Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1952 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1950 - 1951

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 23ú Iúil, 1952.

Wednesday, 23rd July, 1952.

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 67—HEALTH.

Mr. P. Kennedy called and examined.

579. Chairman.—Paragraph 88 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead H.—Grants to Health Authorities.

In paragraph 78 of my last report I mentioned that the grants payable to health authorities were to be related to the standard expenditure of each of these authorities, determined in accordance with Section 3 of the health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947, and that until such determination had been effected final adjustment of the grants payable for each year subsequent to 1947-48 could not be made. I have recently been informed that the standard expenditure in respect of four authorities has been determined and certified by the Minister for Health and that it is anticipated that it will be possible to have figures finally deter— mined for most of the authorities at an early date. Meanwhile payments continue to be made on a provisional basis and are subject to any adjustment subsequently found to be necessary.”

Mr. Wann.—I understand that standard expenditure has been determined for 17 authorities out of a total of 31.

Mr. Kennedy.—Yes, that is correct.

580. Chairman.—Have any adjustments been made?—In the original standard expenditure, no. We have not had any so far. If there are any I imagine they will be insignificant because the accounts are very carefully examined and the standard expenditure is fixed in consultation with the local health authority. When we do fix it we are anxious to get it finally done rather than to have to come back at a later date and make changes. That is one of the reasons for the delay.

581. When do you expect to have the other 14?—It depends to a certain extent on how soon the Local Government auditors can give us certificates of expenditure of the various health authorities and of their subsidiary bodies. Practically all the accounts for the year 1947-48 have been cleared, but we have to wait for some in respect of the following years because some of the expenditure included in 1948-49 and 1949-50 relates back to 1947-48 and until those years are cleared the expenditure cannot be determined finally for 1947-48. We are pressing the auditors to get on as quickly as they can with the work.

582. I see in the appropriations in aid that you now the fees under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1934?—Yes. That Act was originally administered by the department of Justice but it was transferred to us during the course of the year 1950-51.

583. With the department of Justice it was treated as an extra Exchequer receipt?—We already administer a somewhat similar Act—the Therapeutic Substances Act—and receipts for licences under that Act are treated by us as Appropriations in Aid. As dangerous drugs are dealt with somewhat similarly we approached the Department of Finance and they agreed to treat the receipts as Appropriations in Aid.

584. Do you anticipate that these fees will be maintained at a level where you can get a fairly close estimation?—I think so. There is not very much change from year to year in the quantity of drugs imported. They are drugs like morphine. cocaine, and so on—drugs on the use of which it is possible to keep a close check.

VOTE 68—GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE.

Mr. P. Kennedy called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 47—LANDS.

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

585. Chairman. Paragraph 50 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead B.—Travelling Expenses.

During the year under review it came to light that an officer of the Department had been for a number of years submitting fictitious receipts for car hire in support of his travelling claims. The officer was prosecuted sentenced to a term of imprisonment and dismissed from the public service. I understand that the total loss to public funds has not yet been ascertained.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—I understand that the gross amount irregularly obtained by the officer concerned has recently been reported to the Department of Finance as £1,343 14s. 3d. Authority was sought to write off that amount as irrecoverable. As a set-off against the total loss there is available a sum of £39, representing balance of salary due up to the date of the officer’s suspension. In addition it is estimated that a sum of not less than £500 would have been due to him in respect of travelling carried out in the course of his official duties. The loss, therefore, to public funds would appear to be approximately £800.

586. Chairman.—Could you say how long this had been going on?

Mr. O’Brien.—About three years.

587. How was it that it was not detected until three years had passed?— There were a number of contributing factors. The principal one was that there had been four changes of inspector in charge during the material time. That was a most unusual frequency of changes. There was also the facility with which this man succeeded in getting printed billheads in the name of a garage proprietor who did have cars but not hackney cars. He submitted these as properly vouched accounts and they were accepted as such because they had all the appearance of authenticity and genuineness. There was nothing whatever at the time to suggest they were anything other than authentic. They were very carefully prepared and presented and there was very little on which the Department could go which would give them any reason to suspect the veracity of the claims. What ultimately did lead to detection, as is inevitable in cases of this sort, was that the officer in question got courage and began to overstate the claims and to include amounts for waiting time which the accountant and the accounts branch generally questioned. He was asked to explain the big amount of the waiting time charged by the alleged hackney driver and when questioned he said that he had approached the hackney driver to reduce the amounts and had succeeded in doing so. The accountant felt quite happy that he had succeeded in reducing the bill by a certain amount, but it subsequently transpired that there was no hackney proprietor of the name shown on the billhead engaged at all. The man had been travelling either in his own private car, for which he would be allowed a rate somewhat less than that for a hackney car, had been going by bicycle or had not gone there at all. It is very difficult normally to keep constant vigilance on travelling officers in the Department of Lands or any other Department unless you go to some most elaborate and costly extreme to prevent defalcation of this sort. In fact, I would conclude that while we have taken every possible precaution and given this question of travelling unremitting attention the prosecution and imprisonment which occurred in this instance represented the most salutary lesson which could be preached to any staff.

588. Was it known that he had a car of his own?—It was known by one of the earlier superior officers, the first of the four who were at the material time his superiors, but he somehow did not take any particular notice of it, although I admit he should have. I would have questioned that officer were it not that he retired about two years ago from the public service. One other contributing factor which I should have mentioned was that the area in question was what we call the Clare-Limerick district. The officer in question had a sub-office in Ennis whereas the central office was Limerick where the inspector in charge was located.

589. Have you been able to devise any safeguard which could be more or less reasonably applied?—Yes. I got the system, under which these travelling payments are examined, analysed and overhauled again and about the only practical addition I can make to it, and which we have in fact made since, is that the registration number of the car, if it is a hired car, should be cited in the travelling claim submitted so that we could verify that it was used if we wish to do so. In this case, there was evidence that a hackney car was used but the evidence was false. The officer got billheads printed by a printing firm in Longford. He got them quite easily. It was a brazen fraud, so brazen and boldly executed that it had all the appearance of genuineness.

590. Do you mean that a printer printed billheads for this man in someone else’s name?—Yes.

591. Had the printer any explanation to offer as to that?—He was interrogated by the Garda, but what the outcome of it was I do not know.

It is outside your province.

592. Deputy Palmer.—Were the claims submitted in writing or were they typed?—In handwriting.

593. Who did the writing?—The writing at all times was the same, the handwriting of a person we cannot establish and whom the Garda failed to establish, although as far as I know they spent a long time trying to establish the identity of that person.

594. chairman.—I think your explanation is certainly satisfactory, but naturally we are concerned that a fraud of such a size could be perpetrated. I take it that you will see that every possible step is taken to prevent such things happening, within the limits of what would be wise and economic?—I can assure the Committee that that has been done.

595. Chairman.—Paragraph 51 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead I.—Improvement of Estates, etc.

The expenditure during the year on the provision of necessary improvements in connection with the scheme for the transfer of allottees from the Gaeltacht to lands in County Meath, available for the relief of congestion, amounted to £528 11s. 10d. The total expenditure on the scheme since its inception in 1934-35 to 31st March, 1951, amounts to £104,599 16s. 7d.

Under the scheme for the provision of holdings in Leinster for migrants from districts where there is acute congestion, and its extension, referred to in paragraph 50 of my previous report, providing for intra-county migration, expenditure amounting to £16,744 16s. 3d. was incurred, bringing the total charge in respect of this scheme since 1937-38 to £167,561 3s. 7d.”

Is any of this money recovered from allottees?—Yes. The amount recoverable in that year by repayable advances was £300. The total expenditure incurred for the year was £16,774 16s. 3d., of which £15,341 15s. 8d. was for building new houses, £1,190 13s. 11d. cost of stock, fuel, implements, preview expenses and actual travelling expenses of the migrants. General improvements amounted to £242 6s. 8d. and the total as quoted in the report was £16,744 16s. 3d. of which some £300 is to be recovered by repayable advances.

596. Could you tell us what exactly these moneys are under subhead H.4? —They are moneys to make good deficiencies in the land bond fund and in the local loans fund. The deficiencies arise because of the writing off of annuities in respect of land which is submerged or subject to sea erosion. No deficiencies are permissible in either the land bond fund or the local loans fund and where there are deficiencies they must be made good. Annuities are written off—small portions generally—because part of the land is either totally submerged by flooding or else is eaten away by the sea.

597. I notice that in the note on page 134 the sum of £10 13s. 6d. is written off. Is that related to this subhead?— No, those cases, in fact, are not related to this subhead; they represent writing off in respect of annuities under the 1891, 1903 and 1909 Acts. The annuities under those Acts accrue as ordinary revenue; deficiencies therein have not to be made good as in the case of deficiencies in funds like the land bond fund or the local loans fund which have to be serviced and kept fed.

598. The amount under subhead K.— Deficiencies on Realisation by Government Departments of Land Bonds—is very small. I do not quite understand what it is?—Its purpose is to recoup discounts in the realisation by a Government Department of land bonds. The idea of the sub-head is that if land bonds ever went below par, certain State claims could be met; for example, estate duty may be deducted from the landlord’s purchase money and paid in land bonds. The revenue authorities need their payment in full and if land bonds were quoted at 98 instead of par the deficiency could be met out of this subhead because estate duty would be paid by the transfer of land bonds of a nominal value equal to the duty assessed. Up to this year there were no deficiencies on the sale of land bonds. They were at par or above it, but since then they have fallen below par and there may in future be a charge on the subhead.

599. Is this matter related to the second extra receipt where you acquired surplus cash? Is that where you make a profit on land bonds—The State generally does not make a profit. If there were any danger generally that the State would make a profit it would accept cash. If the bonds were at 104 the Land Commission itself would not be required to insist on land bonds of the nominal amount but would take cash. The revenue claims are paid fully in land bonds at all times and where there happened to be such a surplus it would be passed to the Exchequer.

600. In the details of the losses on page 133, the second last, I see that £43 0s. 3d. was awarded by court. How did it arise that a matter like this could get as far as the courts?—What actually occurred in that case was that the Land Commission acquired in good faith an estate on which there happened to be a school plot. The lands which were the subject of acquisition happened to be registered land and the boundary of the estate acquired coincided fully with the boundary shown on the Land Registry folio. Shortly after the acquisition it was brought to the notice of the Land Commission that the estate included a small plot of one rood, ten perches which had been a school site, the property of the Rector and select vestry of Drumreilly in County Leitrim. Immediately it was brought to our notice, we agreed to give the plot back to the Rector. The reason we did not know of it was that although the land was registered land the erection of a school and the isolation of the plot in question had occurred about 1888 or 1890, long before the land had been registered at all and neither the registered owners nor the select vestry had notified the Land Commission or the Land Registry of that transaction. The Rector instituted proceedings against the Land Commission claiming £50 damages for the alleged wrongful acts of the Land Commission. We decided to let it go to Court in the belief that we had a good case. The case came before the Circuit Court on the 18th October, 1949. The decision went against the Land Commission, the plaintiffs being awarded £10 and costs which were subsequently taxed at £33 0s. 3d. We had a lengthy correspondence on the subject but we could not get agreement on a suitable figure for compensation. We did not think that it would go as high as £50 because we had acted in good faith and had returned the plot immediately it was brought to our notice.

601. You saved £7. With regard to the next item where a contractor failed to complete work, did you make every possible attempt to get back as much of the loss as possible? You got only £6 16s. 10d.?—It was a curious case. Normally in a contract case we retain 10 per cent. of the purchase money for a retention period of six months during which the money may be used to correct any defects which may come to light during the period. We found ourselves in this case on weak ground because due to emergency conditions—the time was 1943—the travelling of inspectors was curtailed and we could not be certain that the defects had occurred in that material retention period of six months. The contractor proceeded to do some of the work out of the £166 retained but he was very dilatory in doing it and ultimately under threat of legal proceedings we agreed to pay him £116 of the retention money keeping £50. We then set about doing the work by direct labour ourselves using that £50 for the purpose. We had got as far as spending £43 3s. 2d. when the two migrants served a civil bill on the Land Commission claiming £149 10s. We found that their claims were well founded and ultimately we agreed to meet those claims by paying sums totalling £137 17s. out of court, the migrants at the same time giving us an indemnity against any further claims.

602. With regard to subhead Q.— Appropriations in Aid—item 4, you got £22,735 15s. 11d.; in the extra receipts £10,000 odd was realised in the rent and interest account. Why are those two amounts separate?—There are actually three rent and interest accounts, Nos. 1, 2 and 3. No. 1 is practically dormant. Appropriations in Aid, subhead Q., item 4, would relate almost entirely to Rent and Interest Account No. 2. That actually includes a surplus, the capital sum of which would be about £500,000 accrued to the late Congested Districts Board from the letting of lands by them. The profit accrued in this way: the Congested District Board were in a position to let lands at a rate of interest equal to 3¼ per cent. whereas to meet the charge on an estate they had only to pay 2¾ per cent. There was an intervening profit of ½ per cent. and for a long period of years a total sum, estimated now to be £500,000, accrued. About 1928 or 1929 we got a direction from the Department of Finance to invest that sum and £18,000 of the £23,000 on sub-head Q., item 4, represents the dividends on that capital sum. The remainder, £5,000, would accrue from Rent and Interest Account No. 3, which is the 1923 Act counterpart of subhead J, but whilst there would be a surplus of £9,000 there, that in fact is not all available for that purpose. Only about £5,000 is available for the reason that some of the lands included under item J. represent lettings from land held under temporary convenience agreements; they are not grazing lettings proper but are held under these temporary convenience agreements by approved allottees. About £4,000 represents that and about £5,000 would represent the lettings from grazings by the Land Commission on current lands on hands. They would be seasonal lettings, stock managers’ lettings, herds’ lettings and auctioneers’ lettings of lands on hands in any particular season.

603. That £5,000 goes to the Appropriations in Aid?—That, I imagine, goes to the Appropriations in Aid.

604. There is a sum of £10,000 as an extra receipt payable to the Exchequer. I think the point is that the amount mentioned was for 1949-50?—Yes, it was for the previous year.

605. The only point I am not clear on now is why some of it goes in Appropriation in Aid and why some of it goes as an extra receipt?—Some years ago we drew on subhead J. to the extent of about £250,000. The Department of Finance have directed us to keep on repaying until that amount is recouped after which any surplus will be allowed to go to Appropriations in Aid, but meantime it is surrendered as an Exchequer extra receipt to meet the original claim we had under subhead J. in respect of a total sum of £250,000.

606. That is the profit on account No. 3, which is shown as an extra receipt?—Yes.

607. You mentioned that the £5,000 difference in No. 4 also came from account No. 3. Are you sure it was not account No. 1?—It is not account No. 1. It is account No. 2 also. I should have said No. 2.

608. The only other point that strikes me is that there is a very substantial sum listed as “Miscellaneous.” Can you give us the details?—Yes, I looked at that point. Generally, the amount of “Miscellaneous” comprises refunds, or sums collected by the Land Commission in respect of free grants previously authorised by them. For example, we may have some years ago given an allotment to an allottee with a free grant of £500 for the erection of a house; he comes along six or seven years afterwards and wants to sell that allotment. If he is given permission, the permission pretty frequently is conditioned to his repaying part of the free grant that we have expended on the erection of a house; he may be required to pay back about £300 in a case like that. There are also cases in which we undertake improvement works and we sanction the total amount required but do our best to collect local contributions in cash or free labour from the benefiting parties. The cash receipt would appear here as an Appropriations in Aid under the“Miscellaneous” heading.

609. Are not some of these amounts fairly substantial, more substantial than some of the amounts you actually list in a detailed way?—Yes, they have that appearance, but they are far from recurring. I considered the point you raised but came to the conclusion myself that they are so unpredictable in volume and nature that they would not warrant separate listing.

610. Very well. I notice you do not estimate anything for the extra receipts. Are they not reasonably foreseeable? That is at the bottom of page 131—no estimate is made as to what the receipts would be. Most Votes do show what is estimated as an Exchequer receipt but yours does not? —The only matters that I can recollect coming properly within extra Exchequer receipts in my own experience were conscience money and things like that, totally unpredictable also.

611. Take the first item. Would it not be reasonably possible to give a fairly firm figure from year to year?—Yes. I think that would be proper to subhead J., where we do estimate a loss but it has, in fact, turned out to be a surplus.

612. All I am concerned with is that the Estimate should show on the face of it as much information as possible and here is an amount which seems to recur at round about the same level—this excess receipts over expenditure in Rent and Interest Account No. 3—and you do not show it in your Estimate. Do you not think that could fairly be shown in the Book of Estimates?—It is represented in the Estimates in this way, that normally we would expect a loss, a deficiency of income from untenanted land. The title of subhead J. is “Advance to meet Deficiency of Income from Untenanted Lands purchased under the Land Acts, 1923-46.” Our general experience was that there was a deficiency, until 1939 or 1940. Instead of that, there has been pretty consistently since then a substantial surplus, about £10,000, because letting values have gone up.

613. As you say yourself, this has been happening since 1939?—Yes, since 1939 or 1940.

614. I think you should look into it and see if you can put in a figure in the Estimates, if you think this position is going to continue, to show what you expect to get. If you are getting round about £10,000 consistently, it seems fair that that should appear in the Estimate? —I undertake to examine that.

615. There are notes on the next couple of pages, up to page 136. The second last note refers to a payment made in the case of erecting a fence, £410. Could you say what the estimate was for the erection of the fence?—Yes, it was substantially the same amount, it was £400.

616. By this arrangement you avoid the special maintenance?—Yes, we avoid maintenance; that was the general idea. The extra £10 was in respect of a heifer lost in a drain.

617. There is a note on the second one from the top of page 136 which deals with the non-completion of buildings. How did that arise? It seems a peculiar matter. Did the tenant refuse to complete the buildings?—That is on the Griffith estate in Tipperary. What happened there was that we allotted a holding of 22 acres to a person in 1935. A free grant of £300 was sanctioned to assist the allottee in the erection of a dwelling-house and out-offices. A contractor was engaged to erect the buildings. In 1936, after building had commenced, the parcel was sold with the consent of the Land Commission to a brother of the person employed as a contractor by the original allottee. The Land Commission having consented to the sale agreed to make the balance of the assistance available to the new allottee, the contractor’s brother, subject to the execution by him of a deed of mortgage. The deed executed purported to give the Land Commission power to recover the building assistance which was described as a loan. In other words, the £300 free grant that was originally arranged now becomes described as a loan. Payments were made by the Land Commission as the building proceeded and the total of £93 15s. 2d. was expended up to August, 1939. That is the figure quoted here—£93 15s. 2d. The building had been built to wall-plate level and one course of concrete work had been carried out on an out-office. No progress whatever, has been made with the work since 1939. The new allottee refuses to complete the erection of the buildings. His attitude is that it is the responsibility of the Land Commission to provide him with buildings and the cost of completing the buildings we estimate at £637. The Land Commission were not and are not prepared to incur additional expense and have decided to cancel the unexpended balance of what is now again called a free grant of £300. It started as a free grant; became a loan and concludes as a free grant. As regards the deed of mortgage executed by the new owner purporting to give the Land Commission power to recover the building assistance as a loan, we are advised that they have no power to compel the owner to complete the buildings, nor can the Land Commission recover the amount already paid out, the terms of the deed of mortgage being regarded as unenforceable. That is the latest legal view we have got, and we have had to surrender the £93 15s. 2d. already expended.

618. Was it the allottee’s solicitor who drew up the deed of mortgage or the Land Commission?—I am sorry, I do not know. It is a very material question.

The hinge of the matter is how the deed of mortgage came to be drawn up in what turned out to be the wrong way.

VOTE 48—FORESTRY.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

619. Chairman.—Paragraph 52 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead C.2.—Forestry Development and Maintenance, etc.

The rules of procedure governing the placing of Government contracts provide that no contract of a greater value than £1,000 may be placed without the written approval of the Government Contracts Committee. It was observed in the course of examination of the expenditure from this subhead that approval was not obtained for placing certain contracts and I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Have you anything, to add, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that, while the approval of the Department of Finance for the purchases had been obtained, the necessity for reference to the Government Contracts Committee before placing the orders was overlooked.

620. Chairman.—I take it this will not happen again, Mr. O’Brien?

Mr. O’Brien—No, Sir. I would like to say, in extenuation, that the firms from whom the purchases were made were the sole agents for the machines in question, namely, 15 caterpillar tractors and some Cuthbertson ploughs.

621. Chairman.—My own view would be that where you are dealing with sole agents, it is even more necessary to go through all the proper forms; you are in a more dangerous position. Paragraph 53 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report is as follows:—

“Stores.

It was noted on a test examination of the records of the receipt and issue of machinery and stores that they were incomplete in certain respects. I have inquired regarding this matter and also as to the date and result of the last complete stocktaking carried out at the central stores depôts.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—The Accounting Officer has recently informed me that, owing to the rapid development of forestry and, more particularly, to the stockpiling of tools, fences and equipment in 1950 and 1951, there has been a breakdown in the store-keeping and stocktaking system but that the staff dealing with these matters has recently been augmented and is engaged in the elimination of the arrears. I was also informed that the existing system regarding stores control has been reviewed and that it is proposed to introduce more effective and up-to-date methods of stores control in the near future.

622. Chairman.—I take it you are making satisfactory progress in this matter, Mr. O’Brien?

Mr. O’Brien.—Yes, Sir. The first leg of modern stocktaking has commenced.

623. I take it that subhead C.3.— Timber Conversion—is related to the receipts mentioned in the Appropriations in Aid from sales of timber and sales of sawn timber?—This is the other side of the picture; C.3.—Timber Conversion— would relate to the costs of the thinning, felling and extraction of timber.

624. But it is related?—It is, yes.

625. What from of accounts do you keep for that? Do you keep a trading account for the timber sales?—We have just commenced to keep a general commercial account.

626. I take it that the saving under E.1.—Forestry Education—is due to the abandonment of the special course of instruction?—Yes. The special course of instruction for foresters was abandoned. It has been renewed. It consisted of bringing the foresters to Dublin for about a week to advise them in the latest developments in technique. During the year under review it was replaced by a practical demonstration at suitable forests but they will again be coming to Dublin for a type of post-graduate course, for a week.

627. I notice that the anticipated savings in the Supplementary Estimate were reckoned as £10,000 but that the actual saving on the subhead was considerably less. Was not your Supplementary Estimate fairly late in the year?—It was in the middle of March, I think.

628. The savings must have related to subheads that were not materially affected by the Supplementary Estimate, that is, C. and C.2. The savings on the other subheads are a good deal less than you anticipated in March?—Yes.

629. In fact, you might have been in trouble only for the very big saving on C.2.?—Yes, that is so. I took the view myself that the savings, when the Supplementary Estimate was taken so late in the year, should have been capable of far closer estimation at the time.

VOTE 49—GAELTACHT SERVICES.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

630. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report in relation to this Vote is as follows:—

“Subhead H.3.—Grants under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 to 1949.

The aggregate amount of the grants and loans which may be made under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 to 1949, is not to exceed £900,000.

At 31st March, 1951, the position regarding such grants and loans was as follows:—

You appear to be getting very near your limit, Mr. O’Brien?—Actually at the end of March last we had reached a point, £861,000, which left us only £39,000 available which sum would not be adequate for the year and we will be having a new Gaeltacht Housing Bill which will be introduced in the next session.

631. Chairman.—Paragraph 55 of the Report reads as follows:—

“Subhead J.—Losses.

This subhead was opened with the authority of the Department of Finance to bring to account a payment made in respect of returnable industrial gas containers which were destroyed by fire in the toy factory at Cashla Bay, County Galway, in September, 1950. As noted in the account, machinery and materials destroyed were valued at £366 11s. 10d. The damage to buildings, electrical equipment and furniture was estimated at £646, as recorded in a note in the account of the Vote for Public Works and Buildings (No. 9).”

That is for information, I take it?

Mr. Wann.—Yes.

632. Chairman.—It is only the actual cash loss which you have to show in the subhead?

Mr. O’Brien.—That is right.

633. Chairman.—Paragraph 56 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report is as follows:—

“Industrial Loans.

I have been furnished with a schedule concerning the industrial loans from which it appears that looms to the value of £96 9s. 0d. were issued to weavers during the year ended 31st March, 1951, on hire purchase terms. Repayments in arrear, including interest accrued due at that date, amounted to £11,210 10s. 0d. as compared with £10,998 9s. 2d. on 31st March, 1950. Included in the arrears is a sum of £11,063 13s. 7d., due by a company which ceased to exist in 1925. As stated in previous reports, the realisation of such security as is held by the State was the subject of negotiations, but owing to certain legal difficulties realisation cannot be effected.”

It looks as if you have to consider writing off this amount?—Yes, Sir, but the State has an interest in this property which came to them by way of sub-demise as security for a sum of £6,900 and, being State lands, it cannot be disposed of until we get a new State Lands Act. We are awaiting that and, as soon as it is available, we will dispose of such interest as the State has in the property.

634. Is there any immediate prospect of such a Bill?—It has been on the stocks for a considerable time—since 1938—and I think I have seen many drafts. The question is proper to the Department of Finance.

635. Chairman.—Why is it that the Department of Finance has to be stalling on this matter?

636. Mr. Breathnach.—I am not dealing with this Bill, but I understand that it is a rather complicated one and that it will take time to be quite satisfied with all its details. I suppose it is not quite as urgently needed as other Bills. It does not get immediate attention in the hope that there will be time to deal with it, say, next month or the month after.

637. Chairman.—I do not suppose it will arouse a great deal of public interest?

Mr. Breathnach—I think not.

638. Chairman.—On subhead E.3.— Kelp and Seaweeds—how did it arise that seaweeds were not available.—We had budgeted for getting 4,000 tons of sea rods but the total quantity received was only 2,800 tons. The reason for this was that the year was a particularly wet one. Even if the sea rods were available, they could not dry on the drying walls and they would not be usable.

639. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—The note on page 142 referring to subhead F.2., states that goods to the value of £43 18s. 8d. were presented free as a form of advertisement. To whom were these goods presented?—They were presented to the new Irish Club in Eaton Square, London. The goods in question were 100 yards of tweed for curtaining. Other merchants also presented goods. The idea was to get publicity through the new club. Other small gifts were also presented, such as a dressed doll to the “Save the Children Fund” through the Irish Minister in Stockholm.

640. Chairman.—The note on subhead H.4. says that the work on the maintenance of teachers’ residences was not proceeded with. Why was this?—The reference is to teachers’ residences in the Fíor Gaeltacht. The number of residences was six in all—three in Donegal, one in Cork and two in Galway. We had budgeted for £120 altogether for repairs, painting and other liabilities. Actually, we were only required to spend £1 10s. in the particular year.

641. The note was not very clear; it just said the work was not proceeded with?—The work did not arise.

642. With regard to Appropriations in Aid, I notice that the original Estimate included a sum of £35,000 as an Exchequer receipt. This does not appear in the Appropriation Accounts. This is due, I presume, to the introduction of the Supplementary Estimate?—It is.

VOTE 29—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called and examined.

643. Chairman.—With regard to the extra receipts payable to the Exchequer, I notice that the dangerous drugs service has been transferred from your Department to the Department of Health and that because of that only a small amount came in to you during the year. The balance paid to the Department of Health amounted to £186 10s. It appears to me that there was over-estimation to the extent of £500. You may remember that we discussed on a previous occasion the lumping together of the fees in respect of licences and permits under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1934, and the fees for certificates under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935. This makes it difficult to follow exactly what happens. It will not arise in the future, because the two amounts are being separated. However, as far as I can judge from the average results of the last few years, it looks to me that £500 less than estimated was received in respect of permits and licences under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Have you any information that would clear up the matter?— Frankly, I have not. I agree with what you have said just now and with what was said on a previous occasion: the method is a very unsatisfactory one in which to present the account. It is impossible to see, at a glance at any rate, how much we estimated for the receipts under the Dangerous Drugs Act and how much we estimated for the other items that go to make up the total. I have figures which show, in some cases, what the Estimates and the receipts were for some of the previous years, but I have not with me a note showing what the Estimates and receipts were in respect of dangerous drugs over any period of years. It looks, prima facie, as if you are right when you say there was over-estimation. When I have an opportunity of looking into the matter, I will be surprised if I do not find that the Estimate was based on the actual receipts from the previous couple of years. The Estimate was in or about £500 or £600. As you see, the two Estimates lumped together amount to £1,200, and we probably earmarked £600 for dangerous drugs. If that be so, I think it will be found that we had taken something like that in the previous years. However, I cannot answer the question because I have not the figures. Perhaps the Finance Accounts would show them.

644. I do not think so. In the previous year, apparently, you got £250 under the Dangerous Drugs Act and £525 under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act. That makes a total of about £770, so that it begins to look as if there were over-estimation to the extent of about £500?—I will have to look into the matter. I would like to have a look at the Finance Accounts for some previous years. I do not deny that there is all the appearance of over-estimation.

It is not very material as it cannot happen in future; the items in question will now be accounted for by two different Departments. This year the Committee will fall between two stools.

645. The only other matter I wish to raise is this: why do you not give a figure for fees for documents of identity in your Estimate?—You mean in the current Estimate or in this particular year? My impression was that we did not anticipate having to issue any documents of identity; we felt that the circumstances which necessitated the issue of these documents would disappear with the passage of time; in other words there were fewer White Russians and fewer Stateless people seeking documents of identity. I feel that that must be the explanation.

VOTE 30—GARDA SÍOCHÁNA.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

646. With regard to subheads D. and F., I notice that the savings actually turn out to be greater than the amounts you sought in the Supplementary Estimates?—Yes. By way of general comment, I may say that the Estimate was cut to the bone in that year. The original Estimate, in our view, contained no kind of margin in so far as we had forecast the likely trend of events. Consequently, when we saw the danger of a deficit, we felt it necessary to make some provision. Events in certain circumstances proved the provision was excessive. As regards subhead D.—Locomotion Expenses—what we had in mind was that it would be necessary to incur unanticipated expenditure, as a result of the local elections, which we had not foreseen at the time we framed the Estimate. Actually, we had to transfer fewer policemen. We did not, in fact, spend as much as we had contemplated we might have to spend.

647. The local elections were surely held at the ordinary time?—I suppose they were but we felt that presumably it would be necessary to transfer more Guards than we actually did transfer when the event occurred. In the case of subhead F., the saving here, according to my note, was achieved in the supplementary provision which was intended for stockpiling material which was not delivered until 1951-52. We suddenly got “cold feet” that we would have to meet a delivery which did not materialise. The over-estimation was based on the apprehension that, as we had cut the original Estimate so tight, we might have to face a deficit.

648. With regard to No. 4 of subhead P.—Appropriations in Aid—how do you sell these old stores and cast uniforms? By auction?—We auction them and invite tenders for the auction. Sometimes we invite a tender for a particular auction and sometimes we invite tenders to carry out auctions for a period of time.

VOTE 31—PRISONS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

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

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

Mr. Wann.—That is for information.

650. Chairman.—The explanation of the saving in respect of subhead B. is that there were fewer prisoners. I notice that there were, in fact, 42 prisoners fewer than anticipated and that the amount allowed for a prisoner is £27 9s. 8d. The saving on 42 prisoners would then amount to £1,154 6s. 0d., but the actual saving is £380?—It was offset by a rise of about 9/- in the average annual cost of feeding a prisoner. That appears to be the explanation.

651. With regard to subhead I., what exactly is the fine fund?—To begin with, it is not a fund at all. The term is a misnomer. If a prison officer is fined 10/-he simply does not get 10/- at the end of the week. If his pay is £7 10s, he is given £7 but the 10/- is not actually paid over into any fund at all. We are authorised to reward deserving people up to the extent of £10 out of such fines as have been levied, if they amount to £10. If we want to exceed £10, we have to go specifically to the Department of Finance for sanction. In this particular year, the fines imposed actually equalled the £10. Three fines were imposed totalling £10. The £10 was paid out.

652. Is an account kept of this fund?— It is not a fund but an account is kept of the transactions. I have told the Committee exactly what happens. A man is paid whatever he is entitled to, less the amount of the fine. Of course, a record is kept of that. Then the awards are made up to the extent of £10. If it is sought to exceed £10 we have got to go to the Department of Finance who will say to us: “What is the total amount of the fines imposed?” We say they amount to X pounds and the Department of Finance, having regard to the circumstances, say: “All right, you can or cannot exceed the £10.” We very rarely exceed the £10.

653. Are these transactions audited— I presume they are. If the auditor would like us to adopt any other method we are perfectly ready to do it. We have nothing to conceal.

654. I am sure he is quite satisfied. I was just curious to know what happened. There is a note on page 85 which says: “Sums amounting to £1,036 17s. 11d. were paid, without admission of liability, in an action by a prisoner against prison officials.” Is that the sum which now turns up in subhead K.—Incidental Expenses—It is the same case. My note says it was settled for £500. The explanation is that the costs made up the balance. This was a case where a prisoner lost two fingers while engaged woodcutting with a circular saw.

655. Is this the circular saw you then got rid of—I hope we did. I suggested we might get rid of it.

VOTE 32—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

656. Chairman.—What happened that the courts did not manage to get in enough fines to meet your Estimate?— Fines have been falling a great deal since the emergency period. Very heavy fines were imposed under some of the Emergency Powers Orders. I think that is one explanation. The other explanation is that the courts are not imposing such heavy fines. There has been a rather fixed tendency for fines to go down in recent years, if my memory is correct.

657. Oddly enough, you apparently anticipated getting in £4,000 more than the previous year?—The figures I have here in respect of the last three years may put the matter in its proper perspective. In respect of the year 1948-49 we actually got in £31,000 and in 1949-50 we got in £23,800. We must have come to the conclusion that the drop from £31,000 to £23,000 was abnormal. While we ought to have estimated for a drop we ought not to have estimated for such a drop.

658. Obviously the matter is purely conjectural?—Yes, it is purely conjectural.

VOTE 33—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

659. Chairman.—As to the Appropriations in Aid, I suppose item No. 3 refers to the local bankruptcy court in Cork?— Yes. It is the only local bankruptcy court we have.

660. In item 5, you got an increase over the Estimate and I think you had anticipated a drop. I presume that that is also very conjectural?—Yes. We just do not know ourselves. We ourselves are unable to explain why either more orders or orders for larger amounts were executed. We just do not know. We can only ascertain it by circularising the county registrars individually and asking them to explain why this happens. No obvious explanation occurs to me.

661. With regard to the extra receipts, what is the refund of National Health contributions by the Department of Social Welfare?—This was a dispute as to whether certain of our employees, such as court messengers, were or were not liable to National Health contributions. While the matter was under discussion we contributed on their behalf and when the ruling was obtained from the Department of Social Welfare we got a refund. Up to that time we had been contributing and that figure is the refund of the State’s share for the financial year up to the time of the decision. The State contributions for earlier years were not refunded. It is an unusual and non-recurring item.

VOTE 34—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

662. Chairman.—As to subhead F.F.— Purchase of Law Books—was this some particular library?—Yes. These law books only come on the market at infrequent intervals. Many of them are scarce and have long since been out of print and we are always only too ready to enter the market when something we are looking for becomes available. The Department of Finance are not so ready to sanction the purchase of books, although no doubt in proper cases they do. But it is almost literally true to say that some of these law books are worth their weight in gold; they appear so rarely that there is very little opportunity of acquiring them and we try to get them when they become available. This was a library or a part of a library which became available during the period. We do not normally have a subhead for this at all.

VOTE 35—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

663. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—As to subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—have these vacancies been filled since?—These particular vacancies have been filled. I thought that further vacancies might have arisen, but we have in fact no vacancies in the professional staff. We have some vacancies for draftsmen which are about to be filled, but the particular vacancies referred to here have been filled.

664. Chairman.—I think I ought to mention that your estimation has all been very good, the actual expenditure being very close in all your Votes?—I am obliged to you.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 43—SCIENCE AND ART.

Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—I want to go back again to the Science and Art Vote. On page 121 there is a note about 70 obsolete exhibition cases being loaned from the National Museum for an indefinite period. I should like to know how they became absolete. Are they obsolete because of the material of which they are made or because they are of a wrong shape? If they are obsolete, are they now open for sale to local committees who want to start museums in provincial towns?

Chairman.—We can, of course, ask Mr. Breathnach to attend again and deal with this, but perhaps a note would satisfy you.

Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Yes.

Chairman.—At the same time we might ask what was the date of purchase of these cases, their original cost and what they would now cost to make. It would give us an idea.*

Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—That would satisfy me.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XII.