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)

Deardaoin, 15adh Bealtaine, 1941.

Thursday, 15th May, 1941.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair.

Seoirse Mag Craith (Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste), Mr. C. S. Almond, and Mr. L. M. Fitzgerald (Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

Chairman.—Our first business to-day is to dispose of two Excess Votes in respect of which it is expedient to make an Interim Report to the Dáil.

VOTE 7—OLD AGE PENSIONS (EXCESS VOTE).

Mr. W. D. Carey called and examined.

244. Chairman.—On this Vote there is an excess of expenditure over the gross Estimate amounting to £67 6s. 7d. There is available, however, from the Appropriations in Aid £57 6s. 7d., and the net amount to be voted is £10. Am I correct Mr. McGrath, in saying that we have to recommend to Dáil Eireann to give the Revenue Commissioners authority not only to deal with the net amount, but also to deal with the £57 6s. 7d. which is in excess?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes. As a matter of fact, the Appropriations in Aid received in excess of the Estimate amounted to £2,114 19s. 0d.

Chairman.—Although it might appear that the Revenue Commissioners should be able to use that money to meet the excess expenditure over the gross estimate. I understand that the correct practice is that, when they have more money than the Appropriations in Aid were expected to realise, it is necessary to get specific authority to meet that additional expenditure by using the extra receipts.

Deputy Hughes.—How did the excess occur?

245. Chairman.—The astonishing thing is that the Revenue Commissioners are able to estimate the expenditure under the Old Age Pensions Vote with a phenomenal degree of accuracy. I think we should express our admiration of that. Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Carey?

Witness.—I scarcely think so. The real truth of the matter is that the original Estimate—that is, under Subhead A—was slightly too small and did not provide a sufficient allowance for contingencies. The excess actually occurred under the other Votes—Subheads B, D, and E. Normally, we have a sufficient margin under Subhead A to cover any excess in the other Votes, but in this case we had not. One of the things that may interest the Committee is that the number of septuagenarians is going up. These are the figures as estimated by the Statistics Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce. In 1939 the total number of septuagenarians was 185,300; in 1940 it was 187,000; in 1941, 192,900. The Statistical Branch estimates that by 1946 the number will have reached 199,000. That is the total number of septuagenarians. I am not giving the number of old age pensioners. It is estimated that after 1946 there will be a drop in the number of septuagenarians.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 56—GAELTACHT SERVICES (EXCESS VOTE).

Mr. M. Deegan called and examined.

246. Chairman.—The same considerations apply to this Vote, and I understand from the Comptroller and Auditor-General that the excess is mainly under Subhead D 8—Toy Industry and is due to an account coming in course of payment which it was not anticipated would come in course of payment during the year. May I say, Mr. McGrath, that this is the correct procedure in applying for an Excess Vote? We had an analogous case in connection with the National Gallery, where they had an Excess Vote and they postponed it to the following financial year.

Mr. McGrath.—This is the correct procedure. It will be noticed that the Appropriations in Aid exceed the amount estimated by £3,508.

247. Chairman.—Nevertheless, it is necessary that the Dáil give Mr. Deegan authority to use that surplus in Appropriations in Aid to meet the excess?

Mr. McGrath.—The Accounting Officer could not use more than the £40,870, although the Appropriations in Aid realised £44,378.

248. Chairman.—The toy industry is doing well?

Witness.—It is doing well.

Chairman.—There is no further question.

The witness withdrew.

Interim Report.

Chairman.—I suggest that the following interim report be submitted to Dáil Eireann.*

VOTE 32—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche called and examined.

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

249. Deputy O’Rourke.—Could we have some information regarding the large amount unexpended under Headquarters’ Staff?

250. Chairman.—In Subhead A 1, can you tell us how it came about that we have £3,066 19s. 10d. in hand? The explanatory note says that the savings are due to the provision for extra staff not being utilised and to vacancies and staff changes. Can you give us any details of that?

Mr. Roche.—We did not fill certain posts which were included in the estimates.

VOTE 33—GARDA SIOCHANA.

Mr. S. A. Roche, further examined.

251. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note:—

Subhead H—Transport and Carriage.

15. “Following an accident, repairs to a Gárda car were carried out in the Depôt workshops, and payments amounting to £11 3s. 3d. for repairs to the car executed by a private firm and for compensation for damage to property resulting from the accident were made and charged to this subhead. I have asked that the covering authority of the Department of Finance be sought for the expenditure involved.”

Have you received any intimation of covering sanction?

Mr. McGrath.—No.

252. Chairman.—Have you any observations to make, Mr. Roche?

Mr. Roche.—Yes, but perhaps the Department of Finance representative with whom I have been discussing the matter would like to say something first.

Mr. Almond.—We have had a full discussion with the Department of Justice recently about this case and, subject to any views that the Committee may express this morning, my Department is prepared to convey covering sanction for the expenditure involved.

253. Chairman.—Was this accident due to negligence on the part of the Gárda Síochána or due to the negligence of the other party?

Mr. Roche.—Perhaps I might shortly explain to the Committee what happened. The officer in question was returning from an unofficial journey in his official motor car. In the ordinary way, he would be driven by a police driver. The Commissioner has always encouraged the use of police drivers in these cases. On this occasion this officer told his police driver, who was not well, to go home; that he would drive himself. He was proceeding along the road when he saw a cyclist travelling in the same direction about 12 yards in front. Another motor car was approaching. The cyclist got confused; as it was dark at the time, and the cars’ lights were on. In order to avoid the cyclist the officer ran his car into the ditch, and did some damage to the car and broke an Electricity Supply Board standard He was so sensible of the embarrassing position into which he was put that he told the Commissioner he was willing to pay the damages and to keep the matter off the records. The Commissioner forbade him to do that, as a matter of principle. He pointed that if he were to pay the damages and make no record it might be thought later that something was being hidden, that official cars were being damaged and repaired in a secretive way. The matter was formally reported in the ordinary way. Difficult questions then arose: Had this police officer any right to use this car at all, since he was not using it on official business? Was he breaking a regulation in not having a driver or merely doing something indiscreet? The incident had a useful result, as it will lead within the next week or two to the settlement of a question that has been bothering us for the last 15 years, that is the precise position of higher officers using official transport for semi-official or unofficial purposes. I think the Department of Finance and my Department have arrived at a stage when this question will not arise again.

254. Chairman.—Have you any further comment to make, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—No. It has become customary for the Audit Office when they meet expenditure of this kind and find charges resulting from damage done to look to the Department of Finance for special sanction. It is because we did not find it on this occasion that we reported it.

255. Deputy Hughes.—Am I entitled to inquire what decision has been arrived at concerning the use of cars for private purposes?

256. Chairman.—Has any official decision been arrived at between the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance about the use of cars for higher officers?

Mr. Roche.—Only yesterday officials of the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice—the Ministers do not know of it yet—arrived at agreement that the proper thing to do was to give these officers an allowance and let them provide their own cars and insure them at their own risk.

257. Chairman.—That is subject to the approval of the respective Ministers but will probably be the arrangement arrived at.

Mr. Roche.—There are five higher officers, the Commissioner, two Deputy Commissioners, and two Assistant Commissioners. In the case of the Commissioner we do not propose to change the present system that he should use an official car, as we rely entirely on his own sense of discretion. We do not want to change that. The four others will be put on the same basis as other officers; they will buy their own motor cars and insure them and we will give an allowance to cover use for official purposes.

258. Deputy Hughes.—Does that mean that they will drive themselves?

Mr. Roche.—That is a difficult question. The decision which we officials have come to as regards driving is that the Commissioner should be authorised to give these officers a driver on such occasions as are considered proper. There are elements in this that might not be appreciated in the first instance. One element is that if a high police officer, actually driving, were involved in a motor accident—perhaps knocked down and killed a person—the police would be put in an awkward position in considering the question of prosecution. If the driver were an ordinary police driver of subordinate rank there would not be the same difficulty.

259. Chairman.—In fact, we are adhering to the general practice of leaving the internal affairs of the Gárda Síochána more and more to the discretion of the Chief Commissioner.

Mr. Roche.—That is so.

260. Chairman.—He will decide when a driver should be employed.

Mr. Roche.—You might have the position that a deputy Commissioner might be an extremely bad driver and would not take the responsibility of driving.

261. Chairman.—It would be a matter to be determined by the Commissioner’s department?

262. Deputy Benson.—There is a certain ambiguity about the wording of the paragraph. It says that following the accident repairs were carried out at the Depôt while payment had also to be made to a private firm.

Mr. Roche.—Although the total sum involved was small it was divided in three different parts. There was the (1) the cost of repairing a standard belonging to the Electricity Supply Board; (2) the cost of repairing the hood of the car, which was done by an outside firm, and (3) there was the cost of repairs done by the ordinary police staff in the Depôt workshop.

Mr. McGrath.—I have given the facts of the case.

263. Deputy Benson.—The paragraph says that repairs were carried out at the Depôt workshop and then payment had to be made to a private firm. Evidently some repairs were made in one place and more in another.

264. Chairman.—The Deputy is inquiring how it came about that payment had to be made to a private firm while repairs were also made at the Depôt workshop. I think the £13 8s. 3d. falls under three headings. £4 3s. 3d. for damage to the Electricity Supply Board’s pole, £2 5s. was the cost of labour at the Depôt transport garage, and £7 was paid to a private firm to carry out repairs that the Depôt garage was not equipped to carry out.

Mr. Roche.—That is so.

265. Chairman.—Paragraph 15 continues:—

“I observed that a motor-boat provided for the use of the Gárdaí, to which I referred in paragraph 19 of my report on the accounts for 1935-36, has not been in use since July, 1937, and that it has been decided to dispose of the boat and boat-house. I have asked to be informed of the amount expended in maintaining the boat and boat-house, and on hiring boats, since July, 1937.”

Chairman.—This is an old friend.

Mr. Roche.—Yes. I am sorry to say we will not have it any more. The boat has gone. The Army has taken it over.

266. Chairman.—Have you any more “alleluias” about this boat, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—Only to join in the thanksgiving.

267. Deputy Hughes.—Have we any idea of what the maintenance of the boat cost?

Mr. McGrath.—From July 1937 until 1940, it cost £28 3s. 10d. The cost of hiring boats other than this one amounted to £59 5s.

Chairman.—May I suggest to Deputies that if they referred to the reports of the Public Accounts Committee for the past five years they will find that we have been pursuing this boat for years. It has now been finally disposed of. Not only were we concerned with the boat but with the boat-house which gave a great deal of trouble. At one period we rebuilt the boat-house but the boat could not be got into it.

Mr. Roche.—I am glad to say that the lease of the boat-house has been surrendered.

268. Deputy Benson.—With regard to Subhead G of the Vote itself—Barrack Maintenance—the note sets out that the anticipated expenditure in respect of disinfectant fluid was not incurred. Surely a sum of £237 5s. 10d. in respect of disinfectant fluid is a large amount to estimate for and not to use?

269. Chairman.—Can you give us any help in regard to that matter, Mr. Roche? We did not get it until the following year and I think it will be found in the next year’s Appropriation Accounts.

270. Deputy Benson’s point is that you must use a considerable lot of disinfectant fluid if you can economise to the extent of £237 5s. 10d. for one year in the purchase of that commodity?—My note is to the effect that provision was made for the purchase of 1,600 gallons of disinfectant fluid at a cost of £120. I gather that it was practically all saved. This subhead covers all sorts of things, such as cleaning ashpits, cleaning chimneys, and so on, and the cost is liable to vary a good deal. The disinfectant fluid is only one item.

271. Then the note does not seem to be very adequate?—That is so. I expect that in writing the note the one item that could be picked out definitely was picked out.

272. Would it be too much trouble, in view of the apparent inadequacy of the note, to let us have a short note* describing the economies that were made? —Yes, certainly.

273. I observe that the expenditure under Subhead K—Escort and Conveyance of Children to Industrial Schools and Places of Detention—was above normal and was dependent upon the number of committals, which could not be forecast accurately. Was there an unexpectedly large number of committals in this financial year?—Yes; the number was more than usual.

274. Were the committals mainly in respect of delinquents or children who were simply poor and had no other place to go, or were orphans?—I am afraid I could not tell you that. I would not be able to discriminate between them here; but the number of committals did increase.

275. Deputy Benson.—Did that increase not become apparent until after the Supplementary Estimate had been issued? —I understand the Deputy’s point is that we might have indicated in the Supplementary Estimate that that item was being increased. I have no answer to that except that perhaps it was hardly thought worth while bringing it to the notice of the Dáil. We did propose to indicate that on the Supplementary Estimate, but then we thought it was not worth while and that it was too small a matter to have a special subhead.

276. Chairman.—The excess here amounts to £125, whereas the Supplementary in connection with Subhead I, was £128, and there were token Votes in respect of Subheads A, B and C.

Mr. Almond.—Perhaps I could explain that matter. The Supplementary Estimate was taken in order to cover an entirely new service, the Taca Síochána. The other services were regarded as normal services not introducing any new elements that it was considered necessary to bring to the notice of the Dáil.

277. Chairman.—And the token Votes and Supplementaries on Subhead I, were ancillary to the Taca Síochána Vote?

Mr. Almond.—Yes.

278. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead L—Telegrams and Telephones—is there a telephone in every Gárda Barrack in the country, Mr. Roche?—Yes. There may be one or two exceptions, but I do not know of these. So far as I am aware, they all have telephones.

279. On Subhead N—Incidental Expences—I observe that provision was made for wireless equipment. Does this wireless equipment refer in part or in whole to the equipment of police cars with wireless?—Yes, it includes the equipment of a few police cars in Dublin with wireless.

280. Has that work been completed?— It has, with excellent results; it is very useful.

VOTE 34—PRISONS.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

16. The statement of the manufacing 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.

281. Chairman.—That is purely an informative paragraph?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

282. Chairman.—There is no difficulty, Mr. Roche, in disposing of the fibre mats and other fibre products manufactured in Mountjoy?—We have no difficulty.

283. As regards subhead H—Ordinary Repairs of Buildings—were there any special repairs carried out at Cork Prison preparatory to removing the Borstal boys there?—No, sir. The arrangement was made hurriedly. We gave up the Borstal Institution at Clonmel on short notice to the military.

284. In connection with subhead O— Contributions to Discharged Prisoners’ Aid Societies—is there any contribution made by the Government to after-care committees for Borstal dischargees?—I have a note here which sets out:—

Borstal Institution: From 1914-15 provision was made for the grant to the Irish Borstal Association of a sum not exceeding £3 for each person whom the Association undertook to supervise on discharge from the Clonmel Borstal Institution. In January, 1919, this capitation grant was reduced to £2, but the Association was relieved of the responsibility for providing clothing outfits for discharged inmates, this charge being imposed on the Prisons Vote.

285. Is there any Borstal after-care committee in existence?—Yes. One of the pleasant features about the enforced change from Clonmel to Cork was that the Cork people started a Borstal Association immediately and proceeded to work with really remarkable vigour and success. No doubt in a big city like Cork there were better opportunities of getting that sort of thing done than in a smaller place like Clonmel. We are pleased and surprised at the rapidity and success of the Association. The work has never been better done. Unfortunately, we cannot leave these boys permanently in Cork, because the prison is unsuitable.

286. Does that Committee get any contribution from the Government?—Perhaps I may go on with the note:

“During the period from 1919-1923 the Association was not called upon to make heavy disbursements from their funds, which consequently accumulated and the General Prisons Board decided to discontinue temporarily the £2 capitation grants. No payments, therefore, were made from October, 1923 to 1928, but during that period the funds of the Association became depleted, and sanction was obtained for the grants to be continued, and £50 for this purpose was included in the Estimate for 1928-29. The amount provided was reduced to £30 in 1930-31, to £20 in 1931-32, and has since been further reduced to £10.

The capitation grants, which need not be equally divided among the individuals in respect of whom they are given, are only made to the Association so long as the Minister for Justice is satisfied with the manner in which it is carrying out its work.”

I am not very clear as to what exactly is done at the present time, and I should like, if you permit me, to give you a further note * on what is actually happening just now.

287. We would be very grateful. Am I to take it that the Borstal Association in Cork is purely voluntary?—Yes.

VOTE 35—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

288. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead B—Travelling Expenses—shortly after the petrol restrictions were introduced certain District Justices announced their intention of not attending their courts because they could not get petrol to run their cars. Has that abuse been put an end to?—I have never had official notice of any dissatisfaction on that score except in one case where I did hear of one District Justice saying that he could not attend a court because he could not get petrol. I have not heard any complaints. The question is, perhaps, a little outside my sphere as accounting officer, but I am not sure that there has been any deliberate abuse, any deliberate failure or taking advantage of the petrol shortage, not to hold courts.

289. Would I be correct in saying that if we pay District Justices very substantial salaries for a very modest portion of work, they should attend on the days upon which the Legislature has fixed courts to be held and they should not tell the people that they simply will not go there unless they go in motor cars? Their grandfathers travelled on horses and cars, or on foot on occasions?—I have not actually heard complaints about any District Justice but in one case, when I saw a Justice’s statement in the newspaper, it did not impress me in the way in which it seems to strike you, Mr. Chairman. I took it—perhaps wrongly—as being merely a genuine statement by the Justice that he could not find any means by which to travel the distance involved and, therefore, would have to abandon the court.

290. Cormac Breathnach.—Did he actually abandon that court?—Yes.

291. Because that is a serious thing if he actually abandoned the court?—Yes, he abandoned it.

Chairman.—At this stage, I think we must confine ourselves to asking the witness questions as to the District Court in general.

292. Cormac Breathnach.—But the fact is, Mr. Roche, that a court was abandoned because of the lack of petrol supplies?— Yes. We are, in fact, considering the making of an order entitling justices to rearrange courts if travelling difficulties become worse.

293. Chairman.—Then, perhaps, it is no harm that this matter has arisen before the Committee, because, has it occurred to you, Mr. Roche, that the suspension of District Courts in rural areas is a very grave matter, and that, not infrequently, if cases are allowed to stand over, they give rise to very serious feuds which would never arise if the matter was promptly disposed of. Take an assault case which is brought before the court within, say, a fortnight. It would probably be adequately settled and the parties restored to friendship, but if the case were allowed to stand over for six weeks or so, the families concerned might become involved in a feud which might go on for years.

294. Deputy O’Rourke.—I think there is no excuse for a district justice abandoning the court because he had no petrol. Could he not hire a car?

295. Deputy Keyes.—Apart from the question of the shortage of petrol, Mr. Roche, have you had cases of protests from District Justices and cases of their refusal to hold courts because of the unsuitability of the buildings in which the courts were held?—I do not get these complaints officially, but I do see occasionally a case in the papers where a district justice is reported as having said: “I shall not sit here any longer unless the county council does something about the building.”

I am simply making the point that such a case is somewhat similar to the case of lack of travelling facilities.

296. Chairman.—Well, we are dealing with Subhead B and it says here that the travelling and subsistence expenses of deputy and assistant Justices were less than anticipated. I take it, Mr. Roche, that that refers to the travelling expenses of all District Justices?—That is so.

297. Perhaps you will look into the question as to whether these travelling expenses are being used to the best advantage so as to secure the regular holding of the courts appointed to be held?—Yes I shall bear that in mind.

298. Deputy Allen.—Arising out of Mr. Roche’s statement that it was proposed to make an order allowing a District Justice to abandon a court in certain cases, would he give the Committee some more information as to the circumstances which he visualises would be in existence to justify that procedure? At that time it would not be a question of a shortage of petrol only.

Chairman.—Well, we are concerned to-day with the Appropriation Accounts for 1939-40, and this is the year 1940-41, and though we are obliged to the Accounting Officer for the information he has given us, I think that the draft order to which he referred scarcely comes within the Appropriation Accounts for 1939-40. Besides that, there is another place where we can question the expediency of such an order. If there is no other question, we can pass on to the next Vote.

VOTE 36—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

299. Chairman.—There is a note here by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:

“Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer. Lunacy Percentages.

“17. In accordance with the provisions of the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1871, a percentage of the annual incomes of lunatics under the care of the court is charged to meet the cost of management of their affairs. Following the winding-up of the Lunacy Fund the amounts collected became payable to the Exchequer as from 1st April, 1927. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the amounts collected, remitted under statutory authority, and remaining outstanding for each year since the winding-up of the Lunacy Fund.”

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

Mr. McGrath.—The Accounting Officer and my office are in communication on this matter, and I am aware that the Accounting Officer is doing his best to facilitate the Audit Office. Accordingly, I would recommend the Committee to leave the matter between us for the present, and if things do not turn out satisfactorily in the future, the matter can be brought up again.

Chairman.—I think that the best thing to do, then, is to leave the matter over until such time as a more definite conclusion is reached. Is that the view of the Committee?

(Agreed to leave the matter over).

300. Deputy Benson.—There is one point I should like to refer to. The Comptroller refers to the winding-up of the Lunacy Fund. What provision is made for similar circumstances now?

301. Chairman.—Yes, Mr. Roche. When this fund was wound up there was, doubtless, provision for somebody or something as an alternative in connection with the beneficiaries of this fund. Can you tell us something about it?

Mr. Roche.—The Lunacy Fund was the fund built up out of fees charged on the property of the lunatics, out of which the salaries and pensions of the Lunacy Office staff were paid. It no longer exists. It has been gone for the last 12 years. This fund, up to about 1926, ran itself. No Parliamentary money was voted for it and no official outside the courts had anything to do with it. It lived on its own fees and paid its own officers. It accumulated a large amount of surplus fees and, in 1926, we put the office on the ordinary Civil Service basis, and paid the accumulated sums into the Exchequer. Now the Dáil votes the money for salaries and pensions, annually, and the fees are paid into the Exchequer.

302-303. This note deals with the new arrangement under which the Exchequer was to receive certain fees?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

304. And in connection with that there are certain matters in process of being resolved?—Yes.

305. And we may take it that we shall return to this matter in next year’s account?—Well, I was not going to bother about it if arrangements should turn out to be satisfactory.

306. Well, Mr. McGrath, I think the Committee would like it?—Very well, I shall bear it in mind.

307. With regard to subhead D—Compensation to a District Probate Registrar —is this compensation paid in lieu of pension or something of that kind?

Mr. Roche.—That was an annuity by way of compensation paid to a District Probate Registrar in lieu of fees that he used to get 40 or 50 years ago. The amount was settled by the British Treasury, and the Registrar has been drawing it ever since. He has died recently and the annuity ceased on his death.

VOTE 37.—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. S. A. Roche called.

No Question.

VOTE 38—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

309. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead E—Appropriation in Aid—was there a sum of £19,005 13s. 6d. recovered in costs in respect of the execution of court orders and Land Commission warrants?

Mr. Roche.—Yes. These are the fees which are normally paid to under-sheriffs, but which come to us in the counties where the separate office of under-sheriff has ceased to exist and the county registrar now does the work. The actual sums recovered from defaulters in connection with land annuities under Land Commission warrants total, I think, over £2,000,000, which have passed through the county registrars’ hands in the last five or six years under that heading; so it is not surprising that the fees should be large in the year in question. The sum is made up of the execution of court orders and Land Commission warrants.

309. Do the court orders relate to the recovery of Land Commission annuities? —No; they are different things. There is the ordinary duty to execute court orders proper, and this comparatively new duty to execute Land Commission warrants which, as you will remember, were given the force of a court order by the Land Act of 1933. The Land Commission warrant is equivalent now to a court order from the under-sheriff’s point of view. The great bulk of the work done in recent years would be in connection with the execution of Land Commission warrants, rather than in connection with court orders proper.

310. Deputy McMenamin.—Have you the figures there?—I have not, but I think it is safe to say that court orders would be a comparatively small proportion.

311. You said a moment ago that this sum amounted to over £2,000,000 for the last five or six years?—Is that correct? —Yes.

312. Have you a return of the actual amount of annuities collected?—Yes.

313. Could you give me those figures? —No, I haven’t got them here.

314. Would it be too much to ask you to supply the Committee with these figures?—Of course, I shall give you exactly what you ask for if I can get it. If I cannot get the information in just that form, I shall give you the next best thing.*

VOTE 45—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Mr. Seosamh O Neill called.

No question.

VOTE 46—PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mr. Seosamh O Neill examined.

315. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

“Subhead A 3—Preparatory Colleges, etc.

“23. The average boarding cost per head for the school year 1939-40 ranged from 8s. 2d. to 11s. 7½d. per week, showing an increase in each college as compared with the previous year.

Accounts have been furnished showing the receipts and expenditure in connection with the farms and gardens during the school year 1939-40. In four of the five accounts the receipts are shown to have exceeded the expenditure.

The average fee paid by the students for the same school year was £7 16s. 9d.

Arising out of the closing of one of the Preparatory Colleges, which took place during the year, sums amounting to £945 1s. 10d. have been charged to this subhead in respect of salary in lieu of notice or compensation for loss of office.”

I take it that that is mainly an informative paragraph?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

316. Chairman.—The next paragraph of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads:—

“Subhead C 1—National Schools.

“24. The regulations provide for the grant of special increments to national teachers after three very favourable annual ratings which need not be consecutive but which should be received within a period of not more than five years. I observed that a special increment had been granted to a teacher who had received two very favourable ratings in successive years but concerning whose work no report had been furnished by an inspector in the following year when the increment was granted. It appears that it has been the practice of the Department of Education to regard a teacher’s previous rating as being continued unless an adverse rating is received from an inspector. The Department of Finance in giving covering sanction for the action taken in the case referred to asked to be informed of the number of special increments granted in each of the last few years, of the number of such cases in which the regulations had not been complied with and of the total amount involved.”

Did the Department get that information, Mr. Almond?

Mr. Almond.—They did.

317. Can you tell us the nature of the information and what the Department’s view on it was?—The reply was dated 19th October, 1940, and gave us (1) the school year ended 30th June, 1938, for which period the number of special increments paid was 182, and, for the school year ended 30th June, 1939, 176. (2) The number of such cases in which the number of reports or vouchers was less than that prescribed in the relevant regulation, in the first year, was 69 and, in the second year, 82. The aggregate amount of the increments under (1) was £1,592, plus 5 per cent. from 1st April, 1938, in the first year and £1,502, plus 5 per cent., in the second year. The aggregate amount of the increments under (2) was £594, plus 5 per cent. from 1st April, 1938, in the first year and £705, plus 5 per cent., in the second year.

318. Can you tell us why the regulations were not carried out, Mr. O’Neill, in respect of these cases?

Mr. O’Neill.—There were two reasons. The main reason was the shortage of staff. We have been very short of inspectors for some years past and they have not been able to visit all the schools and give the vouchers. Another reason was that, up to 1928, there had been annual inspections, but after that year a Commission which considered the matter came to a different arrangement, by which teachers were not inspected every year unless there was some special reason for an inspection, such as a teacher moving towards non-efficiency or being fresh in the service or considering that he or she should get a higher rating so that in fact that rule was not actually in line with the regulation. There was a certain discrepancy between it and the arrangements made after 1928. In spite of that discrepancy, we would have arranged to have vouchers sent in for all the teachers who were affected in this way but for the fact that the inspectors were not able to cover the situation. You might say that in that case we should not have paid the increments, but the teacher was not responsible for the fact that we had not got the staff. The teacher had a right to the increments, and, if we had not given the increments, because we had not sufficient staff, the teacher would have had a right to bring us to court, and we would not have thought it fair to resist his claim.

319. But, surely, either the regulation ought to be altered, or its terms ought to be carried out?—As a matter of fact, that should have been done, but I think we can deal with the matter in this way. We have now arranged, and the Department of Finance has agreed, that the case would be met if, wherever you have a question of one of these special increments, the inspector should be asked to send us a statement on the rating before the increment is given. That really meets the case.

320. What is your view, Mr. McGrath, on these payments that were made?

Mr. McGrath.—I can only say that the regulations were not carried out, and it is only now that this has come to our notice. It is rather a serious matter if certain things, which should be bound by regulation, are done and the regulations are not carried out. I can quite understand that it has been found impossible for the inspectors to pay special visits to these schools, but we would have been satisfied if there was any evidence on the file that a voucher had passed between the inspector and the head office that this state of high efficiency still existed.

Mr. O’Neill.—The trouble was that we did not like to ask the inspector to give the voucher without a visit.

Mr. McGrath.—Our point is that a special visit is not necessary. Visits are incidental to an inspector’s duty, and he must call at least once a year to these places.

Mr. O’Neill.—Unfortunately, they were not able to do so. There are cases of schools which have not been inspected for two years.

321. Chairman.—Whatever may be the merits of this regulation—and it is not for us to discuss the merits of the regulation—if the regulation is there, it seems to me to be an extra-statutory payment to give an increment when the terms of the regulation have not been carried out.

Mr. O’Neill.—It was more a question of the interpretation of the regulation. What happened was that, after 1928, there was a different interpretation of the regulation. A teacher was assumed to hold his rating until there was an inspection, and the rating was changed. That was our interpretation of it. It was not exactly that we were not carrying out the regulation, but that we changed the method of interpreting it.

Mr. McGrath.—If a teacher got two years’ highly efficient certificates, not necessarily one after the other, the Education Office deemed the third year to exist if something contrary did not happen the third year, so that a sort of prescriptive rule was formed on which the Education Office acted.

322. Chairman.—Mr. Almond, do you take the view that to make these incremental payments, without first having submitted the three vouchers specified in the regulation, would be to make extra-statutory payments?

Mr. Almond.—Yes. We took exception to the procedure followed. We realised, of course, that the absence of reports was due to a shortage of inspectorial staff, but at the same time we felt that the procedure followed could not be excused. There is one point, and I do not know whether it has been made clear yet. It is that a teacher who is rated highly efficient cannot be reduced from that rating except by a general inspection, which is a very involved affair.

323. Deputy O’Rourke.—After six months’ notice?

324. Chairman.—Under rule 125, paragraph 9?

Mr. Almond.—Yes, but we have now come to an agreement with the Department of Education that either a general report or a voucher, the voucher being the report of an inspector based on his incidental visits to the school, will be furnished in each case, and we are prepared to abide by that arrangement, which, I dare say, will meet the objection of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Mr. McGrath.—If we get a voucher, we shall be quite satisfied.

325. Chairman.—What is your view as to the position in regard to increments which have been given without this precaution having been taken?

Mr. Almond.—I think the Department of Education had no option but to give them.

326. Are you of opinion that they are in accordance with the law?—I think a teacher has a right to get the increments, unless it can be proved that he or she has ceased to be highly efficient, but the position is not satisfactory, because the Department of Education is supposed to check up on the efficiency of a teacher, and there has been no voucher given to the Comptroller and Auditor-General as to that check. We have now regularised that position, and I think everything will be satisfactory in the future.

327. Chairman.—May we take it that no further special increments will be granted to a primary teacher without a voucher being issued?

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes.

328. Chairman.—There is a further note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

“Subhead C 10—Grants towards the Cost of Free School Books for Necessitous Children.

“25. A scheme for the distribution of free school books was in operation throughout the year, grants being made on receipt of applications from managers setting out the numbers of all pupils in second and higher standards and the numbers of such pupils deemed to be necessitous for the purpose of the scheme. In reply to an inquiry as to the steps taken to verify the figures in the application forms, I have been informed that inspectors have been instructed to examine all local relevant records in the ordinary course of their visits to schools and to bring any discrepancies to the notice of the Department.”

Are you satisfied that due precautions are now being taken?

Mr. McGrath.—I have no evidence. I know that the Department are dealing with this as a new service and my idea in writing the paragraph was to find out whether a check had yet been evolved. I know that it is not a very easy matter to check.

329. Has a satisfactory check being instituted, Mr. O’Neill?—The inspector checks as soon as possible after payment. We have not been able to arrange a check before payment, but we have arranged that he must check as soon as possible after payment.

330. You are satisfied that the check is now adequate?—I think so.

Chairman.—I think the Committee will probably take the view that, if Mr. O’Neill is satisfied that the checking of this scheme is adequate, they will be satisfied.

Insurance of School Buildings against Fire.

“26. Grants towards the cost of building, improving or furnishing national schools are made by the Department of Education, the necessary moneys being provided from the Vote for Public Works and Buildings. I observed that a grant of £511 1s. 8d., being two-thirds of the cost of reconstruction of a school destroyed by fire. was made although the schoolhouse and premises had been insured for only £225. As the rules provide that grants for the purpose of rebuilding will not be made where adequate fire insurance has not been effected, I inquired as to the circumstances in which the grant was approved without the prior sanction of the Department of Finance. I have been informed that the covering authority of the Department of Finance has now been obtained and that the question of the adequacy of the amounts for which schoolhouses are insured is under discussion with that Department.”

331. Chairman.—Can you give us any further information, Mr. O’Neill, as to the progress of the discussions with the Department of Finance about this matter? —I am afraid we have not been able to get very far because there is considerable difficulty as regards the older schools. To begin with, some are not insurable. The former Board of National Education, when it brought in this rule, seems to have brought it in more or less as a psychological rule to persuade the managers to do this. If they had intended to enforce it thoroughly, they would have taken means for enforcing it by inserting something in the lease. In other words, they left themselves without any means of enforcing it. There is the other difficulty about, say, schools built 100 years ago, that in many cases they are not insurable. If the school is insurable, it can only be insured for the value of the building, which is a very small sum, and the reconstruction of a school or the building of a new school would be much more costly. The insurance, in any case, would not cover quite a number of them in case of reconstruction or rebuilding.

332. Is it not true that in the case of an old school being burned to the ground the building we would have to construct now would bear little relation to the destroyed building and no insurance company would issue an insurance policy on an old and inadequate school sufficient to produce a sum to build a new school in accordance with modern standards?—That is the position.

333. You are satisfied that the old structures are generally as adequately insured as they can be?—I think so. We have done everything we can to get managers to insure them. We issue circulars insisting that they insure them, and we insert a query in the annual return as to whether they are insured. We also get inspectors to see that they are insured. In the case of the older schools, we have no actual legal powers to enforce it, because there was nothing in the lease. The old board never put anything in the lease.

334. Out of what fund is the insurance premium paid?—As a matter of fact, the managers have no fund.

335. The managers have to pay it out of their own pockets?—As best they can, whether by a collection or otherwise.

336. Deputy McMenamin.—There are a large number of schools which could not be insured because they are in a shocking condition?

337. Deputy Benson.—Are you satisfied that the modern schools are adequately covered?

Mr. O’Neill.—In the case of the new schools, they are insured, so far as we can find out, in practically every case. In some cases recently the insurance was doubled in order to make it absolutely certain.

338. Deputy McMenamin.—Do you take steps to see that the insurance is adequate?—Yes, in so far as we can, but any attempt to have expert valuations carried out regularly for insurance would be too costly for the results obtainable.

339. Deputy Hughes.—Do you give grants for the reconstruction of schools where the property is held under lease?— We do.

340. Chairman.—You said that one of the difficulties in regard to the old schools was that there was no provision in the lease requiring the manager to insure the school. Is a proviso of that character being put into the agreement relating to new schools?—No. There are serious difficulties such as the variation of the value of buildings as a result of changing conditions but we are going into the question of including insurance in all new leases. Of course, there is again the difficulty that a manager can say that he will not agree to a definite sum to be invested. In dealing with the managerial system, we are up against considerable difficulty, because the managers are acting in a voluntary capacity, but in general we have found them most anxious to insure the schools for the proper amounts. On the other hand if a manager says: “I will not insure for what you think is necessary,” the Department can hardly say that they will not let him have the new school, because we would be penalising the people. In other words, we could not force a manager as we could force a civil servant or a person in our own service. In fact. as I have said, we do find in the case of the new schools that the managers are quite willing to meet our wishes—they want to have the schools adequately insured. I do not think there is any trouble in that way.

341. The Committee understand that every possible pressure will be brought to bear on managers to effect adequate insurance on new schools?—That is so.

342. Deputy Breathnach.—As to Subhead C. 6—Grants towards the cost of heating, etc., of schools and cleansing of out-offices—how is that grant so much reduced? What is the explanation of the gross neglect on the part of the managers?

343. Chairman.—Why do not the managers claim the grant under this scheme?

Deputy O’Rourke.—Because they spend nothing themselves.

Mr. O’Neill.—They have to raise the money themselves. In the western areas particularly, each manager has a good many schools. One manager might, for instance, have eight or nine schools and he finds it rather difficult to raise the actual amount that we require in cash, so that there are very considerable gaps in the claims. The result is that in nearly 10 per cent. of the cases, mainly from those western areas managers have not sent in claims. In the eastern areas and the well-off areas, there are fewer gaps as each manager has not so many schools and there is much more money. The scheme, however, is not working as satisfactorily in congested areas as we had hoped.

344. Deputy Benson.—Does that mean that the schools are inadequately heated? —I am afraid it does.

Deputy Breathnach.—They are inadequately heated. It is a public scandal. You save practically £10,000 by depriving the children of heat and comfort in the schools.

345. Deputy Keyes.—Are steps taken to insist on a minimum standard of cleanliness?

Mr. O’Neill.—That is a matter for the inspectors who report on the schools. The inspectors go into the whole question.

Deputy Keyes.—Some are a by-word, really.

346. Chairman.—Are you of opinion, Mr. O’Neill, that it is a very great abuse to invite country children to clean out the schoolroom and bring a sod of turf to heat the school?—I do not think it is, I may say frankly, but I may not be orthodox in that view.

Mr. O’Neill.—The country children generally do not mind that sort of thing. I did it myself when I was a boy. We took it in our stride and did not object. It can be made a part of the training.

Chairman.—I was seven years at a school where I never had a fire if I did not go out and cut the wood.

347. Deputy Keyes.—I would be more concerned about the cleaning of the out-offices by the children, which I think is most objectionable

Mr. O’Neill.—I do not think the children do that.

Deputy O’Rourke.—I consider that through the Boards of Health or some such means it should be ensured that these sums are actually expended. I believe the whole system is entirely wrong, and I am speaking from experience.

Deputy Breathnach.—Do you suggest that the money being granted by the Department is not being spent?

Deputy O’Rourke.—I believe it is not.

348. Chairman.—Are you satisfied, Mr. O’Neill, that these grants are being properly applied?

Mr. O’Neill.—I have no doubt whatever that where the grants are actually claimed the thing is all right.

Deputy O’Rourke.—Put a note of interrogation after that. They are not being properly spent.

Chairman.—It is a question on which Mr. O’Neill may be examined at length. The money has been provided, and what we are concerned with is to discover whether it is properly spent.

349. Deputy Breathnach.—The general impression is that it is not in many cases being so spent. Is there a check by the Department of the expenditure of the money granted to the managers?

Mr. O’Neill.—There is for the new grants. There was not for the old grants.

350. How do you check it?—We inspect the receipts. There are regular vouchers. You are thinking of the old time when the amount actually given was extremely small. But ever since the new scheme came in, we require regular vouchers for all expenditure on fuel, etc., on which a grant is claimed.

Deputy O’Rourke.—In the case of every item on the sheet! There is certainly no such thing.

351. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that you receive vouchers in respect of the expenditure of every penny of those grants that is applied for?

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes, we require that definitely.

352. Deputy O’Rourke.—I know that is not correct in respect of some items. Where wages are paid, yes; but not in respect of every item on the sheet.

Mr. O’Neill.—The only thing for which we do not require a voucher is the turf brought by the children and labour employed in cleaning the out-offices, and casual labour for small amounts under £1.

353. Chairman.—Perhaps you will look into the question of the vouching of this money and let us have a note* on it at your convenience

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes.

354. Deputy Hogan.—How much money is provided in each particular case?—It depends on the actual numer of classrooms in the school. It varies from £6 10s. 0d. for a school of up to 40 pupils to about £40 for a school for 300 or 400. It depends on the actual number of pupils.

355. For up to 40 pupils it is £6 10s?— Roughly £6 10s. is the minimum and the maximum is £40 or £50. For a very big school it would be £50.

Chairman.—I think Mr. O’Neill will realise that this is a matter in which we take some interest and that we shall be glad to have a comprehensive note on the heating and cleaning allocations.

356. Deputy Benson.—Would that information include the respective amounts raised locally to qualify for the grant?

Mr. O’Neill.—The amounts raised locally must be equal to the State grants. That is the chief trouble all along, that we have insisted on pound for pound. In the poorer areas, such as Connemara and other congested areas, where a manager has nine or 10 schools, he finds it extremely difficult to raise pound for pound. In Meath or Carlow or one of those areas where the position is not congested and where actually there is more money coming into the manager, the position is different.

In some counties it is easy enough for the manager to raise pound for pound, but in the Connemara, Donegal and Kerry areas, at least in some of them, the manager would have very great difficulty in doing that. Managers have come to the Minister and to myself about it and said that they could not raise pound for pound.

357. Deputy O’Rourke.—Suppose some of the school children do the sweeping daily, is their work admitted for the purpose of getting the grant?—No; the manager’s difficulty is that there must be pound for pound in cash. Under the old system, when very small grants were given, the manager was allowed to make a claim for contributions in kind, but that is not the position at present.

Deputy O’Rourke.—I think a lot of them do claim it as cash. However, that is not a matter for this Committee.

358. Deputy Hughes.—Would Mr. O’Neill say how does the manager usually raise the sum required to qualify for this grant?—I imagine that he makes an appeal to the parents of the children.

Deputy O’Rourke.—It is usually got by means of concerts and so on.

359. Deputy Brady.—On Subhead C 8— Bonus to Parents or Guardians of certain Pupils in the Gaeltacht and Breac-Ghaeltacht—I observe that the note to the subhead states that there was a falling off in the number of pupils qualifying for this grant. In what areas did that occur? —I am afraid I cannot tell the actual counties at the moment. The areas in which the numbers have lessened, however, are all Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas. There are about 10,000 children concerned in those areas, and there has been a drop of nearly 200 from the preceding year. I can get the information for the Committee*. The figures naturally vary from year to year, but the fall in this case is somewhat greater than the normal variation.

Deputy Brady—It would be very interesting to have the information.

VOTE 47—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. Seasamh O Neill called.

No Question.

VOTE 48—TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.

Mr. Seosamh O Neill further examined.

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

“Subhead B—Annual Grants to Vocational Education Committees.

“27. The charge to this subhead includes a payment under section 103 (2) of the Vocational Education Act, 1930, of £429 0s. 8d. to a Vocational Education Committee in recoupment of sums disbursed by them during the year in repayment of a loan raised, under the authority of section 50 (3) of the Act, for the provision and equipment of two technical schools. It appears that one of the schools, which was built in 1936, was in operation during the years 1936-7 and 1937-8, but has been closed since January, 1939, owing to failure in attendance.”

360. Deputy Breathnach.—Where was this school?—In Achill.

361. Chairman.—And were the pupils there specialising in bookkeeping and shorthand?—No. Manual instruction and domestic economy classes were held, and the pupils were also taught the three Rs in both languages.

362. Was there any provision made for the teaching of elementary agricultural science in this school?—No.

363. Would it not be much better try and get a good rural science teacher for this Achill school rather than close it up? —It would have been a bit of a risk at the beginning. We find that there is a smaller attendance at these rural science classes than there is at other classes, for the reason that the pupils think they do not lead to the getting of jobs.

364. I may inform you that the most successful classes that we have in the vocational school in Ballaghadereen are the rural science and domestic economy classes. They are so successful that we have been unable to accommodate the number of pupils seeking admission to them?—Unless you have a teacher who has a fine personality we find that it is very difficult to secure a good attendance at rural science classes. If the teacher is really keen on the subject he may get pupils to attend, but if he has only the same personality as the ordinary teacher, the pupils will attend some other classes which they think are more likely to lead to the getting of a job.

Chairman.—Perhaps if more care were exercised in the selection of people for the position of rural science teachers, some improvement might be brought about in diffusing a wider knowledge on this very important subject. I have told you what our experience in Ballaghadereen has been. We got a good rural science teacher with the result that we have larger classes for rural science and domestic economy than for any other subjects taught in the school.

365. Deputy Breathnach.—What class of a school is this one at Achill?—It is a vocational school. I may mention that the school is open again.

366. Deputy Allen.—Could Mr. O’Neill tell us if there is a scarcity of rural science teachers?—We do find a difficulty in getting really suitable people. Unless a person has a real knowledge of agriculture before he gets trained, no matter how clever he may be in other subjects, he is not likely to make a good rural science teacher, and farmers will soon discover that. There is that difficulty in connection with rural science.

367. But are any steps taken to ascertain whether boys who propose to get trained as rural science teachers have what one may describe as an agricultural background before they enter on training? —Yes. When giving courses of training in rural science we do our best to get people who have had some training and experience in farming to attend them.

368. But you do not prevent boys with no agricultural background from entering on training as rural science teachers?— We are trying to do that now. In the beginning we made the mistake of taking brilliant pupils who had not got that agricultural background.

Deputy O’Rourke.—The same thing applies in the case of the county council scholarships.

Chairman.—Is Deputy Allen suggesting that pupils should have an agricultural background before the are accepted for training as rural science teachers?

Deputy Allen.—Absolutely.

Chairman.—We might differ on that.

369. Deputy Allen.—The matter is a very important one for this reason, that at the present time vocational committees are finding it very difficult to get rural science teachers?

Witness—They do find a difficulty in getting rural science teachers who are able to deliver the goods: that is, teachers who have the background that Deputy Allen speaks of, and who, when they go to a school, will be able to talk to an intelligent farmer on his own ground. That type of teacher is not easy to get. These rural science schools should really be regular centres for the farmers of a district.

370. Chairman.—Has the Department’s attention ever been directed to this aspect of the question: that where you have an exceptional man for rural science he not infrequently goes away to become a headmaster in some other school because it is a better job. We had a firstclass rural science instructor who did turn the school into a centre for the farmers of the district, and he is now the headmaster of a school in Dundalk.

Deputy Allen.—A man like him is a loss to the rural community.

371. Deputy Breathnach.—Where are those teachers trained?—Generally in the Albert College and the National University. A degree in Agriculture is the minimum qualification, but one of the difficulties about a degree in Agriculture is that the University does not insist on the students having that background of rural knowledge that Deputy Allen has been speaking of.

Chairman.—In University College a provision is made for students to obtain the degree of Bachelor in Agricultural Science. University College, Cork, confers a unique degree in Dairy Science.

VOTE 49—SCIENCE AND ART.

Mr. Seosamh O Neill further examined.

372. Deputy Breathnach.—On Subhead B. 3—Production of Irish County Histories—Are they being produced in Irish or in English?—They are produced in English and we get them translated into the particular dialect of the county dealt with.

373. Deputy O’Rourke.—How many counties have been done?—About seven.

374. Deputy McCann.—How long does it take to do a county?—Roughly a year for each. The first one took two years.

375. Chairman.—Have those histories met with the unqualified approval of all those who have perused them and have communicated with you?—I do not suppose that, any more than any other book, they have met with unqualified approval. The two that have been published got fair enough approval. There were some harsh criticisms as well.

376. Deputy Brady.—Will all of them be published in both languages?—No. They are only published in Irish.

377. Chairman.—Have you received any comments from managers of schools on the suitability of those histories for use as school books?

378. Deputy O’Rourke.—Are you sure any manager ever read them?

379. Chairman.—Have any comments reached you from school managers as to their suitability?

Mr. O’Neill.—One very strong comment reached me.

380. Was it strong in commendation or otherwise?—Well, it was almost too strong otherwise.

381. You say it overshot the mark in that it was too strong?—It struck me like that, from my own knowledge of the matter. I had read those books, and could not agree with the comment.

382. It suggested that they were not suitable for school books?—Oh, yes; very definitely.

383. Deputy McCann.—Why are they not published in the English text?

Chairman.—Too many people would read them.

Mr. O’Neill.—We do not publish English books.

384. Deputy McCann.—It seems an extraordinary procedure that, in the first instance, they are written in the English text and then translated.

Mr. O’Neill.—One man could not write all the county histories in the necessary dialects. Take the one relating to Kerry. It would have to be written in Kerry Irish, the Donegal one in Donegal Irish, and so on.

385. Chairman.—So the procedure was that those histories were written in English, with subsequent translations into the various dialects.

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes, as regards the author’s qualifications, he has done far more historical work than people realise. On account of his being on the political side many people do not realise that he has done a good deal of work on historical matters.

386. Chairman.—You are satisfied that in all the circumstances he was the most suitable person to choose for this work?

Mr. O’Neill.—Well, I do not know whether he is the most suitable, but he has certainly had a historical training.

387. I was inclined to infer from some of your observations that that is your view?—I am not able to judge, really.

Deputy Brady.—If he was not so prominently identified with a certain line of thought, there would not be so much prejudice against his writings

Chairman.—I am sure Deputy Breathnach is guilty of no prejudice.

Deputy Breathnach.—I certainly am not.

Deputy McCann.—I mentioned that merely as a general comment. This writer is doing county histories. For whom? Where do they appear? We have not seen them. That is the general comment. It seems to me that his work is not publicised sufficiently.

388. Chairman.—The Deputy suggests that the general comment is that this writer is remunerated for producing histories which nobody hears about or sees. He is of opinion that his work is not publicised sufficiently.

Mr. O’Neill.—We must look into that. However, so far only two of them have been published and are available in the shops.

389. Deputy McCann.—The general public think that the author has a sinecure?

Mr. O’Neill.—It is not a sinecure. He is turning out a book per year. The delay in printing has been our fault. Turning out one county history a year is fairly good work.

Chairman.—That would largely depend of course on the county history.

390. Deputy Breathnach.—With regard to Subhead B. 5, why is there such a reduction there?

391. Chairman.—Deputy Breathnach would like to know what scholarships have not been renewed and why?

Mr. O’Neill.—There were about 40 awarded since the scheme began, and about half a dozen did not complete the degree. They did not show sufficient intelligence or sufficient industry or in other respects did not seem to be worthy of the scholarships. Hence the scholarships were discontinued in those half a dozen cases.

392. Deputy Brady.—Those were university scholarships?—Yes.

393. Deputy McCann.—What exactly is the handbook referred to in Subhead B 6?

Mr. O’Neill.—It is a grammar of old Irish, with a reader.

394. Chairman.—What is the Irish Historical Society referred to in B 7?—It is a society composed of various historians, which is affiliated with the Continental Historical Society. It is really a branch of the International Society.

395. With regard to Subhead B 9, what is Clann na hEireann?—It is a body of voluntary workers who have tried to get boys together to speak Irish. They have a hostel in Meath, and the boys go there for holidays. They are not Gaelic boy scouts, but there is a similarity between the scheme and that of the Boy Scouts. Clann na hEireann tries to encourage the boys to carry on their activities in Irish outside school hours. One of the difficulties is that the Irish learned in school very often goes to waste through the fact that the boys are not brought together and kept in an Irish-speaking atmosphere, and the Clann na hEireann group are doing their best to remove that difficulty.

396. Who are are Clann na hEireann group?—They are a variety of people here in Dublin, some civil servants, some teachers, and so on. They give their spare time to this work.

397. Deputy Keyes.—Is the grant completely in the hands of those people, or is there any supervision?

Mr. O’Neill.—The amount of the Appropriation Account is only a building loan. We do not give them a grant.

398. Chairman.—It is described here as a Grant-in-Aid?—It is a Grant-in-Aid for building the hostel in Meath. It is not recurrent.

399. Deputy Breathnach.—How are those boys recruited?—Any persons who are likely to be willing to send their boys are approached to do so. If parents are keen on Irish, they are approached to try to get them to send their boys in.

400. I approve of Clann na hEireann naturally, but there is an impression in Dublin that the recruitment is confined to certain classes, the children of civil servants, teachers, and so on, and that the children of the poor do not figure in the matter at all. Is there any truth in that accusation?—I cannot say. We do not give any annual grant, and consequently we have nothing to do with the methods of selection. In regard to the hostel, we did lay down certain conditions—that it was to be used for this purpose and so on—but we do not give any grant to Clann na hEireann apart from that. It is a purely voluntary body. They have to depend on fees.

401. Deputy McCann.—I think the children’s parents defray the expenses?— Yes; they have to do that.

402. Deputy Breathnach.—That rules out the children of the poor altogether?

Mr. O’Neill.—We cannot help that. If the Government gave annual grants it would be a different matter.

Deputy Keyes.—In Limerick, they are in fact a branch inside the Gaelic League.

403. Chairman.—To what does Subhead B 10 refer?

Mr. O’Neill.—About three years ago skeletons were discovered during some excavations near Castleknock—I think about 400 skeletons. When they were examined cursorily it was found that they probably belonged to an early Christian period. There was a Christian community there. It was thought worth while to have these skeletons examined. The examination has been carried on by Professor McLoughlin, of Dublin University, and some assistants.

404. The investigation is proceeding?— It is practically finished now.

405. Will the findings be published in a white paper?—Yes. A report will be printed.

VOTE 50—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. Seosamh O Neill further examined.

406. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead C, can you tell me what is the average number of children detained in that place of detention, the Summerhill abomination, in the financial year?—A little over two a week.

407. That reflects great credit on the District Justices. Do you think the money is properly spent on segregating two children per week there? Do you think it is proper employment of public money to detain two children only in Summerhill?—I think the place of detention should be an industrial school. If Artane were to take it over, it would be the best solution.

408. Why do you not make Artane take it?—There again we have no power unless the State is willing to go to bigger expenses.

409. Do you believe it is proper expenditure of public money to keep two children under 14 years of age in misery and desolation in Summerhill for seven days? I am not referring to the inadequacy of the surroundings, but small children taken away from their families and left virtually alone in an old Georgian house in Summerhill must experience a psychological shock quite disproportionate to any delinquency of which they may have been guilty.

410. Deputy Keyes.—Are they there pending trial?

411. Chairman.—Some of them are left there pending the final determination of their case by the District Justice, while others are there for one night on their way to an industrial school. There would be two classes of children, is that correct?

Mr. O’Neill.—That is so.

Chairman.—It astonishes me that it is regarded as proper to keep an average of two small children in a place of detention like Summerhill.

Deputy Keyes.—What type of persons are in charge?

Chairman.—A very respectable man and his wife.

If there are no further questions we need not detain Mr. O’Neill any longer. We are very much obliged to him.

The Committee adjourned at 1 p.m.

* Interim Report, page v.

* Appendix VI.

* Appendix VII.

* Appendix VIII.

* Appendix IX.

* Appendix X.