|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Céadaoin, 21adh Bealtaine, 1941.Wednesday, 21st May, 1941.The Committee sat at 12 noon.
Seóirse Mag Craith (Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste), Mr. F. J. Feeney and Mr. L. M. Fitzgerald (Roinn Airg cadais) called and examined.VOTES 67 AND 68.Chairman.—In regard to the Votes for External Affairs and the League of Nations, which appear on the agenda for this meeting, the Accounting Officer has represented to us that specially urgent business has been presented to him in the course of the past couple of days, and on your behalf I indicated that we should be glad to excuse him from discussing the accounts of the Department with us until a later date which would better suit his convenience. VOTE 63—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.Mr. P. S. O’Hegarty called and examined.Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General, paragraph 65:— “Subhead E 4—Packet Services— British and Foreign. “The charge to this subhead includes the sum of £25,500, being contribution towards the cost of the conveyance of mails by sea between this country and Great Britain for the year ended 31st December, 1939. The Dun Laoghaire-Holyhead and Rosslare-Fishguard services were restricted as from September, 1939, and I am informed that the question of the subsidies payable is under consideration by the British Post Office authorities and the carrying companies. Meanwhile, the normal contribution of this administration is being continued on a provisional basis.” 412. Chairman.—Have you reached any final settlement of that matter? Mr. O’Hegarty.—No. We propose to go across later, when the British Post Office are in a position to discuss the matter with the carrying company. They are not in a position to do so yet. We are in touch with them all the time. 413. Chairman.—In the meantime, are the charges being carried to a suspense account?—We are paying the amount in the agreement at the moment but we shall get a refund if there is a reduction. 414. Mr. McGrath.—The present payment might be considered as a payment on account?—Yes. Paragraph 66:— “Losses by Default, etc. “The losses borne on the Vote for the year ended 31st March, 1940, amounted to £1,159 9s. 2d., of which £1,130 2s. 9d was charged to Subhead H 2 and £29 6s. 5d. to Subhead O 6. Classified schedules of these losses are set out at pages 215 and 218. At pages 216 to 218 particulars are given of 23 cases in which cash shortages or misappropriations amounting to £191 11s. 10d. were discovered; the sums in question were made good and no charge to public funds was necessary.” 415. Chairman.—Have you any further comment to make on that note, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—No. The details are set out on the pages mentioned—215 and 216. 416. Chairman.—There is no alarming increase in the incidence of these occurrences? Mr. O’Hegarty.—No. “Subhead H 3—Incidental expenses. 67. Arising out of an accident in which a pedestrian was injured, the postman-driver of an official mail van was prosecuted under section 50 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, and convicted. The result of the trial in the District Court was not available at headquarters in sufficient time to permit of the question of appeal being considered, although it was thought that there were good grounds on which an appeal might be based. Meanwhile a claim for compensation was submitted on behalf of the injured pedestrian, and it was felt that the fact of the driver’s conviction would prejudice the case against the Minister for Finance in any court proceedings. The claim was accordingly settled on payment of £351 compensation, together with £20 for costs. “Steps have been taken to ensure that the question of appeal can be considered in time in future similar cases.” 417. Chairman.—How came it that the result of this prosecution in the District Court was not communicated to you in time to afford you an opportunity of determining whether there should be an appeal or not? Mr. O’Hegarty.—The report of the case was sent to us by the local postmaster, and there were only seven days for lodgment of notice of appeal. Cases of this type were not defended by the Government. They were defended by the civil servant concerned, and the Government is not represented in the proceedings. 418. Chairman.—Do you not think that the postmaster might have sent his report earlier?—It might have been done earlier. We have tightened things up since. 419. Mr. McGrath.—Arrangements have been made whereby a similar delay in reporting will not take place in future? —Yes. 420. Deputy McMenamin —Is the prosecution against the driver of the van as an individual and not as a representative of the Department?—Yes. 421. Chairman.—The criminal prosecution is directed against the driver of the van but, unfortunately, the civil proceedings are directed against the Minister for Finance?—There are no civil proceedings but, in cases of this sort, the State usually recompenses the person concerned if he has not been very grievously at fault. 422. The civil proceedings by the injured party to recover damages are instituted against the Minister?—Yes. “Erection of New Stores Depot. “68. I referred in paragraph 78 of my last report to a scheme under which land at Aldborough House, Dublin, held on lease by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, was acquired by the Dublin Corporation, and the Department’s Stores Depôt which had occupied the site was transferred to new premises. The governing principle underlying the scheme was that the Corporation should bear the cost of, and incidental to, the provision of alternative warehouse accommodation. The estimated cost of this accommodation was £9,950 and payment of that amount, less £2,000, being a commuted allowance in respect of the rent of premises at Aldborough House retained by the Department, was made by the Corporation in June, 1940. The heating arrangements for which provision had been made in the estimate proved inadequate and the sanction of the Department of Finance was subsequently obtained for additional expenditure of £1,250 on the provision of a low pressure hot water system. The total expenditure to date from State funds on the provision of warehouse accommodation, including heating, amounts to £11,137.” 423. Chairman.—Have you, Mr. McGrath, any further comment to make in respect of this note? Mr. McGrath.—The important point is that the scheme was put through to facilitate the Dublin Corporation and it was considered that the State should not incur any expense in connection with it. There does not seem to be any reason why the cost of central heating should not have been included in the estimate on which the charge on the Corporation was assessed. I mentioned in the first paragraph that the estimate for £9,950 did not, apparently, include anything for the cost of central heating and my point is that the State should not have had to pay anything because they merely facilitated the Dublin Corporation. 424. Chairman.—Would you, Mr. O’Hegarty, give us your view on that? If the Dublin Corporation undertook to supply equally suitable premises, might it not have been reasonable to infer that they would provide premises which were suitable in respect of heating as well as everything else? Mr. O’Hegarty.—My recollection is that we took advantage of this scheme to provide rather better general arrangements than we had in the premises given up, and that the extra amount expended was applicable rather to that than to substitution of existing premises. 425. Chairman.—You felt like an insurance company which does not regard itself as called upon to supply a new carpet in place of a used carpet. The new premises you got were really better than the premises you surrendered?— Yes. 426. Chairman.—Does that version of the affair appeal to Mr. McGrath? Mr. O’Hegarty—The Dublin Corporation paid adequately in respect of the accommodation given up, and that extra expenditure is due to improvements made by the Post Office itself on the standard of the old accommodation. 427. Chairman.—The accommodation you now have is, in fact, £1,250 better than the accommodation you had in Aldborough House?—Yes. Mr. McGrath.—If the Committee take that view, I have no objection but I must point out that the agreement originally arrived at was that, as the Post Office was obliging the Dublin Corporation, the Corporation could well afford to provide the Post Office with stores and pay for the cost of heating them. I think that was understood between the two parties. Later on, it was found that the store without the heating accommodation was not a proper store and that the goods put into such premises would deteriorate very quickly. I do not wish to say that the original estimate omitted anything at all, but the question is whether the original estimate should have included the amount provided for central heating. 428. Chairman.—Can you tell the Committee if the new premises supplied by the Corporation without central heating were as suitable for storage as Aldborough House had been?—We provided new premises ourselves. The Corporation did not provide them as we built them ourselves. 429. Did the Corporation undertake to pay for the new buildings?—Yes, but a definite estimate was given and accepted by the Corporation. 430. Was the structure for which you estimated as suitable for storage purposes as your Aldborough House premises had been?—I think so. 431. Then, why was it necessary to spend £1,250 more?—I had better look that up and let the Committee have a note later. 432. You would prefer to give the Committee a memorandum* on that point?— yes. 433. Deputy McMenamin.—Is the heating looked upon as a fitting or as part of the premises? Chairman.—If Mr. O’Hegarty prefers to make that the subject of a memorandum, it would be better for us to discuss it later. 434. Mr. McMenamin.—Would it not be better to have the point cleared up as to whether the Corporation intended to give premises only and not heating, that is, whether heating is distinct from premises. Deputy Benson.—In any case, if it is said that provision made in the Estimate for heating was inadequate, it shows that some provision had been made. 435. Chairman.—The Committee would be concerned to ascertain whether the fault was on the part of the person who prepared the Estimate or on the part of the Corporation in refusing to meet a reasonable demand for accommodation? Witness.—I quite understand that. 436. Chairman.—The next note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:— Stores. “69. A test examination of the store accounts was carried out with generally satisfactory results. I referred in my last report to deficiencies in the stocks of internal mail bags. Further similar deficiencies have since been reported, and I understand that the question of devising a system of closer control is still under consideration.” I shall divide this note into several paragraphs, if that meets with the Committee’s approval. Have you anything further regarding that paragraph, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—Yes. Four different censuses have been taken since on these bags, and there has been a deficiency shown in each case. That looks rather serious. I do not wish to blame the Post Office, as this shortage of bags takes place in all administrations. It looks as if nobody thinks much about a mail bag. They may be used for covering in bad weather and then get lost. 437. Chairman.—Can you give the Committee any further information about that? Witness.—Only that we have not yet been able to come to a conclusion in our investigations. There has been difficulty during the year on account of the emergency situation, and we have not been able to give the matter its due attention, but we are still pursuing the investigations. In a matter of this sort there is always a question of striking a balance between a meticulously accurate system of check which would involve in itself far greater expenditure than the losses in the present case, and a system like the present, carrying some risk of wastage. If we are to put in an involved system of check in regard to these bags, it would cost more than we are losing by the present losses of bags. I am concentrating at present on an attempt to tighten up the present system without undue expense, and am hoping to be able to report within the next few months definitely on that. 438. Deputy Cole.—How often do you take stock of the bags? The whole stock of bags is taken twice a year, and at all times the bag centres exercise a watch upon the movements of the bags in their areas. 439. Deputy Hughes.—Is the loss general all over the country?—Yes. 440. Chairman.—It appears, Mr. O’Hegarty, from the census which you have taken recently, that in November, 1938, you had a deficiency of 2,616 bags; in March, 1939. it was 4,647; in November, 1939, 2,219; in March, 1940, 3,362. Does this suggest to your mind that these bags are being used as emergency waterproofs?—I am not quite certain that there is not some loophole in the recording as it is, but in any case the loss— according to the figures which we have— has been steadily decreasing. Twelve years ago it was about 12,000 bags in the year, and now it is down to half that amount. 441. Chairman.—I suppose that that is a consoling feature of the situation? Mr. McGrath.—Yes. I am afraid that the cure would mean a very heavy expenditure. However, the leakage must be still further reduced. 442. Deputy Benson.—In our business we have the same thing occurring in the case of hampers, and we came to the same conclusion as Mr. O’Hegarty—that the cost of installing a foolproof system would be greater than the losses. Witness.—Before the present system was instituted in 1918 the Post Office did not use unstencilled bags at all. The bags then were stencilled with the names—as, for instance, “Dublin to Cork” on one side and “Cork to Dublin” on the other. That involved a larger stock of bags, and also involved the provision of bag-rooms at all the larger offices, where these bags had to be stored and checked. There was a special clerk to keep the records. Economies were effected by the new system, though it was realised at the time it was introduced, that it would involve a loss in the material. It was felt, however, that the loss would be more than made up by the economy in storage and staff. We feel that a more intensive check, or the re-introduction of stencilled bags, would very much increase the cost of the whole system. At the same time, I am not satisfied that the present system could not be stiffened up and loopholes stopped. 443. Chairman.—The matter will continue to engage your attention?—Yes. 444. The next portion of paragraph 69 reads:— “During the latter part of the year considerable difficulty was experienced in working existing contracts and in making new contracts in accordance with normal procedure. In connection with certain contracts placed on tenders received prior to the 1st September, 1939, and not due for completion before that date, the Department of Finance sanctioned payment on an ex-gratia basis, and without prejudice to the validity of the contracts, of additions to the contract prices not exceeding the amounts shown to have been reasonably incurred in the circumstances. In cases in which it had become impossible or unreasonably difficult for a contractor to supply goods, sanction was obtained for his release and for the waiving of any claim against him for non-fulfilment.” Are we to take it, Mr. McGrath, that no cases which have arisen in connection with these waivers call for special attention? Mr. McGrath.—Not this year. I can assure the Committee that the matter is receiving the attention of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, and also of the Department of Finance. I merely think it is necessary to draw the attention of the Committee to that fact. This year the additional payments are very small, and the matter is being kept well in hand by both the Departments mentioned. 445. Chairman.—The next portion of paragraph 69 reads: “With regard to the tenders received subsequent to the 1st September, 1939, it was found that quotations were generally, in terms which involved departures from the usual principles of firm prices and specified deliveries. The Department of Finance authorised the acceptance of such tenders in cases where it was deemed necessary or expedient to do so.” I take it, Mr. McGrath, that, in all the circumstances, that procedure met with your approval? Mr. McGrath.—It did. 446. Chairman.—The next portion of paragraph 69 reads: “A number of contracts for the purchase of engineering stores which had been placed with Continental firms prior to September, 1939, were abandoned. “Owing to the emergency conditions stocktaking carried out by officers of the Department during the year was restricted to approximately one-third of the total stores held and the adjustments of deficiencies and surpluses of postal and engineering stores noted in the account may be regarded as applying to discrepancies in approximately one-third of the total stores in hand.” Are you satisfied, Mr. McGrath, that it is prudent, even in time of emergency, to suspend the annual stocktaking in respect of the two-thirds of the stores? Mr. McGrath.—I would not say that it is prudent, but I think that we are doing as much as possible to check the stocks. They are being tested, and the Stores Branch never knows which one-third will be taken. If there are any serious leakages, they are bound to come to notice. At the same time, I would like a bigger percentage of the stock to be checked by a physical stocktaking than we are able to do at the present time. 447. Chairman.—How do you feel about that, Mr. O’Hegarty? Witness.—Of course, I would not like to continue doing only one-third of the stocks for an indeterminate period. I would much prefer to have the full stocks checked, but I do not think there can be any material damage for the moment. If the emergency continues we would have to go back to the full check. 448. How long, in your judgment, would it be legitimate to carry on this restricted check?—A couple of years, I should say. 449. Chairman.—What do you think, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—Yes, I agree with that. A couple of years would be the longest, but I think we should not have this restricted check at all, if we can avoid it, and I presume the Department will take the first opportunity to take complete stock. 450. Deputy Hughes.—What is the approximate amount saved by the restricted check? Witness.—I could not say off-hand. 451. Chairman.—Is it a question of finance, or of personnel?—It is a question of the general pressure brought to bear on the Departments at the beginning of the emergency to tighten up and suspend such checking work as they could, in order to make a general saving of staff. There were a lot of small checks in the Post Office which were modified or abolished. In total, that abolition made possible a considerable saving of staff, but this check was merely one item. 452. Deputy Hughes.—What became of that staff?—A lot of it was loaned to other Departments. 453. Chairman.—I understand that the system heretofore was that the Accountant’s staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs undertook to check one-third of the stock and the remaining two-thirds was checked by the officers of the Stores Branch, and what has happened is that you have suspended only the check undertaken by the officers of the Stores Branch?—Yes. 454. Do you think, on the whole, that the economy thereby achieved outweighs the importance of ensuring that there will be no serious losses in the Stores Branch of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, which is, in fact, practically the Stores Branch of the entire Government?—For a short period, I do not think so. I should not care to have it go on for ever. 455. I wonder would it be practicable to form an estimate of the economy effected by suspending the Stores Branch check?—Yes, we could do that. Chairman.—The Committee would be glad to have an approximate figure * for that. Deputy Hughes.—Mr. O’Hegarty says that the saving is very little, and it appears to me to be false economy. 456. Chairman.—That occurs to me also. The final portion of paragraph 69 reads:— “In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix II. as valued at £178,196 on the 31st March, 1940, engineering stores to the value of £268 were held on behalf of other Government departments. Stores other than engineering stores held at that date were valued at £107,562, included in this amount being a sum of £37,549, in respect of stores held for other Government departments. Chairman.—I take it that that is purely an informative paragraph? 457. The next note deals with “Revenue. “70. A test examination of the accounts of the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services was carried out with satisfactory results. “Sums due for telephone services amounting in all to £427 12s. 2d. were written off during the year as irrecoverable.” Is that also purely informative?—Yes. Chairman.—The next note is:— “Post Office Savings Bank Accounts. “71. The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December, 1939, were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results. “Post Office Factory. 72. A test examination was applied to the accounts of the Post Office Factory with satisfactory results. The expenditure on manufacturing jobs, including work in progress on 31st March, 1940, amounted to £16,543; expenditure on repair works (other than repairs to mechanical transport), amounted to £15,822, and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs amounted to £1,543.” Chairman.—We will now proceed to the Vote and the subheads. 458. Deputy Benson.—On Subhead D— Purchase of Sites—it will be remembered that there was some discussion last year about the site for an office in St. Andrew Street. Is any information available regarding that site now?—The plans are still in progress of settlement with the Board of Works. 459. Chairman.—Can you forecast at all when agreement will be arrived at with regard to the plans?—I am afraid I cannot. 460. How long have discussions been proceeding?—The matter was held up for a time owing to the emergency conditions, and was then released again. 461. How long have you been negotiating in regard to this site?—We have the site for a number of years. 462. How long have you been discussing the plans?—For a number of years also. There were various changes, as I explained when I was last before the Committee, but we have now come to the point that we can decide the plans ourselves and can go ahead. This is on the urgent list. Chairman.—It would appear that if agreement had been reached with regard to the plans at an earlier date a very substantial economy could have been effected in building. 463. What are the packet services referred to in subhead E 3?—Services mainly to islands by boats. 464. What is the explanation of subhead E 5—Conveyance of mails by air?— Practically all foreign mails. We pay the British for the conveyance of these mails. 465. On subhead M—Telephone Capital Repayments—does that relate to the construction of new telephone services?— Yes, and telephone annuities. 466. Is this the only reference to telephones in the Estimate?—Yes, to this particular repayment. 467. The reason I ask is this: Has your attention been directed recently to the telephone service?—My attention is always on the telephone service. 468. I am greatly relieved to hear that. Has your attention been directed recently to the fact that the service on circuits 31, 30, 0 and 39 has deteriorated very materially?—We have very many complaints, but we have given very special attention to these numbers. 469. What is the reason for the protracted delays?—The main reason is that there is a rush of inquiries and things of that sort at certain points at periods of the night. 470. My experience is not at night, but at any hour of the day, that if you ring these numbers there is delay. I measure the time by the number of times the bell rings. It is quite unusual to be answered before the bell is rung ten times and occasionally it is rung 26 times. Surely that suggests that that service is grossly inadequate?—I do not think it is inadequate. There are certain points at which you will get delay with numbers where there is a burst of traffic. 471. Do you think the staff sufficient to meet the legitimate demands of the public in regard to this service?—I think it needs strengthening at certain points, and we are looking into that as a result of recent complaints. 472. Has your attention been directed to a practice that obtains on rural trunk lines? I understand it is the wish to supplant the telegraph system by the telephone. My experience is that when one engages the telephone trunk lines, instead of doing business by correspondence, young ladies intervene continually in the conversation and by their general tone make it perfectly clear that you should stop using the trunk line?—I have not had any evidence of that. An operator might “butt in” when a call is up, but I doubt if there is any general interference of that sort. I would be glad to have instances. 473. I shall be glad to oblige you. I have no doubt it is due to excessive zeal on the part of operators to create the impression that the use of the line is unwelcome. It seems to me to be had business?—That is not the intention. It is a mistake of some sort. 474. Was the desirability ever considered of substituting a bell to indicate the end of the three-minutes’ period, instead of inviting operators to intervene in the conversation?—I do not think so. 475. Would such a proposal have your consideration?—I can look into it. 476. Deputy Hogan.—Another point calls for attenton, and may be worthy of investigation with a view to having some change made. Take the case where a person in the rural areas makes a telephone call, it is the experience that there is a couple of minutes’ delay before contact is made with the person required, and just when the conversation begins, the call is cut off as the three minutes are up. Could an arrangement be made so that if a conversation was not completed, it could continue by the caller agreeing to pay the additonal charge, so that he would not be cut off without having an opportunity of concluding his business?—A person is not cut off, and is always given the option of extending the call. The operator “butts in” and says that the three minutes are up, but asks if there is a wish to have the time extended. 477. That is not always done?—So far as I know it is. 478. I cannot see how loss would be sustained if the person who makes the call is satisfied to pay the extra charge?— You are under an entire misapprehension, as far as I know. 479. I am not under any misapprehension?—Send me instances of that. Deputy Hogan.—I can send several instances where a call was made and was cut off after speaking a few words, and then a person has to wait for a new call. Chairman.—Mr. O’Hegarty. informs us that that is contrary to regulations, and if Deputies would be good enough to furnish particulars he will take steps to see that it will not occur again. Deputy Keyes.—I have experience of calls to rural areas, and I am never interefered with. I am allowed to extend the call. Deputy Cole.—I agree that calls are cut off immediately the time is up, and before there is time to extend them. There is the same trouble then, and the person that you have been looking for may have gone away. Deputy Hughes.—I had the same experience. If you do not make the call optional you are cut off. Mr. McCann.—Is not the fault with the caller? Deputy Hughes.—I make the call optional practically in all cases. Deputy Allen.—Unless the caller makes the call optional the operator announces “time up” and you are cut off. 480. Chairman.—What is the meaning of making a call optional?—All this is entirely new to me. Unless there is some instruction that I know nothing about, I understand that on a trunk call when the three minutes are up the caller is asked if he wishes to continue. 481. Our discussion has served a useful purpose and Mr. O’Hegarty undertakes to look into the matter?—Yes. Deputy Allen.—The only way is to make the call optional. Deputy Hogan.—Then you will not be cut off. 482. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. O’Hegarty will be kind enough to let us hav a note* about this matter?—Yes. 483. Deputy McMenamin.—With regard to subhead N 2—Compensation Allowances under Article 10 of the Treaty of 6th December, 1921—is that a perpetual thing? 484. Chairman.—Is that permanent, Mr. O’Hegarty, or is it a diminishing charge?—Of course it is a diminishing charge. 485. I take it this is in respect of civil servants who retire under Article 10 from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?—Yes. VOTE 64.—WIRELESS BROADCASTING.Mr. P. S. O’Hegarty further examined.Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:— “73. A scheme of commercial broadcasting was introduced as from the 1st October, 1939, under arrangements approved by the Department of Finance. The receipts from advertising firms in respect of booking fees, performing rights fees, etc., amounted to £13,008 13s. 8d. Payments of commission amounting to £1,576 18s. were made from these receipts to the advertising agents of the firms sponsoring the programmes, leaving a balance of £11,431 15s. 8d., which is included in the total of £38,182 12s. 4d shown as receipts in respect of advertisements, etc., in the account.” 486. Chairman.—Can you tell us why the Department pays the advertising agents of the firms sponsoring the programmes £1,576 18s.?—I take it we get these sponsored programmes through an agent, and we have to pay commission. 487. What services do these agents render to the Post office?—They canvass for the programmes just the same as an ordinary advertisement canvasser for newspapers. 488. Surely, seeing that the Government have the only wireless broadcasting station in Ireland, it ought to be possible to get this business for less than £1,576 a year—or do they think this is an economical way of securing advertising business for Radio Eireann?—I think an advertising agent in the habit of dealing with that sort of business, and with the firms who advertise, is likely to make a better job of it than would the Post Office. 489. Do you think the Post Office is well advised to pay a commission of £1,576 to one agent to secure the advertising?—I think it is, in the circumstances, but I can have the matter looked up. 490. I do not know that it is necessary to look up the point?—If the Committee feel that it ought to be reconsidered, we can reconsider it. 491. I think the Committee would be glad to know your view?—The Post office view is that it is worth continuing the present system. 492. And in your judgment it cannot be done otherwise?—Not efficiently. 493. There was commission of £492 paid in respect of one advertiser; £372 in respect of another; and £712 of a third, representing approximately 10 per cent. of the gross receipts?—Quite so, 494. Deputy Hughes.—Do they do anything other than securing the business— do they conduct the programme?—They do not conduct the programme. Deputy Hughes.—It appears to be a rather handsome commission. Deputy Allen.—It is easily earned, anyway. 495. Chairman.—Is there any agreement on record with these advertising agents, or any uniform basis of remuneration?—I shall have to look that up. I do not exactly know what the arrangements are. I am sure there is an agreement on a uniform basis. 496. Deputy Hughes.—On a percentage basis?—I take it so. 497. Deputy Cole—Have these agents been long at it—are they old hands?—I think they are old hands. 498. Chairman.—Have you seen any form of agreement, Mr. McGrath, or any general basis of remuneration? Mr. McGrath.—In going through the file we saw that the Department acted on the authority of the Department of Finance. It is the first time we saw that the State paid commission. 499. Chairman.—Can the Department of Finance inform us as to the basis of the agreement, or what the terms are? Mr. Feeney.—The arrangements provide for the payment of a commission to recognised advertising agents at a rate not exceeding 15 per cent. of the booking fees. 500. Chairman.—Did the Department of Finance stipulate for any special services to be given in return for the fee? Mr. Feeney.—The position is somewhat the same as that of advertising agents who canvass for newspapers. They canvass for the advertisements. Following their representations, certain firms may consider that this advertising medium of the broadcasting service has certain advantages and is worth paying for. 501. Chairman.—Has the Department of Finance adverted to the fact that as between newspapers there is a certain amount of competition in relation to advertising whereas Radio Eireann has a monopoly? Mr. Feeney.—That was taken into consideration too. 502. Chairman.—Was there any comparison between the terms that would be made by a monopoly as against the terms made by a person canvassing in a highly competitive trade? Mr. Feeney.—I cannot say what is the commission in the case of newspaper advertising. 503. Chairman.—I thought it was the same? Mr. Feeney.—No. 504. Deputy Hughes.—Must a man go through an agent, or can he approach you directly, Mr. O’Hegarty?—He can approach us directly. 505. Chairman.—Were the Department satisfied that the newspapers paid 15 per cent. to canvassers? Mr. Feeney.—Sometimes I understand it would be up to 25 per cent. 506. Deputy Cole.—What percentage of advertisements would you get directly and what percentage would come through advertising agents, Mr. O’Hegarty?— I do not think we have any direct advertisements. 507. Then we may take it that all come through agents?—They all do, as a matter of fact. Mr. Feeney.—I am not speaking with absolute confidence, but I believe that a number of the big firms who use the broadcasting service have arrangements with the advertising agents that all those advertisements will be placed through agents and nobody else 508. Chairman.—Perhaps we could have some additional information on the matter, Mr. O’Hegarty?—It might be better if I look the matter up and gave you information later*. 509. Deputy McCann.—What are the advertising firms charged per minute?— I have not that information available just now. 510. I saw a figure recently in a periodical indicating it was about £4 a minute?—It is very substantial. 511. Chairman.—I understand the time is let to advertisers in minimum units of 15 minutes, and there are four scales with regard to payment. In scale A, when the letting is taken for 13 weeks, it is £55 per quarter hour on Sundays, and £21 per quarter hour on week days. Under scale B, where the letting is for 26 weeks, it is £50 on Sundays and £19 on week days, per quarter hour. Under scale C, where the letting is for 39 weeks, it is £45 on Sundays and £17 on week days, per quarter hour. Under scale D, with a letting for 52 weeks, it amounts to £40 on Sundays, and £15 on week days, per quarter hour. That would represent about £3 15s. a minute on Sundays on the higher scale, and 30/- on week days?— Yes. 512. Deputy McCann.—With regard to subhead B.—Cost of Daily Programmes— will Mr. O’Hegarty say what is the copyright fee paid to an author for a play or script lasting, say, an hour?—I cannot say what the fee is, but there is a fee laid down. 513. By whom is it laid down—by the Department of Finance?—There is a Performing Rights Society; there are societies in all these cases representing authors and other people. 514. The point I am making is that I am aware the current fee is £3 3s. an hour. That is why I inquired what advertising firms pay for a quarter of an hour. An author receives £3 3s. for an hour, and an advertising firm would pay as much as £220 for an hour. I should like you to look into that matter, because I think the authors are being treated scandalously?—You think they ought to be paid more? 515. I do—much more?—That is a general question of fees, of course. 516. Chairman.—Certain questions would arise where the author is a member of the Performing Rights Association?— I was really thinking of the musical items. Of course, I can look up this matter, and let the Committee know on what basis the fees are arrived at.* Chairman.—Deputy McCann is mainly concerned with the authors of plays and scripts? Deputy McCann.—Yes. Chairman.—On Subhead C—Musical Instruments, Music, etc.—I should like to say, Mr. O’Hegarty, that you have the finest piano player in Ireland. It is a pleasure to listen to him, or to her. You have an accompanist during beginners’ hour, the hour when newcomers are given a chance to perform, and it is a joy to listen to the pianist. 517. On Subhead G.—International and other Conferences and Conventions—are any international conferences or conventions being held now?—Not during the emergency; there is nothing of that sort. 518. Has the interference with our wavelength become worse during the war? —I do not think it is worse. 519. There is a station somewhere in Latvia on the same length?—I think it is a Russian station. 520. Are they still pounding away?— The old interference from Memel station has stopped. At the European Conference at Montreux the Russians wanted to come in on our wavelength, and we refused to let them in, because we said they would interfere with us, but they have since come in, as they do with everything else. The witness withdrew. VOTE 22.—STATIONERY AND PRINTING.Mr. J. B. Whelehan called and examined.521. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead F 2—Oireachtas Debates—would it involve any serious extra expense, Mr. Whelehan, if the Official Reports were made available to Deputies on the morning following a debate as was the practice at one time? Mr. Whelehan.—About £1,000 a year. 522. I am referring to the green paper-covered book. If that were cut out, would it involve much expense to supply the report on the following morning?— It would certainly involve additional expense, but I would not be prepared to state the exact amount, even with the elimination of the green book. However, we can go into that.* 523. You see, if we could get the reports on the following morning they would be useful for debate and, in addition to that, it would be possible to amend the record, for the bound volume, while one’s memory was fresh. At present we get the report about a week afterwards?—Of course that is really a matter for the Dáil Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We went into the matter of working as economically as possible during the present emergency, and I think the saving was between £1,000 and £1,100 a year on the curtailment of the publication of debates to one per week, but we did not make any estimate at all to meet such a proposal as you have made, Mr. Chairman. We certainly can go into that. 524. Thank you. With regard to subhead F 5, does that refer to the printing of what are commonly known as white papers?—No, that has to do with the Electoral Act. 525. The Voter’s Lists?—Yes, the register of electors, and that sum of £996 10s. 7d. less than granted does not indicate the actual saving, because there is considerable difficulty in connection with the provincial printers since, notwithstanding that they maintain that they are always hard up, there is considerable difficulty in getting them to send in their accounts before the end of the financial year. Some of that work had to be paid for during the subsequent year. 526. With regard to F. 6—Production of a volume illustrating Christian Art in Ireland—has that work yet been produced?—It is practically completed at last. It has been printed off and is now being bound. 527. And will be published, probably, in the course of this calendar year?—Yes, I should say so. 528. With regard to F 7—Publication of Irish Translation of the New Testament—who is doing the translation of the New Testament into Irish?—The translation was made by the late Canon O’Leary. I do not think Canon O’Leary ever had time to revise it. In fact, it is considered a phenomenal work that he should have been able to translate the entire Bible into Irish in a time that one would think not more than reasonable for a mere transcription. Accordingly, the work of revision has proved to be rather onerous and, of course, it is work requiring considerable research and consultations with different scholars. At the moment, the editor is Father O’Cuiv, who has been approved by the Executor of Canon O’Leary. Certain progress has been made, but of course he is not working full-time as editor. He is only working part-time. 529. Is that Father O’Keeffe of University College?—No, he is in the Dublin Diocese. He is a son of the late Mr. Seán O’Cuiv. 530. Very good. With regard to F 8—Preparation and Publication of Oireachtas Hand Book—Is that going to be an annual publication now?—That is really a matter for the Department of Finance. We had discussions about an issue in 1941 and the matter was considered from every point of view. I have concurred with the view that we should withold the matter until July so that we may see what changes may be made in the Constitution, and that these may be incorporated in the new issue. As to whether it will result in an annual publication or not, I cannot say. I may say that it should be self-supporting. 531. Provided you do not have too many general elections?—Well, I hope we shall not have to issue one after every general election in the future, but the advertisements more than cover the cost of production so far. 532. With regard to subhead 1, have you ample stocks of paper?—That depends, Mr. Chairman. 533. On subhead M—Appropriations in Aid—Are not the sales of re-printed Irish texts very low?—These texts appeal only to scholars. They are not the ordinary Gúm publications. They are really such texts as would now fall, and in fact will fall, to the Institute for Advanced Studies. They are really scholarly productions and of course there will be a very limited market for them. 534. How could one buy an old typewriter from the Stationery Office?—By tendering for it, but I doubt at the present moment you could buy an old typewriter from the Stationery Office. 535. I understand that the old system was that you wrote in and asked them had they any, and then you bid?—No, we trade out as many as we can when purchasing new machines, but sometimes we were offered unsatisfactory terms from the companies. Then we formulated a kind of catalogue of all the machines and advertised; people came in, got a copy of the catalogue, entered their bid price on the tender-form opposite the particular machine which interested them, and then we accepted the highest offer. I do not think that is likely to recur in the present generation. 536. They are not to be had?—No, they are not to be had. 537. I take it, Mr. McGrath, that the last paragraph of the notes on this Vote, which says that “Arising out of the existing Emergency and the consequent increase in the cost of many raw materials payments at rates in excess of the original accepted tenders have been approved in certain specified cases,” comes under the general approval that you have given to similar courses in respect of other Departments during the period of the Emergency? Mr. McGrath.—Yes, that is so. Witness withdrew. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
