Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1950 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1948 - 1949

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 30ú Samhain, 1950.

Thursday, 30th November, 1950.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Miss Máire Breathnach, Mr. P. O’Kelly and Mr. J. E. Twamley (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 51—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Mr. T. McGreevy called and examined.

367. Deputy Briscoe.—Can you tell us approximately how much of the £3,000 under subhead B—Purchase and Repair of Pictures (Grant-in-Aid)—was used in repairs and renovations and to what extent new purchases were included?—We bought seven pictures, drawings and engravings which came to £2,574 5s. 0d. Repairs to pictures were very small that year and came to £105; and framing, glazing, labels and miscellaneous came to £123 5s. 1d.

368. Chairman.—Could we have the names of the artists and of the pictures? —Yes. There was—Portrait of Henry Grattan, by Gilbert Stuart, £750; Portrait of Mary Tighe, by Romney, £750; Portrait of Denis Daly, after Reynolds, £200. The commission on these was. £32 10s. 0d. It was paid to the auctioneer by private arrangement as the pictures were not sold by auction. From Miss Pamela Hinkson there was Head of a Boy, by W. B. Yeats, £75. From Messrs. J. H. North & Co: Judith With the Head of Holofernes, by Feselen, £236 5s. 0d.; Interior, by Van Hemessen, £115 10s. 0d.; Drawing; Powerscourt House, Dublin, by Malton, £63. In that case the commission was included because it was by auction. From Mr. F. A. Drey: St. Peter Denying Christ—17th Century Italian, £350. From Mr.Daniel Burke: Engraving of Portrait, by Constable, £2. These came to £2,574 5s. 0d.

369. Have you any other moneys available besides this grant-in-aid for the purchase of pictures?—There is the Lane Fund.

370. What does that enable you to do? —I think the actual amount now is about £8,000 in reserve. For the present year— I am talking of the circumstances since I came in—they had to realise that the prices were higher than £3,000 so that they have been trying to put some by in case something of supreme importance came along and they could compete more or less on terms of equality with galleries in other cities when it came along.

371. Normally, what kind of a picture would that be spent on—modern French?

—No, not modern. I think it is not a rule, but it is the practice not to buy works of any painter until he is ten years dead—the time factor is allowed to come in.

372. It has not been the custom to buy pictures of any particular school or period? —We fill the gaps in the different schools.

Whatever gaps there are—Yes, we endeavour to have them filled.

373. Deputy Briscoe.—Can you tell us if you have sufficient space to hang the pictures in the ownership of the gallery or to what extent pictures are stored away and what happens when new pictures are added? I should like to know if there is not a situation developing where more wall space is necessary?—Yes, unquestionably. I would be glad if you would recommend a grant of £100,000.

Can you tell us what number of pictures are not hung?—I do not think I can because I have not examined everything in the cellars yet. I have brought up a number of pictures which were down there as I have been hanging them more economically. The pictures were mostly hung in single line spacing along the walls when I came. I am not sticking to that.

374. If we cannot get this £100,000 for the present, could we not find some way of utilising the bare walls in Government Buildings and in the Dáil to hang some of these pictures?—The Dáil is not the National Gallery. People cannot come in just as they like there to look at pictures.

You had some pictures on loan to us?— That was because visitors were coming here.

375. Deputy Sheldon.—This does not arise under any particular subhead, but could we get some information as to whether the installation of the new lighting has been completed?

Mr. McGreevy.—It has been completed and is in use.

376. Chairman.—Has that made any difference in the hours?—We keep open until 5 o’clock on Sundays. We have adopted that practice since we re-opened after the October closing. A great number of people come in.

377. From what time do you open?—We open from 2 o’clock. In the worst months —November, December and January—we normally closed at 4 o’clock when there was no lighting. Now we remain open until 5 o’clock.

378. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you keep a record of the number of people who visit the gallery?—Yes.

379. Can you tell us if there is a tendency for the number of such visitors to increase?—That is somewhat difficult to answer because we had the Chester Beatty exhibition to which a good deal of publicity was given and there was an increased attendance then of practically 25 per cent. during the month following that. That died off but last Sunday week we had the biggest number of Sunday visitors we have ever had; there were nearly 600 people in the gallery. It was a day of storm and rain. I do not know quite why they did come but I think the lighting had something to do with it. The place was alive with people. The gallery was only open for three hours and yet there were 600 people during that time. Of course, Sunday attendances are always best.

Deputy S. Collins.—There must be plenty of shelter.

Chairman.—Very important proposals are made in art galleries.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 11—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Mr. E. J. MacLaughin called and examined.

380. Chairman.—The first sub-paragraph of paragraph 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:—

“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.

That sub-paragraph is by way of information, I take it?

Mr. Wann.—That is right.

381. Chairman.—There is no point arising on it. The next sub-paragraph reads as follows:

“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. In some counties the schemes were carried out on its behalf by the county engineers who received imprests from the vote which were subsequently accounted for in detail.”

What is the purpose of having the schemes carried out by the county engineers in some of these counties?—At the inauguration of the scheme some years ago it was found very difficult to recruit inspectors. The scheme was launched rather in a hurry and it was difficult to get together a suitable body of trained inspectors; and afterwards it was found to be a convenient system.

382. Deputy S. Collins.—Would you say it was more convenient than effective? What is the position with regard to inspectors at the moment?—We have taken over a number of the counties for direct inspection from headquarters by our own inspectors but the county engineers are still supervising the works in some of the counties.

You are not suggesting that supervision by the county council engineers is as effective as the direct method?—It probably is not because county engineers are busy, full-time officials and we could not expect them to give the same amount of attention to our works as that given by our own inspectors appointed specially for the purpose.

383. That would be particularly true now in view of the application of the Local Authorities (Works) Act by the county engineers?—I quite agree.

384. What is the position with regard to the recruitment of inspectors? Is the difficulty of recruitment due to lack of attractive remuneration?—We have constantly suffered from a shortage upon our authorised establishment of inspectors for some years past. We find it difficult, first, to recruit inspectors and, having recruited them, to retain them. Possibly the remuneration is not very attractive but I think the real drawback is that there are not good prospects. The work they have to do is not difficult from the engineering point of view, and not of the kind that would get them a job elsewhere. I think these are the main reasons. It is one of our difficulties that we have a constantly changing personnel of inspectors.

385. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—On what basis are these grants given to local authorities? Is it on the basis of the unemployment at the time the grant is made or on the basis of the January register?— It is on the basis of a special enumeration made in the previous January. This is because it takes a long time to collect and prepare our schemes of work; they are all ad hoc schemes. First, it is necessary to make the allocations, and then the local authorities are requested to put forward suitable schemes. That all takes a considerable time. A large proportion of our work is done in the winter time, because unemployment is highest then in the rural areas, and the distress due to unemployment is generally greater. We must make our allocations, therefore, at a very early stage of the financial year so that local authorities will know the amount of money they are to get. They then instruct their engineers to prepare plans for submission to the Department of Local Government who scrutinize them from the technical point of view, and subsequently send them on to us.

386. Deputy S. Collins.—Have you a fund available to meet special schemes or special cases?—We generally have a small amount in reserve. I should explain that we find from year to year the proportionate number of unemployment assistance recipients in each of the different areas tends to be fairly constant. If during the course of the operation of our schemes in the wintertime attention is drawn to any particular area, as indeed it frequently is by Deputies, we then make fresh inquiries at the employment office and get the most recent figures of unemployment. If there is any serious discrepancy, or if there appears to be any justification, we make an additional grant at that stage.

387. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Do more people have to be on the register now in order to qualify under these schemes. For instance, if there were nine unemployed a minor employment scheme could be initiated. Do there have to be more on the register now before such a scheme is given?—We eliminate a number of areas in which there would not be enough men to form an economic gang, and that minimum number varies according to districts.

I thought perhaps more had to be on the register now before a grant would be given?—There have been minor changes but none of a substantial nature.

Deputy S.Collins.—What may be activating Deputy Mrs. Crowley’s mind is the fact that we seem to be getting more refusals now than we did before on the basis that there are not enough unemployed in the area?—I am afraid I am not responsible for that. The cost of our works has more than doubled since before the war and that limits the number of works. Our vote tends to remain at a constant figure.

388. Is there pressure by the Department of Finance on you to keep your vote more or less static?—I would not say that at all. It is just a tradition that the vote remains at a certain fixed figure.

389. Why, can you explain to me, is it that even though the cost of the work seems to be doubled, the amount of the Vote seems to be static and the amount of the work done seems to be dwindling? —I do not think that is a matter for me.

Chairman.—It is a matter of policy.

Deputy S. Collins.—With all due respect, it is not a question of policy. I am asking the Accounting Officer how, in view of the fact that he makes the statement that there is no pressure by the Department of Finance to keep the Vote at a certain level, the amount of the work done is less, because there must be some explanation?—The number of unemployed on the register is only half what it was before the war. That is the first answer.

Chairman.—There is another answer. It is that other works are going ahead now?—That is true.

390. Deputy Sheldon.—I have come across a difficulty where there was a very necessary work on the border between two electoral divisions but it had the misfortune to be in a division where there were no unemployed. Right beside it, however, there was a district where there were unemployed. Is it not possible to amend the scheme to allow for some variation like that?—Yes. If a case of that kind is brought to our attention, and if it can be shown that the work is immediately on the border of an electoral division in which there are a large number of unemployed on the unemployment assistance register, we can arrange to have that work done if it is a suitable proposal. We could not do that, of course, as a general plan, because there are so many of these electoral divisions. There are some 3,000 of them and it would mean an individual examination of the maps for each of them. If, however, our attention is brought to a particular case we can always adjust that.

391. Deputy S. Collins.—It would seem that a good deal of your schemes are dealt with by referring to a map rather than to the situation that arises before a grant can be made?—Oh, no. We must have a geographical unit for allocating moneys at the beginning of the year and the unit we have found most useful in the rural areas is the District Electoral Division. It represents an area of four or five miles across on the average, and the unemployed men living within that area can walk or cycle to our work in any part of it without any great inconvenience. Any larger area would be too large. At the beginning of each year, as I have explained, we have a special enumeration of the unemployment assistance recipients in each area and we make our allocation in proportion to that.

392. Chairman.—Do you review schemes that are turned down in the following year?—We do. They all come up for review in the following year.

If they are turned down because of shortage of money, there is a chance that the work will be done in the succeeding year?—There is a chance but we have very often as many as twenty proposed schemes in competition for one of these small areas. We can do perhaps only one or two each year. Sometimes there is a very long waiting list.

393. The third sub-paragraph of paragraph 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General states further:—

“The schemes for which provision is made under subheads K (Farm Improvements Scheme), L (Seed Distribution Scheme) and M (Lime Distribution Scheme) were 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 and expenditure on a field drainage scheme operated in Counties Galway and Mayo, together with administrative expenses in connection therewith and with the schemes for the distribution of seed and lime, direct expenditure on which is charged to subheads L and M, respectively. Provision was made for the payment, subject to certain conditions, of grants to the rated occupiers 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 opplicant 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 £236,072 18s. 3d., made up as follows:—

Expenditure on the field drainage scheme in Counties Galway and Mayo amounted to £37,912 8s. 9d., the work being carried out under a system of direct labour by men formerly employed on the production of hand-won turf. Farmers participating in the scheme were required to contribute towards the cost at the rate of £4 per statute acre, and a sum of £3,633 is included in the Exchequer Extra Receipts in respect of these contributions. Administrative expenses amounting to £75,739 5s. 9d. account for the remainder of the charge to subhead K.”

Perhaps it would save a number of questions if you could give a statement in amplification of that paragraph?— That is in relation to the farm improvements schemes?

Yes?—I should say first of all that, as stated in the paragraph, it is administered by the Department of Agriculture on our behalf. That is to say, our vote bears the cost and the Department makes all the organisational arrangements and provide their own staff. A great portion of the money is spent under the headings set out in the paragraph which you have just read—land reclamation and field drainage, improvement of farmyards, construction or improvement of farm roadways, the construction of water courses, the removal and construction of fences and other similar items. These works are carried out by the Department of Agriculture by means of their own inspectors down the country. These are agricultural overseers and supervisors. They are not qualified engineers, as the works are of a simple kind. The grants are made on the completion of the work. The grants and the works in themselves are on the average on a small scale, but, although the average amount of the grant might be only £9 or £10, each case requires inspection at least twice, and sometimes three times, in order to ensure that the work is properly done and to certify payment. For this reason, the administrative expenses may appear rather high. With regard to the administrative expenses, it should, however be borne in mind that the amount brought to charge in this account is less than half of the total expenditure by reason of the fact that the landholders themselves must pay one half of the labour cost plus the cost of any materials required.

394. Deputy S. Collins.—It might quite possibly happen that in the case of a work for which the grant would be only £10, if you have to send a person two or three times to carry out an inspection of it, the cost of doing so would be greater than the amount of the grant made?—I should not think it would be quite as bad as that. The administrative expenses, as is stated, amounted to £75,000 while the expenditure amounted to £236,000 which must be multiplied by two to get the total value of the work done.

395. This brings us back to the point raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General: can we not get some kind of picture in a net way of the cost to the Department of these various schemes instead of jumping from the Board of Works to the Department of Agriculture. Here we have large sums expended by the Department of Agriculture and we are questioning Mr. MacLaughlin in respect of administrative expenses of work actually done by the Department of Agriculture.

Chairman.—What is the suggestion?

Deputy S. Collins.—Can we get a picture or a net statement of the cost to the Department actually concerned? Here is a cost that is entirely borne on the Board of Works.

Chairman.—Do you want an explanation as to the cost to the Board of Works shown on the main vote?

Mr. MacLaughlin.—That is already done. In this particular case the administrative expenses are brought to charge against the Vote for Agriculture in the first instance and there is then a recoupment to the Department of Agriculture from our Vote. There is a note to that effect in the Appropriations in Aid of the Department of Agriculture Vote.

Deputy S. Collins.—I am quite aware of that but I do not think it is still clear.

396. Deputy Kitt.—Were the administrative expenses as high when this work was being done under the farm improvements scheme in Galway and Mayo?—I do not quite follow that because we have been talking about the farm improvements scheme as a whole up to the present.

Chairman.—The Deputy means the field drainage scheme?—I am sorry I have not got particulars of the proportion of the total charge assignable to that subdivision.

397. Deputy Sheldon.—There is one point that I should like to raise in connection with the special farm drainage scheme. In these cases part of the cost was paid by the landowner which was brought in as extra receipts payable to the Exchequer?—Quite so.

The actual amount you spent on the scheme was the gross amount?—The gross amount was spent and then the land holders proportion was collected from the landholder and brought to the credit of the Vote.

It is not brought to the credit of the Vote. It is handed over to the Exchequer as Extra Receipts. Could you have spent that amount as well?—The amount involved in the special drainage scheme in Mayo and Galway was relatively very small.

398. Chairman.—The next sub-paragraph of paragraph 16 is as follows:—

“The scheme for which provision was made under subhead N (Rural Improvements Scheme) was administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office, either directly or 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 paid, the balance being contributed by the beneficiaries. Contributions in cash were usually collected, but contributions either of materials or labour were also considered, and the contributors or members of their families were afforded the opportunity of employment on the works. The expenditure during the year on approved works amounted to £133,612 6s. 6d., but cash contributions amounting to £29,394 14s. 3d. reduced the charge to the Vote to £104,217 12s. 3d.”

Deputy Sheldon.—There is the parallel of the point I was raising with regard to the special scheme in Galway and Mayo. Why was the same system of accountancy not used as is used under the rural improvements scheme?—I am not in a position to answer that question offhand. The amount recovered on the Mayo and Galway scheme was relatively small.

It was about one-tenth of the amount spent?—Not in the case of the experimental scheme that the Deputy was speaking about. The recovery on seed and lime—subheads L and M—was, of course, considerable.

The figures are given. The sum spent was £37,000 and the fees received were £3,600, that is about 10 per cent. It is a greater proportion than occurs in the rural improvements scheme?—I must confess I am not in a position to give an explanation of that off-hand, but if the Chairman and the Committee desire, I will furnish an explanation.*

Chairman.—Yes. Generally speaking, my attitude as Chairman is that any information that any member of the Committee reasonably requires should be supplied?—Very well, sir.

399. Deputy S. Collins.—There is one note in this paragraph referring to subhead N—Rural Improvements Scheme. “In most cases State grants of 75 per cent. of the estimated cost, excluding county engineers’ fees, were paid.” Does the Special Employment Schemes Office, when carrying out these schemes, have to pay, by way of extra charge, county engineers’ fees?—That is so. The county engineers in some of the counties supervise the execution of these works for us just as they do in the minor employment schemes referred to earlier.

Do they get extra fees, in excess of what their earnings may be as county engineers, for doing that?—Yes.

400. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—In view of the operations under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, would Mr. MacLaughlin say in connection with small drainage schemes if, in fact, there is consultation or co-operation between his office and the Department of Local Government as to the type of scheme that is to be undertaken by the respective Departments? —There is no direct co-operation but in the case of any of our Rural Improvements Schemes in which there is drainage, we always refer the matter to the Department of Agriculture so that there will not be an overlapping.

Would it be true to say, therefore, that since the passing of the Local Authorities (Works) Act there has been no joint examination as between the two Departments regarding the field of operations?— No formal joint examination. The types of schemes more or less define the appropriate parts played by the Departments dealing with drainage schemes. First, there is the Land Rehabilitation Scheme dealing with field drainage on individual farmer’s holdings. Under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, when drainage schemes are being carried out, they do a rather large type of drainage scheme, such as cleaning medium-sized rivers. We do drainage intermediate between these two, such as the outfall for half a dozen farms. As a result, they are not as a rule touched under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.

401. Deputy Sheldon.—Surely, Mr. MacLaughlin, at the moment, you have ceased to have any responsibility for the Farm Improvements Scheme as far as drainage is concerned. That is now under the Land Rehabilitation project and any co-operation that might be needed would be between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government. You would not come into it?—Yes. The Farm Improvements Scheme is no longer in our Vote but, apart from it, we do drainage under other subheads—Rural Improvement and Minor Employment Schemes.

402. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—That is my point because I have a case in mind where, in fact, the same question was being dealt with by the two Departments and, arising from that, I was anxious to know if in fact, the case that has been brought to my notice is an isolated instance or not. Now, Mr. MacLaughlin formally admits that, in fact, there has been no co-operation at all. The matter was raised in the House, I remember, during the debate on the Local Authorities (Works) Bill, of the desirability of that co-operation.

Deputy S. Collins.—There was an undertaking given, I think, in the House.

Mr. McLaughlin.—If I might reply to that. It sounds more formidable than it is because, in practice, there is very seldom any overlap and if it is found that a particular scheme is being examined under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and by our office simultaneously, that fact comes to light very soon, and there is no danger of a duplication in grants. In practice, there is very little overlap of the proposals.

403. Deputy S. Collins.—The tendency of your office at the moment is to try and push as much as possible onto the Local Authorities (Works) Act?—We would be glad to see them do it. They have mechanical apparatus of a kind which we have not got, and they can do bigger schemes. In practice, proposals for the two types of schemes very seldom overlap.

404. Chairman.—You will not get very much road done for £40 now, I suppose— a road connecting two county roads?— No.

405. Have you many of these cases?— They represent, perhaps, about 4 per cent. of our total works.

406. Have you to be satisfied that the county council takes responsibility afterwards or do you carry out the work irrespective of that?—Only in certain cases. Wherever possible we’ like to see the county council undertaking maintenance and, if it is a fairly considerable proposal we generally get into touch with the county council and ask them if they are willing to undertake maintenance. In some cases, they agree; in others, they do not.

407. Would you be called on to deal with damage arising from flooding, and to what extent? Would you have any responsibility in that matter? I suppose that would be the county council work?—Following our own drainage works, we occasionally have allegations of flooding. In connection with link roads, however, I. have never seen a case arise.

408. Deputy Gilbride. The paragraph says: “Contributions in cash were usually collected, but contributions either of materials or labour were also considered, and the contributors or members of their families were afforded the opportunity of employment on the works.” Is that a general rule? Do they usually take labour or materials?—No, Deputy. At an early stage in the scheme, in some cases where the tenants found it difficult to collect the cash, we tried that system but found, in practice, that it was a very difficult one to operate for the reason that the landholders would promise to send so many men at a particular time and to send horses and carts and when our engineer was there with a ganger, these promises were very seldom fulfilled. The administrative cost was far too high. We had to abandon that, except in a few cases where there are special circumstances. We still do it but it is only once out of 500 times.

409. Chairman.—Could you say if that is a more satisfactory way of getting the work done within the limit fixed?—No. It is more satisfactory, from our point of view, to get it done by direct labour under our own supervision. If you merely give grants to landholders to do the work and draw up a specification to make a particular type of road, to put so many tons per perch of road metal on it, and do other work, when the inspector goes to inspect that later on, before paying the agreed amount of grant, he is not in a position to say whether or not the specification has been fully carried out unless he opens up the road surface again. For that reason, you cannot make the direct grant except in very small cases.

410. Deputy Sheldon.—Could the same amount of supervision that is given to direct labour not be given to the, so to speak, voluntary labour of the people interested in the road? The reason I mention that is that my experience in my county is that you are much more likely to get the job finished within the amount originally proposed if the people who are interested in the road themselves do the work because their only interest is to get the job done. I am afraid very often the interest of the direct labour people is to see if they could not do half and then get another Vote to finish it?—In dealing with our Minor Employment Schemes, first of all, we cannot do that because we must employ the people who are on the unemployment register.

411. I am not thinking of that. I am thinking of Rural Improvement Schemes? —In dealing with these schemes these men that you speak of, the beneficiaries and their sons, have first claim on the work as a rule, so it amounts to the same thing. They send their horses and carts and come themselves to work for wages, so that it amounts to the same thing.

I think that is what the Chairman meant when he asked about people doing work on a scheme in which they were interested. I think you took it that it was suggested that a grant would be handed over and that they would be left to their own devices?—I think there has been a misunderstanding. Deputy Gilbride asked me, in regard to this paragraph, whether we ever accepted labour in lieu of the cash contribution. I was dealing with that when I said that we found it was not feasible.

Deputy Sheldon.—In practice, you can collect the cash contribution and certain people can earn it back?—Nearly always, Deputy.

Deputy Gilbride.—We always find that where people are unable to put up the cash, they would give labour.

Deputy S. Collins.—You find that where labour is offered directly in lieu of cash that it is not feasible to work it?— It is not feasible. The workers do not turn up at the appointed time.

It is better to put up the cash and let them earn it back?—It is much better.

412. Chairman.—The final sub-paragraph of paragraph 16 is as follows:—

“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 works were administered either by the Special Employment Schemes Office or by other Departments acting on its behalf.”

We can now deal with the Vote, on page 58.

413. Deputy S. Collins.—In connection with subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—is there any improvement in the matter of filling vacancies in the inspectorate staff?—Yes. We had a selection board about eight or nine months ago and we filled all our requirements except three posts. We are having another selection board very soon.

We can take it that you hope that this vacancy difficulty is on the way out?— Well, we hope for the best.

414. Chairman.—In connection with subhead G—Rural Employment Schemes —what proportion of this extra expenditure was attributable to the turf areas— the whole of it, practically?—I have not the exact figures but I would say about four-fifths of it.

415. Deputy S. Collins.—Was the full amount of money that was made available at that time in fact used?—It was. You see that £80,000 more than granted was expended.

What I am getting at is that at that particular time there was an amount of money made available to the councils that was to be administered by the Board of Works. It may not be charged on your Vote. Was not there part of the money that was made available at that time at the cessation of the hand-won turf production, in fact not used by the local authorities?—I cannot say, Deputy. I do not recollect, offhand.

416. Chairman.—You are not in a position to say whether the county councils expended all the money. Had they a part to play in this matter?—Not in the sense that the Deputy means, I think, sir. The county councils up to that year had been spending money on their own bog development schemes. That was the year in which the turf production schemes organised by local authorities were discontinued but they were still spending some small amount of money at that time. I am not very clear what the Deputy’s point is.

Deputy S. Collins.—At one stage in the House we had the Parliamentary Secretary talking about certain grants that were being made available to county councils to fill the hiatus of the turnover in the hand-won turf scheme. My recollection is that at that time there were numbers of county councils that refused to take certain grants that were made available by you. Was the position this, that some of the money that was procurable was not expended?—I do not recollect the particulars precisely, but one or two counties declined to avail themselves of the grant.

My recollection is that there was a squabble over the Mayo County Council refusing to take some moneys?—What happened was that the county council schemes for the production of turf were discontinued when the new administration came in for the reason that turf production was not required as before, during the emergency. As a result, there was a lot of unemployment; men employed by the county councils and others cutting turf were thrown out of employment. To meet the case, the usual winter programme of employment schemes was advanced somewhat that year and the county councils were offered grants, which they accepted in nearly every case.

417. Deputy Kitt.—As regards subhead I, which refers to development works in bogs, does it include the making of roads into bogs?—Yes.

For the ordinary landholders?—Yes— road making and drainage.

418. How do you decide which road you will do? Has there to be a certain amount of turf coming out from that bog?—As a rule we get proposals from the people interested, the people who own the turbary and who cut the turf. We then send down one of our inspectors to report to us in stereotyped form showing the number of tons of turf cut, the number of turf cutters using the road, and so forth. From these particulars we weigh the relative merits of competing proposals and select the most meritorious cases.

419. If there were 30 families drawing turf for their own use would a grant be made available?—Yes, if the case was a deserving one.

I saw one man drawing turf in bags for at least a mile before he could get to the place for carting; he had to carry bag after bag until he filled his cart.

420. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead J, dealing with the repair of public roads subject to heavy turf transport, how does the saving occur? My experience is that even yet in many counties we have not been able to catch up on damage to roads through the heavy turf transport during the war years, yet here there is a saving of £29,000. The Dáil voted £40,000 and only £10,000 was spent?—Yes.

What is the explanation?—The purpose of that money, in the first instance, was where county councils had been producing turf and had opened up bogs and where the county roads approaching the bogs had been very much damaged, the money was provided to help the councils to put such roads into repair, go far as we are concerned, we received proposals under this subhead from the Department of Local Government, who control the road system, and in that year all the necessary works for which proposals had been put forward by local authorities had been dealt with. The Department, however, cannot tell at the beginning of the year what new proposals may be brought to light and the amount of the Estimate is more or less conjectural. Fewer cases were put forward by the county councils in 1948-49 than the Department had expected. We still have a small sum in that subhead of the Vote to meet any residual cases that may turn up.

421. You act as agent for the Department of Local Government?—The Department of Local Government acts as our agent for the expenditure of the money.

422. Which Department is responsible for the decision as to whether or not a certain road has been damaged?—The Department of Local Government, but it is only fair to Local Government to say that they are anxious to avail themselves of money to do works on county roads. I think you need have no apprehension on that score.

Deputy S. Collins.—But they let almost £30,000 slip?—The reason was, there were not enough suitable proposals put forward by the local authorities to absorb the provision.

The experience we have is that where a good deal of bog work was done there are areas where that £30,000 could be rapidly and effectively expended.

Deputy Kitt.—Along with the £28,000 before that, in the last subhead.

423. Deputy S. Collins.—The Department of Local Government has the responsibility in the matter of selection and everything else, and the only thing you are responsible for is to carry the charge?—Yes. We must assume that areas such as you mention are not in the vicinity of bogs developed by county councils.

Some of them are?—Then the best we could do would be to bring them to the attention of the Department of Local Government.

424. Deputy Sheldon.—The Estimate does not say anything about roads in the vicinity of bogs. The wording is: “Grants for the strengthening of public roads to enable them to bear the strain of heavy turf traffic, or for the repair of public roads damaged by such heavy traffic”?—That is true, but it was limited in practice; otherwise it would have gone into a wide expenditure.

Deputy S. Collins.—Then we can take it there is a red tape wall defending the expenditure of that money?—That is a very extreme interpretation.

425. Deputy Davern.—If the Department of Local Government decided on expenditure on a certain road that, in their opinion, came within the terms of the Vote, your Department would not veto that?—No, so long as we had money for it.

426. Deputy S. Collins.—As to my remark about a red tape wall, is the interpretation of the Board of Works limited to that very fine distinction that you have made in the course of your remarks, that the roadway must be in the vicinity of a bog which was actually exploited by. the county council?—I cannot say that with precision, but my understanding has always been that it should be so. We must accept the proposals that are sent forward from the Department of Local Government.

But such refinement of distinction was certainly not placed on it by anyone other than the Department—it was not placed in the House?—So far as I am aware, that was the purpose for which the money was asked; although it was not expressed in the Estimate, it was understood that was what the money was for.

I suggest the contrary is deliberately expressed?—It seems to have a wider scope.

And the narrowing of the scope is the real reason why there is £28,000 odd going back?—So far as the saving on this subhead is concerned, it is only fair to say that it has always been understood that there must be a considerable amount of latitude between the various subheads of the Vote. Originally there were no subheads—it was a global sum of £1,500,000 for the relief of unemployment. We were required to find the best schemes of work we could to give employment, but gradually the defining of subheads became possible, and you may take it that if the amount provided under one subhead is not spent the reason is generally that there are more suitable schemes to be done under another subhead or there are other areas in which the employment position is worse.

427. Deputy Sheldon.—The Committee take a serious view of any use of virement, certainly any use which would go beyond the wishes of the Dáil?—We would not dream of doing that. Where we do have recourse to virement there are good reasons for it within the ambit of the Vote and we get the authority of the Department of Finance.

I thought you were suggesting the reason for not expending the money might very well be because, in your opinion, there were better reasons for spending it on some other subhead?—Oh, no, Deputy.

428. Chairman.—How does this matter stand at present—these roads? Have you still a responsibility in this matter, or is it that, since the emergency turf production schemes ceased, you really have no responsibility?—We still keep a token amount in the subhead in case any particular cases that have been overlooked in the past should come forward; but it is only a token amount in recent years.

429. Deputy S. Collins.—Taking the position as adverted to by Deputy Sheldon, as set out in the Estimate, surely there must be a considerable number of roads which were used for carrying this heavy traffic and that would never have been used for carrying such heavy traffic unless they were incidental to the approaches to bogs?— I agree with you; there probably are.

Chairman.—Of course the county councils have their responsibility. There must be a certain number of these roads which now must be classed as public roads, for which the county councils should bear entire responsibility.

Deputy S. Collins.—The definition under the Estimate does not exclude the public roads.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—I think the Chairman is now entering on dangerous ground.

Chairman.—We shall probably hear more about it.

430. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead M —Lime Distribution Scheme—on these lime schemes is there a fixed amount allowed to each county, or is the amount that goes to a county dependent on the amount that that county votes from local funds?—No. This lime scheme is a corollary of the reclamation scheme covered by subhead K—The Farm Improvements Scheme. Where reclamation takes place and where it gives grants, the Department of Agriculture insists on the land being limed where it is required.

431. If there are some counties which do not apply for as much as you expected, can you transfer the moneys to counties which apply for more?—Oh, yes. The Department of Agriculture manage this scheme for us, as agents. Their procedure is to invite applications by advertisement for the country as a whole. Later, they deal with the applications in the order in which they are received. If one county gets more than another it is due to the fact that they write sooner to the Department.

Deputy S. Collins.—Or perhaps it is due to the fact that there is more work done in a specific county at a specific time than in another county.

Deputy Sheldon.—There is no question of work here.

Deputy S. Collins.—According to Mr. MacLaughlin it is under the Land Rehabilitation Scheme.

Chairman.—It is a separate scheme.

Deputy S. Collins.—In answer to a question, Mr. MacLaughlin stated that it was a corollary of the Land Rehabilitation Scheme.

Mr. MacLaughlin.—Land Reclamation Scheme. I referred to applications for reclamation. When grants are made, the Department insists on landholders also availing themselves of lime grants so that the reclaimed land may be properly prepared for cultivation.

Deputy S. Collins.—And would the actual amount of work not be a bearing factor?—Quite so—a principal factor.

432. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead O—Miscellaneous Schemes— there is an explanation to the effect that the expenditure in respect of grants towards the cost of major harbour development works was less than expected. Could Mr. MacLaughlin expand on that note and tell us if there is any reason why the cost in respect of major harbour works was less than expected?—That is another case in which the grants are administered by an agent Department—the Department of Industry and Commerce. These works are on a large scale, and it is very difficult to estimate at the beginning of the year when plans, etc., will be ready, what amount of the work will be carried out. At the beginning of each financial year there is a considerable amount of uncertainty as to what can be done within that year. It depends on so many different factors.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 61—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.

Mr. Leon Ó Broin called and examined.

433. Chairman.—Paragraph 61 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:—

“Subhead H.2—Losses by Default, Accident, etc.

The losses borne on the vote for the year ended 31st March, 1949, amounted to £3,604 8s. 6d. A classified schedule of these losses is set out at page 224. At page 225 particulars are given of 30 cases in which cash shortage or misappropriations amounting to £2,638 6s. 3d. were discovered; the sums in question were made good and no charge to public funds was necessary.”

How are the losses made good?—We recover, very frequently, from the defaulters.

434. Is there no insurance? Do they just pay up whatever the deficiency may be?—Yes.

435. Chairman.—Paragraph 62 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General states:—

“Stores.

A test examination of the store accounts was carried out with satisfactory results.

As shown in Appendix II, the value of engineering stores held on 31st March, 1949, was £933,904, an increase of £349,407 over the previous year. Stores other than engineering stores were valued at £313,982, included in this amount being a sum of £71,608 in respect of stores held for other Government Departments.”

Could you give me any idea of the procedure in these cases? Have you a continuing sanction from the Department of Finance to go ahead with your requirements? If there is a question of materials or if you think it good business to acquire more, will you be able to get the necessary sanction to go ahead and procure them?—We keep in very close touch with the Department of Finance about this expenditure. It is one of the biggest expenditures .we have. Naturally, we watch situations as they develop. At the moment, obviously, we are very interested in purchases to meet any sort of situation that may develop in future years. In all these cases, however, we work subject to the authority of the Department of Finance.

436. Do you purchase with the idea of having a reserve or do you try to cover a particular period—one year, two years— in advance?—The question of what particular reserves should be laid in depends on circumstances. First of all, if you approach the matter from the monetary aspect, obviously the amount you hold depends on the particular value in a particular period of the stock. The Committee may take it that in recent years our stocks have gone up somewhat because our programmes are expanding and we require always to have in reserve a large amount of materials to meet the expanding programmes and also emergency situations.

437. Perhaps you may not be able to answer this question, but what would the normal stores you have at present be worth in quantity, having regard to your commitments?—If you are referring to the present year, I think that our stores are somewhat better than perhaps they were in recent times, generally speaking.

438. Do you make a special effort to get materials or requisites which it might be impossible to get in some circumstances?— We are watching that aspect of the matter most closely.

439. Deputy S. Collins.—Is the whole question of the intake of stores now satisfactory?—Yes and no. There is still delay on the part of manufacturers in the filling of orders.

Are you now able to get a wider and more extensive range of goods?—Yes.

440. Chairman.—Where is the source of the wire and other such materials? Do you get them in Britain?—Mainly in Britain but, in the past, we have gone farther afield. Recently, the tendency has been, because of currency difficulties, and so forth, to place as much of this business as possible in Britain, provided the quotations are reasonable.

441. Chairman.—Paragraph 63 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as fallows:—

“Revenue.

A test examination of the accounts of the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services was carried out with satisfactory results.

Sums amounting to £71 18s. 3d. due for telephone services were written off during the year as irrecoverable.”

442. Paragraph 64 refers to the Post Office Savings Bank Accounts and reads:—

“The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December, 1948, were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results. As in previous years the figure shown in the accounts in respect of the total interest credited to depositors has been estimated but any necessary adjustment will be made in a subsequent year. The interest accrued during the year on securities standing to the credit of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund amounted to £1,420,204 18s. 11d. Of this sum, £897,602 4s. 5d. was paid and credited to depositors in respect of interest, management expenses amounted to £106,688 4s. 1d. and £415,914 10s. 5d. was set aside towards provision against depreciation in the value of securities.”

Does this account appear in this Book?

Mr. Wann.—No. It is a separate account and it is available now for inspection by the Committee.

443. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

“Post Office Factory.

A test examination was applied to the accounts of the Post Office Factory with satisfactory results.

Including works in progress on the 31st March, 1949, the expenditure on manufacturing jobs during the year amounted to £54,722, expenditure on repair work (other than repairs to mechanical transport) amounted to £23,334, and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs to £7,304.”

Deputy S. Collins.—Does the Department actually do its own mechanical transport repairs or are they done by contract?—Some of the work goes out. We do not, for instance, do radiator repairs or work involving panel beating.

444. Do you find that the amount of work involved in these repairs would not justify the creation of permanent posts in respect of such work in your own factory?—Generally we compare our own costings with those of people outside; if we find that it is more economical we let the job go outside.

445. With regard to subhead A.1— Salaries, Wages and Allowances, Headquarters Offices—is it possible to give us an indication as to what was the actual cost to the Department in respect of increased remuneration and what would be the saving offset by vacancies? Further, what is your vacancy position at present?—I may say that, with regard to the filling of vacancies, the position is good. We are better off from that point of view than we have been for a number of years.

446. Chairman.—Regarding AA—Payment to other Administrations in respect of Services rendered by Agency—what exactly is that?—We pay a certain number of old age pensions and widows and orphans pensions for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is what is referred to here.

Deputy S. Collins.—We are making some extra money on that?—Yes.

447. On subhead B—Travelling Expenses—was any special survey or tour undertaken by the Department for any specific purpose that would account for that very large increase?—The reason for the increase is set out in the note, that is to say, there was more headquarters and provincial staff travelling—we desired that offices should be examined more frequently. We also re-introduced in that year the T.P.O., the travelling post office, which accounts for £1,300 of the increase. During the war years that service was suspended.

448. Is it the tendency in the Department now to make more frequent tours of inspection into the whole post office system?—We would like to have the inspection of all our services done more regularly and more efficiently.

Chairman.—Does any proportion of it represent travelling outside the country? —No; that comes under subhead BB. Travelling in Britain is, of course, a charge on subhead B.

449. Deputy S. Collins.—On E.5—Conveyance of Mails by Air—there is a continued tendency to expand in that particular branch?—Yes. Apart from devaluation, it is a very profitable branch.

450. On subhead H.2—Losses by Default, Accident, etc.—on the whole position there, is there, in this particular period we are dealing with a tendency towards an increase in the number of criminal defaulters, so to speak, in your system?— I do not think there is any evidence at all of that. As a matter of fact, as I said last year, having regard to the size of the Department and its ramifications, the number of items that we handle and the services being performed, the actual loss is hardly worth talking about.

451. Chairman.—The losses from the point of view of cash involved would probably be a smaller proportion, but would the number of cases be smaller?— I have not totted them nor compared this year with its predecessors, but I do not think there is any evidence of increase.

Deputy S. Collins.—My question was really directed to get the answer you have given us, that you did not feel there was any tendency towards an increase of crime?—We are not conscious of any upward trend.

452. Chairman.—Is there any general reason why there should be this excess under subhead H.3—Incidental Expenses. I see that traffic accidents cost £1,603 and the campaign against wireless licences defaulters cost £1,490.

Deputy S. Collins.—I should say the wireless campaign was very favourably offset by the revenue received?—Yes, it was a great success.

453. Chairman.—On H.4—Compensation for Cancellation of an Appointment as Sub-Postmaster—how does this arise? —This is a case where we gave way to our second thoughts about the desirability of a certain appointment. Meanwhile, the person first appointed had incurred certain expense on fittings and so on and we compensated him on an ex gratia basis.

Deputy S. Collins.—It would not do to let Deputy Cogan learn about this.

454. Chairman.—Is it unusual? Is it a new precedent?—No, it is not a new precedent; there are earlier cases in the records.

455. If a new sub-postmaster had purchased premises, I suppose you would have to give sympathetic consideration to him?—I imagine so.

456. On subhead I.1—Salaries, Wages and Allowances, Engineering Establishment—the phrase “relief in respect of telephone capital” occurs in the note in this and succeeding items?—That is true. It is due to the fact that during that year, following the war, we began to expand rather dramatically our telephone programme, drawing heavily on telephone capital; and relief is given through the Vote where the charges are appropriate to capital.

457. Deputy S. Collins.—With regard to engineering establishment generally, how do you find the system of taking trainees through the technical schools, bringing them under your own inspectors? —As far as I know, the system works satisfactorily.

458. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead L.3 —Contract Work—your note is so clear that very little question could arise; but in this one the amounts shown in brackets are the savings. It is a sort of negative explanation. Usually, the amounts in brackets show the amounts spent, but in this case you get the amount saved and there is no reference to the amount spent? —We thought it necessary to show how the very substantial sum of £23,000 had been saved and to indicate the two headings under which the savings were effected, and the amounts involved under each heading, so that you could discuss the matter, if you desired.

Deputy S. Collins.—Deputy Sheldon’s point is that usually it is the reverse way. We are usually told why you spent it or how?—In this case, it was a question of savings, and we showed how it was saved. We had to break it down for you.

Chairman.—The fact that we are getting an explanation as to why it was not spent is a definite advance.

459. Deputy S. Collins.—On subhead Q.1—Salaries, Wages and Allowances, Civil Aviation and Meteorological Wireless Services—a point has come to my notice in a queer kind of way. Is there a wide divergence between the rates of pay of our meteorological service as distinct from other people employed in the same type of service by air companies, or other people in the same type of employment down at Shannon?—I do not think we deal with the actual meteorological people. That is a function of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

I was wondering if it had come to your notice that there is grave dissatisfaction in the meteorological service at the moment?—I would not be aware of that.

460. Are the salaries and wages of these people borne on your Vote?—We only bear on this Vote the salaries of certain engineers and engineering staff— some people at Dublin and some at Shannon.

461. That is what I am seeking. I am anxious to try to get it, if you can give me the information. This arose as a result of certain representations made to me and other people by engineers in an offhand way. I was anxious to know what was the difference between the rates of pay and what was the position of the meteorological service at the moment; but if you are not aware, taking the situation as it is, that there is grave dissatisfaction, I wonder who would be aware?—I suggest you hold the matter over until you see the representative of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

You could not give me any information as to what their scale of salaries is or the scale of other people in the same meteorological service?—I could not give that.

462. Chairman.—With regard to (11) of the Appropriations in Aid, the note on page 222 reads “the amount has not been realised”, is there any explanation? —Yes, we touched upon this last year. These are the wireless stations at Malin Head and Valentia. We have since taken over these stations entirely. Over the years there was a dispute between ourselves and the British as to the ownership of these stations. We made the case that they were our property; the British agreed ultimately and the stations have been formally transferred to us. We are now entirely responsible for their maintenance and the former Appropriations in Aid from the British, which appeared” here in previous years, will not appear after the financial year 1950-51. The charge for the station will, however, remain on the Vote.

463. Deputy Sheldon.—I presume that at the time of the framing of this Estimate you had not made the matter of ownership clear?—We had, in fact, but the details had not been cleared up.

Deputy S. Collins.—The position did not actually crystallise into concrete form until after the Estimate?—They agreed in 1948 to transfer the stations.

Deputy Sheldon.—You did not weaken your case by putting in your Estimate the amount to be paid by the British? —The position was quite clear.

464. Deputy S. Collins.—They did not make any contribution while there was uncertainty?—They did, until the final transfer was being arranged.

465. Deputy Sheldon.—If it was quite clear that we owned them why did you estimate for the payment of £14,680 from the British?—We estimated for the receipt in respect of the period before the transfer, but the receipt did not materialise.

If it was quite clear that the stations belonged to you why did you estimate that the British would pay something?

Deputy S. Collins.—Because it was not quite clear to them that we owned them.

Mr. O Broin.—The British had been making payments of this sort to us right down the years.

Deputy Sheldon.—I know they had.

Deputy S. Collins.—At the time of the Estimate was the position that, while it was quite clear to our Department that the stations belonged to us, it had not been resolved so conclusively by them?— Yes.

466. Chairman.—What was the effective date?—They were formally transferred on the 1st January, 1950.

467. Will you have to bear substantially the same expense?—Formerly the British carried a loss on the station and we will now carry the loss.

Is there any gain?—There is a gain in prestige but no gain in money.

There is no gain from the point of view of the Press Agency and all that?—That is in the womb of the future.

Deputy S. Collins.—It is very unlikely that it would offset the loss.

468. Deputy Sheldon.—I should like to ask a sort of accountancy question as I do not see how this works out. I refer to the first and sixth notes relating to Losses by Default, Accident, etc., on pages 222 and 223. The sixth note says that there was a shortage and that part of the loss to public-funds was made good and the balance of salary due was withheld, £4 19s. 10d. That is then shown as a loss. It looks at first as if the £4 19s. 10d. was put twice, once in whatever subhead bore the salary and now as a loss as well? —It was not borne on the subhead because in fact the money was not paid out. The money was withheld.

469. You cannot take into account services rendered as an item on a balance sheet, but the money was earned?—Yes, we have withheld the salary against the deficiency.

Deputy S. Collins.—What is your position? Is it from the time of suspension you withhold the salary or can you withhold it whether the person is suspended or not?—Once we become aware that there is a deficiency we usually warn everybody concerned to hold up any moneys owing to the person. We naturally do not pay these over while the deficiency exists.

You work very much on the Army system?

Chairman.—Is that the general rule in the Civil Service?—I think so.

470. Deputy S. Collins.—Have you been advised that that is the actual legal position as to your entitlement to do that? —I do not know whether it is necessary to seek legal advice on that. It seems common sense if a man takes money from you and you have possession of something belonging to him that you should be entitled to hold it.

It has not been a success with the Army a couple of times.

471. Chairman.—With regard to the note about Newtowngore on page 224, we had Newtowngore last year also. If it should happen in future that the thing occurs in two succeeding years, would it be possible to call the attention of the Committee to that fact?—If it is your wish we will certainly do that.

472. Deputy S. Collins.—On the question of losses in general, I see one extraordinary statement here. An auxiliary postman in an office in Monaghan misappropriated 2/4 and was prosecuted and dismissed. Is there any explanation why a prosecution should follow the loss of 2/4? Would dismissal not be sufficient?

Chairman.—It might be the only case where they caught a culprit who was seriously suspected of other misdemeanours.

Deputy S. Collins.—It seems extraordinary that there has been a prosecution?—It is not easy to generalise, but what you say, Mr. Chairman, is probably right. I do not know the circumstances of the particular case at the moment but I think you may take it that the man’s record was not a good one.

473. There may be something in what the Chairman says, but my recollection regarding the Post Office is that there is a long list of faults that would show in the prosecution although the conviction might not ultimately cover them all. It might ultimately that there was a conviction on one item. This struck me as something extraordinary?—That actually happened in a former case. I could not tell you the details, but if the Deputy is interested I would be very glad to let him have them.

I would be rather interested just from the point of view of knowing what would arise. The note made me curious.

474. Deputy Sheldon.—Is there not a legal explanation, that by law postal servants are subject to severe penalties? Usually temptation is taken into account as an ameliorating factor but in the postal services it is not but quite the contrary?—I do not think it is a matter of law but I think that very often the courts like to take the line that they are dealing with people who are carriers for the public and that it is necessary that they should have a very high standard of probity.

Deputy S. Collins.—The note made me curious because it was an auxiliary postman, far down in the very minor grades? —I am sure there was a good case for prosecution notwithstanding the smallness of the amount misappropriated.

475. Chairman.—There is an item on page 226 where the sub-postmistress in Newtownmountkennedy was prosecuted and dismissed but the amount was made good. Who made it good?—The husband, I think.

476. Conjugal felicity. With regard to the note on extra remuneration on page 227 and payment in respect of extra attendance on weekdays, do you find it cheaper to pay for extra attendance than to employ extra staff?—Sometimes. There has been great difficulty in the past in getting staff.

477. What are the rates of overtime?— It depends upon the grade. The rate is time and a quarter generally.

And on Sunday is there anything extra? —Rate and a half.

478. Deputy S. Collins.—You must have an amazingly tight system of stores checking because in relation to the amount of stores you carry the losses by default from stores are microscopic?—That is true. We have a very good system.

479. Chairman.—I suppose that the officers dealing with stores are generally on the establishment?—Yes.

VOTE 62—WIRELESS BRODCASTING.

Mr. Leon Ó Broin called

No question.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XII.