Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1944 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1942 - 1943

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 19ú Deireadh Fómhair, 1944.

Thursday, 19th October, 1944.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the chair.

Mr. J. Maher (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. C. S. Almond and Mr. G. P. S. Hogan (An Roinn Airgeadais), called and examined.

VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

“Subhead J.—Restaurant—Contribution in respect of Catering Expenses.

“6. Provision is made in this subhead for payment to the caterer of such amount as the Minister for Finance may determine in recoupment of losses incurred in catering for the Oireachtas restaurant. The losses are ascertained by reference to certified accounts furnished by the caterer. The charge of £500 in this account includes £393 0s. 2d. in recoupment of the full certified loss for 1941-42, and £106 19s. 10d. being a further contribution towards losses sustained in 1940-41, which amounted to £598 4s. 0d., and in respect of which £345 14s. 10d. was previously recouped from the account of the vote for the year ended 31st March, 1942.”

87. Chairman.—Is there anything that you care to add to that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The intention of this paragraph is to bring to the notice of the Committee a change in the basis of recoupment of the caterer’s losses. Hitherto, the contribution was usually only a proportion of the full loss on the catering. In this account, however, the full loss shown by the certified accounts has been met from the vote and, in addition, a further contribution has been made towards a loss sustained in an earlier year.

88. In the earlier year referred to, had the full amount of the appropriation accounts been used in recouping the losses? —I think so.

89. Perhaps, Mr. McElligott, you could tell us whether in the earlier year referred to the full amount in the appropriation accounts had been used in recouping the losses?

Mr. McElligott.—I think not, Sir. I think that for the trading year ended 31st May, 1941, only £346 had been issued as a contribution from the provision of £500.

90. And then, on further review of the accounts, it was determined that they really ought to have received another £107?—Yes, and that was issued in March, 1943. I may add that the wording of the subhead has been changed. It now reads, in the current year’s Estimates, 1944-45, Subhead J. in the Vote: “Restaurant—Contribution in respect of Catering Expenses”:

“Payment will be made to the caterer on the recommendation of the Ceann Comhairle in recoupment of the expenses of catering, as shown by the certified accounts.”

Hitherto, the wording of the subhead has been:

“Payment will be made to the caterer of such amount as the Minister for Finance may determine in recoupment of the expenses of catering, as shown by the certified accounts.”

You will see that the matter now rests entirely in the hands of the Ceann Comhairle, who, of course, receives as before, quarterly accounts, I think, from the caterer, which he passes on usually, I believe, to the Comptroller and Auditor General for examination. So that the Ex chequer is protected inasmuch as the accounts have to pass the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the understanding now is that the amount of the losses recommended by the Ceann Comhairle will be recouped.

91. Heretofore, the position being that the Department of Finance checked the accounts and certified the payment, and hereafter it will be done by the Ceann Comhairle?—We never checked the accounts. I think I pointed out last year, when a similar question was raised by you, Sir, that in order to check the accounts we would have to send officers of the Department of Finance over to the precincts of Dáil Éireann, and I do not think we would have been welcome. We were given to understand by the Ceann Comhairle that he had the help of the Comptroller and Auditor General in examining these accounts. The amount of the loss was notified to us by the Ceann Comhairle together with his recommendation as to the amount to be recouped, and then we made a payment of such proportion of that loss as we considered reasonable. However, we took legal opinion as to the proper interpretation of the agreement with the caterer, and the Attorney-General gave us to understand that we were really liable under the terms of the agreement to pay the full amount recommended by the Ceann Comhairle—subject, I should say, to a maximum of £500. It is in pursuance of that that we have made this new arrangement. We will not recoup more than £500. In previous years the caterer has incurred losses substantially in excess of £500. The caterer’s trading year ended on 31st May, 1938, and the net loss incurred by him was £785; in 1938 it was £768; in 1940 it was £865; in 1941 it was £598, and then, in 1942, it was £393. That was the first year of recent years that the loss fell below £500, but in that year we made a contribution of £500, which included, as you remarked earlier, a contribution of £107 towards the loss in 1941.

92. The caterer has never offered any explanation to the Department of Finance, has he, as to how it was that in the earlier years he was able to make a considerable profit? Well, perhaps, Mr. McElligott, I put that question wrongly. I should have said that in the earlier years a considerable profit was made on the Restaurant, and I believe that in the days when a profit was made the Restaurant was operated by a Committee of the House rather than the caterer. In the year 1932, I think it was, the Restaurant used to close for Service when the House rose. and it was then being operated by a Joint Committee of both Houses. However, perhaps I should say in furtherance of my own question, that it is to be borne in mind that in the years when a surplus was disclosed the Joint Committee were enjoying the amenity of free equipment, in gas and electricity, from the Board of Works, so that the surplus is, perhaps, not as real as it might appear?—Well, of course, at present the caterers enjoy similar amenities. I think the cost of electricity and steam for lighting and heating the premises are borne on public funds, and they are not charged any rent. I might also say that in the earlier years the membership of the Dáil was greater, and I understand that the receipts from the Bar were more considerable.

93. Well, I will not say that that is hard to believe. However, you are satisfied that the loss is genuinely incurred?—I am satisfied, because I have the assurances of the Ceann Comhairle and the Comptroller and Auditor General.

I suppose we had better leave the rest of the details to the Restaurant Committee.

94. Deputy Dockrell.—As regards Subhead I., on what basis is the contribution made to the Inter-Parliamentary Union? —There is an apportionment between the various countries which subscribe to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. There is an affiliation fee and contributions over and above the affiliation fee which together work out, in the case of this country, at a sum of £200. In the explanation to the subhead in the volume of Estimates for 1942-43 it is described as: “Grant-in-Aid to the Irish Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for the payment of its subscription to the Central Body at Geneva and towards the expenses of delegates to the annual conference.” There was no conference held in that year. The explanation of the under-issue from the subhead, as you will see from the Appropriation Accounts—there was a saving of £84 7s. 10d.—is that only the contribution to the Union was paid. There were no expenses incurred in sending delegates to a meeting.

95. Is the contribution on a per capita basis, or is it on the basis of membership?

96. Deputy MacEoin.—I suppose it is our share of the total cost. There is a staff, and so on, in connection with the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

97. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. McElligott would tell us is our contribution to the Inter-Parliamentary Union on a per capita basis or do we simply pay a previously ascertained fraction of the total cost of administration?—The group subscription varies in proportion to the population. According to population, it amounts in our case to 2,000 Swiss francs, and that is why you have the odd amount of £115 12s. 2d. That sum is equivalent, in Irish currency, to 2,000 Swiss francs. The basis of subscription is the population of the respective countries who are members of the Union.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

98. Chairman.—Under subhead E.— Allowances to Taoiseach for Motor Car— does the Taoiseach buy his own car, as the President does, or does the State supply him with the car?—The Taoiseach buys his own car. The allowance is intended to cover all expenses under whatever head incurred by the Taoiseach in providing and using the car, except the wages and uniforms of the chauffeurs, which are provided by the Gárda Síochána, and the charge for which is borne on the Vote for that body.

VOTE 5—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

“Excess of Expenditure over Grant.

“7. The expenditure on this account exceeded the grant by £14 10s. 5d. The excess is explained by the Accounting Officer as due to an unforeseen increase in the cost of machine tabulation of statistics.”

99. Chairman.—Is there anything you would like to add to that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The explanation given in the final sentence is the explanation given us by the Accounting Officer, and we have nothing to add to it.

100. Chairman.—Do you care to add anything to it, Mr. McElligott?

Mr. McElligott.—The expense incurred on the machine tabulation of statistics was incurred in relation to Civil Service statistics. I may inform the Committee that these statistics are tabulated by the Department of Industry and Commerce, who have the necessary calculating and accounting machines, for the Department of Finance, and they do it on a repayment basis. We got a claim for recoupment on the 20th March, 1943, eleven days before the end of the financial year. We felt in duty bound to honour it as it would be improper to postpone the payment of it, the claim having matured within the year, to the following financial year. Our zeal for the proprieties led us into this excess.

101. So that you offered yourself on the sacrificial altar rather than encourage hugger-mugger in the Department. On Subhead A.A.—Actuary—I suppose you have some work for the actuary to do on the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan’s social service scheme, so that we may expect in the coming financial year that the whole of the sum granted will not be returned to the Exchequer?—I am afraid it will take more than one actuary to cope with the spate of social service schemes that are appearing. I should think that we will have an excess on the subhead.

102. What were the “Extra Receipts” that realised £2,251 19s. 9d. instead of the £1,000 estimated?—They are mainly receipts in connection with the purchase of stocks on behalf of various funds. They also include a refund from the Local Loans Fund for expenses of management incurred on that fund during the year by the Department of Finance.

103. So that the sum arose from the selling of certain stocks?—On the purchase of stocks on behalf of funds like the National Health Insurance Fund and the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

104. And when stocks sold realise more than they cost, would the proceeds go into the Exchequer as an extra receipt?— No. The proceeds accrue to the benefit of the different funds. In effect we only charge whatever out-of-pocket expenses we incur.

105. I cannot quite see how £2,251 19s. 9d. was realised. Do you charge a fee every time you sell a security on one of the funds under your control?—No. We charge the commission charged us by the stockbroker.

106. And under a subhead in your Vote there will be the payments to the stockbroker, so that we may expect the subhead to be larger?—The matter is cleared by the receipt from the Department. There is no final charge in any of our Vote subheads.

107. Deputy Dockrell.—Under Subhead D.—Telegrams and Telephones—the explanation given in the subhead is that telephone accounts for five quarters came in course of payment within the year. How did that arise?—There was a change in the accounting arrangements. The previous arrangement was that the Department of Finance paid the whole of the telephone accounts for the northern block of Government buildings, but under the new arrangement with the Post Office the accounts were furnished to each Department separately. This resulted in a delay in furnishing the accounts in the year previous to which this particular appropriation account relates, and the result was that five quarterly accounts were rendered by the Post Office during this financial year.

108. So that there was, presumably, a saving in the previous year?—Yes.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 14—IRISH TOURIST BOARD.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

109. Chairman.—How is the surplus to be surrendered ascertained on this Vote? —The issues from the Vote are made by the Minister for Finance on the recommendation of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and we received recommendations only in respect of the amount of £6,366. Accordingly, that was the amount issued, as compared with the grant by the Dáil of £6,500. We get an annual estimate of the Board’s requirements, and that estimate forms the basis of the provision actually made in the Volume of Estimates. Instalments of the grant-in-aid are issued quarterly against an estimate furnished by the Board. Applications for the second, third, and fourth instalments must be accompanied by a statement of actual expenditure in the preceding quarter under suitable headings. This enables a check to be exercised over the Board’s expenditure during the year, and on the basis of these quarterly estimates of actual expenditure we issued only this sum of £6,366.

110. I observe in the Estimates that the expenditure is not accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Are any steps taken to check the purposes for which this money is used?—Yes, Sir. The details of the expenditure are furnished by the Board to the Department of Industry and Commerce as well as to the Department of Finance. We get details of the expenditure under various heads, and this enables us to exercise a check over the purposes for which the money is utilised.

111. If there were any undue extravagance or unjustifiable use of public money, the Department of Finance would be in a position to query it and rectify it?—Yes, Sir.

112. Deputy Cosgrave.—Does that include all the expenses of the Tourist Board—salaries, as well as expenditure on construction, etc.?—No, Sir, it only includes the expenses of administration. It does not include the repayable advances made from the Central Fund for capital purposes.

Mr. Maher.—The accounts are audited by the Exchequer and Audit Office. Under Section 10 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1939, the Minister has appointed the Exchequer and Audit Office to do the audit and I understand that these accounts are laid on the Table?

Witness.—Yes. These accounts are laid annually on the Table and an account for the year ended 31st March, 1944 was recently presented and it shows the balance sheet of the Tourist Board as at 31st March, 1944, and the revenue account for the year. The revenue consisted of a non-repayable grant under the Tourist Traffic Act, 1939, that is, the grant from the Department of Finance in aid of administration expenses, £8,992, and then application fees for registration, £1,525. On the opposite side of the revenue account the administration expenses are set out in a fair amount of detail: salaries of Board and administrative staff, £6,521; salaries of inspectors, £494; travelling expenses of the Board, £658; travelling expenses of inspectors, £413; consultants’ fees and expenses, £165; rent, rates and establishment charges, £428; printing and stationery, £105; telephone, £99; maps, £89; audit fee, £21, and general expenses, £426, and there was a balance carried to balance sheet of £1,091. These accounts are prefaced by a report of the Board going into some detail about their development schemes and their plans for post-war developments and the progress made with the registration of hotels. So, in all, I think we are pretty well seized of the position of the Board and the manner in which it spends the money issued to it by the Exchequer and pretty well satisfied that there is no extravagance in the administration.

113. Chairman.—In as much as the accounts are not signed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is clear that it is no part of this Committee’s duty to go into them in detail provided you will give us an assurance, Mr. McElligott, that they are constantly under the review of your Department and would be queried were any extravagance to manifest itself.

Witness.—I can give you that assurance, Sir.

VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

114. Chairman.—What exactly are the functions of the Commission on Irish in the Civil Service?—Their functions are to study the various forms, and so on, used by public Departments and to see that as many of them as possible are translated into Irish and used in the Irish form; to encourage the use of Irish within Departments and to go around to Departments and encourage the various officers concerned to extend the use of Irish in the Departments.

115. I understand that the entire staff of this Commission are at present on loan to the Department of Defence?—I think so. Its activities have been suspended since the outbreak of war. The Chairman of the Commission is Mr. Moynihan, Assistant Secretary to the Department of Finance, and he has been pretty well occupied on more important establishment matters since the outbreak of the war.

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

116. Chairman.—Could you give us the particulars of the extra-statutory grants that were made under subhead F.?—There is a list given on page 61. In one case a civil servant whose dependants would, but for his appointment to an established position, have been eligible on his death for a compassionate gratuity died before he had completed in an established capacity sufficient service to admit of a gratuity to his representatives under the Superannuation Act, 1909. A gratuity of £140 was paid to his widow. This man fell, as it were, between two stools. An established officer must have completed five years’ service before a gratuity becomes payable under the Superannuation Act, 1909, and an unestablished officer must have completed 15 years’ service before a gratuity becomes payable under the Superannuation Act of 1887. This man had not completed the five years’ established service after establishment nor had he previously completed the 15 years’ unestablished service. The second case was a former assistant to a clerk of Petty Sessions to whom compensation had been awarded on the abolition of his office and he was thereafter re-employed as a District Court clerk, his compensation being totally suspended. His service from the date of his re-employment to the date of his death was in itself sufficient to qualify his dependants for the award of a compassionate gratuity. As the calculation of the compensaion award included, however, an element of notional service which overlapped in part the period of actual service rendered on re-employment, it was held that the relevant statute did not admit of the award of a compassionate gratuity.

117. I think I am right in saying that really it was notional service?—Yes, that is correct, Sir. So, in view of the circumstances that no compensation had been drawn and having regard to the domestic circumstances of the widow, an award of £80 was made to her. These two grants of £140 and £80 make up the £220 shown in Subhead F.

118. Deputy Dockrell.—What is that “Extra Remuneration (exceeding £30)”? —I mentioned three cases where pensions additional to those issued out of the Vote were paid during the year from public funds. One case is that of an ex-officer of Customs who has a pension as an ex-judge of the Dáil Supreme Court. That is £500. The second case is from the Church Temporalities Fund to an ex-officer of the Irish Land Commission. This is an officer whose pension is payable in part out of the Church Temporalities Fund, which is a special fund within the Land Commission. Then there are payments out of the Army Pensions Vote in respect of military service pensions, to six ex-civil servants, ten ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and 11 ex-members of the Gárda Síochána. Then, as I say in the further note, there are 23 pensioners who received during the year from public funds amounts ranging from £44 to £285 and one pensioner received £795. These would be pensioners who were re-employed in some capacity or other by a public Department and received remuneration accordingly. The general rule in the case of re-employment of such pensioners, I may say, is that in no case will they receive remuneration in excess of what they were receiving at the time of retiring. So, in that way the public interest is, I think, adequately safeguarded.

119. Chairman.—I think I am correct in saying that that note is an informative note to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that certain persons who receive allowances under this Vote are in receipt of other remuneration from the State as well?—That is so, Sir.

120. Deputy Dockrell.—Would I be in order in asking how does it happen that funds like the Church Temporalities Fund would be charged with a pension?—I think it goes back into the roots of the history of the Land Commission. The Church Temporalities Fund is an old fund and there were certain officers whose salaries were paid from the fund and whose pensions when they came to retire were charged on the Fund.

Deputy Dockrell.—It is an interesting matter.

Chairman.—Does that dispose of your query, Deputy Dockrell?

Deputy Dockrell.—It does, Sir.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

121. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—Subhead A.—Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates—Is there a fixed basis in regard to contributions in lieu of rates?—It is not a fixed basis. While State property is legally immune from rates the Government ex gratia pays an equivalent of rates to local authorities. The payment varies according to the amount of the rates in the particular area. This Vote has been expanding in recent years owing to the general increase in rates.

122. The payment is not on the basis of the full equivalent?—It is. We pay the full equivalent of the rates to local authorities.

123. Chairman.—Perhaps it would help Deputy O’Sullivan if I mentioned that details of rates payable under this subhead are set out in the Estimates?—They are set out in the subheads for the various Departments.

124. Deputy Cosgrave.—Does the Government here pay full rates on property occupied by external representatives— No, we pay only the non-beneficial rates. External representatives pay what we call the beneficial rates, for drainage, water, fire brigade, lighting and public sanitation generally. They are borne by the external Government of the diplomat concerned. In the case of non-beneficial rates, say for malicious damages, public hospitals, libraries and housing, which cannot be considered to bring any special benefit to the Government or diplomat concerned. the State here bears the cost provided that the external Governments concerned give equivalent benefits, or are prepared to make similar concessions to our diplomatic representatives abroad or if we have not one in a particular country would be prepared to do so if he were there.

125. Chairman.—That is provided for under Subhead B?—Yes.

VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

126. Deputy Dockrell.—An over-estimate of £8,875 11s. 5d. seems rather high. I do not wish to press the matter but, judged purely from that point of view, it is a large amount?—There has been a considerable saving on this Vote for a good many years, and I think the Chairman of the Committee has on more than one occasion drawn attention to the extent of the savings and the desirability of closer estimating. I have tried to defend the large margin of saving by saying that it is an Estimate in which it is obviously undesirable to have a Supplementary Vote which might create considerable heated discussion. We fixed a provision of £20,000, which is voted annually by Dáil Eireann. In 1943-44, for example, the year subsequent to the one we are considering, the saving was even more considerable, amounting to £12,271 compared with £8,875 11s. 5d. in 1942-43.

127. Deputy Cogan.—Are the details examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General or is there simply a certificate from the Minister?—They are not examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Minister for Finance is furnished by the Minister who dispenses these moneys with a certificate that they have been disbursed. It is in the following words:—

“I hereby certify that the amount actually expended by me or under my direction for secret service in the year ending 31st March was £—. and the balance in my hand was £—. and I further declare that the interests of the public service required that the payment should be made out of the Secret Service Fund and that they were properly so made.”

Mr. Maher.—We accept these certificates following a long established practice for the expenditure on Secret Service.

128. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—Are the balances on hands checked?

Mr. Maher.—You will see from the Appropriation Account that we get a certificate.

129. Chairman.—Is it not correct to say that the balances are surrendered?

Mr. McElligott.—The balances, if not surrendered, are taken into account the following year when estimating. There is no question of any balance remaining in the hands of any Minister unaccounted for.

130. Chairman.—Would it be correct to say that they are usually surrendered?— Yes.

VOTE 19—EXPENSES UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT AND THE JURIES ACT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 20—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

131. Deputy Cosgrave.—Subhead C.— The National Theatre Society Limited (Grant-in-Aid)—Is the National Theatre the Abbey Theatre?—Yes. A list of the institutions is set out in the Volume of Estimates. There is a grant of £1,000 for the Royal Zoological Society of Ireland, to the Royal Irish Academy of £3,400 in aid of the expenses of the Academy including the publication of Celtic MSS. and £1,000 grant-in-aid of publication of contributions to Lexicography of early Irish, grant to the Royal Hibernian Academy of Arts in aid of the expenses of the Academy £300, grant to the Royal Irish Academy of Music in aid of the expenses of the Academy £300 making a total of £6,000 of which £5,425 was issued.

Chairman.—A note in the Appropriation Accounts explains the items.

132. Deputy Cosgrave.—On subhead E. —the Irish Plate, £105—are conditions prescribed?—I do not think we prescribe any conditions. We get a certificate that the race was run and won.

133. Chairman.—Do you require any certificate in regard to the Irish Plate?— No, we simply see that the payment is made.

134. To whom is payment made?—To the racecourse authorities in charge at the Curragh. I understand it is the Turf Club.

VOTE 24—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 25—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

135. Deputy Cosgrave.—How often is an index of the Emergency Powers Orders prepared? Is it done annually?—It is prepared at irregular intervals. The last index was published in 1943 and it related to Statutory Rules and Orders published for the years 1939-40 and 1941-42.

136. Deputy Briscoe.—In view of the fact that no law charges are involved in cases that come before the Military Tribunal is there any charge from the Department of Defence for such law charges?—The expenses of the Military Tribunal are borne on the Department of Defence Vote.

137. This does not give a true picture of the actual amount of law charges?—It does in regard to the ordinary courts. Of course there is a number of other Votes covered by the Department of Justice relating to Circuit Courts, District Courts and so on. There are also judicial salaries which are borne on the Central Fund and other avenues by which money flows out of the Exchequer.

Deputy Briscoe.—And due to the emergency there is an ever-increasing amount of costs borne by the State in cases brought before the Military Tribunal.

Chairman.—Would it not be more correct to say they are brought before the Special Courts?

138. Deputy Briscoe.—Yes. Is there a special subhead in the Vote for the Department of Defence dealing with law charges?—There is no special subhead in the Vote. As the Committee knows, the form of the Defence Vote has been materially contracted since the outbreak of the war and only very bare particulars are furnished in the annual Estimate and Appropriation Accounts.

139. Chairman.—Would I be correct in saying that the Committee know that the Military Tribunal was a charge on the Defence Vote? Are the Special Courts a charge on that Vote?—The Special Courts are a charge on the Defence Vote also.

140. Deputy Briscoe.—These law charges do not include all law charges?

141. Chairman.—The ordinary courts are charged very largely on the Department of Justice. Judges’ salaries on the Central Fund; District and Circuit Courts on the Department of Justice and the Special Court on the Department of Defence?—That is so. Some Departments, like the Post Office, have their own law charges. They have a law charges subhead, Subhead H.I. £150, and there are some other Departments, for instance the Revenue Commissioners, which have a similar subhead.

142. Deputy Briscoe.—My point is that we know from the various Votes the cost to the State of the administration of justice generally and I am raising the matter for the purpose of considering, possibly at a later date, the advisability of seeing to what extent law charges are involved in the Defence Vote. State Counsel who appear before the Special Court are paid their fees from this Vote? —Yes.

143. There are then a number of other charges arising out of the Special Court’s activities which are borne on the Defence Vote, apart from the personnel of the Court, such as premises, lighting and so on which are not normally Defence functions?—Yes. Of course, the personnel of the Court is military and naturally their salaries and so on are borne on the Defence Vote.

VOTE 26—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

144. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—With regard to Subhead E—Trinity College, Dublin (Grant-in-Aid)—what is the origin in that case?—It is a grant-in-aid of the general expenses of the School of Physic. It is in substitution for annual payments made prior to 1940-41 from Subhead D. of the Vote for Technical Instruction. This subhead was described as “Grants for Professional Courses in Science.” In December, 1914, representations were made by the Committee of the School of Physic that it was most anxious to increase the usefulness of the school by providing additional facilities in order that teaching for medical degrees and diplomas might be modernised to meet developments in medicine, surgery and public health. In view of the need for economy at the time—this was in 1914—the application was not granted; but the application was renewed in April, 1917, at a time when the income of the School had diminished owing to the number of students who joined the Army. In the circumstances, no objection was raised to recognising the classes of the School for grants under the programme for technical schools, and classes of the Department of Agriculture, and grants were paid accordingly on a capitation basis, from 1917-18 to 1939-40 inclusive. These grants have since been continued.

145. Chairman.—Are they now paid on a capitation basis or on a lump sum basis? —A lump sum—an annual fixed Grant-in-Aid of £2,250, which is below the peak figure of £2,634 paid in 1920-21 and which approximates very closely to the total payments of £2,262 which was received by the school in 1938-39 on a capitation basis.

146. Deputy Cogan.—What is the explanation of the payments in Subhead C. —Grant to Trinity College under Section 15 (2) of the Land Act, 1923? Is it a payment from the Church Temporalities Fund?—It comes out of the Exchequer. It was a payment in substitution for previous payments made to Trinity College. It goes back as far as the Land Act of 1903 which provided that there should be paid to the Public Trustee out of the Ireland Development Grant a sum of £5,000 a year for Trinity College, Dublin, which should be applied by the Trustee to indemnify the college against any loss of income arising from redemption under the Land Purchase Acts of any superior interest owned by the college. This sum of £5,000 a year, which related to the whole of Ireland, was reduced to £3,000 in 1922, following an agreement between the Provisional Government and the authorities of the college. An arrangement was then made that the payment of £5,000 under Section 39 of the Land Act of 1903 should cease and that in lieu of it an annual sum of £3,000 a year should be paid to the college to compensate it against all loss of income arising out of past and future land legislation. I should say that this agreement was implemented by Section 15 (2) of the Land Act, 1923, and since then this sum has been paid annually to the college.

147. There is no time limit?—No.

148. Deputy Briscoe.—What is the origin of the payment under Subhead F. —Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland (Grant-in-Aid)?—It has the same origin as the payment we have been discussing to the School of Physic in Trinity College. It is really a continuation of an old grant out of the Technical Instruction Vote which has been paid to the College since 1910. The grant was discontinued in 1940, but the college made representations that, while practically every medical school in Ireland and Great Britain is either endowed or received some form of Government or other grant, the College of Surgeons had to rely for its income entirely on students’ fees and on the technical instruction grants which were previously paid. It was felt that a reasonable case was established by the college, and the Minister for Finance accordingly decided to provide a fixed annual Grant-in-Aid of £1,500. This started in 1940-41. The amount of £1,500 was based on the average of the annual grant for the five years prior to 1940-41.

149. The State takes no interest whatever in the running of these Universities in so far as the fees charged to students are concerned? The grant is made and the function of the State begins and ends there?—We take some interest in the fees charged to students in the case of institutions for which we have a large financial responsibility, like the National University and its constituent Colleges, or at any rate the lay constituent Colleges, for which we provide very considerable sums. A sum of £152,000 is shown in the Appropriation Account for 1942-43, but the fixing of the fees is a matter for the College and University authorities themselves. We do not fix the fees, but naturally if they apply for additional grants we ask them if they cannot increase their income from other sources, such as students’ fees.

150. So that this sum of £1,500 cannot be regarded as a payment in perpetuity as in the case of the amount in Subhead (C)? It is just a matter of the goodwill of the State?—Yes; it can be withdrawn at any time.

151. Or increased?—Or increased, subject to the consent of the Dáil.

VOTE 28—QUIT RENT OFFICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

152. Chairman.—Is this a valedictory occasion?—Yes, this is its final appearance in public—positively its last appearance.

153. Deputy Dockrell.—What is the Quit Rent Office?

Chairman.—For Heaven’s sake, do not ask what it is. Every year that question is asked and it takes a column and a half of close print to answer it. The answer will be found in the Report and Evidence of this Committee in 1935.

154. Deputy Briscoe.—What will happen to all the records which will be handed over to the Department which will absorb this office?—The rolls of Quit and Crown rents have been handed over to the Land Commission which has accepted the responsibility of collecting these rents.

155. But there are certain documents they have, some of which are of historical value. Are they to be buried now in the Land Commission?—The documents in the possession of the Quit Rent Office were examined by a number of people from the Public Records Office, the Department of Education and the National Museum and they were more or less given their choice of them.

156. That has been done already?—Yes, but the working records have gone to the Land Commission, the Commissioners of Public Works, and the Department of Industry and Commerce which, between them, now collect the rents formerly administered by this Office. There is now a Quit Rent Branch shown in the annual Estimate for the Land Commission.

157. The Department of Finance did not object to the cost involved in trying to save these historical documents?—We saved some money on the administrative expenses of the Office by its abolition, so that we raised no objection on the other score.

Deputy Briscoe.—You could afford to be generous for a change.

VOTE 29—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 72—EMERGENCY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BUREAU.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

“Subhead B.—Investigation and Research (Grant-in-Aid).

86. An account of the expenditure by the Bureau of issues out of the Grant-in-Aid has been furnished to me and has been examined with satisfactory results. Expenditure during the year amounted to £23,726 19s. 2d., and the unexpended balance of issues at 31st March, 1943, was £17 15s. 3d.

158. Chairman.—Is there anything which you care to add to that Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The Note in the Report is simply a summary of the expenditure shown by the accounts furnished for examination to the Audit Office.

159. Deputy Briscoe.—Has not this Bureau an income from people who apply to them? Are payments not made to them by business concerns?

Mr. McElligott.—Payments are made to them by business concerns on whose behalf they carry out investigations. These payments are brought to credit of the Grant-in-Aid account of the Bureau at the Bank of Ireland.

160. Are they included in that figure of £17,250 or the £5,500?—They would be additional to any figures given in the issues from the Grant-in-Aid.

161. Deputy Briscoe.—Is not that a departure from the usual procedure? My understanding is that, if a Department anticipates income for service, etc., that that is estimated for in the framing of the Estimate as part of the grant-in-aid and that actually there appears in the accounts the sum which they in fact had received from some outside source. There is no reference to that in this.

162. Chairman.—Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General can help us?

Mr. Maher.—The receipts to which Deputy Briscoe refers are shown in the statement of expenditure from the grant-in-aid which is furnished to and examined by us. Actually, in the account before me there is a sum of £4,412 under that heading.

163. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you not think that should be disclosed in this statement here? This Bureau is in fact of assistance to the nation as a whole and it would be well that it should be better known that people wanting an investigation made can in fact go to the Bureau and get this service on payment of a fee and not feel that they have to get sanction in order to have it done?

164. Chairman.—Can you give us your view, Mr. McElligott, as to whether it would be appropriate to show on the face of the Estimate an estimate of the probable receipts for work done for private individuals?

Mr. McElligott.—While it might be desirable, I think it is hardly practicable to estimate in advance what these receipts might be. They vary considerably and, sometimes in the case of an investigation which is asked for by a particular private interest, if the investigation is one the results of which it is desirable to communicate to a number of parties, or an investigation which it seems in the national interest to undertake, the Bureau charges little or no fees. It would be very difficult in advance to decide what amount you should include.

165. Deputy Briscoe.—I do not mean that. But, would it not be desirable even to put in a token estimate, say, of five guineas? When the fees, as disclosed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, are in the neighbourhood of £4,000, it is obvious that this Bureau is giving great service and is of great benefit to the State and it should be more widely known.

166. Chairman.—Would it be possible to show in the Appropriation Account receipts of this character?

Mr. McElligott.—The Comptroller and Auditor General has the information and it would be possible.

Mr. Maher.—If the information which Deputy Briscoe suggests were shown it would be also necessary to show the expenses of these investigations and that would complicate the Appropriation Account. It would be also necessary to show the cost of purchase and hire of plant and equipment which are necessary to carry out these investigations. It would be much better, if the Committee really desire to have further information, to circulate a copy of the account of the expenditure from the grant-in-aid.

167. Deputy Briscoe.—That is not quite what I had in mind. When an Estimate comes before the Dáil, every item is open for discussion. Even if there was only a token Estimate of the income to this Bureau for public services, I think that that in itself would give it such publicity from the point of view of discussion that more advantage would be taken of the Bureau. Nobody wants to have a statement of every particular investigation and of all the apparatus used. But I think that the fact that it is permissible for this State Department to accept fees should be shown in some form or other.

168. Chairman.—Perhaps, Mr. McElligott, you will consider the appropriateness of including a subhead for Appropriations-in-Aid even of a token figure to indicate the readiness of the Department to undertake special research on payment of a fee from a private person?

Deputy Briscoe.—Or firm.

Chairman.—That includes “firm”.

Mr. McElligott.—That will be considered at the request of the Committee. But, may I point out that it involves a radical departure from the practice obtaining up to the present under which the Bureau has got the benefit of such sums as are paid to it in respect of its private investigations? To utilise them as appropriations-in-aid would compel the Bureau to hand them over to the Exchequer.

169. Chairman.—In view of the fact, Mr. McElligott, that this is a somewhat complex matter which has been sprung upon us without notice, I think it would be right to say that it would be of assistance to the Committee if, at your convenience, you will let us have a note* of your views on the general question, so that when preparing our report we would know your mind upon it?—Certainly, I will do that.

VOTE 75—DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (NEUTRALITY) COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

170. Chairman.—Are there many claims outstanding on this Vote?

Mr. McElligott.—The position is that on the 31st March, 1944, the total number of applications received was 2,586, of which offers for compensation had been made in 2,396 cases and the offers had been accepted in 2,391 cases and refused in five cases. The Minister had refused to make any offer in 143 cases and 43 cases had been withdrawn, leaving only four cases still under consideration on the 31st March, 1944.

171. Are we to take it that in these cases where an offer of compensation was refused the matter will, in due course, be referred to an arbitrator?—An applicant for compensation is at liberty to go to the Circuit Court if he is refused by the Department of Finance.

172. Or if he has refused the Department’s offer?—Or if he has refused the Department’s offer.

173. Deputy Briscoe.—Is it in connection with this Vote that the Department recently issued an announcement that money due by Irish citizens to persons in another country against which this country had a claim arising out of this Vote is being used to meet these claims?— It is not in connection with this. The action to which the Deputy refers is taken under an Emergency Powers Order made by the Government last August, by which Irish residents who owed money to residents in Germany were required to furnish particulars of the debt to the Minister for Finance and to pay to him, if he so directed, the sums so notified. These moneys may be applied for Exchequer purposes and are in fact held to be part off-set to certain claims that we have against the German Government in respect of damage done by their aircraft flying over this country.

174. Do you not find that that involves a question of dispute and possible litigation between these debtors and their German creditors?—The German Government has agreed to the arrangement embodied in the Order. I understand that the debtor in Éire will get in due course a discharge from the creditor in Germany if payment is made to us.

175. Assuming that some debtor here of a creditor in Germany does not agree with the account against him or that he may have some counter claim, in the ordinary way, if normal relations were resumed ultimately, a way would be found to compromise on the dispute between them. Do you allow for that or do you say: “There is so much on the books of this person and you must pay it”?—We allow for any reasonable counter-claim that might be made, provided there is sufficient evidence to establish the validity of it. We do not adopt bludgeon methods in dealing with the matter. We are, I think, reasonable in the way we consider the Order.

176. I do not know what your experience is, and it is only very recently you issued the Order, but I can see that you may have very serious complications.

Chairman.—Remember that Mr. McElligott is not responsible for the issuing of the Emergency Powers Order. The only thing he is required to answer to us for is the administration of this Vote in the year 1942-43, which is a period far behind the date of the Order to which you refer. Mr. McElligott is answering to us for the Appropriation Accounts for 1942-43 and the Order was made in 1944. Therefore I do not think it is relevant to go into this matter at this Committee. It is of course open to the Deputy to raise the matter by way of question or a motion on the adjournment in the Dáil, but we cannot ask Mr. McElligott, in respect of the accounts for 1942-43, about an incident which occurred in 1944.

Deputy Briscoe.—With all deference to the ruling of the Chair, I think I can find another way here. I am sorry I raised it now, because you are correct in saying that these accounts deal with a prior period. But, when the thing does come to fruition, money will flow into the Exchequer to offset the claim of this State against another State and then we can discuss it.

Chairman.—Quite. Probably I will not be in the Chair of this Committee then and that relieves me of the obligation of determining the relevancy of that inquiry.

Deputy Briscoe.—Your ruling now would be accepted by your successor.

Chairman.—I make no ruling. The only ruling I make is that it is not relevant now.

177. Deputy O’Sullivan.—In view of the amount unexpended under Subhead A., does any question arise as to the apportionment of the surplus to the local authorities concerned, who contributed under the Neutrality Act of 1941?—No question arises of distributing that surplus or any part of it to the local authorities. It reverts to the Exchequer. The contribution of the local authorities is fixed by relation to the net disbursements of the Exchequer. They are responsible for 25 per cent. of the net disbursements to the Exchequer and they are charged no more and no less. The surplus on the Vote does not affect the issue one way or the other. There was a sum of £28,474 recouped by local authorities in 1942-43. In the present year the recoupment would amount to probably about £17,000; that is, 25 per cent. of the 1943-44 expenditure, which was £68,000 approximately.

178. How many local authorities would be involved?—Immediately the local authorities in the areas of Campile, County Wexford; North Strand, Dublin; Sandycove in County Dublin, and Terenure and South Circular Road, Dublin. All county councils and county boroughs are concerned.

179. Deputy Cosgrave.—Was there any claim in respect of the place in Carlow— Borris?—I think there was a claim in respect of the Carlow case, but I cannot say whether we have made any payment on foot of it or not. Of course, Subhead A. contains compensation to private individuals as well as recoupment to local authorities.

VOTE 76—PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 77—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

Chairman.—The details in connection with this Vote will be found on page 255 of the Appropriation Accounts.

180. Deputy O’Sullivan.—There do not appear to be many triplets?

Deputy Briscoe.—The amount indicated there would not represent anything so far as the number goes. There is a means test applied even to the granting of that bounty. The recipient has to show that he or she has an income of less than a certain figure. You might find a person entitled to make application getting much less than what would be given to a person not affected by the means test.

Chairman.—I should like to direct the attention of the Committee to the fact that on Vote 25 special subheads were opened with the sanction of the Department of Finance. They were subhead H. —Compensation following mistaken Conviction—and Subhead I—Preparation of Revised Index of Emergency Powers Orders, etc. That is the only Vote Mr. McElligott answered for in respect of which special subheads were opened with the sanction of the Department of Finance. I mention that so that your attention may be directed to the fact that these subheads were opened during the financial year and, therefore, no opportunity was offered to the Dáil of discussing them in detail when the main Estimate was before the House.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 45—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Mícheál Breathnach called and examined.

Chairman.—I know I speak on behalf of the Committee when I say that we express our regret that we no longer have the pleasure of meeting Seósamh O Néill in connection with our proceedings here. I know also that I speak for the Committee when I wish him many years to enjoy his well-earned leisure. At the same time, whatever regret we may have on the departure of Mr. O’Neill, it is tempered by the pleasure we have in meeting Micheál Breathnach, the new Secretary of the Department, who will act as Accounting officer for these Votes and answer any questions we may have to address to him.

181. Deputy O’Sullivan.—What happens under Subhead C.—the preparation of Irish Vocabularies?

182. Chairman.—There was no money expended under Subhead C. There is a note to the effect that no meeting of the Advisory Committee was held during the year. What is the position, Mr. Breathnach?—The last meeting was held in December, 1939, and the last publication was in August, 1942. There has been no meeting and there was no publication since. This is merely a token Estimate.

183. You will remember that on previous occasions when we were going through some Votes of this Department the attention of the Committee was directed to the preparation of a vocabulary on terms used in the Dingle peninsula, which you will very well remember reached phantasmagorial proportions?—I remember it quite well.

184. Was that vocabulary prepared in consultation with this Committee?—No. This Committee had nothing to do with that vocabulary.

185. Would it ordinarily be part of its function to supervise work of that kind? —No. It was a committee set up entirely for the publication of terminology required for schools.

VOTE 46—PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mícheál Breathnach further examined.

Subhead A.3.—Preparatory Colleges, etc.

“38. The average boarding cost per head for the school year 1942-43 ranged from 11s. 6d. to 14s. 7d. per week, showing an increase in each college as compared with the previous year.

The average fee paid by the students for the same school year was £14 18s. 10d.

Accounts have been furnished showing the receipts and expenditure in connection with the farms and gardens during the school year 1942-43. In four out of the five accounts the receipts are shown to have exceeded the expenditure. In the case in which the expenditure is shown to have exceeded the receipts the college garden and portion of the premises were taken over by the Department of Defence in the course of the year for the purposes of a military hospital.”

186. Chairman.—Is there anything you wish to add to that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—That paragraph is for information? I understand the increased average boarding cost was due to the increase in food prices.

187. Deputy O’Sullivan.—As regards Subhead A.1—Training Colleges—what is the position so far as St. Patrick’s College is concerned—It has been closed.

188. And is there any indication when it will reopen?—It will certainly re-open in 1946 and possibly in 1945. It may be necessary to keep it closed for only one year, possibly two.

189. What has happened the staff?— The staff have been receiving their salaries and are being employed as far as possible on work in connection with education—the compiling of notes, visiting schools and work of that kind.

190. They are not disturbed?—No. Those who are permanent are receiving their salaries.

191. Deputy Cosgrave.—As regards Subhead A. 4—Grants to Colleges providing Courses in Irish for Primary Teachers— what is the explanation of the small amount of money expended in comparison with the grant?—Well, it is hard to estimate very closely there, because one can never anticipate how many teachers will avail of the course. The majority of the teachers are pretty well qualified now. Then again, travelling facilities and other difficulties militated against those colleges.

192. Is it optional with the teachers to avail of these courses?—It is optional with them to avail of the courses.

193. Deputy O’Sullivan.—With reference to Subhead C. 2—Model Schools—I understand the term “model schools” applied in the years before we took over here. How does it operate now?—There are 16 establishments and 27 separate schools, nine for Protestant and 18 for Catholics. The buildings are all vested in the Minister for Education and the Minister is patron to them all. All the Protestant schools, except one, are under his sole management, through the local inspectors. With regard to Catholic schools, the position is shifting a bit, the intention being to bring them on the same level more or less with ordinary schools. Some of them are still under the sole management of the Minister and some are under a dual management, the Minister and a parish priest, usually. The tendency is gradually to bring them under the same conditions as the ordinary national schools.

194. Chairman.—Were they originally schools where teachers might go to see how a school ought to be conducted?— That was the original intention.

195. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Subhead C.5. refers to free grants of school requisites. In what particular circumstances would the subhead operate—what particular type of school?—New schools and schools very largely reconstructed.

196. The amount of the grant seems small for that, especially in relation to new schools?—Grants are made to newly-built or reconstructed schools. The first stock for the school is given free in proportion to the attendance. It does not include money spent on furniture, apparatus or repairs. The requisites have to be kept in the school and the head of the school is responsible for them.

197. Such things as maps, etc.?—Yes, maps and blackboards.

198. Deputy Lydon.—As regards Subhead C.6—Grants towards the cost of heating, etc., of schools and cleansing of out-offices—is the money paid through the manager or by the Department—that is, the money for the heating and cleansing of the schools?—It is paid to the manager. He is responsible for seeing that the school is heated and cleaned. This grant is given on a pound for pound basis. It is complicated by the fact that some of the expenses claimed are in kind and the formula is that the manager cannot receive from the Department more cash than the total of the actual cash that he has spent. Ordinarily he would get half of the total expenditure. If he claims for £6 in kind and £4 in cash, six and four make ten, and half that would be five; but he had expended only £4 in actual cash, so he would get only £4.

199. Payment is 50 per cent. by the State and 50 per cent. locally collected by the manager?—Yes.

200. Deputy Lydon.—Does the manager have to produce any accounts of his expenditure?—Oh, yes. He has to produce vouchers for all his cash expenditure.

201. Deputy Cogan.—With regard to Subhead C. 7, on what basis are the grants made for teachers’ residences?—I do not think it is right to say that there are any grants for teachers’ residences now. There were no grants nor loans for the erection of teachers’ residences since 1914, and this subhead will gradually disappear. The residences were mainly erected by State loans. The loans were limited to £250, and they are repayable to the Board of Works, half by the Department of Education and half locally, mainly by the teachers, at the rate of £5 per cent. or £12 10s. per annum for £250, that is £6 5s. from the Department of Education, and £6 5s. locally, but no further grants are being made.

202. Deputy MacEoin.—You are just paying off the old debt?—Yes.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—With regard to Subhead D., I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether you will allow me to ask Mr. Breathnach if the Department has at any time in the recent past considered the question of the superannuation of teachers who went out on very low scales?

Chairman.—I am sorry, but that is not a question we can ask Mr. Breathnach.

203. Deputy Dockrell.—With reference to Subhead C. 8, what was the reason for the decline in the number of pupils who qualified for this grant?—Well, it is very hard to account for the decline. I suppose the children are not there.

204. It is due to a decline in the child population?—Yes.

205. That is the grant made to Irish-speaking families?—That is what we call the £2 grant.

Chairman.—If there is no other question on that Vote, we will turn to Vote 47—Secondary Education.

VOTE 47—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mícheál Breathnach further examined.

206. Chairman.—In regard to Subhead E.—Grant towards Publication of Irish Text Books—is there any supervision as to the contents of those books and as to the quality of the printing?— With regard to the contents of the books, there is supervision, in this way, that when the text is submitted it is sent for the opinion of some expert on that subject, who presents a report.

207. I have had my attention directed to a book called Nuala de Barra, which is published by Oifig Díolta Fiollseachán Riaghaltais?—I doubt if that would come under this heading. Subhead E, is a grant towards the publication of Irish text books, that is text books in Irish and not works on general literature. I think that would come under another Vote.

208. Would this have been published by what is commonly known as An Gúm?— Yes, but An Gúm publishes both kinds.

209. But the text books here referred to would not include a publication of that kind?—No. We will come to that later.

VOTE 48—TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.

Mícheál Breathnach further examined.

“Subhead B.—Annual Grant to Vocational Education Committers.

“39. The charge to the subhead includes supplemental grants of £4,913 2s. 8d. and £2,985 7s. 6d. paid to the City of Cork and City of Limerick Vocational Education Committees, respectively. The vocational education areas of these committees have, by Orders made by the Minister for Education under section 60 of the Vocational Education Act, 1930 (No. 29 of 1930), been declared to be districts to which Part V of the Act applies. Regulations made in 1938 and in 1942, by the Minister under section 53 of the Act provided for the payment to the committees of supplemental grants based on the expenditure of the committees referable to the provision of compulsory courses and the enforcement of Part V of the Act.

The expenditure also included a supplemental grant of £4,503 1s. 7d. made to the Dublin Vocational Education Committee under the Regulations made in 1942 which provided for payment in the financial year commencing on 1st April, 1942, of a special grant not exceeding £5,000 to this committee in respect of expenditure incurred in establishing and maintaining, or in assisting the provision and maintenance of, youth training centres.”

210. Chairman.—Have you anything you care to add to that, Mr. Maher?— The grants to Limerick and Cork relate to the enforcement of continuation education.

211. Can you tell us anything about the youth training centres, Mr. Breathnach? —There are two of them in Dublin, one in Great Denmark Street and the other in Mount Street, I think. Each is set up to accommodate 200, the object being to get youths of between 14 and 16 years, who are not attending any school, and provide them with training and a certain amount of continuation education, but the emphasis is more on the cultural than on the purely educational side.

212. Have they been successful so far? They have. They are regarded as a considerable success.

213. And the attendance is substantial? —The attendance is substantial. They had a youth week, I think it was in July, in which they made a very creditable display.

214. Is provision made for girls as well as boys?—No.

215. Only for boys?—Only for boys.

VOTE 49—SCIENCE AND ART.

Mícheál Breathnach further examined.

216. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that the National Museum is getting notice of any objects of interest which may be disinterred in the course of the extensive bog development that is going on in the country?—I cannot, of my own knowledge, give you any definite guarantee, but from documents which have reached me from time to time I conclude that they are getting full notice of those discoveries.

217. I was speaking to a young Army officer in the train recently who told me that in the course of bog operations in the neighbourhood of Longford they unearthed at considerable depth a wooden road which seemed to be in comparatively good condition, and seems to be an object of great antiquarian interest, but he was not able to tell me whether the museum had been notified of this discovery, and, in fact, in the course of the bog operations a good deal of it was cut away. I wonder does the Department of Education keep in touch with the Army to emphasise the necessity of warning the Museum of any antiquarian objects of interest of that kind?—I cannot give any guarantee of that either, but it is a matter into which I can inquire.

218. Perhaps you will look into it?—I will, certainly.

219. Now, under Subhead B. 1, we can consider this publication Nuala de Barra. I do not know if that publication has been submitted to you for examination. One astonishing point is the number of misprints. The next point is whether it is desirable, in the present state of the world, to have a book published over the imprint of a Government Department the hero of which rejoices in the sinking of British ships by German submarines. Have you had that book brought to your attention—No, Mr. Chairman. I have received a copy of the book, but have not had time to read it yet.

220. Here is a quotation:—

“Annso bhíos ag scríobh nuair a chuala go raibh seacht longa déag leis na Sasanaigh curtha go tóin puill sa Mhuir Thuaidh ag na Gearmánaigh. Saighdiúir d’innis dom é. Toil Dé go ndéantar”?—

Witness.—That does not sound like rejoicing.

221. Chairman It goes on:

“Míle moladh leis an dTighearna a dheineann gach rud do réir A thoile féin”?—

Witness.—Is not that rather recognition of the will of God?

222. Well, it all depends on how you look at it. I am glad to hear that interpretation put upon the paragraph. I suggest that in future a footnote should be put in to say that it is to be taken as recognition of the will of God?—I will remember that, Mr. Chairman.

223. Seriously, Mr. Breathnach, are those books carefully perused with a view to seeing that their contents are suitable? Would I be correct in saying that there is peculiar responsibility, when a book is published under the patronage of the Government, to ensure that its contents are inoffensive?—Well, it would be very hard to arrange that its contents would be inoffensive to everybody. If you attach that condition, it will be very hard to publish any book, because there is hardly any book in which you would not find something offensive to somebody.

224. Well, I agree that it is a matter of degree, but would the Department recognise the distinction between the freedom of expression on a controversial matter that might properly appear in a novel or publication independently published and what might properly appear in a novel or publication appearing under the Government imprint?—Yes, and we have done so very frequently. We have very frequently expunged from manuscripts matters that we thought might be offensive to certain sections of the community. We do exercise that supervision.

225. Deputy Cosgrave.—At the present time, are those publications submitted to the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures before they are published? —No; I never heard that they were.

226. Chairman.—I recognise the difficulty you refer to about eliminating everything that would be disagreeable. On the other hand, has your attention been directed to the expediency of publishing under Government imprint novels which declare Eamon de Valera to be the greatest Irish hero who has ever appeared in history, to be received with wild and unstrained acclamation when he appears in public places? That may or may not be true, but is it desirable that it should appear in a novel published under Government imprint? If I become Taoiseach of this country in the future, will I be free to publish novels saying that James Dillon was received in O’Connell Street, in the opinion of the hero of the novel, with acclamation that left Eamon de Valera standing cold?—I do not think there would be anything against it.

Deputy Lydon.—I do not think there is any danger of that.

227. Chairman.—I am bringing the matter to the attention of the Committee in regard to the expenditure of public money. I think there is a good deal to be said against it for that reason. We all know that, at present, there is a scarcity of books suitable for students in secondary schools and, naturally, it has been desirable to make as many as possible available and every book is liable to be used as a volume of instruction. Surely contemporary politics is scarcely a suitable matter for publication under the Government imprint?—I do not know that you should ask me to pronounce on that question.

228. I would not wish to embarass you. It is a question of the proper use of the money appropriated under Subhead B. 1. If you say to me that the choice of books is a matter of policy reserved to the Minister, I quite agree that it is not a matter to raise at this Committee. If, on the other hand, you have appointed some of your officers to supervise the quality of these publications, then I think the Committee is entitled to require of you to say if you are satisfied that the supervision of your officers is adequate and is on the right lines?—In general, I am satisfied that it is adequate and on the right lines. By way of reply to what you say about the glorification of any particular individual, you have to give an author, in a work of general literature of that kind like a novel, a considerable amount of freedom to express his own views, provided that the views are not subversive of religion or morality; and if he professes a certain brand of politics, it would be very hard to cramp his style to the extent of forbidding him to express them.

229. Deputy Cosgrave.—Is it desirable that publications for which your Committee has a certain responsibility should show undue preference or an undue degree of favouritism to contemporary politicians?—In the matter raised by the Chairman, I do not know whether that would be regarded as favouritism. It would be an expression of extreme admiration, I presume. Anybody writing a novel, who has different politics, I fancy, ought to be allowed to express similar admiration of another person.

230. Chairman.—No one would quarrel with you that it would be monstrous to suggest that a man publishing his novel through the medium of a commercial publisher—such as the Irish Educational Book Co.; Burns, Oates and Washbourne, or MacMillan—should be restricted in any possible way. The question is whether a book of the character we have envisaged should be printed with public funds and bear the imprint of the Government?—It is printed with the aid of public funds, but the expenditure may return to the Exchequer from the sales of the book. It is not a question of giving this money completely away. The Gúm recoups itself from the sales of the book, so that it is really in the nature of a commercial transaction.

231. In short, if these books could be properly described as political propaganda, would you consider them suitable publications for the Gúm, even if they were considered to be popular?—That is a very big question which I would not like to decide without due consideration.

232. For instance, suppose Mr. McManus had written his life of De Valera and entitled it “Beatha De Valera” and had offered it in Gaodhluoinn, would the Gúm have published it? —The Gúm would have to look upon it as the biography of a public man. They published the biography of Patrick Pearse, for instance.

233. Deputy Cosgrave.—Of course, he is not a contemporary politician?—I doubt if the Gúm could look upon it in that light. They would have to regard it as the biography of a distinguished public man. I do not know any plea on which they could refuse to publish it.

234. Chairman.—That would be the decision of the Department of Education? —But they would be perfectly satisfied to give the same facilities for your own life, for instance, in Irish.

235. I am very grateful for that information, as this is probably a matter on which the Committee will have a comment to make, and we simply want to know the exact facts. The views of the Gúm is that, whether a manuscript is of a propagandist nature or not is of no account and they are solely concerned to see that it has merit as a literary production and is suitable, taking into consideration faith and morals and public order?—Yes.

236. On Subhead B. 3, does the publication of these county histories continue now—Of course, the death of Father O’Flanagan has brought about a change. Nobody has actually continued it in the way he was doing it. We advertised for offers to produce local histories—not necessarily county histories this time, but histories of any area, of any unit— and we set up a small committee to judge them. We made it incumbent on those applying, whose offers had been accepted, to submit a sample of their work and we have a special committee to judge those scripts. They got about 150 applications altogether and there are about one dozen actually working.

237. Who have been instructed to carry on?—Whose offers have been accepted and who have been instructed to carry on.

238. Are these works being prepared in English or are they also required to prepare them in Irish?—A choice was given: they might prepare them either in English or Irish.

239. Deputy Cogan.—Is this particular section in a position to collect material which is already in existence, in cases where the author may be dead?—You ask if the author of one of these histories is entitled to get particulars already in existence?

240. You do not collect the material?— Oh, no, we leave that to the author.

VOTE 50—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Mícheál Breathnach further examined.

241. Chairman.—On Subhead A., have you had an opportunity of seeing Daingean since you took over the Department?—No, I am sorry I have not had the opportunity. I was very busy, naturally, since I went into the office and did not get the opportunity, but I will see it.

242. You are satisfied it is a substantial improvement on the old establishment?— I have inquired from our inspector, who has visited it, and he assures me there is progressive improvement, and that they will continue to improve it still further by supplying further buildings.

243. The accommodation, in your judgment, is at present adequate?—So I am informed.

244. May we take it that, if any Deputy of whose bona fides you are satisfied, applies for permission to see the school, it will be granted?—Very willingly.

245. On Subhead C., I understand that Summerhill is now closed?—I heard you affirming that in very dramatic tones in the Dáil.

246. I take it that it was closed on the grounds of general unsuitability?—I expect so—and your own efforts.

247. I am grateful for that vindication, at least. On Subhead D., where are the children being detained at present?—In Marlborough House, Glasnevin.

248. Is that an orphanage or a special place?—It is a special place in lieu of Summerhill.

249. Have you had an opportunity of seeing it?—Yes.

250. Are you perfectly satisfied?—Yes.

251. Who operates it?—It is the same personnel practically as was in Summerhill.

252. But the accommodation is superior? —Very much better.

253. Has it been found practicable to make any provision for the instruction of children for any occupational work?—It is very hard to do that, as they are such a short time there. I found that the average weekly number there is seven only. We are exploring ways of improving things there and that is included in our ideas.

254. It seems obvious that, if you have seven children confined for a week, they ought not be allowed to spend the time twiddling their thumbs?—It would not be the same seven all the week.

255. The general period of detention is for a week?—Some are there only a short time, while being transferred from one industrial school to another.

256. Even with small numbers, would it not be fairly obvious that some person should be charged with the duty of teaching them something or organising games there?—They play games all right. There is provision for indoor games.

257. Is there any yard or field behind the building in which they can get fresh air?—There is, but it is not very large. The building is practically in the city and the amount of land around is small, but there is a yard in which they may take the air.

258. Deputy Lydon.—Has the punishment administered in industrial schools to be written into a report book?—Yes.

259. Are you satisfied that there is no unjust punishment?—It would be very hard to settle that question. We take what precautions we can to see that there will not be such punishment.

260. In connection with the hours during which they work at industrial schools, particularly farm work, have you any say in regard to the particular hours, or any control of them?—We inspect them and, in that way, we have a say in regard to them.

261. In regard to the hours at which the children rise in the morning?—Yes, our inspector deals with that.

262. Would you not think that at some of the schools the children are out at a very early hour, for milk work—That is characteristic of all institutions.

263. Chairman.—They retire proportionately early?—Yes.

264. Deputy Lydon.—I would say they work rather hard.—Were you referring to any particular case?

265. At Letterfrack, County Galway, I have seen very pitiful cases coming before the court, where boys run away and have pleaded not to be sent back there, and I am not satisfied at all that there is not unjust punishment being administered in some of these schools?—It would be very hard for us to deal with the matter in a general way. If there were a specific complaint, we could investigate it.

266. Chairman.—I have no doubt that, if the Deputy has any reason to believe that a particular school should be subjected to a special inspection, he could discuss that matter with you in your office?—Yes.

267. On Subhead F., in view of what the Deputy has said, it might be right to ask this question. In your experience, is it not true that children in institutions of that kind are frequently given to making the most reckless accusations, in order that they may be exempted from paying for their delinquency?—That is so.

268. Chairman.—Of course, you must be vigilant to ensure that no impropriety takes place?—Yes.

269. The inspection staff would be at the disposal of any reasonable person who felt that he had grounds even for suspicion as regards such matters?—Yes.

VOTE 70—DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES.

Mícheál Breathnach called.

No question.

Chairman.—We are very grateful to you, Mr. Breathnach, for your attendance and, particularly, for the encyclopaedic nature of your replies. We are quite unable to put any query to you which you were not able to answer offhand.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. T. Cleary called and examined.

Chairman.—I know that I speak for the Committee when I express regret that Mr. W. D. Carey, former Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, is no longer with us and I offer him, on behalf of the Committee, best wishes for many years in which to enjoy his well-earned leisure. Again, our regrets are substantially tempered by the fact that we have Mr. Cleary, the new Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, with us to answer any queries we may put to him. I need hardly say how very welcome he is.

Mr. Cleary.—Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—There are some notes by the Comptroller and Auditor General to this account. Paragraph 8 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

“A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out, with satisfactory results.”

Paragraph 9 deals with extra-statutory repayments of Customs and Excise duties and states:

“Extra-statutory repayments of custom duties and of excise duties amounting to £11,963 12s. 10d. and £624 10s. 3d., respectively, were made during the year.”

270. Could you tell us, Mr. Cleary, what the nature of the bulk of those extra-statutory repayments was?

Mr. Cleary.—The larger part of that sum of £11,963, representing Customs Duties, arose out of repayments of duty on goods in respect of which licences were issued subsequent to the payment of the duty. These repayments were, principally, in respect of duty paid on clothing and apparel imported in the period in 1942-43, in which we were trying to get in large quantities of such goods. Licences were issued but, in many cases, the licences were not available when the goods arrived and the duties were paid to ensure haste or under a misapprehension. Big refunds had, therefore, to be made. The rate of duty on clothing was reduced and an understanding was come to with the Department of Industry and Commerce that there would be a reduction in the issue of licences. There was a reduction that year but a number of repayments took place subsequently.

“Remissions.

“10. I have been furnished with a schedule of the several cases involving a loss of £50 and upwards in which claims for duty or interest receivable under the Revenue Acts were remitted during the year ended 31st March, 1943, without statutory authority, from motives of compassion or equity arising out of particular circumstances in individual cases. The reasons given for remission appear to be satisfactory. The total amount shown in the schedule is £12,785 15s. 1d., as compared with £1,137 17s. 6d. in the preceding year. Of the total, £9,544 12s. 1d. has been remitted in respect of Income Tax. £5,142 12s. 0d. related to twenty cases in which the assessed parties died insolvent or were destitute and recovery was impossible; £2,763 4s. 5d. related to seventeen cases in which assessments were raised but subsequent evidence revealed no net liability to tax, and £1,648 15s. 8d. related to three cases of bankruptcy or liquidation in which there were no assets to meet the claims. The remissions also include sums in respect of Customs and Excise duties and of interest on Estate and Succession duties amounting to £3,231 3s. 0d.

“The above figures do not include duty passed as irrecoverable for various reasons.”

271. Chairman.—Is there anything remarkable, Mr. Maher, in the fact that the remissions amounted to £12,785 in the year with which we are dealing as compared with £1,137 in the preceding year.

Mr. Maher.—The increase was under the head of income-tax and the Commissioners state that it was due to the clearing of arrears which had accumulated owing to pressure of work in their income-tax division.

272. —Chairman.—Are those arrears substantially disposed of now?

Mr. Cleary.—I think so.

“Subhead Q.—Losses by Default, Fraud and Accident.

“11. As noted in the account, the charge to this subhead includes items amounting to £107 5s. 2d. in respect of three cases of underpayment of Publican’s Licence Duty and Tobacco Dealer’s Licence Duty. These duties are assessed by reference to the Poor Law Valuation of the premises concerned, and in two of the cases it would appear that the administrative procedure for so assessing the duties proved defective. I understand that consideration is being given to the possibility of amending the procedure so as to prevent the recurrence of revenue losses of this nature.”

273. Have you anything to add to that note, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—A full note regarding the losses will be found on page 13.

274. Chairman.—Have you received any communication as to the revised method of procedure since this note was made?— Yes. I understand that, under the revised procedure, the valuations, as shown by the books of the Customs and Excise officers, will be compared with those of the local rating authorities and that, in cases of discrepancy, reference will be made to the Valuation Office for a decision.

Mr. Cleary.—The arrangements for the revised procedure are now almost completed. In addition, we are now notifying the Valuation Office of any new licence granted during the year. Occasionally a new licence, for example, a Hotel license, might be granted in a district and the Valuation Office will not know that such premises are licensed. For many years, the Valuation Office have notified the Collector of Customs and Excise in Dublin of changes in the valuation of licensed premises. The collector in Dublin extracts what is proper to his own collection and notifies the Collectors at Galway, Limerick, Waterford and Cork of changes in the valuation of licensed premises in their areas. In addition, as Mr. Maher has been informed, lists are received from the Valuation Office by the income-tax sections of our Office, and after use there, these are further examined for checking tobacco dealers’ and publicans’ licence duties. Then, there is the provision of which Mr. Maher has told you, which is nearing completion.

275. Chairman.—You are satisfied that there will be no recurrence of those losses?—I think that the measures I have referred to will tend largely to eliminate them, but the human element has always to be considered and mistakes may occur between our Office and the Valuation Office. However, I do not think that, in future, any errors will remain undetected as long as those three did.

VOTE 7—OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. T. Cleary further examined.

“12. The amount of £2,061 3s. 0d. noted in the account as written off in cases where there was fraud or concealment includes a sum of £152 2s. 0d., relating to a case in which legal proceedings for recovery had been discontinued, as it was considered that the testimony of the officer who investigated the original claim would not be conclusive as proof of fraud. I understand that officers investigating pension claims have now been instructed that care should be taken in the preparation of the necessary forms to ensure that they would be in a position to testify, if called upon, to the correctness of the particulars recorded by them thereon.”

276. Chairman.—Have you anything to add to that note, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—This paragraph relates to the award of a pension in 1932. After the death of the pensioner, it was discovered that she had private means which were not disclosed at the time. Legal proceedings for recovery of the overpayment were not taken as the pension officer who investigated the claim was unable to make a sworn declaration that he had asked the question relating to private means. I understand that the Department have issued instructions to investigating officers which will provide against a recurrence of such cases.

Mr. Cleary.—That is so. We have even improved upon what has been indicated, by issuing instructions which we thought were more explicit and in more definite terms. The instructions issued were to the effect that all officers concerned were to take sufficient care in preparing the records to ensure that they will be able to testify, if called upon, that they asked the claimant such questions as, if truthfully answered, would have elicited all the relevant facts and that the recorded particulars accurately represent the position as disclosed by the claimant.

277. Deputy Breslin.—Is not that question regarding means included in the application form, and has not the applicant to answer it?—Yes, the procedure is: the answers of the applicant are recorded on a form (2a). That form is kept for three years after it is prepared. The particulars are also recorded on a form (No. 58) which is retained for three years after the person has died. The claimant in this case had disclosed some money in bank, but had not disclosed a holding of stock in a public company. The officer concerned was unable to testify, after nine years, that he had asked a question which would, if answered, have elicited information regarding the stock. Counsel engaged on our behalf advised that, in the circumstances, our case would fail.

278. There is a question on the application form as regards money in bank?— Yes.

279. If she had answered that, would it not be sufficient to prove fraud?—That information is merely transcribed by the officer. Counsel advised that it would be in the nature of indirect evidence and would not be sufficient for our purposes. A statement written by her was not available. In these cases, the information given is noted by the officer, transcribed, and put into a permanent form.

280. Chairman.—Hereafter, the officer will be required to address that specific question to the claimant?—With this new instruction before him, we think that he will always have to bear in mind the possibility of being called upon to testify on oath as to what he did on each occasion.

281. It has not been thought prudent to set out statutory questions which would be required to put to a claimant when investigating means?—The form I referred to, viz., No. 2a, contains those questions.

282. That instruction will mean that the officer will have to put these questions specifically, one after the other, to the claimant?—Quite so.

283. What is the nature of the extra-statutory grants referred to in subhead E?—There is a note dealing with those grants on page 18. The bulk of these are out-of-date orders which we are precluded by law from paying in the ordinary way and which were not paid, through causes outside the pensioner’s control. On grounds of equity, we, with the sanction and approval of the Department of Finance, pay in these cases. Not being covered by law, the grants are extra-statutory.

VOTE 8—COMPENSATION BOUNTIES.

Mr. T. Cleary called.

No question.

The Committee adjourned.

* Appendix IV.