Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1948 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1946 - 1947

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 23ú Meitheamh, 1948.

Wednesday, 23rd June, 1948.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY MacENTEE in the chair.

Mr. J. Maher (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. C. S. Almond, Mr. P. O’Kelly and Miss Máire Bhreathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais), called and examined.

VOTE 64—ARMY PENSIONS (Resumed).

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon further examined.

529. Chairman.—I will proceed to read the second part of paragraph 91:—

“A pension of £73 15s. 0d. per annum which had been granted under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, was revoked by the Minister in May, 1945, following the Referee’s finding, on review, that the pensioner was not a person to whom the Act applied. It appeared that certain other awards were regarded as being affected by this case and that the question of referring these awards back to the Referee for review had been under consideration, and I have asked for information on the matter.”

I understand that the Comptroller and Auditor-General wishes to amplify that note.

Mr. Maher.—Yes, Sir. Subsequent to the award of pension it was ascertained that one of the certificates submitted in evidence by the applicant had been altered in a material aspect and the case was referred back to the Referee for review under Section 13 of the Act. The Referee found, on review, that the applicant was not a person to whom the Act applied and the pension was revoked on the 14th of May, 1945. The Referee stated that there were indications of fraud and perjury and the applicant was brought to trial in the Central Criminal Court on charges of obtaining a service certificate and pension by false pretences and found not guilty. The acquittal did not, of course, affect the revocation of the pension. It was indicated on the File that a number (at least 14) of other awards were affected by this case as pensions had been awarded, partly at least, on the strength of certificates as to service given by the person concerned here. We enquired whether these cases were referred back to the Referee for review and were informed that action in that respect was deferred pending a decision by the Courts affecting the jurisdiction of the Referee. When the judgment of the Court had been delivered, the power to refer back had been removed by Section 5 of the Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Act, 1945.

Chairman.—Does any member of the Committee wish to discuss this matter further with the Accounting Officer?

530. Deputy Sheldon.—I take it that means the matter is closed now?

Mr. Maher.—The Accounting Officer has informed us that the cases in question were not referred back; there was no power to refer them back.

General MacMahon.—When we asked the Referee for the list of pensioners concerned, he asked us to defer it until a case that was at that moment before the High Court was decided because on the decision of that Court would depend whether in fact he would have power to review these cases or not. The case was sent from the High Court to the Supreme Court and, by the time the Supreme Court gave their decision, it was, I think, April, 1946. Meantime, in 1945, section 5 had been enacted and section 5 took from the Minister the power to refer cases back.

531. Chairman.—The enactment of Section 5 did not arise out of these 14 cases?—No, it had no connection with them.

532. Deputy Sheldon.—Can this have any effect on the pension which was revoked?—No.

533. This had been dealt with before the 1945 Act?—Exactly.

Chairman.—Was the case which was then before the High Court and which, in the view of the referee, stopped him from giving you the particulars asked for, decided in favour of your Referee?—No, it was decided against the Referee.

534. That is to say, he had not the power which he thought he had?—That it so.

535. The question which was at issue there was the prior availability of the evidence?—Yes, that was the question. Both Courts decided that any evidence that had been produced at the second time was available when the award was made and, therefore, that the case should not be reopened; there was no power to reopen it.

536. Deputy Sheldon.—Then do we take it that the Court decision stopped these cases, apart from the 1945 Act?—Yes, the decision would have stopped it in any event.

537. Chairman.—How would the Referee hold himself to be debarred from considering the 14 other cases, in view of the fact that proceedings before the Court were pending?—What the Referee asked was that it should be deferred until the Ryan case was over.

538. Was not the Ryan case a criminal case?—It was. The case that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has referred to was a case that was before the High Court and later before the Supreme Court.

539. And it was because that case was pending that the Referee felt himself, as I have said, debarred from taking further particulars?—That is correct.

540. How did the Ryan case link up with the Conlan case? Ryan was the man who was charged with perjury?—The Ryan case was linked up with the 14 cases referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

541. I can understand the Referee saying “We cannot take proceedings until we are satisfied whether this man has committed perjury or not, and I may find myself, if the Court decides that he has not committed perjury, affected by that decision in regard to statements that he has made.” I do not see how the Conlan case affects the issue?—It affects it in this way that the High Court and the Supreme Court decided that cases could only be reopened when evidence not previously available was produced. No new evidence was produced in connection with the 14 cases at that particular stage. The Court decided in the Conlan case that, not only would this evidence have to be new, but that it would have to be evidence that was not available at the time the award was made.

542. So that even if evidence were produced to the Referee indicating that certain awards had been wrongfully made, he was debarred by the High Court decision from considering it?—Yes.

543. All that I can say is that I think that was not the intention of the Legislature when it passed the Act?—The Attorney-General had given a decision to that effect prior to the decision of the Courts.

544. If no member of the Committee wishes to ask any further questions on this, we may, I think, pass to the next paragraph. Before doing so, I desire to inform the Committee that, arising out of certain questions which were put to him at the last sitting on Note 91 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, I have received a letter from the Accounting Officer amplifying certain statements which he then made. I do not think it is necessary for the Committee to go back on this letter. We can consider it when preparing our Report.*

545. Chairman.—We can now take Note 92 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The first paragraph reads:—

Subhead J.—Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, 1937 and 1940.

“Article 32 of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme. 1937, provides for the payment of gratuities to members of the Army Nursing Service whose services are terminated in certain circumstances and provision is also made for the award of gratuities to members who resign on marriage. Gratuities were paid to nursing sisters who had resigned for causes other than marriage and as it was not clear that these cases came within the scope of the scheme I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Mr. Maher.—Gratuities under Article 32 of the 1937 scheme were paid to certain nursing sisters who resigned for personal reasons. We took the view that cases of resignation, otherwise than on marriage, were not covered by the scheme. Accordingly, I suggested to the Accounting Officer that it would be desirable for him to obtain legal opinion on the matter. I have not yet heard from him although, I understand, an opinion has been given.

General MacMahon.—Yes. The Attorney-General has decided in favour of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Minister proposes amending this scheme to cover these three cases. We were pretty certain that these cases were covered because the Regulation states that: “Retirement for any cause, other than permanent infirmity of body or mind, or misconduct or inefficiency where the service is less than 20 years.” We thought that we were covered by that. The Comptroller and Auditor-General felt that we were not, and, as I have said, the Attorney-General agrees with his view. We propose to amend the scheme with retrospective effect to cover these three cases.

546. Deputy Briscoe.—The Regulation which the Accounting Officer has read out seems to be somewhat different from what is set down in the first part of the Note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General where reference is made to “the payment of gratuities to members of the Army Nursing Service whose services are terminated in certain circumstances”?—What I have read is from Article 32 (1). We regard retirement, so far as the Army Nursing Service is concerned, as being the same as resignation. Article 32 (2), which refers to the retirement of a member who resigns on marriage, qualifies Article 32 (1).

547. Chairman.—The whole question seems to hinge on this, from the point of view of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, that if under an Act the Minister for Defence terminates the services of a member of the Army Nursing Service, she is entitled to get either a pension or a gratuity, but that where a member resigns of her own volition for certain personal or private reasons, then she is not entitled to get a gratuity.

Mr. Maher.—If she resigns of her own volition—not on marriage. The view we took was that it was open to doubt whether or not she was entitled to a gratuity?

General MacMahon.—That is correct. I think there is a doubt on the matter from the way the scheme is worded and we propose to clear up that doubt.

Mr. Maher.—That is why we suggested that the matter should be clarified by a legal opinion.

548. Chairman.—And the opinion having been adverse, is it proposed to amend the regulations to cover these cases?— That is the position.

549. Will the amendment have retrospective effect?—It will have retrospective effect here, and we hope to cover these cases in the future. Of course, the Minister for Finance may have something to say to that when the time comes.

550. Would that not be a novel principle to introduce into the public service, that a person, resigning of her own volition for private or personal reasons, would be entitled to a gratuity?—An Army officer, even though he resigns of his own volition, gets a gratuity, and we have treated the nurses on the same basis.

Deputy Briscoe.—That principle also applies, I think, in the Department of Education, where a teacher, even though she has not qualified by having given a certain number of years’ service, is entitled to a gratuity on marriage.

Deputy Kitt.—That is not so.

Chairman.—Perhaps a teacher’s case is covered by the fact that a teacher’s pension scheme is on a contributory basis.

551. Deputy Briscoe.—I think that, at any rate, the teacher who retires on marriage gets back the amount of the contributions that she has paid.

General MacMahon.—The case of Army officers is identical with this and they, as I have said, get a gratuity.

552. Chairman.—We can now take the second paragraph in Note 92 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:

“Short-service gratuities were paid in a number of cases to Government employees who served with the Defence Forces during the emergency and whose period of army service might be reckonable for the purpose of civil superannuation or gratuity. Article 24 (2) of the scheme provides that any period of service which is so reckonable shall not be regarded as qualifying service for the purpose of awards under the scheme and I have inquired regarding the adjustment of any overpayments involved.”

Mr. Maher.—The amount of the overpayments is £502. I am informed that it is proposed to seek a direction from the Department of Finance as to the method of adjustment. Pending this direction the Departments concerned have been asked to arrange to withhold the amount of the short-service gratuity from any payment of pension or gratuity which may fall to be made under the Superannuation Acts to any of the Government employees concerned.

553. Deputy Briscoe.—How many cases are involved?—I understand that the number of cases involved is 149. The sum generally was about £3.

554. Chairman.—Were they mainly Post Office officials?—They were temporary employees. There was a doubt as to whether they would come under the Superannuation Acts or not.

555. Chairman.—Were they mainly temporary?—That is correct.

555a. Chairman.—The first part of paragraph 93 from the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

Subhead O.—Special Allowances to Persons who served in Easter Week, and to Persons awarded Medals.

“Section 7 of the Army Pensions Act, 1943, as amended by Section 14 of the Army Pensions Act, 1946, provides for the grant of special allowances to certain persons who were members of an organisation to which Part II of the Army Pensions Act, 1932, applies. The amount of the special allowance which may be granted is governed by the yearly means of the applicant, the Act providing that the amount of such yearly means shall be ascertained in accordance with the joint directions of the Ministers for Defence and Finance, and, for the purposes of this provision, joint directions made by the two Ministers under Part VII of the Army Pensions Act, 1937, have, with certain modifications, been adopted. These directions provide that, with certain exceptions, the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by a claimant shall be taken into account in assessing the amount of the yearly means. Cases were noted in which particular items of income had not been included in the assessments but I understand that proposals for the amendment of the joint directions are under consideration by the two Ministers.”

Mr. Maher.—I have nothing to add to that, Mr. Chairman. I think the paragraph hinges on whether it is contemplated to amend the joint directions or to issue new ones. Is that not so, General?

General MacMahon.—They have been amended in many respects since your note appeared. We are in communication with the Department of Finance in connection with one or two cases.

556. Chairman.—“The yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by a claimant. . . .”. Would that mean board and lodging enjoyed by a member of his family?—Yes.

Mr. Maher.—One relates to Home Assistance, another to Children’s Allowances and a third relates to allowances received from a relative.

557. Deputy Briscoe.—In other words, it really means the full application of the means test?

Mr. Maher.—Until it is amended.

558. But are Children’s Allowances not excluded? In what way do they arise here?

Mr. Maher.—They were excluded in any case in which they arose. Home Assistance allowances in cash were also excluded in all cases.

559. Deputy Briscoe.—What is the intention now, General, if these were excluded?—We want to exclude a great deal more. Since then we have got the Department of Finance to agree that maintenance in a sanatorium, hospital or a County Home will not be taken as means. That is a big step.

560. You are going in the direction we all like to see you going.

561. Chairman.—The second part of paragraph 93 from the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

“A special allowance may be granted only to persons who are incapable of self-support by reason of age or permanent infirmity of body or mind. In view of the nature of the medical evidence furnished in the case of a person to whom a special allowance of £64 10s. 0d. per annum was awarded with effect from 27th February, 1946, I have addressed an inquiry to the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Mr. Maher.—It is a statutory condition of entitlement to a special allowance that the applicant shall be incapable of self-support by reason of age or permanent infirmity of body or mind and a certificate in these terms is issued by the Army Pensions Board. In the case referred to, the certificate appeared to lack finality and we inquired whether it was proposed to review the medical aspect of the case. The actual wording in the Army Pensions Board certificate was that the applicant was “at present incapable of self-support by reason of permanent infirmity”. The Accounting Officer has informed me that the Army Pensions Board said that the phrase “at present incapable of self-support by reason of permanent infirmity” should be interpreted as “at present and permanently”.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is that not another way of saying a person is temporarily incapacitated by something that is permanent? The phrase “at present” implies that this permanent disability is not permanent. The word “permanent”, on the other hand, means permanent, as we understand it.

Deputy Sheldon.—At present Deputy Briscoe is permanently alive.

Deputy Briscoe.—I shall be permanently dead some time.

562. Chairman.—Are we to take it, General, that the medical certificate in this case is final?—Yes. It is a statutory award. When they give a decision their decision is final. Sometimes they give a temporary award. In the case under reference here they should have put “permanently incapable of self-support”. The Board have, in fact, given that certificate by stating that that should be read as “at present incapable of self-support and permanently incapable of self-support”.

563. Deputy Sheldon.—I take it, General, that the words “and permanently” should go in after “at present”?—I should like to explain, Mr. Chairman, that the cases can be reviewed if the person’s means have altered either upwards or downwards.

Chairman.—But not as regards the question of infirmity.

564. There are two significant subheads in this Vote—three, really—in which the expenditure was considerably less than the amount granted. Sub-head E—Wound and Disability Pensions and Gratuities, etc.—and subhead I—Military Service Pensions. The reasons are set out in the notes to the subheads. The note in regard to subhead E states that the number of pensions and arrears thereon falling for payment within the year was less than was expected and the same reason is given in the note in regard to subhead I. When you say that it was less than expected in relation to Wounds and Disabilities—in fact, in relation to both classes of pensions, Mr. Accounting Officer—have you not reached almost a position of stability in relation to these pensions?—In connection with the Military Service Pensions Acts we hope we have, but in connection with Wounds and Disabilities we cannot be certain. Men can apply within a specified period after leaving the Army. We have not reached stability yet.

565. Take the case of the Military Service Pensions. The amount of expenditure was £26,482 13s. 9d. less than the original grant of £470,000. Could you not have estimated a little more closely?— At that time the Referee was functioning and we could not estimate it any closer. In fact, a couple of hundred cases are outstanding in America yet. They have appealed within the legal time. A certain number were awarded pensions but they have not actually claimed the money yet.

566. So you must make provision to govern the contingency that these appeals from residents in America will be upheld? —We are not worrying so much about those. We have to make provision for the cases where the awards were actually made and are not yet claimed. They can be taken up at any time.

567. Deputy Briscoe.—Have we reached the stage where there are now intervening a certain number of casualties every year in the shape of deaths?—That happens every year and we make provision for it.

Deputy Briscoe.—No doubt you make provision for them in the original £470,000 grant.

568. Deputy Sheldon.—The margin of error is roughly only 5 per cent. I wonder if under subhead H.—Hospital Treatment —there is any reason why the increase that was estimated from £1,000 to £3,000 was not realised? The previous year the Estimate for Hospital Treatment was £1,000. Then it was increased to £3,000 but, in fact, the original £1,000 was barely reached. Did a new Act come into force in that connection?—We utilised local medical officers in connection with claims for these special allowances, etc. In their case they have to medically examine them, make certain tests, and so forth.

569. Under hospital treatment?—No. These people would normally go to St. Bricin’s Hospital to be treated. The fact that they are examined down the country and do not come to the hospital effects a saving as far as treatment is concerned.

570. The decision to do so was not foreseen at the time of the framing of the Estimate?—We had so many letters from Deputies regarding the delay in such cases, while the Board of St. Bricin’s Hospital could only get through a certain number per week, that we felt that if it were left entirely to the Board there would be an outcry. We arranged, therefore, that local medical officers would do the examination.

571. The only point, General, is that if the Board could only deal with a certain number how did you arrive at trebling the Estimate of the previous year?—Hospital expenses and the cost of treatment have gone up.

572. Deputy Briscoe.—I cannot understand what the note “A member of the Advisory Committee to the Referee received a pension of £35 under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934” means. He was either entitled to it or he was not.

Deputy Sheldon.—Any sum over £30 has to be noted.

Chairman.—Yes, it is noted in accorddance with the general regulations. There is no suggestion that there is anything improper.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 41—LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH (Resumed).

Mr. J. Collins recalled and examined.

573. Chairman.—When the Committee adjourned, we were considering subhead L.1, and Deputy Briscoe had asked whether the type of meal to be provided by the local authority under the School Meals Acts was prescribed by the Department in some way.

Mr. Collins.—The Department of Social Welfare, which has now charge of that work, undertook to supply Deputy Briscoe with the information he required.

574. Chairman.—It might be convenient at this stage if Mr. O’Donovan, the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare, were to reply to Deputy Briscoe’s query.

Mr. D. J. O’Donovan.—The control exercised by the Department of Social Welfare is very largely a paper control. We have not the machinery for supervision of the actual service of the meals in the schools. Originally the Department of Local Government and Public Health was in charge of these services and had a medical staff on the health side. When local authorities decided to introduce school meals and were deciding on the nature of the meals themselves, they consulted with the Department of Local Government and Public Health and got advice as to the nutritional value of the meals which were proposed. We in our Department have no means of giving such advice now, except by arranging with the Department of Health to act as our agents, to advise as to the nutritional value of the meals. The advice given at the time was that the meals should consist of milk, hot or cold, and bread or buns, with jam or meat or cheese. When it was suggested by some of the committees that hot meals should be provided— for example, soup—the Department said that should be done only if it had milk as a basic ingredient. I am quoting from the records before my time. I understand that the advice given then was that milk should be the basic ingredient in any meal.

575. Deputy Briscoe.—What is the present position? The pupils are examined by certain officials with regard to the scheme for glasses, dentistry and so forth. What Department officials are doing that now?

Mr. Collins.—It is done by the school medical officers, under the Department of Health.

576. Deputy Briscoe.—There is a very serious complaint generally, and particularly in Dublin, that there does not seem to be any supervision with regard to the administration of this particular scheme and there appears to be a considerable amount of waste.

577. Chairman.—I think that is a matter for the Dublin Corporation.

Mr. O’Donovan.—There is a School Meals Committee and I happen to know that a member of that Committee, accompanied by an officer of the Corporation responsible for these services, visits the schools periodically at the meal times and inspects the meals. On the question of waste, I think it is largely a Dublin City problem. The children in Dublin are inclined to go home if the day turns out fine. If the day is wet, there is a big crowd of school children and there is no waste. When the day is fine, there is food left on hands and I think that is the real nature of the complaints made.

Chairman.—We are considering it here in relation to Government expenditure, to ensure that waste will not occur. We cannot go into the general administration of the scheme in Dublin.

Deputy Briscoe.—With respect to the Chair, there is another Department involved in this, the Department of Education; and I understand that the changing of the hours of school attendance, brought about by the transport situation, has something to do with it. There is waste, and I suggest that the Department of Social Welfare, which now has the responsibility, and the Department of Education, should take this matter up, with a view to seeing to what extent waste can be eliminated, and to satisfy themselves that the children are getting, under the administration of the Dublin Corporation, the best value from the point of view of nutriment. I make that recommendation.

578. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead N.I., I would like to ask Mr. Collins if he is satisfied with the wording of the Estimate, which is “Grants under the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Acts, 1908 and 1913.” That would lead one to expect that either or both of those Acts make provision for Exchequer grants or voted moneys. Neither of them do, in fact. I am not suggesting that there is anything irregular, as it must be a Government decision; but I am suggesting that the wording might be changed, so as not to convey that there is anything in those Acts to provide for grants.

Mr. P. Kennedy (Secretary to the Department of Health).—I think a change has been made in the current year’s estimate.

579. Deputy B. Brady.—Under subhead Q, I have raised in previous years the question of expenditure for training of native Irish speakers as hospital nurses. In this case, less than 50 per cent. of the amount of the grant was used. Invariably we have been told that provision was made for the training of those girls but only a certain number entered on training. I wonder if the Department is taking adequate steps to advertise the fact that this free training is available for Irish speakers and whether they are going out of their way to get a sufficient number of Irish-speaking girls into the service.

Mr. Kennedy.—Steps are taken each year by the distribution, through the Department of Education to Class A schools in the Gaeltacht areas, of particulars of these schemes, and girls who are holders of scholarships in secondary schools also get them. The Clerk of the Dáil also gets copies for use by the members of the Dáil from the Gaeltacht and, of course, copies are also retained in the Department for anyone who wants them. There has been a scarcity of girls going for nursing in the past few years and that is reflected in the Gaeltacht, as elsewhere.

580. Chairman.—Where are these nurses trained?

Mr. Kennedy.—Some of them in Dublin, at St. Laurence’s Hospital; some of them at Galway Central Hospital; and others at Cork County Home Hospital. Arrangments have been made with the authorities of those hospitals for the training of those girls.

581. Deputy Sheldon.—Has there been experience in the past that girls who started on the scholarship course gave it up?

Mr. Kennedy.—Sometimes they do.

Mr. Collins.—I think it was not possible in earlier years to get the full quota of girls.

Mr. Kennedy.—It never has been possible.

Mr. Collins.—And candidates who did come forward were rejected either on medical or educational grounds.

582. Deputy Gilbride.—Are they confined to those hospitals?

Mr. Kennedy.—Yes, those are the hospitals where the arrangements have been made.

583. Deputy Gilbride.—Why?

Mr. Kennedy.—One of the difficulties is that the hospital must be a recognised training school. That limits the number.

584. Deputy Gilbride.—Some girls like to go to certain hospitals?

Mr. Kennedy.—There is a difficulty as some hospitals may not be anxious to take them but prefer to select their own candidates and train them.

585. Chairman.—The St. Laurence Hospital and Cork County Home are teaching hospitals?

Mr. Kennedy.—Yes.

586. Chairman.—So, in fact, training for these girls is provided in Galway, which is the heart of the Gaeltacht, and in Cork, which is convenient to the Gaeltacht, and in Dublin. There are ten scholarships offered and in this particular year only three were availed of.

Mr. Kennedy.—Yes. It varies from year to year.

587. Deputy Briscoe.—On that point, has Mr. Kennedy had it brought to his notice that, particularly in the last seven or eight years the rates of payment and commitments on the part of candidates, probationer nurses and so forth being taken into training hospitals, militated very seriously against recruitment of staffs in all the hospitals of Ireland. The best type of girls, from the point of view of those who would qualify for scholarships were not attracted into the service?— That difficulty was general; it applied all round.

588. Have any steps been taken to remedy that?—Remuneration and conditions of training have been improved in the hospitals in the past couple of years. I understand that in certain areas difficulties with regard to recruitment have eased.

589. In Grangegorman Mental Hospital we had the peculiar experience this year of 45 probationer nurses sitting for the first examination; 39 of them failed. The explanation given is that the standard of education is now much below the standard that existed heretofore in the case of girls applying for these positions?—Yes.

Chairman.—The only matter that arises on this is the fact that the grants in respect of the training of native Irish speakers do not seem to attract a sufficient number of candidates.

Deputy Briscoe.—Because the nursing profession itself is not attractive.

Chairman.—We can discuss that in the Dáil. We cannot discuss it here.

590. Deputy Briscoe.—Under subhead P can Mr. Collins tell us what the position is now in regard to that institution?

Mr. Kennedy.—Negotiations were commenced for the handing over of this institution to the Dublin Corporation. Those negotiations have not yet concluded but the institution is recognised for local authority patients.

Mr. J. Collins withdrew.

VOTE 74—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR HEALTH.

Mr. P. Kennedy further examined.

591. Chairman.—There are only two subheads in this vote—one for salaries, wages and allowances and the other for incidental expenses. The Department, as you probably recollect, was only set up at the beginning of 1947 so that it did not get under way before the close of the financial year. We have had the benefit of Mr. Kennedy’s explanations already in regard to a number of matters that arose on the vote for Local Government. I do not think anything more arises other than to formally examine the vote.

Deputy Briscoe.—We can, I take it, look forward to seeing Mr. Kennedy next year with a more comprehensive vote.

VOTE 42—GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE.

Mr. P. Kennedy further examined.

592. Chairman.—Is there any question any Deputy would like to ask on the Appropriations in Aid?

Deputy Briscoe.—I would like if Mr. Kennedy could tell us what effect subhead B had on the administration of his Department?—There is a periodic inspection carried out of the superintendent registrars and registrars. During 1946 there was a certain difficulty in getting around on account of the cutting down of transport facilities. The saving shown here reflects that.

593. How often would these posts be inspected normally?—Every three years.

594. Deputy Sheldon.—Is the demand for birth certificates still abnormal?—It is still increasing. The demand is keeping very high.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 75—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE.

Mr. D. J. O’Donovan further examined.

595. Chairman.—We have already had the benefit of Mr. O’Donovan’s evidence in relation to certain items on Vote 41 which has been transferred to the Department of Social Welfare. I take it the Committee does not desire to go back on any of these items.

596. Deputy Briscoe.—Would it be permissible to ask Mr. O’Donovan exactly what services Social Welfare will now embrace?—The votes are set out in order in the agenda; the office of the Minister for Social Welfare, Vote 75; Old Age Pensions, Vote 7; Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions, Vote 27; National Health Insurance, Vote 44; Children’s Allowances, Vote 57; Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance, Vote 59, and Food Allowances, which is now gone, Vote 68.

VOTE 7-OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. D. J. O’Donovan called.

No question.

VOTE 27—WIDOWS’ AND ORPHANS’ PENSIONS.

Mr. D. J. O’Donovan further examined.

597. Deputy Briscoe.—Surely, there should be some variation in this amount.

Chairman.—It is a fixed sum. Can you tell the Committee whether the amount of £450,000 paid in respect of the year 1946-47 was a statutory payment or whether it was a payment at the discretion of the Minister for Finance?—It was a payment at the discretion of the Oireachtas based on the advice of the actuary at the time.

VOTE 44—NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. D. J. O’Donovan further examined.

598. Deputy Briscoe.—Under what subhead is payment made to dispensary doctors and doctors generally in hospitals for certificates?—It is paid by the Society from the National Health Insurance Fund.

599. It does not appear in the Vote?— Not as a separate item.

600. It is paid under one of these subheads?—The State contributes two-ninths to the National Health Insurance Fund towards the cost of the service.

601. Under what subhead?—G (2))— Sickness, Disablement, Marriage, Maternity and Additional Benefits.

602. What payments are made for these certificates?—The payment varies as between certain districts. The total sum goes into a pool and a record is kept of the number of certificates returned by every doctor. He is paid according to the number of certificates returned, but the amount paid varies as between a city like Dublin and a sparsely populated part like the West of Ireland. It is a very complicated system.

603. Chairman.—There is not a fixed fee?—Not for the whole State.

604. Fees vary?—They vary according to the nature of the district and the number of certificates returned by individual doctors.

605. Deputy Gilbride.—Is not the amount small per certificate?—It is small at the moment, but we are contemplating increasing it. There has been no increase since before the war and, of course, the usual case has been made for an increase.

VOTE 57—CHILDREN’S ALLOWANCES.

Mr. D. J. O’Donovan further examined.

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

Subhead C.—Children’s Allowances.

“Section 5(1) of the Children’s Allowances (Amendment) Act, 1946, provides that a person with whom, on a date which is for him a qualifying date, three or more children who are on that date qualified children normally reside, shall be qualified for a children’s allowance in respect of these children, and Section 5 (2) provides that the Minister may prescribe rules for determining with whom a qualified child shall be regarded as normally residing. Under the Children’s Allowances (Normal Residence) Rules, 1946, made by the Minister on the 17th April, 1946, a qualified child whose father is alive and who is resident elsewhere than with a parent or step-parent shall be regarded as normally residing with his father, and with no other person, if his father is entitled to his custody, whether solely or jointly with any other person.

Several cases were observed in which claims from relatives of children living with them and away from their parents were admitted although the fathers of these children were alive and no evidence had been produced to show that they were not entitled to the custody of the children. These claims had been rejected by the deciding officers as not complying with the normal residence rule referred to above, but were admitted on appeal to the referee.

In two other cases in which persons other than the parents claimed children’s allowances, the parents had entered into agreements entrusting the custody of the children to the claimants. The question whether a deciding officer was bound to accept such agreements as conclusive evidence that the parents were not entitled to the custody of the children was referred to the Law Officer, who advised that the person with whom a child should be regarded as normally residing for the purposes of Section 5 (1) of the Children’s Allowances (Amendment) Act, 1946, falls to be decided by a deciding officer, or on a reference, by one or more referees, and that the decision must be come to in accordance with the Children’s Allowances (Normal Residence) Rules, 1946. One of the cases in question was decided against the claimant and the decision was upheld by the referee. In the other case, which fell to be decided subsequently, the claim was disallowed by the deciding officer but was admitted on appeal to the referee.

I have asked whether any further action is contemplated in the various cases mentioned.”

Mr. Maher.—The Attorney-General advised that a Deciding Officer or, as the case might be, a Referee, must decide in conformity with the Children’s Allowances (Normal Residence) Rules, 1946. As the decisions in all but one of the cases noted seem to be at variance with this advice, I asked whether further action was contemplated, as I felt the validity of the payment made as a result of these awards was not free from doubt. The Accounting Officer informed me that as the decisions in these cases have been given by the Referee, it does not appear that any further action can be taken.

607. Chairman.—Have you anything further to say on this matter?

Mr. Maher.—No. I am afraid, in view of the Accounting Officer’s reply, that we can take no further action.

Mr. O’Donovan.—The decision of the Referee is final and conclusive.

Mr. Maher.—Even though there may be a difference in the treatment of individual cases.

607a. Mr. O’Donovan.—The real trouble is attributable to the absence of any legal method of adoption in this country. Even where a child is handed over to a relative to be reared, cared for and maintained under a formal agreement, that agreement can be upset in law. The natural parents can claim the child back. These cases spring from that situation. There is no remedy.

VOTE 59—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Mr. D. J. O’Donovan further examined.

608. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General follows:—

Subhead L.—Appropriations in Aid. Receipts from County Borough and Urban Area Councils under Section 26 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, as amended by the Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Acts, 1938 and 1940.

“The position as set out in paragraph 62 of my last report remains unchanged. The Department is still seeking to collect contributions in accordance with the legal opinion that where the rateable value of Electricity Supply Board hereditaments is greater than the amount on which, under the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1930, the rates payable are calculated, the higher figure was correctly included in the certificates furnished by the Commissioner of Valuation in accordance with section 5 (1) of the Act of 1940. Two local authorities, however, continue to base their payments on the lower figure, the total amount withheld up to 31st March, 1947, being over £5,100.”

Mr. Maher.—This matter has been before the Committee on several occasions and it is again brought under notice to show that the two local authorities continue to pay less than the Department considers proper.

609. Deputy Sheldon.—Could you get a general rule on this, or a legal opinion?

Deputy Briscoe.—Both parties have had legal opinions, the local authority to the effect that they should not pay that rate and the Department, which is still seeking to collect contributions in accordance with the legal opinion it obtained.

Mr. O’Donovan.—The present position is that the local authority—the Dublin Corporation—has submitted a question to Senior Counsel.

610. Chairman.—How long has the dispute been going on?—Since 1940—since the Act of 1940, which introduced this method.

611. Deputy Sheldon.—Has anyone thought of asking a Court to give a decision?—The need has not arisen. There is provision for a deduction of the amount due by these bodies from the moneys due to them from the Local Taxation Account and that action is contemplated. When we learned that the Corporation proposed to consult Senior Counsel we decided to allow them to proceed.

612. Chairman.—In the meantime, has the Oireachtas to make good the deficiency on the Vote?—I am afraid so. The money can be stopped by the Minister for Local Government at any time out of the Local Taxation Account.

613. Deputy Briscoe.—Probably it will ultimately solve itself. If the Dublin Corporation is advised by its legal officer that the Department is wrong, and the Department takes the view that they are right, if there is any money withheld it will force the Corporation to take legal steps in the matter. That is the only way it can be solved.

614. Deputy Sheldon.—The note to subhead C, says that the charge for printing of unemployment insurance stamps was transferred to the Unemployment Fund. I am just wondering why that decision was made. Why was the printing of the stamps charged to the Unemployment Fund instead of paying the cost out of voted moneys as in the past?—It was the practice under the National Health Insurance scheme to pay in that way and this change was made to bring Unemployment Insurance into line with National Health Insurance.

615. The amount is small?—Yes.

616. Chairman.—In the last of the notes appended to the Vote on page 213, it is stated: “Issues of food vouchers in excess of title to an equivalent of 5,800 single unit vouchers to the value of £708 3s. 7d., of which 48 occurred during 1942-43, 311 in 1943-44, 453 in 1944-45, 1,161 in 1945-46, and 3,827 in 1946-47 have been recorded (or identified) up to the close of this account as having been made from local offices (Department of Finance Minutes, 99/16/42).” Can you say if these issues have been made from a considerable number of local offices or from only one or two?—Generally throughout the country.

617. There has been a very marked increase in the number of unauthorised food vouchers issued from year to year. We start off with 48 during 1942-43, 311 in the following year, 453 in 1944-45, 1,161 in 1945-46 and 3,827 in 1946-47. Can you tell the Committee how many offices in fact were responsible for this over-issue of 3,827 vouchers in 1946-47?—I think most of these issues are due to retrospective disallowances of unemployment assistance. These disallowances took place over the country generally. I cannot, without inquiry at the office, say what was the actual distribution as between the various exchanges and branch offices. I do not think we have that information with us but it would be possible to submit a note on it.

Chairman.—Yes. I think the Committee would like to have a note on that.*

VOTE 68—FOOD ALLOWANCES.

Mr. D. J. O’Donovan further examined.

618. Chairman.—There is a note appended to this Vote in similar terms to that appended to Vote 59. It probably relates to the same series of transactions? —Yes.

619. And they will be covered by the further note which you propose to submit?—Yes.*

620. Deputy Sheldon.—I see a note here with regard to recoveries in respect of food vouchers over-issued. Are these recoveries made from the persons to whom the food vouchers were issued?—In some cases. The recoveries are made from the persons to whom the vouchers were issued.

621. And not from your officials who may have over-issued them?—I do not think so, but I should like to qualify that answer. Possibly there were cases where carelessness had occurred and recovery was made from the officials concerned but they have not come to my notice.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. R. P. Rice called and examined.

622. Chairman.—Paragraph 5 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General states:—

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

Mr. Maher.—That is a paragraph only for information

623. Chairman.—Paragraph 6 of the Report states:—

“Extra statutory repayments of Customs duties and of Excise duties amounting to £1,906 11s. 2d. and £789 1s. 6d. respectively, were made during the year.”

Mr. Maher.—These repayments relate mainly to diplomatic concessions.

624. Chairman.—Paragraph 7 of the Report states:—

“I have been furnished with a schedule of the several cases involving a loss of £50 and upwards in which claims for duty under the Revenue Acts were remitted during the year ended 31st March, 1947, 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 £4,797 5s. 10d., as compared with £6,709 0s. 10d. in the previous year. Of the total, £3,594 9s. 10d. has been remitted in respect of Income Tax. £337 1s. 7d. related to two cases in which the assessed parties died insolvent and recovery was impossible, and £3,257 8s. 3d. related to eight cases in which assessments were raised but subsequent evidence revealed no real liability. The remissions also include sums in respect of Customs and Excise duties amounting to £1,202 16s. 0d.

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

Mr. Maher.—The first portion of the paragraph is for information only. As regards the duties stated to be irrecoverable, these relate mainly to persons who have left the country or who are outside the jurisdiction.

625. Chairman.—The explanation of the causes of variation between expenditure and grant are set out in page 13. On page 16 there is a note stating: “On termination of special arrangements for storage of petrol at certain Land Frontier stations, deficiencies totalling 93½ gallons were revealed. As there was no suspicion of fraud or negligence the quantity was written off (Department of Finance letter, S.47/1/43).” Would you give the Committee some idea of the total quantity of petrol which has been dealt with by the Land Frontier stations for the period in question?—Unfortunately I cannot give the full quantity used at the stations but I can give the amounts that were involved in particular instances. At Glenfarne there was a deficiency of 73 gallons out of a total of 350. This deficiency occurred out of stock. What happened in fact was that they were not satisfied that things were going right so they made a test, and as regards the particular consignment of 350 gallons, they found on test that they were 73 gallons short. They found some kind of leak in the installation apparatus.

In the tank?—Yes. These arrangements have now been terminated.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 67—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Mr. E. J. MacLaughlin called and examined.

626. Chairman.—The note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

“94. Provision was made under subhead F (Urban Employment Schemes), Subhead G (Rural Employment Schemes) and subhead J (Reconditioning or Repair of Public Roads subject to Heavy Turf Transport) for grants towards expenditure by local authorities on schemes for the provision of employment. The grants were paid in instalments, during the progress of the various works, by the Department of Local Government acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. Accounts of the expenditure were examined by Local Government Auditors whose certificates have been furnished to me in support of the charge to the Vote.

The expenditure charged to subhead H (Minor Employment Schemes) and subhead I (Development Works in Bogs used by Landholders and other Private Producers) related to schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office. The schemes were, in general, carried out on its behalf by county engineers who received imprests from the Vote which were subsequently accounted for in detail.

The schemes for which provision is made under subhead K (Farm Improvements Scheme), L (Seed Distribution Scheme) and M (Lime Distribution Scheme) are administered by the Department of Agriculture acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The charge to subhead K includes grants to rated occupiers of holdings for improvement works on their farms, together with administrative expenses in connection therewith and with the schemes for the distribution of seed and lime, direct expendidure on which is charged to subheads L and M, respectively. Provision was made for the payment, subject to certain conditions, of grants equivalent to one-half of the approved estimated cost of the labour required for improvement works carried out, the maximum grant payable to any one applicant under any seasonal scheme being £100 and the minimum grant £5, except in Congested Districts where the minimum grant was £1. The grants paid amounted to £260,690 8s. 4d., made up as follows:—

The administrative expenses referred to above, amounting to £79,788 10s. 9d., account for the remainder of the charge to subhead K.

The scheme for which provision was made under subhead N (Rural Improvements Scheme) was adminstered by the Special Employment Schemes Office mainly through the agency of county engineers. Grants were made towards the cost of works, for the joint benefit of groups of two or more farmers, consisting of accommodation roads to houses, farms and bogs, small drainage works (excluding field drains), roads which connect two county roads, and the erection or reconstruction of small bridges. Only works which were estimated to cost not less than £40 were considered. In most cases State grants of 75 per cent. of the estimated cost, excluding county engineers’ fees, were approved, the balance being contributed by the beneficiaries. Cash contributions were usually collected, but contributions in kind either of materials or labour were also considered; in addition, the contributors or members of their families could be employed on the works, thus recouping themselves at least a portion of their cash contributions. The expenditure during the year on approved works amounting to £97,539 13s. 9d., against which has been credited £19,950 2s. 3d., in respect of the cash contributions, the balance amounting to £77,589 11s. 6d. being charged to the Vote.

The charge to subhead O (Miscellaneous Schemes) relates to expenditure on works of an emergency character or for the relief of unemployment and distress. These schemes were administered either by the Special Employment Schemes Office or by other Departments acting on its behalf.”

627. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to subhead K—Farm Improvement Scheme —what is the procedure? An application for a grant is made to the Department of Agriculture?—That is so.

628. And Agriculture then send on the application to the Board of Works?—No, they deal with it. They send the application to their local inspector who inspects the work. The Department of Agriculture administer the scheme. The Special Employment Schemes Office who are responsible for the vote as a whole merely make the grants and employ Agriculture as their agents.

629. How does your Department come into it then?—The money is included in our Vote and it is indirectly used for the relief of unemployment.

630. Deputy Briscoe.—In the case of improvements of this kind, I am not so sure that the Department of Agriculture has suitable technical officers.

631. Deputy Sheldon.—On the contrary. How would you do farm drainage with some fellow from the Board of Works who knows nothing about farming?

Deputy Briscoe.—The Board of Works might equally ask what the Department of Agriculture knows about drainage.

632. Chairman.—These are merely minor drainage works?—The works are of a very simple kind. Field drainage is the type of drainage done and it does not require any technical skill or knowledge.

633. Chairman.—How exactly can you account for this Vote which is in fact administered by another Department?—The Special Employment Schemes Office is the co-ordinating authority for all the grants made for the relief of unemployment. A number of different Departments are employed as agents in order to find suitable schemes of work. The Department of Local Government puts up a great many schemes by local authorities—road works and similar amenity schemes. It has always been the practice. In addition to administering certain schemes ourselves directly, we employ other Departments to collect schemes for us and to administer them, the purpose of all the schemes being to serve or to subserve the relief of unemployment.

633a. Which schemes do you administer directly?—The schemes under subheads H, I and N.

634. Do they cover all the schemes you administer?—All the schemes we administer directly.

635. Deputy Sheldon.—What about subheads F and G?—They are administered by Local Government. They represent grants made to local authorities.

636. Chairman.—Your function would appear to be to allocate the total moneys over the various types of work?—That is so.

637. Have you final authority in the matter?—The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance recommends the grants and the Minister gives his authority or declines it, as the case may be.

638. Deputy Briscoe.—That would be to the extent of the amount?—The extent of the amount, the allocation under each subhead. Then each scheme put forward by a local authority must also be approved by Finance.

639. That would not apply to subhead K.?—No. What is done in that case is that the Minister gives his sanction for a block sum which must be administered under rules laid down with the approval of the Minister of Finance.

640. Deputy Sheldon.—Deputy Briscoe’s trouble is one which I have always experienced. Instinctively I think he is objecting to the Farm Improvements Scheme being based on an unemployment problem rather than a farm problem.

641. Deputy Briscoe.—Yes, that is my point.

Deputy Sheldon.—That is a matter of policy.

642. Chairman.—It is a matter of policy but it was designed at one time to provide rural employment.

Mr. MacLaughlin.—Yes, and another consideration was that it was not intended to be of a permanent nature, to continue indefinitely, and that is possibly one of the reasons it comes in on our Vote, but it does subserve the purpose of relieving unemployment.

643. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead M—Lime Distribution Scheme— is there any considerable improvement in the position?—Not up to last year. I do not know what the prospects are for the coming year.

644. Would your Department carry out surveys of deposits of lime suitable for ground limestone?—No.

645. That would be for the Department of Agriculture?—Probably the mineralogical branch of Industry and Commerce.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. D. Coffey called.

No question.

The Committee adjourned.

The witness withdrew.

* See Appendix IX.

* See Appendix X.