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)

Dé Ceadaoin, 25adh Meitheamh, 1941.

Wednesday, 25th June, 1941.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. J. Maher (Roinn an Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste), Mr. G. P. S. Hogan, and Mr. L. M. Fitzgerald (Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 54—LANDS.

Mr. M. Deegan called and examined.

Chairman.—The first note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is:—

Repayable Exchequer Advance.

43. “In my reports on the accounts for 1937-38 and 1938-39, I referred to an advance of £200,000 made in March, 1925, to enable payments in lieu of rent to be made to landlords as required by the Land Act, 1923. Of this advance, £84,000 has been repaid.

A statement setting out the position as at 31st March, 1940, is appended to the account. From this it will be seen that there have been written off the outstanding balance sums amounting to £41,066 10s. 9d. and £72,496 18s. 9d., being arrears of payments in lieu of rent due by tenant purchasers which have been funded or remitted under section 15 of the Land Act, 1933. In addition a sum of £26 15s. 0d. was written off as irrecoverable under the authority of the Department of Finance.

The outstanding balance due to the Exchequer at 31st March, 1940, as shown in the statement, was therefore £2,409 15s. 6d.”

938. Chairman.—That is a purely informative paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—Since the 31st March, 1940, we understand that another £1,000 has been paid to the Exchequer. The statement referred to will be found on page 177 of the Accounts.

Subhead 1—Improvement of Estates, etc

44 “Reference was made in paragraph 52 of my last report to additional expenditure incurred consequent on the failure of certain contractors to carry out contracts for the erection of dwelling houses and out-offices. A number of similar cases was observed in the year under review, and I am informed that it is proposed to institute proceedings against the defaulting contractors for the recovery of such sums as may, under the terms of their contracts, be found due and payable by them in consequence of their default”…

939. Chairman.—Do you wish to add anything to that?

Mr. Maher.—The extra expense involved is fairly considerable. In one case it amounted to £573 extra, in another to £457, and in another case to £240.

Mr. Deegan.—The matter is still with the solicitor, and we propose to proceed against any of those people that we can proceed against.

940. Chairman.—Have the contractors furnished you with solvent sureties?—We have sureties in some cases, and guarantees from associations or insurance companies in other cases, and in some cases no guarantees.

941. In all the cases which are before you at present as being in default, have you got recourse to guarantors or guarantee companies?—I could not answer that question at the moment*. There are 12 cases in which there is question of proceedings in mind, but my note does not tell me if we have sureties in each case. Where we are dealing with good contractors we did not insist on sureties, and some good men have gone down in the bad times. Usually we have sureties or guarantors or guarantees from insurance companies.

942. Chairman.—It occurs to me that there may be something to be said for all contractors doing work for your Department or for any Department of State having guarantors of some kind, because being in your employment or in contractual relation with your Department gives them a certain recommendation down the country. I mention that because in one case £250 of my money went because a man represented himself as a Board of Works contractor, and having got large supplies of stuff he went bankrupt.

Mr. Deegan.—You do not seem to have taken full advantage of your experience here.

943. I am always very scrupulous to keep my public and private affairs absolutely distinct?—Our Land Commission contractors are often small people dealing only with two or three houses.

944. Deputy Cole.—Is it not always well to have guarantees by insurance companies in these cases? We had experience in the country where rate collectors were involved and the question of sureties arose?—Personally I prefer to see a guarantee from an insurance company.

Deputy Cole—I think it should be a guarantee company in all cases. I do not see why individuals should be brought into a thing of this kind.

945. Deputy Hughes.—Do you insist on sureties in all cases?—We do not. There are cases in which we accept contracts from people who, we believe, are sound and substantial without asking for sureties.

946. But are you always in a position to judge whether a man is financially sound or not?—We have to use our discretion about that.

947. Would it not be well to insist on contractors providing ample security in all cases?—It might.

948. Deputy Keyes.—I suggest that the Land Commission has ample security in all cases since it retains a certain proportion of the contract money. Therefore, if a contractor fails the money is there to enable the Land Commission to complete the work?—We have completed the work in all these cases.

949. There is no fear of any great loss accruing to the Land Commission because a contractor fails to carry out his contract since a certain proportion of his contract money is held back?—Some of the losses look rather heavy but most are small compared with the contract price.

950. Deputy Hughes.—What percentage of the retention money is usually held? Would it be 20 per cent?—I have not the information with me, but I will send it * to the Committee. Speaking from memory, I should say that we hold 10 per cent. of the contract money. We hold that for six months after the contracts have been completed.

Deputy Keyes.—My experience of work carried out by the Land Commission has been that contractors never get paid more than 80 per cent. of the value of the actual work done. Even after the work has been completed a certain amount of the contract price is retained for a period? —When contracts are finished we generally find ourselves with 10 per cent. of the contract money in hands.

951. Chairman.—Has it not occurred to you that, waiving the stipulation for guarantors in the case of contractors in whom you have complete confidence seems to be a supererogation, because if there is that type of contractor it ought to be perfectly easy for him to get the type of guarantee you require. The only person who would have difficulty in providing that guarantee is the kind of person who is liable to default?—There may be something in that. The question is a general one, applicable to all Government contracts, and so far a discretion has been left with us. I am sorry that I have not the information here, but if it were immediately available I think it would be found that in practically every one of these cases we have guarantors of one sort or another.

952. Deputy Hughes.—Do you allow the full value of the material on the site? —I do not think so. I think that is subject to the ordinary retention percentage.

953. Chairman.—The note in paragraph 44 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report goes on to say:—

…“I also observed that a tender for the erection of six houses and out-offices was rejected on the grounds that the price quoted for the erection of the out-offices was too high. The work was carried out by the Land Commission by direct labour, and the ultimate cost exceeded the price quoted in the rejected tender by £285 9s. 0d. I have addressed an inquiry to the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Have you since received any reply, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—We have received a reply from the Accounting Officer in which he indicates that this particular building was begun in masonry. That was found very expensive, and the work was continued in concrete; also the high prices for raw materials such as gravel, stone, sand, etc., affected the ultimate cost.

954. Chairman.—Can you tell us if the contract that was rejected on the grounds that the price quoted was too high was subsequently carried out by direct labour under your Department at a figure that was £285 more than the contract price?

Mr. Deegan.—The contract really had been advertised twice. We got no satisfactory tender the first time. The man that is now in question submitted the lowest tender on the second occasion. His price for the houses was all right, but his price for the out-offices was scandalously high. We were willing to accept his officer to build the houses, the Land Commission to build the out-offices, but he refused to carry on under these conditions. We then decided to build the houses and out-offices by direct labour. An amount of time had been taken up owing to our failure to secure satisfactory tenders. Hence we went on with the building by direct labour as we wanted to get the work done as quickly as possible. The houses were needed for migrants who were anxious to get possession. Then at that time, as our reply to the Comptroller and Auditor-General shows, prices went up. These houses and out-offices were situated in the County Leitrim, where building costs are very high. We had experience of building in masonry in that county, and had already got some masonry work done at a reasonable cost. We started this work, therefore, in masonry, but as we went along we discovered that we could not keep within our estimate. Ultimately the price turned out to be £285 more than the offer in the rejected tender.

955. Was this building done after the war had broken out?—No; I imagine the work was begun about the end of 1938.

956. Deputy Breathnach.—How does the Land Commission operate direct labour schemes?—Under its own inspectors, and by using a supervising ganger. We purchase the materials by tender and have them delivered on the site. The houses are built under the supervision of a supervising ganger who is working under the direction of an improvements inspector.

957. Is that a frequent occurrence?—It is, where we fail to get contractors. There are some areas where it is not easy to get contractors.

958. Deputy Hughes.—At what figure did the contractor tender to build these six houses and out-offices?

959. Chairman.—The total cost of the completed work was £2,787, and the excess was £285 9s., whereas the tender that was rejected on the grounds that it was considered too high was approximately £2,500.

960. Deputy Breathnach.—Is the Accounting Officer able to tell us anything about the comparative results of direct labour and contract work?

Chairman.—I take it that what the Deputy wants is a general impression of the relative costs of direct labour as opposed to contract?—Contract is cheaper generally. That is one reason why we work by contract.

Deputy Allen.—Part of the explanation given by the Accounting Officer for this excess would seem to indicate that the cost of stones and gravel has increased. I do not think we have any information before us to show that the cost of stones and gravel has increased owing to anything that has happened recently.

961. Deputy Hughes.—Was the original specification for stone and masonry work? —Our specifications ask for prices for masonry, for bulk concrete, and concrete blocks.

962. What is the type of work covered by the lowest tender that was put in?—I am not able to tell that at the moment, from my notes. I think it may be taken, however, that it was for blocks or bulk concrete.

963. What I am anxious to know is, was the work supposed to be executed in masonry?—No, it was not.

964. Because if it were the discrepancy would, I think, be greater than £285?— The tender, I think, was for concrete.

965. Deputy Allen.—I want to know if the only explanation given for the excess is the one we have been told of—the increased cost of stones and gravel?—Not of stones and gravel. It was the increased cost of labour in building in masonry.

966. Deputy Hughes.—Are you of the opinion that the work you do by direct labour is superior, from the point of view of quality, to contract work?—I would say so. We do very good work by direct labour.

967. Chairman.—Do you ordinarily keep a clerk of works constantly on the site where you are building by direct labour?—The supervising ganger is our clerk of works. He may have a number of houses under his control.

968. Much in the same way as an assistant surveyor building county council houses would have?—Exactly. The inspector for the area is constantly travelling about as well.

969. Deputy Hughes.—I take it that, in most cases, it is the small type of contractor you get to do work for you through the country?—Yes, so far as the country areas are concerned, but we have some bigger people doing work for us near Dublin.

970. Chairman.—The second part of paragraph 44 in the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report reads:—

“In my report last year I referred to the expenditure of £108,520 2s. 1d., incurred to 31st March, 1939, in connection with the scheme whereby certain lands in County Meath available for the relief of congestion are reserved for allottees from the Gaeltacht. I am now informed that this amount included expenditure in respect of both migrants’ and non-migrants’ holdings on the lands in question and that the total expenditure on migrants’ holdings borne on the vote for Lands in connection with the scheme from its inception in 193435 to 31st March, 1939, was £90,006 2s. 10d. As the charge to this subhead during the year 1939-40 in respect of expenditure on necessary roads, drains, and water supply, the erection of dwelling houses and out-offices, and for free grants for stock and implements for migrants was £10,102 18s. 10d., the total expenditure charged to this subhead to 31st March, 1940, in connection with the scheme is £100,109 1s. 8d. In addition to the expenditure borne on the vote for Lands, £2,050 9s. 10d., which was subsequently recouped to the Land Commission by the Office of Public Works, was spent on the erection of a schoolhouse and the remuneration of a domestic economy instructress who paid periodical visits for the purpose of advising the migrants on matters of domestic economy, is charged to subhead D.3 of the vote for Gaeltacht Services (No. 56).

Chairman.—Have you, Mr. Maher, any supplementary observation to make in respect of that note?

Mr. Maher.—No. The correct expenditure as between migrants’ and non-migrants’ holdings is now given.

971. Chairman.—This is, in fact, an explanatory paragraph, appropriating expenditure to the various subheads?—As between migrants and non-migrants.

972. The note (paragraph 44) by the Comptroller and Auditor-General proceeds:—

“I also referred in my last report to the scheme for the provision of holdings in certain counties in Leinster for migrants from districts where there is acute congestion. The expenditure, apart from the cost of general improvements (roads, drains, fences, etc.) borne on the vote for Lands in connection with this scheme from its inception in 1937-38 to 31st March, 1940, was £44,229 5s. 10d. made up as follows:—

Until the scheme is completed it is not possible to apportion the expenditure on General Improvements in respect of migrants’ holdings on the Estates.”

When will the apportionment of the expenditure be made?

Mr. Deegan.—We hope to be able to do it year by year. As we finish with the 1939-40 people, we will be able to apportion it.

973. Chairman.—As each scheme is completed?—Yes, it takes some time to finish.

974. Deputy Breathnach.—Are there any schemes on hand at present?—These group migrants are going on all the time. This year, 28 new migrants were installed and, in the coming season, we expect to have between 30 and 40.

975. Chairman.—It is to be observed that this note refers not to Gaeltacht migrants but to migrants from congested areas.

976. Chairman.—Paragraph 45 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

Special Suspense Account.

“In paragraph 54 of my last report I mentioned that expenditure of £1,283 was sanctioned for the repair of certain embankments and that pending the determination of the question as to how much of this sum should be borne on the Vote for Posts and Telegraphs the entire expenditure has been, by direction of the Department of Finance, charged to a special suspense account. The amount expended during the year under audit was £376, which has, in addition to the expenditure in 1937-38 of £368 and in 1938-39 of £440, been charged to suspense.”

When will that account be apportioned and taken out of suspense?

Mr. Deegan.—We hope to wind it up soon. We are still in correspondence with the Department of Finance and with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on the matter.

977. It is, surely, undesirable that a suspense account should be kept hanging, some part of which was expended in the financial year 1937-8?—We should like to recover the money as quickly as possible. It is a question of whether we can get the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to refund the whole amount or only part of it.

978. Chairman.—Have you, Mr. Hogan, any information to give regarding this interminable suspense account?

Mr. Hogan.—We are anxious to see the suspense account cleared. The difficulty evidently is that the Land Commission have not, so far, been able to persuade the Department of Posts and Telegraphs that the whole cost of the works should be charged to the Post Office Vote. Since we were told that application for payment had been made to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, we have not heard anything further about the matter. We are keeping the situation under review and we shall do everything possible to get the matter adjusted quickly.

979. You agree that, on the whole, it is undesirable to allow these suspense accounts to hang on without apportionment?—We agree with that view. In this case, a suspense account was unavoidable at the outset as the incidence of charge was in doubt.

Deputy McMenamin.—It does not follow that it should remain in suspense.

980. Chairman.—We may take it that steps will be taken to apportion this account as quickly as possible?

Mr. Deegan.—We shall try to get the Post Office to make up their minds as quickly as possible.

981. I suppose the Post Office will make a somewhat similar reply when we mention the Land Commission to them?—We made up our minds long ago.

982. Chairman.—I suggest that the good offices of the Department of Finance might be invoked to cut this Gordian knot?

Mr. Hogan.—I think that the full expenditure in connection with the scheme was not known until comparatively recently. That has contributed materially to the delay.

983. Chairman.—Paragraph 46 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

Rent and Interest Account.

“As I observed that the collectible bog rents on an estate for the seasons 1931, 1932, 1937 and 1938 were in arrears, that the bog had not been measured for the years 1933 to 1936 inclusive, and that no rent schedules were put into collection for these years, I addressed an inquiry to the Accounting Officer on the matter. I was informed that in certain cases proceedings had been instituted for recovery, and that as regards the seasons 1933 to 1936 the work of preparing bog schedules would be undertaken on the completion of the schedules for the year 1940.”

Mr. Maher.—We understand that decrees have been obtained in a number of cases and that others are with the State Solicitor. Further time has been allowed in a number of other cases. There is a gap between 1933 and 1936 which is not dealt with and no rents have been determined in these cases.

984. Chairman.—Does this arise from uncertainty on the bog as to whose turbary is whose?

Mr. Deegan.—This is turbary on tenanted holdings which was reserved to the landlord and we are really only collectors for the landlord until the land is rented. Between 1933 and 1936, through extreme pressure following the 1931 Land Act both on our head office and on our inspectors in County Clare, these cases rather escaped attention.

985. Deputy Hughes.—Is it now possible to determine the area which was used in 1933-36?—The bog ranger is still there.

986. It would be merely an approximate calculation?—That is so.

987. If a man were to dispute the amount it would be hard to prove it? —It would be very difficult to prove it.

Deputy Breathnach.—You cannot now recover the 1933 arrears. They are statute-barred.

988. Chairman.—We may take it that Mr. Deegan will collect as much of the arrears as he can and relieve himself of further liability to collect arrears in respect of this bog?—We are doing our very best.

989. Deputy Cole.—Has the landlord to be paid in any event?—No.

990. It is a matter of courtesy on your part to collect the arrears?—Yes.

991. Chairman.—Have complaints reached you recently in respect of wide areas of turbary where the tenants themselves do not know what pieces of bog have been appropriated to their holdings, with the result that grave misunderstandings are arising as a result of the turfcutting operations at present proceeding? —I cannot say that such complaints have reached me. You will always have disputes of that kind. We have always had them and always will have them.

992. I brought two cases under the notice of the Land Commission which I presume did not reach you personally. The bog is about four miles from Ballaghaderreen. One case was at Cloontia and the other on the Costello estate, near Edmondstown. The people were trying to get information as to how this lockspitted bog was apportioned?—I have seen cases myself where bog plots were allotted to people years ago. The people concerned cut no turf and did not go near the place and the lockspits disappeared. You would need to send an inspector down every five or six years where these questions arise regarding lockspitted bog.

993. Where a group of tenants are proceeding to new turbary, they are sometimes quite unable to know which lockspit is whose?—We do our best to help them out if there is real cause for our intervention but there are cases where people do nothing to help themselves.

994. Would the Land Commission send an inspector to point out whose bog is whose from the map which is in their possession?—Our staff is very shorthanded and demands upon it are very great but if we have an inspector available, we try to meet tenants in difficult cases.

995. You have, of course, a map in the Land Commission showing whose lockspit is whose?—Yes, and the people concerned can get a copy of the map for a fee. Our first reply to these requests usually is to get a copy of the map.

996. Can a person bespeak from the Land Commission a copy of a map which would show the name of each turbary owner on lockspitted bog? Take the Cloontia case. If 12 men come to me and ask me to get the Land Commission to send an inspector to show them their pieces of bog, can I bespeak from the Land Commission a map showing each man’s name inscribed on the lockspit apportioned to him?—Our answer to that would be that any individual can have a copy of the map showing his own holding but we are very careful about giving copies of maps showing other people’s holdings.

997. Chairman.—Naturally. In the case of virgin bog, if there are 12 lockspits and mine happens to be the eighth from the left, it is extremely difficult to ascertain with certainty which lockspit is mine unless I can find those of my two neighbours?

Deputy Keyes.—All this is very interesting but I submit that it does not arise.

Chairman.—I think it does arise. It arises on the question of the collection of rents.

Deputy Keyes.—I submit that it is not relevant to our investigation.

998. Chairman.—If you submit that I am out of order, I shall rule that I am not. I take it that the course for the individual turbary owner to adopt is to apply for a map of his own portion, which he can get on payment of a fee?

Mr. Deegan.—Yes.

999. Chairman.—Paragraph 47 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

Unoccupied Holdings Account.

“Where the Land Commission are unable to obtain payment of the Revised Instalments due out of a holding, possession may be taken by the Land Commission and the payment of rates and other necessary expenditure (e.g. caretakers’ wages) is made from a suspense account, pending a settlement either with the defaulting tenant purchaser or with a new tenant. If the settlement can be effected only on terms which do not permit of the repayment in full of the expenses paid by the Land Commission the unrecouped balance due to the suspense account becomes a charge on the Vote.

In certain cases a considerable period of time has elapsed since the date of taking possession of the holdings and consequently the amount charged to suspense in respect of such holdings is appreciable. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on this matter.”

Have you any observations to make on that note, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—We noticed that these cases were continuing for a long time. One dates back to 1928, one to 1933 and another to 1931. Proceedings are being taken in some cases. In other cases, negotiations are proceeding with members of the late tenant’s family. In one case 13 instalments were due, on the 31st March, 1940, representing £246 on the unoccupied holding. There is a long time between the actual initiation of the proceedings and the final settlement.

1000. Chairman.—Have you any comment to make on that, Mr. Deegan? These cases arise, I presume, in respect of holdings which you resumed for nonpayment of rent and which you are trying to dispose of to other tenants?

Mr. Deegan.—Yes. As everybody knows, it may be extremely difficult to dispose of this class of holding. If you have the late tenant-defaulter or his forty-first cousin in the district, unless you can secure his goodwill, nobody will touch the holding. We have to take possession in a number of these cases if only to have an example in the district.

1001. Do you take the earliest opportunity of disposing of these holdings to other members of the family circle or to somebody who possesses the former owner’s goodwill?—That depends. Sometimes, there is a son coming along who, we think, will prove to be a better man than his father. In due course, we accept him as a tenant if he can clear off the arrears or if he agrees to add them, or portion of them, to the purchase money.

1002. Do you place any limit on the period which you are prepared to wait? —We cannot fix a limit. Having put the place up for auction and having failed to sell, we decide whether we shall take possession or not. We take possession only in a limited number of cases. It is troublesome to do so and we have to decide what is best to do in the circumstances. In some cases, we are able to get rid of the holding quickly. In others, the holding remains on hands for years. In some cases, when we think we have agreement, one member of the family becomes troublesome and nobody will touch the holding. Everybody who knows the country knows the difficulties in these cases.

1003. Deputy Hughes.—That is the only type of case where you fund arrears?

Deputy McMenamin.—They do not fund arrears.

Mr. Deegan.—Where we have possession of a holding for arrears we are in a position to sell that holding. We naturally try to sell it so as to recover the full amount but if, having tried, we fail to recover the full amount, we recover as much as we possibly can, if you call that funding of arrears. It is not in fact a funding of arrears; it is recovering as much of the arrears as we possibly can.

1004. Chairman.—The holding is sold to the purchaser free of all arrears?— Naturally, it must be.

1005. Deputy Hughes.—There is no such thing as adding any arrears to the rent?—Here is what happens. Suppose a holding owes us £100 and we are able to get only £50 cash for it, but the buyer is prepared to have the other £50 added to the repayable purchase money. The arrears are wiped out, we get £50 in cash and the other £50 is added to the purchase money and repaid in the annuity.

1006. Deputy Hughes.—Is that the only type of case in which you do that? Supposing a tenant is in arrears to the extent of £5 and he is not able to meet it. There is no question of wiping that out?—Oh, no question.

1007. Deputy Allen.—Is there a reluctance on the part of the Land Commission to take over these holdings?—It is the last thing we wish to do.

1008. Is it not a fact that there is a big number of holdings in arrear with their annuities?—No, the collection position is not unsatisfacory; it is quite good. The total of uncollectable arrears since 1933 is less than 5 per cent.

1009. But there is a big number of holdings throughout the country not paying any annuities?—If you take the number in proportion to the whole, it is not big.

1010. You never take possession of these holdings for the purpose of dividing them in the same manner as you divide untenanted land?—We do. We divide holdings which we take possession of, if we cannot sell them as a whole.

1011. You never divide them amongst uneconomic holders?—We do. We are very glad to do that.

1012. Deputy Benson.—On page 173 there is a note to Subhead A stating that the saving in expenditure is due to changes in staff caused by retirements, death, etc., and to the non-filling of vacancies, especially in the inspectorate staff. When some member raised a question earlier, the answer was that there was not a sufficient number of inspectors. Could you, Mr. Deegan, say why the inspectorate staff has not been brought up to full strength, why there should be vacancies in the staff if, in fact, you find yourself unable to cope with the work?— It is done in the interests of economy. In the general emergency, ours is one of the Departments where some money must be saved and we are not filling vacancies.

1013. Chairman.—Are some of your inspectors seconded to other staffs?—We have up to 50 inspectors on loan to other Departments.

1014. And when they come back you will have an ample staff for your own work?— Well, we shall be better staffed than we are at present

Chairman.—Does that meet the point raised by Deputy Benson?

Deputy Benson.—There is the bigger question as to whether the saving under this head is actually an economy. I am not in a position to argue that.

1015. Deputy Breathnach.—Has the Land Commission really suspended the division of land?—Oh, no, we are still dividing land but we are not working to the same extent as previously.

1016. And why?—Again in the interests of economy.

1017. Deputy Hughes.—Have you suspended acquisition?—No, we are still acquiring and dividing land to a limited extent.

1018. What amount of land have you on hands, undivided?—Usually the Land Commission would have about 70,000 or 80,000 acres of land on hand but most of that would be bog, moor and mountain. Any day of the year we would have about 25,000 or 30,000 acres of arable land on hand.

1019. Are you doing your full quota of tillage on that?—We are, and more.

1020. What is the average price you are getting for conacre?—I could not answer that.

1021. Have you any idea of the average price?—No.

1022. It is low, I think?—In some cases it is, and in some cases it is not. We have found that in some districts the idea prevails that because the Land Commission are letting the land it should be let at little or nothing.

1023. Deputy Breathnach.—What is the explanation of the difference in the expenditure on Subhead E and F?—Subhead E covers salaries, wages and allow ances for the solicitor’s branch and Subhead F covers incidental expenses for the same branch.

1024. Deputy Breathnach.—Why have different accounts for this branch?

1025. Chairman.—Subhead F would cover such things as stamps?—Yes, and the cost and expenses of the solicitor’s Department in proceeding on our behalf before the Appeal Tribunal, say, to resume land and in dealing with all sorts of cases that crop up.

Deputy Breathnach.—It seems strange to me that the amount granted for incidental expenses should be larger than that for salaries, wages and allowances, £8,000 as against £7,955.

Chairman.—The Deputy will observe that in the first case—salaries, wages and allowances—£6,988 was expended and, in the second case, only £3,832 was expended out of the Estimate of £8,000.

1026. Deputy Breathnach.—Then the Estimate is somewhat wide of the mark? —Have you ever had much to do with solicitor’s expenses?

Deputy Breathnach.—No, thank goodness.

1027. Chairman.—If the Deputy will look at the note to Subhead F he will see that it is explained that—

“the suspension of Resumption Applications and Price Appeals, caused by illegal decision on a point of procedure, lasted much longer than was anticipated and was only relieved late in the year by the passing of the Land Act of 1939.”

Mr. Deegan.—It was only towards the end of 1939, that we got renewed power to resume land.

VOTE 55—FORESTRY.

Mr. M. Deegan further examined.

1028. Chairman.—In regard to Subhead C 1—Acquisition of Land—is the unexpended balance surrenderable at the end of the financial year?—No, it is a grant-in-aid. We carry it over from year to year.

1029. Was it in fact expended that year?—No, not in that year. There is always a carry-over. You will find on page 182 a statement of the position. You will see that we carried over £11,831.

1030. But, in fact, in the year in question you did spend £10,000 more than was borrowed from the balance you had in hands coming into the financial year?— We got a Supplementary Vote.

1031. You were given £45,000 and you spent £55,000, so that in fact your cash balance was reduced?—Yes.

1032. Deputy Breathnach.—In almost every case there was less spent than was granted. On subhead C 2 for instance there was £12,000 less spent than was granted?

1033. Chairman.—How did that come about?—There is a long note on that.

Deputy Breathnach.—I know that. I have read the note on savings, but as a matter of fact they are not savings at all.

Chairman.—I think it would be correct to say that much of the savings arise from the fact that you are unable to spend money owing to the failure of supplies to turn up.

Deputy Breathnach.—It does not say that in the note.

1034. Chairman.—The note says:—

“The main savings were due to unexpected delay in (a) Cultural Operations caused by weather conditions and the late arrival of plants thereby extending unduly the planting season into the following year; (b) the appointment of Foremen, and (c) the provision of new houses for Foresters. The cost of labour on maintenance was, however, greater than estimated owing partly to weather conditions and partly to the increase in construction of firebelts in view of the exceptional number of fires in previous years.”

Mr. Deegan.—I am afraid, I cannot add anything to that. That is a statement of the facts of the case.

1035. Deputy Breathnach.—Why did you provide less houses for foresters?

1036. Chairman.—Are we to take it that the slackness in the appointment of foremen has been taken up and that the new houses for foresters have been all provided?

Mr. Deegan.—We have had to postpone the provision of new houses for foresters. We have ourselves built one house for a forester but usually we house our men in buildings already existing on estates taken over. We are anxious, and have been anxious, where the houses on the estates we purchase are not up to standard, to provide our men with good houses and with the sanction of the Department of Finance we provided some £1,500 in our Vote for the erection of three houses, but recently the cost of building has risen so much that we have had to postpone doing anything for the present.

1037. Chairman.—Have the foremen all been appointed now?—They have.

VOTE 56—GAELTACHT SERVICES.

Mr. M. Deegan further examined.

Chairman.—There are notes by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

Excess of Expenditure over Grant.

“48. The account shows an excess of expenditure over the gross estimate of £1,789 8s. 1d. and a surplus of Appropriations in Aid of £3,508 6s 8d. The excess expenditure is explained by the Accounting Officer as mainly due to the fact that in connection with the Toy Industry an account matured for payment which had not been expected to come in course of payment until after 31st March, 1940.”

We have already dealt with that matter. The next paragraph reads:—

Subhead C—Incidental Expenses.

“49. As stated in the account the charge to this subhead includes £25 in respect of that part of the cost of a plan for a new boat for a transport service which would have been payable by the operator of the service, if the project had been proceeded with. As a sum of £25, being half the cost of the plan in question, was charged with the approval of the Department of Finance to this Vote in 1938-39, the total cost to the State in respect of the preparation of the plan was £50.”

1038. Have you any observation to make on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The purpose of the paragraph is to link up this payment, which is also nugatory, with the payment in the previous year.

1039. Why do you say the payment was nugatory?

Mr. Maher.—The building of the boat was not proceeded with.

1040. Can you tell us why plans were made to build a boat which was subsequently not built, Mr. Deegan?—When the cost of the boat was gone into—this was a boat which would have been supplied to a boatman and of which he would repay the cost—it was found that the total would run into £1,200 or more, and, on further consideration, it was thought that the boatman could not repay that amount. He had already agreed to pay half the cost of the drafting of the plan, but in the new circumstances we thought it would be unfair to ask him to pay that sum for a boat he was not getting.

1041. Where was the boat supposed to function?—Between Baltimore and Cape Clear. Eventually the old boat was repaired instead.

1042. Did the State pay for these repairs?—The exact position is that the Department has secured possession of the old boat, has had it repaired, and purposes to let it under a charter party arrangement to a boatman who will maintain the service.

1043. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads:—

Subhead H 3—Grants under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 and 1934.

“50. The aggregate amount of the grants and loans which may be made under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act, 1929, was increased from £650,000, the limit imposed by Section 2 of the Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Act, 1934, to £750,000 by section 1 of the Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Act, 1939.

At the 31st March, 1940, the position regarding such grants and loans was as follows:—

That is purely informative?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

1044. I take it, Mr. Deegan, that the Gaeltacht Housing Branch has sufficient funds at its disposal to finance any reasonable proposals brought before it?—It has. The total already sanctioned is £668,605, and the total approved by statute £750,000, so that we are still well within the statutory limits.

1045. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads:—

Industrial Loans.

“51. I have been furnished with a schedule concerning the Industrial Loans, from which it appears that advances made during the year ended 31st March, 1940, amounted to £12, being the value of machines issued to workers on loan repayment terms. Exclusive of the amounts due in respect of looms, machines, etc., issued to workers on hire purchase agreements, the arrears, including interest accrued, due at 31st March, 1940, amounted to £9,809 2s. 2d. as compared with £9,709 18s. 0d. on 31st March, 1939.”

Have you any observations to make on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—No. It is an annual paragraph setting out the position of the industrial loans.

Mr. Deegan.—I think that, as it stands, it might give Deputies a wrong impression as to the position of industrial loans. All but £65 of that sum arises out of the old marble quarry loan in Galway, about which the Committee knows.

1046. Is it proposed ever to wind that business up?—I think the Department is waiting for a State Lands Act to get rid of that asset—or liability. The position of the industrial loans is quite satisfactory.

1047. Deputy Breathnach.—I think the arrears due to one particular item should be specified, because it gives a bad impression as it is.

Chairman.—Mr. Deegan obviously remembers that this matter arises every year, and that he always reminds the Committee that a substantial part of this sum relates to the marble quarry in Galway.

1048. Deputy Breathnach.—Why not include that here?

1049. Chairman.—We may suggest that to the Comptroller and Auditor-General when we are preparing our report. It will be something fresh on which to rebuke the Comptroller and Auditor-General and I venture to say that that will be a very popular report throughout the whole Government service.

Mr. Maher.—We referred to it in previous years.

1050. With regard to subhead E.3— Kelp, etc.—do you happen to know if any steps are being taken to consider the use of weed as a manure this year? Has the Gaeltacht Department been asked to review the seaweed position from the point of view of its manurial value?— That is, the ordinary weed?

1051. The raw material of kelp?—We do not touch that, and no representations have been made to us to go into that business.

1052. You only touch the weed after it has been transformed into kelp?—This year we have been doing a little in regard to dried seaweed.

1053. That is really what is in my mind—whether you have been asked to extend your operations in regard to dried seaweed with a view to employing it as a potash manure?—We are selling dried weed. We have two customers for it, and we are making what might be called a small experiment in collecting and selling it, but they are not using it for manurial purposes but for chemical purposes.

1054. Is it baled, or how do you consign it from the place of purchase to the place of sale?—Dried and baled.

1055. Deputy Breathnach.—With regard to subhead D.8—Toy Industry— the sum of £2,000 odd more than was granted was spent on compensation for furniture, and so on. Was the factory not insured?—That has already been dealt with by the Committee, and is the subject of an Excess Vote which will be introduced shortly.

Chairman.—Another opportunity will arise for discussing it in detail when the Excess Vote comes before Dáil Eireann.

Deputy Breathnach.—Maith go leór.

1056. Chairman.—On Subhead F 3— General Expenses of the Central Marketing Depôt—I take it that the marketing of these goods now represents a profitable enterprise?—I should like to be able to say so, but I do not think it can be regarded as a profitable enterprise so far.

1057. Because the quality of the textiles produced under the Gaeltacht mark has improved out of all knowledge?—Yes, the quality is very good.

The Committee adjourned to Wednesday, 2nd July.

* Appendix XX.

* Appendix XX.