|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 18adh Abrán, 1940.Thursday, 18th April, 1940.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair. Seoirse Mag Craith (Ard-Reachtaire Cun ntas agus Ciste) and Mr. T. S. C. Dagg and Mr. C. S. Almond (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 10—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.Mr. J. Connolly called and examined.302. Chairman.—Paragraph 11, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report, is as follows:— “Insurance of Workmen. “As stated in a note to the account, the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association, Limited, with whom the Commissioners of Public Works had taken out a policy of indemnification against their liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Acts, etc., in respect of certain of their workmen, went into liquidation in June, 1938. In consequence, the Commissioners had to make alternative arrangements for insurance and a new policy was taken out with another company at increased rates. A claim has been presented to the Official Liquidator to cover actual and estimated expenses devolving on the Commissioners as well as for the extra cost of the alternative policy. I have inquired as to the position regarding the condition in the contract with the Association providing for reinsurance of the Commissioners’ business. The premium payable to the Association in respect of the period to 10th June, 1938, the date on which the policy became ineffective, and the cost of effecting alternative insurance covering the period to 31st March, 1939, have been allocated and charged against the respective voted and non-voted services. The Votes concerned are No. 10, Office of Public Works; No. 11, Public Works and Buildings, and No. 69, Employment Schemes. Payments amounting to £6,020 16s. 5d. made by the Commissioners during the year on behalf of the Association, on foot of compensation, etc. claims, and also the proportion, £6,017 4s. 0d., of the premium paid to the Association attributable to the period subsequent to 10th June, 1938, have been charged to suspense accounts pending settlement of the claim presented to the Liquidator.” Chairman.—Have you any further observations to make on that, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—No, only to draw attention to what I have stated in the first part of the paragraph:— “I have inquired as to the position regarding the condition in the contract with the Association providing for reinsurance of the Commissioners’ business.” 303. Chairman.—Have you received any reply to that inquiry?—Nothing definite. 304. Chairman.—Can you give us any information, Mr. Connolly? Mr. Connolly.—The position is that the company mentioned held the Board’s insurance contracts since the 1st January, 1933, as a result of competitive tendering, and so far as the Board were concerned met their obligations satisfactorily as regards accident claims until they closed down—though being somewhat slow at times in recouping accident pay issued by the Board on their behalf. When the contract for 1938-39 was under consideration the Board were somewhat apprehensive about continuing the insurance with the Association. There was, however, a very wide margin between their tender and the next lowest. The Board reported fully to the Department of Finance, who decided, after full consideration, that the Association’s tender should be accepted. The failure of the Association threw upon the Board the responsibility for dealing with all accident claims received, but this was done in such a way as to avoid hardship on the applicants so far as possible. Special steps were taken to expedite settlements, and final settlements have now been made in all but about three cases. A full claim for the Board’s losses has been made on the Liquidator, and so far as can be gathered at present he expects that on the collection of all the Association’s assets, including the benefits of reinsurances, he will be able to meet all the substantiated claims and liabilities in full. That is the position that we are in with the Liquidator at present. With regard to the reinsurances, those lie in the Liquidator’s hands to collect. They are not specifically allocated to our policies. That is the basis on which they were taken out. 305. Chairman.—There was a provision, I understand, in your agreement with the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association, Limited, that, conditional on giving them your business, they undertook to reinsure it. Have you taken any steps to satisfy yourself that they carried out that part of their undertaking?—We have, and we understand that the reinsurance was effected. But the basis on which the reinsurance is established is that the reinsurers will transfer the payment against their liability to the company as a whole. What I mean is that no reinsurance is carried out specifically for a client so that the client can collect on the reinsurance. That is the basis on which it operates. This matter will possibly come up again. My own opinion at the moment is that the Liquidator’s view, that he is going to be able to collect in full, is somewhat optimistic. 306. Deputy Hughes.—What is the amount of the claim made?—The total amount of the claim that we have made is £39,000 odd. That does not mean that they will owe us anything like that. We have naturally based our claim to the Liquidator on the widest possible estimate. Chairman.—This is a matter which the Comptroller and Auditor-General will naturally wish to keep under review until it is finally disposed of. My feeling is, and I should like the opinion of the members of the Committee, that where a claim is outstanding and still sub judice between a Government Department and an insurance company it might be as well for the Committee to postpone consideration of the matter until the claims have been disposed of when we can ask Mr. Connolly to satisfy us that all necessary steps were taken to protect the public revenue. 307. Deputy Cole.—How long will that be? Mr. Connolly.—It depends entirely on the Liquidator. We are in his hands until he makes his final summing-up of the claims made, the amounts due, and the disbursements to creditors. 308. Chairman.—In the meantime we may assume that you will keep in close touch with the Department of Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Mr. Connolly.—We will. Chairman.—Do the Committee agree that the prudent course is to postpone further consideration of the matter until the Comptroller and Auditor-General informs us that it is closed in so far as the Liquidator of the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association is concerned? Agreed. VOTE 11—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.Mr. Connolly further examined.309. Chairman.—Paragraph 12, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report is as follows:— “Subhead B—New Works, etc. “The erection of a new national school and teacher’s residence was completed during the year at a cost of £3,210 7s. 2d. As noted in the account, a claim for £131 5s. 0d., representing extra cost incurred owing to the failure of a contractor to complete his contract for the buildings, was waived with the approval of the Minister for Finance. The site for this school and residence was provided by the local Vocational Education Committee which also paid a fine of £3,000, credited to Appropriations in Aid, as consideration for the leasing to the Committee of premises formerly used as a Model School. The Department of Finance stipulated that in the event of the cost of the new school and residence exceeding £3,000 the excess should be provided from local sources. I have inquired regarding the recovery of the excess of £210 7s. 2d. and also regarding recovery from the Committee of the rent payable as from 1st July, 1937, under the terms of the lease.” Chairman.—Have you received any reply to date, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—I received a reply from the Accounting Officer on the 27th March in which he forwarded the authorisation of the Department of Finance to write off this £210, which was originally intended to be recovered from the local people, and also the rent that accrued from 1st July, 1937, to 10th February, 1938, and the matter is now closed. The position at the time I wrote the paragraph was that these two matters were outstanding. The Accounting Officer has now satisfied me that he has got the necessary authorisation from the Department of Finance. 310. Chairman.—Why did you think it expedient to waive this excess of £210 and the rent, Mr. Connolly? Mr. Connolly.—First of all, we felt that we had got a reasonably good deal in the exchange, that we had been convenienced and that the amount was not very big. Then, with regard to the rent, there was really no moral or even legal possibility of our charging the Committee the rent. The remission of the rent really only covered the period from 1st July, 1937, to 10th February, 1938, during which time they did not occupy the premises and, therefore, we did not feel we could charge the rent. 311. Chairman.—I see that a claim for £131 5s. 0d., representing extra cost incurred owing to the failure of a contractor to complete his contract for the buildings, was also waived?—That was waived because the contractor ran up against a very awkward position in regard to a strike. We had to rescind the original contract and to bring in a new contractor. We waived the claim against the original contractor for £131 5s. 0d., and I think in the circumstances it was the only thing we could do. 312. Chairman.—Has your attention been directed to the consequences of the failure of Board of Works contractors to complete their contracts? A case recently came under my notice in which a man had a contract with the Board of Works to repair a school. He got all his materials locally and then withdrew from the contract leaving debts for materials which had been used in the school amounting to £250 locally and simply vanished? Mr. Connolly.—What happened to the materials? Chairman.—They were used in the construction of the school and never paid for. Mr. Connolly.—But had he collected from the Board of Works for the work done? Chairman.—I believe he had hypothecated to another creditor whatever sums might become due to him from the Board of Works. Mr. Connolly.—We do come across cases like that. We had one case recently where a trader had supplied stocks to the extent of £250. The contractor died before finishing the work. In that case we dealt with the widow, who was the executrix. We made a reasonable arrangement whereby she would carry out the balance of the contract, safeguarding the trader who had supplied the materials with the result that he got paid for all the goods. In these contracts we come up against difficulties such as I have described. In some cases the contractors give guarantees and the traders get a lien on the amount to be paid by the Board of Works. 313. Chairman.—It does, prima facie, seem to be an injustice to allow a contractor to hypothecate what the Board of Works owes him to a person to whom he is already in debt leaving the suppliers of the materials for the particular job without any remedy?—As a rule the mortgage on the supply of materials usually comes to us from the builders’ suppliers. 314. Chairman.—In this case previous suppliers had succeeded in getting a mortgage on the work in hand with the result that the supplier of materials for the reconstruction of the school was left without any remedy at all. That seems to me a hardship. Mr. Connolly.—It does but the supplier rather left himself without any protection. If he had stipulated with the contractor to this effect: “If you get me a guarantee from the Board of Works, I will supply you with materials to the extent of £250,” that could have been done and he would have safeguarded himself. That was the supplier’s only remedy, in my opinion, in that case. We have a good deal of difficulty in these cases because we have to deal with small men. 315. Deputy McMenamin.—Would you issue a certificate to the trader in that case that you would pay for the goods supplied?—We can only do it on the direction of the contractor to whom the work would be entrusted. If he gave us a direction to pay the trader £150 out of the money coming to him, we could do that. 316. Chairman.—Paragraph 13 reads as follows:— “Disposal of Premises Purchased for Use as a Gárda Síochána Barrack. “A note appended to the account refers to the sale of a former R.I.C. barrack. This building was purchased in November, 1932, for the sum of £500 for use, after adaptation, as a Gárda Síochána barrack, the rented premises previously used as a barrack having been surrendered in April, 1932. It was subsequently decided that a Gárda Station would not be required at the place and the Department of Finance in 1934 directed that the premises acquired in 1932 should be disposed of on the best terms obtainable. In 1937 an offer of £60 for the property was accepted with Department of Finance sanction.” Mr. Connolly.—This was a case in which the Board were dependent upon the assurances of another Department. Before the Board contracted to buy the ex-R.I.C. barrack, the Department of Justice confirmed that a barrack would be permanently required at Laurencetown. The purchase of the ex-R.I.C. barrack for £500 and its adaptation to meet modern requirements was the most economic means of providing a permanent barrack. Unfortunately, when the Board were committed to the purchase, the Department of Justice changed their mind and closed the station. Later on, they decided to reopen the station and asked the Board to proceed with the adaptations, but before this had been done they changed their mind again and finally abandoned Laurencetown as a station. The State having no other use for the property had to sell at the best price they could get. 317. Deputy Hughes.—Is it possible that the building had depreciated in that period by that amount?—It is not so much a question of depreciation. We have had a number of cases like this, unfortunately. The Department of Justice tell us that they want a Gárda station in a certain district and we go to look for a suitable building. It generally happens that we are made pay the highest possible figure because the building we select may be the only house in the district that will suit. We buy, therefore, at a high price but when we come to sell the building nobody may want it and it may have to be sold at a sacrifice. In some cases it has actually gone back to the people who sold it in the first instance. We have consequently taken every precaution to make sure that the Department of Justice do really want a station in the district before we commit ourselves, but we are in the hands of the other Department. 318. Chairman.—Have you any information as to who the vendor of the premises in the first instance was and who was the purchaser for £60?—We bought from a Fr. Nagle, who was the Parish Priest of the area, and the purchase was made by a Dr. Conroy. 319. Was Dr. Conroy the local dispensary doctor?—He was the medical officer of Laurencetown. 320. Deputy Hughes.—What was the extent of the property? Were there any lands attached to the house?—I do not know that there were. 321. Chairman.—I think there was some land attached?—It appears there was about an acre of ground with it. 322. Deputy Hughes.—What condition was the house in? Obviously, if the house was in any condition at all, even if there was only a roof on it, it would be worth more than £60. I think the bleeding occurred on both sides. If £500 was too much to pay for it in the first instance, £60 was too little for it when it was sold?—I entirely agree. I have no report with me as to the condition of the house. All I know is that the adaptations that would have been necessary would have cost £700. In other words, we would have to expend £1,200 altogether, which would not be unreasonable considering the cost of Gárda stations generally. 323. Chairman.—When you got the house, was it in reasonably good repair?— As I say I have no particulars as to the condition of it at the time, but I could get them for you. 324. Deputy Hughes.—Or the extent of the premises?—No. 325. Chairman.—Perhaps you will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the premises consisted of a house with eight rooms, out-offices, yard and garden on about three roods and 25 perches?—This was the submission made in 1931 to the Department of Finance seeking authority to purchase:— “The name of the station does not appear in the list of urgent cases, but an opportunity has now arisen for the acquisition of suitable existing premises for use as a permanent barrack. The Rev. P. J. Nagle, P.P., has offered to sell his residence, which was formerly the R.I.C. barrack. The building is reported to be structurally sound, the owner having expended upwards of £300 on repairs in recent years. Some minor repairs and renewal of woodwork are necessary. Fr. Nagle’s house does not, in its present form, contain adequate accommodation to provide a set of married quarters. However, by the rearrangement of the accommodation, the erection of an extension and the improvement of the premises, a barrack with good married quarters can be devised. The work is estimated to cost about £700.” That was our submission in 1931 to the Department of Finance. 326. Chairman.—Have you any record of your architect’s report prior to the sale of the premises, because I understand that the architect reported in 1936 that the premises were in a bad condition with windows broken, floors gone, rain coming in through the doors and the walls and that the premises had suffered generally from neglect and deterioration?—We have a report on our files with regard to its condition before it was sold. 327. Do you not think that the circumstances call for some explanation as to why the Board’s property should be allowed to become derelict?—The only thing I can say about that is that the fact that it was not going to be used probably accounted for the neglect of it. I agree that the Board’s property should not get into such condition. 328. Deputy Hughes.—How long was the property on the market, or what efforts were made to secure the best possible offer?—It was advertised. It is the rule in the Board that no properties are sold without being advertised. Every effort is made to get the best possible price. It was advertised in the district papers. 329. Was this the only offer forthcoming?—It was as far as I know, or, if there was any other, this was the highest offer. 330. How long did you wait for a better offer? When was it you received the first offer, and when did you dispose of it?— We got authority from the Department of Finance on the 21st August, 1937, to accept the best offer. 331. Chairman.—Was the property advertised?—It was. 332. Was it put up for auction?—It was not put up for auction. 333. Bids were invited?—Yes. 334. Deputy Hughes.—What period elapsed from the time of the first offer until you decided to accept the £60? What opportunities were given to the public to bid for it?—It was on the market for three years. It was advertised the year before it was sold and we got no offers. That was in 1936, and the report at that time was that the building had deteriorated very considerably owing to its non-occupation and the effects of weather. 335. Chairman.—Does it not strike you as odd, with a notice of that kind before you, that no steps were taken to protect the fabric of the structure inasmuch as it was Government property?—I do not know. Any property that is left unoccupied for five or six years will deteriorate. On the question of maintaining an unused building, we have often to ask ourselves is it worth spending money on maintenance. Deputy Hughes.—At least the roof should be kept in repair to protect the floors and the general structure. If the roof is leaking the chances are that there will be no bid for it. Chairman.—Let us confine ourselves to asking Mr. Connolly questions. 336. Was that property ever transferred to the Guards or did it remain in your keeping all the time?—I think it remained in our keeping all the time; they did not take it over. 337. Deputy Cole.—Have you any special officer looking after buildings of this description?—The District Assistant Architect is the person who has charge of all the buildings in his area. Each district has an architect in it, but the district may cover a very wide expanse of country. 338. Then he would be responsible more or less for the building getting into that derelict condition?—He would be responsible for reporting on its condition. 339. Chairman.—Did you get interim reports from time to time advising you that the premises were falling into disrepair and drawing your attention to the necessity for precautionary measures to protect the property?—I could not say definitely if we did or not. The architects are expected to report periodically on everything within their area. 340. Do you not think that this architect’s failure to direct your attention to the condition of the property calls for explanation?—It may be so. There was a nominal caretaker there—a person to whom a portion of land there was let— and he was supposed to take care of the place, though, of course, it was the architect’s responsibility to report on the deterioration of any house in his area. 341. Chairman.—Were you not surprised, Mr. Dagg, when a proposal was made to you to sell £500 worth of property for £60? Mr. Dagg.—We were keeping it at a loss at that time. We only got 12/6 rent for the grazing per year, and it cost us a couple of pounds to cut the weeds, so we were losing money and urged the Board of Works to dispose of the property as early as possible, and as this was the only offer we authorised acceptance. 342. Chairman.—I feel that the failure of the Board of Works to advert to the fact that this property was deteriorating rapidly calls for explanation, and I would be grateful if you would look into this matter and find out why the local architect did not warn you of the rapid deterioration of this property and if you would then let us have a memorandum* at your convenience?—We will do that. I understand that the property is in an outlying district. I do not know its exact location, and the only excuse I can make for the assistant architect would be that his duties do not take him often in that direction. We have so many and such varied properties that we were overworking some of our district architects, particularly until we proceeded with the reorganisation of the architects’ districts and this type of thing could have happened in those years. However, I shall send you the memorandum. 343. Deputy O’Rourke.—Even if those premises had not deteriorated, was it likely that you would be able to recover more than £60 for them?—I could not express an opinion on that. Obviously, I was very much concerned with any case like this. Since we may have to pay a high price the obvious lesson is that a Department such as the Department of Justice should realise how important it is to know definitely whether they want a station or not. 344. Chairman.—I think you said the Department of Justice had not got the station on their urgent list but that your Department intervened and said that an opportunity now was presenting itself and, therefore, you suggested that the station should be attended to at once?— The Department of Justice decided they wanted a permanent station, and we had it on the list. 345. Deputy Hughes.—Was any valuation of the property made by a competent valuer before you disposed of it? Taking the extent of the buildings, if the walls were sound, though the rest of the property might have been rotten, the walls would have been worth more than £60. A purchaser desiring to reconstruct into a dwelling-house would have found the price extraordinarily low?—If you have only one buyer, what are you going to do? No one else made an offer. 346. Deputy Hughes.—Was the property valued?—I do not know that there was a monetary valuer. A full report was received from the assistant architect. 347. Chairman.—Did he mention any sum?—I do not think he did. Deputy O’Rourke.—I do not think the man who bought it would be particular as to whether he bought it or not. He was an unmarried man. I happen to know the doctor and I do not think it was a question of price. 348. Chairman.—It occurs to me that the local authority might have been approached with a view to ascertaining if they desired a doctor’s residence in the area. The Department of Local Government and Public Health requires the local authority to provide a residence within the dispensary area so that the doctor may live there?—The property was advertised and whether we should have tried to induce the local authority to take it is another matter. In 1936, as already reported, an advertisement was put in the public Press inviting offers from parties who might be interested and notices were exhibited in prominent positions; there was also a notice at the site saying the property was to be let or sold and information was also given to the house agents in Galway. 349. Deputy Hughes.—Was the property put at any time into the hands of a local auctioneer?—It was on the books of the house agents in Galway: whether there was any nearer local auctioneer or not, I do not know. I think, from the notices and the advertisements, etc., it can be said that we took all possible ways of inviting a buyer. Chairman.—Mr. Connolly has been good enough to say that he will look into the matter and let us have a memorandum. We can consider that when we come to prepare our report. 350. Chairman.—What exactly is meant by C (1)—Surrender of Properties commandeered by the British Admiralty?— After the Great War, 1914-1918, the Board undertook as agents for the British Admiralty the arrangements for investigating and settling claims for commandeered properties and for surrendering same. The expenses incurred on investigating and settling the claims were charged to a Suspense Account and subsequently recovered from the Admiralty. When a settlement of British and Irish balances was being made following the Treaty, the Board were left with a debit balance of £896 15s. 8d., due by the British Admiralty, of which the Accountant-General of the Navy had admitted £865 3s. 6d. and agreed to consider the balance on being supplied with further particulars for which he had asked. The matter escaped notice until 1930 when the Accountant-General of the Navy was supplied with the particulars sought as to the minor sums left over for consideration. At that stage he agreed, however, to admit liability for £139 3s. 5d. A report on the issue was made by the Board to the Department of Finance on 12 May, 1932, and a direction was not given by that Department until 17 June, 1938, when the Minister intimated that— “having regard to the recent Financial Agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom, it is not proposed to forward a claim against that Government in respect of any of the items included in this amount.” Authority to charge the expenditure against a special subhead C (1) of the Vote for Public Works and Buildings for 1938-39 was then given to the Board. 351. Then we may take it that this forms part of the general settlement negotiated in London?—The reason it was really left in suspense by the Board of Works was that it was understood that following the 1925 Agreement the amount was cancelled. Eventually, it was wiped out in view of the financial settlement. 352. Regarding subhead I—Linen Hall, Dublin—what are you going to do with the Linen Hall?—We are using part of it; we have a furniture store there now and the other portion of it is let. 353. So that you really have furniture storage for the difference between the rent and the expenditure?—And very much better value than the rent we would get for it. 354. I observe a note to J (6) in which you say that the overhauling of machines was curtailed and certain replacements provided for were not undertaken. Are you satisfied that this curtailment will not result in permanent injury to the equipment?—The engineers assure me that that end of it is being looked after. As a matter of fact, a great deal of work has been done on the existing plant in spite of that. 355. I think you will remember that, in a previous year, a situation arose in which certain machinery did deteriorate and a very heavy bill came in for repairs? —That was on dredgers, I think. Chairman.—Yes. 356. Chairman.—Is there any particular explanation for item 11 under subhead L—Appropriations-in-Aid, where we realised £23,000 instead of £12,000?— We recovered from the Vote for Property Losses Compensation expenditure on work that had been carried out. The main item in that is £22,716 for the restoration of the Collins Barracks in Cork. That accounts for the bulk of it. 357. You recovered the price of rebuilding it from some compensation fund that was paid for the burning of the City of Cork?—That is so. 358. Deputy Hughes.—In regard to item No. 7, under subhead L, I notice admission tickets to parks, piers, etc., realised £2,652 9s. 4d. To what parks does that refer?—That is the amount realised on the sales of tickets at Dun Laoghaire Harbour and admission tickets to Bourn-Vincent Memorial Park, Killarney, etc. The fees for motor-parking at Phoenix Park for races and such things amounted to £263. Visits to State apartments at Dublin Castle produced £53 13s. 3d., and National Monuments 2/4. The actual amount for Dun Laoghaire was £942 6s. 0d., and for the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park, £1,393 7s. 9d. The latter were somewhat lower than formerly. The figures fluctuate a good deal. It is a question of what visitors are there. 359. Chairman.—I think I misled you, Mr. Connolly, when I suggested to you that the money recovered for the Collins Barracks restoration was got from some fund outstanding. It was in fact got from the Property Losses Compensation Vote, was it not?—That is so. I thought that was what you meant. 360. I spoke of a fund. It is really a transfer of money from one Vote to another?—Yes. VOTE 27—HAULBOW LINE DOCKYARD.Mr. Connolly further examined.Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote. 361. (To the witness).—In regard to subhead AA, I take it there is no source of water supply on the island. The water has to be brought by pipe line from the mainland?—That is so. 362. And no well is available on the island at all?—I do not think there is any well on the island. 363. Deputy Brasier.—Am I to understand that one of the contractors at Haulbowline actually supplies ships with water and gets a revenue from it although they pay for it to the Urban Council in Cobh?—No, I do not think that exists at the moment. I think we sell all the water down there. 364. You do?—Yes. 365. But you pay for it to the Urban Council and, therefore, compete with them?—No, we have an agreement for the supply of a certain amount of water. 366. This is the position: The Urban Council in Cobh gets certain revenue from supplying ships, and the Board of Works now supply ships instead and, therefore, compete with the very body that they are paying a rent to for this water, and they are getting it at a reduced rate compared with what they get from the ships. Is not that so?—I do not know that that is the position. We sell very little. I imagine all we would sell would be to a boat drawn up along the Haulbowline Dock. Our total amount, for instance, for all our sale of water and electric light was £585 13s. 5d. 367. The Urban Council are objecting very strongly to your doing so and, after all, it is not fair that a Government body should enter into competition with an urban body. Chairman.—I regret to have to call you to order, Deputy. Mr. Connolly is not responsible for what the Government may determine to do. All Mr. Connolly is responsible for is to see that what the Government determines to do is properly done. Deputy Brasier.—I suppose I am entitled to state that it is an abuse of power. You, Sir, have been fairly critical yourself, and this is my innings, and I am inclined to criticise. Mr. Connolly.—Really, most of the water we were selling down there was the water to Spike Island. It was being supplied to the British authorities at that time. 368. Deputy Brasier.—You do not supply ships, do you?—Apparently not. 369. You have not denied it before?— I could conceive our supplying a ship there in certain circumstances, but I know that we do not go out to trade water. Deputy Brasier.—Indeed, I know that. Mr. Connolly.—Nor do we want to. 370. Deputy Brasier.—In regard to subhead D—Rents and Rates—do they pay rates on Haulbowline?—The Board have to pay rates on certain houses which are subject to the Local Government (Rates on Small Dwellings) Act, 1928, where the valuation does not exceed £6. 371. I thought you paid a bounty in lieu of rates?—A bounty is paid on property used for public purposes, but we have to pay the rates under the Small Dwellings Act on houses of a valuation not exceeding £6. VOTE 32—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.Mr. S. A. Roche called.No question. VOTE 33—GARDA SIOCHANA.Mr. Roche called and examined.372. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:— “Subhead C—Subsistence Allowances. “The Gárda Síochána Allowances Order, 1926, provides, inter alia, for payment of special allowances in cases where, owing to the absence of reasonable messing facilities, men on temporary transfer are obliged to purchase their meals. I observed an instance in which these special allowances had been paid although messing facilities appeared to have been available, and I have asked for an explanation. …” Have you received any explanation, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—I have received an explanation. The request for an explanation was sent out on the 15th January and I am sorry to say the reply did not come back until the day before yesterday. The question raised was, as messing facilities were available, why they were not used. The non-use of the messing facilities resulted in an outlay of £39 2s. 4d. in the case of five Gárdaí who were temporarily sent to Bundoran. If messing facilities had been provided the outlay would have been £9 7s. 0d. 373. Chairman.—Can you help us in that regard, Mr. Roche? Mr. Roche.—I wonder if the Comptroller and Auditor-General would be so good as to read the explanation. We did furnish an explanation. Mr. McGrath.—I wrote to the Accounting Officer. The Accounting Officer sent me a reply written by somebody else who is not the Accounting Officer. That is rather a peculiar method of procedure. After all, the Accounting Officer is personally liable for this outlay. If the Audit Office asks a question in connection with it the Accounting Officer must take the responsibility of the reply. The reply he sends to me is written by another person. However, I will read the reply. Mr. Roche.—I can read it, if you prefer. 374. Chairman.—I think, Mr. Roche, in all the circumstances, it might be better if you would let the Committee know what your explanation of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s comment is. Mr. Roche.—There are two cases where this arises, Mr. Chairman. When you read the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note I think you stopped towards the end of it. Chairman.—That is right. Mr. Roche.—There were two cases, one at Ballyhaunis and the other at Bundoran. Mr. McGrath.—The Bundoran one is the one to which the first portion of the paragraph applies. Mr. Roche.—This is the real sense of the thing, Mr. Chairman: The question is whether these men should share in a mess at the local station which is cheaper to us or whether they should be allowed to be accommodated and have their meals outside the local station, which is dearer to us. In point of fact the regulations say that there shall be a mess at every station but the Commissioner excuses men in certain cases from forming a mess or from having their meals in a station. When the Commissioner thinks that it is not reasonable that they should be compelled to share in a station mess he excuses them. The real question in this case of Bundoran which we are talking about at present is, was it reasonable for the Commissioner to say to the men: “You need not form a mess at the station; you can have your meals outside although it will cost more.” The Commissioner did think that at Bundoran it was unreasonable to ask the additional Guards who were sent there, to form a mess or to share a mess there and while I am accountable as Accounting Officer it does raise an awkward question. The Commissioner is in charge of the Force and it is for him to say whether the men shall or shall not have their meals in the barracks or outside and if the Commissioner says, as he did say: “I will not compel these men to mess in the barracks,” then the men come to me with a claim and I have to pay them. That might seem as if I disagreed with the Commissioner. That is not so. I had a long conversation with the Commissioner about this and he described the actual situation at Bundoran to me much better than I can describe it to the Committee. He said he had considered the thing seriously and thought it unreasonable to ask the additional men to form a mess in the station. He gave me various reasons. I could read his minute to you. He said that it is not as easy as it seems to say to four or five or six Guards, who are temporarily attached to a station, that they must mess in the station, that you can say to them that they must mess in the station or take the consequences, but that it might not be fair or just to say it. He says it involves difficulties which you have to appreciate. For instance, the men would have to buy knives and forks to begin with. If a Guard is sent down to, say, Bundoran station, he may find that there is no mess actually in the station— which I think was the case, there was no mess there. That might happen from various causes. The Guards attached to that station might be married Guards. When the newcomers find an empty house, no kitchen, no table, no knives and no forks, is the Commissioner to say to them, “you will just have to start the range going, get a cook, buy knives and forks and form a mess because it will be cheaper and more efficient. The men will say, “we may be back in Dublin in a month’s time. It is not reasonable.” In these two cases—I am talking about Bundoran which is, in fact, the smaller case—the Commissioner did decide that it was not reasonable to ask the men to form a mess and I was then faced with the question, was I to say to the men who sent in their claims. “I am sorry. Although the Commissioner allows you to eat out, I cannot pay you to eat out?” They would say: “That is a very serious state of affairs and a matter between the Commissioner and the people who pay us.” 375. Chairman.—Yes, I see, but I understand that in this case, Mr. Roche, all the permanent Gárdaí in Bundoran, in fact, were married men?—Yes, and the situation was further complicated by the fact that domestic servants at that particular time were at a premium. In fact, they could not be got, and in those circumstances the Gárdaí concerned went to neighbouring houses and got their meals there. 376. As any of us might have to do when on holidays at the seaside at such a period. I can quite understand that, but have you any comment to make in that regard?—Yes. I agree that, in such circumstances, there might be that necessity, but there is an obvious danger there. What I am endeavouring to say is that, naturally, I have to trust to what the Chief Commissioner says—and of course I do trust him—but if a large number of men are going outside for their meals, which meals they might be able to provide for themselves, I might feel it my duty to say to the Commissioner that there is too much of this non-messing. In the case of Bundoran and Ballyhaunis, however, I am quite satisfied that the Commissioner was right, and I am also satisfied that it would not be right for me to question the matter in these cases. 377. Well, I should like to take the two questions together. The concluding part of this paragraph says:— “In another case, in view of the prolonged nature of the temporary duty and the numbers employed thereon, I have asked to be informed of the cost to public funds occasioned by the absence of messing facilities, and the steps, if any, taken to provide facilities.” Can you give us any information in regard to the second case, Mr. Roche?— Yes. 378. The amount involved, I think, is £485?—Yes, that is right. That is a curious and, if I may say so, an interesting case. There was a very bad land dispute in the Ballyhaunis neighbourhood which lasted for two or three years; additional Gárdaí had to be provided during the course of the dispute and, in fact, most of the men who were drafted in were married men, and the local Chief Superintendent thought it right and proper— and the Commissioner agreed with him— not to keep the same men there all the time; in other words, there was a constant change of personnel there. If the Commissioner had the gift of prophecy and had known that this would be a long dispute, he could have made other arrangements, and in the circumstances it would have paid him to rent a house outside the town. In those circumstances he would have saved the State, perhaps, £100 or £200; but he did not know how long that dispute might last, and he kept on dealing with the matter on the basis that the dispute might end in a week or two. 379. Chairman.—Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor-General might have some comment to make on that? Mr. McGrath.—If I had received the reply, that has now been given, a month earlier than I did receive it, I would have asked the Accounting Officer to communicate with the Department of Finance, asking for sanction for this expenditure, and possibly that sanction would have been got. However, I think that the question of whose business it was to deal with this matter would have arisen— that is, the question of whose business it is to provide messing accommodation in the Gárdaí barracks. It is a matter of whether it is the duty of the Department of Justice or of the Commissioner of the Civic Guards. It must be remembered that a Civic Guard messes himself—I mean to say, at his own expense—in the home station. If he goes away to another station he is allowed certain expenses which, for want of a better name, I shall call disturbance expenses. I think, where the State has to pay extra money on account of the absence of messing facilities it is my duty to point out that fact and to have the attention of the Department of Finance drawn to it. 380. Chairman.—Would you agree to deal with that in accordance with what Mr. McGrath has said, Mr. Roche? Mr. Roche.—Yes, and I should like to say that I rather agree with what Mr. McGrath has said, because it brings up the matter in a better way. 381. Chairman.—And you will take up with the Department of Finance and the Chief Commissioner the matter of determining in some way who is responsible for arranging for messing facilities in the barracks, and also take up the matter of these two particular cases?—Yes. 382. Deputy Cole.—Do these men get lodging accommodation?—Well, it depends. In the case of Ballyhaunis, they did not. There were about 40 men concerned there. In Bundoran the case was different, but generally it depends on circumstances, and, if there is no room for the men in the barracks, they have to go outside. 383. Chairman.—Very well, Mr. Roche, I take it that you will look into this matter and keep in touch with the Comptroller and Auditor-General?—Yes. 384. With regard to subhead O—Appropriations in Aid (5)—Hackney Car and Carriage, etc., Licences—is there a continual supervision, Mr. Roche, as to the suitability of hackney car and carriage drivers on the occasion of the payment of their licence, or can anybody get a licence?—No. As a matter of fact, the police are very careful both in regard to the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle. In fact, I have had some complaints to the effect that the Gárdaí were being too hard in that respect. 385. Deputy Hughes.—I notice that under the heading of “Details of Receipts” there is an item here for receipts from sale of stray dogs. I should like to know how these dogs are sold and what efforts are made to find the owners of the dogs?—I am not quite sure about that, and must speak with some hesitation, but I fancy that that is the case of dogs that are left in the Home. Occasionally, there might be a dog of good quality, which is sold for a certain amount, but in the case of most of them it is a loss. However, I should like to check up on this matter. If the police should find a stray dog and put him in the Dogs’ Home, and if the dog concerned is afterwards sold at a profit, the police get back some of the proceeds of the sale of the dog and, in exchange for that, we give a certain subsidy to the Cats’ and Dogs’ Home. They take dogs from us and, if they sell a dog at a profit, they give us back the money. 386. Chairman.—I take it, Mr. Roche, that item No. 12 in “Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer”—Compensation to Gárdaí Injured in Road Accidents—is more or less against subhead M, which is Compensation for Gárdaí?—I think that is quite true, Mr. Chairman. Subhead M is concerned with what we have to pay if Gárdaí are injured and cannot recover compensation otherwise, and item 12 there would be what we get in. In the old days, if a Gárda were injured, he recovered from the person who injured him and we said nothing about it; but now, in addition to that, we recover because we had to pay the salary of the Gárda while he was doing no work. VOTE 34—PRISONS.Mr. Roche further examined.387. Chairman.—Paragraph 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General 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.” I take it, Mr. McGrath, that that is a purely informative paragraph? Mr. McGrath.—Yes. 388. What is the “Fine Fund” mentioned in subhead I?—The facts about that fund are that warders are occasionally fined small sums of £1, 10/-, and 5/- for minor breaches of duty, and we put that into the fine fund and hand it out to help warders as a kind of ad misericordiam business. It is a perfectly self-contained transaction and should not come before the Dáil at all, but, owing to a currency arrangement which I have never been able to understand, it has been thought necessary to substract £10 from the gross vote for salaries under subhead A and put it down here as a kind of nucleus of the fine fund. It does not mean anything. 389. Except, I suppose, that it makes the fine fund susceptible to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General?—I presume so. 390. A procedure which, I have no doubt, the Comptroller and Auditor-General regularly carries out? Mr. McGrath.—Yes, I do. 391. Mr. Brasier.—With regard to subhead N, what are these gratuities to prisoners?—They get very small sums— 10/- or so—on discharge. 392. Chairman.—On subhead M, have you found that the claims for maintenance of criminal lunatics have increased from the point of view of rates, or are the rates of maintenance still the same?— No, I think they are increasing. I have some comparative figures here and I find that for reasons which I do not pretend to understand at the moment the expenditure has decreased. I thought the opposite was the case, but it is clear from these figures that it has steadily decreased. It was as high, in comparatively recent years, as £12,000, £11,000 and £10,000, and it has gone down steadily to £7,000. I cannot explain it. 393. Chairman.—Possibly it means that there are not as many under detention. 394. Deputy Cole.—Have you any idea of what it costs per head?—The charge is different in the different places. I have a list here of the various places in which they are detained, together with the rate per head, and it seems to represent an average of under £1 per week. 395. How does that compare with ten years ago?—I could not tell you that, but everything would seem to suggest that it should be more. I know of no reason why it should be less. 396. Chairman.—Perhaps in all the circumstances you would look into it and let us have a note* on it?—I shall. 397. Chairman.—With regard to subhead P, is the loss there principally due to the manufacturing departments or to the firms? Under that subhead £7,839 was expended on the manufacturing departments and the firms. Is that offset by an Appropriation in Aid?—Yes, there should be a profit on that subhead. 398. In fact, you have a profit because you have Appropriation in Aid of £9,600 coming in?—As I think I had the pleasure of telling you before, we are almost bound to have a profit because we have free labour and cannot have a loss. VOTE 35—DISTRICT COURT.Mr. Roche further examined.399. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General (paragraph 17):— “Subhead D—Losses. “As stated in the account, the charge to this subhead represents the amount paid to a local authority in respect of sums misappropriated by an Acting District Court Clerk. The defaulter was a member of the Gárda Síochána who had been nominated in 1935 to discharge the duties during the absence on temporary transfer of the District Court Clerk. The Gárda continued to act until 1938, in which year he died. The Department of Finance, in authorising the opening of this subhead, stated that no claim for dependant’s gratuity would be entertained unless the amount of the rateable deductions which had been made from the pay of the Gárda exceeded the net loss to the State.” What was the ultimate result of that instruction?—I think the widow has not got her pension yet because, as I understand it, we are delaying the issue of the pension until what we have got from rateable deductions and non-issue of pension will balance the amount of defalcations. We are on very delicate ground there, and the Commissioner has been pressing me in the matter on the interesting basis that this widow is entitled to a pension by statute and that it is no answer to her to say that in another capacity, which he undertook voluntarily, her late husband embezzled money, and that we have as little right to stop the widow’s pension as if this officer in his spare time had volunteered to check a shopkeeper’s account and embezzled £10—the shopkeeper could not come to the State and say that the pension must be withheld until he got his £10. The last thing I heard on the point was that we were getting advice on the legal position and as to whether we could do what the Department of Finance wants us to do. 400. Chairman.—I think the Committee would feel that if the widow of the deceased officer made a contribution towards a reduction of the defalcation, it would be a very satisfactory settlement, but to deprive the widow of her pension altogether until the defalcation is made up is very much the letter of the law. 401. Deputy O’Rourke.—It would not be legal, I am sure. Mr. McGrath.—I may tell you that I have great sympathy with the widow of the officer but, at the same time, we have to be very careful that we do not interfere in administration. I find that, in administration, the authorities are generally merciful, and I do not think we need interfere in that respect; but it is no harm to have the Chairman’s expression on the matter. At the same time, I have to be careful that I do not interfere one way or another with matters of policy or administration. Mr. Roche.—I have the impression that the matter is not terribly serious, and at the worst the widow will get her pension at an early date. 402. Deputy Brady.—What is the amount involved?—£113. The balance of pay and allowances due to the man at the date of his death were withheld, but I cannot say how much that amounted to. The total defalcations were £113 and we got only £9. That meant that £100 had to be paid out of the pension, which would amount to £30 a year, which means that if the utmost rigour of the law were used the widow would not get a pension for the first three years; but I have considerable hopes that the Attorney-General will say that that is unlawful and that we should have to pay it. 403. Deputy Hughes.—What is her position at the moment?—She is not getting her pension. 404. Is she on home assistance?—I could not tell you that, but I know she is not very well off because the Commissioner has spoken to me three times on the subject. 405. Chairman.—Pace the Comptroller and Auditor-General, I feel that the Committee—my colleagues will correct me if I am wrong—will certainly take a liberal view if the repayment of this sum is arranged on the basis of annual instalments rather than by a complete stoppage of the pension until the money is recouped. I know that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will believe that the Committee desires to support him in the utmost possible vigilance, but he must forgive the Committee if it occasionally goes berserk. Mr. Almond.—I think there has been some misunderstanding between the Department of Justice and ourselves. We put the matter to the Attorney-General. We were naturally anxious to recover the amount of the defalcation, but the Attorney-General advised us that there was no legal power to withhold the widow’s pension or children’s allowances, and we gave an unqualified sanction, but, at the same time, we did not convey to the Department of Justice the terms of the Attorney-General’s opinion. We took that opinion for our own information so that we could be sure that we could legally give sanction. When that sanction was given, there was nothing to prevent the Department notifying the award of the pension at once, but apparently thinking that there was some legal doubt, they did not do so. 406. Are we to understand that in all probability payment of the pension will therefore take place shortly?—There is nothing to prevent it. Mr. Roche.—We do not pay the pension. Mr. Almond.—There is another point. I do not know whether it is pertinent, but the payment will be made from another Vote, the Superannuation Vote, and it will not arise until the year following the accounting year with which you are dealing at present. Mr. Roche.—This decision, I should say, must have been a recent one, because when I was last talking about it, it was still before the Attorney-General. Mr. Almond.—We issued our sanction on 28th February this year. VOTE 36—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.Mr. Roche called.No questions. VOTE 37—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.Mr. Roche called.407. Deputy Brasier.—With regard to subhead E—Transcription of Memorials— there is a very great delay in issuing certificates. Has that anything to do with this?—Delay in the Registry of Deeds? I had not heard that. I am sorry to say that there have been delays in the Land Registry, but I have not heard of any in connection with the Registry of Deeds. 408. Chairman.—Are these land certificates? Deputy Brazier.—Yes. 409. Chairman.—I think that is rather the province of the Land Registry. This is the Registry of Deeds and, of course, the Land Registry, too. Mr. Roche.—Time after time, there have been cases before the Committee of people not understanding what is meant by this subject. It is for paying clerks for copying out long formal documents which have to be registered in the Registry of Deeds, but delays would be more likely to occur in the Land Registry in issuing copies of folios and maps. It is due largely to the fact that we lost a number of our oldest and most practised staff in the mapping section, more or less simultaneously. It was one of these little earthquakes which take place in offices occasionally, where five or six men go out together, and we have not got the machine running properly yet. I hope we will have it running properly soon. VOTE 38—CIRCUIT COURT.Mr. Roche further examined.No questions. The Committee adjourned at 12.30 p.m. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
