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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 26ú Bealtaine, 1948.

Wednesday, 26th May, 1948.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. J. Maher (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. C. S. Almond and Mr. F. T. McHenry (An Roinn Airgeadais), called and examined

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.

1. Deputy C. Lehane.—I move that Deputy MacEntee be appointed Chairman of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DEPUTY MacENTEE took the chair.

Chairman.—I wish to thank the Committee for appointing me Chairman. As to the functions of the Committee, Standing Order 112 provides:—

“There shall be appointed, at the beginning of each financial year, a Select Committee, to be designated ‘The Committee of Public Accounts’, to examine and report to the Dáil upon the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by the Dáil to meet the public expenditure, and to suggest alterations and improvements in the form of the Estimates submitted to the Dáil. The Committee shall consist of twelve members, none of whom shall be a member of the Government or a Parliamentary Secretary, and four of whom shall constitute a quorum. The Committee shall be otherwise constituted according to the provisions of Standing Orders Nos. 67 and 70. and so as to be impartially representative of the Dáil”.

Our function, therefore, is to examine and report to the Dáil upon the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by the Dáil to meet the public expenditure, and to suggest alterations and improvements in the form of the Estimates submitted to the Dáil. The governing Article of the Constitution in regard to this matter is Article 11 which prescribes:—

“All revenues of the State from whatever source arising shall subject to such exception as may be provided by law, form one fund, and shall be appropriated for the purposes and in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities determined and imposed by law”.

It happens that there are two avenues of expenditure from the Exchequer. First, there are the services which are charged upon the Central Fund, such as the general provision which has to be made to meet charges upon the national debt and the charges which have to be provided for certain high functionaries of State, such as the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the members of the Judiciary, and Uachtarán na hEireann With these expenditures we are not concerned. We are, however, very intimately concerned with the moneys which are appropriated by the Dáil for the supply services. These are not, I should like to emphasise, Central Fund charges. We are only concerned with these in a peculiar way. We are not concerned with the policy which underlies the appropriation of these moneys. Policy is strictly a matter for the Oireachtas and in particular, so far as the provision of public services is concerned, for Dáil Eireann

We are to assume that the Dáil is all-wise and all prudent and, therefore, when it appropriates money to provide services that it has done so properly. We cannot question either the wisdom or the good faith of the Dáil in appropriating these moneys. What we are concerned about is to satisfy ourselves in the first case and Dáil Eireann in the second case that the moneys have been properly expended by the officers who are in a position to expend public funds. These officers are not Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries: they are not political heads or political sub-heads of any Department. They are the Accounting Officers appointed by the Minister for Finance to account to him for the proper control of the disbursement and expenditure of these moneys. It is their function to see. in the first instance, that no moneys are expended except in due accordance with the intentions of Dáil Eireann and in accordance with the law. I should like to paraphrase the statement which was made at the first meeting of the Committee on Public Accounts by the then Secretary of the Department of Finance, Mr. Joseph Brennan. The Accounting Officers to whom I have referred constitute collectively the pivots of the financial system. The Accounting Officer is nominated in every case by the Minister for Finance and is usually the Secretary or Chief Executive Officer of the Department concerned. He is personally responsible for securing that payments out of the Vote for which he accounts are duly authorised and are proper in every other respect. He has authority over, and is responsible for, all the officers in his Department, and no part of that responsibility or authority can be diverted from him.

We shall have before us Accounting Officers of the various Departments. Unless in very exceptional circumstances, they will appear in person. They are the General Secretaries of the Departments or, in certain circumstances, heads of special Commissions or other officials administering Departments. The Accounting Officer has to furnish a vouched monthly account of his transactions to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and, on the completion of the financial year, he has to furnish the Appropriation Account to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination by that officer. This appropriation account is duly presented to Dáil Eireann each year and is referred to the Committee on Public Accounts which is established under Standing Order 112. The Accounting Officer in expending these moneys is limited by the provision of the statute applicable to the services with which he deals and by the terms of the Vote passed by Dáil Eireann for the services for which he accounts. The Accounting Officer, I should emphasise, is not left to his own discretion to interpret the intentions of the Dáil as to what particular expenditure is properly chargeable to the Appropriation Account. He must be guided in this matter by the Minister for Finance, who exercises on behalf of the Government a general control over expenditure consistently with the intentions of Dáil Eireann.

I do not think there is anything more I might usefully add at this stage to what I have said. I think I have made it quite clear that the moneys are expended, not by the political heads of Departments, but under the control and authority of Accounting Officers who are responsible to the Minister for Finance, and it is with these gentlemen that our proceedings will be mainly concerned. In regard to the general form of the accounts, you will note that in some cases there is inevitably a difference between the amount originally voted by the Dáil and the amount expended and the explanations of that difference are set out in the footnotes.

VOTE 32—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche called and examined.

2. Chairman.—I notice that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has made no note on this Vote and we can therefore proceed to consider the various sub-heads. If any member of the Committee wishes to ask any question arising out of the sub-heads he can do so.

VOTE 33—GARDA SIOCHANA.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

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

Suspense Account: Local Security Force.

“30. In paragraph 34 of my last report I mentioned that Emergency Powers (No. 61) Order, 1940 (Revocation of Part III) Order, 1945 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 258 of 1945) provides that the unexpended balances of the Local Security Force districts funds should be disposed of in such manner as the Minister for Justice directs, and that pending a direction, the amounts involved had been credited to a suspense account. I understand that a final decision on the disposal of these moneys, which amounted to £8,468 2s. 5d. on 31st March, 1947, has not yet been taken.”

Mr. Maher.—I have been informed since the date of the report that this matter has been settled and that agreement has been reached between the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance as to the allocation of the balance. I understand that portion of it goes to the Garda Síochána Reward Fund and portion of it will be held as a reserve against possible future claims. The remainder of the funds is to be allocated equally between the Garda Síochána Benevolent Fund and the Garda Síochána Medical Aid Society.

Mr. Roche.—That has been done.

4. Chairman.—With the sanction of the Minister for Finance?—This is one of the few cases where we did not have to get the sanction of the Department of Finance. We had not to consult them but we did in fact do so.

5. Merely as an act of grace?—We wanted their advice on certain aspects of the matter.

6. I do not think that the Committee need occupy its time in going through the subheads on Page 110 unless any member wishes to raise any point in connection with them.

Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to the note on subhead A.—that the Force was below the strength for which provision was made—can the Accounting Officer say if the decision not to bring the strength up to the figure for which there was provision was made subsequent to the Estimate being introduced?—No. The fact that the Force was a little under strength was due to ordinary routine reasons. Take it that the strength of the rank-and-file of the Force is fixed at 5.000 for the year. You may have, say, 5,020 at the beginning of the year and you get a wastage of 20 men per month. You do not fill that wastage as it occurs. We do not bring in 20 men per month. We recruit in half-yearly batches, accordingly, we can never keep the Force at the exact estimated figure. Naturally, we keep the balance of men on the low side so that we may not run short of money.

7. Or of men either?—The Commissioner says that he could do with some more.

8. Could we have further explanation of the note on subhead B.? It says that there were savings on the provision made for rent and plain clothes allowances?— The amount is down by about £6,000 on an Estimate of £218.000. There was not any particular striking cause for that, that I can see. I make it a 3 per cent. variation on the Estimate. I think it is the ordinary rub of the game, up and down.

9. I have asked the question because of the reference to the two items—rent and plain clothes allowances. I suppose the allowances would cover a much greater variety of items?—Yes. Subhead B. covers uniform allowances, rent allowances clerical allowances (that is sums paid to Guards for doing clerical work in offices) boot allowances, detective allowances, plain clothes allowances, and transport allowances. The latter refers to sums paid to Guards for driving and looking after cars. It also includes the bonus of 7½ per cent. paid to Guards stationed in Irish-speaking districts who do their work through Irish.

10. Chairman.—The saving was mainly on rent and clothing allowances?—It probably depends mostly on rent, and that depends in turn on the number of men who get married during the year.

11. Deputy C. Lehane.—Would I be right in saying that the explanatory note on subhead B. should properly be expanded to include the various factors which you have mentioned such as boots, the Gaeltacht bonus and payment for clerical work?—The saving was on the two particular items mentioned.

12. But the subhead covers other items than rent and clothing?—Yes.

13. Deputy Briscoe.—Could we have an explanation on subhead H.—Transport and Carriage?

Chairman.—According to the note to the subhead “There were savings on the provision for (1) repayable advances to officers for the purchase of cars, (2) maintenance and running expenses owing to replacement of old by new cars and less mileage travelled, and (3) replacement of transport due to non-delivery of certain vehicles and lower purchase prices than anticipated.”

Deputy Briscoe.—I just want an explanation of what appears in the explanatory note about repayment of advances to officers for the purchase of cars?—Every Garda Officer is obliged to maintain a car. We lend him the money to buy it and he repays us under a four-year repayment scheme. Accordingly, we have to include in this subhead the money that we anticipate we will have to lend to officers to buy cars. That sum is subject to variation. We never know how many will be asking for loans and we never know what repayments we are going to get. If an officer has money in hands, he may choose to pay off the whole debt in one instalment.

14. Deputy Coburn.—On subhead N. —Incidental Expenses—I see there was a saving of over £4,000.

15. Chairman.—The note to the subhead says that “the provision for arms and ammunition was not expended during the year” I think we can now take the Appropriations in Aid. They amounted to £46,753 as against an Estimate of £43,904. The most substantial item appears to be No. 4—“Proceeds of sale of old stores and case uniforms.”

VOTE 34—PRISONS.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

16. Chairman.—In connection with this Vote there is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on page 15 which states:

“The statement of the manufacturing and farm accounts appended to the appropriation account has been examined and local test examinations of the conversion books and other records dealing with manufacturing operations have been carried out with satisfactory results.”

Mr. Maher.—That is a paragraph for information only. The investigations of the accounts have been carried out at various prisons.

17. Chairman.—It is a satisfactory note.

Mr. Maher.—That is so.

18. Chairman.—It will be noted that in some cases the expenditure under the subhead is more than was originally granted but that has been met by savings on other subheads of the Vote. I note that under subhead O. the full payment of contributions to the Female Discharged Prisoners’ Aid Society was not made?— Yes. That looks as if we were being harsh to that society but the contrary is the fact. There really is not a society at all, properly speaking. For many years past this work has been done by the nuns in Our Lady’s Home, Henrietta Street and we paid them £50 a year. Their main work was, not looking after discharged female prisoners, but looking after girls who had got into trouble and who had not been sent to prison but who were in danger of being sent to prison. The nuns came to us a couple of years ago and stated that they could not carry on the work as the expenses were too heavy. We then made an arrangement with the Department of Finance under which we pay the nuns 15/- per week in respect of each girl out of the District Court Vote.

19. Chairman.—There was an expenditure under the subhead of £75. Am I to assume from that, that there is a Male Prisoners’ Aid Society?—Yes. That was made up of a payment of £50 to the Dublin Discharged Male Prisoners’ Society which is really a branch of the St. Vincent de Paul Society and £25 to the society in connection with the Borstal at Clonmel. Although it does not strictly arise out of the accounts it may be of interest to the Committee to know that we came to the conclusion that these payments totalling £75 were quite inadequate for looking after discharged prisoners and in our Estimates for this year we have a sum of £1,000 for that very useful purpose.

Chairman.—You have anticipated my comment on the Vote.

20. Deputy Kitt.—I note that there is a subhead for gratuities to prisoners. What gratuities do they get?—I shall give you a few examples. Take the maximum gratuity payable to an ordinary prisoner. An ordinary prisoner is a man who receives not more than two years’ imprisonment. Any sentence over that is penal servitude. The total maximum gratuity that an ordinary prisoner may get may not exceed 30/-. That gives you some idea of the amounts. In the case of a convict serving three years or more, for the first year he gets a gratuity of 2/- per month or 24/- for the whole year. For the second year he gets 3/- per month, working up to a figure for the fourth and subsequent year of 5/- per month. That is at the rate of £3 per year.

21. Chairman.—Are these gratuities in cash or do they get assistance in kind?— They get railway tickets to wherever they are going. Small as the gratuities are, they are larger than they were—they have been increased recently.

22. The figures you have given us are the figures for the increased gratuities?— Yes.

23. Deputy Lehane.—Turning to subhead Q.—Appropriations in Aid—there is a note regarding receipts from manufacturing departments, including value of articles supplied for use in the prison. Am I right in taking it that that is a matter of bookkeeping? Articles manufactured in the prisons are debited to the prisons?—That is right.

24. Chairman.—Can you tell us what fraction of the consumable goods used in the prisons these articles represent?—I could not give you an exact figure. Take bread; at Mountjoy prison we make all the bread required for Mountjoy and also for Portlaoighise prison. We send the bread down to Portlaoighise. We make all the uniforms for the officers and the boots. We supply ourselves with a fair quantity of food and vegetables from the farm at Portlaoighise. I could not give you a figure as to how much is grown and how much is not grown.

25. Mr. Almond.—There is a footnote to the Estimates for 1946-47 in connection with this subhead. In the case of the victualling subhead. It is estimated that the value of produce supplied from farms and gardens was £300 while the total of the subhead is estimated at £17,900. Produce only to the value of £300 was supplied by the prison farms and gardens. In the case of clothing, bedding and furniture, the total of the Estimates was £4,770 and of that amount the value of the articles manufactured in the prisons was estimated at £2,000.

26. Deputy Lehane.—Would I be correct in assuming that the figure in the right-hand column of Q. would always show the amount expended above that estimated?—The figure on the right-hand column of Q. is realisations on the Appropriations in Aid.

27. The reason I ask that question is that I understood that the prisons were debited with the goods consumed. Would that necessarily mean that where the number of prisoners was less than the number estimated, we would have a reduced figure in the right-hand column? —Yes, the fewer prisoners you have, the less food you will grow in the Portlaoighise farm and the less clothing you will manufacture, but the variations due to the number of prisoners are not very considerable; other factors would count more than the number of prisoners.

28. Deputy Briscoe.—I am getting somewhat confused about this last item Q. Does that include the manufacture of articles for the Post Office in the shape of Post Office bags? The actual receipt to the manufacturing departments is really in respect of goods supplied in the main to outside Departments. It is not intended to cover manufacturing costs simply for goods within the prison?—It includes the cost of manufacture for outside Departments such as bags for the Post Office and also goods manufactured for inside.

29. What appropriation is for the bags sold?—I cannot give the separate figure offhand. If you look at the tables given on page 117, they show you the abstract of the manufacturing accounts. I am afraid they are not very helpful. They show sales for agriculture of £1,022, and, for other industries, £15,260. But that gives an idea of the size of the figures.

30. Deputy Briscoe.—It should be easy to ascertain, just as it is possible for the Post Office to charge their figure for the postal service, the amount of goods supplied to the Post Office?—Yes. I shall give you a note as to how much of the stuff credited as receipts is in fact actual cash paid by outside people and how much is not cash but the value we set on our own consumption.*

Deputy Briscoe.—It will be found that the bulk of the money would be in respect of goods supplied outside.

Chairman.—You mean other Departments?

Deputy Briscoe.—Yes.

Chairman.—Apparently the mail bags are entirely a matter for the Post Office?

Deputy Briscoe.—Yes.

VOTE 35—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

31. Chairman.—I notice that Our Lady’s Home, Henrietta Street, Dublin, to which there was a reference on Vote 34 received £584 under subhead D.?—That is the item referred to when we were discussing the grants to societies for assisting discharged prisoners.

32. That covers a great deal more than aid to discharged prisoners?—Yes; looking after girls on probation.

33. That is the main service rendered?—Yes.

34. Deputy Lehane.—That would cover maintenance as well as grants?—It is all maintenance. The arrangement is that we pay the nuns 15/- per week for each girl they keep in their institution.

35. Chairman.—It is a capitation grant?-It is.

36. And I suppose you have a firm record of the number of girls maintained? —Yes. You will understand that we have to ask the home authorities how many girls they had each week in order to determine the amount to be paid by us.

37. Deputy Lehane.—These are not exactly convicted persons but persons who came before the court?—Yes. The court may say to a girl: “Go to Henrietta Street for three months and then come back and we will see what we will do with you.”

38. Chairman.—If they are put on probation in that way, are they handed over to or put in contact with the authorities of Our Lady’s Home? Suppose a girl is told that she is either discharged on her own recognisances or put on probation for a fixed term, is she put in contact with the authorities?—The probation officer in the Courts is the liaison officer between the Home and the Court.

39. Deputy Gilbride.—With regard to subhead A., the note to which states that a decision was pending on the revised pay scales for a number of District Court Clerks, has that decision been implemented?—No. The position is that the salaries of the clerks were raised in August last year, but the clerks are not satisfied and are still asking for further consideration of their claim, so the present figures cannot be regarded as definitely final.

40. Deputy Briscoe.—Would not the Supplementary Estimate of £4,560 have some relation to that?—No, I would not say so. I think that would be mainly on account of the general increase in Civil Service pay dating from 1st November, 1946.

41. Chairman.—And not to any improvement in these specific scales?—No.

42. Deputy Gilbride.—No change has been made in their salaries yet?—Their salaries were increased in August, 1947.

43. And paid?—Yes.

44. Chairman.—It does not arise in this particular year?—No.

VOTE 36—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. S. A. Roche further examined.

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

Subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances.

“32. A sum is provided under this subhead to recoup Court stenographers the expenses incurred in the employment of assistants when it is not possible for the stenographers to complete in time transcripts of evidence in connection with Central Criminal Court Appeals, payments being made on the production of vouched claims. Owing to the discovery of irregularities in a claim submitted by a Court stenographer in 1945, a detailed departmental investigation of the claims which had been made by him since his appointment was undertaken, as a result of which it was disclosed that payments on irregular claims, amounting to £612 13s. 9d. were made to him and were included in the accounts for 1945-46 and previous years. I have inquired how it is proposed to adjust this amount. The officer concerned was suspended and later dismissed the service.”

Mr. Maher.—I understand that no decision as regards the write-off of that amount has yet been arrived at, but the Accounting Officer has informed me that he has prepared a statement for the Committee on the question generally.*

(Copies of the statement were handed to the Committee.)

46. Chairman.—On the question of these irregularities?

Mr. Roche.—Yes. This is a very unusual sort of case. This stenographer, who I will call Mr. B, was in the service before 1932. He was an old Court servant, but in 1932 he was put in charge of the shorthand work for the Central Criminal Court. He got a salary of £400 a year. It was recognised that he could not do the Court work and also do transcriptions, which were necessary when appeals were taken, so he was given an allowance of £175 on which he could draw for assistance in doing the transcriptions. I will read from the statement at this point:

“For 14 years thereafter he performed his duties, so far as the Courts were concerned, in an entirely satisfactory manner. On the financial side he did not utilise the arrangement as regards assistance to the full extent: his claims under that head were at the rate of £130 per annum on the average, or £45 below the prescribed maximum. Each claim submitted by him in respect of the employment of assistance was vouched by a receipt signed by the assistant who had done the work. The receipts were for specified sums, each acknowledged to have been received in respect of a specified amount of work on a specified case. The claims seemed to be quite in order and were paid without question. Early in 1946, however, suspicion arose in connection with a claim which Mr. B had just furnished. It was therefore critically examined in the light of the original transcript and the following was the result. The claim was for £31 15s. 6d. made on the basis that 1,271 folios had been done by two assistants and paid at the rate of 6d. a folio. This calculation and the receipt of £31 15s. 6d. were certified by the signatures of the assistants. In fact, there were only 1,155 folios, or about 120 less than claimed and of these 693 were written in Mr. B’s handwriting, so he had clearly done them himself. The remaining 462 had been done by the assistants. If the rate was correctly stated at 6d. a folio, the total sum payable to assistants was £11 11s. 0d. and not £31 15s. 6d. Mr. B was asked for an explanation and in reply he furnished a confused statement in which he admitted he had done a lot of the work himself, being unable to dictate his notes to the assistants, as was his usual custom, as he was suffering from laryngitis.

Instead, however, of proceeding to explain why his assistants had attempted, with his connivance, to charge for work which they had not done he made the following observations:

As to the implication you pointed out to me as appearing from the figures you showed me I wish at once to allay the possible suspicion that I desire to benefit financially from the matter. It is to me far easier to dictate evidence, etc., than to go through the arduous labour of writing it.

He was suspended from duty and subsequently dismissed. The papers were referred to the Chief State Solicitor, with some other cases subsequently investigated:

‘With a view to instituting whatever proceedings may be considered appropriate.’

The Chief State Solicitor laid the papers before the Attorney-General who advised that no proceedings should be taken. The claims made during the entire period of Mr. B’s employment (fourteen years) were then examined. It was found that these claims vouched by receipts, and paid, amounted in all to about £1,800 and that the number of folios done by assistants amounted to about 48,000. This would have been in order if Mr. B had paid his assistants at the average rate of 9d. a folio. There was nothing in the terms of Mr. B’s employment to prevent him from paying at that rate: if the circumstances had been explained to me I would have passed it as a reasonable rate. But the claims had in fact been presented on a different basis: Mr. B and his assistants had vouched for 72,000 folios at 6d. each, not for 48,000 at 9d. each.”

That is to say, in my opinion, the work done justified the payments made but the claim was made on a false basis. He got 48,000 folios done, and if he had said to me: ‘I am paying 9d. a folio for them.’ I would have said: I agree; it is a fair price,’ and we would have repaid him the sum he had paid, but he presented his account on the basis that he had got 72,000 folios done at the rate of 6d.

“As the Attorney-General decided against legal proceedings, and as Mr. B either could not or would not make an intelligible statement the truth in this matter will probably never be known for certain. My own belief is that Mr. B

(a) paid his assistants more than 6d. a folio;

(b) took something for himself in compensation for his (admittedly) heavy overtime;

(c) arranged with his assistants to certify the number of folios at such a number as at a rate of 6d. each would cover the entire sum received under (a) and (b).”

Then follows a sentence which is, I think, vital, viz.:

“He was afraid that a higher rate would be questioned.”

The Committee will naturally ask why did this man arrange to show the number of folios higher and to show the rate lower instead of telling the truth about the folios and the rate, which would have produced the same result. The solution of that mystery is, I think, that he was under the impression that he would not be repaid at more than 6d. a folio, which so far as I am concerned, was a mistake.

47. Chairman.—This is a rather unfortunate case in view of your concluding remarks?—It is the case of an excellent stenographer who worked too hard but imagined difficulties which he had not the courage to face. If he had faced them they would have vanished. If he had come to me and said: “I am going to charge at the rate of 9d. a folio within the limit of £175,” I would have said: “Certainly; it is quite reasonable.” Instead of that, he pretends that he is paying only 6d., being afraid that any higher rate would be queried, and he arranges with his assistants to give receipts on a false basis.

48. Deputy Lehane.—I suppose you are not in the position to suggest the basis of this fear that a higher rate would be disputed?—Yes, I think I know it. There was an older arrangement on that basis with a former stenographer. That was dropped. I am not sure whether it was dropped accidentally or purposely, but I am sure the rate was wrong. If the Committee will bear with me, perhaps I may explain that point. Outside Dublin, we employ stenographers on a part-time or day-to-day basis because they are not wanted very often, say, at Limerick for the Circuit Court. We pay them a certain rate for the work in Court and in addition, 8d. a folio for transcription, they doing their own transcription. The man takes the shorthand and is paid for his attendance, and then more or less at his leisure transcribes his shorthand into longhand if there is an appeal and is paid at the rate of 8d. a folio. Mr. B had to attend the Court practically every day. How did he get the transcription done? He called his assistants in, frequently into his own house and sat up until midnight and even after midnight reading his shorthand to another stenographer. That stenographer took down Mr. B’s dictation in his own shorthand to save time, and went away and transcribed it. Consider the labour involved in that. The assistant is taking down from dictation in shorthand and turning it into longhand. Sixpence a folio cannot be a fair rate for him when we are actually paying 8d. a folio for much less laborious work by a man transcribing from his own shorthand. That is why I say that the key to this tragedy in my view is that Mr. B got it into his head, wrongly, that he would be allowed only 6d. Instead of coming forward and telling us that he could not get it done for 6d., he says to his assistant: “Here are 80 folios to be done; what will you do them for?” The assistant says: “I will do them for 9d. a folio. That will be 720 pence or £3.” “Very well,” says Mr. B, “but when you are sending in your receipt you will have to say that the £3 represents not 80 folios at 9d. each, because that would be questioned, but 120 folios at 6d. each.” That is my reading of the story.

49. Chairman.—I was not really directing myself so much to the fact that the stenographer had overpaid himself on the basis of the payment which was sanctioned but rather to the fact that it seems to me to be a procedure which is not calculated to produce a very accurate transcription? —That is so, but it was the best arrangement we were able to make at the time. Suppose this man was doing a murder trial in the Criminal Courts. No sooner has he finished taking the notes than an appeal is lodged. The very next day the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal demands the transcript. He does not want it in a month’s time. He wants it at once. Even if we told the stenographer that he could take a week off to do the transcript, he still would not have enough time in which to do it. It was not the best way of doing the work, but it was the best we could do at the time.

50. Is it the best that the Department can devise?—No. In fact, as a result of the lessons we learned from this unfortunate experience we have now two stenographers on this work. So far they have managed to do all their own transcription without calling upon assistance.

51. Another point occurs to me arising out of this matter. Apparently for a long period no check was made upon Mr. B?—That is so. I am not sure whether that is a fault or a virtue. People’s opinion with regard to checks differ. My disposition is entirely against unnecessary checks. I do not like people checking, and rechecking and checking again. This man was told that he could employ assistance up to £175 a year. No restriction was placed upon him as to what he should pay his assistants provided it was not more than £175. He claimed on an average much less than the £175 permitted. How did he claim it? He produced a stamped receipt: “Received from Mr. B the sum of £10 for so many folios at 6d. per folio.” I doubt very much whether it would not have been excessive caution on our part to have said: “Here is a stamped receipt, but did the assistant really get £10? And even if he did get £10, was it calculated at the rate stated?” I think that would have been excessive caution.

52. I do not propose to question the propriety of the manner in which this officer was dealt with. I do not think we can go into that. But I think the Committee would be bound to comment upon the somewhat loose or, at any rate, ill-defined arrangement which was made with this officer?—If you will allow me, I will put in a little defence on that point. He was allowed to employ assistance up to £175 a year—no more.

53. Before you leave that point, was he allowed to employ this assistance on the basis of a standard rate for the work done?—No.

54. There was no specified rate?—There was no specified rate. In the letter which was written to him he was told that he would be allowed £175. His predecessor had been told the same thing, but on even plainer terms he had been told: “You can, for instance, employ an assistant for 35 weeks out of the year at the rate of £5 a week if that suits you.” I merely mention that to show that we did not care how he got the work done so long as it was done for the £175.

55. Deputy Coburn.—On that point, I would like to know was this a private arrangement between the stenographer and his assistants?—Yes. We told him we would pay him a salary of £400 a year and that he could draw up to £175 for assistance. In other words, he could get any assistance he liked and he could pay what he liked so long as it was not more than £175.

56. Chairman.—It seems to me to have been a very loose arrangement?—On the other hand, Sir, it was a rather tight one in the sense that the total allowed was not over-generous. We knew that no matter how he got the work done, so long as he did not exceed the £175, the State was getting a bargain. He could not effectively defraud the State within those limits no matter what he did. The proof of that is that we cannot get as good terms now. Since Mr. B went our costs have been added to considerably.

57. It was rather unfortunate that the State entered into this arrangement which ultimately led to this efficient and hard-working officer being dismissed?—It is a tragedy. But if a man consistently “cooks” his claims over 14 years and gives no intelligible explanation, what can you do?

58. Deputy Coburn.—The point that worries me is this private arrangement between the stenographer and his assistants. That was not an official arrangement. It seems to me to have been rather a peculiar one.

Chairman.—I think the basis of the defence is that he submitted false accounts to the Department.

Deputy Coburn.—On which he drew less money. He did not draw the £175 to which he was entitled. He only drew £130, which was £45 below the prescribed figure. It seems to me rather peculiar. I cannot see how the man was guilty of fraud at all.

59. Chairman.—We are not entitled to comment on that. We can comment on the manner in which the Department dealt with him in regard to checking his accounts and so on.

Mr. Roche.—I do not want to delay the Committee or spoil my own case by overstating it, but the arrangement was that the work was to be done for not more than £175. Within that limit, we said: “Whatever you pay will be refunded to you on the production at this office of the necessary vouchers.” Now, he produced to us as vouchers stamped receipts signed by his assistants: “Received from Mr. B. the sum of £10.” I really doubt, with great respect, whether it would not have been excessively scrupulous on our part to go any further than that. We had the voucher.

60. Did he add to that so many folios at so much per folio?—Unfortunately, he did, but, even so, I take the view that this untrue addition was immaterial. I doubt very much whether it would have been good administration for us to say: “Perhaps he did not get it done at 6d. a folio; perhaps it actually cost 8d. a folio and perhaps there were less folios.” It did not matter to us what rates he paid so long as he kept within or under the £175 allowed.

61. Your general reaction is that you do not believe in frequent checks. I suppose you would not go so far as to say that you do not believe in having any check at all?—If you have a bargain with a man to do work for you within a certain specified figure and he is told that any payments he himself makes will be refunded to him on production of the necessary vouchers and if he produces the necessary vouchers without even specifying at all the exact amount of work done or the rate paid, but merely a sum of, say, £10 acknowledged to have been received by an assistant for help given in doing a named transcription, then I would pay.

62. I do not suppose you want the Committee to labour under the impression that you did not think this man’s account should be checked?—We paid on production of the necessary vouchers. People might say, “Would you pay him £1,000 without checking”? My reply is “No, we are not going to pay him more than £175 anyhow”. Up to that figure, we will accept the receipts as vouchers.

63. Why did it occur to you to check his account?—Because a hint was conveyed to us that there was something fishy going on.

64. The line you are taking seems to be inconsistent with inflicting any punishment on this officer?—I believe it is true that he did this work too cheaply. On the other hand if an officer connives with his assistants to present accounts on a false basis, I see nothing for it but dismissal. You cannot rely on him any more.

65. Surely you must, as an Accounting Officer, have some procedure for checking these accounts?—I think on the whole that a check would have been a waste of time. If anybody suggested a check to me at the time I would have said: “What check do you propose”? The only check that would occur to one would be to get copies of the transcripts and count them for folios.

66. That was, in fact, done?—After suspicion arose, yes. Even then if this man had been a really earnest conspirator, we would never have caught him. We caught him by reason of the fact that we got up the original transcripts and observed passages done in his own handwriting. He claimed for a whole transcript in a certain case—a certain number of folios. When we examined it we found that most of it was in his own handwriting. A more deliberate offender would not have been caught because he would have got all the transcript typed and would have destroyed the original work in his own writing.

67. I feel that perhaps this might have been avoided if the officer had been aware, when he was appointed, that the accounts which he presented would be subject to a surprise check now and again. He might not have attempted to take this way of compensating himself and he might have taken a firmer stand with the Department?—Yes.

68. There is another aspect of this matter and that is how this transaction will be terminated—how you are going to ask a write-off of this amount?

Deputy Briscoe.—Does not a moral issue arise? The claim appears to be based on the assumption that payment was made for work not done, but in actual fact, according to Mr. Roche’s very fair presentation of the case, if it was properly examined it would be found that more work was actually rendered than was paid for. There is a moral issue which concerns us.

Chairman.—I am afraid I must rule against you in that. We cannot discuss the manner in which the Minister for Finance deals with members of the Civil Service. That is a matter which must be dealt with elsewhere. We are concerned only with the manner in which public moneys have been expended, and we cannot sit in judgment on any action which the Minister has taken in relation to any officer.

69. Deputy C. Lehane.—The payments by the Department were made to this officer in respect of direct transcription from shorthand notes taken by him. Was that the purport of the arrangement?— The moneys were paid to him for transcribing the shorthand notes into longhand for the purpose of an appeal.

70. Therefore, was not the intention of the Department defeated by the system that operated by reason of the fact that there was a re-dictation to another shorthand writer and in effect the transcript was at secondhand?—That is right.*

71. I take it the Department would not consider that a desirable practice?—I am afraid we knew about it and acquiesced in it.

72. Does that practice still obtain?— No. We now have a staff of two and that gives each leisure to do transcription.

73. There is no re-dictation?—There is no re-dictation now.

74. Chairman.—Do you propose to ask the Minister for Finance to sanction this payment being written off?—What I intend to do is to send the Department of Finance a copy of my statement, officially, and ask them what they want done. I feel a certain sense of unreality in talking about writing off. I do not know what anybody can do. We have the Attorney-General’s statement that no legal proceedings are possible—there is no case to recover the money. This man has been paid money which he has earned. He has been dismissed because he acted in a false and untruthful sort of way. I do not know what sense there is in talking about writing off.

75. Have you forwarded any statement to the Department of Finance?—I gave them a copy of my statement yesterday, unofficially.

76. The Department of Finance are aware of the loss that was incurred?—Yes.

77. Chairman.—Have you any views on this matter, Mr. McHenry?

Mr. McHenry.—We have been in communication with the Department about this case and have asked for information. It has not come to us yet. They have not come to us for a write-off. They must, some time.

78. Chairman.—There is no other way of dealing with it?

79. Mr. McHenry.—Either that or get the money from Mr. B.

Mr. Roche.—I am quite prepared to approach Finance, but I cannot see the sense of a write-off. The work was done and the man was paid the money. There is nothing to write-off.

Mr. McHenry.—There must be a writeoff.

Mr. Roche.—The money has not been lost.

80. Deputy Briscoe.—Mr. Roche, you are taking the line that this is only a technical matter, that the Department has suffered no loss because the money was paid for work done?—Precisely.

81. If one examines the case one will find there was more work done than was paid for and this arises from the fact that the man, in his ignorance, believed there was a rule that the folio would be 6d. and no more. If he asked for 8d. or 9d. he would have got it, and from the Department’s point of view there is in fact no loss?—That is my view.

Chairman.—We cannot resolve the issue as between the Accounting Officer for this Vote and the Department of Finance and perhaps we might as well pass from this matter.

Deputy Briscoe.—Mr. Roche will have to make some kind of formal application to Finance. Finance will make a certain decision and it will probably come before us again. We can, on re-examination, decide to stand over the Department of Finance viewpoint or indicate a contrary view to what they recommend. At the moment there is nothing that can be done. It is just a figure which has been created as a result of examining certain matters and calculating on a certain basis.

82. Chairman.—Has the Comptroller and Auditor-General anything to say on this matter.

Mr. Maher.—Yes. The basis of this paragraph is that claims were submitted and included in the accounts, based on vouchers which are not correct. Notwithstanding the case which Mr. Roche has made for this officer we feel that a claim, no matter what justification there is for it, which is based on a certificate which is not correct, cannot be passed without the authority of the Department of Finance -without the Department either giving authority for a write-off or making a note in a subsequent appropriation account stating that claims are included in the accounts of previous years which were subsequently found to be incorrect. The Department of Finance has not been approached formally for a write-off nor given an opportunity of deciding in what way this irregularity can be finally adjusted, and until that has been done we feel that the action which Mr. Roche proposes would not be in order.

83. Chairman.—Your view is that this matter must remain open until the Department of Finance has been approached and some agreement arrived at as to how the matter can be finally settled?

Mr. Maher.—That is so.

Mr. Roche.—I agree with that and we will pursue the necessary formalities with the Department of Finance. I would not have opened up this matter so much at this stage but for the fact that I was anxious that the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note (a perfectly proper note) should not go without some sort of immediate reply. I did not want this Committee to think that I admitted that the Department of Justice had paid £600 for nothing. I wanted to make it clear that in my opinion no public money has been lost: it is just that an unfortunate man made a bad mistake which resulted in his dismissal.

84. Chairman.—Is there any question that any member of the committee would like to put to Mr. Roche? The major item is an excess of £1,672 in Subhead A. but that is explained in that it is due to increases in remuneration of civil servants, offset in part by savings arising from changes in staff personnel. I take it that no question arises on that Vote.

VOTE 37—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. S. A. Roche called.

No question.

VOTE 38—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. S. A. Roche called.

85. Chairman.—Are there any questions?

I think that will enable the committee to conclude with the examination of Votes dealt with by Mr. Roche and I would like on behalf of the committee to thank Mr. Roche for the explanations he has given to us of his attitude with regard to the only transaction upon which any serious examination was made.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 9—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. J. Connolly called and examined.

86. Chairman.—I will read Note No. 8 first:—

“As stated in a note to the account, sums amounting to £15,611 6s. 10d. expended in this and prior years on compensation, etc., in respect of claims arising out of accident risks which had been covered by policies of insurance with the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association, Limited, which is in liquidation, remain charged to suspense. In addition, a sum of £6,017 4s. 0d. being portion of the premium paid for the year 1938-39, also remains charged to a suspense account pending settlement of the Commissioners’ claim against the Liquidator. Sums amounting to £1,908 18s. 0d. which would otherwise have been payable to the Association under the policies have been retained by the Commissioners as a setoff against their claim. I have recently been informed that a Court Order has been granted to the Liquidator for payment of £5 each by contributories who had not already paid, and also that delay is being experienced in getting underwriters to agree on a sum to be offered in settlement of the claim against them.”

Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor-General might like to amplify his statement.

Mr. Maher.—I understand that the claims in the liquidation proceedings have not so far been settled. The latest information which we have got from the Liquidator is that a list of the defaulting contributories is about to be published. The list is of all those who are liable for a £5 payment to the Company and will be called upon now to pay. That is the last information that we have got from the Liquidator.

87. Chairman.—Is it the position that £15,611 is due from this insurance association?—I think that it is somewhat more than that. I cannot give the exact figures now, but the total claim that we have at the moment against the Liquidator is about £21,000.

88. Have you any idea as to how much of that you expect to recover—or is that not a proper question to ask at this stage? —That depends on how many payments can be collected from the contributories who owe £5 each. £10,000 has already been collected from those people who are liable to pay £5 each.

89. Are you the only substantial claimant?—I would say that we are the main claimant, but I have no authority for saying that. I am only saying it on my own judgment.

90. Deputy Briscoe.—The gross claim of £21,000 includes, subject to check, £10,000 already collected in the hands of the Liquidator?—I do not know what amount is in the hands of the Liquidator, but I understand from the Liquidator that of the claims made from those people who are responsible to pay £5 each, £10,000 has been collected.

91. One can conclude that £10,000, subject to other claims, is available to the main claimant? I am including the liability of the Office of Public Works to pay on the premiums they are holding?— I think that is included.

92. We have claimed from the Liquidator £16,100, while £1,908 has been retained by the Commissioners as a setoff against their claim. Have you any idea of how many more £5 subscribers there are likely to be?—I think that there are about 11,000 in all.

93. 11,000 persons or £11,000?—11,000 individuals, who are theoretically liable to pay £5 each as being members of a Mutual Insurance Association.

94. Chairman.—In addition to the two thousand who have already paid?—No. 11,000 in all.

95. Deputy Coburn.—I presume that out of that £10,000 a certain sum will go on the expenditure incurred in collecting it. I do not think that every one of the contributories handed in their £5 without any trouble?—I do not know what the chances of collecting it all are now.

Chairman.—The point that Deputy Briscoe was making is that the net sum available after the expenses of liquidation have been paid will not be very substantial.

Deputy Coburn.—There will be very little left, I think.

96. Deputy Briscoe.—Is it hoped that this will now be finally dealt with this year?—We cannot do anything with regard to closing the matter until the Liquidator closes his end and makes a full statement in the court.

97. This has been going on for eight or nine years and if it is not brought to a close some time soon, the Liquidator might be eating up the balance of the assets.—Until the Liquidator makes his report we can do nothing.

98. Chairman.—I assume that we have no reason to believe that the Liquidator is not moving as expeditiously and as efficiently as possible?—I could not offer any opinion on that, but it is a very difficult process to get the legal procedure through with regard to the collection of sums due from the contributories and shareholders.

99. We have a substantial claim against the Liquidator?—Yes.

100. If we believed that he was not dealing with the matter expeditiously and efficiently, we would have a legal means of getting a remedy?—We have been pressing the solicitor who acted for the Liquidator in the court proceedings.

That is the point which I wanted to elicit.

101. Deputy Briscoe.—These persons against whom a claim has been made for £5 can be considered as being probably the only assets—if they could be called assets—with which the Liquidator would have to deal, and I do not know if the Statute of Limitations would arise since it is six years now since the company went into liquidation. People have gone away and poor people may not have the money. Rather than have the thing adding up in the hope of getting a few extra pounds it might be better to have the whole position reviewed to see if it might not be better to take the lesser loss now rather than the greater loss later?—We could have the solicitor’s advice about that but as it has gone into the Liquidator’s hands and as there are court proceedings I understood that we were in the hands of the court and of the Liquidator.

102. If the court gives judgment in the case of the 11,000 people who are liable to pay £5, you may have costs given against those people, when, in fact, even the £5 is not recoverable?—We have not any status with regard to that.

103. The Office of Public Works could consult with the Department of Finance to see if the matter could not be reviewed at the present moment so as to see how much longer they should wait.—We can do that.

104. Chairman.—There is also a delay in getting underwriters to agree on a sum to be offered in settlement of the claim and I assume from that that there is a considerable amount of underwriting in connection with this matter.—I do not know exactly how the position is with regard to underwriters.

105. It might be a complicated matter. —It is a complicated matter.

106. Chairman.—On page v there is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, as follows:—

“9. The statement relating to nonvoted services which is appended to the account included, in previous years, the receipts and payments in connection with the property known as Linen Hall, Dublin, which became vested in the Commissioners for Public Works by the Linen and Yarn Halls (Dublin) Act, 1878. The receipts from the property arise from lettings of portions which are surplus to Government requirements, and the payments are mainly in respect of head rent. In previous years only the deficiencies arising from the administration of the property were provided for in a subhead of the Vote for Public Works and Buildings. As the use of the Linen Hall for the purposes of the linen, yarn or cotton trades has long since ceased, and its position is similar to that of any other property administered by the Commissioners, it was decided, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, to discontinue the former method of accounting and to charge the entire expenditure to the Vote for Public Works and Buildings and credit the gross receipts as appropriations in aid of that Vote.”

Would you like to make any comment on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—This paragraph records a change in accounting procedure. Formerly the receipts and payments in respect of the Linen Hall property were accounted for as a non-voted service.

107. Chairman.—They are now being accounted for as a voted service and the gross receipts brought in as Appropriations in Aid?

Mr. Maher.—That is so, they will be shown in Vote 10.

108. Chairman.—Is that the position in relation to the period covered by the accounts we are now considering?

Mr. Maher.—The change was made during that accounting year.

109. Chairman.—Apparently the change had not become operative until after the close of the financial year 1946-47.

Mr. Connolly.—I think it is under Miscellaneous.

Mr. Maher.—That item in the current account may be included in Miscellaneous; in future accounts it will be in Vote 10.

Mr. Connolly.—I think it would be in our rentals, Mr. Maher. We will treat it as an ordinary letting.

110. Chairman.—Is there any other matter arising out of the subheads of Vote 9 that the Committee might like to raise?

111. Deputy Briscoe.—I would like if Mr. Connolly would give us some idea of the item E. (1)—Penal interest on overdue loan repayments. Compound interest could make that go to a big sum? —Under section 15 of the Local Loans Fund Act, 1935, penal interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum from the date at which it became payable until it is paid is chargeable on any sum of principal or interest which is not paid on or before the 31st day after it became payable.

112. Is this one specific item or a number of items?—It is one item—overdue loan repayments.

113. Chairman.—I think what Deputy Briscoe wants to know is, whether there is more than one person concerned in it? —Of course there are. County Councils or any others that do not pay their account in time are subject to this 5 per cent. penal interest.

114. Deputy Briscoe.—It is a recurring thing, to make them pay promptly and it does not appear to grow year by year?— That is right. It realised only £708 against the £750 we had estimated.

Deputy Briscoe.—So they paid more promptly than you expected.

VOTE 10—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. J. Connolly further examined.

115. Chairman.—There are some notes on Vote 10. Note-10 is as follows:—

“Certain maintenance work on public buildings in Dublin and district was, prior to the Emergency, carried out under contracts placed on the basis of competitive tenders. During the Emergency, however, it was not possible for various reasons to secure effective competition, and the work has been carried out under a contract which has been extended from time to time. In view of the increase in the expenditure under this contract, I recently enquired whether consideration had been given to the question of reverting to the system of competitive tender. I was informed that there was as yet no prospect of effective competition owing to scarcity of materials and rising costs, but that in order to retain a measure of control over increases in the rates it has been the practice since 1942 to negotiate extensions of this contract at intervals of four months.

Expenditure amounting to £203 8s. 0d., of which £151 17s. 7d. is charged in this account, was incurred on the repair of a wall on the seaward side of a right-of-way to a former coastguard station. This property had been taken over from the British Admiralty in 1922. and was held on a lease for a term of 99 years from 1899. As it was surplus to Government requirements, the property was leased by the Commissioners of Public Works in 1938 for the remainder of the term. Later, when the question of responsibility for the maintenance of the boundary wall arose, the Commissioners informed both lessee and head landlord that the State had no responsibility, but no agreement could be reached. A detailed search of the documents of title was then made and a deed of assignment was brought to light under which the Admiralty was required to keep in repair the wall in question. The Commissioners were not aware of the existence of this document, and in the circumstances they had no alternative to carrying out the necessary work of repair.”

Mr. Maher.—As regards the first subparagraph, its purpose is to call attention to the fact that the competitive system of tendering for this substantial contract has not yet been reverted to and the arrangement of which the Accounting Officer has informed us, which continues from the war years, still applies. I do not know whether any change has recently been made.

Mr. Connolly.—No and I am afraid it will be some time before any change is possible in regard to several of our major contracts. The big contract in this is the contract for the supply of men and materials for general maintenance in Dublin and Dublin district, and it would be quite impracticable to find the contractor who would undertake the work to start anew under present conditions.

116. Chairman.—There was a considerable excess on that subhead, Mr. Connolly —£31,361?—Of course, there were wages increases and it is a Vote that we cannot very accurately estimate.

117. Deputy Briscoe.—I want to be clear on that. In past years the procedure, I understand, was that contractors supplied labour, materials and overseeing on an arrangement of outlay plus a percentage?—That is right.

118. What is the difficulty of continuing such a form of contract? If they pay the wages due under a ruling which you honour and if they pay the cost of materials which they vouch to you, what is the difficulty of saying, “cost of labour and materials plus our profit”? I cannot see where the difficulty arises? —Do you mean that there is no advantage in making a change?

119. I want to know what is the difficulty?—Let me explain. We would be only too anxious to have competition. Fundamentally, we believe in competition and to have all possible people in a particular trade competing for our work. That is number one. If you take the organisation that is necessary for carrying on our maintenance work in Dublin and district, it means a very big organsation, both from the point of view of handling staff, men and the various types of tradesmen and labourers that we want, and from the point of view of the supply of the numerous articles that we require—from a slate to anything else you like for the house or building. It is quite obvious that no contractor, under present conditions, will try to launch a whole new organisation such as would be able to do that. That is the position.

Deputy Briscoe.—I understand now.

120. Deputy Coburn.—At the moment what is the method of paying the contractor who is doing the work. Does he do it at a price or is he paid a percentage?— No. He supplies the men-and let me make it clear that these men are under our supervision entirely. Our architects, our carpenters in charge and our clerks of works take control of these men who are supplied by the contractors. Similarly, our officers check their time. We are responsible and have the time clerks. We check their wages. The contractor supplies the men and he charges his time, which is checked against our time dockets and books. He is paid that net amount plus the percentage on which he has based his contract.

121. So that in reality, although the men are nominally in the employment of the particular builder, they are really under your direct supervision and control?—Entirely.

122. That gives your people an opportunity of seeing that these men do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. You see to that?—It is our overseers’ job to see to that.

123. Independent of their employer altogether?—Quite. They are entirely in our hands once they come to us.

124. Chairman.—Is there any other query arising out of the first paragraph of note 10? If not, I will ask the Comptroller and Auditor-General about the second paragraph.

Mr. Maher.—As regards the second paragraph, we call attention in it to the continuing responsibility for maintenance. I understand that the Commissioners have done their best to divest themselves of this responsibility and have not succeeded.

Mr. Connolly.—We have not succeeded up to the present. We did endeavour to settle with the late Mr. Delaney, recently deceased, but we did not succeed in getting him to agree. It is a continuing responsibility due to the fact that it was an engagement and a commitment of the Admiralty for the maintenance of this wall. In fact, we were not aware of it until there was a very close search made of the deeds.

125. Chairman.—The present Commissioners had no responsibility for the original lease?—Oh, no. It was an old Admiralty lease that we inherited.

126. Chairman.—Dating, I think, from the year 1899?—Yes.

127. Chairman.—Notes 11 and 12 are merely informative and, perhaps, we could take them as read.

Mr. Maher.—That is so. They are for information only.

128. Chairman.—Notes 11 and 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General are as follows:—

“Statements showing the results of tillage operations at the Phoenix Park and the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park have been furnished to me. The cereal and root crops grown in the Phoenix Park during the 1946 season were sold and the proceeds, amounting to £622 10s. 9d., have been credited to this subhead. The greater portion of the produce of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park, estimated at £2,800, was retained for feeding and seeding purposes, the amount credited to this subhead in respect of sales being £188 11s. 5d.”

“Arrears of rents due to the Commissioners on 31st March, 1947, amounted to £4,097 19s. 11d., as compared with £4,154 on 31st March, 1946. From statements furnished to me with the appropriation account it appears that of these arrears sums amounting to £3,285 have been recovered subsequent to 31st March, 1947, and £175 was considered bad or doubtful.”

If the Committee agree, I think we could adjourn the further examination of this Vote until the next day on which the Committee will meet. I should like to emphasise that the proceedings of this Committee are confidential until the Report has been published and that it is not permitted to refer to the proceedings of the Committee in debate in Dáil Éireann. I mention this so that we may be saved embarrassment by any such disclosure.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix IV.

* See Appendix V.

* See Appendix V.