|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 24adh Abrán, 1941.Thursday, 24th April, 1941.The Committee sat at 12 noon.
Seóirse Mag Craith (Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste), Mr. L. M. Fitzgerald (Roinn Airgeadais), called and examined.ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.Deputy B. Brady.—I move that Deputy Dillon take the Chair. Deputy Dillon took the Chair. Chairman.—I am much obliged to you, gentlemen, for appointing me to this position. I think it may be well, before we start our proceedings, to refer briefly to our procedure as we have some new members of the Committee this year. It is important not to confuse proceedings of this body with those of Dáil Eireann. Our function at this stage of our proceedings is to ask the various accounting officers of the Departments who come before us whether in fact the money which Dáil Eireann has appropriated for certain purposes has been spent for those purposes, and whether the intention of Dáil Eireann has been fully carried into effect. The Committee will bear in mind that we have power delegated to us to send for anybody or for any papers that we deem it necessary to inspect in order to satisfy ourselves that the purpose of Dáil Eireann has been carried into effect. The Committee will find occasionally that in matters of minor detail accounting officers may not be in a position to give all the particulars that individual members want, in which event the accounting officer will always be glad to furnish the Committee with a memorandum on any important point, on request. I venture to say this to my colleagues on the Committee: while in my view any member of the Committee who requires an accounting officer to furnish a memorandum on a point of detail should receive the support of the whole Committee in making that request, all members of the Committee should be careful to refrain from asking for memoranda of that character unless they regard the matter in question as one of some gravity, as accounting officers are busy men and though very ready to co-operate with us in every way, we should not excessively— I use the word “excessively” advisedly— trespass on their time. Lastly, gentlemen, I would say this: our duty at this stage is to ask questions and get information. When we come to consider our report, which we usually do at our final meeting, we can then debate fully the information we have received, but at this stage we should refrain from debate and confine ourselves exclusively to seeking information. Therefore, gentlemen, if you are ready now I think we may begin on the Votes which come for consideration to-day, the first of which is Vote 44, page 123 of the Appropriation Accounts. VOTE 44—NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.Mr. J. Hurson called and examined.1. Chairman.—I think. Mr. Hurson. you usually prefer that Mr. J. A. McCarron should answer on this Vote before the Committee? Mr. Hurson.—Yes, Sir, with your permission. 2. Chairman.—That will be quite agreeable to the Committee, I am sure. If you turn, gentlemen, to page 123, you will find a series of subheads. With your approval, the procedure I propose to follow is to call each subhead and if any member of the Committee wishes to ask Mr. McCarron any question that occurs to his mind in regard to it he is quite free to do so. With regard to subhead D. 1., Mr. McCarron, is the money which was required for supplementary accommodation being used only in rural areas or is any of it being used in urban areas? Mr. McCarron.—It is only being used in rural areas. I should not say rural areas. It is to compensate inspectors for the use of rooms in their private houses which are exclusively devoted to the work of national health insurance. 3. Chairman.—On approximately what basis?—£12 per inspector. 4. Per annum?—Per annum, yes. 5. Deputy McMenamin.—In regard to Subhead F. 1.—Medical Benefits (Grants-in-Aid)—is that £41,000 a fixed annual contribution?—It is based on the number of annual contributions paid under the National Health Insurance Act. It represents roughly two-ninths of twopence for each ordinary contribution and two-ninths of 3½d. for each soldier, the soldier’s contribution being only 4½d. instead of 8d. Would you like to know the basis of that contribution? Deputy McMenamin.—No, thank you, Mr. McCarron. 6. Deputy McMenamin.—With regard to F. 2., I see there is a supplementary Vote of £12,000. What is the reason for that?—It arose principally by reason of the fact that the approved society which had a loan from the National Health Insurance Fund, for the payment of compensation for those officers who had retired on unification, found themselves able during this year to pay off about £36,000 odd of that sum and two-ninths of that had to be State grant. So, that accounted for roughly £1,500. At the time the Supplementary Estimate was made out it was thought that, so far as the balance was concerned, it might not be sufficient to meet the ordinary expenditure of two-ninths on the expenditure on benefits, with the result that there was about £3,000, I think, or £3,500 added for State grant on benefits but, as you see. it was found subsequently that was a little in excess because there was a return of £2,037, which was not required. 7. Chairman.—With regard to subhead G.—District Medical Referee Service—do you believe, Mr. McCarron, that sufficient use is being made of that service? By that, I wish to ask, is there sufficient check on the certificates of certain dispensary doctors?—Well, we have four medical referees, and they are used to the utmost extent that they are available and, personally, I do not think that very much can be done in that direction. I have figures here. Last year, for instance, up to 1940 there were 34,600 cases referred, and, of those, 25 per cent. declared off the funds before being actually sent for examination, 2 per cent. were certified as unfit to attend, and 27 per cent. failed to attend. So, actually, there were 15,535 insured people examined by the referees during the year. That is a very large number. 8. Deputy Hughes.—What percentage would that represent of the total?—Of the total number of benefits? It would not be easy to give the percentage. You see, the numbers vary from time to time, and a man might be sent in three or four times in the year. It is only the doubtful cases that would come under this arrangement of sending a person to the referees at all. There are a great many cases that are genuine, and obviously genuine. 9. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that there is no extensive malingering?—Personally, I am satisfied that there is no extensive malingering, to put it that way; but I think the difficulty as regards benefits in this country is that, owing to considerable and extensive unemployment, there is a number of insured persons who will be much more likely to claim on the funds than if there were more employment for them to take up. They are partly invalids, but not so invalided that they would not be able to take work if it were available for them. That class of man, going to a doctor, will very easily and readily get a certificate, and you cannot altogether blame the doctor for saying that the man is incapable of work when he is invalided and suffering from some complaint, whereas, if there were work for that man to do he would not go to the doctor at all; he would take the work. That, I think, is very largely the basis for the excessive amount which is spent on benefits in this country. 10. Deputy McMenamin.—Do you attribute part of this incapacity to malnutrition?—I dare say that would enter into it. Deputy Keyes.—I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that in your opening remarks you pointed out that our function here is to ask the various accounting officers of the Departments who come before us whether the money which Dáil Eireann has appropriated for certain purposes has been spent for those purposes, and whether the intention of the Dáil has been fully carried into effect, and you also pointed out that it is important not to confuse our proceedings with those of Dáil Eireann. It seems to me that we are not following the proper line here in discussing whether or not there is malingering or whether the officers of the Department are not doing their work properly. I think we are infringing on what you warned us against, and taking upon ourselves what is really the function of Dáil Eireann. If I were to express my views on the matter. I should be inclined to think that there is an excessive amount of bringing these people before the referees. That is my opinion, but I do not think it is our function on this Committee to deal with such matters. Chairman.—I am grateful to Deputy Keyes for bringing the matter forward. Our duty is to see whether or not the money appropriated by Dáil Eireann is being spent to the greatest advantage. If this Committee were satisfied that we were paying the medical referees for going to, let us say, Leopardstown Races, instead of attending to their duties, it would mean that the money was not being spent properly. If we are satisfied, however, that the accounting officer believes that the medical referee sees every doubtful case and determines whether a person is entitled to benefit, then, clearly, the money is being spent for the purpose for which it was appropriated. My question was directed to wards finding out whether the accounting officer was satisfied that the officers of the approved society and his own officers were sending to the medical referee every doubtful case, and whether the money spent was securing the proper examination of every doubtful case and its elimination or the giving of benefit where that is necessary. I think Deputy Keyes would be very well entitled to ask Mr. McCarron if he thought these moneys were being used for the purpose of persecuting people by bringing them before the medical referees too often. Does Deputy Keyes wish to ask that question? 11. Deputy Keyes.—No, I do not. As I say, that would be my personal opinion, but I think that is really a matter for the Dáil. 12. Deputy Benson.—Before we pass from that, could Mr. McCarron say what has been the result of the cases which have been referred to the medical referees? —Of the cases that have been referred, as I told you, 3 per cent. were rejected as unsuitable for reference—that is, by our own medical officer; 25 per cent. declared off the funds before being sent to the referees—that is, when they were summoned to attend before the referee they declared off, and consequently there was no need to examine them; 2 per cent. were certified as unfit to attend; and 27 per cent., not so certified, failed to attend. That left a balance of 15,535 who were examined, and 65 per cent of those cases were returned as incapable of work, 29 per cent. as capable of work, and 6 per cent. as capable of light work. 13. Chairman.—Are we to take it that those who simply failed to attend were deemed to be persons who were no longer entitled to national health insurance benefit?—Yes, unless they furnished sufficient reason for failing to attend. 14. And if they did, they would not appear in your schedule as persons who failed to attend for no reason?—That is so, although it might be found sometimes that they had failed to attend for some reason or another. 15. Subsequently?—Yes. 16. Deputy Benson.—Would I be right in saying that 50 per cent. of the original number were found to be entitled to benefit?—I think it would be rather less— somewhere in the vicinity of 44 or 43 per cent., but we have not got that percentage at the moment. My reason for asking that is that I notice that quite recently the British Medical Association drew the attention of doctors in Great Britain to the fact that in many cases they were issuing certificates for which there was no justification, and it has come to my knowledge in connection with the local board here that in some cases certificates are being granted too easily. That would be unfortunate. The medical profession has a very high reputation. Chairman.—As Deputy Keyes has pointed out, I think that is going a little beyond our terms of reference. Our purpose is to ask Mr. McCarron whether or not he is satisfied that the referees are seeing everybody who should be seen, and examining them satisfactory. Mr. McCarron.—Of course, the point is that the cases that come before the referee are cases submitted by the approved society or by a certifying doctor who has any doubt as to whether a man is incapable of work. These are the only cases that come before the referees. 17. Chairman.—Are we to take it, then, Mr. McCarron, that the Controller is of opinion that everybody who should be submitted is being submitted, as far as he knows?—Yes, that is so. VOTE 29—WIDOWS’ AND ORPHANS’ PENSIONS.Mr. J. Hurson called.No questions. VOTE 42—GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE.Mr. J. Hurson called and examined.18. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in connection with this Vote, which is as follows:— Subhead E.—Appropriations in Aid. “In August, 1939, the Departments of Finance and External Affairs agreed upon an arrangement whereby Irish-born residents in Great Britain who required travel permits could obtain telegraphic verification of particulars of birth from the Registrar-General, Dublin, the approved search fee being 2/6, payable to the High Commissioner or local Passport Office on application for a travel permit. The number of searches made under this arrangement during the period ended 31st March, 1940, was 1,796, and in 42 of these cases the fees were received direct from the applicants. A payment of £100, which is included in the Appropriation in Aid, was received from the Department of External Affairs in respect of the fees collected, and I am informed that the Accounting Officer is in communication with that Department on the subject of the balance still due.” Have you heard anything further, Mr. Hurson, in regard to this balance? Mr. Hurson.—Yes. There was a further sum of £41 2s. 6d. received in January, 1941. 19. Is there any balance outstanding? —On numbers there should be, but I have not got sufficient evidence from the Department of External Affairs. 20. The Comptroller and Auditor-General informs me that he finds that there is a balance outstanding of £78 2s. 6d., but that 625 people who applied for these birth certificates did not, in fact, persist, with their applications for permits to leave Great Britain and enter Eire, and that this may be the reason why that balance has not been forthcoming? —That is the reason, but I have not got official notification of that yet. 21. And so the account cannot be regarded as closed?—Yes. 22. I take it that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be notified when the account is closed?—Yes. I may say, gentlemen, that in as much as the accounting officer will notify the Comptroller and Auditor-General when this account will be closed, it will come up next year and can be disposed of if anything arises in connection with it. VOTE 41—LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH.Mr. J. Hurson further examined.23. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General states:— Subhead F.2.—Expenses in connection with the Local Government (Dublin) Tribunal. “The expenditure charged to this special subhead, which was opened by the direction of the Department of Finance, is made up of payments of gratuities of £100 to each of two officers of the Department who acted as members of the Tribunal. This expenditure was not regarded as part of the costs and expenses of the Tribunal to be recovered under section 101 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930. As mentioned in previous reports, this section provides that the costs and expenses of the Tribunal shall, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, be paid to the Minister by the local authorities concerned. The amount of the costs and expenses to be recovered, as sanctioned by the Minister, was £3,072 11s. 1d. This sum was paid to the Minister during the year, in proportions determined by the Tribunal, by the local authorities concerned (Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council, Dun Laoghaire Borough Corporation and Howth Urban District Council) and was accounted for as an exchequer extra receipt. In addition to expenditure charged in previous years to this subhead in the Vote for Local Government and Public Health (£1,291 12s. 10d.), the sum recovered included expenditure from the Vote for Stationery and Printing (£435 9s. 1d.), recoupment of proportion of salaries of the Secretary to the Tribunal and of Government reporters (£609 6s. 6d.), and charge in respect of services of the two official members of the Tribunal (£736 2s. 8d.).” Are we to take it that that account is now closed and that this is merely an informative paragraph? Mr. McGrath.—Yes. 24. Chairman.—We shall then pass on to the next paragraph, which states: “19. Under section 5 (1) (h) of the 1932 Act, a grant not exceeding £40 may be made to any person reconstructing a house in his own occupation if such person derives his livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture or is an agricultural labourer. “A case was observed in which a grant of £30 was made to an applicant who stated in her declaration claiming to be an agricultural labourer that her income was derived from an old age pension and from ‘keeping one or two boarders’. For the purposes of the Housing Acts, the expression ‘agricultural labourer’ has the same meaning as it has in the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1936, in which it is defined as any person (other than a domestic or menial servant) working for hire in a rural district, and any person, not working for hire, but working in a rural district at some trade or handicraft without employing any persons except members of his own family. It is also provided that any question which may arise as to whether a person is or is not an ‘agricultural labourer’ shall be determined by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, whose determination shall be final and conclusive. As the applicant did not appear to come within the definition of an agricultural labourer, an inquiry was addressed to the Accounting Officer, who stated that as the applicant kept boarders and resided in a district frequented by tourists, she was regarded as coming within the term ‘agricultural labourer’ as defined in the Labourers Acts without any special determination by the Minister. “In another case it was observed that a grant of £25 was paid for reconstruction work which consisted mainly in the building of a new porch. In reply to an inquiry, the Accounting Officer stated that the addition of a porch to a dwelling-house, which is often rendered necessary by the situation of the house and is not uncommon in the case of labourers’ cottages already built and occupied, is regarded as essentially reconstruction work.” That paragraph covers two cases. One deals with the case of a lodging-house keeper who was declared to be an agricultural labourer without reference to the Minister. Can you explain, Mr. Hurson, whether that decision was based on some existing precedent or was it just considered unnecessary to refer an ambiguous case of that kind to the Minister?—The section of the Act provides that any question that may arise as to whether a person is a person to whom the section applies, shall be determined by the Minister, whose determination shall be final and conclusive. That is only a determination on a question of doubt. In this case it was held that as the person was employed keeping boarders she could be regarded as a person employed at some trade and that in fact she came within the provisions of the Act. 25. Had you no difficulty at all in coming to the conclusion that she came within the provisions of the Act or had you any precedent in the Department for the decision that a lodging-house keeper was an agricultural labourer?—I do not think there was exactly a precedent but on the facts stated, and having regard to the extent of the reconstruction, it was held that the work carried out was intended to enlarge the house so as to enable the lady to keep boarders. If you wish I shall read out to you the extent of the work of reconstruction— “remove roof from kitchen and one room; raise walls six feet, fit slate roof to same; fit two enlarged windows and ceil upper rooms”. That seems to indicate that the house was being prepared for the accommodation of visitors and, as it was a fishing district, it was not unreasonable to hold that the person who applied for the reconstruction grant came within the provisions of the Act. Mr. McGrath.—We in the Audit Office found it very difficult to understand how a woman of 70, who kept boarders in the summer months, could be regarded as an agricultural labourer. We could not reconcile her position with that of an agricultural labourer and we thought that our query should be sufficient to prompt the Accounting Officer to go to the Minister and say: “What is your decision? You have power to decide whether she is or is not entitled to this grant.” I think I would have been bound to accept the Minister’s decision if he had made one, but the Accounting Officer thinks that it was not necessary to seek his decision. I think we shall have to leave the case to the Committee now. 26. Chairman.—Do you not think, Mr. Hurson, that there is something to be said in this case for availing of the clause which delegated to the Minister the duty of making a final determination?—That is so, if there was a real doubt. 27. Surely the Comptroller and Auditor-General expressed grave doubt. You are quite clear that there is no doubt, but I would suggest that the Minister should be called in to make a decision between high officers of State in the case of disputes of this kind?—I did not read his reply in that way. That would be a post-decision. Does the Comptroller and Auditor-General hold that the Minister’s decision at this stage would cover the matter? If that is so, I shall submit it to him. Mr. McGrath.—We can only examine cases as we receive them. If the accounting officer sends a case on to the Minister or if it comes to the Minister’s knowledge that we doubt whether it comes within the four corners of the particular section of the Act, and if the Minister then decides that it is a proper case for a grant, we will have to be satisfied. That is the way I read the Act. 28. Chairman.—Perhaps it would be right to say that Mr. Hurson makes the point that if this were called in question before the grant was made, then the Minister would be asked for a decision. The payment was made before the Minister could make any decision. Whether the Minister’s decision would be retrospective to cover that particular payment is a matter of doubt. However I suggest to Mr. Hurson that it would be helpful to the Committee if at this stage the facts of the case were laid before the Minister so as to have a decision on them *?—I shall do that. 29. Deputy Hughes.—May I take it that the accounting officer’s interpretation of the Act is that keeping lodgers is a trade?—It would be a trade. Many people make a living in that way. In any case this person supplemented her living in that way. 30. Deputy Keyes.—Has it not been accepted that any person performing a useful service amongst the rural community comes within this section of the Act? Postmen, railwaymen, bus drivers, bus conductors and others are accepted as agricultural labourers? 31. Deputy Cole.—Are postmen eligible for grants under this Act?—Yes, sir, any person working for hire. 32. Chairman.—The net question here is really whether the woman was working for hire or whether she was working at a trade or craft. Deputy McMenamin.—It appears that this woman was in receipt of an old age pension, but the question of her age does not arise if she comes within the definition of an agricultural labourer. In my opinion she carries on a trade. Mr. Hurson.—That was the view taken by the Department. 33. Chairman.—No doubt Mr. Hurson will bring to the attention of the Revenue Commissioners the fact that this lady who was in receipt of an old age pension got a grant-in-aid to enable her to equip her house to keep lodgers. I think the matter can be disposed of by suggesting that it should be brought before the Minister for his decision. In regard to the other case, the £25 grant paid, for the construction of a new porch, have you any comment to make on that, Mr. McGrath? Mr. McGrath.—The Department, when the case came before it in the first instance, made a decision with which I entirely agree—when they reported that the house was sound and in good condition, that the proposed work was plastering and minor repairs and that it was not a case for a grant. The applicant still kept on applying and the Department then changed its mind. My reference sheet in connection with the matter pointed out that the making of a new porch was not reconstruction, but the accounting officer is of a different opinion. 34. Chairman.—Has Mr. Hurson anything further to tell us in regard to this case?—According to my information the facts are as stated by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, that, in the first instance, the work proposed to be undertaken consisted of minor repairs. A subsequent application related to more extensive repairs. With your permission, I shall read a short description of the proposed reconstruction: “Erect front porch, reinforce flat roof, ceilings to all rooms, internal plastering, external plastering.” I submit, therefore, that the work was not only reconstruction by the building of a porch but that there was other work undertaken which was essentially reconstruction also. The total estimate was shown as about £43 and the grant was £30. As far as I can calculate from the file, the cost of building the porch would not have been more than £11 to £14. 35. Chairman.—There is an item in the description of the work: “Internal and external plastering and dashing and plinth, £10.” Did that relate exclusively to the porch? Mr. Hurson.—No. There were new foundations, £2; reinforced flat roof, £1 12s. 4d.; new welling, £6, and new doors, £2. There were two new windows at £3. Two windows would not be required for the porch. 36. Deputy Hughes.—With regard to the reinforced flat roof, would that be for the porch only?—Yes. The internal and external plastering and dashing and plinth would be for another portion of the house. Deputy O’Rourke.—I think that is on a par with the usual reconstruction. Deputy Keyes.—It is a type of reconstruction, really. 37. Chairman.—Have you any further comment to make, Mr. Hurson? Mr. McGrath.—I think the Accounting Officer has stated that the cost over the cost of making the porch would be a proper charge? Is that right? Mr. Hurson.—I did not go so far as to say that it would be a proper charge, but you could draw the inference that, even if that cost had been omitted, there was expenditure there to cover the grant. But I am not making that case. 38. Chairman.-We understand. The Department takes the view that the building of the porch and ancillary work is repair work, within the meaning of the Act, which is eligible for a grant? Mr. Hurson.—I am advised that that is so. Chairman.—And the Comptroller and Auditor-General takes the view that building a porch is not work of a character which is eligible for a grant. Therefore, it behoves the Committee, having taken a careful view of those two views, to ask the clerk to the Committee to remind us of it when making our report. We must in our report to Dáil Eireann give our view as to which party to that dispute is correct. Deputy Hughes.—We will discuss that subsequently. Chairman.—May I remind Deputies that we will discuss all the answers when making the report. If there are any other questions we should ask them now. 39. Deputy Keyes.—I should like to ask the Comptroller and Auditor-General how does he account for the fact that in the report to the Committee he did not make any mention of anything except the porch? Chairman.—I would direct the Deputy’s attention to the note, which says that in another case it was observed that a grant of £25 was paid for reconstruction work consisting mainly in the building of a new porch. That clearly shows that the Comptroller and Auditor-General wished us to know that in addition to the new porch other work was done. Mr. McGrath.—Might I draw attention to the first report on this, in which the Department said it was not a case for a grant. It stated that the proposed work was plastering and minor repairs, and that it was not a case for a grant. 40. Deputy Keyes.—But plastering and minor repairs, plus the porch, seemingly would be a case for a grant? Mr. McGrath.—I think if it is granted that the charge for plastering and minor repairs is not a proper charge there is no reason why any grant should have been made, because we have here a statement by the Department itself which says that the proposed grant in the first instance was for plastering and minor repairs, and that it was not a case for a grant when it was put in that form. Chairman.—I think the Comptroller and Auditor-General will agree with me that the amount of money at stake is trivial. What matters is the principle, and I think we are fully informed of both views on the matter of principle. We will have to decide what our view is, and in due course communicate it to Dáil Eireann. Mr. Hurson.—May I add one word more? I do not want to be contentious, but the Comptroller and Auditor-General stated that the view of the Department was that the first application was not a case for a grant. He is quoting from a statement made by the inspector—a junior inspector—not by the Department. 41. Chairman.—The Committee is fully aware that, when the Comptroller and Auditor-General quotes from the inspector’s report, that is merely the inspector’s report to the Department, of which the Department might approve or disapprove. His duty was to tell the Department how the case looked to him. It was the Department’s duty to determine whether or not he had taken the correct view of the facts. Does the Comptroller and Auditor-General wish to add anything? Mr. McGrath.—I want to inform the Committee that we are able to examine only a very small percentage of these cases. We are merely bringing these two cases this year to show the type of cases on which the Department may be taking liberal views and giving a liberal interpretation of the Act. Chairman.—Of course, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will bear in mind that when Mr. Hurson comes here he is at bay, because we are the watchdogs of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and will continue to be so at all times. We fully appreciate his anxiety to keep us informed of every detail, and are most grateful to him for the information which he has put before us. 42. Subhead W.—Contribution towards the Expenses of caring for the Survivors of S.S. “Athenia”. “20. Following a Government decision, the Minister for Finance sanctioned payment of a grant not exceeding £500 towards the expenses of caring for the survivors of the S.S. Athenia on their arrival at Galway. The expenditure charged to the subhead, which was certified by a Local Government Auditor, amounted to £348 1s. 3d.” Am I correct in assuming that that is an informative paragraph? Mr. McGrath.—Yes. 43. Chairman.— Motor Tax Account. “21. A test examination has been applied to the Motor Tax Account with satisfactory results. The Motor Tax transactions of the local authorities had been examined by the Local Government Auditors, and their certificates and reports were scrutinised. “The gross proceeds of the Motor Vehicle, etc., duties in 1939-40, including £12,957 11s. 7d. attributable to fines, amounted to £1,133,808 8s. 9d. This amount also includes fees received, on behalf of the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, under the Road Traffic; Act (Parts VI and VII) (Fees) Regulations, 1937. A statement of the gross and net receipts of the Motor Tax Account, and of the payments thereout to the Exchequer, appears on page 16 of the Finance Accounts, 1939-40.” This sum of £1,133,808 8s. 9d. is what is commonly known as the Road Tax? Mr. Hurson.—Yes. 44. Chairman.—When we speak of a raid on the Road Fund it is this Fund to which we refer. Might I ask you, Mr. Hurson, if you have received many applications for refunds of the road tax in respect of the offer made by the Minister recently?—I am sorry I have not got the actual figure here, but it is not so great as we anticipated. I think the refunds will not exceed £45,000. 45. That is very moderate. Has it all been disbursed as yet?—No. The quarterly ones, I think, are more than half paid. They will all be paid, say, by the end of May. 46. We will now turn to the Vote itself. With regard to Subhead G. 1., can you tell us how the money for Vaccine Lymph Supply is spent?—The Vaccine Institution at Sandymount Green receives a subsidy of £900 a year. In addition, there is an ex gratia payment of £100 a year, making a total of £1,000. There is also a payment to the bacteriologist of, I think, £500. Those are the main items. 47. Does this relate exclusively to the provision of lymph for innoculation against smallpox?—Yes. 48. No other vaccines are produced there?—No. 49. Deputy McMenamin.—Is care taken by the Department that no other lymph will come in contact with that, and that the bacteriologist there will not be permitted to do anything with regard to any other lymphs?—I think so. Of course every lymph prepared is inspected by the bacteriologist. 50. Chairman.—Am I correct in saying that the general way of operating this scheme is that the bacteriologist supplies a given number of tubes of the vaccine in exchange for the remuneration provided in this subhead and that he is paid for anything over and above that number of tubes?—Yes; up to 80,000 tubes for £1,000 and after that he gets a fee for any additional tubes acquired. 51. Deputy Benson.—Is there a receipt for the sale of the lymph?—No. It is distributed free to the dispensary doctors. 52. It is free to everybody, whether they are dispensary or otherwise? Fannings, for instance, deal in lymph, do they not? —No; it is only for the dispensary medical service. 53. Deputy Breathnach.—What is the explanation of the small expenditure under Subhead G. 2? Chairman.—Deputy Breathnach would like to know why there has been a surrender of £347 18s. 0d. under that subhead? Mr. Hurson.—The explanation given on page 117 answers the question to a great extent: “It was not practicable during the year to carry out inspections of the premises of foreign firms from which therapeutic substances are imported”. The bacteriologist in connection with vaccines also acts under the Therapeutic Substances Act. It would be part of his duty to make inspections in England and possibly in continental countries if we were getting therapeutic substances from those countries, but it is not possible at present. The item of £2 2s. 0d. there is in respect of materials purchased for test. Chairman.—Does that answer your question, Deputy Breathnach? Deputy Breathnach.—Quite. The same question applies to Subhead G. 3. Chairman.—And the same answer is available if you will turn to page 117, which I have no doubt you did before coming in here to-day, but the answer must have escaped you. 54. With regard to Subhead I.—Charge under Irish Land Act, 1909, section 11 (2), (Grant-in-Aid)—is there any explanation for the interesting surrender of 14/-?—The grant was £24,640, and the amount expended was 24,639 6s. 0d. Deputy O’Rourke.—Economy, of course. Chairman.—The answer is, I take it, that a round sum is asked for in the estimate and the shillings and pence are disposed of in that way?—Yes. 55. Deputy Breathnach.—On Subhead J. 1.—Child Welfare, Schools for Mothers, etc.—there should not be a surrender there. I cannot understand why there should be a surrender of almost £3,000. Chairman.—If the Deputy will look at the note relating to this subhead, he will find an explanation. 56. Deputy Breathnach.—I do not agree with the note. Is there any further explanation, Mr. Hurson?—The note does not indicate that there was any lessening of the expenditure. It indicates that by reason of a change in procedure the amount was granted by the local authority for the time being and recoupment will be made to the local authority. 57. My point is that the amount should not be curtailed?—It is not curtailed. That service, as a matter of fact, has expended at a greater rate than any other of the medical services during the last seven or eight years. 58. Chairman.—The apparent reduction is really only the postponement of a payment?—Quite so. 59. So far as Subhead J. 2.—Grants for the Supply of Milk to Necessitious Children—is concerned, here, I think, Deputy Breathnach’s criticism might be more valuable. Here, apparently, the local authorities had not spent up to the limit of the grant available. Deputy Breathnach.—I object to the curtailment here. Chairman.—Would I be correct in assuming, Mr. Hurson, that this shows that the local authorities have not spent up to the limit of the grant available?— That is so. That position has also arisen in previous years. It so happens that local authorities, when they get a fixed grant, apparently from a desire not to exceed it, do not, in fact, expend the full amount. 60. Deputy Hogan.—I am a member of a public body which has some little experience of spending money of this kind, and I should like to point out that there are certain obstacles in the way of spending it. For instance, there was a difficulty in getting people to supply milk to those entitled to it in the rural areas, largely owing to the regulations under the Milk and Dairies Act. This year we found we could not purchase the milk from farmers at less than 1/10 a gallon and the Local Government Department is not prepared to sanction that. In many cases, as a result, we were unable to supply the milk. There was a third factor to be considered and that was a regulation which sets out that we can give milk only to children up to a certain age. Is that not so, Mr. Hurson?—Yes, up to five years. 61. I have come across cases where people were definitely in need of milk for their children, whose ages ran from four to ten years, and we could not supply them because of the regulation relating to the age limit. These were the factors which prevented the Board of Health in my county from spending the money that we otherwise would like to spend. It might be well if these matters were considered by the Department and perhaps some alteration which would remedy the situation could be made?—It is a matter that could be considered. Chairman.—Deputy Hogan will realise that representations of that kind could more properly be made to the Minister in Dáil Eireann. It is not within the scope of Mr. Hurson’s authority to comment on regulations made by the Minister, when he appears here to give evidence before us. All Mr. Hurson can say is: “These are the regulations and I have to carry them out.” If Deputy Hogan is of the opinion that the regulations should be altered to meet certain conditions that have arisen, that would be more a matter for the Minister. So far as Mr. Hurson is cencerned, he is here to explain why certain things were done. I think Deputy Hogan is of the opinion that the regulations are at fault? Deputy Hogan.—Yes. Chairman.—Then that is a matter that he will have to raise in another place. Deputy Keyes.—Deputy Hogan made the point that I was about to make—that the difficulty with regard to supplies has been the cause of the failure in the proper carrying out of the scheme. 62. Chairman.—Are you satisfied, Mr. Hurson, that the regulations are being enforced and that there is no abuse of them?—Yes. As regards the children who are eligible, there is no abuse. The age of five years has been selected because that is the age fixed under the Maternity and Child Welfare Schemes and, in order that the local authorities may administer this scheme, it is related to the Maternity and Child Welfare Schemes. The difficulty about suppliers possibly arises under the Milk and Dairy Regulations. It is within my own knowledge that farmers are not willing to comply with these regulations in order to qualify for the sale of milk to persons eligible under the free milk scheme. To do so would involve a certain amount of expenditure, putting byres and dairies into proper order. The cost of doing that would be more than they are willing to incur in order to sell the milk and they are prohibited from selling milk under this scheme unless they comply with the regulations. 63. If pasteurised milk were available, would the Department permit the local authorities to supply that commodity under this subhead?—I think so, but there are very few pasteurising plants throughout the country. 64. May a local authority supply milk powder where supplies of Grade A milk are not available?—That is resorted to, in some cases. 65. If persons are in a position to supply properly pasteurised milk, that is permitted?—Yes. Deputy Brady.—There is a great prejudice against powdered milk amongst the people who would be recipients under this scheme. The question with regard to sanction for different prices for milk is one that I think could be raised here. It is a matter that the Department should seriously consider. So far as ordinary milk is concerned, I should like to point out that in Donegal the Department will allow us to pay only 1/4 a gallon and in some of the poorer portions of the county it might go to 1/6 a gallon. It is estimated by some of the medical officers in the county that the powdered milk, which a large number of the people will not accept, costs from 1/8 to 1/9. and the Department are prepared to sanction that. The position in Donegal is that we cannot get supplies of milk to the people who are very much in need of it because the Department will not sanction beyond 1/4 a gallon, and at present it is impossible to get it at that price. 66. Chairman.—What is the cost of powdered milk, Mr. Hurson?—I could not give you a definite figure, but I am rather surprised to hear that it goes to 1/8 a gallon. 67. Has your attention been directed to the suggestion of Deputy Brady, that while the Department will sanction up to 1/8 on powdered milk, they will not go beyond 1/4 to 1/6 on ordinary liquid milk?—As regards the 1/4 rate, I would not like to say it is a fixed rate. Deputy O’Rourke.—They pay more elsewhere. 68. Deputy Brady.—On several occasions we have asked the Department to sanction a rate higher than 1/4 and they have refused to do it. Further representations are going to be made to them this week?—I will look into the matter. What do the creameries pay in Donegal? Deputy Brady.—I could not say at the moment what is the price the creameries pay. Deputy Hogan.—They pay 7d. a gallon. 69. Chairman.—Perhaps, Mr. Hurson, you will look into this matter, and when Deputy Brady next approaches you, you will be able to give him particulars?—I shall be glad to give him all the information I can. 70. On Subhead M.—Welfare of the Blind—are all the demands on the subhead met—have any demands on the Welfare of the Blind Scheme been turned down?—Not within existing regulations. 71. Deputy Brady.—Do blind pensions come under this subhead?—No. 72. Chairman.—As regards Subhead N. —Treatment of Tuberculosis—is the Department directly responsible for the Pigeon House?—Not directly; the Corporation of Dublin is responsible. 73. Do departmental officials inspect the Pigeon House under the scheme for the treatment of tubereulosis?—Yes. 74. Are you satisfied the Pigeon House is as efficiently operated as it ought to be?—I have no knowledge to the contrary; I believe that it is. 75. You are satisfied that the inspection of that institution is sufficiently rigorous? —I would say so. 76. Are you satisfied that the curative treatment provided in the Pigeon House is in any measure effective?—The Pigeon House is for advanced cases and I doubt if curative treatment can be made very effective in advanced cases. 77. If I were an advanced case I would not welcome that news?—You have these sanatoria throughout the country for advanced cases; they are largely for the purpose of segregation. Perhaps one might like to show a better outlook upon it, but I am afraid that is the position. 78. Are the Department’s inspectors satisfied that nobody in the Pigeon House is deserving of at least an attempt at therapeutic treatment and that there is no use in trying to cure any of them?—I would not like to answer that without first consulting medical opinion in the Department. 79. I think it would be correct to state that to adopt that treatment with patients under a tuberculosis scheme is a very grave step?—I am not in a position to answer. 80. With regard to Subhead R.—Grants to Local Authorities, etc., under Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919—what housing scheme is operated under the 1919 Act?—There were housing schemes carried out in three districts under that Act. 81. And these payments represent the annual payments towards the reduction of the debt?—Yes, for three schemes. 82. Deputy Breathnach.—I should like to have some information regarding Subheads S. 1. and S. 2. 83. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead S. 2. there is an explanation in the note. It says: “There was a decline in the amount of building by private enterprise during the latter half of the year.” Can you elaborate on these subheads, Mr. Hurson?—Subhead 2. stands on its own. There was a decline in building by private enterprise and the Department could not give out more grants than were sought. 84. Chairman.—In Subhead S. 1. the amount of the decline in expenditure was small, £12,000. Deputy Breathnach.—I do not question that. 85. Deputy O’Rourke.—The explanation is that housing is not going on? Mr. Hurson.—It is, under local authorities. As far as the four county boroughs are concerned I would say that to-day housing is on a higher level than at the commencement of the war. 86. Chairman.—I take it that it is largely a question of supplies? Mr. Hurson.—Yes. 87. Deputy Breathnach.—How is it no money was spent under Subhead U.— Seeds and Fertilisers Supply Act, 1933? Chairman.—The Deputy will find that Subhead U. was a subhead opened by a section of the Department to meet losses where recovery could not be made from the recipients. In fact most of the debts were redeemed by the sureties for the debtors. Deputy Breathnach.—I am satisfied. 88. Chairman.—Has that account been closed or are there claims still outstanding? Mr. Hurson.—There was no subsequent re-vote to meet any claims. 89. Chairman.—Therefore we can assume the account is closed? Mr. Hurson.—As far as I know. Chairman.—Subhead W. was dealt with in the note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in connection with the contribution for the expenses of caring for survivors of S.S. Athenia. As there are no questions on Subhead V.—Appropriations in Aid—we need not delay Mr. Hurson. We are very much obliged to him for attending. The Witness withdrew. Chairman.—Heretofore we found it convenient to meet on the morning after Dáil Eireann assembled. If the Dáil met on Tuesday this Committee met on Wednesday. I understand that meets the convenience of members of the Fianna Fáil Party. When the Dáil meets on Wednesday we meet on Thursday. Is that agreeable to members? Deputy Breathnach.—Our Party meets at 12 o’clock on Thursday and it would mean that members would be absent from the Party meeting, which is important for them, if there was a meeting at 12 o’clock on that day. Chairman.—I fixed the meeting for 12 o’clock to-day at the request of certain members who wished to attend the function at Arbour Hill. Deputy Brady.—The Chairman kindly put off to-day’s meeting from 11 o’clock to 12 o’clock for that purpose. Chairman.—Next week we will meet on Thursday at 11 o’clock if the Dáil meets on Wednesday. The Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
