Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1946 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1944 - 1945

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 4ú Nollaig, 1946.

Wednesday, 4th December, 1946.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

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

VOTE 39—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. D. Coffey called and examined.

463. Deputy Briscoe.—Your Department gets records from all the Departments, including documents from the Quit Rent Office?—The Quit Rent Office was abolished and the greater portion of its documents were sent to us. Actually the documents were divided between the various Dpartments. The Land Commission got a big portion of them and foreshore matters went to the Board of Works.

464. I do not know whether it arises in connection with this Vote but some of these records had an extraordinary value for this country. What happened to them? —In a sense you might say that they are buried in my Department but they are actually in constant use. People come in to consult them every day.

465. Some of them are very valuable, including the Parnell documents?—Yes. Actually some of these documents were sent to Avondale but anything we have is accessible to the public, except certain files.

466. You have a proper record of these documents which are of historical importance?—Yes, they are constantly being consulted.

VOTE 51—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Dr. G. J. Furlong called and examined.

467. Chairman.—I understand, Dr. Furlong, that during the emergency pictures were loaned for exhibition in America and England. Can you say if they have come back?—Yes, they have come back.

468. Were these shown on exhibition over there?—Yes.

469. Deputy Briscoe.—Have you responsibility for the lay-out of the pictures in the Gallery and also for the lighting effects?—I have responsibility for hanging the pictures but there is no lighting in the Gallery to be responsible for.

470. I mean the daylight effect?—They are about to introduce electric light in the coming year into the Gallery. I thought that was what you meant.

471. The National Gallery does contain some very excellent pictures and some not so good, but one is handicapped in trying to view them particularly downstairs where the lighting effect is very bad? —Downstairs it is very bad but we hope to remedy that when we get artificial light. We have had the Board of Works representatives down there. With the light coming from both sides, it is absolutely impossible at present to avoid reflection.

472. At present it is a question of light and shadow?—Actually there are certain hours of the day in each particular room in which you can view the Dutch pictures quite well. At other times you just see yourself. The only solution would be— it would cost a lot of money but it is what they are doing in the London Gallery—to have an air-conditioned building and to take the glass off the pictures.

473. The matter is receiving your consideration from time to time?—Yes, but unfortunately there is no proper solution. We have to use the ground floor rooms and when you have sidelights and you have to glaze the pictures, there is not a great deal you can do about removing reflections. On the other hand with artificial lighting you could cut it down to an absolute minimum. We are hoping to use artificial light in these rooms.

474. You have taken the opportunity to examine the lighting in the Municipal Art Gallery?—They have all top lighting. With top lighting the problem does not arise so much.

475. Do you find that you lose a number of pictures you would like to have for the Gallery which come on the market from time to time in Dublin because the limit of your expenditure is so very insufficient? —Yes, it is distinctly insufficient. I have made representations in regard to that, yearly representations, I might say.

476. Do you make representations from time to time as to the additions to the Gallery you might get which are being lost because of your low limit of expenditure?—For example, last year, I did go to see Finance about the matter and for the current year they have increased the allowance for buying pictures from £1,000 to £2,000, which was the figure prior to the war. While that is a great help, it is not adequate.Two thousand pounds is not an adequate allowance at the present price of pictures.

477. I do not know whether the Committee would permit me to say that I hope you shall be successful in getting Finance to give you an adequate allowance for the purchase of pictures?—In the course of years, it becomes more difficult because in past years you could always fill up certain blanks in the Gallery with the least important schools which are not represented but as the years go on the kind of picture which the Gallery wants naturally is the more important ones. The London National Gallery authorities never buy a cheap picture because they have all the lesser schools adequately represented. That in turn creates a demand for the more important pictures and sends up the price.

478. Would you try to convince Finance that what used to be a £1 before the war is now 6/8?—That is certainly true when you come to buy a picture.

479. Chairman.—Do you occasionally take down some pictures and replace them by others?-Yes. There is a certain number of pictures downstairs and it is a widespread illusion, concerning our Gallery and most galleries in the world, that there are wonderful treasures downstairs. There are really no first-class pictures downstairs. In actual fact when an important picture is sent away to be cleaned it is extremely difficult to get anything to substitute for it while it is away. We have never had a first-class picture downstairs. There is often not even a good second-class picture downstairs.

480. Deputy Briscoe.—Generally speaking, you have what might be termed a fair collection?—Yes, a very good collection.

480a. I suggest that you might impress upon Finance that the value of the collection might be enhanced if the lighting effects were improved and try to induce Finance to permit you to buy a picture once in a while?—We are quite convinced as to the inadequacy of the present lighting. The collection, I think, is the best in these Islands, outside London.

VOTE 63—ARMY.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon called and examined.

481. Chairman.—The following note is contained in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, paragraph 63:—

“The appropriation account, in conformity with the estimate presented to Dáil Eireann, shows only the total expenditure, details of the distribution of the grant amongst the several heads of expenditure being omitted. Particulars showing the allocation of the grant against the various headings, as approved by the Department of Finance, have been furnished to me, and the sanction of that Department has been sought for the application of savings on certain heads of expenditure to meet excesses under other heads. The normal method of accounting has been restored for the year 1945-46.

The account shows that, including a surplus of Appropriations-in-Aid of £78,994 7s. 10d., the total surplus remaining to be surrendered is £553,476 1s. 11d., or 6.4 per cent. of the net estimate.”

Has the sanction of the Department been received yet?

General MacMahon.—Yes.

482. Chairman.—Paragraph 64 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

“Stores.—Application has been made to the Department of Finance for authority to write off the sum of £23 15s. 1½d., being the assessed value of certain articles of clothing and necessaries which were deficient in a certain unit. The total value of the deficiencies was assessed at £97 5s. 0d., of which £73 9s. 10½d., was recovered from personnel of the unit concerned. It appears that, in order to adjust deficiencies in the stocks, the clothing accounts and vouchers for the years 1941 and 1942 had been altered, receipts having been obtained from men for articles which were not issued to them. and the figure of £97 5s. 0d. was arrived at after allowing credit for these items. It was considered that the original deficiencies arose through the non-recording of issues, that the fictitious entries were made with a view to adjusting the matter, and that there was no intention to defraud. It is not possible, however, to ascertain the extent of the deficiencies owing to the irregular manner in which the accounts were compiled.”

Can you say how these irregularities first came to light?—As a result of a complaint made by an N.C.O. attached to the battery.

483. Was an inquiry held?—A court of inquiry was held as a result of that complaint.

484. A a result of the court of inquiry, were any officers or men of the unit held responsible?—We were advised by the Deputy Judge Advocate General that a court-martial should not be held, that there was not sufficient evidence to convict anybody. Those who could give evidence were, in fact, implicated. For that reason, we could not have the officers and men concerned court-martialled. However, disciplinary action of a type has already been taken and the only point in dispute between the Department of Finance and my Department at the moment is in respect of the extent to which this action should be taken. The Department of Finance want much more severe disciplinary action taken than my Minister proposes to take and the matter has not yet been brought to a conclusion.

485. How many officers were involved? —Four officers and two N.C.O.s.

486. What were the ranks of the officers?—The commanding officer was an acting commandant; the others were captains.

487. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Are they still serving?—Yes, with the exception of one temporary officer, who is a civil servant. I should like to say that, while we regard the matter as very serious, due to the fact that vouchers were falsified, everybody who examined the occurrence is convinced that there was no intention on the part of the officers to defraud either the State or the men under their command. If they had reported the matter in the early stages, I think that it could have been adjusted. Instead, they went about the matter in this wrong and ignorant way.

488. Chairman.—When you say that there was no intention to defraud, what exactly happened? Stocks were put down as having been issued and receipts, signed by the men, were obtained, while, in fact, the articles were not issued? —They were actually issued but they did not record the issues. The trouble arose in connection with the Easter parade in 1941. The unit at the time was composed of men of different units—some regular soldiers, some volunteers and some reservists—and they had different types of uniform. Without authority the commanding officer issued for the day battle dress uniforms to all the men in his unit. His intention was to collect those uniforms after the parade. Unfortunately, he did not collect them, and later he got receipts from the men for uniforms. While the men were properly clothed, they were not issued with more clothing than they would ordinarily be entitled to and there was no more clothing issued from the stores than ordinary entitlement.

489. But the issues were made in advance of the normal routine?—They did not get receipts for the issues at the time. They got receipts later. If they had reported the matter when they got into difficulty, I think that we could have adjusted it The Minister, when considering disciplinary action, is influenced by the fact that at that time the officers were training new men in their unit, and, in addition, had to train men for other units. They were working all day and most of the night. Matters were serious at that time. The Minister feels that we should judge the matter from the point of view of the officers’ reaction at the time. They felt that all that counted at that time was to have their men properly trained. They considered that to be their particular job and they concentrated on that and neglected the accountancy aspect of the matter.

490. What was the previous record of the regular officers concerned?—Excellent.

491. Deputy O’Sullivan.—What was the difficulty in recovering the full amount of the deficiency? Why should there be a large balance outstanding?—We knew that a couple of the N.C.Os. were dishonest and it was one of those N.C.Os. who reported the falsification of accounts. There were certain deficiencies of which we knew and we are recovering those from the officers and men of the unit.

492. Chairman.—Does the representative of the Department of Finance desire to say anything on the matter at this stage?

Mr. Almond.—This case has been the subject of very protracted correspondence and very considerable discussion with the Department of Defence. Departmentally, we have reached the decision that we are unable to subscribe to the views of the Department of Defence as to the punishment to be meted out to the officers who were responsible for the falsifications and irregularities. We have prepared a case for the Minister for Finance to enable him to take a final decision from the point of view of his Department. I may say that the only punishment which the Minister for Finance could insist upon and which he would have power to maintain would be refusal to sanction confirmation of the acting ranks of those three officers who remain. They held acting rank and we have pressed that they should revert to their substantive ranks on account of their conduct in the present case. Departmentally, we have been unable to prevail on the Department of Defence to take that line. A question also arises as to the payment of an emergency gratuity to one of the officers—a temporary officer. That is a matter which lies entirely within the discretion of the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Finance has no power to insist that the gratuity should be withheld. We propose to put it to the Department of Defence that the Minister for Defence should withhold the gratuity in that case and the gratuities in the case of the two N.C.Os. involved.

493. Chairman.—You agree with General MacMahon that this is a serious matter?—We take an extremely serious view of it. I should like to point to a paragraph which appeared in the minute of the Minister for Finance to the Public Accounts Committee in connection with the Appropriations Accounts of 1940-41. The Committee had been dealing in that year with a case of fraud. The officers concerned were not actually involved in the fraud, but, owing to lack of supervision and carelessness on their part, the fraud had been made possible. The Minister stated in connection with that case:—

“In every case where an officer is found guilty of an irregularity he is suitably punished and, where possible, the amount of the loss to State funds is recovered from his pay and allowances. Where the case is serious enough to involve dismissal the officer loses-any entitlement to pension or gratuity. The Minister is of opinion that, however carefully regulations may be framed, reliance must, in general, be placed upon the integrity and sense of responsibility of the individual officer for due observance of the regulations and that, where these qualities are lacking, the only deterrent against fraid or carelessness is the fear of severe punishment that would result from discovery.”

494. The temporary officer had also a good record?

General MacMahon.—Excellent record —both in the Civil Service and the Army. This was an anti-aircraft battalion and, in addition to their work during the day, the men were frequently called out in the early morning and in the middle of the night. In connection with the punishment, I should like to point out that the commanding officer was an acting commandant at the time. Had it not been for this occurrence he would now be major. As an Army officer, he is an excellent officer. As a commanding officer, he is also excellent. We have suggested that he be confirmed in his rank as commandant. Had it not been for this happening, he would have been promoted major a couple of years ago— probably about the time that this matter was discovered. This occurrence has prevented him from being promoted to the rank of major. Having considered the matter carefully, my Minister felt that this was a very big punishment and that he should not now be reverted to the rank of captain, as the Department of Finance has suggested. As to the temporary officer, he was not involved in the issues at all. He became quartermaster only a short time before this matter was discovered and he did not realise the seriousness of what had occurred. He was under the impression that the men had the uniforms—two uniforms—and, as there was only one receipt, that there must be a receipt for the second one. Everything he did was done in good faith. This has reacted upon him in the Civil Service, and my Minister thinks it would be a great injustice if he did not get the gratuity.

495. In what Department is he serving? —In the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

496. Deputy Briscoe.—Is any distinction drawn in the Department of Finance or in the Department of Defence between officers who are normally in charge of stores and temporary officers who, particularly during the emergency, were ordered into the stores to do this class work, although they protested that they joined the Army as soldiers and that they were not fitted for ordinary accountancy and book-keeping? Is any distinction drawn between those two types?—In peace time there is. We do not put a man in charge of stores without some training. If he has no training we put him under a man who has training. During the emergency that was quite impossible. A number of officers protested against taking up these jobs but they were ordered to take them up.

497. Should there not be some distinction with regard to the treatment of officers or men who were not normally trained for this class of work and who got into trouble?—In many cases they had to obey orders. To a certain extent, that has contributed to certain of these happenings.

Chairman.—I am afraid that does not arise in this case as the particular officer responsible was a regular officer. Is it not usual to give a short course of quartermaster’s work to officers before they take up the position of quartermaster?—That was done later but at this time it was not done as there was no time to do it. The commanding officer had no experience whatever of quartermastering and the man who became quartermaster had no experience either. The Minister did take these facts into consideration and he feels that the reaction which this will have on the temporary officer’s career in the Civil Service is really sufficient punishment and that it would be unjust to deprive him of the gratuity. I may say that the Minister has given this matter a great deal of personal attention.

498. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Am I to understand that there is still a difference of opinion as between Finance and the Army regarding the proposed treatment of this temporary officer—That is correct.

498A. Finance proposes that a course of action different from what the Department of Defence proposes to take should be taken?—They feel that he should not get his gratuity and it is held up at the moment. My Minister feels that he should get it. He has power to give it as Mr. Almond has pointed out but he is waiting until the matter is cleared up. He feels very strongly, however, that it would be an injustice to deprive this man of his gratuity.

499. You are satisfied that in all the circumstances the officer acted in good faith?—Definitely.

500. Chairman.—It seems to me to have been unfair to put this responsibility on these officers without giving them the requisite training?—There was no alternative. Our artillery and anti-aircraft units were practically non-existent when the emergency started.

501. Deputy Briscoe.—I think we all have knowledge of cases in which men who joined the Army or who went into the Army from other Departments in a temporary capacity were forced against their best judgment into positions of this kind, in which they had to do work which was not technically soldiering. I hope the Minister for Defence will be able to convince the Department of Finance that there should be some distinction in treatment with regard to men who were dumped into these positions without the requisite training and who, in many cases, were placed in charge of technical stores of the items of which they had no idea at all. Particularly where men are involved who are not normally men from whom one can expect the same meticulous care and treatment as one would expect from others, there should be some distinction?—With regard to the punishment which the temporary officer has already received, I might mention that prior to the emergency he had been in the Volunteers He would be a reserve officer now but we discharged him from the Reserve as a result of this. That is another punishment, apart from the reaction which this will have on his career in the Civil Service.

502. Chairman.—I think the Committee would hold the view that the punishment should fit the case and should not be in any way of an excessively harsh nature. I think the punishment in this case so far as the temporary officer is concerned is adequate.

General MacMahon.—My Minister will be very glad to know that.

Mr. Almond.—Perhaps I might clarify the position in relation to Deputy Briscoe’s remarks. I think it is safe to say that if these deficiencies had been admitted and reported in the ordinary way we would have taken the view which Deputy Briscoe suggests. We would have agreed, in the circumstances of the time, to write off the deficiencies, but this case is quite a different matter. This was a conspiracy by a certain number of officers to falsify accounts. That is not a question of deficiency. It is the question of the conduct of an officer and a breach of all the regulations. That is the point to which we advert.

503. Chairman.—That is the most essential aspect of it.

General MacMahon.—We admit that.

Chairman.—I suppose we shall hear from either or both Departments when the matter has been concluded.

504. The note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General continues:—

“A number of motor cycles which were delivered in January, 1944, and which were put into service, were subsequently found to be defective and were withdrawn and returned to the suppliers. Expenditure amounting to £1,164 18s. 3d. was incurred in connection with their receipt and return, of which £715 10s. 5d. related to inward and outward shipping charges. I have been informed that representations have been made to the suppliers with a view to securing a refund of these charges and that it is not proposed to claim in respect of the balance of £449 7s. 10d., which was made up of assembly, transport, and other costs. The sanction of the Department of Finance is being sought for this procedure.”

Has sanction been received yet?—No. We are still in communication with the High Commissioner. The Department of Finance think that in certain circumstances we should recover the full amount, and the matter has not yet been brought to a conclusion.

505. Deputy Briscoe.—Were these motor-cycles bought from a firm or through the Ministry on the other side? —They were bought through the War Office in London from the Enfield people.

506. The War Office was the agent for their purchase?—The Enfield Company could not supply direct to anybody but the War Office, and our order had to go through the War Office.

507. Your claim is being made through the War Office?—Yes. The steering in the machines was defective.

508.I am inclined to express sympathy with the Department of Finance view in this matter.

Mr. Almond.—In case there should be any misconception as to what we have asked the Department of Defence to do, I might explain that we are not pressing a claim against the War Office, because the War Office in this matter facilitated the Department of Defence and it would be unfair to ask the War Office to pay up anything. But if the War Office are able to recover from the supplier of the machines the full amount, we consider that we are justified in applying for the recovery of the full amount. We are not, however, pressing a claim against the War Office.

509. My reason for speaking what I did is that if the Department of Defence buys goods from a particular supplier they have the right to inspect the goods and to reject them if they are not up to standard. In the same way, that is the position as between the War Office and suppliers to the War Office. Inspection and acceptance would be the responsibility of the War Office in this case?— Not in this case. We would have purchased them direct had it been possible to do so, but at that time firms in England were not permitted to supply without, in same cases, the authority of the Ministry of Supply, and, in others, the War Office.

510. The question of inspection comes in at some time or is omitted at some time?—We could not inspect the cycles until they arrived here We found them to be defective and the manufacturers admitted that they were defective. The War Office had to reject a very large number of machines of a similar make.

511. If the Department here were able to buy these machines from a local supplier, rejection could have taken place as soon as defects were discovered and at no cost to the Department. In this case, the War Office can reject defective machines without any liability but due to the circumstances existing we were forced to use the good offices of the War Office to get these machines and when defects are discovered a cost is involved to somebody. I suggest the cost should be to the supplier. How many motor-cycles were defective?—The whole consignment of 500.

512. Chairman.—I assume that this was another difficulty which arose during the emergency?—Yes.

513. Deputy Briscoe.—I note that the Department of Defence proposes to write off the balance and the Department of Finance think the matter should be pressed further. My own view is that every effort should be made to get the suppliers to reimburse the Department of Defence the full amount?—We are endeavouring to do that.

Mr. Almond.—Only if it is recoverable from the suppliers. We would not press the War Office to pay up themselves.

514. Chairman.—We got them through the War Office?

Mr. Almond.—Yes, but only through their good offices. They came in as an intermediary between Defence and the suppliers.

515. You could still use the good offices of the War Office to get the suppliers to pay?

Mr. Almond.—If we ask them to pay up that amount, their good offices might not in future be forthcoming.

516. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

“Authority for Expenditure.

65. Orders were placed in the year 1944 for medical stores for emergency reserve purposes, the sanction of the Department of Finance for the accumulation of such reserves having been obtained in April, 1942. Having regard to the general conditions laid down by the Department of Finance relating to the period during which sanctions for the purchase of stores may be acted upon, I represented to the Accounting Officer that the authority of April, 1942, must be regarded as having lapsed before the orders in question were issued. I have, therefore, requested that the covering sanction of the Department of Finance be sought for the expenditure involved.”

General MacMahon.—That sanction has been obtained.

517. Chairman.—The note continues:—

“General sanction is obtained annually from the Department of Finance for expenditure, within the limits of the amounts provided in the estimate, on items of stores required for normal maintenance in the various Corps and Services, subject to the condition that proposals for capital or non-recurring expenditure will be submitted for specific sanction. As certain stores which were purchased under the general authority appeared to be of a capital nature I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Mr. Maher.—The requisite Finance sanction has also been obtained in this case.

518. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

“Provisions.

66. Statements have been furnished to me showing the cost of production of bread at the Curragh Bakery, and of meat at the Dublin and Curragh Abattoirs. The unit costs are as follows:—

The average price of cattle purchased for the Dublin and Curragh areas was £35 2s. 0d. and £34 0s. 4d. per head, respectively, as compared with £36 4s. 11d. and £35 6s. 5d. in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 710 lbs. and 667 lbs., respectively, as compared with 703 lbs. and 652 lbs.

In connection with the placing of contracts for the supply of milk to a military post for the period June to October, 1944, it was estimated that a weekly supply of 875 gallons would be required, and in order to fill this demand it was found necessary to secure portion of the requirements from a contractor whose price was higher than that quoted by other suppliers. Owing to a re-allocation of the troops in the area the requirements were considerably reduced, and could then have been obtaind in full at a lower price. As it appeared that a condition of these contracts provided for their termination on twenty-one days’ notice given by either party, I have inquired whether consideration was given to the question of terminating the arrangements made with the contractor referred to.”

Mr. Maher.—This contract related to the Athlone area and I have since been informed that consideration was given to the question of terminating the contract with the Model Creamery, the contractor referred to, but in all the circumstances of the case it was decided that such action would be unfair dealing on the part of the Department with the creamery, would adversely affect the Department’s relationship with the creamery and prejudice the subsequent tendering by the creamery for the supply of milk to the barracks. This would be detrimental to the interests of the Department, as experience has shown that the full requirements of milk by the barracks could not always be secured without the assistance of the creamery.

General MacMahon.—We reduced the quantities from the various contractors and we felt that if we cut out this contract or completely—his tender was the highest—it would react on other isolated posts which he was supplying at the time and which nobody else would supply. So, as a matter of fact, we continue to give them some of the business.

519. Deputy Colbert.—Is this a cooperative creamery?—No, it is a Dublin firm.

520. Chairman.—They have a depot in Athlone?—No, they send from Dublin.

521. Chairman.—Paragraph 67 reads as follows:—

“Transport on Repayment.

With the sanction of the Department of Finance, a number of Army lorries was made available to the Department of Supplies for the transport of turf for use by the civilian population. The total mileage completed was 315,884 and payment of £15,794 4s. 0d., representing a mileage rate of 1/-, was received from Fuel Importers (Eire), Limited, in May, 1945, and will be brought to account as appropriations-in-aid of the Army Vote for the year 1945-46.

Mr. Maher.—The charge of 1/- per mile slightly exceeds the actual cost as shown by the Army accounts.

522. Chairman.—Paragraph 68 reads as follows:—

“Hospitalization.

Reference was made in paragraph 72 of the report on the accounts for the year 1942-43 to expenditure which had been incurred on the provision of emergency equipment for hospitals, and to the question of securing contributions in respect of such expenditure from local authorities, or other bodies, in view of the fact that the services provided would be available equally for military and civilian casualties. The Government has since decided that the cost of treating all casualties should be borne by State funds and, in accordance with that decision, the sanction of the Department of Finance has been obtained for charging to the Army Vote the sum of £4,047 16s. 3d. referred to in the report for 1942-43. In addition, expenditure amounting approximately to £21,000 on the adaptation and equipment of certain premises as base hospitals, which was charged to the votes of previous years and in respect of which it had been proposed to secure a contribution from a local authority, will remain charged against State funds.”

Mr. Maher.—The purpose of that paragraph is to indicate the fact that no provision is made in the Army Vote for the treatment of civilian casualties and portion of this expenditure would relate to civilian casualties.

Witness.—This was a Government decision.

523. Chairman.—A Government decision not to charge against the local authority?—That is correct.

524. What local authority?—Various ones—Cork, Dublin, Wexford, etc. The scheduled areas under the A.R.P. scheme.

525. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

“Warlike Stores.

69. The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained in 1943 for expenditure amounting to £19,220 on the purchase of 80 second-hand saloon cars and their conversion to towing vehicles for anti-tank guns. It appeared that 31 guns had been ordered in 1939, of which only six had been delivered at January, 1945, when it was decided that the order should be regarded as satisfied by the deliveries then made. Information has been sought regarding the circumstances in which 80 towing vehicles were provided in view of the fact that only 31 guns had been ordered.”

Can you say why it was decided to purchase 80?—Because we were promised 80 cars. We had placed an order for only 31, but we were promised 80. As we had no means of towing them, we considered this to be the most efficient way of doing it and, as it would take some time to convert the cars purchased, we proceeded to do so immediately. At a later stage we found that the particular gun had been superseded by a much superior one. We tried to get the superior gun but did not succeed. Then, because the two-pounder that we had on order was inferior to the new one, we cancelled the order and, as a result, these vehicles were not required for the purpose for which they were purchased.

526. Was it a verbal promise?—Yes, most of the transactions at that time were done verbally.

527. Have these vehicles been disposed of?—We sold 38 and still retain 42.

528. Are the 42 in use?—Yes, they are allotted to various units.

529. Deputy Briscoe.—Would you consider that, not having received the guns ordered, notwithstanding the 80 cars that were purchased, there was a net saving over the whole transactions?—That did occur to me

530. Chairman.—The note continues:—

“The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained in August, 1943, for the manufacture of 20,000 anti-tank mines involving the provision of 20,000 casings and 76,000 batteries; the number of batteries being fixed on the basis of three per mine together with 16,000 for training purposes. Subsequently it was decided that only two batteries per mine should be provided, together with 4,000 for training, making a total of 44,000 batteries, but it appeared that purchase of the requisite materials proceeded on the basis of a provision of 64,000 batteries and I have asked for an explanation.”

Mr. Maher.—It was originally intended to provide 76,000 batteries, but it was decided at a conference in August, 1943, to reduce that to 44,000. Actually, materials for the manufacture of 64,000 were purchased, and in reply to my request for an explanation I was informed that the decision to provide that number was taken on the 23rd August, 1943. It was subsequently decided not to proceed with the manufacture of the batteries and the materials purchased at a cost of £2,873 will be used in Army workshops or sold. I understand that Department of Finance sanction for this arrangement is being sought.

531. Chairman.—Has sanction been received?—We have oral sanction, but are expecting written sanction. We required three batteries for each mine It was found later that three would be necessary. The cases were manufactured to take the three batteries.

532. Deputy Briscoe.—I would like to suggest that, in examining these notes, with all respect for the information put before us, we should realise that we have an Army charged with the responsibility of defending the country. At a particular time, they were expecting an invasion and had to improvise all kinds of methods of dealing with it. At that time, the safety of the State was paramount in the minds of all concerned. We should not be too unreasonable, in asking them to have done their business in what one might have called a ordinary businesslike way. I can visualise a conference of these officers, faced with certain eventualities and trying to make the best provision they could, and not being concerned with the actual pounds, shillings and pence, as to whether they bought 64,000 batteries instead of 44,000 for a particular purpose. Where it concerns emergency activities over and above ordinary regular military orders we ought to have some regard to the circumstances that ruled at the time.

Mr. Maher.—I think Deputy Briscoe’s remark is quite right and it has been emphasised at each successive meeting of the Public Accounts Committee for the past five or six years.

Witness.—The only point where I want to differ with you there, Mr. Maher, is that in actual fact the casing was made for three batteries and at a later stage we found that three would be necessary.

533. Chairman.—This was a military decision?—Yes.

534. Chairman.—The note continues:—

“The proposal to have the batteries manufactured was abandoned in May, 1945, and I have inquired regarding the total expenditure incurred on the materials and the method of their disposal. Expenditure amounting to £22,500 was incurred on the manufacture of the mine casings.”

There is a further note, as follows:

“Petrol and Oils.

“70. Reserve petrol stocks amounting approximately to 756,000 gallons were held in September, 1944, and the question of their disposal arose for consideration. As it was not considered practicable to use the total quantity for Army purposes it was arranged that approximately 460,000 gallons, which had been purchased at an average of 2s. 5d. per gallon, should be re-sold to the petrol companies at the rate of 2s. 4d. per gallon, the balance of the reserve to be drawn for Army use. This arrangement was approved by the Department of Finance subject to the condition that further purchases of petrol for Army purposes should not be made, except in the case of isolated posts, until the stocks retained had been exhausted. I observed that petrol was purchased at 2s. 9¾d. per gallon for certain posts during a period in which reserve stocks were held and I have asked for information concerning the basis on which the decision of the Department of Finance was implemented.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed that the purchases of petrol were only made when there were not stocks available within a reasonable distance of the posts to be supplied, when transport from outlying districts would be uneconomic.

535. Chairman.—What was considered a reasonable distance?—A distance of 25 to 30 miles for petrol would not be considered economic.

536. Deputy Briscoe.—What was the reason why the petrol companies got it at a penny less that the 2s. 5d.?—It was purchased at 2s. 5d., but the petrol companies actually gave us 2s. 4d. for it, although at the time they were able to purchase it for 2s. 1d., as petrol had gone down in the interim.

537. Chairman.—I notice that some of the cases are Rockgrove House, Little Island, Cork, and Little Island, Fermoy. These places are from 6 to 25 miles from Cork City?—It was not a question of Cork City. This was petrol that was at the kerb-side pumps and not in the city. These pumps were scattered all over the country, as we wanted to have the petrol available everywhere. Very few of these pumps were convenient to cities at all and that was the first petrol used up. We would not like to go from Cork to Skibbereen to fill up a tank.

538. Deputy Briscoe.—The tax on petrol is charged to the Army?—Yes.

539. Deputy Pattison.—What was the amount of shrinkage?—I have not got the exact figures. It would be about 5 per cent.

540. Was it not stored for 4 or 5 years in the roadside tanks? I know that civilians who put away a drop of petrol eventually had none at all, because of shrinkage?—It would depend on the period it was stored.

541. Chairman.—There is a further note, as follows:—

“Marine Coast Watching Service.

71. A vessel was destroyed as a result of a fire which occurred in May, 1943. and the sanction of the Department of Finance has been sought to write off the loss involved, £1,034 5s. 0d. The Court of Inquiry which investigated the matter was of the opinion that the fire-fighting apparatus on board was totally inadequate and that the provision of more suitable equipment would have prevented the fire from reaching such extensive proportions. As another vessel was damaged to the extent of £402 19s. 3d. as a result of a fire which occurred in September, 1944, I have inquired whether it is considered that existing regulations are adequate to safeguard State vessels from loss by fire.”

Mr. Maher.—I understand that special directions regard fire prevention were added to Marine Service Standing Orders in January, 1945, and these are regarded as adequate to safeguard vessels from loss by fire?—That is correct.

542. Chairman.—The note continues:—

“A motor boat was purchased for the Port Control service in July, 1943, for £250, with the sanction of the Department of Finance. I have inquired regarding the authority under which further expenditure amounting to £291 1s. 0d. was incurred on repairs and alterations required to fit the boat for service. The vessel has been out of commission for a considerable time owing to damage, and information has also been sought regarding the circumstances in which the damage arose.”

Mr. Maher.—I understand that covering sanction of the Department of Finance is being sought in this case. I am not sure whether it has yet been received?—No, we have not received it yet, but we have discussed it with a representative of the Department and I believe it will be forthcoming. In that particular case, the boat had to be docked before we realised what would be necessary. Unfortunately the officer, when he realised that repairs were necessary, proceeded with them without authority. The two officers involved have both left the service. It would have been necessary to do the work in any event, but it should not have been done without the sanction of the Department of Finance.

543. Deputy Briscoe.—The paragraph says that the vessel was out of commission owing to damage?—That was subsequently, and was due to an ordinary breakdown in the gear box.

544. Chairman.—There is a further note by the Comptroller and Auditor General as follows:—

“Accommodation.

“72. Premises were occupied during the period May, 1942, to January, 1945, at a rent of £15 per month together with rates. The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained in September, 1942, for the installation of an electric lighting system at an estimated cost of £250, but this work had not been commenced in April, 1944. Expenditure amounting to £121 5s. 5d. was subsequently incurred on wiring the premises for electricity, and I have asked for information regarding this expenditure and also regarding the purchase of a lighting plant which appeared to have been obtained for the premises in July, 1944, at a cost of £130. Expenditure amounting to £991 5s. 11d. was incurred during the period of occupation on general repairs to the premises but it was not found possible to obtain any contribution from the owner in respect of the improvement to the premises which resulted.”

Mr. Maher.—In this case the work was completed in October, 1944, and I understand that the evacuation of the premises was under consideration in November, 1944, and that they were evacuated in January, 1945. As regards the lighting plant, this related to a plant which had been purchased, or was at Ballincollig, but was not required when so transferred to Ballylongford, the subject of the paragraph.

545. Deputy Briscoe.—All that we can look at are the figures. We have no idea of what the building looks like, but apparently if the Army got premises at £15 a month these premises could not be very extensive. In view of that the expenditure appears to be out of all proportion to what one would expect in the case of premises which were let at £15 a month. We find here that the expenditure amounted to almost £1,000 on general repairs to the premises. That would probably mean almost re-building the premises or making substantial new additions to them. Is it due to the fact that the owner was not consulted about these things that you are left in the position that you can now make no claim against him? We read in the newspapers every other day of cases in which claims for damages are made against the Department of Defence. Perhaps the Accounting Officer could give us some more information about this case, because the amount spent on repairs seems to be very large in view of the fact that the premises were let at £15 a month.

General MacMahon.—I actually saw the house. It is a very big house. I saw it before the repairs were carried out. As well as being a big house, it has very big out-offices attached to it. The house had been uninhabited for a considerable period. We realised that the roof, the floors and the doors and other matters would have to be repaired. It was because it was in such a defective condition that we got it at such a reasonable rent. When taking the house, we tried to get the owner to agree to contribute towards the cost of repairs but he said “No”. He said that he was not using the house at the moment, that he was not going to use it and that we could have it in the condition in which it was in then at that particular rent. We had no option but to accept on his conditions. The house was required in connection with the protection of the Shannon. When we completed the wiring of it, we had no idea that we were going to evacuate it the following year. We could not hold up the wiring. When we did evacuate it, we attempted to recover from the owner some of the cost of the work that we had done to the building, but he absolutely refused to pay any part of it. He said that he was not going to use the house and that it was possible that he might demolish it altogether. He said that it was too big for his purpose and he refused to contribute. We could, perhaps, have recovered some of the wiring in connection with the installation of the electric light, but if we were to do that it was likely that we would damage the walls. The owner said that he was not interested in the house, and his last point was that, if we damaged the walls, we would have to compensate him.

546. Deputy Briscoe.—The only observation that I have to make on the case is this, that allowing for the rental that was paid for the premises and for the expenditure that you incurred in carrying out repairs, the premises during the two years that you were in occupation of them cost you something like £600 a year?—If instead of carrying out the repairs and occupying the premises, we had to put up two or three huts, they would have cost us a great deal more, and even by doing that we would not have got the same accommodation.

Chairman.—It was a military necessity.

547. Deputy Briscoe.—At any rate, the gentleman concerned seems to have taken full advantage of the position?—He certainly did.

548. Chairman.—The second paragraph in the note by the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Payment was made in July, 1944, in respect of rent of certain occupied premises for the period October, 1941, to May, 1943. It appeared that the Command Quartermaster had reported in June, 1942, that the premises were no longer required and that arrangements might be made to have them surrendered to the owner. Information has been sought regarding the circumstances in which possession was retained until May, 1943.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed that there was an unavoidable delay in removing certain wooden huts erected on the property, and that the surrender could not take place until this work had been completed.

General MacMahon.—We also had to restore the grounds to something like what they were before they were occupied by us. That was part of the agreement.

549. Chairman.—The concluding paragraphs in the note by the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“Judgment for £27,500, with costs, was given in the High Court in favour of the owners of premises which were occupied at a rent of £25 per month and which were damaged by fire in October, 1941, and an appeal to the Supreme Court was withdrawn on the condition of payment to the owners of £25,000 and costs. Payment of £25,000 was made accordingly in February, 1945, and the costs are borne on the vote for Law Charges. It appeared that the judgment followed on the finding of the Court that, in taking over the premises, the Department had undertaken to be responsible for any damage which might arise from fire. The premises in question were insured against fire risk by the owners who continued to pay the premiums during the period of military occupation. The position regarding the Department’s liability for damage by fire to occupied premises in respect of which policies of insurance were held in force by the owners is not clear, and I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on the matter.

Subsequent to the destruction by fire of the main portion of the premises, the troops continued in occupation of the remainder of the buildings and rent continued to be paid in full following legal advice that a reduction could not be obtained in the circumstances.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed that the Companies would be liable for any fire damage which did not arise out of the occupation, but it would appear that any damage which arose while the premises were occupied might be held to be attributable to such occupation. It is an involved legal matter.

General MacMahon.—We were advised by the legal authorities right from the time that the claim was made, and we acted on their advice. The matter was also before the Courts on two occasions, and there are reported decisions on it.

550. Chairman.—In the normal way, when you are taking premises under similar conditions and the owner has during your occupation insured them against fire or damage arising out of fire, do you ascertain what conditions govern your occupation?—If the premises are insured prior to our occupation we would take over the insurance and the insurance company would be liable. It is, however, a matter of Government policy that State property, or property loaned or hired by the State, is not insured. There is one exception, namely, in the case of boilers, and they are insured so that they will be inspected annually from the point of view of their utility.

551. Deputy Briscoe.—Would not the position be this, that if the Department of Defence were to take over the insurance of premises the premium that would have to be paid would probably be quite different from that which the normal occupier would pay because the risk would be quite different?—It would be quite different.

552. It could happen, then, that if the owner had the premises insured, he could not recover from the insurance company because it would argue that the premises were not insured for that purpose. Would not that be the position?—That would be the position.

553. Chairman.—Paragraph 73 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Construction Corps.

Reference was made in paragraph 73 of the report on the accounts for the year 1942-43 to the employment of personnel of the Construction Corps in connection with a development scheme which had been undertaken by the Irish Tourist Board. The arrangements provided for payment by the board of a fixed sum of £17,274, being the agreed value of the labour content of the work, and as it appeared that the original scheme had been considerably varied I have inquired regarding the financial effect of such variation and on other matters in connection with the scheme.

Payment of £1,000 was received from the board in January, 1945, in respect of work completed by the Corps in the period March, 1943, to March, 1944, and I have asked for information regarding the value of the work carried out in the year ended March, 1945, and whether any further payment has been received.”

Mr. Maher.—I understand that application for a further £1,000 has been made, but I am not aware whether it has been received.

General MacMahon.—The position has been changed since the report was prepared. The Tourist Board have now decided not to do as much work as they had originally intended. The work for which the Construction Corps was employed is acually terminated, and the men have been withdrawn from it at Tramore. We are now sending an account to the Tourist Board for the full sum due.

554. Chairman.—I suppose we will have to wait until we see how that has been dealt with?—It will not be anything like the sum originally agreed on, because the Tourist Board did not require us to do anything like the amount of work originally intended. The site is there, and what I think the board propose to do is to let private individuals erect premises there. Originally, the board itself intended to erect certain premises, and the intention was that the Construction Corps would prepare the foundations. The board is not proceeding with that work now.

555. Deputy Briscoe.—How do you measure the charges?—Our engineer and the board’s engineer try to assess what it will cost if a contractor were to do that particular amount of work. We charge whatever sum is arrived at in that way.

556.Chairman.—Paragraph 74 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Compensation.

“Payments amounting to £500 10s. 0d. were made in December, 1944, in settlement of claims for compensation arising out of the use of lands for the purposes of a rifle range in the years 1943 and 1944; payments amounting to £103 10s. 0d. had been made in a previous year in respect of similar user in the year 1942. When the lands were originally occupied it was considered that the payment of annual compensation would prove a more economical arrangement than permanent acquisition. It is understood, however, that negotiations are now in progress for the purchase from the Land Commission, at a cost of £547, of sixty-eight acres in the area to meet military requirements for a permanent rifle range and I have inquired whether these lands are identical with the lands in respect of which the payments of compensation were made.”

Mr. Maher.—I have been informed that the land which it is proposed to acquire consists of approximately 68 acres, including an area of over 39 acres, in respect of which compensation was paid in previous years. The balance, 29 acres, is held by other tenants.

General MacMahon.—I might also say that the compensation was much higher than we anticipated. There were claims for disturbance of work, disturbance of cattle, etc., so that we considered it would be much more economical to purchase this property.

557. Chairman.—I presume that the tenants will have to leave the land?—The land was let and nobody was actually living on it. We will get revenue for the grazing of it.

558. Chairman.—Paragraph 75 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Local Defence Force.

“In the reports on the accounts for the years 1942-43 (paragraph 75) and 1943-44 (paragraph 74) reference was made to payment of grants-in-aid to Unit funds in respect of persons who were not active members of the Force. In the course of a test examination of claims paid in March, 1945, and of the supporting attendance rolls, I observed that payment was made for persons who did not appear to have attended for several months prior to the qualifying date, 31st December, 1944, or of whom the attendance rolls contained no record, and I have inquired regarding the circumstances in which they were certified to have been active members at that date, and also on the position regarding the check of claims furnished by Units generally.

Mr. Maher.—I have been informed that a personal investigation was carried out by the Director of the L.D.F. who satisfied himself that the errors in the claim arose as a result of carelessness and negligence in the keeping of the records in this particular district. No disciplinary action can be taken, however, in the matter as the officers responsible have since left the Forces.

558A. Chairman.—Paragraph 76 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Air-raid Precautions.

“Reference was made in paragraph 75 of my last report to the loss of stores which resulted from a fire at the Stores Depôt in December, 1943. Information has been sought on the position regarding the reconstruction of the records and the determination of the loss involved. Certain stores which were in the custody of the local authority from whom the premises were rented were also destroyed, and payment of £20,250 was accepted by the local authority in settlement of a claim for £20,556 9s. 1d. under a policy of insurance. The stores in question were mainly State property which had been loaned under the Air-raid Precautions Act and the sum of £20,250 has been placed on deposit in the joint names of the local authority and the Minister for Defence, pending approval by the Department of Finance of proposals for apportionment.

Stores to the value of £1,041 13s. 4d., the property of a trading firm, were also destroyed in the fire and payment of that amount has been made to the firm, with the sanction of the Department of Finance, and has been charged to Balances Irrecoverable.

Mr. Maher.—This matter is also before the Department of Finance, but whether sanction has been obtained or not I do not know.

General MacMahon.—Not yet.

Mr. Almond.—I may say that sanction will be given, subject to settlement of a few points which are not important.

Paragraph 77 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:

“Losses.

“Losses written off during the year were as follows:—

The corresponding figures of losses in the previous year were £365 3s. 10d. and £9,782 2s. 9d.

Full particulars of the losses have been furnished to me and the sanction of the Department of Finance has been obtained for the write-off in each case.

The charge to Balances Irrecoverable includes a sum of £180 paid to a contractor in settlement of his claim for damages for breach of contract. Owing to misunderstandings which arose in connection with the arrangements for scavenging work at a military post for the year 1944, two contractors were appointed for the work and the services of the contractor whose tender was less favourable were terminated with effect from the 16th January, 1944. The contract documents provided that the contract should run for one year, or for such shorter period as might be determined by the Minister for Defence, and also provided for the termination of the contract in certain stated circumstances. The Law Officers advised on the construction of the documents that the Minister was precluded from terminating the contract before the end of the year except in the specific circumstances laid down, and liability was accordingly admitted. I have been informed that the contract forms have been amended in consultation with the Law Officers and that future similar contracts will include a provision empowering the Minister to terminate on giving fourteen days’ notice to the contractor.

Reference was made in paragraph 64 of the report on the accounts for the year 1942-43 to deficiencies which had arisen in certain items of Barrack Service stores and to the method which had been adopted in assessing the amount of the loss; the matter was also referred to in paragraph 10 of the report, dated 26th April, 1945, of the Committee of Public Accounts. The value of the stores at the time of the loss has since been reassessed and, with the consent of the Department of Finance, the amount to be written off, after recovery of the sum of £2,745 3s. 10d. from Army Welfare Funds, has been calculated at £10,883 3s. 11d. This amount is included in the figure £26,915 8s. 2d. referred to above.

The figure £26,915 8s. 2d. also includes a sum of £7,679 0s. 9d., being the assessed value of the denim uniforms which were unaccounted for and which were referred to in paragaph 75 of the report for the year 1942-43.”

559. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to the Army Welfare Fund, which has been debited to reduce the loss here, is that Fund related purely to a particular area, or does it affect the whole Army Pensions Fund?—No, the particular units concerned. Some occurred in the South and some in the West. If there were greater losses in the South, the South had to bear them, and the units concerned had to contribute.

560. Are you satisfied that the persons who normally benefit from the Army Welfare Fund are not being deprived wrongly of benefits, having no direct contact with the particular matter?—I am perfectly satisfied about that.

561. I notice in the Vote that a Losses Statement is included and it might give the impression that that is the total loss in relation to that particular Vote for that year. Can we take it there is no Suspense Account of any magnitude in connection with that loss?—You can take that definitely.

562. I think it is only fair to say, without giving a blessing to defalcations, that the Army should be congratulated that this amount is so small, from a percentage point of view. I am not suggesting it with the view that it should be increased, but it does show that there is apparently very substantial control?— The Quartermaster-General prides himself very much on that factor, that the losses are so low.

563. He can be proud from his own point of view and from the point of view of his assistants?—Yes.

VOTE 64—ARMY PENSIONS.

General MacMahon further examined.

564. Chairman.—Paragraph 78 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

“Allowances under the Army Pensions Acts were granted to the widows of the Marine Service personnel who lost their lives as the result of the collision to which reference was made in paragraph 71 of my last report. A claim for £1,117 10s. 0d. has been made against Irish Shipping, Limited, arising out of the loss of the Port Control Examination Launch which was involved in the collision, the claim being based on the cost of replacement of the vessel, less the salvage value. I have inquired whether the question of including in the claim the allowances granted to the widows was considered.

Subsequent to the grant of the allowances, awards to the widows of compensation were made in the High Court as a result of proceedings instituted by them against Irish Shipping, Limited. Section 13 (2) of the Army Pensions Act, 1923, gives discretionary power to take into account, in fixing the amount of a pension or allowance under the Act, any compensation received from other sources, and the Law Officers have advised that this discretion may be exercised only before the amount of a pension or allowance is fixed. The allowances in the present case accordingly remain unaffected by the subsequent awards of compensation.”

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 52—LANDS.

Mr. M. Deegan called and examined.

565. Chairman.—Paragraph 43 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead I.—Improvements of Estates, etc.

“In connection with the scheme whereby certain lands in Co. Meath, available for the relief of congestion, are reserved for allottees from the Gaeltacht, sums amounting to £91 4s. 3d. expended in providing necessary general improvements are charged to this subhead. The total expenditure borne on the vote for Lands in connection with the scheme from its inception in 1934-35 to 31st March, 1945, amounts to £103,434 1s. 2d., which includes £382 in respect of expenditure omitted from previous years’ returns. In addition, expenditure amounting to £2,050 9s. 10d., which was subsequently recouped to the Land Commission by the Office of Public Works, was incurred in the erection of a schoolhouse.

Under the scheme for the provision of holdings in certain counties in Leinster for migrants from districts where there is acute congestion, the expenditure, apart from the cost of general improvements (roads, drains, fences, etc.) borne on the vote for Lands during the year, amounts to £7,309 9s. 10d. The expenditure on this scheme from its inception in 1937-38 to 31st March, 1945, amounts to £107,651 16s. 4d. made up as follows:—

Until the scheme is completed it is not possible to apportion the expenditure on general improvements in respect of migrants’ holdings on the estates.”

Mr. Maher.—This is an annual paragraph for information only. I am not aware whether the scheme has or has not been completed.

566. Chairman.—Is the scheme completed, Mr. Deegan?.—The scheme is not yet completed; but there is very little doing now.

567. Under Subhead I—Improvement of Estates—can you say what type of work is undertaken?—Buildings, roads, fences and, at times, drainage—all the ordinary works needed for the setting up or improvement of holdings.

568. Deputy Pattison.—In the making of roads, why does not the Land Commission complete the job? It is found that many local authorities have to expend large sums of money to complete those roads. For example, take the Jenkinstown Estate in County Kilkenny and the Castlemorris Estate in the same county?—The Land Commission make roads suitable for the purposes for which they have got the land. In the division of land and the laying out of holdings they make accommodation roads suitable for the two, three, four or five holdings they may create. Sometimes, when those roads join up two county roads, the local authority will take them over, perhaps at a later date. But the county standard is very high—higher than the standard of an accommodation road—and sometimes we spend money on putting the roads into a condition satisfactory to the county council. Some county councils are easier to deal with than others; some have more money and they are more anxious to take over the roads. I do not know of any case where a local authority has had to spend considerable sums on taking over the roads—I have not heard of any.

569. As regards the roads I referred to, it was stated at the county council meeting that they were only commenced by the Land Commission; that they marked them out and did a kind of rough job, but they put no real surface on them, and the farmers and other people served by the roads complained right from the beginning?—Do you know any of our roads?

570. I am acquainted with the roads in Jenkinstown area. It was a very poor job until the county council came to the rescue?—Our roads are quite good; they are satisfactory roads for all ordinary purposes. I could say that in reference to scores or hundreds of them.

571. Chairman.—When you divide estates and allot the divided land, do you always provide a road to the allottee’s house?—If the road is necessary to serve the house, yes; sometimes we make the approach from the road to the house and sometimes we leave it to the allottee to make it. That could be only a matter of a few yards. All the necessary roads are made by the Land Commission.

572. The particular case I have in mind is the Massey Estate at Killakee, Rathfarnham. Some of the allottees there were provided with roads into their yard and house, but in one particular case a man was given a house in a field and he has nearly to jump out of it?—That is a matter for arrangement. For example, when we are bringing in migrants we usually erect all the buildings and out-offices and make the approach road. It is only a matter of a short distance in from the gate. We do all that before we bring in the migrants. But, when we find another man who has some means whom we think might do it himself, we do not want to spend money on it and we tell him to make his own approach road. If an inspector dealing with a particular allottee finds that that particular man might be asked to put up his own gate or make his own approach road, I think we are right in getting him to do it.

573. Deputy Briscoe.—I conclude, therefore, that you make the public roads, but you do not make the garden paths?— We do make the garden paths if we are laying out a place for say, a migrant from the West. We make the path in from the gate to the house. We treat him somewhat differently from the man on the spot, the local man.

574. You say that in some cases you make the garden path, but where you find the allottee is able to do it himself you make him do it?—It is a matter for arrangement. We try to do the thing as economically as possible and to get the man to do as much as possible for himself.

575. Chairman.—In this case there were no migrants. It is possible that almost all the allottees would have some capital. Some had small holdings before. In some cases the roads were made, but in one or more cases the roads were not made. That is what you regard as a matter for arrangement?—It is a matter for arrangement always. We do not care to spend too much money so long as we do the thing fairly by everybody.

576. Deputy Pattison.—Are there any unoccupied houses on any of these holdings throughout the country?—I could not tell you the actual number. Since the passing of the 1946 Act inspections have been going on and there are not so many as there were.

577. Deputy Pattison.—In view of the shortage of houses could they not be rented to people in some cases to live in?

Chairman.—Is it not a fact that the Land Commission are at present taking proceedings against persons who do not occupy these houses?—Yes; since the 1946 Act we have the power we need. As regards renting the houses, when you build a house for a particular allottee you have something in your mind with regard to the use of the land, and the particular type of person who is to get the benefit of the land. The land was taken over for a special purpose, the relief of congestion, etc. If you rent the house, that purpose is interfered with. You may never get the tenant out; and unless the person to whom you are renting the house is the person who will get the holding that the first allottee is misusing, then your scheme is thrown overboard. We have to be careful that the purpose for which we acquired the land is adhered to.

578. Deputy Pattison.—That is being cleared up rapidly now under the new Act?—Yes.

579. Deputy Pattison.—I should like to mention in regard to the building work being carried out by the Land Commission that there is a difficulty owing to the absence of trade union organisation in rural areas where local men are employed as labourers at the building operations. So far as I know, no effort is made by the Land Commission to see that the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, is applied to these workers as regards hours of work and other benefits to which they are entitled. The rate of wages also seems to be absolutely at the discretion of the person who is doing the building.

Chairman.—Does that Act apply to the Land Commission?—These matters are in the conditions of the contract. Contractors must pay the ordinary wages in the district, and so on.

580. Then the responsibility lies on the contractor?—If those conditions were not complied with, we would hear about it very quickly.

581. Deputy Pattison.—I know of one case which was dealt with in a very unsatisfactory manner?

Mr. Deegan.—In my time in the Land Commission I have had only two or three complaints with regard to that.

582. Deputy Pattison.—The men were kept from early morning until late at night at little more than half the standard wages for the work.

Chairman.—They were employed by an outside contractor?

Deputy Pattison.—Yes.

Mr. Deegan.—I can only say that during my 15 or 16 years in the Land Commission I have only received one or two complaints of that kind.

Deputy Pattison.—The inspectors are not taking an energetic interest in the legal right of the people employed. It is not fair to recognised builders, because they cannot compete for these jobs owing to the laxity of the Department in allowing jerry-builders to operate in that way.

Deputy Loughman.—The Land Commission used to allow the allottee to build the house himself.

Deputy Pattison.—That is a different matter. I am referring to an estate where a number of houses were erected under contract. I am referring to the Jenkinstown estate and the facts were placed before the Department.

VOTE 53—FORESTRY.

Mr. M. Deegan further examined.

583. Chairman.—I notice on page 173 that there was a large balance on 31st March, 1945, amounting to £43,188 5s. 8d.?—That is the balance of a grant-in-aid for the acquisition of land. That is not the annual vote under which anything left over has to be given back to the Exchequer. It is a grant-in-aid. We got £10,000 that year. We carried over £56,852 7s. 9d.; we spent £24,431 18s. 1d. and entered the next year with a balance of £43,188 5s. 8d. on hands.

584. Deputy Loughman.—Is the Forestry Department satisfied that the safety margin they leave in these forests is sufficient? It was put to me recently that they leave a space of 15 feet or so between the mountain and the bracken or gorse. The latter is set on fire occasionally, sometimes by children, and the fire jumps the 15 feet. The suggestion made to me was that 100 yards of that stuff could be burned every three or four years. The reason I mention that is that smallholders living around the place where this occurred have to pay a levy for the damage done to the forest. That seems to be unfair?—Of course, that is a technical question which has been the subject of consideration for years. The plan that we work to has been found satisfactory. I think it is the same plan as is worked to in other countries—a certain minimum distance is left for a fire guard on the mountain side.

584A. I am told that the people owning the land would be quite happy, if any difficulty arose, to have an inspector from the Forestry Department there while this is being burned.

585. The people are concerned with the fact that they will be mulcted for the amount of the court levy to be made on the particular district?—I am afraid that we do not get very much in the way of court levies. We only get it where we can prove malicious burning. It amounts to very little. On page 173, you will see that a sum of £2,316 was written off in respect of losses incurred as a result of forest fires during that year. We get very little for malicious injury—a couple of pounds in the year—because it is almost impossible to prove that burning is malicious. The question of precautions against fire is always under consideration.

586. In connection with recent floods, a case came to my notice in which three bridges built by the Forestry Department across a mountain stream formed dams. The water flooded over them and tore up the public road and completely destroyed the ford which people used. The Board of Works put up a small amount of money to make the ford passable again, but the bridges still form dams. Although this occurred during the August flooding, the Forestry Department seemed to make no effort to remove the obstruction?—That is in August, 1946. In a year’s time I will be answering for my sins in 1946.

587. Deputy Pattison.—I received a complaint that the Department of Forestry destroyed small tree-tops. In one part of my constituency, where there was a great shortage of fuel for poor people, these people were refused that timber. I should like that practice to be stopped. There are plenty of poor people willing to take that fuel away or even to buy it?—I think that is a most unusual complaint.

588. When I reported it, it was stopped immediately. It occurred at the Grennan mills?—Wherever there is a forest, we are more than anxious to supply local needs.

589. I was surprised when I got the complaint. It was stopped when I reported it? Firewood was supplied.

590. Oh, yes. There was a great shortage at the time the Forestry Department were destroying these tops. People had been refused them whey they applied? —I am surprised at that.

VOTE 54 — GAELTACHT SERVICES.

Mr M. Deegan further examined.

591. Chairman.—On this Vote there is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, at paragraph 44 of his report, as follows:—

“Subhead H (3)—Grants Under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 to 1939.

Under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 to 1939, the aggregate amount of grants and loans which may be made is not to exceed £750,000.

During the year the sanction given for certain grants and loans was cancelled as the applicants were unable or unwilling to comply with the conditions attached to the grants or loans.

At 31st March, 1945, the position regarding such grants and loans was as follows:—

Paragraph 45 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report is as follows:—

“Industrial Loans.

I have been furnished with a schedule concerning the industrial loans from which it appears that there were no advances made during the year ended 31st March, 1945. Arrears, including interest accrued, due at that date amounted to £10,396 18s. 11d., as compared with £10,277 0s. 6d. on 31st March, 1944. Included in the arrears is a sum of £10,342 13s. 1d. due by a company which ceased to exist in 1925. As stated in previous reports, the realisation of such security as is held by the State was the subject of negotiations, but owing to certain legal difficulties realisation cannot be effected.”

Deputy Briscoe.—Will that £10.000 be written off?—It must be written off. We are waiting for the State Lands Act, which has been promised and is in draft. As soon as that Act comes into operation we will be able to put an end to this. There is nothing in it but a book-keeping entry, going on from year to year, with accrued interest.

592. Chairman.—There is no property in respect of which you could claim repayment?—When the State Lands Act comes into operation we hope to sell the property for about £300.

593. Deputy Briscoe.—Under which subhead does it appear that you have purchased your own dyeing plant?—We are purchasing our own dyeing plant now.

594. It is not in this Vote?—I do not think there would be anything in the Vote for 1944-45. It will be in the accounts for the present year. The work is now actually going on at Kilcar. It is starting to work at the moment.

595. Chairman.—Is the toy industry in Connemara?—There are two toy factories, one at Crolly in Donegal and one at Elly Bay in Co. Mayo.

596. Is there any carrageen being exported now?—Quite a lot of commercial carrageen, but we are not purchasing it. Our carrageen is the food carrageen.

597. Do you make the food carrageen? —We make and sell that.

598. Is that available now?—It is. We are no longer purchasing commercial carrageen. That is in private hands now.

599. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you find that the general demand for the products of the Gaeltacht Industries is now on the increase?—We do.

600. And are the prices you are getting satisfactory and economic now?—We believe we are doing fairly well but I do not know whether you use the term economic in respect of it or not.

601. Economic to the worker as well as to the Department?—It is reasonably economic to the worker at present, and we are well satisfied with the present results We are paying a decent wage.

602. Deputy Briscoe.—You are paying a decent wage and getting a decent price? —I think so.

The Committee adjourned.