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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 29adh Bealtaine, 1941.

Thursday, 29th May, 1941.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the chair.

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

VOTE 71—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SUPPLIES.

Mr. J. LEYDON, called and examined.

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

“93. The Department of Supplies was established as on and from 8th September, 1939, by the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1939, and a supplementary estimate to provide for salaries and expenses in connection with this new service was taken in March, 1940.

“As noted in the estimate, apart from a number of Writing Assistants specifically provided for in this Vote, all the posts in the Department were filled by officers on loan from other Departments, and in all cases the salary of a loaned officer in his substantive grade and bonus on his total remuneration were provided for in the Vote for his parent Department. Where, however, a loaned officer has been promoted on an acting basis, or is paid an allowance in the Department of Supplies, the basic porton of the increase in salary attributable to the promotion, or of the allowance, is provided in this Vote.

“A note to the account indicates that the sum included in the accounts of other Departments in respect of salaries, etc., of officers on loan to the Department of Supplies is £26,010 18s. 1d.”

I take it that is an informative paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. As this is a new service, and as the charge for staffs falls mainly on other Departments, a special note is made of it.

539. Deputy Hughes.—Is the method outlined here likely to be continued?

Mr. Leydon.—I could not say how long it will continue. It is still in existence, though I should point out that a larger proportion of our total staff is now being carried on our own Vote than was the case in the particular year under review.

540. —Deputy Hughes.—But, as a permanent arrangement, you could scarcely regard it as a satisfactory one?—I agree. We do not contemplate it as a permanent arrangement. We hope that the Department of Supplies is not a permanent department. It is an emergency department, and we hope that its life will be limited. The shorter that life is the better everyone will be pleased.

541. Chairman.—Would you wish us to understand, Mr. Leydon, that, as at present advised, it is intended to continue the present arrangement for the duration of the emergency, however long the emergency may last?—Yes, I think so.

542. Deputy Hughes.—On subhead A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—is the Department of Supplies fixed up permanently at Ballsbridge?—There is nothing permanent about the Department of Supplies. We have some of our staff there at present. How long that arrangement will continue it is impossible to say. We were at Ballsbridge for a time, and then moved. We found that our new premises were not able to accommodate the whole Department when it expanded, and we had to send some back to Ballsbridge.

543. How do you hold your offices at Ballsbridge?—The Board of Works provide premises for us as they do for all Government departments. I am not able to give the terms on which they hold them.

544. Deputy McMenamin.—Who was responsible for all this changing about? The Department was first at Ballsbridge, then it was at Earlsfort Terrace, at Parnell Square, subsequently it came back to Earlsfort Terrace, and now has disappeared again to Ballsbridge. To any one with any sort of business instinct, that seems a queer performance.

545. Chairman.—I would remind the Deputy that we are concerned with the Vote for 1939-40. and I do not recollect any of these peregrinations during the period he has referred to. The Accounting Officer may have to answer for these peregrinations later, but not on this occasion. Perhaps the Accounting Officer would make a note of this matter, as it may arise when the Vote for 1940-41 falls to be considered by the Committee?—I do not think there is any charge in the accounts for these premises at all. The Board of Works provide the premises when we tell them what our needs are.

546. I may tell the Accounting Officer that if such a matter were raised on the subhead for incidental expenses—telegrams and telephones—I would permit the question in the relevant year?—And I need hardly say that I should do my best to answer it.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 57—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

Mr. R. C. Ferguson called and examined.

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

Subhead I.—New York World Fair, 1939.

“52. The original provision of £25,000 for expenditure in connection with the Fair was increased to £42,000 by supplementary estimate. The actual expenditure, as shown in the account, amounted to £38,558 11s. 10d., and included payments for the construction, decoration and equipment of the two Irish Pavilions (the Trade Promotion Pavilion and the Historical and Cultural Pavilion), the provision of exhibits, travelling, etc., expenses of the staff sent from Ireland, publicity, and general utility services. Payments in the year were in general made by the Consul-General in New York from imprests issued to him by the Department.

“The work of bringing light, power and telephone connections to the Trade Promotion Pavilion was carried out on a time and material basis by the Fair Corporation, and was estimated to cost $1585. The actual cost, however, amounted to $3562.41. The Department of Finance has given covering sanction for this expenditure.”

Have you any information to give us, Mr. Ferguson, as to the wide discrepancy between the estimated cost and the actual cost of that service?—What happened in this case was that some of the electrical work was done in London prior to shipment. When it arrived in New York it was found that it did not conform to U.S.A. standards, with the result that part of it had to be re-done. That, if I may say so, only explains part of the trouble, because the company concerned should have borne responsibility for the difference in cost. A sub-contractor was brought in to fix up the work. Before starting on it he insisted on getting an assurance from our Consul-General in New York (the Commissioner-General for Ireland at the World’s Fair) that he would be duly paid for his work. That had to be given, and left us in the position that we either had to get a refund or charge it against what we had to pay to the contractor. The real cause of the trouble was that the company which was originally responsible for the display work got into financial difficulties. I am sorry that I cannot tell the Committee what the prospects are of pursuing the company and getting any part of this money back, because I think the company had to go into liquidation. That is the history of this so far as I know it. Perhaps I should supplement what I have said by telling the Committee that a large part of this increased cost was due to the fact that the electrical part of the work that was done in London did not conform to U.S.A. standards. The cost went up on the other side. The time in which to get the work done was limited, and it had to be rushed. In addition, there was a strike of electricians in New York which led to further delay. All that explains the extra cost. I may say, too, that the work had to be done in a great hurry, and because of that it was impossible to get competitive tenders.

548. Deputy Hughes.—Were tenders invited for the work that had to be done in New York?—No.

549. Chairman.—Would it be correct to say that if it were not for the difficulties you have referred to, and if you had been able to get contractors in New York to do this work at the ordinary rates, a reasonable estimate would be about $1585 dollars?—Yes.

550. But you were not able to do that in view of the fact, as you have stated, that there was a strike of electricians, and that the Fair Corporation were pressing you to complete the work in order to have the Pavilion ready?—That is so.

551. So that you were more or less held up as a result of circumstances over which you really had no control?—That is so. The Fair Corporation were insisting on the Pavilion being ready by a certan date.

552. The Fair Corporation probably was not the most economical way of getting the work done?—No. We were being pressed to get the Pavilion ready, and, in consequence of that, there was no opportunity of inviting competitive tenders to get the work done in the ordinary way.

553. Chairman.—I suppose the truth is that you were, more or less, held up by this Corporation, and I am afraid a great many others were too?—I think that that is quite correct. There was a rush in every pavilion.

554. The note by the Comptroller and Auritor-General [No. 52] continues:—

“Sums amounting to £1,446 12s. 3d. were paid by the Consul-General on behalf of a London company of display experts engaged by the Department in connection with the interior fitting-up of the Irish pavilions. These sums represented payments for (1) work done on the company’s behalf by certain New York firms, and (2) Customs clearance charges due by the company. In addition to the £1,446 12s. 3d., paid by the Consul-General, a sum of £2 3s. 3d., paid by the Department, is also due for recovery, and these amounts remain charged to a suspense account.”

These sums referred to as (1) and (2) are the sums you are trying to collect from the company threatened with insolvency? —Yes. Part of my earlier explanation covers that point.

555. The comment by the Comptroller and Auditor-General continues:—

“As noted in the account, the Department of Finance sanctioned a charge of £19 16s. 6d, in respect of the replacement of show-cards pilfered from the Trade Promotion Pavilion, and payments amounting to £16 1s. have, with Department of Finance approval, also been charged to the subhead in respect of minor items of expenditure which are unvouched.”

The item of £19 16s. 6d. represented items taken as souvenirs?—Yes.

556. What is the meaning of the item of £16 1s. which was unvouched?—These were minor items of various kinds, and covered employment of labourers for odd jobs, twine, first-aid outfits, and so forth. It was impossible to get vouchers for them in New York at the time. They are certified by the official responsible.

557. Chairman.—In all the circumstances, are you, Mr. Maher, satisfied with the sanction of the Department of Finance in this case?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. We are satisfied. It is usual to call special attention to unvouched expenditure.

Chairman.—That is the reason this paragraph appears here?—Yes.

The final part of the note of the Comptroller and Auditor-General continues:—

“Receipts credited to appropriations in aid during the year amounted to £1,515 18s. 0d., and comprised £700 received from various firms in respect of allocation of space for exhibits in the Trade Promotion Pavilion, £804 18s. 10d. received from the sale of publications, and £10 19s. 2d. received from the contractors for the Irish Pavilions in respect of the return of materials charged for in the previous year.

“The total expenditure charged to Vote to 31st March, 1940, in connection with this fair, amounted to £64,435 2s. 1d., while receipts credited to that date were £3,680 18s. 0d. The Fair was held from May to October, 1939, and was continued in 1940.”

558. Deputy McMenamin.—The war is interfering with the effect of our advertising at these Pavilions on the sale of our products?

Mr. Ferguson.—Definitely.

559. Deputy McMenamin.—I suppose that applies to all our products?—Yes, particularly in America.

560. Chairman.—The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General proceeds:—

Subhead 1. 1. Glasgow Exhibition, 1938.

“53. The charge to this subhead £1,123 6s. 11d., represents the balance of the cost of participation in the Exhibition, which terminated in October, 1938. The total cost amounted to £17,206 4s. 8d., while receipts credited to 31st March, 1940, were £4,841 11s. 4d. As noted in the account, a payment of £120 was made to architects for the preparation of the original plans for the Irish Pavilion. These plans were approved by the Department of Industry and Commerce, but were subsequently rejected by the High Commissioner in London. A new set of plans, based on suggestions made by the High Commissioner, was eventually approved.”

Was it not possible to avoid that misunderstanding? Could there not have been some preliminary discussion with the High Commissioner before this sum of £120 was disbursed for plans?—The Department trusted the firm of architects responsible for the designs. I understand that they took some trouble to acquaint themselves with the general lay-out of the building so that their plans might fit into the environment. This is a case of difference of opinion. It happened that the High Commissioner took a very active personal interest in this matter, and developed a strong feeling that the plans would not do. That situation finally ended in our accepting the advice of the High Commissioner. It was really a question of taste.

561. Deputy O’Rourke.—And you must pay for questions of taste?—Yes.

562. Chairman.—Mr. Dulanty is a man of wide mercantile experience in Great Britain, and his opinion was probably sound?—That is so. He took a deep personal interest in this matter. He went there very often, and was in very close touch with the whole affair.

563. The note [53] of the Comptroller and Auditor-General proceeds:—

“Sums amounting to £42 5s. 0d. were paid, with Department of Finance sanction, for repairs to certain articles which were damaged while on loan to the State. Receipts credited in the period under review from the sale of property at the close of the Exhibition amounted to £277 15s. 0d., and are accounted for as exchequer extra receipts. Included therein is a sum of £190, received in respect of the sale, with Department of Finance sanction, of the Irish Pavilion, the erection of which cost £3,984 14s. 4d. The sale was conditional on the purchaser clearing the site in accordance with the regulations of the Exhibition authorities.”

I suppose that wide discrepancy is accounted for by the cost in which we would have been involved had we ourselves undertaken to clear the site?—I think so. There were tenders for this job, which would indicate that this was the cheapest way of doing it.

564. Note 53 by the Comptroller and Auditor-General concludes:—

“Sundry articles purchased by the State which were found to be unsuitable for inclusion as exhibits in the Irish Pavilions at the New York World Fair have, with Department of Finance approval, been placed on permanent loan with the Department of Agriculture, the Office of the High Commissioner in London, or the Department of Local Government and Public Health. Certain other articles are still awaiting disposal.”

Have these other articles been disposed of since?—I do not think so.

565. Deputy Hughes.—How did it happen that unsuitable articles were purchased?—They were unsuitable for exhibition purposes at the New York World Fair.

566. Chairman.—I imagine these articles are not of any great value and that it would be better to get them finally disposed of one way or another?— I have a list here of the articles which we gave on loan and it would give you an idea of the type of article with which we are dealing.

567. Is that the list of articles referred to in the paragraph?—No. These have been disposed of. There is an electrical map, a panel of photographs illustrating the poultry industry, a panel of photographs dealing with Irish racehorses, dairying, a model of the Shannon Airport, photographs dealing with housing, brewing and distilling, physical culture and so on.

568. The Committee would have a certain anxiety lest there remain a venerable deposit of articles with which, in 1975, nobody would know what to do?—The list is a very short one and I can get it for the Committee.

Chairman.—The Committee would be fully satisfied if they were told that the articles had been disposed of.

569. Deputy Benson.—If these things were unsuitable for exhibition at the New York World Fair, are they suitable for the purpose for which they are now being used?—These things, which were in the Pavilion at Glasgow, were not suitable for use in the New York World Fair but they might be suitable in the High Commissioner’s Office or elsewhere. The two Exhibitions were differently planned and what might be suitable for one might not be suitable for the other.

570. Do I understand that they were actually used at Glasgow but were not taken to New York?—Yes.

571. Chairman.—The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General continues:—

Subhead K—Minerals Exploration.

“54. The investigation of the gypsum deposits in the Carrickmacross-Kingscourt area concluded during the year and the total expenditure incurred thereon amounted to £9,269 7s. 2d. of which £4,044 4s. 3d. is charged in the present account. With Department of Finance sanction two huts erected in the area for storage purposes at a cost of £39 13s. 6d. were sold for £20 and this sum was brought to credit as an exchequer extra receipt.

“Payments amounting to £334 10s. 7d. were made towards the cost of borings for coal near Ballylynan, Laoighis.”

What were the results of the investigation of the gypsum deposits in the Carrickmacross-Kingscourt area?—The result of the investigation indicated a wide area of valuable deposits of gypsum. The exploration bore out the information received from the Geological Survey Office. We had enough information to regard this as one of our most valuable deposits and one which had attracted outside interest. The money spent in carrying out this investigation and exploration resulted in a very favourable report. A company was working there before the investigation was made. That company did very much better since, because the market for gypsum has expanded. The Cement Company now takes 12,000 tons of gypsum from that deposit instead of importing it, as I believe they did previously, from France. I am not suggesting that the exploration was necessary to enable this company to carry on its work. The further development of these deposits was contemplated but the war has held that up. That exploration of the other portions of the deposit would not have interfered with the private company. It has ample deposits and room and is doing quite well.

572. It is contemplated, when war circumstances permit, further to develop these deposits?—Yes.

573. Deputy Benson.—The only point that strikes me is this: Who will be the beneficiaries of this exploration? Is it the State or the company operating?

Mr. Ferguson.—That is a point of principle that is exercising the Department a good deal—i.e., expansion following on the expenditure of public funds. Obviously, it is desirable that the benefit from the spending of public money should not accrue to any private company or person. We watch that principle as far as we can. We have not had an actual case, but in such a case the State probably would try to get such a company to take over responsibility for the repayment of the money at the expiration of a reasonable time. I think that should be done, and I think that is what the Deputy is hinting. It would depend a good deal on the result of the exploration, and whether it is an asset to the company.

574. Chairman.—The present position being that information is being accumulated in the Department?—It is our practice to disclose information, if the general interest is served. We use our discretion there.

575. Deputy Benson.—Has the present company received any benefit as a result of this exploration?—I should say not. They did not need it.

576. Chairman.—Have any results come from the borings at Ballylynan, Laoighis? —If I am to answer that precisely, I should send in a note.* It was a rather minor operation.

577. Deputy Hughes.—Could you say how many bore holes were made in this coal seam?—I cannot say.

578. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 concludes:—

“Provision was made in a supplementary estimate for expenses in connection with a proposed investigation of the mineral deposits in the neighbourhood of Glandore, Co. Cork, and a sum of £147 2s. 2d. was, with Department of Finance authority, paid to a company for making a preliminary survey of this area.”

Can you tell us anything about this?— The investigations proved that these deposits were of no commercial value. The investigation had what might be termed a negative value. Very many parties had approached the Department regarding the value of these deposits, but, owing to the pessimistic nature of the report, they did not go ahead.

579. What was it thought would be found?—Manganese.

580. Chairman.—The Report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General continues:—

Turf Development Board, Limited,

“55. Issues to the Turf Development Board, Limited, from the Grants-in-Aid provided under Subheads M 1 and M 2 amounting to £11,800 and £22 16s. 7d. respectively, were made during the year with the consent of the Minister for Finance.

“No repayable advances were made to the Board from Subhead M 3 during the period. The amount, including interest, outstanding at 31st March, 1940, in respect of such advances and of the £16,000 due by the Board for sacks purchased from Vote and placed at the Board’s disposal in 1934-35 was £19,564 10s. 1d. In addition, an amount of £528 19s. 6d. excluding interest, is outstanding on account of certain office furniture and equipment transferred to to the Board in 1934-35. The question of interest and the method of repayment of the latter liability has, it is understood, not yet been decided.”

Have you anything further to add to that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—That is the position at the date of the auditor’s report, but whether anything has happened since we are not aware.

581. Chairman.—Can you tell us, Mr. Ferguson, if the sack liability has yet been determined?

Mr. Ferguson.—The Department of Finance gave us sanction to write that off, on condition that we put forward a supplementary estimate and that that received the assent of the Dáil. I do not think any more facts have transpired since the last occasion on which this matter was discussed here.

582. And that will be done?—Yes.

583. In regard to office furniture, has any decision been arrived at?—The Turf Board has paid for that.

584. Then I take it, that it is closed?— It is.

585. Chairman.—The note continues:—

“Issues from the Grants-in-Aid for the development of Clonsast Bog (Subhead M 4) and the development of Lyracrompane Bog (Subhead M 5) amounted to £50,000 and £3,000, respectively. Advances made are repayable by the Board on conditions which have been referred to in previous reports. The amounts outstanding, including interest, at 31st March, 1940, were £170,689 12s. 10d. in the case of Clonsast Bog and £25,538 8s. 5d. in the case of Lyracrompane Bog.

Have you any additional observations, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—That is a statement for the information of the Committee. The conditions are the same as referred to in the report of 1936-37, that is, repayment with interest at 4¾ per cent. over a period of 25 years, repayment to commence when the bogs come into production.

586. Chairman.—Have these bogs come come into production?

Mr. Ferguson.—In the case of Clonsast, yes. In 1940 the production was 50,000 tons, while in the previous year it was 17,000 tons. The position is that six machines are required to obtain the maximum production—120,000 tons—which should be the production necessary to make the bog economic. Unfortunately, the coming of the emergency has made it difficult to get three additional machines. We only had three, and this has slowed things down. The Turf Board has made an effort, with the help of the railway engineering shops, to assemble the additional machines from parts, but I do not think there is much chance of their being available for this season’s working. That is the present difficulty with regard to Clonsast Bog.

587. I understand, Mr. Ferguson, and you may correct me if I am wrong, that a total of £262,991 15s. 3d. has been issued to the Turf Development Board under various subheads of the Department of Industry and Commerce between April, 1935, and 31st March, 1940. Would that correspond with your record?—I assume that figure is correct, as a total of all the grants for each of these bog workings. I have not totted it.

588. Some of them were repayable. £87,900 was non-repayable—And general development costs were non-repayable. The sums subscribed for each separate bog are repayable.

589. Have any repayments been made to date, or has none of the bogs reached the stage when repayments are incumbent upon them?—No repayments have been made.

590. Would I be correct in saying that there is a sum of about £200,000 now outstanding awaiting repayment with interest by the Turf Development Board?—I have not the actual tot here, but I should say that is probably correct.

591. Am I right in saying—for the purpose of getting a picture of the amount of money that has been spent on this project—that £90,000 was advanced by the Industrial Credit Company to the Turf Development Board, and that this also must be included?—No, that was advanced to the Peat Fuel Company.

592. That has been written off by the Minister for Finance in taking over responsibility for the loan? How did that £90,000 arise? It was due by the Peat Fuel Company, and when that was transferred to the Turf Development Board the £90,000 was disposed of in some way?— This is the simplest way to put it. The Peat Fuel Company, when formed, had an issued share capital of £57,000. It made application under the Trade Loans Guarantee Act, and obtained a loan of £90,000 for its purposes. It went ahead with its projects, but its experiments did not come to a successful conclusion. At one point it was decided that, if further experiments were to be carried on, there should be a change. Certain progress had been made, but not to the extent of ensuring that the process was economical in this climate and under our bog conditions. It did work in Denmark and Russia, I believe. It was experimented with also at Dumfries, in Scotland, but the difference in climate and bog conditions were such—though they may appear to be the same—that a process which might work well in Denmark would not work here at all. It was discovered by the Peat Fuel Company that the Danish method would not work, and the company had to try an adaptation of it. It was decided that the Peat Fuel Company should cease to have responsibility, and that the plant should be taken over by the Turf Development Board. That was done, and the Board is working this year on that experiment. This year is another experimental year on the part of the Turf Development Board. They have taken over the plant, and have got it into what they believe to be a better condition; they have made good arrangements for the working of the bog, and have been working since the 1st April. Therefore, at the conclusion of this season, there might be more knowledge as to whether this is an economic method or not.

593. Deputy Hughes.—Does that mean the scrapping of any of the machinery?— No. They simply carried on with the plant there, under new control.

594. Chairman.—When the Peat Fuel Company was taken over by the Turf Development Board, I assume that it took over its assets and liabilities?—No. The Turf Development Board took over the assets but not the liabilities.

595. At that stage, did not the Minister for Finance extinguish this liability for £90,000 or did the Turf Development Board accept responsibility for it?—The Minister for Finance had to implement his guarantee to the Industrial Credit Company. That will come before the Committee at a later point.

596. Did he reserve no right against the Turf Development Board?—Yes, the right is there. That has not been extinguished. In regard to the question of the whole of that expenditure, £57,000 of private money plus £90,000 of public money, making a total of £147,000, it has not been settled definitely that the Turf Development Board will not be responsible for either the whole or part of that. I am not saying what will happen in fact because a lot of that was obviously experimental work and what would be a fair proportion of that to charge to the Turf Development Board has yet to be determined. The decision has had to be adjourned, obviously, since even this year the working of the Turf Development Board is of an experimental character. In other words, if the results were very bad this year it might even be possible to let the decision go to a second experimental year but once it was clear that the working was economical then the question of the capitalisation of the Turf Development Board in respect of these moneys would have to be considered and settled.

597. Deputy Hughes.—What control, if any, is exercised by the Department of Industry and Commerce over the expenditure of this £200,000 by the Turf Development Board?—What control?

598. Yes?—The control is that the Minister has to approve of the expenditure. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance have to approve of each of the applications for issues from the Grant-in-Aid in the ordinary way. That is the nature of the control. If they are not satisfied that the estimates put forward are satisfactory, and so on, or that previous issues had been properly used, then there would be a stop, of course. That is the method of control. When any new scheme of development is proposed, such as the taking over of a bog or draining of certain bogs, as for instance, Lyracrompane, it has to be considered whether that is a proper scheme of development, and whether the initial expenditure should be met from the Grant-in-Aid.

599. How does the Turf Development Board account for the expenditure?—They do not account in detail. The accounts are to be published later.

600. Chairman.—Can you tell us, Mr. Maher, are the accounts of the Turf Development Board submitted to your Department?

Mr. Maher.—The accounts are not audited by us but by an outside firm of accountants.

601. Deputy McMenamin.—You referred, Mr. Ferguson, to this continuous experimental period and did I correctly understand you to say that this year also was an experimental year?

Mr. Ferguson.—Any year up to the point when the decision is taken that this could be worked commercially, meaning that it would not involve a serious loss, any year up to that must, in the nature of things be experimental. It has not been proven that the process of making briquettes is a commercial process.

602. Deputy McMenamin.—That rather perplexes me. You have machinery there?—Yes.

603. And you have financed it?—Yes.

604. You give it ample finance. Is it not a question then purely of economical and efficient working to produce peat?—I am afraid it is not so simple as that. It is a question of process. The difficulty is the process. The process consists in harrowing the surface of the bog—preparing and draining—harrowing is the nearest approach I can get—scraping and crumbling turf and bringing that on rails over the bog into a stock pile; then that is fed into the compression plant which makes the briquettes. The difficulty is the process. All the difficulties arise out of the nature of the process. It also depends on the weather. I should say the weather is the most variable factor in the crumbling process. If there is continuous rain, for example, all the bog work stops. If there is a certain percentage of damp it prevents the material being in condition to make a proper briquette. All the difficulties in that case, I think I may definitely say, arise out of the process. The general principles of the process have been worked, as I say, in Denmark and, I think, in Russia, but experience has shown that a particular method of getting stuff off the bog may operate successfully in Denmark or Russia and will not operate here. It has to be altered somewhat.

605. I do not know whether you know anything about the seasons as related to turf and the production of turf, but from my experience of the bogs, not in my memory have there been such suitable years for producing turf, even without machinery, as the last four or five years. What perplexes me is that under these satisfactory conditions generally you still remain in the experimental stage, and you cannot say whether this will be an economic thing or not?—You are making an assumption, Deputy, which, I am afraid, I cannot accept. I am not talking of this year or last year, but three or four years before that. If you are interested, I think you would discover that they were not good years for turf working, taking it as a whole.

606. Pardon me, Mr. Ferguson. I have been connected with the production of turf. As a matter of fact there was hardly one of these years in Donegal we could not save two crops a year of hand-cut turf and hand-won turf?—I am afraid there is no parallel. Conditions allowing hand-won turf to be cut would not necessarily be suitable for this particular process, the scraping and compression of it. I have been told that the dispersion of the rainfall is more important than the weight of rainfall. It is a rather complicated, technical situation, the relation of weather to the working of this process. If the intervals are very frequent, that is more deadly than the weight of the rain. You can understand that putting a spade into the bog is one thing but this process is very closely related to rainfall, and is particularly affected, I am told, by particular intervals of rainfall and the dispersion of rainfall. In other words, a good hand-cutting year would not necessarily be, I fear, a good year for this particular process. The attraction of this process is that if you had ideal conditions it would be a very cheap process but the difficulty is to get these ideal conditions.

607. You will not get them for anything. What is troubling me is that public money is being handed out to these people. While the money lasts there will not be that efficient work and effort that there would be in a private concern under private management. I know nothing about this place but I have been told that men who were working down there, foremen and others, were walking around the roads some of the time?—Of course, I cannot tell you about the walking about the roads. All I know is that there was £57,000 of private money in the Peat Fuel Company and there would be some incentive, at least, to try to save some part of it. The experiment has not been carried out entirely out of public funds. Private concerns, including a firm on the other side of the water, Babcock & Wilcox, in putting up money have saved public funds to that extent in carrying out the experiment.

608. Has the Department any efficient control over this thing to see that the very best effort is put into it, to make it efficient, seeing, according to what you say, it is successful in Denmark and Russia?—As far as the Turf Development Board is concerned, I have explained already the control we have. The Department in fact cannot run the plant, obviously. After the report was received from the Turf Development Board about its further working this year, they gave us their plans, and it was agreed that they should make that attempt, but beyond that control, and the control at the end of the year in deciding whether this must be abandoned or continued—that control comes in—the Department cannot interfere. The Turf Development Board is to run this thing. That is what they are for. That is their obvious duty.

609. Deputy Hughes.—If this is still in an exeperimental stage, how did the Turf Development Board arrive at an economic contract price for turf for the E.S.B. power station at Clonsast? I understand the contract price is 10s. 6d. a ton, or one-third the price of coal at the Pigeon House?—It is rather hard to call that a contract price at this stage, especially in view of the emergency. That was an estimate made prior to the emergency.

610. Have they not, in fact, made a contract?—No.

611. Chairman.—In order to clarify this. Are there not two separate questions here involved? Up to now I understand you to be referring to the briquette process, which is a highly specialised process?—Entirely.

612. Deputy Hughes’s question, I think, relates to the production of peat generally?—Machine-cut peat at Clonsast.

613. Which is a different process altogether?—Utterly different.

614. In regard to that, would you say that the proceedings at Clonsast for machine-won turf are as yet in an experimental stage?—No, I should not say so. It is in quite a different category because the machine-cutting process has been tried for years in Sweden, Germany and, in fact, all over Europe. Its successful working would depend on the situation of the bog, but I think it is taken as a commercially tried process. It is not in the experiment stage.

615. Deputy Hughes.—They had sufficient experience of machine-cut turf to base a contract price on that experience for the Electricity Supply Board?—I do not think it would be fair to anyone to call it a contract price. It was an estimate, made more than two years ago, and certainly before the outbreak of the emergency, based on the costings then available and it was stated really as an estimate given in relation to coal prices at that time. Coal, I think, was 28/-. The figure was related to coal and, obviously, it would have to be. The emergency has made that very clear. The estimate was given over two years ago as 10/6d.

616. Have the Electricity Supply Board not based their calculations of the cost of producing current at Clonsast on that figure?—That was the figure they were given two years ago, before the emergency. I am stressing the relation between that figure and the price of coal at that time. That is a rather vital part of the estimate.

617. Chairman.—Is it your intention at any stage to furnish this Committee with a full review of the activities of the Turf Development Board and with any accounts for the work which they have done up to the date of that report?—Definitely, the accounts will be published and tabled in the Dáil. I presume in that way they would come before you.

618. Can you tell us when the Committee may expect that these accounts will be submitted to the Dáil?—These accounts are in course of preparation, and the best estimate I can give is that they will be published in two or three months. I do not like to be firm as to the date, but it will be in a comparatively short period.

619. They will cover the whole period up to the date of the account?—Four years up to the 31st March, 1940, I believe.

Chairman.—I take it then that we will prefer probably to postpone further close investigation until these accounts are before us.

620. Chairman.—Note 55 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General further states:

“Provision was made by supplementary estimate for Grants-in-Aid to the Board for the development of Lullymore Bog, and for the acquisition of the assets of the Peat Fuel Company, Limited (Subhead M 6), and the development of Kilberry Bog (Subhead M 7). With the sanction of the Minister for Finance, issues amounting to £44,000 from Subhead M 6 and £2,000 from Subhead M 7 were made during the year. The issues out of these subheads are repayable at such times and on such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, may determine at the date of issue or subsequently.

“A note to the Estimate stated that the provision under Subhead M 6 included a sum of £18,000, approximately, representing the cost of acquisition by the Board of the First Debenture on the assets of the Peat Fuel Company, Limited, and that when the assets are acquired, the Debenture will be discharged, and the cost thereof refunded by the Board to the Exchequer. The amount of £44,000 issued to the Board in the period under review was made up of £25,000 for purchase of the property and assets of the Peat Fuel Company, Limited; £17,700 in respect of purchase of the Debenture, and £1,300 for maintenance of the assets and for Receiver’s fees and technical advice, “A sum of £18,747 5s. 10d. repaid by the Board to the Department in June, 1940, included a refund of £17,642 14s. 2d. in respect of the advance for the purchase of the debenture and interest there on £630 15s. 8d.

“In authorising issues from Subhead M 7 to the Board for the development of Kilberry Bog the Department of Finance stipulated that they were to be in the nature of repayable advances bearing interest at approved rates, interest to accrue on every amount advanced from the date of such advance and that the advances were to be repayable to the Exchequer over a period of 25 years, repayment to commence when the bog comes into production. As stated above £2,000 was issued to the Board in the year.

“A sum of £97 11s. was received from the Board and credited to appropriations in aid by direction of the Department of Finance in respect of the proceeds of sale of turf produced as the result of experiments carried out with the Dolberg machine at Streete. County Westmeath. The object of the experiments was to test the practicability of the use of the machine on small bogs and in connection therewith grants totalling £1,100 had been made to the Board in 1936-37 and 1938-39 from the Grant-in-Aid subhead for General Development.”

Can you tell us anything of the results of the experiments with the Dolberg machine?—The Committee. I am sure, is aware of the purpose of the experiments. There was an idea that the machine might be available for co-operative turf societies which existed in considerable numbers at that time. This machine, which is of the semi-automatic aating type, had been used with some success in Sweden, but the result of the experiment, it appears, was that such machines are not suitable for this country. This is another example of the difficulty of adapting to our purposes machines which may be suitable in countries where the climatic and other conditions are different from ours. It was not found possible to work this machine economically on the small type of bog. The capital cost of drainage necessary to prepare the bog for the proper use of the machine worked out at such a figure as to make it completely uneconomic.

621. Chairman.—Can you tell us, Mr. Maher, does the Comptroller and Auditor-General expect that the Turf Development Board accounts will be submitted to him for examination.

Mr. Maher.—It is stated in the Estimate that these Grants-in-Aid are not accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Mr. Ferguson.—The arrangement is that the accounts of the Turf Development Board will be prepared by their own auditors and will not be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Speaking from memory, I believe there was a request that these accounts should be made public and the Minister agreed that they should be published. It is in pursuance of that promise that they are to be published within a matter of some months.

622. Mr. Hughes.—When the Board acquired the assets of the Peat Fuel Company, how was the property valued? Were any of the present members of the Board members of the old Peat Fuel Company?—No, none. A receiver was appointed and tenders were invited for the assets.

623. Was there any competition?— There was another offer, one from an outside company, completely detached.

Chairman.—I think it might be convenient now to turn to paragraph 5 which is contained in the general part of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The question which Deputy Hughes has asked may arise from that. The paragraph reads as follows:—

“I mentioned in paragraph 103 of my last report that the balance of £3,500 of the Grant-in-Aid of £30,000, provided for in the Vote for Peat Fuel Development (No. 71) for 1938-39, was transferred from the deposit account to the Peat Fuel Company, Limited, in April, 1939. The total advances to the Company by way of Grants-in-Aid amounted to £65,000 and were secured by mortgage debentures bearing interest at 4 per cent.

“In March, 1940, the company refunded £336 19s. 7d. representing the unused portion of the final advance of £3,500 referred to above. This sum will be accounted for as an exchequer extra receipt in the financial year 1940-41.

“As stated in paragraph 55, the property and assets of the Peat Fuel Company, Limited, have now been acquired by the Turf Development Board, Limited. In a memorandum dated 5th June, 1940, presented to the Public Accounts Committee (Appendix XI to the Committee’s reports on the 1938-39 accounts) the Accounting Officer stated that it was unlikely that the Turf Development Board, Limited, would be required to accept responsibility for the repayment of either the capital or interest secured by the debentures.

“In addition to the repayable Grants-in-Aid, a loan of £90,000 obtained by the company from the Industrial Credit Company, Limited, was guaranteed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts. It became necessary for the Minister to fulfil his guarantee and in July, 1939, £89,265 18s. 10d. was issued from the Central Fund in respect of the principal and interest outstanding.”

624. Deputy Hughes.—What I am concerned with is: Did the board acquire the property of the Peat Fuel Company at a fair value or at a purely nominal price?—The only answer I can give was that tenders were asked for by the receiver in control of the property and that there was at least one other tender.

625. Deputy Hughes.—In inviting tenders you could not expect much competition for machinery of that kind?

626. Chairman.—I think Mr. Ferguson could answer that question by saying that this matter was very exhaustively discussed in Dáil Eireann on the occasion of the Supplementary Estimate introduced for the purpose?

Mr. Ferguson.—I think that was so.

627. Deputy Hughes.—I want to find out what precautions were taken to ensure that a fair price was secured for the property of the Peat Fuel Company which was financed out of public funds to a very large extent, before it was disposed of?—I can only state what happened. The receiver had charge of the property and it was his duty to get the best price. We have no reason to believe that he did not get the best price, and we know that there was one other offer. I might add that the interest of the State was paramount, subject to the first mortgage debenture to the National Bank of £20,000. Once that was cleared, it was a case of handing over property from one Government body to another body which was a semi-Government body—the Turf Development Board. While I am not saying that the best price was not got, it was something in the nature of a Government institution which took over the property. That may not explain everything but it is a relevant fact.

628. For the purposes of accounting, and for the purpose of seeing how far one company failed and the other succeeded, it would not be right to give the new company cheap machinery at the expense of the old company?—The price at which the Turf Development Board would take over the plant has not yet been determined. In other words, as the Department has to deal with the Turf Development Board in the matter, it may be decided that a certain proportion should be charged and borne by the Turf Development Board and got back from the receipts from briquettes.

629. It appears to me that that is a very important point?—I quite accept that. The point is still unsettled. That is really what I want to say.

630. Chairman.—Before we depart from that, it is a question whether the Receiver has not done a great deal better than any reasonable man might have expected if he had to dispose of the property and assets of the old company?—That is quite true.

631. Chairman.—We proceed now to paragraph 56 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General which is as follows:—

Industrial Research Council.

“56. The charge of £3,205 13s. 0d. to Subhead M 4—Special Investigations —related, as in previous years, mainly to payments to university colleges for investigations connected with peat waxes, seaweed and turf burning apparatus. These payments were covered by Department of Finance sanction.”

Deputy Benson.—Does this body work in close contact with the new research body which has been recently set up?— The new body is under the Department of the Taoiseach. The two bodies have the same secretary, the same habitat and the same library and they are in very intimate connection.

632. Chairman.—A good deal of the seaweed research is being done in University College, Galway?—Yes.

633. Before we pass from the note are you satisfied that the bodies responsible for the researches into peat wax and seaweed particularly are getting enough money to enable the researches to be carried on with the maximum of efficiency?—It is difficult to answer that categorically but I could express an opinion which may meet your point. As regards the peat wax, a certain amount of definite progress was made by Professor O’Reilly, who is in charge of the investigation. It has proved one of the most successful items. I do not say that it has yet got to the commercial point but it is rapidly approaching it and we are very hopeful. The wax for which this might be a substitute, if it were successful, was made only in Germany before the outbreak of war and the German companies had a monopoly. It is a basic wax for floor polish and other kinds of polish. The belief of the investigators in Cork is that this might prove to be a fairly good substitute. The position in regard to seaweed, in the nature of things, is a little more vague but definite progress has been made and the people carrying on the experiment in Galway are satisfied to continue the process.

634. Chairman.—I would suggest, Mr, Ferguson, that you might renew your inquiries as to their satisfaction with the equipment which they have. I have been told they were trying to carry on experiments with pieces of brown paper, because they were unable to get the necessary equipment?

Mr. Ferguson.—As a matter of fact that is rather news to me, because I have been personally in touch with Professor Dillon who is in charge of the work there, and so far as I am aware there was no paucity of money for those experiments.

635. Chairman.—If you approach him with the words “paucity of money” on your lips, you will get a very emphatic reply.

Mr. Ferguson.—It would probably be very unwise for me to do so. May I add this: we have never been asked for the full amount we were prepared to give them? There is a saving every year.

Chairman.—Perhaps, when their attention is directed to that fact, a new state of affairs will eventuate. We now come to the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note.

Fees under the Air Navigation (General) Regulations, 1930.

“57. It will be observed from a note appended to the account that, with Department of Finance sanction, a sum of £29 8s. 9d., being the balance due by the Irish Aero Club, Limited (now liquidated), in respect of certain aerodrome licence fees, was waived. Under the regulations these fees were required to be paid with applications for the licences, but this requirement had not been insisted upon. The gross amount due was £35 3s. 0d., but sums amounting to £5 14s. 3d. were received from the liquidator as first and final dividends, and are included in the figure of £79 19s. 9d. shown in the statement of Exchequer extra receipts.”

636. Why were not these fees collected before the licences were granted?—I am afraid the only answer is that perhaps it was due to an over-simple faith in the probability of this club, with its particular membership at that time, paying its way. The story as to how it happened is a little complicated, but I can tell you with pleasure if you wish. When we did in fact see that it was necessary to have the money paid beforehand, the whole affair came to an end. This happened at a time when air displays were being given under the auspices of this club in different parts of the country. There was a belief at the time that this would rouse interest in civil aviation, that it would make people air-minded, and it probably had some effect in that direction. As the promoters were running on a very narrow margin there was a certain period during which we did not enforce the rule that the fees should be paid in advance.

637. You will appreciate that, although the Committee takes a very liberal view of those matters, if there is a regulation there we feel that the regulation ought to be carried into effect or amended?—I appreciate that.

638. We come to the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report:—

Hire purchase instalment paid by Great Southern Railways Company under contract with the Drumm Battery Sales, Ltd.

“58. By agreements dated 25th November, 1936, and 29th December, 1938, between Drumm Battery Sales, Limited (a subsidiary of Drumm Battery Company, Limited) and the Great Southern Railways Company, the latter company covenanted to pay the sum of £45,600, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, by 20 half-yearly instalments of £2,925 2s. 1d. each, in respect of batteries and equipment supplied. The first four instalments received were paid over by Drumm Battery Sales, Limited, to the Drumm Battery Company, Limited, and retained by the latter company to provide for administrative expenses. The fifth instalment, received from the Great Southern Railways Company in February, 1940, was paid over to the Department of Industry and Commerce and by direction of the Department of Finance was treated as in part repayment of Grants-in-Aid from the former Vote for Electrical Battery Development and accounted for as an Exchequer extra receipt.”

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

Mr. Maher.—This paragraph is in continuation of paragraph 17 of the Auditor’s report for 1937-38 explaining the position as regards the grants and the final treatment of the instalments from the Great Southern Railways Company.

639. Are we to take it that the future instalments from the Railway Company will be paid over to the Department on the same terms?—We are only aware of the instalment for the year ending March, 1940. Probably the Accounting Officer may have some later information.

Mr. Ferguson.—Those will be paid over subject to a slight adjustment, because the Railway Company now has to take charge of the maintenance of those batteries. That was formerly under the Drumm Battery Company. The instalments will be paid over to the Department.

640. The Drumm Battery Company has been wound up?—It has been temporarily suspended.

641. Deputy Hughes.—What is the total amount of the grants advanced?

Mr. Ferguson.—The advances outstanding amount to £146,300, and there is a sum of about £38,000 in respect of arrears of interest on the advances.

642. Chairman.—If there are no other questions, we will now turn to the Vote itself. With regard to Subhead J 1, the International Labour Office is still functioning?

Mr. Ferguson.—Yes. The Organisation has gone to Canada, with headquarters at Montreal, and is still functioning—in a limited way, but it is functioning.

643. What are the details of that incident dealt with under Subhead P, where an officer had his clothes damaged by fire during the course of official duty?—Might I leave that question for a few minutes, and go back on it later on?

Quite. The incident took place, I suppose, in Dublin Castle, when some of the Government offices were accidentally burned?.

Mr. Ferguson.—No. I think some clothes came in contact with an office stove. I will give the details later on.

VOTE 58—TRANSPORT AND METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES.

Mr. R. C. Ferguson further examined.

644. Chairman:—

Subhead A.A.—Advance to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly and Letterkenny Railways Company in respect of the Letterkenny and Burtonport and Letterkenny Railways.

“59. Provision was made by Supplementary Estimate for a repayable advance, free of interest, of £2,500 to the above company to be applied for the purpose of enabling the company to continue the provision of public transport facilities pending the closing of the Burtonport Extension Railway. In sanctioning the advance the Department of Finance stipulated that it was to be repayable to the State within a period of three years from the date of the closing of the Burtonport extension, and that the making of the advance was conditional on the provision of financial assistance to the same amount by the Government of Northern Ireland. This latter condition was fulfilled and accordingly payment of £2,500 was made to the company in March, 1940.”

That, I take it, is a purely informal paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—That is so. The object of the note is to show that the condition as regards payment was complied with.

645. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has a note, which reads as follows:—

Subhead B—Civil Airports.

“60. As in previous years the expenditure charged to this subhead related mainly to payments for the acquisition of land in connection with the construction of airports at Collinstown, County Dublin, and Kilconry, County Clare.

Reference was made in paragraph 71 of my report on the 1937-38 accounts to payments of £275 compensation and £55 costs which were made as the result of an action taken by a coursing club in respect of the entry by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on part of a holding acquired by him, which had been leased to the club by the former owner, and it was stated that the amounts paid were to be recovered from the compensation payable to the owner. The final settlement with the owner, which was sanctioned by the Department of Finance, provided for the reduction of only £275 from the compensation payable and also allowed the owner to retain two cottages (with a yard and haggard attached to one of them) on the land acquired. The original agreement had been interpreted by the Department as giving the Minister for Industry and Commerce possession of all buildings on the land acquired, but this had been disputed by the owner. The compensation was paid in the year under review.

Receipts during the year from the letting of lands surplus to requirements amounted to £306 10s. 0d. and are accounted for as Exchequer extra receipts.”

Have you any further comments to make, Mr. Maher?—This matter was referred to in the discussion on the accounts for 1937-38. It was there pointed out that a sum of £275, plus £55 costs, should have been deducted, but the Department of Finance has agreed that only the £275 should be deducted.

Mr. Ferguson.—That was on the advice of the Chief State Solicitor that we would come no better out of it by going on with an action.

646. On whose advice was it determined to yield in respect of the two cottages and the haggard?—It fell within the same category. Very roughly, the agreement which was made gave the Minister power to enter into this land. That was following the action by the Coursing Club. The Chief State Solicitor was of the opinion that if an action were taken the Minister would not be awarded as much as £275. Taking everything into consideration, it was deemed cheaper to settle for £275.

647. The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s next note is:—

Subhead C—Subsidy in respect of Air Services.

“61. Under the Subsidy (Aer-Rianta, Teoranta) (No. 2) Order, 1939, made by the Minister for Finance under Section 79 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936, the Minister for Industry and Commerce was authorised to pay to the company a subsidy of an amount equal to whichever of the following is the less:—

(a) £40,150;

(b) the sum which the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce estimate will be the losses sustained by the company and the subsidiary company (Aer Lingus, Teoranta) in the year 1939-40.

The Order provided that the subsidy should be paid to the company before 1st April, 1940, and also that if the actual losses of the company and the subsidiary company in the year 1939-40 were less than the estimated losses in 1939-40 the company should repay to the Minister for Industry and Commerce before the 1st September, 1940, the difference between such actual losses and the estimated losses.

In accordance with the terms of the Order, the losses of the company and its subsidiary were estimated at £29,050, and this amount was accordingly paid to the company and is charged to this subhead. The amount of the actual losses of the companies in the year, however, as determined by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, was £26,495 15s. 3d., and £2,554 4s. 9d. fell, therefore, to be repaid by the company in 1940-41, and will be accounted for as an Exchequer extra receipt.”

Have you any further observation to make on that, Mr. Maher?—The sum of £2,554 4s. 9d. was refunded in October, 1940, and will be shown in the accounts for the financial year, 1940-41.

648. We now come to paragraph 62 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report:—

Receipts of landing, picketing, etc., charges at Shannon Airport.

“62. Sums amounting to £364 15s. 1d., net, in respect of landing, load and mooring charges, etc., at the Shannon Airport have been credited to Exchequer extra receipts. The scale of charges has been approved by the Department of Finance.

Certain facilities were provided by the Foynes Harbour Trustees for the air transport companies operating regular services and, with the approval of the Department of Finance, a sum of £30 9s. 5d. was paid to the trustees in the year under review in respect of such facilities and charged against Exchequer extra receipts.”

That is a purely informative paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—For information only. The sum of £30 9s. 5d. is one-tenth of the receipts collected from aircraft using the temporary base at Foynes.

649. Chairman.—A further note reads:—

Contribution towards the cost of Transatlantic Air Service.

“63. As a result of discussions in 1936 between representatives of the Saorstát Government and the Government of the United Kingdom regarding financial arrangements in connection with the transatlantic air service, the latter Government agreed to make an annual payment of £6,000 as from 1st April, 1937, as a contribution towards the cost of the service. The sum of £12,000 was received during the year under review, being the contributions in respect of 1937-38 and 1938-39, and is accounted for as an Exchequer extra receipt.”

The transatlantic air service is about to begin again?—Yes.

650. And, of course, there are certain standing charges in connection with the airport there which have to be paid from time to time?—That is so.

VOTE 59—RAILWAY TRIBUNAL.

Mr. R. C. Ferguson further examined.

651. Chairman.—Could you conveniently tell us what this payment by the amalgamated company under section 15 (4) of the Railways Act, 1924, is?—That represents half the cost of the working of the Railway Tribunal.

VOTE 60—MARINE SERVICE.

Mr. R. C. Ferguson further examined.

652. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead F—Wreck and Salvage Services— what is the exact position with regard to wreck and salvage? If I find a barrel of whiskey on the foreshore——

Mr. Ferguson.—You may not drink it at once.

653. Deputy McMenamin.—Or appropriate it.

Mr. Ferguson.—No. You have to report it to the Receiver of Wrecks who is generally the customs officer in that region.

654. Chairman.—And what happens then?—He reports to headquarters and arrangements are made to get the best offer, which may be an offer made locally, for it.

655. Do I get the proceeds?—No. You get a certain sum, or an uncertain sum. It is regarded as a very uncertain sum by most of those who discover this wreckage.

656. Deputy Allen.—They get 1/- for the discovery of £20 worth, or something like that.

Mr. Ferguson.—The amount varies with the amount of labour and risk involved in salvaging.

657. Chairman.—They get something in the nature of a reward?—Yes.

658. Deputy Benson.—Has the system of payment altered in the last ten or 15 years?—No, it is on the same basis.

659. I heard it suggested when on my holidays last year that people in the days of the British used to get a greater sum and were, therefore, more keen on reporting those matters, whereas now they are more inclined to conceal them?—That might be a good argument, if it were true, but great quantities of wreckage have come in during the last year and this has revived local interest in, shall I call it, this industry. There has also been some rather tart correspondence, but on the whole I think that the arrangement for payment in relation to the actual work involved in recovery of the wreck has worked satisfactorily.

660. Chairman.—I suppose the item “Sales of Wreck” will probably be much larger in the coming financial year?— I should say very much larger. As a matter of interest, the number of items in the previous year was 70 and it is now 2,750.

VOTE 61—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. R. C. Ferguson further examined.

661. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General which reads:—

Subhead J—Unemployment Assistance.

“64. The original provision of £1,300,000 to meet payments chargeable to this subhead was increased to £1,520,000 by a Supplementary Estimate. The actual expenditure during the year amounted to £1,504,505 17s. 4d., showing a saving of £15,494 2s. 8d.

A test examination of these payments has been carried out with satisfactory results.

During the period under review cash recoveries of over-payments of unemployment assistance, credited to Appropriations in Aid, amounted to £351 4s. 8d. As noted in the account, further recoveries totalling £962 12s. 11d. in respect of over-payments included in the accounts of previous years were identified since the close of the last account as having been made by deduction from unemployment assistance to which applicants subsequently became entitled.”

That is purely informative?—

Mr. Maher.—That is so.

662. With regard to Subhead F— Umpire and Courts of Referees—if an unemployed person is summoned before the Umpire and desires to bring a spokesman with him, is he free to do so, Mr. Ferguson?—I believe he is.

663. Just a friend?—I believe so. If I am wrong, I will correct it later.

Deputy McMenamin.—I think you are right in that statement.

664. Chairman.—On subhead I—Advances to Workpeople for Fares—in the event of such a one as I have just referred to asking leave to bring a spokesman with him, would he get a railway voucher for that second person?—It comes in under another subhead but I may answer the question now. The answer is “No.” For a friend coming to help him, no voucher would be issued.

665. Has it occurred to you that whereas in the City of Dublin no difficulty presents itself in bringing a friend, in the case of persons summoned, say, from Ballaghaderreen to Boyle, it is frequently true that a countryman is quite unable to speak up before an umpire or board. He simply, as the country people say, gets stomached up?—That is very probably true, but there is no statutory power to meet the case of a friend accompanying him. I think the reason for the absence of statutory power in that respect is fairly obvious, that is, the definition of a friend for the purpose of these visits to Dublin might be somewhat enlarged.

666. There is statutory power under the Poor Law to permit a friend to accompany a patient to a Dublin hospital, if the patient is unfit to travel alone. For instance, if you are sending a blind person to Dublin to get cataracts removed, you can get a second voucher for a friend?— I think that a claimant for unemployment assistance must be presumed to be well; otherwise, he could not be a claimant.

667. Here, of course, the position is that a man may feel unequal to making his own case?—No one has ever suggested it before. It would mean altering the statute.

668. Perhaps you will reflect on it?— Yes.

669. Deputy Allen.—Did Mr. Ferguson ever consider the advisability of the court travelling around to the different towns in order to facilitate applicants?—There are local centres.

670. But they are very far apart?— They are. I think there are about a dozen, but it is cheaper to bring the applicants to the court.

671. In order to give facilities to applicants, on the point the Chairman raised, would it not be better if the court would travel to the smaller towns?—The practical difficulty is that there must be some limit to the extent to which it would travel around. Otherwise, it would be a very expensive operation. We could reflect on that suggestion perhaps a little more sympathetically than we could on the other point. It means opening more centres and it is entirely a question of expense.

672. The expense of applicants travelling to the central court?—The expense even to us of the voucher system.

673. It may be cheaper, but it does not give the service to the people for whom this money is intended?—We could look into the point and see if it could be extended.

VOTE 62—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION OFFICE.

Mr. R. C. Ferguson further examined.

674. Chairman.—On Subhead A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—has this office to do with patents? What exactly are its functions?—Patents, trade marks and copyright are the main branches.

675. Is not this subhead very large for so restricted a service?—There is a very considerable volume of highly technical work done there. As you no doubt know, the patent law turns on proof that there is a new idea in a proposal and so on, and the searching and comparisons which have to be made involve a lot of technical work. The staff there has been steadily reduced and I do not know that it has not been reduced to danger point, because the office, as you know, is a source of revenue.

676. I see that the extra receipts payable to the Exchequer amount to £16,258 14s. 11d., and the total cost of the office to £15,185?—Yes.

Witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 12.45 p.m.

* Appendix XVII.