Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1951 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1949 - 1950

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTN

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 18ú. Deireadh Fómhair, 1951.

Thursday, 18th October, 1951.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. M. Breathnach and Mr. P. M. Clarke (An. Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 40—CHARITABLE DO NATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.

83. Chairman.—Arising out of subhead B—Law Costs—I presume the solicitor’s bill of costs will appear in the following year?—It will. The custom is to hold the accounts for a couple of years as the annual payments are usually small.

84. I presume you still find your funds increasing?—Yes. The total held by the Commissioners on 31st December last amounted to £1,559,377 odd.

85. A number of people are still being charitable?—Yes. The total number of charitable bequests contained in wills proved in January last was 142; in January, 1950, the figure was 138, and in January 1949, 122.

86. Deputy Hickey.—There has been an increase in the number of bequests?— There is a progressive increase.

VOTE 51—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Mr. Thomas McGreevy called and examined.

87. Chairman.—I notice you did not spend very much in the year under review?—No, Sir. Of course, I was not at the gallery in this particular year, but I think at the end of Dr. Furlong’s time very little was, in fact, spent. They have an idea that the gallery is now in such a position that the best course is to save money, to fill up major gaps which, of course, costs a great deal. They are trying to create a nest egg to have a big sum of money when something of outstanding importance comes along.

88. There was nothing of particular importance in this year?—No. I do not think so. We were more concerned with cleaning, restoring and relining. We had some work done by very good cleaners. In the matter of purchases there was not very much in that year.

89. Is the gallery open on Saturday afternoons?—Provisionally, it is closed on Saturday afternoons. Our men never got a half-holiday until recently. We checked up on the attendances and found that Saturday showed the lowest number of attendances. The attendance on Wednesdays and Thursdays, which are other business half-holidays, seemed to be better. Everybody seems either to go to help his wife or mother or to go hiking in the mountains on Saturdays. On Sunday we have always quite a crowd but on Saturday the attendances were very low. Of course, now that we have a lighting system, we remain open on the other days of the week until 5 p.m. Previously the men were entitled to go at an earlier hour because we closed at 4 p.m. during the winter. It was to make up for the longer hours of duty that they were given the half-holiday on Saturday. The closing for the Saturday half-holiday began last December, but in fact I had only one letter of complaint about it. That was the only sign that it had registered amongst the public. Very few people came on Saturdays.

Unfortunately I was one of them?—I am sorry, Sir. The attendances on Sunday are very good.

90. I suppose it is very expensive to have a staggered half-holiday so as to keep the gallery open on Saturday afternoon?—I should not complain of the expense myself.

91. Deputy Hickey.—Have you any idea of the amount involved in insurance?—I did not bring the actual figures.

92. Do you do the insurance directly yourselves through your own Department?—We do. It is rather small. It does not come to a great deal. The pictures are mostly sent to Dublin cleaners and the transport does not come to much. The risks are not very considerable.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 9—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Diarmuid Ó hEigceartuigh called and examined.

93. Chairman.—Paragraph 8 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads:—

“Insurance of Workmen.

Reference was made in previous reports to the Commissioners’ claim against the Liquidator of the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association, Limited, in respect of payments of compensation, etc., arising out of accident risks which had been covered by policies of insurance with that Association. The Liquidator has submitted for determination by the High Court the question whether the claim is a debt due to the State and entitled to priority. I understand that the hearing of the case had not concluded at the date of my report.”

Mr. Wann.—I do not know whether the decision has been given.

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—It is expected to be handed down to-day or to-morrow. Of course this only affects the question of the State’s right to priority and I am afraid that that will not finish the whole proceedings.

94. Chairman.—Will it make a very material difference?—It should make a considerable difference in the amount of money recovered. I think it is liable also to affect the issue between the re-insurance brokers and the firm.

95. It would improve the State’s chance of recovering?—It would.

96. On the Vote itself. We had some discussion yesterday with Mr. J. J. McElligott about the Local Loans Fund. I notice that your Department collects the major share of the fees and the cost of management. What precisely is the difference between the fees under the Local Loans Fund regulations and expenses of management?—The fees are paid by the borrowers. The rate of fee is fixed by a special order. The cost of management is the actual cost of our staffs, apportioned in respect of the period of their time devoted to local loans. That is calculated every year and against it is set off the fees collected and the penal interest; the balance is regarded as the cost of management and is recovered from the Fund.

97. I notice that the fees are a separate item. You say the fees are set off? —The total cost of management is not the sum of the fees and the amount recoverable because one figure relates to the previous year, but if you had all the figures relating to the same year, the cost of management would really be the sum of Nos. 1, 2 and 6.

98. In fact they refer to different years?—Yes.

99. When you talked about the cost of management, how does it arise that different Departments have to bear the cost of management? The Department of Finance itself charged £1,000 for management?— We are only interested in recovering the cost of our own expenditure, that is the expenditure incurred through our office. I take it that any expenditure incurred in other offices is recouped to these offices. We do not deal with that.

100. Would it not be less expensive on the Fund if one Department managed the Fund? How does it arise that different Departments manage the Fund? I understand you get fees from the borrowers. I do not understand this business about different Departments managing the Fund?—So far as we are concerned, we issue the loans and collect them. So far as the Department of Finance are concerned, they sanction them. The Department of Local Government are concerned with recommending them. Beyond that, I do not know what other Departments are concerned. But they are three different functions. The Department of Local Government authorises a local authority to borrow and seek a loan from the Fund. The local authority then comes to us and we see that the loan is within the terms of the relevant Act and that the application is generally in order. We then make a recommendation to the Minister for Finance and he either sanctions the loan or withholds sanction. When the loan is sanctioned, we are notified of it and we issue the loan either in bulk or by instalments on recommendations which we receive from the Department of Local Government. I am speaking generally of the major type of loans. There are other loans such as glebe loans and vocational education loans in which other Departments make recommendations. So far, however, as the receipt and issuing of moneys is concerned, we do all that.

101. Deputy Hickey.—The Cork Corporation borrow money from your Department through the Local Loans Fund?—I am not sure about the Cork Corporation. There are two bodies who do not borrow from us—the Dublin Corporation and I think the Cork Corporation. My recollection is that the Cork Corporation issue their own stock.

102. Have you not given any money to the Cork Corporation as a loan for public works?—I am not quite sure; I could not answer that off-hand. Normally speaking, I think the Cork Corporation find their own funds.

103. Is there not a great amount of waste of time and energy by having three bodies managing the Local Loans Fund? —So far as that is concerned, there are different functions of management. There is the body which decides whether a local authority may be permitted to borrow or not. Let us take the Cork County Council. Whether they would be permitted to borrow or not is the function of the Minister for Local Government. We have not the information available to us to say whether it is right to let the Cork County Council borrow. The Minister for Local Government gives the permission to borrow and he makes a recommendation to us. We examine the application from the point of view of its legality and so on, as to whether the security is sufficient and as to what terms the loan will be repayable on and we make a recommendation to the Minister for Finance on that basis. The Minister for Finance then has the right to sanction or withhold sanction to the loan. In other words, the functions of the different Departments are quite distinct.

Deputy Hickey.—It is very involved..

Chairman.—The word “management” is not applicable to them all.

Deputy P. Brady.—I can see the point but I think it is a bit ambiguous the way it is stated. It should be really management in their own particular Department because there are three different Departments. They are all functioning in connection with the loan but they are doing so in different sections.

104. Chairman.—You mentioned the determination as to whether or not an application for a loan was a legal application within the terms of the Act. Where do you find what are proper things to borrow for under the Local Loans Fund? I spent an afternoon going through Acts and could not find anything at all?—It would be very difficult to do that because the Local Loans Fund Act is not the Act that authorises borrowing; it is the Act that authorises lending. Take, for instance, the Sanitary Acts—they enable local authorities to borrow for sanitary purposes. The Vocational Education Act allows people to borrow for vocational education schools. If you want to get a comprehensive idea of what loans are made you will find, I think, in the Local Loans Account, which is one of the financial publications, a list of the types of loan which have been issued and in respect of which repayments are being made. That would give you any information you want.

105. What I am interested in is this burning question at the moment of the Housing (Amendment) Act, where local authorities are empowered to give grants for the building of houses similar to the State grants but someone—either the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Finance—has put his foot down on the type of person building a house who may get that. I was interested to try to find out is there any statutory bar to the type of person for whom a local authority can borrow?—That statutory bar, if it exists, would be contained in the Housing Acts or in regulations made under them. It would not be contained in anything that we have anything to do with.

106. The regulations made under them —I had forgotten about those?—Local Government would probably be able to tell you.

That is what I wanted to find out. It would be a matter for Local Government rather than for you?—Yes.

107. Deputy Davin.—I would like to know from the Accounting Officer what is the case for the continued duplication of management of this Local Loans Fund. Seeing that the Commissioners are a statutory body, a section of the Department of Finance, it appears ridiculous to me that anything decided by them should be subject to decision afterwards by a higher executive officer—£1,000 roughly is his figure—of the Department of Finance. There is duplication there and I do not understand the reason for it. The Board of Works is a section of the Department of Finance. The Department of Local Government is another Department under a different Minister.

Chairman.—I am sure Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh would agree with you.

Deputy Hickey.—Is it tradition or what is the basis of it?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—The answer is, I think, that the Minister has a statutory responsibility in the matter of the Local Loans Fund.

108. Deputy Davin.—The Commissioners, of which you happen to be the Chairman, Sir, are a statutory body?— We are, but there are certain things that we cannot do. For instance we cannot borrow. The Minister borrows.

Chairman.—I think that is always in legislation, that it is the Minister who borrows. I think, Deputy, that really it is more the use of the word “management” which is confusing. After all, the Department of Finance must sanction the expenditure by every other Department, including a sub-section of itself.

109. Deputy Davin.—Why they put in £1,000, which appears to be the round figure for a higher executive officer, I do not know.

Chairman.—In the ordinary way they do not do that but because this is not voted money but money from the Local Loans Fund, it is necessary to put the precise expenditure.

Deputy Davin.—They want to retain nominal authority at the expense of £1,000.

Chairman.—I would be very averse from giving power to a Department to spend money that did not require the sanction of the Department of Finance. It would be a very dangerous precedent to set.

Deputy Davin.—I agree. I am making the point, whether it is good, bad or indifferent, that the Commissioners themselves are a section of the Department of Finance and more important and more influential and more powerful than a higher executive officer in the Department of Finance.

110. Chairman.—I think we are going into deep waters. Perhaps we should make recommendations to the Minister some time. In connection with extra receipts payable to the Exchequer, I was wondering why are the rents, say, from Haulbowline Dockyard put in as an extra receipt rather than an Appropriation in Aid. Is it something that does not occur every year?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—It is something that occurs outside the normal functioning of the annual Vote, something that comes by way of a windfall.

111. It is too uncertain to estimate for? —You cannot budget for it.

VOTE 10—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Diarmuid Ó hEigceartuigh further examined.

112. Chairman.—Paragraph 9 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions.

The charge to this subhead includes expenditure of £11,286 1s. l0d. on the erection of temporary buildings for use as a central engineering workshop and store to meet the expanding volume of repair work arising from arterial drainage schemes. In addition, a sum of £2,640 was paid for the site and charged in the accounts of previous years. As noted in the statement appended to the account, further expenditure on this work has been deferred, and I understand that negotiations have been entered into for the acquisition of permanent premises.”

Mr. Wann.—I understand the negotiations have been completed and that the Commissioners have taken possession.

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—Yes. We took a lease for 50 years of two engineering shops in Inchicore which were surplus to the requirements of Córas Iompair Eireann and which became available. We took possession of them, I think, last April.

113. Chairman.—Have you done anything about the temporary premises?— These temporary premises were never erected, the position being that we bought the site; we did a certain amount of development work and we had placed a contract for structural steel for a small portion of the final building before this other place became available. The speed with which our machinery grew was such that time was a matter of very considerable importance in the provision of repair shops, and it was decided that it would be better to suspend action altogether on the Clondalkin site and to lease the Inchicore one. So that at the moment the Clondalkin site is available either for disposal or for other purposes.

114. You have not yet decided?—We have not yet decided. There are possibilities that it may be required for Government purposes.

115. Chairman.—Paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Subhead J.2—Arterial Drainage— Construction Works.

The expenditure during the year on works on the Brosna and the Glyde and Dee schemes amounted to £151,765 4s. 11d. In addition, the assessed value of the services rendered by the use of plant and machinery amounted to £78,715 2s. 6d.

Including the direct expenditure and the assessed charge for the use of plant and machinery in the previous year, the total cost of schemes under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, up to 31st March, 1950, was £329,086 3s. 10d., of which £328,078 16s. 1d. relates to the Brosna scheme and £1,007 7s. 9d. to the Glyde and Dee scheme, work on which was begun during the year under review.”

116. Deputy Davin.—On that, I would like to ask the Accounting Officer who is responsible for assessing the value of services rendered by the use of plant and machinery. Is this fixed by an independent engineer or do you simply make a charge of so much per day to the cost of the scheme for the use of the plant and machinery?—No. The system is that as we purchase an item of plant a hire charge is fixed for it. The hire charge is fixed on the basis of its capital cost spread over the period of its estimated life and on the capital value of overhauls expected to be required during the lifetime. That is fixed for each machine and it is an automatic transaction thereafter, depending on how long the machine is on transfer to a particular drainage district.

117. Is that fixed by your own engineers or on the advice of outside engineers?— So far as the job of fixing the hire-charge has any engineering content, it is done by our engineers but the engineer’s function is confined to the estimate of life and of the cost of overhaul. The actual purchase price is an ascertainable figure.

118. Deputy Hickey.—What check have you then? Supposing very little work was done in a particular year, who is responsible for checking whether that outlay was justified at all for that year? You say it is based on the capital cost of the machine and the period of its existence. Supposing the output in a particular year is not what it should be, what check have we on that?—I am not sure that I get the precise point.

You say that the estimated cost is based on the capital cost of the machine and plant and its possible life and that that is spread over a number of years?— Yes.

119. What check is there as to whether in a particular year or years the plant is fully at work or usefully employed? Should not there be some independent body to determine that?

Deputy Davin.—What I was trying to get from the Accounting Officer is, is the cost allocated on a basis of so much per day whether work goes on owing to wet weather or not? Are we having wet weather cost included in the cost of the scheme for the plant and machinery?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—Oh, yes. The hire charge is for the hiring of the machine for the whole period that it is working on the particular job.

120. Wet or fine?—Wet or fine. The other point that has been raised is covered by the fact that a record is kept of every machine’s hours of work and hours of idleness and that record, which is prepared on the spot, is checked at headquarters.

121. It is a peculiar state of affairs to find that the human being, if he has to stop work, suffers the loss of his day’s pay, whereas if there is a stoppage of work, with the machine, it gets its money at the cost of the scheme, wet or fine. However, the Accounting Officer is not responsible for that?—The amount of recording that would be necessary to deal with a hire charge in any other way than the way it has been done would, I think, be very much more than you would save. In any event, it is out of one pocket into the other, because the Government are paying for the work on the Brosna and they are also paying for the machine.

122. Chairman.—These assessed charges are notional charges?—They are book charges. There are two objects in view. One is to keep track of how the machine is behaving, and the other is to keep track of the exact cost, so far as it can be ascertained, of any particular scheme.

123. Deputy Hickey.—Are you not liable to bolster up the cost of a scheme under this kind of method?—No. If you want to get the actual cost of the scheme, you cannot give the machine for nothing.

Deputy Davin.—There would appear to be one principle for the hiring of a machine and a different principle for fixing the cost of a scheme so far as the human individual is concerned.

Chairman.—Of course a machine employed on this kind of work is liable to deteriorate as much on the day that it is not working as on the day that it is working. That applies to all farm machinery. On the day that the machine is not working, it will rust more than on the day it is working. It is perfectly true to say that.

Deputy Davin.—A man of 70 years of age is not expected to do as much work as a fellow of 35.

124. Chairman.—Paragraph 11 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

“Subhead K.1—Purchase of Engineering Plant and Machinery.

Dredging plant was purchased from a local authority in 1948 for £6,000 and expenditure, amounting to £4,306 on 31st March, 1950, was incurred on towage, dry-docking and watching charges, but the plant has not so far been put into service. The sanction of the Department of Finance for the purchase was accorded subject to the condition that a scale of charges which would ensure recovery of the capital cost would be fixed for the use of the plant. I am informed that the plant requires an extensive overhaul, that the purchase of auxiliary plant is necessary to make it an effective working unit, and that the question of its future use has had to be deferred pending satisfactory arrangements for the overhaul and for the purchase of the auxiliary plant.”

Mr. Wann.—The vessels acquired consisted of a bucket dredger, a pontoon suction dredger and four barges and the purchase price of £6,000 was approved, subject to the Board of Works taking steps to devise a scale of charges such as would ensure the recovery of the entire capital cost, including overheads. Arrangements were made in March, 1948, to bring the bucket dredger and the barges to Dublin. As stated in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report for 1947-48,. two of the barges were lost at sea in the course of the voyage. The total expenditure would be of the order of £10,000. Provision for further expenditure amounting to £126,000 was included in the 1950-51 Estimates. As apparently no-return had been received for the outlay, I thought it desirable to make inquiries, and the result is stated in the paragraph.

125. Chairman.—Could the Accounting Officer enlighten us a bit further on this matter?—The position when this plant was purchased was that two aspects of the question of dredging were being considered by an inter-departmental committee under the aegis of the Department of Industry and Commerce. One was the question of rehabilitating harbours that had been neglected during the period of the war and that required dredging, and the other was the question of implementing, to some extent, the report of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal, which had recommended that the smaller commercial harbours should be enabled to undertake dredging by hireage from a central authority. Both these problems were engaging the attention of an interdepartmental committee. The first problem was regarded as being very urgent. We had only three available dredgers at the time, and we were asked to see whether any other dredgers could be either purchased or hired to enable a speedy programme of overhaul for these harbours to be carried out. We made very considerable inquiries to see whether dredgers could be purchased or hired, and we had no success. About this time, the existence of this plant in Dundalk was brought to the notice of the committee and it was examined by us. Our engineering people came to the conclusion that, while it was in a very bad state of repair and neglect, it could be restored to working use and be made a useful plant with a life of say, ten years—it was a very old plant—and that it would be worth while renovating in order to get quick results, our own plant not being able to carry out the programme envisaged. The intention at the time was to buy two second-hand tugs. When the plant was brought to Dublin, we set about looking for tugs, and although there were quite a number of second-hand tugs available it was found that none of them would be sufficiently seaworthy for the work required to be done around the Irish coast. Our searches since then have failed to find a tug that would be suitable. Recently, our engineers examined the possibility of getting a tug made, a tug that was estimated to cost about £80,000. The problem now is that we are faced with an expenditure very much greater than was originally contemplated when we bought this plant. If conditions were normal, that is to say if there were no international difficulties, I think myself our recommendation would be to sell this plant and put the money into improving or replacing the older units of our own plant, because while our own plant has always been well maintained and is effective within its range, it is rather under-powered for work on the Irish coast. The result is that unless you have a captain who is prepared to take very considerable chances, the boat will be idle for a longer period than would normally be the case. At the moment, we are in consultation with the Department of Industry and Commerce with a view to seeing what their prospective programme of work is before we make a recommendation as to whether we shall endeavour to dispose of this plant or endeavour to convert it into a working unit. The prospects are not the same now as they were in 1947 when this transaction was negotiated because, at that time, there was no hope of getting any alternative plant.

126. Deputy Hickey.—Would it not appear that when this dredging plant was purchased, it was so much scrap? Having purchased it, a further expenditure of over £4,000 was required. Later, in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s paragraph, we are told that the plant requires an extensive overhaul. Now we learn that there is provision for a further expenditure of £126,000 on this plant? —The £126,000 is really devoted in large part to the purchase of a tug, and, to the extent of something like £20,000, to the purchase of a new barge. The loss of the two barges was a considerable upset to the balance of the plant because you want at least three barges to do economical dredging with this particular dredger.

127. In the case of the purchase of this plant for £6,000 in 1948, would it not seem to anybody reading this that there was no vision at all as to what could be done with the plant, especially in view of the fact that so much was required for overhauling it? We are told here that the plant requires an extensive overhaul and that the purchase of auxiliary plant is necessary to make it an effective working unit. It looks as if in 1948 it was just so much scrap?—It was not scrap. The alteration in the cost of putting it into commission was largely due to the fact that the tugs which we expected to be available second-hand at the time were not available.

It was bought for £6,000 and there had to be further expenditure in connection with it of over £4,000. It is still so much scrap on your hands.

128. Chairman.—What further charges have been incurred since?—The £10,300 includes everything except the cost after 31st March, 1950, of watching and the dues. These costs work out at about £600 a year, including the cost of watching.

129. Deputy Hickey.—It is lying idle all the time?—Yes.

130. Deputy Palmer.—Would it not be considered better business if the purchase of the dredging plant had been postponed until such time as the Office of Public Works was certain that they could get the barges and the tugs which they also required?

Chairman.—If the tugs and the barges had been bought and they had not been able to buy a dredger for the work, the same questions could be asked.

Deputy Palmer.—I do not think it was advisable to spend so much on the dredger when no provision had been made for the other machinery required in connection with it.

Chairman.—The difference between buying this dredger and buying a new dredger would be very considerable.

Deputy Palmer.—Personally, I would say that it would be better to buy a new dredger. I do not think that there is ever a saving in buying a second-hand article.

131. Chairman.—Have you a figure for the overhaul?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—We have an estimate of £18,400 for the dredger.

Deputy Hickey.—That is, for the extensive overhaul?—Yes.

132. When was that extensive overhaul estimated for? Was it before the purchase of the plant for £6,000?—An estimate was made before purchase. The picture that presented itself at the time the plant was purchased was an expenditure of about £33,000 in putting the fleet in commission in addition to the purchase price.

133. Chairman.—There is this to be considered too, that if it is going to cost another £126,000 instead of the £33,000, the problem of the hiring charges will arise. Will these be on such a scale as to enable them to be paid by local authorities at all? It will very materially affect the hiring charges?—It will. That is one of the aspects of the matter that has led us to re-examine in the light of present circumstances the question of putting the plant into commission at all.

134. Were all the vessels brought to Ringsend?—All except the pontoon which is still at Dundalk.

135. Are there charges accruing there? —No, there are no charges there.

136. Deputy Hickey.—You are paying £600 a year in dues and for watching to the Ports and Docks Board?—I do not think it is the Port and Docks Board. It is lying in the Grand Canal Basin.

But you are paying dues for it?—Yes.

137. Deputy Davin.—Could it not have been pushed into Dun Laoghaire harbour, where you control the payment of dues?

Deputy Hickey.—Would it not be better if it were sold as scrap instead of paying £600 a year for dues and watching?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh. —That is precisely what we are considering at the moment.

Selling it for scrap?—Yes.

That is what should have been done in the first instance?—I accepted your word “scrap”. I should have said “for what we can get for it”.

138. Deputy Hickey.—It appears to me that there was very little thought in the whole of this transaction. The two watchmen are just watching scrap?—They are watching the plant.

Which is just scrap?—We shall see what happens when we try to dispose of it.

139. Deputy Palmer.—If you purchased new dredging plant what would be the cost?—We could not get it. We endeavoured to do so and failed.

140. Deputy Hickey.—Is Dun Laoghaire not under your control?—Dún Laoghaire harbour, yes.

141. Why not have this scrap there rather than pay £600 a year in dues to the harbour authorities?—There are reasons for that. As they are at present, the plant is unmanoeuvrable. They are not able to move under their own power and Dún Laoghaire harbour is not a safe place to put plant of that type. A sudden squall might sink it.

Deputy Davin.—You have a fair share of scrap down there at present.

142. Deputy Hickey.—Has this committee any function in regard to making recommendations on this matter?

Chairman.—That will arise later on the Report.

143. Chairman.—Paragraph 12 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads as follows:—

“Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer.

These receipts include a sum of £6,516 received from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs out of telephone capital funds in recoupment of expenditure incurred in prior years on part of a building which has been taken over for telephone development purposes. The receipts also include a sum of £500, received in settlement of a High Court action by which it was sought to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the sale of a State property.”

Mr. Wann.—As regards the first item, this is simply a book-keeping adjustment between the Telephone Capital Account and the Exchequer. The space in the head Post Office in Cork was freed for the telephone service and the estimated cost to the Vote of the space surrendered was recouped from Telephone Capital funds. With regard to the second item a contract for the sale of property was made in 1922 but the purchaser failed to pay the consideration money, although he took possession. Proceedings were taken with the result indicated. The property was taken over by the Commissioners and they have arranged lettings pending a decision as to its ultimate disposal.

144. Chairman.—How did it arise that this matter was allowed to run from 1922 to 1949-50?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—This case presented very grave complications from the legal point of view. In the first place, it was a property which was purchased for British Army purposes and which was subsequently decided by the War Office to be surplus to their requirements, so they entered into a contract for its sale. That contract was made and possession was taken before the change of Government but the contract documents were not executed at the time. I think I am right in saying that at the transfer of property from the British authorities the existence of that contract was not known. The lands were in other occupation and it was not known that they were Government assets at all. It was discovered later that this contract for sale existed and endeavours were made to get it completed and to get the money paid. The lessee had by this time left the country and, before ho could be sued for specific performance, it became necessary to settle the registered owner. The owner so far as the records were concerned was the Secretary of State for War and very complicated issues arose as to who was the successor in this country to the Secretary of State for War. This matter gave the lawyers an enormous amount of trouble with the result that there was very grave delay from that aspect. When these matters were finally settled, there was difficulty in locating the lessee for the purpose of serving documents and later it became clear that there was internal evidence that the contract document dated for 31st March, 1922, was actually signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for War at a later date. In the meantime other legal questions had arisen as to the authority of the gentleman who signed the contract to sign it and as to whose the signature was and further difficulties arose in getting proof of execution. Ultimately owing to deaths and the peculiar circumstance of the contract being antedated, we were advised that we would find it very difficult to furnish proof that would make it certain that the case would be decided in our favour and on legal advice this offer of settlement was accepted.

145. Deputy Hickey.—Could we have the gentleman’s name?—He was a gentleman called Hickie.

There are only two men in Cork of that name to my knowledge?—I do not think he was a Corkman.

146. He is assuming that he is the man to speak for the Secretary of State for War. Is he claiming the property which cost us that money?—He was actually the lessee. It was he entered into the contract for the purchase.

Of the property belonging to the British?—To the British Secretary of State for War.

147. Chairman.—In effect, we have the property and we have the £500?—Yes.

148. With regard to subhead A—Purchase of Sites and Buildings—I was looking up the Supplementary Estimates and there was one point which struck me. The first Supplementary Estimate was in December, 1949, and in the explanation it was said that part of the expenditure on subhead B was for furniture and fittings for the Legation in Washington. The second Supplementary Estimate which affected subhead A came along in the following March and the increase sought on subhead A was said to be largely due to the decision to buy the premises of the Embassy in Washington. How did it arise that the furniture was being bought before the premises or was the furniture being bought for existing premises? The details I refer to are not given on the face of the Supplementary Estimate, but were given by the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing it. I notice he referred to furniture being purchased for the Legation in Washington, while the purchase of the premises itself is for an Embassy?—That could be explained in this way, that arrangements for the purchase of the Embassy were in train but that it was not anticipated that the legal proceedings which would enable the moneys to be paid in the financial year would have been concluded in time.

149. What sort of a cottage was bought for the Department of Education at Shanganagh Castle?—When Shanganagh Castle was purchased originally, the sale was divided into two lots—one was the hotel itself and certain outbuildings, and the other an area of about 140 acres together with the entrance gate lodge, the gate lodge to the college. Subsequently the gate lodge came on the market and in order to ensure that the Department of Education would have complete control of the entrance and in order to get rid of a right of way which existed, it was decided that it would be desirable to purchase it. When it was put up for auction, it was not sold at the auction, but by negotiation afterwards it was purchased by us. We were advised that the price was quite reasonable—as a matter of fact, the price was less than the highest bid at the auction. It is an attractive lodge and the purchase served the purpose of preserving the entrance for the college authorities and removing the right of way.

150. Deputy Palmer.—What use is made of the lodge now?—It is let to one of the teachers.

151. Deputy Davin.—Regarding the item Houses of the Oireachtas, Improvement of Entrance, shown on page 28, is it to be understood that job is finished?—It is finished with the exception of a very small item. I think there are one or two lights still to be put up

It is not a very impressive looking place.

152. Chairman.—Does this include the improvement of the gate lodge itself?— No. This is the removal of Queen Victoria, the resurfacing and replacement by the present lay out.

153. Deputy Davin.—How did you dispose of Queen Victoria?—She is in store still.

154. Is there any provision under Appropriations in Aid for Queen Victoria? Seriously, the reason I ask that is that I heard some rumour around the lobbies that it was sold to the Canadian Government?—I believe there was something like that. Someone in Canada did make inquiries but I do not think it was the Canadian Government.

Chairman.—I heard the difficulty was the carriage costs.

155. Deputy Hickey.—Is this 6,333 the sum total spent on this place up to 31st March, 1950?—It cost more than that, I think.

156. That is the reason I asked the question. Have we any idea of the total cost of putting there what is there after she was taken out of it?—The provision in the subsequent year, which I presume would have completed the transaction, was £820; so it looks, on the face of it, that the total would have been roughly £7,000. In next year’s appropriation account the figures will be shown.

I would like to know the cost of what has been done in all that time there.

157. Deputy Davin.—It can be assumed that the work of the improvement of the entrance, for which there is a revote here of £1,400, is not yet completed?

Chairman.—There are plans to improve the entrance lodge itself?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—Certain plans were prepared for that purpose, but I do not think that any provision was included in this year’s estimate for them.

158. Deputy Davin.—Regarding page 31, Item No. 36, where is that veterinary college?—In Shelbourne Road, Ballsbridge.

159. There was £20,000 expended on it, the total expenditure being £72,000? Is that job finished?—It is not. Some of the big sections have been done—all except one, I think, namely, the administrative offices at the front. The old college has been practically rebuilt—it is almost a new college, extended very considerably.

160. On page 35, Item No. 87, New Barrack, Mountrath, what is the explanation for the failure to go ahead with the works?—That is a token vote of £10 which indicated that it was the intention to provide a new barrack but no work was done.

161. That good intention existed for a long time. Why is it repeatedly brought forward here?—I gather that the Department of Justice is at present engaged on an inquiry into the police force generally, and the building of new police barracks has all been slowed down. There are quite a number of token cases, as you will see.

162. Chairman.—Regarding Item No. 106 on page 36, the note on page 25 says that this was an ex gratia payment to the contractor for Roscommon old jail. The total amount expended in the year was £459 14s. 6d., so apparently this ex gratia payment represented almost entirely a year’s work. It is very high in relation to the total expenditure up to the 31st March. Can you let us know a little more about this particular case, as to why there was such a high ex gratia payment, representing about one-fifth of the total expenditure on this work?—This does not really refer to a building work, it refers to demolition of old buildings and the preparation of the site. As it was for demolition only and was expected to take very little time, the original contract did not contain a price variation clause. In fact, there was a considerable rise in wages during the period of the contract and the total figure of wage increases, which was checked up in the contractor’s books, was £368 16s. 6d. Added to that was a figure of £77 14s. 0d., which was the increase in insurance premiums which the contractor had to pay by reason of the increased wages. If at the time the contract was being made the contractor had asked for the price variation clause, he would have got it; but apparently he did not anticipate an increase. The increase actually occurred and it was thought reasonable to pay him.

163. Had he taken much more time than anticipated?—He had. In fact, the demolition proved to be much more difficult than anticipated. It was the old jail and the stone was very hard and definitely embedded. It was a case where the job proved very much more difficult than the contractor anticipated and took very much more time.

164. You were completely satisfied that the contractor’s difficulties were very real difficulties?—Yes.

165. It often happens that in very old buildings it is unexpectedly hard to prise the mortar loose?—That is, I think, exactly what happened in this case.

166. Deputy Davin.—Are we to understand that there has been an instruction from the Government or the Department of Justice or the Board of Works to suspend building activities in Nos. 102, 103 and 104 of the statement of expenditure on new works. This is a matter of serious concern because married Guards find it impossible to get living accommodation locally?—The Department of Justice is considering the reorganisation of the police force and until it is known what their future ideas will be there is no point in building.

Chairman.—Do not forget that the policy of the Department of Justice with regard to building or not building is not the concern of the Committee of Public Accounts.

167. Deputy Davin.—Are we to under stand that work has been suspended in all these cases?—In the majority of cases, work has not proceeded. There may be one or two cases on this particular Vote for which token votes appear and which have since gone on.

If it is a policy instruction I can understand it.

168. Chairman.—Has the Department of Justice intimated to you that they desire the construction of barracks not to be proceeded with at present?—Yes, except in specific cases where they ask us to proceed.

169. Deputy Davin.—I do not think that these figures should be inserted in the Estimates to bolster them up and raise taxation for work that will not be done.

Chairman.—You will find at the end of the statement on page 47 relating to this particular subject that a sum of £210,385 was deducted for “works which may not be carried out during the year,” before taxation was imposed.

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—The purpose in previous years of putting in the £10 token vote was to draw the attention of the Dáil to the fact that such building was contemplated. The existence of that token was our authority to proceed with the preparation of plans and that sort of thing.

170. Chairman.—On page 37, how does it arise that there is no estimate for the work in respect of Item No. 116—Waterford: New Barrack (Revote)? There has been expenditure but there is no estimate for the work?—With regard to that particular case, the work, recorded as having been paid for, was demolition work. The estimate for the major building has not been completely settled.

171. In page 38, members will notice that in respect of Item No. 129— National Schools: Grants for Building, Enlarging, Enclosing, etc., provided for by Supplementary Estimate, there has been considerable over-expenditure.

172. Deputy Hickey.—All the work you do in the Board of Works on schools and places is done through a building contractor?—Yes.

173. At the same time, you have a certain number of employees who are paid directly by the Board of Works in these areas?—They are very limited. They are mainly engaged on repair work.

174. Even on repair work, do you think you are getting value from the contractor? Would it not be better to have some sort of workshop? In Cork City you have no such thing as a direct labour scheme of your own. Contractors are employed to do everything—no matter how trivial the job is. Is it not very expensive to have to travel to do day-to-day jobs which could be done by having a foreman carpenter in charge of four or five men?—Actually, we have a very small repair staff in Cork. We are not equipped for large works.

175. That is the reason I am asking the question. Take Cork, would it not be more desirable to have a foreman carpenter there with one, two or three labourers to do all the repair work rather than engage all the time a builder to do these particular jobs?—In Cork we have to a limited extent the same practice as in Dublin. We have a very small nucleus of men who are employed direct by us but we have a system whereby a periodical contractor supplies us with the required additional labour and materials.

176. Yes, I know, but was the question whether this was an expensive way ever gone into?—It has been gone into on more than one occasion. The view has been held that it works out more cheaply than by doing the work direct. There are charges, e.g., insurance, etc., which the scheduled contractor bears out of his percentage. There would be a considerable increase in the administrative side of the office if all labour were employed directly.

177. Why? The builder is not doing anything for us?—In our office we have to keep records of the staff in direct employment, staff histories, etc., and we would have all sorts of problems of recruiting and negotiating with trade unions that are now the contractor’s worry.

178. I am not asking to establish a big staff. In Cork, we have discovered that the Cork Corporation are building houses much cheaper by direct labour than by contract with a master builder. We find that the Board of Works have two, three or four employed in Cork and every day it is a contractor who is paid for doing the work. Suppose you had a foreman carpenter who would be responsible for repairs. Was that question ever examined?—The question was definitely examined—not, perhaps, in relation to Cork. I would not like to say that definitely—but in relation to Dublin, yes. The conclusion was that it was preferable and more economic to carry on the existing system.

Chairman.—I think you had better raise that point with the Parliamentary Secretary.

Deputy Davin.—If any further inquiries are being made, perhaps, inquiries could be made in regard to Co. Wicklow, where thousands of pounds are saved by the kind of scheme referred to by Deputy Hickey.

Chairman.—The Parliamentary Secretary would be delighted to hear of any possible method of reducing his estimate.

179. Deputy Gilbride.—Regarding Item No. 160—Ballina Post Office: Additional Accommodation (Revote)—on page 41, what is the cause of the hold-up in regard to the Ballina Post Office?—There is a provision for it this year. I could not say off-hand what is holding it up. I do not know at the moment what the present position is. It very often happens that in cases of this type, when you get down to preparing the details of a scheme, the Post Office will find a more suitable scheme from their point of view. We have to revise plans accordingly and that accounts very often for the delays.

180. Chairman.—In all these cases you merely carry out the instructions of the Department?—Within the limits we consider it possible to carry them out from the architectural point of view.

181. Deputy Davin.—With regard to Item No. 154—Dublin, Pearse Street Sorting Office; New Building (Revote)—there are a number of these items, Nos. 152— Dublin, New Post Office, St. Andrew Street (Revote £7,535) and 153—Dublin, Pearse Street Sorting Office: Extension of Postmen’s Office—the expenditure up to the 31st March, was £7,064 12s. 5d. Is it a fact that this Pearse Street Sorting Office has been discarded and a new site selected after this money was expended? —The money that has been expended has been expended on small items to make the place more comfortable for the staffs, pending the reconstruction originally proposed. At the moment. I do not know how far things have gone but I saw in, the paper recently that a site had been obtained by the Post Office for a Sorting Office elsewhere than in Pearse Street. If that is so, I presume the Pearse Street reconstruction will not go on.

182. Chairman.—When you say you saw it in the newspaper that the Post Office-had acquired this site, would not that properly have come through you under subhead A?—The Post Office buy their own sites. I put it that way because I know they have been negotiating for a site but I do not know whether or not they have completed the purchase.

Deputy Davin.—Store Street!

183. Deputy D. O’Sullivan.—Can you say whether much of the expenditure on the Pearse Street site could be taken over to the new site?—There would be a certain amount of fittings but a good deal of it probably would not be capable of being transferred. The figure of £7,064 goes back over a very long period. It covers small jobs that were done from time to time from the date when it was originally contemplated that Pearse Street would be reconstructed. I think that is a very long time ago. The figure of £7,000 is a cumulative one.

184. With regard to Item No. 174— Rathluirc Post Office—can you inform us if there is any additional consideration there beyond what applied in the Ballina case?—I believe that the plans there have been changed, but I am depending on my memory.

185. Deputy Hickey.—Why is it that so much money is being continually spent on military barracks? I am looking at the details on page 44, and I notice that there is considerable expenditure on our barracks.

Chairman.—We cannot ask Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh that question.

186. Deputy Hickey.—Have you any idea what progress has been made up to the moment on the new jetty at Haulbowline Dockyard?—Work there was suspended for quite a considerable time because of a dispute with the contractor. Work has now recommenced and I think it will be finished in about seven or eight months’ time.

187. Are they working at it fully?— So far as I know, work has been resumed in full.

188. Deputy Davern.—With regard to Item No. 216, Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil, is it true that there has been no expenditure under any other heading for the erection of the halls in question?

Chairman.—Not up to the 31st March, 1950.

Deputy Davern.—Perhaps it may come under some other heading. Does it?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—So far as I know, there has been no expenditure— certainly not up to the 31st March, 1950.

189. Deputy Davin.—Item No. 231 refers to improvements to the Mail Boat Pier at Dún Laoghaire. Could the Accounting Officer tell us the present position?—As far as I remember, the item of work set out there refers to improvements that were made to enable the new Mail boats to use the harbour, together with some other minor works such as the provision of sanitary accommodation, and so forth.

190. Is there no further provision, or is that the end of it?—At the moment, the whole question of temporary and permanent provision of additional facilities for passengers at Dún Laoghaire is being canvassed.

I am aware that it has been canvassed since 1937. There must be a great number of rusty files in the Department of Industry and Commerce. I am not raising any policy matter. I am not suggesting that the Accounting Officer is responsible for that policy. However, it is nearly time that we heard the end of that matter for the sake of all these human beings who are being treated as I have seen them being treated for years past.

191. Deputy Hickey.—Can it be that the Board of Works are responsible, or who is responsible?

Chairman.—Up to this point, no provision has been made for the Board of Works to carry out these works. Therefore, you cannot hold them responsible.

192. Deputy Davin.—I see a heading here—“Total Expenditure to 31st March, 1950.” Is that progressive? Is any more money available for some work which requires to be done?

Chairman.—The witness has said that it is improbable.

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—Actually, that represents a special job that was done to enable, as far as I remember, the bigger boats to be serviced there.

193. Deputy Hickey.—Item No. 233 refers to urgent and unforeseen works. Are tenders sought from different contractors in respect of the jobs which come under this heading?—Yes, tenders would be sought. It is only in a very isolated case, and generally where it was rendered necessary because of urgency, that we would depart from the practice of going out to tender.

194. Chairman.—How did it arise that the expenditure in connection with the inauguration of Republic of Ireland, Easter Monday, 1949, was considered an unforeseen work?—This estimate was prepared considerably in advance of the time when it was decided to hold the ceremony.,

Deputy Davin.—The Chairman seems to think that reasonable notice should be given.

195. Chairman.—The fact that there was no payment under subhead J.4—River Fergus drainage—did not mean that no work was done, I take it. What is the position?—No work was done in that year. The original provision of £110 and the supplementary provision of £1,190 was really intended to cover disbursements in repayment of the cost of purchase of an area of about 272 acres which was to be purchased by the local authority and abandoned as a reservoir. Each year when the Estimates are being framed we ask the solicitor to the county council how soon he expects to have finished the purchases. He generally says that they will be finished before the 31st March. They are still unfinished and we have to provide for them. Actually, no work was done. The work did not commence until last year. The District of Fergus Act provided for a number of different works, all of which were done in previous years except the erection of automatic tidal sluices at Clarecastle. The question of whether they would be erected or not was left to the decision of our chief engineer, provided he was satisfied they would not do damage to anybody and that they could be satisfactorily erected. The chief engineer, therefore, had to make a comprehensive study of tidal and flood effects on the river before coming to a decision. The necessary record and examination was not completed until little over one and a half years ago. The work started last year.

196. What happened that the hire of plant, No. 4 of the Appropriations in Aid, brought in such a substantial sum? The original estimate was £2,000 and then there was a supplementary estimate of £1,500. What is the explanation?—There are two reasons. The first is that the hire work on drainage and other work on harbours for the Department of Industry and Commerce was pushed forward more rapidly than we had anticipated. The second reason is that the charges for the hire of the vessels were considerably increased. Formerly, when we were dredging at Arklow, the Arklow Harbour Commissioners were charged only for the actual time spent in dredging. The vessel lay up at the expense of the Office of Public Works. In other words, there was a subsidy in the Maintenance Account for the dredgers. The Department of Finance decided that this should stop and that the full cost of the dredgers should be shown. The result is that the receipts became inflated.

197. Deputy Hickey.—What is the method of sale of surplus and obsolete stores and materials?—They are inspected by a board which determines whether they are obsolete or not and then they are sold by auction.

By public auction?—Yes.

198. Chairman.—There is a note on Item No. 10 which refers to a refund of overpayment for water supplied to Dublin buildings. Do you get that from Dublin Corporation?—It is a peculiar business not very easy to explain, but there are certain properties in our charge in Dublin to which water is metered and the water charges are paid at the metered rate. It so happens that within the ambit of those properties there are certain dwelling-houses which are subject to ordinary rate and the ordinary rate in Dublin contains an element of water rate so that in practice the Corporation were being paid double for the limited supply of water used; they were being paid for it as metered and were also getting their proportion of the rate. When that was discovered we made a claim for the refund of the amount paid by way of rate. That is what the figure represents. I think that it is not fully finalised there and that a further amount will probably be coming in either next year or the year after.

199. Deputy Hickey.—What lands have you to which note 5 refers, sale of farm and garden produce?—That is mainly the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park.*

200. Chairman.—Note 11 on page 26 refers to an ex gratia payment for fittings. Apparently the contractor supplied fittings other than those quoted for which were more expensive. What exactly happened in that case?—That was a case where we purchased excavators in two lots and the contractor quoted for a crawler of a certain size. Actually his quotation was based upon a supplier’s quotation for a smaller size but neither size was large enough for us and we asked the contractors to supply wider crawlers. The contractor made a claim which was very considerably greater than the figure we have paid. It was broken up into two parts, one of which was based on his own mistake in his quotation, the other being based on the extended fittings that we asked for. We split that up. We were advised that the cost of the extension we asked for was £1,032 and we settled for £1,000.

He had to bear the other loss himself? —Yes.

201. Deputy Palmer.—With regard to note 15 which refers to losses by fire not covered by insurance, who was responsible for the insurance?

Chairman.—The State always bears its own insurance.

Deputy Palmer.—Why were these not covered by insurance?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—The State bears its own insurance in respect of all that type of property.

202. What happened on the Brosna to cause a loss of £6,500?—We do not know. We suspect that somebody threw a cigarette on the roof in passing. Neither the police nor ourselves could discover how the thing originated. Every precaution is taken in those stores: the men are not allowed to smoke; and fires there are amply protected. As far as very careful investigation went we could not discover the cause of the fire.

203. Deputy Hickey.—With regard to note 9, that is a rather big price for a store?—It was a very extensive building.

204. It was a stone wall building?—No. The premises acquired comprised about one and a half acres of land with the following buildings: a main building 75 feet by 60 feet constructed of corrugated asbestos with an upstairs section 30 feet by 30 feet and a lean-to extension 60 feet by 14 feet and two galvanised iron outbuildings. They were a contractor’s yard before we purchased them, and the buildings, we were advised, were very good value for what we bought them for.

205. Deputy Davin.—Is it intended to use that place as permanent area stores? —That is one of the things which have not yet been determined. We will undoubtedly require area stores when the question of maintenance comes along on the various drainage districts but their exact location has not been determined. It looks quite probable at present that Tullamore will be retained for that purpose.

206. It has become part of the permanent property of the Board of Works?— It has. The note is made here because it was charged to the Brosna scheme instead of to subhead A. It was regarded as a proper charge against the scheme.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m.

The Committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.

VOTE 65—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. S. Nunan called and examined.

207. Chairman.—Paragraph 77 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

“Subhead A.7—Irish, News Agency.

The Irish News Agency Act, 1949, provided for the promotion by the Minister for External Affairs of a limited company for the collection, dissemination and publication of news and information inside and outside the State, and the Irish News Agency, a limited company conforming to the conditions laid down in the Act, was formed and registered under the Companies Acts in March, 1950.

A repayable advance of £5,000 charged to this subhead was made for the purposes of the business of the Agency, pursuant to Section 11 of the Act.”

Have there been any repayments?—So far as we are aware, there have been no repayments.

208. Turning to the details of the Vote itself, I notice that there is a reference in the note to subhead B.4, to a burglary in the Irish Consulate General in New York. Is this the second one that has been there?—There have been two.

209. It was a very small amount in the first instance, if I recollect?—I forget precisely what it was but it was a very small amount. The office safe was on the ground floor but since then they have erected some burglar-proof device on the window leading from the back into that particular room.

210. This is in the new premises?—Yes.

211. Judging by the date, I think it was probably in the old premises the first burglary took place?—You are correct, because I remember there was a watch taken which formed part of a particular estate.

212. Deputy Dockrell.—I see in the details of the extra receipts payable to the Exchequer a reference to “refund of cost of financial reports on certain foreign firms”. Is there much use made of the reports that have been made on these firms?—Yes, there is considerable use made of them. We subscribe each year to Dun and Bradstreet, a financial service, and it is used quite considerably by firms at home who want to enter into business relations with firms out there.

213. Chairman.—Is the pamphlet “Working with Europe” referred to under the extra receipts on sale in this country or on sale abroad?—It is on sale in both places. It was in connection with our association with the E.R.P.

214. It was one issue of a pamphlet?— One issue of a small booklet.

215. Deputy Davin.—There is an item for fees for consular services rendered in connection with the estates of deceased persons. Approximately how many persons would be involved in the recovery of that amount?—It is very difficult to say. They relate to different estates. In one estate there might be 20 persons concerned and the fees we collect are 5 per cent. of the amount recovered for each individual. It is hard to say how many individuals are concerned.

VOTE 73—EUROPEAN CO-OPERATION.

Mr. S. Nunan further examined.

216. Chairman.—Paragraph 79 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is of an informatory character, states:—

“Council of Europe.

Subhead A.I—Contribution towards the Expenses of the Council.

The charge of £4,381 12s. 3d. to this subhead includes contributions towards the expenses of the Council for the year ended 31st December, 1949, and to the working capital fund. The contribution towards the expenses was assessed at 1.9 per cent. of the total budget which for this year covered only the six months period 1st July to 31st December, 1949, and the contribution towards the working capital fund was fixed at 60 per cent. of the budget contribution.”

217. Turning to the details of the Vote itself, I presume our contribution under subhead A.1 towards the expenses of the Council of Europe have increased since?— Since the year 1949-50?

Yes?—It would depend upon the budget that the organisation itself would present.

218. I notice that the first payment under subhead A.1 was for a six months’ period. That is covered in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General?— The contribution was for six months and in sterling it amounted to £2,648 12s. 11d. For this year I am told it is down to 1.2 per cent.

219. Is the amount down or did their budget go up?—The budget is down.

VOTE 63—DEFENCE.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon called and examined.

220. Chairman.—Paragraph 71 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report states:—

“Subhead C—Pay of Civilians attached to Units.

Subhead S-Barrack Maintenance and Minor Works.

In 1945 the Department of Finance approved of the expenditure of £8,095 on the construction of a new building and slipway, and the provision of a supply line for electric current, in the naval dockyard at Haulbowline, and the work was completed in May, 1946, at a cost of £6,959. The building was regarded as essential for the effective control of work undertaken in the dockyard, and it was anticipated that a saving of wages of approximately £1,500 per annum would be effected. As it appeared that only a restricted use has been made of the new building I have asked for further information on the matter.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that the construction of the mast house and slipway was nearing completion early in 1946 when the building was damaged by storm and, owing to difficulty in obtaining materials, the work was not finally completed till February, 1949. There was delay also in providing a supply line for electrical current, due to difficulties experienced by the Electricity Supply Board in getting materials, and the Board was unable to complete this contract until January, 1950. Further expenditure will also be necessary on the extension of the electricity supply to machines in the mast house and on the provision of electric lighting. As machines have not yet been transferred to the new building, only hand work has so far been possible, but it is stated that this has resulted in a considerable saving of time as the work has been able to proceed adjacent to the slip instead of having to be carried to the other end of Haulbowline Island as formerly. It appears that the anticipated saving in wages was not realised owing to increased demands on labour occasioned by the advent of corvettes.

221. Chairman.—I take it, General, that as soon as it is fully equipped a great deal more use will be made of this?

General MacMahon.—Definitely. Even as it is, there has been a considerable saving and when the job is completed, we hope about January next, there will be a very considerable saving.

222. Chairman.—Paragraph 72 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report read as follows:—

“Subhead K—Provisions and Allowances in lien.

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

The average price of cattle purchased for the Dublin and Curragh areas was £55 6s. 11d. and £54 16s. 9d. per head, respectively, as compared with £53 6s. 1d. and £51 11s. 6d. in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 690 Ibs. and 679 lbs., respectively, as compared with 664 lbs. and 617 lbs.”

223. Deputy Hickey.—You bake your own bread in the Curragh?—Yes.

224. Do you pay the standard rate of wages to bakers?—Yes, where we employ civilians, but we have military personnel besides.

225. They are not paid the standard rate?—They are paid as soldiers.

226. You only supply the Curragh with the bread baked there?—The Curragh and Dublin also. In Cork, Athlone, Galway, etc., we purchase bread from the local bakers.

227. Chairman.—Paragraph 73 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads:—

“Subhead P.2—Naval Service.

It was observed that approximately 22,000 gallons of high grade petrol for use in motor torpedo boats was held in stock and appeared to be surplus to requirements as the boats had been sold. In reply to an inquiry I was informed that efforts to dispose of this stock of petrol had not so far been successful, and that its suitability for use by the Air Corps was being tested.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—The Accounting Officer informed me in February last that samples of petrol had been sent for test and analysis and, subject to its being found suitable, it would be transferred to Baldonnel for Air Force use. I have not heard the result of this test and analysis.

General MacMahon.—We cannot transfer it to Baldonnel. There would be a danger in using it in aeroplanes. We can only use it for mechanical vehicles with a mixture of six of the ordinary petrol to one of this. We propose, therefore, to transfer this to the mainland and mix it with the ordinary petrol and use it for mechanical vehicles.

228. Deputy Hickey.—What is the approximate value of this 22,000 gallons? —You can only value it at the cost of petrol at the moment, which is 3/5 per gallon.

229. None of the local petrol people would purchase it?—Only in very small quantities. We did not ask them. We asked Aer Lingus and the petrol companies and they would not touch it.

230. Deputy Dockrell.—Has it any adverse effect on engines?—If used on the engines as it is at the moment, it would be unsuitable. With a mixture of 6 to 1 it is quite all right.

231. Chairman.—Is the petrol all right? —It may not be entirely pure. It may have got somewhat dirty in the interval.

232. I thought high-grade petrol tended to go off?—The experts say no. Perhaps I might mention that the evaporation is greater with that than with ordinary petrol.

233. Chairman.—The first sub-paragraph of paragraph 74 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads as follows:—

“Subhead Y.2—The Reserve.

Regulations relating to army mechanical transport allotted to units of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil provide that where it is established that loss of or damage to a vehicle is due to negligence on the part of a member of An Fórsa, the cost involved should be borne on unit funds. It was noted that a number of accidents to vehicles allotted to An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil were attributed to negligence on the part of the drivers, and that the sanction of the Minister for Finance had been sought to reduce the charge against unit funds in such cases to a maximum of 25 per cent. of the cost of repairs. I have asked to be informed of the total cost of repairs and the position regarding recovery from unit funds.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—Since the date of the report I have been informed that inquiries have been completed in eleven cases of damage to F. C. A. wagons and they have been reported to the Department of Finance. The aggregate cost of repairs was £248 12s. 10d. In addition, one case of the total loss of a station wagon due to negligence, and involving an estimated loss of £600, will be reported to the Department of Finance when the value of salvage has been assessed. I was also informed that, pending amendment of the regulations or specific Finance sanction in the individual cases reported, no steps were being taken to recover the cost of repairs from unit funds.

234. Chairman.—Does this mean in effect that the regulation has not been put into force?

General MacMahon.—This regulation was introduced in the hope that it would induce members of the F.C.A. to drive those vehicles carefully, but we found in practice that we could not apply it, that their funds would not stand up to it, and that one serious accident would involve very much more than the funds under their control. We made representations to the Department of Finance to reduce the maximum sum charged to units to 25 per cent. The Department of Finance did not agree to that. The Department of Finance now want each case dealt with on its merits and with due reference to the state of the local funds and we are going to settle these cases on that basis. But, candidly, I am not at all satisfied with that arrangement. I am saying that in the presence of Mr. Clarke. It will have a bad effect on the various units. If the funds of one unit are charged a much larger sum for an accident than that charged to an adjoining unit, units will get careless about their funds. A unit that is careful of its funds and raises funds locally will lose all incentive to husband its resources and will be inclined to spend as much as it can spend. It will not be anxious to save its funds. I think our proposal is a much better one.

235. On the other hand, have you been able to suggest some other form of control of the expenditure rate?—No. I think our suggestion of a maximum of 25 per cent. is a much better one and would work out better in the end. The Department of Finance’s suggestion might work out all right at the moment in the case of a unit where the funds are substantial, but not every unit will have substantial funds. I think our proposal is a much better one. Meantime, we are acting on the direction of the Department of Finance and we will settle these cases on that basis. I should like to state, however, that I think it is not a good basis; I think it is undesirable.

236. Chairman.—Would Mr. Clarke like to say anything?

Mr. Clarke.—It is a matter of opinion as to which of the two bases is the better. We felt that in many of these cases the damage to the Army vehicle might be only in the neighbourhood of £4 or £5 and we did not see any reason why we should recover 25 per cent. in a case like that where a unit fund could pay the full amount of the damage. At the same time we recognise that, unit funds being financed as they are from State grants, it would not be in the State’s interest in the long run to endeavour to recover the full amount or even to recover to the limit that unit funds could bear in physical cash. So, we thought that, in practice, there would have to be some overriding limit in the light of the state of the unit funds. That is to say, if a unit fund had £100 we might feel that we could recover £10 or £15 without damaging unit funds in any way.

237. Chairman.—What about this business of amending the regulations?

General MacMahon.—We could not amend the regulations until we had the Finance view in the matter and we have only just got that recently. I propose, before amending the regulation, to put my views in writing to the Department so that they will be on record. I think it will have a bad effect on unit funds generally.

238. Chairman.—Of course, if a case similar to the one where the station wagon costing £600 cropped up again, then I do not quite see how the Department of Finance could enforce their view that the unit should contribute a substantial amount, even though it would wipe out most unit funds.

Mr. Clarke.—The position is analagous to recoveries from members of the Defence Forces. If a soldier is involved in an accident and if it is through his own negligence, we usually recover from him portion of the cost of the damage. We realise that if a soldier smashes a vehicle you cannot recover the full cost of the vehicle from him. A certain overriding limit is always fixed. The amount to be recovered is assessed by the Quartermaster-General. We are up against the same problem here. The only way we can make the F.C.A. amenable for negligence in the driving of vehicles is through their unit fund. The F. C. A. driver is not in receipt of pay except when on annual training and the only funds we can get at are the unit funds. It may or may not make the individual driver more careful but it will tend, I think, to prevent abuses in the local unit.

General MacMahon.—I think Mr. Clarke will agree that the analogy is not a good one. In the case of the soldier the individual has to pay. In the case of the F.C.A. man it is the unit fund. There is a big difference.

239. Chairman.—I take it that Mr. Clarke’s view is that the unit has some restraining influence on the individual.

General MacMahon.—That is the hope we had when making the present regulation, which is unworkable.

240. Chairman.—Have you been trying to find some other way of making sure that there is not undue carelessness?—It is very difficult. You simply remove from driving duties a man who is found to drive carelessly and in each case we do propose to recover a sum from the unit fund as well but where I differ from Mr. Clarke is that Mr. Clarke would take a much larger sum from a unit with, say, £500 than he would from a unit that had £300. I think that is what is wrong in principle and I think it will have a bad effect on the organisation. Otherwise we are in agreement.

241. I suppose the Committee may leave you and Mr. Clarke to fight this out?—Except, of course, that if you were to express a view in favour of my proposal, it might help.

Deputy Davern.—I would like to express the view that I am in thorough agreement with General MacMahon’s outlook on the matter. I do not think that anybody in this country should do anything that would have an adverse effect on the F.C.A. because it is a purely voluntary force. I know the difficulties of getting them and keeping them. Everything points to the fact that we will need them. I would like to put it on record that I personally agree thoroughly with General MacMahon’s outlook on the matter. Any adverse decision might have very serious consequences on that voluntary force. There are accidents that are unavoidable. Some people attribute them to negligence, others to unfortunate circumstances. Accidents, on the whole, I would say, are not attributable to negligence. It is always decided that they are, but, in fact, they are not. I do not think the Department of Finance should agree to anything that would tend to discourage the force in any way. I have always been of opinion that the unit grant is not sufficient.

Chairman.—That, of course, Deputy, is another day’s work.

Deputy Dockrell.—I do not want to do anything which would look like encouraging them to smash State property. That is the difference between the two points of view.

242. Deputy Hickey.—Taking a period of three years, what would be the sum involved, approximately—let us assume it was all carelessness?

General MacMahon.—I would say an average of about £300.

A year?—Yes.

243. That is not such an alarming amount?—The difficulty is that one bad accident might run up the average.

244. Would there be roughly 20,000 men involved in that?—Yes, about 20,000 men.

Deputy Hickey.—Really, I do not think it is worth mentioning. I do not think we should be very worried about the cost. As Deputy Davern said, they are a voluntary force. Of course, I know it is necessary to have a check but, taking it over a period of three years, it is not very much.

245. Chairman.—At the same time it is a very dangerous precedent for this Committee to establish that we are prepared to take up the cudgels on behalf of a Department against the Department of Finance. We had better let them alone.

Deputy Hickey.—The General is asking us to express an opinion.

Deputy Davern.—You cannot have omelettes without cracking shells.

General MacMahon.—I thought the Chairman of the Committee would hold the scales evenly.

Mr. Clarke.—I think the Committee could rest assured that the Department of Finance would not recover on such a scale as would damage unit funds in any way. It is not in the interest of the Department of Finance to do so. These unit funds depend almost entirely on Grants-in-Aid. If we denude them by making too heavy recoveries it simply means that we have to put our hand in the other pocket.

Deputy Davern.—The danger is that the unit would more or less disappear. That is what I would be afraid of. I know the difficulty.

Deputy D. O’Sullivan.—I do not think we need to be too concerned. As time goes on, there will be a natural reduction in the amount of recoupment inasmuch as many drivers were new to this high-powered vehicle and I think it will disappear naturally.

246. Chairman.—The next sub-paragraph of paragraph 74 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“As from 1st July, 1946, the Department of Defence assumed responsibility for the provision of accommodation for An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil and for payment of the rents. It appeared in a number of cases that formal agreements governing the occupation of premises taken over from the former Local Defence Force or acquired by An Fórsa had not been entered into with the owners, and I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Mr. Wann.—I was informed in May last that formal agreements had been concluded in 25 cases out of 814. At that time the question of using standard forms of agreement to govern full-time tenancies and part-time occupations respectively was under discussion with the Chief State Solicitor, and when such forms had been finally decided upon it was intended to conclude formal agreements with the various owners.

General MacMahon.—The forms, in actual fact, have been approved by the Chief State Solicitor and are in the hands of the printers. I am sure Mr. Wann is not trying to suggest otherwise, but I would like to make it clear that public funds are not losing by the delay, that we are carrying on under the old agreements. I will agree with him that the sooner we have it done the better. In the meantime public funds are not suffering.

247. Chairman.—The next sub-paragraph of paragraph 74 of by the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“In September, 1948, premises for the accommodation of a local unit of An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil were purchased for £886 15s. 10d., including £36 15s. 10d. legal costs. The premises were not occupied, and in October, 1950, the sanction of the Minister for Finance was obtained for their sale. I am informed that the sale has been deferred pending a decision on the suitability of the property for use by another Government Department.”

Mr. Wann.—It appears that these premises could not have been occupied until substantial repairs, renovations and decorations had been effected. It was estimated that a full scheme of repairs, etc., would have cost approximately £3,000, and in all the circumstances the sanction of the Department of Finance was sought for the sale of the premises. Three tenders were received, the highest being £505, but before a decision to sell was taken, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs intimated that the property appeared to suit its requirements as a site for a new building. I do not know whether the premises have been transferred to that Department.

General MacMahon.—They have not been transferred. When these premises were inspected by a representative of the Department and a senior officer of the Army Corps of Engineers, it was thought that a very moderate sum of about £200 would make this building suitable as head-quarters for the local F.C.A.

248. Deputy Hickey.—How much?— Between £200 and £300. When the work was about to be put in hands it was discovered that dry rot had entered the building to such an extent that temporary repairs would be very little use, would only last a year or two and that in actual fact the whole woodwork of the building would have to be renewed, costing approximately £3,000.

249. Where is this building, may we ask?—In Youghal. It is known as the Bank Buildings, Youghal. At this stage we proceeded, as explained by Mr. Wann, to try to dispose of it. The matter has been with the Department of Finance but that Department has now agreed that the building can be handed over to the Post Office.

250. I take it the engineers of the Post Office or whoever was buying it discovered the dry rot?—The engineers of the Post Office. Of course, the Post Office mainly require the site.

251. They discovered dry rot in the building?—No, no. The Army discovered that.

252. They did not discover it before they purchased it?—That is the trouble.

253. Chairman.—Had these premises been in use when purchased—They had been vacant for about fourteen years.

254. Who carried out the inspection of the premises?—A representative of the Department and a senior officer of the Corps of Engineers.

255. Deputy Hickey.—Is there any explanation as to why they did not discover this dry rot before?—The officer stated that he saw that some of the floors were defective but did not see signs of dry rot.

256. Chairman.—Is it customary for the Army to purchase premises itself? Does it not make such purchases through the Board of Works?—No. But we often bring in a valuation officer to get his assistance from the point of view of value. We do not make such purchases through the Board of Works.

257. There is a token Vote in connection with the provision of halls?—That relates to the purchase of premises for local units.

258. Deputy Hickey.—Who is the owner of the premises at Youghal?—I cannot say at the moment, but I think the owner is one of the local banks.

259. Chairman.—It does not seem very satisfactory that dry rot should be discovered later in a building, especially one which had not been occupied for fourteen years?—I personally know a building, situate not a mile from here, which was inspected by an engineer of high standing. It was only a year later that it was discovered that it was badly affected with dry rot. Dry rot is not as easily discovered as Deputy Hickey would seem to suggest.

Deputy Dockrell.—I have known buildings in which dry rot became apparent long after they had been examined. Dry rot very often attacks under the floors where it is not easily seen.

Deputy Hickey.—If one were purchasing a building one could make an inspection in a few places by taking up boards to see if it were affected. One would expect that one would be able to find dry rot, especially in a building which had not been occupied for fourteen years.

Chairman.—It would not be apparent if you did not start pulling up the floors.

Deputy Hickey.—I know of a house which was unoccupied for seven years and which was about to be purchased. The precaution was taken of bringing in an engineer. He discovered that there was dry rot in it. The result was that several thousands of pounds were saved to those who wanted to purchase it.

260. Chairman.—Was sanction obtained from the Department of Finance?

General MacMahon.—For the transfer to the Post Office, yes.

261. Was there any trouble about getting sanction from the Department of Finance for the purchase of the premises?—No. As a matter of fact, it seemed a very good bargain. The engineer concerned was a Commandant of very long experience, and we have had no occasion to find fault with him up to this.

262. Deputy Hickey.—Am I to understand that the Post Office want it as a site on which to build?—Yes.

263. That qualifies it somewhat?—I think the site alone is worth the money.

264. It would want to be?—I understand they are going to build a telephone exchange there.

265. Did the purchase of the house include the ground as well?—There is the building itself and a very good yard at the back.

266. The ground and all is free?—Yes.

267. Deputy Palmer.—Of course, the old building must now be demolished?— Yes, but the stones will be very useful for the new building. The woodwork will have to be burned. Mr. Clarke has indicated to me that the value of the stones is about £100 and that the cost of demolition will be about £300. I do not know where he got this information.

Mr. Clarke.—From the Post Office.

268. Chairman.—Paragraph 75 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is for information only and reads as follows:—

“Suspense Account.

Reference was made in the reports for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 to payments in respect of pay, etc., of reservists which were charged to a suspense account pending the investigation of certain irregularities. Following the investigation, three members of the staff of the Department were prosecuted on charges relating to the fraudulent issue and negotiation of a number of payable orders; they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment and dismissed from the public service. The total amount involved, £1,051 8s. 0d., was recovered, and therefore no loss fell on public funds.”

269. Chairman.—Paragraph 76 of the Report states:—

“Statement of Losses.

Losses written off during the year are detailed in the statement appended to the account. The total is made up off:—

The corresponding figures of losses in the previous year were £731 6s. 3d. and £10,306 13s. 3d.”

270. Deputy Hickey.—What were the deficiencies in stores for two years amounting to losses of £22,000?—The big item in that was the loss of airplanes.

Chairman.—The items are set out at pages 238 and 239. The principal one is airplanes—No. 9. We can now pass to the subheads.

271. Deputy Davin.—On subhead H— Transport of Troops—is the figure set out there an estimate of the charges for transport by road or is it the amount paid for transport to railway companies?—Transport on railways and buses.

272. On subhead P—Warlike Stores— What is the position at present? Are there considerable arrears?—No.

273. Are you getting material?—It is very difficult to get warlike stores.

274. How far are you in arrears?—That is a very big question. There is the sum of £25,000 which we have advanced to the British War Office for materials which we have not got yet. I wonder is that the point the Deputy is at?

275. Chairman.—In regard to this matter of making advances, is that customary?—Yes. As a matter of fact it has been in force for a number of years. It applies to every country to which they supply material. It applies to Canada, Australia, South Africa, France, or to anybody else.

276. Deputy Hickey.—You have to pay in advance?—A certain amount.

277. Deputy Davin.—That is what I was trying to get at?—They insist on that, It is part of the contract and it is not unusual in contracts.

278. But surely under every contract where you make a payment in advance, there has to be delivery within a reasonable time?—They will not put in any time limit in the contract. We got armoured cars from Sweden in the past, and we had to pay a percentage on placing the order and pay a further percentage at a later stage, with the balance at the end.

279. Deputy Hickey.—I could understand that in the case of a country such as Sweden, where we have not so much to our credit as we have at the other side of the Channel?—That rule applies to everyone and they would not make an exception in our case.

280. Deputy Davin.—The point is that, if the time lag is unreasonably long, you may get obsolete material?—No, that cannot arise. The material must be the type of material ordered, whether it is delivered this year or next year. There is no danger of what the Deputy suggests arising.

281. On subhead S—Barrack Maintenance and Minor Works—does the figure set out cover the maintenance of barracks in respect of works carried out by the Board of Works, or is this for work under the control of the Department of Defence? —It is for work under the control of the Department of Defence carried out by the Army corps of engineers.

282. And not by the Board of Works?— No. If these were Board of Works jobs, the cost would appear in the Vote for the Board of Works.

283. Deputy Palmer.—But the Board of Works do carry out maintenance and minor works for you?—No. The Board of Works only do new works of a major kind for our Department. Minor new works and maintenance are carried out by the Army corps of engineers.

284. Deputy Hickey.—Is there any reason why the Army corps of engineers could not do the work carried out for you by the Board of Works?—Usually, that type of job would require the advice of architects and we have not got any architects in the Army. In any event, these jobs are usually contract jobs. It is Government policy to give these major works to the Office of Public Works.

285. With regard to military lands, what control have we over such lands? Have we complete ownership of them?— Yes.

286. Take the case of Fermoy?—We have complete control over them.

You have complete ownership?—Yes.

287. In Fermoy?—Under the State Lands Act, yes. Any lands that were handed over by the British War Office are our complete property. In Fermoy, there are lands controlled by us and other lands controlled by the Office of Public Works.

288. Are we not paying a huge rent for lands in Fermoy which are used for training soldiers?—No. The old aerodrome is built on lands which are not State lands but that is the exception.

289. Some few years ago the Minister for Defence was prosecuted because soldiers were playing football on these grounds. The Minister contested the case on the basis that these lands were used for training purposes and that football was part of that training?—That is the land to which I am referring—attached to the old aerodrome in Fermoy.

289A. We have not got ownership of that?—No.

Although we are paying £224 a year for it?—That is so.

290. Is there any reason why we should not acquire ownership of that land?—The lease provides that we can only use it for training purposes.

291. Is there any reason why we should not acquire that property as a State property?—That whole matter was under consideration—firstly, whether we would surrender the whole place, and secondly, whether we should acquire it completely. The matter has not been brought to a conclusion yet.

292. Deputy Palmer.—Who is the owner?—I am afraid I forget.

Anyhow, it is in private ownership?— Yes.

293. Deputy Hickey.—You can be sure that they are not living in this country, although they are called the Fermoy Trust Limited?

General MacMahon.—No; I think the owner is living in this country. It is not a trust but I can send the Committee a note giving the name. It is a lady who owns the land.

294. I understand that there are about 200 acres involved?—About that.

295. And the soldiers cannot play football or hurling because they will be looked upon as trespassers, although we are paying £224 a year for it?—That is the lease the British had and we took over from them. It is not an agreement made by our Department. If you like, it is a liability taken over by us from the British War Office and it is a question whether we will surrender the lease or acquire the lands completely.

296. Chairman.—Would it be possible to get the lease changed so that football could be played?—We found it very difficult to deal with this lady. She wants her pound of flesh.

297. Deputy Hickey.—Would it not be as well to buy her out?

Deputy Davern.—I did not think there were any Shylocks in Cork.

General MacMahon.—It would probably involve a very excessive sum. If you capitalise the sum this lady is getting from us each year, it would represent a very hefty amount.

298. Deputy Palmer.—What do the military use the old aerodrome for?—The buildings are principally used for stores and during the emergency men were stationed there. It is not capable of catering for large aeroplanes. It was all right some years ago with the type of aeroplane we had then. Moths and such small planes could land there.

299. Deputy Hickey.—Do the military let the grazing of the land?—Yes.

300. I think we should acquire that land and have it for the full use of our soldiers rather than pay £224 a year for it.

Chairman.—You had better make that point to the Minister.

Deputy Davin.—If the place is supposed to be used for Army requirements, surely the lease could be amended in such a way as to make it possible for the soldiers to play football on ground for which they are paying so dearly?

Chairman.—If there are 200 acres and the rent is £224 a year, or £1 an acre, it is not very dear.

Deputy Davin.—It is not arable land.

General MacMahon.—I should like to assure Deputy Hickey that we have given this a lot of consideration. It is a very difficult problem.

301. Deputy Hickey.—The position is that these people are so well dug in that we are unable to face them and tell them to get their roots out of the place. That is all that is wanted. They took us through the Courts and we won the case in the first place. They then went to the High Court and the High Court said we were trespassers and we had to pay. We should have control of that place rather than somebody with no roots in this country. I am entirely opposed to this position in which our soldiers cannot play football on ground for which they are paying a yearly rent. In saying that, I am not blaming the Accounting Officer?—It is really a very difficult subject and I am afraid that to settle it properly a special Act would probably be needed.

That is what I should like to see being brought in. I should like to see anybody who would oppose it. It is an extra-ordinary position that our soldiers cannot play football or hurling because they are trespassers on this land because of some antiquated lease dating back nearly 900 years.

302. Deputy Davin.—In view of the Court decision, would it be right for me to suggest that there is some weakness in the agreement which might be examined? —It is not our agreement.

Deputy Hickey.—We have accepted it all the time.

General MacMahon.—If the lady brought us to Court, she would probably get very substantial damages.

Deputy Hickey.—If that is the position, it is time we thought seriously about it.

303. Deputy Davin.—If you pay rent for a house, you should be allowed to sleep in it?—And if there was a condition in the lease that you were not to sleep in it?

304. Deputy Hickey.—Take the lands in Ballincollig. Have we complete ownership of them?—Yes. There are lands in Ballincollig which were handed over by the British War Office and some additional lands were purchased. These lands were the property of I.C.I. and they adjoined our property. When they were up for disposal, we thought it a good thing to acquire them. We have them and we have complete control over them.

305. We can make whatever use we wish of them or we can dispose of the lands attached to these barracks?—That is correct.

306. Including the Curragh?—Part of the Curragh. The Curragh is in a different category altogether and the introduction of a new Bill to control the lands of the Curragh is under consideration. The lands of the Curragh are divided into the brown lands and the green lands. The brown lands are attached to the camp itself and are controlled by the Minister for Defence. The green lands are now administered by the Office of Public Works.

307. Have the Office of Public Works complete ownership of the green lands? —They have not complete ownership because every farmer, every landowner, having an acre of land adjoining the Curragh has the right to graze a certain number of sheep on the Curragh free of charge.

Deputy Davin.—That is why one sees so many sheep there.

308. Chairman.—I notice from the notes at the end of the account that rabbit trapping does not appear to be a profitable occupation?—No, not at the moment.

VOTE 64—ARMY PENSIONS.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon further examined.

309. Chairman.—I take it that the over-expenditure on subheads C and D was unavoidable, that it arose from the provisions in the token vote of subhead HH of the Supplementary Estimate?— That is correct.

310. And the details were not known, I presume?—That is so.

311. What were these extra receipts payable to Exchequer generally?—They were recovery of overpayments in the previous year. I have the details here.

312. Deputy Davin.—Was there any cancellation of pensions by the voluntary act of the pensioner?—There were recoveries from certain pensions in respect of charges to subheads in prior accounts, amounting to £1,495 15s. 3d. and recovery in respect of pension liability, £285 2s. 8d.—that is from the canteen fund.

313. You had no case, in the period under review, where a patriotic citizen came along and said he did not think he was entitled to the pension he was in receipt of?—No. We had one or two cases of that in the past but they have since claimed the pension with arrears. We have to provide for them all in the Estimates, even though they say they do not require them—as they may change their mind.

Chairman.—Thank you, General.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix VI.