Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1941 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1939 - 1940

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 1adh Bealtaine, 1941.

Thursday, 1st May, 1941.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair.

Seóirse Mag Craith (Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste).

Mr. C. S. Almond, Mr. O. J. Redmond and Mr. L. M. Fitzgerald (Roinn Airgeadais), called and examined.

Chairman.—There is a matter which we must dispose of before we pass to the routine business. It arises from the statement of the Minister for Defence made yesterday in Dáil Eireann when his Estimates were presented, announcing that the form of the Army Estimate would be different from that in which it was ordinarily presented in the past. As I understand the background of this situation, the Public Accounts Committee in its earlier stages had a dual function. One was to conduct the work that we habitually do here and the other was to consult with the Treasury as to the form in which the Estimates should be presented to the Legislature. A survival of that early function is that no Minister of the Government will alter the form of his Estimate without having consulted the Committee of Public Accounts and obtained their agreement to the alteration which he proposes. As a result of this a letter was addressed by the Secretary of the Department of Finance to the Committee of Public Accounts in the following terms on the 4th March:—

“I am directed by the Minister for Finance to inform you that the Government have decided that, during the present emergency, details of the Estimate for Army (Vote No. 63) should not be published.

It is accordingly proposed that the Estimate for Army for 1941-42 should show, in Part II, only one general debit subhead and the Appropriation in Aid subhead, and that Part III of the Estimate should be omitted.”

I desire to place it on record that in my judgment the decision of the Government to present the Estimate in that form is subject to the consent of this Committee. However, I feel that this Committee on this occasion will certainly give that consent, though it is quite open to any member of the Committee to move for the refusal of that consent if he wishes to do so. In anticipation, however, of what I believe to be the Committee’s mind, I have drafted a letter in reply to the letter received from the Secretary of the Department of Finance which I will now read, and if it meets with the approval of the members of the Committee, it can be despatched:—

“With further reference to your minute of the 4th ultimo, F102/63/40 in relation to the Estimate for the Army Vote for the year 1941/42 (Vote No. 63), I am directed by the Committee of Public Accounts to state that in the special circumstances, the Committee consents to the proposed alteration in the form of publication of the Estimate for the period of the emergency.”

So far as I am concerned, I would recommend that consent of the Committee only on the ground that there is a grave emergency, that the alteration of the form of the Accounts would obtain only for the period of that emergency and that they will revert to their normal form when that emergency has been declared past. Is that letter agreeable to the members of the Committee?

Agreed.

Deputy Brady.—Was not the Defence Conference consulted about the form of the Estimate and the Estimate in general put before them?—Chairman.—There was a certain amount of check on it in that way.

Chairman.—The proposal to present the Estimate in this form was submitted to the Defence Conference and there agreed to. The Estimate has been submitted in detail to the Defence Conference and has in fact been drawn in the ordinary form and submitted to the Defence Conference in that form. Over and above that of course, this Committee had a function quite distinct and separate from the Dáil or the Defence Conference.

VOTE 39—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. J. F. Morrissey, called and examined.

90. Chairman.—Can you tell us what were the documents of historical interest which were deemed to be important enough to spend in excess for their acquisition?—There was a large collection of documents belonging to Mr. Groves who was a searcher in the Record Office all his life. The principal part of them was comprised in that collection, consisting of extracts from documents, now destroyed.

91. Did they relate to any special period or were they general?—They were general. Of course the bulk of them would be 18th century They went back earlier, but the bulk of them would be 18th century documents and extracts.

92. From wills?—From wills and all kinds of legal documents, chancery bills, inquisitions, judgments, decrees, census returns, etc.

93. They will be catalogued and classified?—Yes. It is very tedious work but it is in process of being done.

94. Deputy McMenamin.-Was the collection of any special importance?—There is the importance of replacing information which is now lost. It is a general collection, of course.

95. It is not available in any other way?—No. These documents would not be in any other place. They are extracts from original documents which were in the Record Office and were burned.

Chairman.—I think you can be congratulated on having secured this collection instead of allowing it to be broken up.

Witness withdrew.

VOTE 51—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Dr. George Furlong, called and examined.

96. Deputy McMenamin.—As to Subhead B there was a grant of £2,000 and there was a net expenditure of £2,000. That balance was neatly drawn. Is that accurate?

97. Chairman.—Am I correct in believing that that annual grant of £2,000 is handed to you and if you do not spend it in the financial year you keep it until the next year?

Dr. Furlong.—That is so. It is only £1,000 now. In that year it was £2,000, but it has since been reduced. We can carry it on to the next year. It is not surrendered.

Chairman.—If Deputy McMenamin looks at the Grant-in-Aid he will see how the money is handled.

98. Deputy McMenamin.—Surely it is not a correct representation of the account if the money is not examined to show that it has been expended?

99. Chairman.—Am I correct. Mr. McGrath, in saying that if Deputy McMenamin refers to the Estimate, he will find a note to the effect that expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the unexpended balance, if any, will not be surrendered at the close of the financial year?

Mr. McGrath.—That is the procedure.

100. Deputy McMenamin.—I see that, but there is a grant of £2,000 and, so far as the account before us shows, there is an expenditure of £2,000, whereas in fact there may not have been an expenditure of £2,000?

Mr. McGrath.—There was a grant of £2,000 and that was paid out, and that is expenditure so far as the Audit office is concerned. You have a note at the foot of the page to account for the Grant-in-Aid.

101. Deputy McMenamin.—You agree that, as shown here under B, it may be inaccurate?

Mr. McGrath.—It is not inaccurate; it is perfectly accurate.

102. Chairman.—I suppose. Dr. Furlong, that a good many of your treasures are at present locked away in a place of safety?

Dr. Furlong.—Yes, a certain percentage of them are packed away.

VOTE 40—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. W. Smyth called.

No question.

VOTE 43—DUNDRUM ASYLUM.

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

103. Chairman.—On Subhead D— Medicines, Surgical Instruments, etc.— is there any curative treatment proceeding at Dundrum, or is it regarded merely as a place of detention?—Modern treatment is being carried out there on patients when we consider there is a prospect of getting favourable results.

104. Is there any research in therapeutics going on in your institution?— There is no laboratory there. There is no special department for research, but in the case of anything that we think is likely to be of interest, we send it on to the pathological laboratories to have it elucidated.

105. In your experience, have any of the patients been cured by treatment in Dundrum, or do they belong to a class that is ordinarily incurable?—It would be difficult to say anything definite on that. You see some extraordinary improvements in patients whom you would not consider likely to improve, while others—patients that you thought had a fair prospect of recovery—deteriorate.

106. If you were satisfied that a patient had, in fact, been cured of the insanity responsible for his crime, what is the procedure?—I would report to the Government the fact that he was cured. The Government inspector—the inspector of mental hospitals—would then come out and examine the case, in conjunction with me. As a matter of fact, he does that periodically in order to keep the patients continually under observation. He comes out to Dundrum and we discuss the condition of various patients.

107. Ordinarily, would a patient be released from custody in the event of your both agreeing that he was now cured, or would he be removed to prison? —With regard to his release, that would depend on a number of circumstances. Suppose a man became insane while serving a sentence, and was transferred from prison to Dundrum, if he recovered he would be sent back to prison and be released when the period of his sentence had expired. If he had not recovered by the time his prison sentence had expired, he would be transferred to the mental hospital in the county to which he belonged.

108. What is the position with regard to a person found guilty but insane, and committed to your care?—His release would depend on a number of factors, such, for example, as the surroundings to which he was about to return.

109. But one cannot contemplate a perfectly sane man being indefinitely detained in Dundrum?—No, but a patient who recovered his sanity would probably remain in Dundrum for a period, in case he might get a relapse.

110. And then he would, ordinarily, be released by an Executive order?—Yes.

111. Do you recall any such case of a person found guilty but insane, recovering under your care, and being subsequently released?—A certain number are released every year.

112. Deputy Breathnach.—That procedure seems a bit odd. If a man recovers while in Dundrum, why send him back to prison to complete his sentence?

113. Chairman.—Dr. Scroope dealt with two cases that I put to him. He pointed out that if a man became insane while serving a sentence in prison he would be sent to Dundrum until his sanity was restored, when he would be returned to the prison whence he came to complete his sentence. In the other case, that of a man found guilty but insane and committed to Dundrum direct from the court, when he is cured the Government may direct the man’s release when it is considered safe to do so. That, I think, is the position?

Dr. Scroope.—Yes. His release depends on the pleasure of the Government.

Deputy Breathnach.—The point is clear now.

114. Chairman.—I take it, Dr. Scroope, that the allowances to patients and gratuities on discharge, under Subhead F. are for the class of person that we have been discussing?—Yes.

115. Deputy McMenamin.—On subhead I—Farm and Garden—I see that the grant was £310 and the expenditure £268 odd. Was that money spent on seeds, manures, implements and things like that?—Yes.

116. Are we to take it that the sum of £944 18s. 2d. realised under Subhead J— Appropriations in Aid—is due to the sale of farm garden and produce?

Chairman.—If the Deputy turns to the note dealing with the Appropriations in Aid, on page 122, he will find that this sum of £944 18s. 2d. is accounted for partly by way of “receipts from attendants for rations”, and partly by “receipts from farm and garden (including value of produce used in the asylum)”.

117. Deputy Hughes.—I would like to know from Dr. Scroope what is the size of the farm?—About 20 acres.

118. How do you work it?—Three-fourths of it is under potatoes. The farm and the garden are one. We call the garden the part where we grow vegetables, such as turnips, cabbages and parsnips.

119. Is all the produce of the garden and farm consumed in the institution?— Some is consumed by the patients in the institution, and a certain amount is sold in the market.

120. You produce then more than you require?—A certain amount, and we make a certain amount on it.

121. Deputy Breathnach.—Are there any non-patients employed in the garden? —The garden is worked by the patients and staff. The staff supervise the patients and also do some work themselves in the garden.

122. Chairman.—How many of your staff would, ordinarily, be engaged supervising the patients while working on the farm or in the garden?—We have about 30 patients who are fit to work on the farm, and they would be supervised by 15 or 17 members of the staff.

Of course, it has to be borne in mind that the staff in Dundrum supervising patients working on the farm or in the garden are not supervising them primarily to see that they work, but to see that they do not kill one another.

123. Deputy Hughes.—On an average, how many patients are fit to work?— About 48 on the farm. We have a number of other patients who would not be fit to work on the farm, but who are employed in cleaning divisions and on work of that kind.

124. Does not the farm appear to be a very small one for an institution the size of Dundrum? Could you not make use of more land?—We could.

125. Have you ever attempted to get more land?—That was attempted about 25 years ago, but nothing has been done about it since. We have been growing potatoes on the same land for the last 100 years—certainly for 80 or 90 years.

126. Would it not be a help in your work of trying to bring about the cure of the patients if you had more land to employ them on?—Of course, it would.

127. Chairman.—Are you of the opinion, doctor, that the occupational therapy available on a larger farm would help in the cure of patients, or have you enough occupation for your patients from a therapeutic point of view?—From the point of view of the number of patients that we have, we have enough land I think, to keep any of them that are willing to work amply employed.

128. Deputy Breathnach.—Have you got any playgrounds at Dundrum?—We have a cricket ground, a ball alley and a football ground. As advised by the Government, we have put more of our land under tillage this year, so that we are tilling every available bit of land that we have.

129. Deputy Allen.—You mentioned selling some of the vegetables and farm produce. Would that be potatoes?—From the sale of produce we got £107 4s. 8d. and that was largely mangolds, turnips, and a certain amount of potatoes that we could spare; and also rhubarb and parsnips. We feed the patients on potatoes, cabbages, turnips, parsnips and rhubarb.

Chairman.—You will observe this Committee has a considerable agricultural bent. I am the only one who takes any interest in therapeutics.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 23—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.

Mr. J. Herlihy, called and examined.

130. Deputy Allen.—What do the Appropriations in Aid come from?

Chairman.—On page 81 Deputy Allen will find that shown under two heads— “Proportion of cost payable by the several County Councils under Act 37 and 38 Vict., c. 70, as amended by the Local Government (Adaptation of Irish Enactments) Ireland Order, 1899,” and “Receipts from Fees payable under 23 Vict., c. 4, s. 9 and Miscellaneous Receipts”. Do you wish Mr. Herlihy to elaborate on that, Mr. Allen?

Deputy Allen.—Yes.

131. Chairman.—Could you explain to us, Mr. Herlihy, the actual purposes of the two components of the Appropriations in Aid?

Mr. Herlihy.—To explain it fully it is necessary to go back to the principal Act. the Valuation Act of 1852. In 1852 there was no income-tax in Ireland so the valuation was solely for the purpose of local rating and, that being so, naturally enough the whole cost of the valuation originally was payable by the rating authorities—the grand juries, as they were in those days. Income-tax was introduced in 1853, and then it came to be accepted that the State should pay some contribution. At first, the arrangement was that the State paid half, but in 1874 —that is the date of the Act referred to here—an arrangement was come to that the State should pay the whole, subject to contributions by the grand juries of specific fixed amounts set out in the Act. That figure of £6,295 is the total of those amounts for the present area of the Twenty-Six Counties.

132. Chairman.—Then there is the second portion—Receipts from Fees payable under 23 Vict. c. 4, s. 9 and Miscellaneous Receipts. Broadly speaking, what does that refer to?—Any member of the public is entitled to get from us an extract from the valuation list or a tracing of our maps, on paying certain fees, and those extracts certified by us are accepted as evidence by all courts. There is, therefore, a certain demand, first of all, for purposes of legal proceedings, and sometimes for private purposes. A big property owner sometimes likes to have a clear statement of the valuations of all his properties and a map showing the situation of them, so we derive a certain income in that way.

133. Deputy Hughes.—Is that simply a boundary map or a detailed map?—Our maps are simply the Ordnance Survey maps as sold to the public, with the boundaries of the various properties delineated by hand-drawing by our valuers.

134. Chairman.—If somebody has his property revalued in the revaluation from time to time and allows the period for appeal to pass by oversight, has he any means of having that valuation reopened? —Not for that year but, of course, he can come back the following year.

135. And is there a valuation assize or something of that kind?—The procedure is that, if a man is dissatisfied with the valuation of his property, he really cannot commence by appealing at all. The first thing he must do is to ask the secretary of his local authority to put the property down for revision of valuation. Strictly speaking, that is supposed to be done in the summer of every year but, in fact, some latitude is allowed. Every year, from every rating authority in the country, we receive a list of cases whose valuations require to be revised. This list would include cases where people were dissatisfied, and also all new buildings, structurally improved buildings, all farms which have been divided, and cases where buildings have been burned or destroyed. The main work of the Valuation Office consists in carrying through the revision of valuations set out on these lists. We have no power of initiative to touch any valuation, and we cannot revise any unless the rating authority submits it to us on this list. All through the late summer, autumn and winter, our valuers are touring the country, inspecting the properties and revising the valuations on these lists. The revised valuations are published by every rating authority on the 1st March every year and every ratepayer has 28 days in which to appeal to the Commissioner of Valuation. The appeal consists simply in sending a note to the rating authority stating dissatisfaction. All these objections are sent to the Valuation Officer and then our valuers tour the country again to interview the people who have appealed, to reinspect the properties and amend the valuations where necessary. On the appeal procedure in each individual case, there is a report to me and I have to apply my mind personally to it. That is the gist of the appeal procedure. The annual revision list would include 40,000 cases and only about 1,000 of them are appealed. I deal with these. My decisions are published by the rating authorities and then people who are dissatisfied may appeal to the Circuit Court and, if there is a point of law, there is a further appeal to the High Court and to the Supreme Court.

136. Deputy Allen.—To what extent is your Department called upon to revise valuations of land in the case of flooding or coast erosion?—To quite a fair extent. A farmer whose land has been flooded normally objects by communicating with the county council about it. It is a rather difficult portion of our work. As a matter of fact, in regard to agricultural land we are very much circumscribed by statutes. We are not supposed either to diminish or to increase the valuations of the agricultural land in any townland so, if it is only a case of temporary flooding, we ignore it. I refer to the casual flooding that takes place for a few weeks in each year.

137. And what happens in the case of permanent flooding?—If the sea carries the land away altogether, we strike it out of the books but, where there is an embankment keeping back the sea, and it gets broken, and there is a possibility that in a year or two it may be repaired again, we make a separate valuation and set out separately the portion of Griffith’s valuation which relates to the land which for that period may be described as useless and we leave it to the county councils to please themselves. In fact, they do not collect rates on land so described in our books.

138. That is permanently flooded?— That is useless pro tem.

139. Chairman.—It might be described as temporarily-permanently flooded?

140. Deputy Hughes.—Where a person appeals against a valuation and fails to get a reduction, who pays the cost?—Up to the stage of the appeal to the Commissioners of Valuation, the State pays the whole of the cost. Up to that stage there is no question of solicitors or counsel. If the matter goes to the Circuit Court judge he awards the costs. Sometimes he awards against the Valuation Office and occasionally he awards us costs, while quite a common thing is for him to order that each side pay its own costs.

141. If you get in a bunch of appeals from farmers all over the country, would you pay the costs?—You could scarcely have such a thing as a bunch of appeals, as Griffith’s valuation of agricultural land is stabilised by the statutes. There is no use in a farmer coming along and saying that his land is not as good as it was in Griffith’s time. Griffith’s valuation was made in the middle of last century. Whether it is as good or not, the valuation has to stand. There is no use either in a rate collector saying that a man’s land is very much improved: it has to stand. Therefore, the only appeals we get from farmers are, first of all, in connection with dwelling-houses and out-offices, where they have improved them, and so on; and also where a piece of land has been divided and a farmer says that one man got too much and the other too little of the old valuation. Then there are cases which the Deputy has just referred to— exceptional cases where the sea has interfered with the land.

142. Deputy Allen.—Unless you are called upon by the county council to revise the valuation where the sea has taken away land, you do not do so? There is no periodical inspection by your Department?—No, and it is well settled in the Courts that we have no power of initiative whatever. Some people think we can go around the country putting our eyes on this and that property, saying that the valuation of it ought to be increased. We can do nothing unless the rating authority tells us to do it.

143. Deputy Hughes.—Can the E.S.B. initiate a revision?—Certainly, in relation to properties they occupy themselves.

144. I mean other persons’ property?— Actually the law is that in any rating area any ratepayer can initiate a revision as regards any man’s property. It is quite open in any town for Mr. Murphy to say that Mr. Kelly’s valuation is not nearly high enough and should be increased. If a man were to do that he would have to go in and revise it, but in fact it never is done.

145. Supposing the E.S.B. put in an installation for a man on a rental on a valuation basis, do they ever initiate revision in that case if they think the valuation is too small?—Are you referring to a dwelling house which heretofore has had no electric light and then the occupier gets electric light installed?

146. Chairman.—The point is this: there are several ways of paying for your electric light or power, one of which is a rate related to the rateable value of your property. Deputy Hughes’s point is, if the E.S.B. put in an installation on that basis and then come to the conclusion that the subscriber’s valuation was too low and they were not getting a fair return on that basis, are they in the habit of approaching the secretary of the county council with a view to having these premises revised?—I have never known a case. They do not do that in practice.

147. Deputy Hughes.—What I have in mind, sir, is, supposing an urban council has not asked for revision of a property in a town for a long time and in fact the property is improved and the E.S.B. put in a supply on a valuation basis, do they ever ask for revision?—No, never.

148. Chairman.—Of course, they are quite free to do so, but in fact they have not done so?—They would have to get it done through some ratepayer in the rating area.

149. Deputy Hughes.—They may be a ratepayer themselves?—Quite possibly. They could get it done if they liked, but in fact they have never done it.

VOTE 24—ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. J. Herlihy, called and examined.

Deputy Breathnach.—In the case of every Estimate so far before us there have been savings through delayed appointments.

Chairman.—Do you see any such saving on this Vote?

Deputy Breathnach.—Yes.

Chairman.—Then let us ask Mr. Herlihy a question. In regard to Subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is a footnote:—“The savings are due to delay in absorbing military personnel in civil staff…” Is that the point, Deputy?

Deputy Breathnach.—That is the point.

150. Chairman.—What is the reason for this delay, Mr. Herlihy?

Mr. Herlihy.—It was really delay in settling the nature of the scheme whereby they were to be absorbed. You see, again it is a question of the history of the office. Under the British régime the Ordnance Survey was practically a military establishment. The man in charge in Phoenix Park was a serving military officer in uniform. The principal men there were officers and soldiers of the Royal Engineers. In addition to which, of course, you had a large number of civilians, many of whom were time-expired men of the Royal Engineers who were kept on employed to the age of 65 in a civilian capacity. Of course, when the British evacuated this country in 1922, I think it was 31st March, 1922, the Royal Engineers, officers and soldiers, marched away and the senior civilian officer there, Captain Mew, was appointed to take charge. Then for some years we carried on on a civilians. basis with the aid of the existing civilians. Then it became a question of recruitment, or, at least, it became a question of supplying vacancies left by the older men who were retiring. The old idea reasserted itself of associating the place with the army, so a certain corps of the Army was attached to the Survey staff, consisting of a captain, two sergeants, two corporals and, I think, about 20 men. Then Captain Mew retired. Major McNeill, a reserve officer of the Free State Army, as it then was, was appointed to succeed him. Then the question arose as to the precise conditions which should obtain in the Survey in future. Some of us thought a good idea would be the old idea—to have the place in charge of a serving military officer, the principal members of the personnel to be serving officers and men of the Irish Corps of Engineers. Other people thought that that was not a good idea, and thought it had better remain in civilian control and simply have the military associated with it. It was really that controversy, and discussions and debates on that which caused the delay to which the Deputy here refers.

151. Chairman.—Has any decision been taken in the matter to date?—Yes, a decision was taken that it should be on a civilian basis, and there was therefore the question of absorbing the serving soldiers who were there in uniform into the civil staff. We did absorb them into the civil staff ultimately. Of course, we kept them in the Army reserve, but they were on the civil staff, wearing civilian clothes until a short time ago, after this present war broke out. They are now all back in uniform.

Chairman.—Does that dispose of your point, Deputy Breathnach?

Deputy Breathnach.—Quite.

152. Deputy Hughes.—Do you ordinarily do a certain amount of revision work each year?—In peace times, that is the work of the Ordnance Survey—trying to keep the existing maps revised because, of course, the whole country has already been mapped long ago and it is simply a question of keeping the maps up to date according as physical changes occur on the ground. For example, in the suburbs of expanding cities revisions occur to a very considerable extent.

153. What period does it take to get back over the ground again for a checkup?—Unfortunately it takes a very long time. I think they can cover the whole country once in 50 years.

154. Once in 50 years?—Yes, but by concentrating on the areas where changes on the ground are most frequent, as for example, the suburbs of Dublin, you can manage to keep the maps tolerably up to date. It is extremely difficult to keep Ordnance Survey maps absolutely up to date. You have got your map and then some farmer decides to divide a field in two and build a ditch and your map is obsolete straight away.

155. Chairman.—Is it the practice in recent years extensively to photograph the country from the air with a view to determining whether any widespread changes have taken place in any area?— We only did a little of that experimentally, in addition to keeping in touch with some work that the Ordnance Survey in Great Britain was doing. These people in Britain and our people keep in touch as regards processes and methods and so on. But I do not know that aerial photography has been a tremendous success so far.

156. I thought it had some success in revealing hitherto unobserved prehistoric traces?—It has had that sort of success, yes.

157. Deputy McMenamin.—But it could not be sworn to in Court as being accurate?—It is not, of course, as accurate as having people going around with their instruments and actually measuring on the ground.

158. Chairman.—But it does direct the attention of the expert with his instruments to archaeological points of interest that may have been hitherto unobserved? —It does.

159. Chairman.—In regard to the note on Subhead G, “Extra Receipts”, I take it that the old motor van that was sold for five guineas was a very old motor van?—I hope it was, Mr. Chairman, but, of course. we sold it through the Post Office. We do not do any buying or selling ourselves. Our paper is bought by the Station Office and we sold this through the Post Office, but I think it is a fact that, when selling these old vans, you only get a miserable price.

Chairman.—Bottles seem to be a more remunerative commodity to sell. For these you got £1.

160. Deputy Allen.—Do you consult the Land Registry changes at all in the matter of boundaries?—The Ordnance Survey. I think I may say, copies the ground. It does not copy anybody else’s work.

161. It only copies the ground?—Yes.

162. I have in mind local authorities building rural cottages. They acquire plots of land all over the country?—Yes, quite.

163. And you would have no record of that until you surveyed it on the ground? —The Ordnance Survey would not.

164. And your maps will not show that?—Our maps in the Valuation Office would, because the rating authority would enter on the list for revision the new cottages built. Our valuers go out almost immediately, bringing the Valuation Office map with them, and the valuer, by hand-writing, inserts the position of the cottages.

165. These are recorded on the Ordnance maps without actual surveying on the ground?—Not on the Ordnance maps. When I speak of the Valuation Office map, I mean a map which is partly manuscript, of which there is only one copy in existence, unless somebody chooses to ask for a tracing, whereas the Ordnance maps are published and you can buy them at any bookseller’s, or, at least, in peace times you can.

166. Chairman.—It is really true to say that an individual desiring to get a map of his property would be better advised to bespeak one from the Valuation Office rather than from the Ordnance Survey?— Yes, if there have been changes since the last Ordnance Survey revision.

167. Deputy Allen.—If revision takes place only once in 50 years there would be very big rating changes?

Chairman.—You have learnt to-day, Deputy, that when your estates are being rated you should refer to Mr. Herlihy as Director of the Valuation and Boundary Survey rather than as Director of Ordnance Survey.

Mr. Herlihy.—To say “once in 50 years” would be an exaggeration because the portions of the country that do not change much, for example, mountain regions, are let slide and we try to keep up to date the areas where changes are frequent. For example, if the Land Commission have made an extensive division of lands in an area we push in there and get that up to date.

Chairman.—If there is no other question we need not detain Mr. Herlihy any longer. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Herlihy.

The witness then withdrew.

VOTE 10—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. J. Connolly, called and examined.

168. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote, paragraph 11, page vii:—

Insurance of Workmen.

“11. In paragraph 11 of my last report I referred to the claim presented to the Official Liquidator of the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association, Limited, to cover actual and estimated expenses, including the extra cost of an alternative policy, devolving on the Commissioners as a result of the winding up of the Association. As stated in a note to this account, additional payments amounting to £7,972 10s. 1d. on foot of compensation, etc., claims were made during the year ended 31st March, 1940, bringing the total of such payments charged to suspense to £13,993 6s. 6d. In addition, the sum of £6,017 4s. 0d. remains charged to a Suspense Account in respect of portion of the premium paid for the year 1938-39.”

You told us last year, Mr. Connolly, that there was some question of the Office of Public Works recovering under the reinsurance covenant. Have you any further news to give us in that regard?

Mr. Connolly.—It is entirely in the hands of the Liquidator. We are in close contact with him constantly in connection with this matter, but until he is in a position to find out what assets he can bring in we shall not know how we stand. In other words, at the present moment we are awaiting the Liquidator’s report.

169. You told us last year that there was some obscurity as to whether reinsurance effected by this association protected the individual members of the Insurance Association or the Association as a whole?—Yes, but did we not clear up that with a note indicating the position with regard to reinsurances, either with respect to the individual or the Association as a whole? I think it was dealt with in question 304 of last year’s minutes of evidence on Vote 10.

170. Yes, a question was put in paragraph 304, and your reply went into the position in some detail. However, if you look at paragraph 305, you will see there that you said, in reply to a question, that you understood that the reinsurance was effected, but that the basis on which the reinsurance was established was that the reinsurers would transfer the payment against their liability to the Company as a whole. You then went on to say:—

“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.”

Mr. Connolly.—That is the basis on which reinsurance is effected by all companies. The matter, however, is in the hands of the Liquidator, and until he gets his accounts completed and is in a position to furnish returns, we shall not be able to report finally.

171. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that the covenant which this Association entered into with you, to effect adequate reinsurance, was, in fact, performed by the Association?—I think that is so.

172. And you expect that the Association will, in fact, receive from the reinsurers a sum equal to the total amount of your claim against the Association in respect of any claim that might have arisen?—We are basing our hopes of securing payment of our debt upon the amount which the Liquidator will be able to pay out of the claims which he has on the holders of the Mutual Insurance Policies. Each policy-holder is liable to a payment of £5 as a mutual policy-holder, and provided that the £5, or as much of it as may be required, can be collected, then I do not think there will be any doubt about our getting our payment in full. The question is: Will the Liquidator be able to do that? I believe he has got a legal decision to the effect that he is entitled to collect it, but the job of collecting it is a matter for him.

173. In other words, you have a dual capacity: first of all, in respect of getting payment for your losses, and secondly as a member of the Association?—Yes.

174. Are you satisfied, in both these capacities, that the interests of these people were adequately covered by the Association?—The reinsurance only covered a portion of the risk.

175. Yes, but was that covered?—It was covered by the terms of the contract into which we entered.

176. Can you recall the form of reinsurance which the terms of contract required them to take?—I do not think we could give you particulars of that. I think they had an option on what portion of the policy they would reinsure.

177. I understood that your insurance agreement with them stipulated for reinsurance by them?—It did, but whether it covered the entire amount or not I am not in a position to say. I do not think they were bound to cover all the liability by reinsurance.

178. I think you will agree that a covenant to reinsure would be quite valueless unless it stipulated that a minimum percentage of the risk would be undertaken?—Yes. In any case, the covenant to reinsure did not secure us, but only the Company. None of the Insurance Companies carry on reinsurance on any other basis.

179. No, but it would give you a guarantee that in the event of the Company becoming insolvent and unable to meet your claims there would be some right, surely, against the reinsurer?— Well, I am not sure about that. In the analysis we made we found that the Company, firstly, had an option as regards the amount of reinsurance they would undertake, and, secondly, that it covered them as a company or as an Association.

180. Might I enquire, who represents the Department of Finance in this matter?

Mr. O. J. Redmond.—I do.

181. Could you help us, Mr. Redmond, as to the terms approved by the Department of Finance in regard to the reinsurance covenant?

Mr. Redmond.—We understood the reinsurance was of the usual nature insurance companies generally go in for.

182. You will see, Mr. Redmond, that in your minute of 31 Deire Fomhair, 1938, addressed to the Secretary, Office of Public Works, you say: “The Minister would be glad to learn of the effect of such reinsurance on the claim against the liquidator;” and you also say: “It is assumed that the Commissioners are having regard to the condition in the contract with the Association, as to reinsurance of the Commissioners’ business?”

Mr. Redmond.—I have that minute here; I am looking up the reply.

183. Chairman.—Do you recall, Mr. Connolly, the correspondence in question, in which the Department of Finance said: “It is assumed that the Commissioners are having regard to the condition in the contract with the Association as to reinsurance of the Commissioners’ business”?

Mr. Connolly.—Not specifically, but I do remember that we had the reinsurance provision in the contract. I have an advice here with regard to the practice in respect of reinsurance, which is as follows:—

“A company would not lay-off a risk entirely. If it did, it would only be in the position of a broker. It is, however, a basic principle of reinsurance that the original company retains a part of the risk. The second party is thus relieved of the expense of the office management for collecting premium, etc., and of direct contact with the policy holder. This is one of the considerations why the reinsurance rate is generally lower than the premium charged in the policy.

“The policy holder would, however, have no locus standi in relation to the reinsurance contracts. It would generally be regarded as a breach of trust to disclose the reinsurance terms to the policy holder and it is extremely unlikely that a company would accept a policy which would be subject to a condition that the holder’s business should be specifically reinsured. Neither would a company agree to a condition that reinsurance should be held for the benefit of the policy holder’s claims: as the policy holder would not be liable to be called upon to bear the loss if the reinsurances ‘flopped’—and they do so occasionally although the public may not be aware—he is not entitled to the profit, if any, resulting from reinsurances.

“Reinsurances strengthen an Insurance Company’s position by taking burdens off them and also by the resulting pooling of resources. As the company is rendered sounder by reinsurance the policy holders thus obtain an advantage therefrom.”

I am not saying whether that is the correct procedure legally or otherwise, but it is not the accepted practice to reinsure specifically any policy-holder’s interest.

184. Chairman.—But you say that it is assumed that the Commissioners are having regard to the condition in the contract as to reinsurance of the Commissioners’ business. Perhaps, Mr. Redmond could elaborate on that?

Mr. Redmond.—Yes. In sanctioning the contract for 1938-39 we said: “It is assumed that the contract will be subject to the condition that the risk involved will, as heretofore, be covered by reinsurance with Lloyds.” It was in pursuance of that, I think, we made the statement you quoted from the minute of 31st October, namely: “It is assumed that the Commissioners are having regard to the condition in the contract with the Association as to reinsurance of the Commissioners’ business; the Minister would be glad to learn of the effect of such reinsurance on the claim against the Liquidator.” I do not think we got any specific reply to this question, but we understood from the Board of Works that they had been assured by the solicitor for the Liquidator that the matter of reinsurance was all right and that the Association had carried out its undertaking.

185. Chairman.—Do you not think that this Committee is bound to inquire as to whether the Minister got information that the Commissioners’ business per se had been reinsured, because your letter would suggest that the Minister knew of this condition in the insurance contract and reminded the Chairman of the Board of Works of its existence?

Mr. Redmond.—We understood from the Commissioners of Public Works that the risk was being reinsured by this company and we assumed such reinsurance would be in accordance with ordinary insurance practice.

186. Chairman.—And the Board of Works tell us that it was not so reinsured and could not have been so reinsured?

Mr. Connolly.—Not specifically. It is quite clear that it could not be reinsured specifically as regards the Board of Works policy.

187. Deputy McMenamin.—Did you mean to indicate. Mr. Redmond, that they had reinsured 100 per cent. or did you understand, what we generally understand, that the company for its own protection laid off part of its liabilities?

Mr. Redmond.—I should say we were thinking of the general insurance practice.

188. Deputy McMenamin.—That is not 100 per cent. cover?

Mr. Redmond.—So Mr. Connolly tells us now.

189. Chairman.—Before Deputy McMenamin pursues that, I should like to dispose of the first point. I gathered from the Minister’s letter of the 31st October, that he was then under the impression that the Commissioners’ business per se had been reinsured for a greater or less percentage of the total liability. It now appears that, in fact, the Commissioners’ business per se had not been so reinsured. There does seem to be some obscurity there. Can you tell us, did the Minister get any reply to his inquiry: “The Minister would be glad to learn of the effect of such reinsurance on the claim against the Liquidator?”

Mr. Redmond.—We were informed by the Board of Works that they had received notification from the solicitors acting for the Official Liquidator confirming that the Association had reinsurance contracts in force from November, 1931, up to the date of the liquidation and stating that the Liquidator was taking all necessary steps to recover from the reinsurers all moneys payable on foot of the contracts of reinsurance and that any moneys so recovered would be applied by the Liquidator in due course to the liquidation proceedings.

190. Chairman.—Do you recall, Mr. Redmond, did this create the impression on your mind that the Commissioners’ business per se had been reinsured or that merely the Commissioners were entitled to take benefit under the general insurance of the Association’s entire business?

Mr. Redmond.—I should say that it conveyed to me that there was adequate cover.

191. Chairman.—Do you believe, Mr. Connolly, on your adviser’s statement. that there will be 100 per cent. recovery in the business?

Mr. Connolly.—I hesitate to give an opinion. I never felt, personally, that there would be, unless the company is in a position to recover from the mutual policy holders. If they are able to collect from their policy holders, then they will be able to pay. To the extent they are able to collect I think they will be able to pay, but I am very sceptical about their ability to collect in full.

192. Chairman.—Looking at the paragraph of the letter which I quoted, would you say that it would create the impression on the reader’s mind that the Commissioners’ business had been reinsured per se and that the Commissioners might expect to recover under the reinsurance policy as distinct from the funds raised by making a claim on individual members of the Association?—I think it would not be unreasonable for any official in the Department, or any non-insurance official, to get that impression. To be quite honest, I had that impression until the matter was opened up, for the simple reason that I was not a technical expert on insurance. It was subsequent to the development of this case that I learned that reinsurance did not mean specifically covering a particular insurance policy holder. I am giving you my own reaction quite honestly so far as I can recall it. I think it would be reasonable to assume that the same impression was on the minds of anybody in Finance.

193. Throwing your mind back to the time when this contract was made with the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association, can you recall if the Commissioners sought any advice on the technical aspects of the problem before satisfying themselves that the insurance agreement covered these risks? Was there any understanding as to the true significance of the covenant for reinsurance?—When this particular policy was taken out there was no specific advertence to the technical point you mention for the simple reason that the policy had been carried on for many years by this Company and this was in the nature of a renewal. It had been going on for quite a number of years and the reinsurance qualification always entered into it. I personally accepted what had been done as regards reinsurance over the years. I had other doubts about the Association from another point of view, but they are not pertinent at the moment. This Company had been carrying out our insurance for quite a number of years before.

194. There appears to have been some element of misunderstanding about this? —There is one thing to which my attention has been drawn, namely, that the Association’s managing director actually showed his reinsurance contract to our representative before we signed that contract. That shows that there was care taken, but that does not mean that we were conscious that this provision in regard to reinsurance did not specifically cover our contract.

195. Which would suggest that there was some element of misunderstanding in interpreting this covenant with the reinsurer?—We were working on the basis of what was an established insurance contract. The fact came out later, as far as I was personally concerned, that the reinsurance did not mean the specific policy but meant general cover for the Company as a whole.

196. I wonder would it be possible for you to take this matter up with the Department of Finance and to arrive at some final determination as to the circumstances under which the reinsurance policy was submitted to you and the Commissioners and was accepted by them and was subsequently discovered not to provide against the contingency you hoped it did provide against?—Of course, we can discuss it with the Department of Finance and, if necessary, give you a note on it. But personally I am quite clear as regards what happened. I was not conscious of the fact that the reinsurance did not cover our particular policy.

197. I gathered from you that that was not present to your mind at the time that the reinsurance policy was produced for inspection. You were then under the impression that the reinsurance contract did cover your specific business?—In so far as I adverted to it, that would have been my impression.

198. I should be grateful if you would look into this matter with the Department of Finance and if you would let us have a note* upon it?—We shall do that.

199. I take it that you anticipate that the matter will be wound up one way or another in the course of the present financial year?—I doubt if it will. I imagine it will go on for several years.

200. That, of course, is more probable if they have recourse to the collection of £5 from each of the members of the Association than if we had clear cover under the insurance policy?—They will also have to collect on the reinsurance to whatever extent they are entitled.

201. Inasmuch as we are debarred from hypotheticating the amount they will recover, our claim is postponed until the pool is distributed amongst all claimants against them?—Quite.

202. Arising out of the details of the Vote on page 25, may I ask if any special preference is being given at present to what I might call relief schemes directed to the drainage of bogs in order to facilitate turf cutting?—That is really handled by the special works section of the Department. I could not say offhand to what extent work is being carried out in regard to bogs but, constantly, bog road schemes come up for sympathetic consideration and grants. I have no doubt that Mr. Flinn, Parliamentary Secretary, who is in charge of that work, will have sanctioned a large amount of expenditure at the moment.

203. In fact, this really belongs more to the Department of Finance?—It does as regards the accounting for the Vote.

204. Your connection with it comes under (5) of the Appropriations in Aid— recoupments for administrative expenses? —Yes.

VOTE 11—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. J. Connolly, further examined.

205. Chairman.—On this Vote, there is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General dealing with Subhead A—Purchase of Sites and Buildings—which reads as follows:—

“12. A note appended to the account of this Vote for the year 1936-37 recorded that a military sports field of over 19 acres, purchased in the year 1925-26 at a cost of £1,000, borne on the Army Vote, had been sold for £750. During the year ended 31st March. 1940, negotiations were concluded for the purchase, at a price of £1,150, of two fields containing approximately 15 acres to provide a sports field for the military in lieu of that disposed of in 1936-37. Of this amount, the sum of £550 was paid within the year for one field of 7 acres and the purchase of the second field of 8 acres for £600 was completed after the close of the financial year.”

Have you any further comment to make on that Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—No.

206. Chairman.—I take it that the first field was simply unsuitable?

Mr. Connolly.—No. That was not quite the explanation. Perhaps I had better read you my note and explain afterwards:

“It was known when the sports field was sold in 1936-37 that it would have to be replaced by a new sports field. The sale was effected as a matter of Government policy to provide a site for a new industry—General Textiles, Ltd.—in Athlone. The property which the Army had acquired in 1925-26, and which was sold in 1936-37, comprised mainly leasehold interests expiring in 1979, subject to rents of £29 2s. 2d. The new sports field is held in fee-simple, subject to a terminable land purchase annuity of £1 17s. 10d.”

I think, when it is analysed, we have made a very good deal. We have eliminated rents of £29 2s. 2d. and substituted a terminable annuity of £1 17s. 10d.

207. Chairman.—And I suppose the diminution in the value of those fields from £1,000 to £750, the figure for which they were sold, is due in part to the expiring of the leases?

Mr. Connolly.—Exactly.

208. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note on Subhead E— Rents, Rates, etc.—reads as follows:—

“13. As stated in paragraph 7 of my report on the accounts for the year 1936-37, the Legation premises in Madrid were vacated in August, 1936. These premises, which were not reoccupied, were surrendered on 30th September, 1939. A sum of £496 1s. 7d. was paid in the year under review in settlement of an outstanding claim for rent covering the period from 1st February, 1938, to date of surrender, and a payment of £400 2s. 8d. was also made for rent of new premises acquired from 15th October, 1939. A further amount of £228 16s. 6d. is charged to this subhead for alternative accommodation at San Sebastian prior to occupation of the new Legation premises. State property in the Madrid Legation appears to have suffered little loss or damage during the civil war in Spain.”

I take it then that the Legation was not hit in the course of the bombardment of Madrid?

Mr. Connolly.—It was partially damaged, I understand.

209. But the contents were substantially removed to our new premises?—That is right.

I suppose there is not much use in dwelling on the events of the Spanish civil war. They are somewhat out of date.

210. We will now turn to the Vote on page 29. With regard to Subhead BB.— Restoration of St. Enda’s School, is this a permanent charge on the Vote or were there certain specific works to be completed?—It is maintenance really. I do not know that this should not really go into our ordinary maintenance subhead, but we had a Vote, as you remember, for £2,000, out of which £1,500 was spent. We put nothing down for this particular year, because we did not anticipate having to spend any more money. Then it became necessary to do some work in order to preserve the property, and that is why this amount had to be spent.

211. And does the statutory authority require the Board of Works permanently to carry out such restoration works on St. Enda’s as may be necessary from time to time? Is it a national monument?—It is a national property, and will be held by Miss Pearse during her lifetime, after which it completely reverts to the State. In our interests, I think it is essential to see that it does not go into disrepair.

212. Deputy Breathnach.—That is an extraordinary surrender in the case of Subhead J 1?

213. Chairman—J 1 is a token Vote. Does this drainage maintenance relate to schemes like the Barrow?—The Barrow is separate, of course.

214. But it relates to analogous schemes?—Yes, but generally to smaller ones. The surrender in the case of J 2, I might explain, is due, as set out in the note, to the Kilmastulla scheme having been postponed. However, the Kilmastulla scheme is now being proceeded with.

215. Where is the Kilmastulla scheme? —It is mainly in Tipperary.

Does that dispose of your query, Deputy Breathnach?

216. Deputy Breathnach.—There seems to be an extraordinary surrender; more than half the Vote has been unexpended?

Mr. Connolly.—It was due to our not commencing the Kilmastulla scheme. A sum of £6,500 was earmarked for Kilmastulla, and that scheme has now been started. Very often, you cannot get ahead with drainage schemes as contemplated.

217. Deputy Hughes.—How do you account for the expenditure under subhead J 3? Is that some new work on the Barrow?—That was expenditure on the Barrow scheme in that particular year.

218. When was the Barrow completed? —It was completed really about four or five years ago, but it had not been taken over, and before the final taking over we spent a considerable amount of money doing the final clean-up before issuing the final award.

219. Before it was taken over by the local authority?—Yes, by the county councils. The final award was made on 30th March, 1938, and at that point, of course, the county councils came in and took it over. The drainage authority in this case consists of representatives of three county councils.

220. With regard to Subhead J 4, does that represent the total State contribution?

221. Chairman.—You will observe that £250 was not expended because the scheme had been handed over before the charges for maintenance arose. Is that correct?

Mr. Connolly.—Actually, it was because maintenance had not been undertaken. As soon as it is undertaken the three county councils are entitled to claim from us for maintenance under the special Barrow Acts.

222. Deputy Hughes.—You make a contribution towards maintenance?—Yes, but as it had not been undertaken no contribution was claimed or made.

223. Chairman.—And your maintenance expenditure is in fact under Subhead J 3? —In a way, yes, but that was the final clean-up.

224. Deputy Hughes.—Again, in regard to Subhead J 4, does that £250 represent your annual contribution to maintenance?—Oh, no. That was really a provisional figure. If the scheme is maintained in accordance with the terms of the Acts, our maintenance contribution will be very much higher. It would be over £3,000. That depends, of course, on what the Drainage Board spend on the maintenance of the Barrow. We are bound to contribute 50 per cent. of that, within certain limits, for 35 years.

225. Although not expended, why was such a small sum asked for? You probably anticipated that the work would not be started?—It was put down largely as a provisional figure.

226. Chairman.—It was almost in the nature of a token Vote?—Practically that.

227. In regard to Subhead J 6, has the overhauling deferred in this year since been undertaken?—I could hardly claim that it has, because, owing to one cause or another, we have curtailed our activities at our workshop there. We sold a number of the old excavators, but a number of the good ones had been still in operation.

228. You are satisfied that the machinery is being kept in proper repair? —It is, definitely.

229. I take it that the surveys referred to in Subhead J 8 are those of which we had a map in Dáil Eireann showing the water levels on the Barrow drainage scheme and things of that kind?—This really developed as a result of representations made by the Drainage Commission that we should get as many as possible of the gauge recordings made. Accordingly, we got special authority from the Department of Finance to get this going.

230. Deputy Hughes.—Have you made that sort of map of any other rivers?— It is a general service throughout the country. Where the engineers deem it desirable and advisable to have those readings, we are getting them.

231. Do you take readings of all the large rivers?—We have not been nor are we yet doing so, but we hope to reach the point where every river that concerns drainage will be recorded.

232. Chairman.—This work is continuing, and will probably develop?—Yes.

233. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General desires to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that note (3) on page 34 and note (17) on page 35 may probably be related to notes on page iv. of his report, which reads:

“Stock and Store Accounts.

3. The stock and store accounts of the departments have been examined. The results are satisfactory with some exceptions which are referred to in the paragraphs relating to the Votes of the departments concerned.

From September, 1939, difficulties were experienced by purchasing departments in obtaining deliveries of stores under some existing contracts, and in a number of cases Department of Finance sanction was obtained for additions to the contract price or for the release of contractors from their obligations. In placing new contracts it was often found impossible to secure tenders quoting definite prices and specific dates for delivery, and the authority of the Department of Finance was obtained wherever it was found necessary to depart from established procedure.”

In note (3) referred to above, attention is drawn to the fact that:

“An ex gratia payment of £170 was made to the contractor for erection of new Gárda Station at Leighlinbridge, County Carlow, in respect of increased cost of materials due to the European war. Subhead B.”

Note (17) on page 35 reads:

“Owing to increased costs, consequent upon the War emergency, the following sums were paid ex gratia to contractors holding periodical contracts for supplies, viz.:—(a) Building materials, £46 6s. 10d. Subheads B., C. and D.1. (b) Coal and coke, £1,502 2s. 3d. Subhead F.”

I do not think we have any comment to make on that. Have you, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—No, but I thought it necessary to draw the attention of the Committee to it.

Chairman.—The only comment we might make is that we note with satisfaction that in each case specific approval was sought and obtained from the Department of Finance.

VOTE 27—HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.

Mr. J. Connolly, further examined.

234. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead A—Dockyard Maintenance—I understand, Mr. Connolly, that these premises are now leased—or are they?—Portion of the premises at Haulbowline was leased comparatively recently to “Irish Steel, Ltd.” There was also a lease to the Oil Wharves, Ltd., and that continues.

235. Was there a lease to “Irish Steel?”—There was.

236. Is it in accordance with the terms of that lease that the dockyard accommodation should be used for exporting materials from this country? I understand that quantities of scrap metal were exported from Haulbowline to Great Britain? That scrap metal was assembled in various parts of the country and sent to Haulbowline and then exported because no harbour dues were payable at Haulbowline, whereas if the material had gone through Dublin, substantial harbour dues would have accrued to the port of Dublin? —I think “Irish Steel. Ltd.,” are liable for harbour dues to the Cork Harbour authority. I understand that is the position.

237. And any steamers sailing with cargo from Haulbowline Dockyard must pay dues to the Cork Harbour Board?— That is definitely the case. I could not see the Cork Harbour Board allowing it to be used otherwise. They claim the harbour rates in regard to Haulbowline.

238. On one occasion when I was down at Haulbowline I saw large masses of scrap metal accumulated on the wharves and I was informed by local people that steamers were calling there and taking it away?—That is quite likely.

239. Is the Irish Steel Company paying the rent reserved under the lease?—Unfortunately, they are in liquidation. A receiver is in.

240. When did that happen?—Within the last month.

241. Deputy Hughes.—With regard to Subhead AA—Renewal of Submarine Water-Main—what is the purpose of renewing that water-main?—The purpose is solely to continue the supply of water to the island, because the other main was worn out.

242. Deputy McMenamin.—Is it used by the motor torpedo boats—would it be of use to them?—The water-main is essential for the island. The water comes from the mainland.

243. Chairman.—Does the water-main carrying water to Haulbowline supply Spike Island, too?—Yes. Spike Island is now in the hands of the Army.

Even the Irish Army could not subsist on Spike Island without water. They are very hospitable men, I may say, on Spike Island, and it would be difficult for them to dispense their hospitality if they had not water with which to make the tea.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m.

* Appendix V.