speaking girls brought up here from the country to hospitals in Dublin, during the whole course of their training, have no opportunity, and no obligation on them, to speak Irish, with the result that girls who are native speakers, and who come up under the Irish scheme get very little opportunity for speaking the language during the four years they are in Dublin?—I am afraid that is so under the scheme in Dublin, but some of the girls are trained in Galway, and there, I think, they have facilities for speaking Irish. I am doubtful as to whether they are actually trained in Irish. There are no medical books in Irish which could be given to the girls. It is difficult to get a scheme like this going, and to get the training carried out entirely through Irish. Chairman.—If there is no other question you wish to ask, Mr. Hurson, may I say we are very much obliged? The witness withdrew. Chairman.—Gentlemen, before we adjourn I have to draw your attention to the fact that, in accordance with the request made by the Committee last year to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, he has furnished us with a list of special subheads* arranged with Department of Finance sanction. A list of those subheads will be sent to each member of the Committee. Matters relating to them can be raised under the appropriate Votes The Committee adjourned. * Appendix V of the Report of Committee of Public Accounts, dated 29th February, 1940. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
