Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1954 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1952 - 1953

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 22 Iúil, 1954.

Thursday, 22nd July, 1954.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY SHELDON in the chair.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) Mr. M. Breathnach, Mr. P. M. Clarke, Mr. T. Malone and Mr. J. F. Maclnerney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 24—STATIONERY AND PRINTING.

Mr. J. B. Carr called and examined.

210. Chairman.—Before we take this Vote itself, there is a matter which Mr. Ó Cadhla has asked me to raise. He suggests there might be a saving in the preparation of the Appropriation Accounts if the shillings and pence were omitted in the columns headed “Expenditure” and “Expenditure compared with Grant”, and the sums rounded off to the nearest £. I would be glad to have your opinion on that, Mr. Carr. Do you think that suggestion would make it easier to present the report and effect a possible saving in its cost?—It definitely would. It would help to make it easier for the compositor and, therefore, make production cheaper. From the point of view of reading, a round figure in pounds can be remembered more readily than pounds, shillings and pence. I would certainly be in favour of that.

Chairman.—The summary which appears at the end of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report would, of course, appear, as it does at present, giving the exact figures?—Yes.

May I take it that the Committee would view that change with favour?

Deputy Bartley.—Is the suggested change in reference to this Vote only?

Chairman.—No, in reference to all the Votes. The suggestion is to round off all the figures to the nearest £.

Deputy H. P. Dockrell—Would there be much of a saving?

Chairman.—It would be something. As far as consideration of the accounts is concerned, I cannot see that it would make any difference at all. We do not usually worry about the shillings and pence.

Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—I think it would be a good idea.

Mr. Carr.—There would be a saving in printing costs.

Chairman.—We may take it as agreed, then.

Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Before we pass from that, I would like to compliment Mr. Carr on the way the printing is done now without all the unnecessary stops and commas. It is much more attractive. I do not know whether it saves anything, but it looks much more modern and up to date.

Mr. Carr.—Thank you. I took that matter up and we will make further improvements, if we can, in that direction.

211. Chairman.—Turning to the Vote itself, paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead F.1.—Printing, Paper and Binding for the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The contract for parliamentary printing provides for the payment of rent for type held standing for periods in excess of six months and it is the practice to keep standing the type for parliamentary bills pending their enactment. It was noted that payments of rent for prolonged periods, amounting to £600 1s. 0d., were made to the contractor for type relating to bills which did not become law. I have inquired as to the control exercised in relation to these rents, and also regarding the accuracy of certain charges included in the contractor’s accounts.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The type for Acts passed by the Oireachtas is not normally dispersed until the Acts have been issued in the annual bound volume. As the period of time which elapses between the drafting or introduction of a Bill and the issue of the relevant Act in the bound volume generally extends to at least two years, type rents are always payable. In 1952 the contractor informed the Stationery Office that he was holding type standing for a considerable time in respect of a number of Bills which he stated had never become law and asked permission to disperse this type. Accordingly, permission was given to disperse the type of these Bills, and £600 was paid in respect of the rent. It appears that some of the Bills actually became law and that, in consequence, type rent was overpaid in respect of them. The position seems to me very confusing. There seems to be an absence of control, and of co-ordination between the various Departments concerned, but I understand the Accounting Officer is having the whole matter investigated.

Mr. Carr.—That is the position. In 1952 the matter came under my notice. I discovered that the type for quite a number of Bills was being held. When we investigated we found that in some cases the Bills had actually been withdrawn. There had not been any system of check in the Stationery Office. We simply make the contract for parliamentary printing. The detailed arrangements for printing Bills, etc., are made direct by the Dáil Office. Where a Bill is withdrawn or completely amended, including the Title, the Stationery Office hitherto had no knowledge of that. We are now investigating the system, and we intend that from the time a Bill is first introduced we will open a record card and on it will appear the history of the Bill. If at any time a Bill seems to be standing for a prolonged period and we do not know what is happening, we will ask the sponsoring Department about the matter. We will follow the Bill right through to the publication of the bound volume. The method will be a laborious one, but it is the only one I can see which will keep absolute control of the situation.

212. Chairman.—Obviously some method is necessary. There is one point in connection with the printing of Bills. Is the type all hand-set?—This is in connection with parliamentary printing, i.e., the Orders of the Day, Bills and Statutory Instruments, etc. The contract provides that for six months after the introduction of a Bill the type will be kept standing without additional cost to the Stationery Office. After six months type rent becomes payable at so much per page per quarter, according to the size of the page and that rent is continuously payable right along to the publication of the bound volume.

213. What I am interested in is whether this is hand-set type or linotype?—It is linotype.

214. If it is linotype, I cannot understand why there should be any fuss about the time during which it is being held. I understand from what I have heard outside that the contractor drew attention to it because he had type standing, and that was a nuisance to him. Surely, if it was linotype it was only so much lead. I thought the trouble was that founts of type were being held up?—The formes containing the type were actually held up. We are not concerned so much with the arrangements the contractor makes so long as the type is available when required for the printing of the bound volumes.

215. I appreciate that, but this business of the contractor raising the matter gave me a wrong impression. I thought he was worried because type—that is hand-set type—was being held up which, of course, would be a very expensive business, and I thought some economy might be made by using linotype. If they are already using linotype the position is all right?—The firm is Messrs. Cahills. As far as I know practically all the printing is done by linotype operators. Nevertheless, they hold the formes of type; I have seen some of them in the factory myself, and they must keep those formes for a number of years. In the ordinary way if a linotype job is done the type is dispersed immediately the job is printed. The metal goes into the casting box again. Whatever arrangements they make they must keep the type standing to save the cost of a new composition.

216. At any rate, you have taken steps to see that this will not happen again? —We have got a list from Messrs. Cahills of all type standing on the 30th June. We are checking back on that and we will have to go to the sponsoring Departments to find the history of each Bill from the beginning. When the Dáil reassembles—from October next—as soon as a Bill is introduced we will open a record for it and follow it up ourselves right to the very end.

217. Deputy Bartley.—Does this rent come in under Subhead G.—Printing for Public Departments?

Chairman.—No, under Subhead F.1— Printing, Paper and Binding for the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Bartley.—The term type rent is one that is not familiar to me.

Chairman.—Type rent is the rent paid for type held when a page of type is set up. The material that is in it is of some value to the printer and if it is held for a long time he charges a rent for holding it.

218. Deputy Bartley.—Is this distinct from his other charges?

Mr. Carr.—Perhaps I should explain that all our long-term contracts have a provision that in the case of Job-work, the type will be kept standing for a period of twelve months after the delivery of the job and, in the case of Book-work, for a period of six months without additional cost to the Stationery Office. Apart from Parliamentary printing, for which we specify that after six months the type must be kept standing until publication of the bound volume, there are only one or two cases in which we pay type rent. We pay type rent on the Department of Agriculture Leaflets and the Cookery Notes, the reason being that these are constantly being reprinted.

219. Chairman.—On Subhead G.— Printing—paragraph 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“With a view to extending the field of competition and reducing the amount of work involved in the checking of contractors’ accounts, a simplified form of tender was introduced during the year for use in connection with contracts for certain selected printing work.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The major portion of printing work required by the Stationery Office is, I understand, carried out by contractors under what are known as group contracts. These contracts may run from three to five years. They differ somewhat and are on a complicated basis. It was felt that the work involved in compiling the accounts and the departmental delay in clearing them tended to restrict the field of competition. It is too early yet to say how far the change in the form of tender has affected competition.

Mr. Carr.—Most of the work done for the Stationery Office is repetition work since Departments use the same forms year in and year out. Therefore, what we try to do is to group a number of forms for the various Departments and to construct a contract making provision for the production of these forms. We make the contract on a long-term basis because the composition is only on the first printing. The contractor has only to keep the type standing in case a reprinting is required. Under the old form of contract every separate printing operation for the production of a job is costed separately. There is a price for composition, for proofing, for imposition, printing off, folding, gathering and collating, etc. All these operations have to be costed separately by the contractor in submitting his accounts, and they have to be checked separately by the Stationery Office. All that has led to a lot of correspondence and disagreement between ourselves and the contractors as to whether their claims were right or not. In fact, in one year the amount of checking involved meant a reduction of contractors’ accounts to the extent of £6,000.

Obviously, there was something wrong with such a system. We decided that, instead of having everything costed on a separate operation basis, we would try to get as many operations as possible done under an all-in price. For example, for a page of a book we try to get an all-in price for composition, proofing, printing off, folding, gathering and collating, etc. Therefore, when the contractor comes to make out his account he has only to count the number of pages and multiply it by the cost per page which had been accepted under the contract. The checking in that way becomes simple. It is a matter of counting the number of pages instead of having to cost each individual operation. That, in short, is the basis that we are aiming at. We have carried it out in a large number of contracts and intend to continue to do so because it has led to better competition. We have more people doing our work now than we had previously. It has also enabled us to bring in the small man and to get a better price from contractors.

220. Chairman.—I do not pretend to understand a great deal about the printing world. I have, however, been examining this matter in some detail, and I must confess that the more I examine it the less I understand it. It seems to be very complicated. Perhaps for the information of the Committee, and for the purpose of the record, you could tell us something more. You mentioned bringing in the small man. Would special staff be needed to work out details in such a case?—A small man may have a first-class knowledge of printing but he does not keep clerical staff to make out his accounts in the way that the Stationery Office requires them to be made out. The Managing Director of a very substantial firm in town—not one of the biggest firms but a very good firm—told me that when he took up his position he found that there were three members of the staff engaged whole-time in making out the accounts for the Stationery Office. As a result, he ceased working for the Stationery Office, but he is now back working for us, and working extremely well under the new system.

221. Do you think that the change will mean, so far as the printers are concerned, that they will be able to tender at lower prices?—I think that it is having that effect because, as I say, it extends the field of competition. It is bringing in more people. It has led to a cutting down of their overhead expenses so that they can now quote us better prices.

222. From your end, had you to have a special staff to deal with this particular problem?—We had to have such a staff to deal with it and, as I say, they had to cost every separate operation. Now, of course, where it is a question of a price per page, the staff are able to deal more speedily with the accounts. We can pay the accounts more promptly and that makes our work more attractive for the average contractor.

223. Had you previously a system whereby contractors received a certain payment on the presentation of accounts, the balance being held?—We did, unfortunately have such a system. We had to have such a system because the examination of the accounts was so detailed and so laborious that it was provided that, if a contractor made an application to the Stationery Office when submitting his account for payment, five-sixths of his account was paid. The account was not examined at that stage. There was a superficial examination to see what he would be entitled to, but when it came to paying the remaining one-sixth we had to examine the whole account of course. This caused delays in the final discharge of accounts and the effect was cumulative. We have cut that out now and we pay the account completely— except at the moment in connection with the Register of Electors where we have to deal with a lot of small provincial firms. They cannot afford to wait for their money and unfortunately their accounts all come in together. In future, however, it will not be necessary to pay by instalments because we are amending these contracts also.

224. Would it be fair to say that the other system of accounting caused a bad bottleneck in the Stationery Office?— There is no doubt about that because of the fact, as I say, that the whole account had to be examined when you were paying off the one-sixth. Take the case of a job costing £600. You paid £500 without examination, so that when you came to pay off the remaining £100 you had to examine a claim representing £600.

225. Chairman.—Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“An order for the printing of 5,000 copies of a departmental receipt book at 225s. per 100 was placed under a running contract which provided for a normal order of 800 copies. I inquired whether consideration had been given to the question of withdrawing, in accordance with the conditions of the contract, the excess quantity and inviting special tenders therefor. In reply I was informed that it was doubtful whether any useful purpose would have been served by action on these lines but that the procedure now followed provides that if the quantity to be ordered exceeds by 50 per cent. the quantity specified in a contract a special quotation would be sought from the contractor.”

Mr. Ó Cadha.—It might be well, Mr. Chairman, if I read the condition of the contract to which I have referred:—

“It is to be understood that whatever quantity may be required of any item in the Schedule shall be ordered from the contractor, other than in any exceptional case where the quantity required at any time is so greatly in excess of that usually ordered as to justify, in the opinion of the Controller, withdrawal of the excess quantity from the contract.”

It seemed to me that the order for 5,000 copies was sufficiently in excess of the standard order of 800 to justify the application of this condition and probably a lower unit price. The Accounting Officer in his reply has said that in this case the cost of composition was not significant, that the main cost was in the other operations and that, accordingly, as the firm would be entitled to print 800 for which they had the type standing it was doubtful whether any useful purpose would be served in dealing with the demand in accordance with this condition. The procedure now followed provides that if the quantity to be ordered exceeds by 50 per cent. the quantiy specified in the contract, the printer is asked to quote a price for the total quantity required.

Mr. Carr.—At that time, it is true that the quantity required was 5,000 as compared with the quantity specified in the contract of 800 copies. In accordance with the condition which the Comptroller and Auditor General has read out, the firm would be entitled to the order for 800 copies. In any case, the cost of composition was not the most important cost in the production of the job, since once they had put the job on to run off 800 copies they could let the machine run for 5,000 copies. That would not cost the contractor very much, whereas, if you made a new contract there would be the additional cost of composition and the making ready and starting up of the job. We, therefore, did not think that we would get a more favourable price by giving this out to competition. I should like to point out, that as well as the condition which the Comptroller and Auditor General has read, there is a further condition which I might be permitted to read. Condition VIII(B) requires “the contractor to supply at the prices quoted in the contract whatever quantities may be ordered howmuchsoever they may fall short of the quantities usually ordered at one time.” If a contractor had to supply you with 100 copies at the same price even though he had contracted to supply 800, and if, on every occasion the Stationery Office were to take every little bit of fat out of a contract and go for its pound of flesh then, obviously, contractors would not remain interested in the work.

226. Chairman.—That seems very reasonable. The only point I do not understand concerns composition. It is a technical term and perhaps you would explain it to the Committee?—This particular job belonged to what we call a priced-item contract. We try to group into one contract as many forms as possible of a similar type. We pay a price for the composition, that is, the ordinary setting up of the type, and then we pay a price per 100 or per 1,000 in addition to the composition charge. The composition charge, of course, is paid only on the first supply because it is up to the contractor to keep his type standing. Then we get the benefit of the reprint rate and he gets the benefit of four or five productions after he has set up the type once. The setting up of the type is the expensive part of the job.

227. That is what I wanted to make clear. From your reply to the Comptroller and Auditor General it would look as if the composition was a minor part?—In this particular job, yes, Sir.

228. The fact that it was a minor part makes it look as if an outside contractor could very cheaply contract for the 4,200. I see now that what you mean is that there had previously been orders under this contract and the type was already set so that your composition charge was already paid?—The composition charge was already paid. In the case of the machining, once the machine is started up and runs for 800, obviously, if you allow it to run on to produce 5,000, the contractor who does that can do it cheaper than a man who has to incur the composition charge, make ready and start up his machine.

229. I am only asking you because it was not very clear why the fact of the composition charge being small should have that effect?—It should have been pointed out that it was the composition charge allied to the fact that the machining would have to be done for 800 in any case.

230. Deputy Bartley.—That stage is clear enough. The first condition is not too clear to me. Where the number ordered exceeds by 50 per cent. the standard requirement some new provision applies. What is the new provision exactly?

Chairman.—A cheaper rate can be sought.

231. Deputy Bartley.—The word “total” was used. Does that include the standard order or the original order placed?

Mr. Carr.—If I may explain what was actually done under the old condition. We will assume that in this case 800 copies are specified. The contractor is entitled to produce 800 copies. We had the right under the condition as it stood to withdraw 4,200 copies, the difference between 5,000 and the 800, and to go to separate tender for the production of 4,200 copies. The question then arose, are you going to do better by leaving 800 with the original contractor and going to separate contract for 4,200. Under the new system now, if the amount demanded exceeds by 50 per cent. the number specified in the contract we leave it with the contractor. If it is over 50 per cent. we ask him “at what price will you do it?”. If we are satisfied, we leave the job with him in the belief that it is fair to the contractor.

Deputy Bartley.—Do you ask his price for the extra amount or for the whole lot?—The whole lot. It is fair to the contractor for this reason that we make the contract on the basis of the cost of the contract as a whole. If we go taking odd items out, the basis on which the contract was made is departed from. That is our view.

232. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General also deals with Subhead G.— Printing, and reads:—

“I have inquired as to the circumstances in which certain special orders for printing work were placed at rates in excess of those which were apparently available under running contracts then current.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—There are three cases referred to in this paragraph. The first related to the payment of £98 for 3,000 copies of a form described as Form V.23 when the relevant group contract price seemed to be £22 5s. 2d. The Accounting Officer has informed me that the forms supplied were larger and contained more leaves than those provided for in the group contract. In the second case I questioned the payment of £265 for 30,000 books of Savings Certificates when the group contract price appeared to be £256 10s. 0d. I was told that there was a very restricted time for delivery of these items so they were not proper to an ordinary group contract. The third case related to the supply of 149,400 answer books for £410 17s. 0d., the cost of which under the relevant group contract seemed to be £318 13s. 0d. I was informed that the group contractor was in arrear with other work and it was assumed that he was not in a position to supply the answer books in a reasonable time.

233. Chairman.—We will take these separately, Mr. Carr. With regard to Form V.23, if the form required was larger and contained more leaves, why was it still called Form V.23? Surely it should have been called V.23 amended? —It ought to have been.

234. That is what led to the confusion? —That is what led to the confusion but sometimes—it did not happen in this case; it happened in the next case—the demanding Department alters the lay-out or the number of leaves at the proof stage. We include the item in the original contract on the basis of the existing form or book, whatever it may be. The Departments sometimes change it. Where the contractor looks for a higher charge and we are satisfied with that higher charge we include the amended form in the original group.

235. Chairman.—I see. You say that did not happen in this case?—It happened in the case of No. 2. I think No. 2 related to Savings Certificates. In the first case the number of leaves was greater than in the form which was included in the original contract and the contractor would have been entitled to a higher charge for that.

236. I take it this particular contract did not go out under group but as a special tender?—It went originally under group.

237. And it was then changed?—It was changed. At times it is a bit hard to know whether a contractor will or will not accept a particular order under a group. The form is similar to a form included in the group. The obvious thing to do is to try him. If he will accept it at the contract price, we benefit by it. If he objects, we have to consider whether he is justified and we may have to go out to special tender.

238. In the case of special tender, you do not restrict the tendering to the firm? —We include the firm but we go to three or four other firms as well.

239. With regard to the Savings Certificates, you were rushed in this case?— I think that was the fifth issue of Saving Certificates and when the demand reached us it specified that proofs should be available within four days. Such a restricted delivery date took the job outside the bounds of the contract altogether.

240. Chairman.—I think in fairness the Committee should understand that Mr. Carr is in the unhappy position of being between the upper and nether millstones —the Department pushing at one end and the printing trade pushing at the other. That is more or less what you suffer from?—We suffer a great deal from that.

241. What was the position in regard to the third case?—That was a case in which the particular firm, one of the biggest firms in Dublin, was in arrears with work. I referred to changes in the contract system in relation to the last matter. We had not got as many contractors doing our work as we have at the moment. A lot of the work was being channelled into the hands of a small number of the bigger contractors. Their work was very much in arrears, not through their fault but simply because of the volume of work that was being channelled to them. Now we have brought in a considerable number of provincial contractors and we spread the work out much better and get the work done easier and quicker. At that particular time, this firm, which is one of the best firms with whom we do business, were in arrears. It was not their fault. There was no use in asking them or sending the job to them.

242. It was assumed that they were not in a position. Were they in fact asked? —As a matter as fact they were over 100 orders in arrears.

243. Of course, you must have a certain amount of discretion in these matters. Otherwise there would be chaos.—If we were to hold up and wait until the 100 orders were cleared up, the Departments would not be satisfied, to put it mildly.

244. Chairman.—Paragraph 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General also deals with Subhead G.— Printing, and reads:—

“In paragraph 18 of the report on the accounts for the year 1949-50 attention was drawn to certain deviations from the approved procedure for placing contracts. I have inquired regarding some further departures from normal procedure which were noted in the course of audit.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It seems that tenders for five group contracts were issued on the same day, three for receipt on or before 16th September, 1952, and two for receipt on or before 23rd September. It was noted that the two sets of tenders due for opening on the 23rd September, 1952, were opened on 16th September. As a result, a number of tenders received before due date were not considered and details of these tenders were not submitted to the Government Contracts Committee. Some of these tenders quoted rates lower than the accepted tenders. The Accounting Officer stated that the officers dealing with the tenders through inadvertence assumed that the tenders for all five contracts were due for return on the same date, the 16th September, 1952. I understand that the facts have been reported to the Government Contracts Committee and that their covering sanction has been obtained for the original contracts. Again, a firm who had completed a contract for the supply of minute sheets at 2/- per 100 were not subsequently invited to tender for the supply of a number of items which included minute sheets, the successful tenderer’s price for this item being 3/6 per 100. The Accounting Officer informed me that the firm would not be able to undertake the work involved in this contract as they already held three other Stationery Office contracts. In reply to a supplementary inquiry as to whether the firm had been invited to undertake this additional work, the Accounting Officer stated that the firm had been slow in making deliveries in a number of cases, and were not satisfactory.

245. Chairman.—We will deal first with the opening of tenders before the due date.

Mr. Carr.—That was an unfortunate incident. I consider it was an isolated incident. I would like to assure the Committee that there was no departure from the undertaking which I gave in July, 1951, that correct contract procedure would be observed in the Stationery Office. It might be assumed or inferred from the reference here that there is something wrong in the Stationery Office and that we are not observing strict contractual procedure. I would like to assure the Committee that that is not so, that we observe strictly the contractual procedure laid down for observance by all Supply Departments. This was a question of the failure of the human element. The procedure before the incident was the procedure which is still being followed and is the normal procedure laid down. In this instance there were five long-term contracts due for renewal at about the same period. The officers responsible for making the contracts, quite naturally, decided that the new contracts should operate from the same date. Consequently, when the tenders were being invited it should have been specified on the tender forms that the dates for the return of the tenders would be the same in all cases. Now the officer who drew the specifications for the contracts specified the 16th September, 1952, as the date for the return of the tenders in the case of three contracts. He thought it well to have a different date for the other two and specified the 23rd September, 1952. Tenders for the five contracts were sent to 36 contractors on the 2nd September, 1952, and unfortunately a number of the contractors returned their tenders for both the 16th and the 23rd in envelopes dated the 16th September. To carry the comedy a little bit further, one of the officers opening the tenders on the 16th September happened to be the officer responsible for the making of the contracts. He saw the tender forms coming in in envelopes dated the 16th and knew it was intended that they would all operate from the same date and he put them all down as in time. Consequently, the tenders which came in on the 23rd were marked late, when in fact some of them were not late. The officer who prepared the case for the Government Contracts Committee was one of those connected with the making of contracts and as he knew it was intended that they should operate from the same date he also assumed that only the tenders of the 16th September were in time. The matter then went to the Committee and the Committee made their decisions on the recommendations of the Stationery Office. Subsequently, on the 20th May last the whole facts were reported to the Government Contracts Committee and all the tenders were specified. Fortunately they did not affect the original recommendations and the Committee confirmed its original decisions. There was an unfortunate failure on the part of the staff to observe and read the tender forms and to see that three were due on the 16th and two others on the 23rd.

246. Chairman.—Would it be fair to say that part of the mistake occurred on the side of the contractors by not putting their tenders in the correct envelopes?—Very definitely. There was one who returned his tenders in an envelope dated the 22nd September. There was further confusion when people just dealing with the files saw those and assumed that anything after the 16th was late.

247. The Comptroller and Auditor General has referred to the fact that some of the tenders which were not considered were lower than accepted tenders? —That is so. The official who drew up the specifications prepared a list of firms to be invited, and he included two firms who should not have been included because of unsatisfactory service in the previous year. They were not being invited to tender at that particular time. In fact they could not have done the jobs at the prices they quoted.

248. With regard to the second matter, were the firm who had completed the contract for the supply of minute sheets at 2/- per hundred, informed?—No, that is a different case. It is a good little firm here in town. It is a small firm. The first lot of minute sheets came in at a price which was extremely favourable for 750,000. When we got a price so favourable we asked them to do 1,500,000 because we knew we could not expect that price again. They agreed, and about one and a half years later we came to place an order for more minute sheets. The first firm unfortunately had in the interval got into our bad books. They held a couple of running contracts, as they are called, contracts including a lot of items, and they were in arrears with their work. We were not happy at that time to give them more work, and that is why they were left out on the second occasion. We were going to blacklist them. We had the senior partner in and told him that they would have to do something about it, and now they are doing quite all right.

249. The tender in question was for the supply of a number of items including minute sheets. Where you ask for tenders for a number of items, do you then take the lowest in each for separate items?— No, sir. The minute sheets are now included in a group contract which may include several hundred items. Each item is costed separately by the firm tendering and when the tenders come in we total up the prices and place the contract on the totals for the contract as a whole. That is why I said previously that it would not be fair to contractors if the Stationery Office were subsequently, when it suited them, to go and pick out of contracts certain items. It should not be done because the contract is based on the price of the total of all items included in it.

250. Yes, but fairness to the contractor could not be the only consideration. I am speaking now with knowledge of two local authority committees on which I served which considered tenders. In both cases the tenders were for a large number of items. The method used is to give contracts on the basis of the lowest quotation for each item. It works quite well. My worry would be that where you take it on a group basis there might be what is called a stuffed item, an item which is much too high.—That is so, but may I explain that under running contracts we place about 10,000 orders in the year and the only possible way in which the Stationery Office could meet the demands of Departments is to group into the particular contracts as many forms as possible that can be produced under those particular contracts. If we were to attempt to go and pick out individual items from the various lists and try to make a selection of the cheapest we simply could not carry on. You are, I think, referring to the official list issued by the Central Purchasing Department?

Chairman.—Yes.

Mr. Carr.—That is all right, but we could not carry on on that basis. Taking the Post Office alone, we supply the Post Office with about 5,000 different items. That is one Department alone. The only way we can deal with that is on the basis of getting as many of those items as possible into a group on a long-term contract. We could not go to tender, taking the Post Office alone, and select a number of items as the cheapest and make contracts with several people on that basis. If we did, a very big staff would be required.

251. It would increase your overheads? —Completely.

252. Do you watch for variations between tenders in respect of individual items and should a successful tenderer have a few items which seem very high compared with the same items in other tenders, would you make any objection? —Very rarely, sir, for this reason: very few of the printers have the same equipment in their offices and their prices are based on the equipment which they have. A firm that can produce a huge number of forms on a rotary machine has a tremendous advantage over other firms that have to produce on flat-bed machines. Some of the firms quote for individual items at production cost, or even below, knowing that if they get the contract as a whole they can make up the difference on more expensive items.

253. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—But could you not get the lower-priced items from each contractor?—Taking the case of the Post Office, we supply 5,000 items each year to the Post Office, and obviously we have to group as many of those as possible into the one contract. Otherwise the staff required in the Stationery Office would be too great.

254. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Apart altogether from that element of the acceptance of contracts, does it not seem strange that 3/6 was paid for an article that could be obtained from another source for 2/-. I understand one firm could do it for 2/-?—Yes, that was the previous supplier of about eighteen months before.

255. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Evidently 3/6 was paid for these articles which were obtained for 2/- from another source?— The reason why we did not invite No. 1 firm to tender—the firm that supplied them previously—was because at that time they were not satisfactory.

256. Deputy Desmond.—The 2/- was the rate charged previously a year and a half before that?—Yes, and it was an exceptionally favourable price.

257. Deputy Desmond.—Is it not right to say that if the first firm had been invited, their price might have far exceeded the 3/6?—It could have, because circumstances might have been entirely different.

258. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Is not 75 pre cent. a very marked increase during a period when there was not much variation in prices?—I agree, but it is not certain that No. 1 firm, eighteen months later, would have quoted prices they originally quoted—not at all certain.

259. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on certain matters relating to the issue of stocks of paper to printing and other contractors.”

Have you any further information, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The first question related to the issue of identical quantities of paper to a contractor against two orders, one for 7,000 and the other for 10,000 Savings Bank books. The Accounting Officer admitted that an overissue of paper had been made and was being recovered. On the question of the method of controlling issues, he stated that up to the early part of 1952 the paper required for the completion of an order was checked in the Accounts Branch. For a period in 1952 it was found necessary to reduce the amount of checking to enable payments to be made promptly to meet the insistent demands of contractors. During that period paper issues were not checked except in cases in which substantial quantities of paper were involved. The complete checking of paper in accounts examined by Printing and Binding Clerks was restored in June, 1952. The examination of accounts by General Service Classes was initiated about June, 1952. These officers did not check the paper at that time. In the Autumn of 1952 the checking of the paper by General Service Classes was introduced. In the second case, owing to a mistake in cutting paper for ration books it was necessary to purchase twelve additional tons to make good the supply while the paper wrongly cut was taken back into stock, and there was a loss due to additional wastage assessed at £27 8s. 7d. Again, a firm engaged in the printing of ration books, who had agreed to print 32 pages of the books on a sheet of paper and had been supplied with paper of a size to suit that number of pages, printed only 30 pages to the sheet to suit its own convenience. All the paper originally supplied had thus been consumed before the contract had been completed and an additional 90 reams of paper had to be issued. Before the printing of the remainder of the books had started, however, the balance of the contract was cancelled. The Accounting Officer has stated that all paper supplied to the firm, except 16 reams valued at £16 11s. 10d., had been accounted for, and that the firm had not made a claim for the printing of 58 reams of paper which they had carried out at an estimated cost of £116. I am informed that all the facts are being reported to the Department of Finance.

260. Chairman.—We have dealt with the question of the over-issue of paper. Admittedly, Mr. Carr, a mistake was made?—A mistake was made.

261. Chairman.—A reference was made to the early part of 1952 when some of the checks had to be abandoned. Had you special difficulties at that time?—We were in arrears in the payments of accounts at that time. We had very insistent demands from contractors for the payment of accounts. We had to consider whether it would be possible to ease off in the very detailed checking of accounts to which I referred previously, and on going into the matter, we thought that one of the ways would be in connection with paper. Prior to that, fortunately, we had had no trouble, and we thought we might take a certain chance and check the paper in the case of very long runs only when the accounts were being examined. The quantities of paper required were specified on the order. We thought that as the paper was checked at the time of issue, we would save time on checking accounts by easing off in the checking of the paper later. In this particular case, the Savings Bank deposit books, the Post Office increased the number of leaves at the proofing stage. The printers had been given the quantity of paper necessary with the original order. The contractors then said: “We want more paper to provide for the additional number of leaves as we have not a sufficient quantity of paper.” That was then issued to them. Subsequently they said: “We have not got enough paper,” and more paper was issued to them. Unfortunately when the account came, we were not checking on the amount of paper which it would be correct to issue to them. There were five reams involved, but there was really no loss as the paper has been returned. It is not likely to occur again. We have now a 100 per cent. check of the paper.

262. In the matter of the ration books, I suppose that the fact that rationing ceased further complicated the matter?— The difficulty really arose from the fact that the Department of Industry and Commerce had entered into a contract with Hospitals Trust for the writing of the ration books. That was on the understanding that the books would be available between two of the bigger races—the Derby and the Cambridgeshire, I think. There was a penalty clause in the contract that if the Department of Industry and Commerce failed to make the books available for whatever date was specified, a very substantial sum per day became payable to Hospitals Trust. The result was that there was a terrible scramble to try to have the books done. A meeting was held in the Department of Industry and Commerce at which representatives of all the printing firms involved were present, and they were required to arrange for production within a specified period. They did not meet the requirements of Industry and Commerce, and the representatives were asked to come together again and try to do better. A further meeting was held and both Industry and Commerce and the Stationery Office tried to impress on the printers the extreme urgency of the job. If the particular firm that did the job 30 up instead of 32 up, had asked our permission at the time we would have said without hesitation to them: “Yes, if you are going to get quicker production,” because Industry and Commerce were pressing us very strongly. Eventually the whole scheme was abandoned. There was a loss of paper from the fact that instead of producing 32 pages up they produced only 30 up. We went to the firm in regard to the matter and they said that they did it in the best interests of the Stationery Office, and we did not press it. Before we had cancelled the contract they had gone on printing some of the pages of the ration book and they did not charge us. The cost of printing was of the order of £116, and if we had pressed our claim for £16, they would have pressed their claim for £116, and they would have been justified. We, therefore, abandoned that claim, and we have asked the Department of Finance to approve of the abandonment. In the other case, the cutter who was cutting up the paper to suit the size of the various machines made a mistake. If he had cut the quantity which he was instructed to cut in the first instance, the Stationery Office would have got a certain number of pounds of paper. As a result of his mistake we got a smaller quantity of paper. The question arose then as to whether we should go after the firm, but the fact had to be considered that they undertook the job for us under extreme pressure. There was a lot to be said for their side. We put the case to the Department of Finance, but they have not yet given sanction.

263. Chairman.—What is the view of the Department of Finance?

Mr. Breathnach.—I cannot anticipate the decision to be made, but I think the case made by the Comptroller of the Stationery Office is a fairly reasonable one.

Mr. Carr.—There was an extreme rush at the time.

264. Chairman.—You cannot say what the loss to public funds would be?—The loss to public funds would be of the order of £27.

265. What relation does that bear to the total cost?—None whatever, not even in the case of an individual contract. We must have had about ten contractors at the time. Some of them had produced some hundreds of thousands of ration books, so the loss of £27 compared with all these contracts or even with an individual contract, would be a negligible sum.

266. Chairman.—We turn now to the details of the Vote. Arising out of subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances —how many people have you dealing with repairs to typewriters?—At the moment we have three employed. We have a foreman mechanic and two other mechanics.

267. Deputy Desmond.—In connection with subhead F.2.—Oireachtas Debates— is there any hope of a speedier production of the bound volumes? At present, I think there is a delay of well over twelve months?—I am afraid that is not in the hands of the Stationery Office. I think it is a matter for the Dáil Office. I am not trying to shelve responsibility.

268. I thought you were connected with it?—We make the contract with the printers, but the arrangements are made direct by the Dáil Office with the printers. Our job is to ensure that the official print is available to Deputies a couple of days after the particular Debates take place. They have to be edited, of course, and the arrangements for the printing are made direct by the Dáil Office with Cahill & Co. It has not been brought to my notice that Cahill & Co. have failed in their duties in any way, but I shall make inquiries if necessary.

269. Chairman.—I think the difficulty arises in connection with the indexing of the bound volumes.—In regard to that, there was some delay. We went after the printer concerned, and it appears that they had some difficulty with staff. As a matter of fact, we took the whole of the index from the letter M to the end away from them and we gave it to another contractor. I am hoping that the complete index will be available in October when the Dáil reassembles.

Chairman.—That is a different index. The difficulty is that the indexing takes place when the Dáil is in recess. That naturally takes time. It has nothing to do with your end at all.

Deputy Desmond.—I thought it had.

270. Chairman.—The index to which you refer, Mr. Carr, is the ten-year index?—Yes, the general index.

271. In connection with the subhead L—Appropriations in Aid—there is a very considerable ex-gratia payment, amounting to £1,300, referred to in a note on page 49.—That was in connection with the printing of the Telephone Directory. The printing of the Telephone Directory is carried out on a long-term contract. When the original contract was made with the firm to whom this money was paid, it was on the basis of the production of 80,000 copies of the Directory. The number of copies and pages increased very substantially subsequently. In fact for the current year the order is for 121,000 copies. The original quotation was based on prices then current but wages and everything went up very substantially subsequently. The firm made a claim for compensation for the increases in the size and number of copies. We thought it reasonable, and we put the case to the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance agreed to an ex-gratia payment of £1,300.

272. There was no price variation clause in the contract?—No, except in regard to wages.

273. The next note refers to ex-gratia payments to a contractor in respect of an error of judgment on his part in framing a tender. The additions are fairly considerable. What effect would they have had in comparison with the unsuccessful tenders?—It was for the printing of the register of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The contractor assumed that the copy for correction would be a printed copy with amendments pasted down. In fact, the amendments were supplied to him in manuscript. The compositor had to work from both the manuscript copy and the original printed copy to the type as set up. That slowed up the work. The contractor assumed he would get printed copy with corrections pasted down on the margins. The compositor would read that and work from that to the type. Instead of that, he had to work from the manuscript to the printed copy and from that to the type.

274. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Would not the contractor’s documents specify the requirements in detail so that there would be no room for an error on his part of that size?—It is not always possible. It was not possible in this case. We make a contract for the printing. It was between the Department concerned, the General Register Office, and the printer.

275. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Meantime, he might have an opportunity of ascertaining the other tender prices through one source or another?—He might not. After all, we are in a position to make a fairly good guess as to whether he would do that. If he attempted to do that, we would very soon put him in his place.

276. Deputy Desmond.—In dealing with these questions and having regard to your difficult position, no doubt it is essential to deal with these people on a fair basis?—Very often we have to invite a firm to come in and ask them to take on a job. That is happening at the moment in respect of a report which is due for production at the end of this month. Very often we invite tenders and get no reply. In this case we got one tender but for only a small portion of the job. I then rang up a particular firm which I knew was capable of doing the whole job and asked them to send a representative. The representative called, but he did not want to take on the job. I said that the report must be out by the 31st July, and I asked him to examine the copy and submit a tender. He agreed to do so. We have to do that at times. When you deal with people on that basis you cannot be too rigid.

277. Chairman.—In the case of these ex-gratia payments, you have to get the sanction of the Department of Finance? —Very definitely.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 29—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called and examined.

278. Chairman.—Paragraph 42 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead A.6.—An Bord Uchtála.

An Bord Uchtála was established by Section 8 (1) of the Adoption Act, 1952, to provide for the adoption of children. This Act came into operation on 1 January, 1953, under the Adoption Act, 1952 (Commencement) Order, 1952 (S.I. No. 380 of 1952), and provision was made by Supplementary Estimate for the remuneration of the staff of an Bord.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is for information. It is a new service.

Chairman.—We will now deal with the Vote itself.

279. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—With regard to subhead A.2.—Film Censorship —how many people are employed?

Chairman.—You will get that information in the Book of Estimates.

Mr. Coyne.—There is one Film Censor and one office assistant who is a girl. There are two operators—a chief operator and an assistant operator. From time to time a third temporary operator is employed. These are the people who work the apparatus. Then we have the services of a cleaner. There is really only one Film Censor and a girl who is a kind of office assistant. She does the correspondence, clerical work and general office work.

280. Chairman.—She does not see the films?—She does I am sure when they are worth seeing.

281. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—It is a whole-time job?—Yes.

Deputy Desmond.—And an amusing one.

282. Deputy Bartley.—With regard to subhead A.5.—Irish Legal Terms Advisory Committee—the money was not spent?—No. The explanation of that is that there are two secretaries normally, one of whom is an outside barrister who gets a salary of £400 for his part-time services. He was not called upon to render any services at all during the accounting period. Consequently, he did not earn his £400.

283. Chairman.—With regard to Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, you still have fees for nationality and citizenship certificates and documents of identity?— Yes. In accordance with your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, in the current Estimate we have separated these. These documents of identity are called for chiefly in the case of displaced persons of whom there are several thousand in Great Britain. If we allow them in here to reside permanently or semi-permanently after twelve months the British identity papers cease to be effective and we have to issue them with an identity paper. Nowadays, they are mostly central Europeans or Germans who do not want to take out German nationality. Some of these displaced German people will not now became German citizens even though they might. They remain stateless people. We allow some of them in here, and we have to issue these identity certificates if they stay over twelve months.

284. Deputy Bartley.—If they get identity certificates are they entitled to Irish passports?—No, the identity certificate is the international travel document that they have in lieu of a passport. Identity documents are issued only to people who are not entitled to passports.

VOTE 30—GARDA SÍOCHÁNA.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

285. Chairman.—With regard to the notes on this Vote, I think you might as well have left them out. They do not tell us very much more than the figures themselves?—We are talking about the Appropriations in Aid. Is that right?

286. Yes. There is one note which says that the “Estimate was too low.” That is a bit obvious on the face of it?—Yes, I suppose your observation is called for. Take the note, “Better price realised than expected.” That is a fair note.

287. That is not the one I am objecting to. The other notes just say that the estimate was either too high or too low? —Most of those items are conjectural and, as you say, we might as well have left them out. It is impossible to estimate exactly.

288. With regard to item No. 11, the amount is very considerable?—I will probably be able to explain that.

289. Apparently ex-members who rejoin the Force have to pay back the sums they got?—That is right. It was one of the items that explains the discrepancy between the estimate and the grant. The other big item was that we got an unexpectedly large intake for the loss of services of members of the Force injured. We got something like £1,700 for the loss of services of police involved in accidents.

290. From insurance companies?—Yes. We had not reckoned on getting it. As you see we readmitted to the Force a larger number of men than had been expected. On readmission, they have to refund the rateable deductions which they were allowed on retirement.

291. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—On explanatory note P.2.—Payments for Services rendered by the Garda Síochána—what sort of services would the Gardaí render for payment?—Football matches, athletic meetings. They are not under any obligation to render services inside private grounds. They are responsible for maintaining order in the streets and approaches to these places. In the case of an International game or other football match, the people in charge of the arrangements ask us to provide about one or two hundred police for services inside the grounds. We charge them for that. In fact, the demand is greater than the supply. Often we are asked for larger numbers of police than we are able to give.

292. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—With regard to fees for accident reports, where are these reports obtained—the Press?— No. An accident takes place and a policeman turns up in due course and takes statements from the witnesses of the accident. Then, the parties who may be contemplating civil proceedings apply to the police for copies of the statements the police have taken. They are supplied to the parties on both sides. We make a charge for doing that.

293. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—If newspapers pay for reports of such accidents, is the Guard entitled to that money for himself, as sometimes happens? Take, for example, a report of an accident published in certain provincial papers. Would the Guard be paid for it?—If I understand correctly what the Deputy is saying, what the Guard would be doing would be a disciplinary offence. If a Guard does such a thing he ought to be dismissed, and if there were evidence that he had done so, he would be dismissed. If the Deputy knows of such cases, he might let us have the particulars.

Chairman.—The Deputy only heard of it from somebody else.

294. Deputy Desmond.—May I refer to subhead D.—Locomotion Expenses. In that connection, there is a note to the effect that the expenditure under subhead D. includes a payment of £6 6s. to a furniture removal company for travelling to move the furniture of a member whose transfer had been postponed. Would it not have been possible to notify the firm of the position rather than to have them send the van out and then find that the man was not going?

Mr. Coyne.—I have not the particulars with me, but I shall send you a note* on the matter. I might say, however, that the fact that the expenditure was sanctioned by the Department of Finance predisposes me to believe that there was a satisfactory explanation for our having incurred it. I cannot give the Committee any explanation now because I have not particulars of the case with me, but I shall send a note on the matter.

Deputy Desmond.—The point is that, for all we know, the removal company might have been able to get other business in that area on the same day and they could, therefore, have been doubly paid.

295. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Is it usual for such expenditure to be incurred? My information leads me to believe that, when a Guard is being transferred to an area to which he does not like to go, possibly either himself or some relative uses influence—sometimes successfully—to get the transfer deferred. Possibly this is a case where, through influence, the Guard was able to hold on to his old position with the result that the transfer was postponed or cancelled causing this loss of £6 6s. to the State. Is that the position?—I can give the Deputy a most unequivocal assurance that the present Commissioner is absolutely impervious to the use of influence in the matter of transfers. I can further assure the Deputy that the internal management of the Force, including matters of transfers and discipline is vested by statute in the Commissioner personally, to the exclusion of the Minister for Justice or any other member of the Government.

296. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Surely, Mr. Coyne, you are aware that transfers are cancelled from time to time with resultant losses to the Exchequer as we see in this instance?—I am bound to say that I know of no case in which a transfer has been cancelled as a result of the use of influence.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Of course, it would not be stated as plainly as all that. Some other reason would be given, Mr. Coyne.

297. Chairman.—There is a note on page 78 in regard to subhead N. It concerns ex-gratia payments in connection with the recovery of stolen property from pawnbrokers. How does it arise?

Deputy A. Barry.—I suppose, Mr. Chairman, the pawnbroker is paid.

Mr. Coyne.—This particular case is an unusual one. I understand that the goods in question were pawned in London and, through the voluntary assistance of the pawnbroker, were recovered. We gave him £3 10s., feeling that he had deserved well of the public. No doubt, we got Finance sanction to do that.

298. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—There is no liability on the State to pay compensation to any pawnbroker except in the exceptional circumstances you mentioned?—Not that I am aware of. This is purely ex-gratia.

299. Deputy Desmond.—In that same note, mention is made of an ex-gratia payment of £5 in respect of the loss of a bicycle held in Garda Síochána custody. How did that arise?

Chairman.—I assume the Deputy is inquiring why the payment is ex-gratia. How does it arise that, if a bicycle is in the charge of the Guards, payment is ex-gratia when they lose it?—I am afraid I shall have to send you a note* on that. I assume that the police were under no liability in the matter. I just do not know the particulars offhand. I shall have to tell the Deputy the facts of the case. I assume that the Attorney General or somebody advised us that the police were under no liability in respect of the matter or we may conceivably have used the expression “ex-gratia” carelessly as meaning: “Without admitting liability, we are giving you £5.”

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—It would seem that there was neglect if this payment of £5 was made.

Deputy Desmond.—The opinion down the country would be that if you left your bicycle in the custody of the Guards it would be in the safest place in the world. Would you not agree, Mr. Coyne?—I shall have have to send a note on the matter.

300. Chairman.—With regard to the Garda Síochána Reward Fund for the year 1952-53, there is a note which reads:

“In addition there were, on the 31st March, 1953, sums held in suspense accounts payable to the Reward Fund amounting to £4,382 5s. 10d.” What are these sums?—I do not know the answer to the question offhand. Again, I shall look into the matter. The Fund is fed by disciplinary fines, sundry court fines, rewards and fishery cases, fees payable under the Weights and Measures Act and rewards in revenue cases. I shall have to send you a note* on the matter. I can only assume in respect of, say, fishery fees or revenue rewards, that it had not been finally determined whether or not certain sums were payable into the Reward Fund and that, pending determination of that matter, they were held in a suspense account. I do not know the precise answer to the question but I shall send a note on the matter.

301. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Might I come back again to the note in relation to expenditure under subhead N.— Incidental Expenses—and to the ex-gratia payment of £5 in respect of the loss of a bicycle held in Garda Síochána custody? Would it not be more appropriate if the Guards who had charge of the matter— if they were neglectful in any way in the discharge of their duty—paid this sum of £5?—Quite so—if a Guard was plainly negligent, if no worse, and if, in consequence of that negligence, the State had to pay £5. In such circumstances, the Guard ought to be penalised and compelled to pay.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—It is not so much the £5 as the principle which is involved. I think that, in circumstances of negligence, the Guard should be made to pay the £5. Is that not so?—The Deputy is proceeding on certain very large assumptions. He is assuming that there was negligence and that, if there was negligence, the Guard was not punished. I do not see that there is anything to justify these assertions. If the Guard was negligent he was punished.

302. If the State has agreed to pay £5 by way of ex-gratia payment, would you not agree that that warrants the assumption that the Guards were neglectful in the discharge of their duty?—And had not been punished? That is what I am asking the Deputy not to say.

Deputy Desmond.—I am not making any such charges until we receive the note.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—If these people are neglectful, I believe they should be made to pay and that the State should not have to do it.

Chairman.—That is, as the Accounting Officer has told you, the Reward Fund. It contains such payments by Guards.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—We should get the particulars.

Mr. T. J. Coyne.—I cannot give the information offhand but I shall send a note* on the matter.

VOTE 31—PRISONS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

303. Deputy Desmond.—Subhead A. refers to Pay and Allowances of Officers, including Uniform. There is a note on that subhead explaining the cause of variation between expenditure and grant. It explains that the expenditure under that subhead was £4,417 15s. 1d. less than granted by reason of saving due to vacancies. As that explanation is given in so many instances, I wonder if it would be possible to continue without filling these vacancies, thus saving on the Vote in general? That explanation seems to be running through all the way.

Chairman.—The Deputy will notice that the saving represents about 4 per cent. of the total subhead grant. In any Department, you are bound to have vacancies lasting a few weeks. Somebody leaves the Service for one reason or another and some time will elapse before the vacancy is filled. We must keep in mind the sum total of all the vacancies and not a vacancy which lasts over a period of a year.

Deputy Desmond.—Considering that that explanation is running all the way through, may we take it that where these vacancies are not being filled the work is, apparently, nevertheless being done satisfactorily? Am I right in assuming that the work is being done satisfactorily?

Chairman.—The Deputy can raise that on the Estimate.

Mr. Coyne.—The savings often result by reason of the retirement of a man who was on the maximum of his salary and his replacement by a man on the minimum of his salary. It does not necessarily mean that fewer men are employed. Actually, in this case, we had fewer men than in the previous year. Indeed, some of the posts were, in fact, retrenched. However, the saving-and it is one of the commonest ways in which it arises-may be that a man who was on his maximum is replaced by a man at a lower point in the salary scale.

304. Deputy Desmond.—On page 80, the note reads: “Savings due to vacancies.” I am interested in that word “vacancies.” Is the word not in the plural?—Probably we used that expression “vacancies” to cover savings arising as a result of the filling of vacancies.

Chairman.—I am very glad the Deputy raised the point because it underlines the danger of very abbreviated notes, which we are continually trying to impress on Accounting Officers.

Mr. Coyne.—We will take that to heart.

305. Chairman.—On subhead Q.—Appropiations-in-Aid—I notice that the receipts from the manufacturing department did not show a marked increase from those estimated. In the Vote for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs there was a very large excess over the estimate for mailbags and I would expect to find it reflected in your receipts. Do you know if the Post Office got all their mailbags from the prisons or did they place a contract outside?—I am told that the Post Office manufacture a lot of their own mailbags and that we supply only a proportion of them.

Chairman.—I thought that they got them all form the prisons.

306. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—What type of articles generally are manufactured in the prisons?—There is bag making, baking of bread-in the Mount-joy and Portlaoighise prisons-mat making, shoe making, weaving, tailoring, woodcutting, laundry work and in St. Patrick’s, a type of Borstal institution, there is carpentry. We do not manufacture for the public in general. We manufacture for the Post Office, as in the case of the mailbags, and we weave cloth for prison uniforms and blankets and things of that kind. We do not compete in the open market.

VOTE 32—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

307. Deputy Desmond.—On subhead B. -Travelling Expenses—what system of expenses is allowed for the “movable” Justices referred to?—There is an establishment of 42 Justices in the District Court, of whom 38 are permanently assigned to districts. A Justice permanently assigned does all his work, normally speaking, within his district. Four of the permanent Justices are not permanently assigned to any district and these Justices we call “movable”. They are liable to be assigned to assist in any district from time to time by the Minister for Justice. In fact, they are employed in relieving the permanently assigned Justices when they go on holidays or if there is an absence through illness or from some other cause. Unfortunately, the whole four of them are not available for that purpose because the pressure of work in the City of Dublin and in the adjoining county is such that we have to keep two of these “movable” Justices almost all their time in Dublin. One of them, Justice Fitzpatrick, is employed in the Civil Division of the Metropolitan District Court for practically his entire time and another is employed in assisting Justice Reddin in District No. 12 which includes County Dublin, simply because a single Justice cannot handle all the business there.

308. Deputy Desmond.—Between the “movable” Justices and the District Court clerks there is an increase of £600. How are the travelling expenses calculated for them?—All Justices get the same rate of travelling expenses, which is the highest rate payable to any civil servant. The reason there has been an increase is that they have done more travelling. The amount of travelling depends on the extent to which their services are required outside Dublin. We have had a good deal of illness in the last couple of years. A Justice may be ill or there may be special courts of one kind or another which necessitate travelling to a greater extent. That is actually what has happened. One of the special reasons for this particular increase was that the Chairman of the Adoption Board is a Justice of the District Court. We are not paying any separate chairman of the Adoption Board and during Mr. O’Donoghue’s absence in Dublin-his headquarters is at Athlone-one of the “movables” had to deputise for him for some prolonged periods and had to travel up and down between Dublin and his home.

309. I was not questioning any of that. I want to know how the travelling expenses were based. I think you said they are based on the category of the highest civil servant. That is what I want to know. I am interested in the travelling expenses?—The general Civil Service rule is that a man may travel first class if he uses the railway. If he is entitled to use his own car, as Justices are, he is paid the authorised motor mileage allowance, which is standard for the whole Civil Service and the public service generally. Anyone entitled to use a motor car is entitled to charge so much a mile.

310. Are they allowed a special rate over the Civil Service rate?—No. They are tied to the same rate. The only difference-in order not to mislead you in any way-is that in the case of a civil servant his use of his car might be questioned if public transport were conveniently available. We might ask him why he could not go by train or bus. We do not insist on Justices travelling by train or bus. It clearly would not be convenient for them to do so. At any rate, we thought it undesirable that in buses a Justice might be sitting between two fellows he was going to try.

VOTE 33—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

311. Chairman.—On subhead F.—Appropriations in Aid—you had a bad case of misappropriation?—Yes.

312. What sort of check is there over such officers. This presumably was money that was collected in cash. What sort of check is there over cash collections?—Very little was collected in cash. This was somewhat unusual. There were 25 cases amounting to about £100, concerned with defalcations in the equity account in the Circuit Court Office. Payments fall to be made out of the equity account to the various suitors or beneficiaries-usually people whose estates or moneys are temporarily or permanently under the control of the Courts and who are entitled to annual or period payments. Cheques are drawn against the particular equity account and are signed by the Circuit Judge and the County Registrar-they require two signatures—and should then be dispatched to the payee. In this particular case the officer concerned whose duty it was to dispatch these cheques simply wrote the payee’s name on the back and took it round to the bank and endorsed it himself as well and the bank paid him over the money. The bank did that on 25 or 30 occasions. There is nothing I can think of that would stop that. The bank, of course, were horrified when eventually the facts came to light and it will not happen again, certainly in Cork. The general check is that the moneys drawn on the equity account have to be signed by both the Judge and the County Registrar and there are the usual checks of various kinds, but there is no check that is effective against the dishonest person. The beneficiaries in this case would be bound to complain in a reasonable time.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—The man identified himself by signing the document.

313. Chairman.—It was stupid?—It was very stupid. It so happened that the chief clerk, who might have exercised a watchful supervision, was ill; he died three months afterwards-he was dying at the time. That contributed to the defalcation. We have recovered the money and have impressed on everyone the necessity of exercising more supervision. What is better still, we have strengthened the staff there and I think there is better supervision now. It is a very busy office. The County Registrar himself was a sort of Poo-Bah—he was the local probate officer, the local registrar in bankruptcy and the local registrar of title, and also the registrar of the Civil and Criminal Circuit Court. It was difficult for him to carry on. Now we have a first-class chief clerk, we are paying the accountant a slightly increased allowance and we have introduced another supervising officer. For all these reasons I think it is unlikely that there will be any trouble in the future.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—It was a rather costly method.

VOTE 34—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

314. Deputy Desmond.—On subhead F.F.—Losses-there is no Note. Could we get any information about the Supplementary Estimate for Losses?

Chairman.—As it was a Supplementary Estimate the information would have been given to the Dáil.

315. Chairman.—On subhead G.—Appropriations in Aid-have you made any representations to Finance on the subject of lunacy percentages going in as extra receipts, whereas bankruptcy percentages come in as Appropriations in Aid? There seems to be no reason why lunacy percentages should not go as Appropriations in Aid also. It is a long standing arrangement, I believe?—I do not understand the justification for the distinction. I will take it up with the Department of finance.*

VOTE 35—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

VOTE 69—DUND RUM ASYLUM.

Dr. W. J. Coyne called and examined.

316. Chairman.—Your farm does not appear to have been doing too well, Doctor. The receipts were down?—They were. We had rather a spot of trouble with getting a proper Land Steward and one was appointed but did not turn out too successfully. For two years things were slightly awry. However, we now have a new man under the title of Farm Foreman, and there has been a huge improvement since then, but I must say that for two years we were somewhat in the doldrums.

317. There has been an improvement? -A very definite improvement, but wheels have to go round slowly. It took some time.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Labhrás Ó Muirthe called and examined.

318. Chairman.—Paragraph 45 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with subhead A.2—Travelling Expenses—and reads:—

“I have admitted as a charge to this subhead a sum of £99 9s. 10d. paid to an officer of the Department in respect of travelling expenses and subsistence allowance for which supporting vouchers were not furnished. It appears that the vouchers were mislaid but a reconstructed claim was submitted by the officer concerned and the sanction of the Minister for Finance was obtained for the payment.”

Has the Comptroller and Auditor General anything to add?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Nothing further. A full note on this matter appears on page 96.

319. Chairman.—Do you find, Mr. Ó Muirthe, there is any particular difficulty in getting vouchers where a representative of a Department travels abroad, or is this unusual?—It is very unusual. Generally vouchers are returned by the officer concerned but it happened in this case that by some mischance they were mislaid and could not be found, so the officer reconstructed his account and I specially submitted the whole matter to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Department of Finance.

320. Chairman.—Paragraph 46 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with subhead B.2—Travelling and Incidental Expenses-and states:—

“The expenditure under this subhead includes a sum of £36 6s. 9d. in respect of a claim for travelling expenses for which supporting vouchers have not been furnished and which was calculated on a basis which had not been formally approved. In the circumstances I have requested that the covering sanction of the Department of Finance be obtained for the charge.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In this case I drew the attention of the Accounting Officer to the long delay in accounting for certain imprests. These imprests were quickly cleared, but in one case vouchers were not furnished for an allowance of £36 6s. 9d. for travelling. It appears that the car belonging to the officer concerned was under repair and he got a car on the “self-drive” basis—

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—Self-drive hire.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—and he was allowed the rate appropriate to the use of a taxi. I asked the Accounting Officer to seek the sanction of the Department of Finance and I have heard nothing further.

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—I am in correspondence with the Department of Finance in that matter and I hope to have the matter brought to a satisfactory conclusion shortly. It was an interesting case. This officer, really in the interest of economy-he has a good deal of travelling to do, as all inspectors have—when his car was laid up for repairs thought that the most economical method from the point of view of the Department was to get a self-drive car and use it instead of his own; but that was not allowed for in the appropriate regulations so it could only be met in accordance with taxi rates. It was unusual and probably will not occur again unless appropriate regulations are made to cover it.

321. The matter is still before the Department of Finance?—It is.

322. Perhaps Finance could tell us what is holding up finality?

Mr. Malone.—I suppose the real reason is that it is a rather involved case. A letter is actually issuing to the Department of Education; it will be out in a day or two.

323. Chairman.—When you say involved, it is reasonably clear that all that happened is that the officer attempted to use a much cheaper form of transport which did not happen to be provided for in the regulations?

Mr. Malone.—That is the trouble. It was not provided for in the regulations. It was a completely unusual case and we never contemplated for a moment that such a case would arise.

324. May I take it that, in effect, if he had used a taxi and produced vouchers showing he had paid taxi fares there would not have been any questions at all? It seems odd that some difficulty should arise because he used a cheaper form of transport than that. However, if there is a letter issuing from the Department of Finance on the subject I suppose we must wait until next year for the outcome of the matter?—I can send a note to the Comptroller and Auditor General when the matter is brought to a conclusion.

Chairman.—I think that would be better. If necessary, the Comptroller and Auditor General can advise the Committee in the matter.

325. Coming to the Vote itself, your explanation on subhead A.2—Travelling Expenses-is somewhat involved. It says that travelling was greater than anticipated: was there any particular reason for that?—Yes. You may remember that at that particular time, 1952-53, expenses were going up and the cost of living was going up and fares were going up in proportion.

326. Your note does not refer to fares? —Actually there was an increase in the fares and, in addition to that, there was more foreign travel by officers of the Department, and foreign travel is expensive. There happened to be more foreign travel in that year by officers of the Department attending the International Bureau of Education Annual Conference at Geneva.

327. Details of the Appropriations in Aid appear on page 96, and I am a bit intrigued by your note about the loan of four teachers from primary education?—That is for the purpose of the English-Irish dictionary. These were native speakers and were otherwise well equipped linguistically.

VOTE 40—PRIMAY EDUCATION.

Labhrás Ó Muirthe further examined.

328. Chairman.—Paragraph 47 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General States:—

“Subhead A.3.—Preparatory Colleges, etc.

The average boarding cost per student in the school year 1952-53 ranged from 17/5 to £1 2s. 5d. per week as compared with 15/-to 20/-per week for the previous year. The average fee paid by the students was £20 2s. 1d. as compared with £20 8s. 4d. for the previous year.

Accounts have been furnished to me showing the receipts and expenditure for the school year 1952-53 in connection with the farms and gardens attached to the colleges. Four of the accounts disclose deficits and two show excesses of receipts over expenditure. Periodical inspections of the farms are carried out by officers of the Department of Agriculture, and their reports are available to me.”

The only thing that attracts my attention is that the average fee went down while the average cost of boarding went up.

Deputy A. Barry.—Why should the average fee go down?—It is determined by a means test.

329. Chairman.—Paragraph 48 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

“Subhead D.D.—Ex-gratia Payments to certain Retired Teachers.

Paragraph 6 of the National School Teachers’ Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1950 (S.I. No. 180 of 1950) provides for the payment of large sums to primary teachers who retire with pensions on or after 1 January, 1950, the amount payable being calculated at the rate of one-thirtieth of the pensionable salary for each completed year of pensionable service, subject to a maximum of one and one-half times the pensionable salary.

It was decided during the year of account that former primary teachers, who were in receipt of pensions on 1 January, 1950, should receive ex-gratia lump sum payments, spread over a period of three years and calculated at the rate of one-thirtieth of pensionable salary for every completed year of pensionable service between 1 January, 1935, and 31 December, 1949, inclusive, and one-hundredth of such salary for each year of service between 1 January, 1905, and 31 December, 1934. It was subsequently decided that payment should be made in full in cases in which the amount payable did not exceed £50 and that in other cases, payment should be made in three equal annual instalments. The necessary financial provision was made by Supplementary Estimate taken in March, 1953, and the payments were regularised by the National School Teachers’ Superannuation (Amendment) Scheme, 1953 (S.I. No. 255 of 1953) dated 14 July, 1953.”

330. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Under subhead C.4.—Incidental Expenses-does that include a number of schools or only one or two?—Three or four schools were involved. When a school has been burned or is so bad that the manager has to find alternative accommodation for the children, or when a school is being reconstructed and might be dangerous for occupation by children during the course of reconstruction, the manager is exhorted and encouraged to find alternative accommodation. In a certain three or four cases that alternative accommodation was found sometimes in a house convenient with suitably proportioned rooms and sometimes in a hall and so forth; in that case on the application of the manager and with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, the Department pays about roughly half the cost.

331. Has the position rectified itself now?—Yes. The children are all back in the schools now.

332. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—On subhead C.6.—Grants towards the Cost of Heating, etc., of Schools and Cleansing of Out-Offices—does the allowance for the heating of schools cover the cost of heating in full?—It is only half. It is not meant to cover it in full; 50 per cent. must be provided by the local parties.

333. Which in many country districts are the pupils and their parents?—As far as we are concerned it is the management. We deal with the manager and managers ask the pupils to bring the turf.

Deputy A. Barry—I do not think you can do anything about that.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—It is a system that should cease.

Chairman.—The Deputy has a place in which to raise it.

334. Deputy Bartley.—Does the Department direct that the money be divided equally or in the proper proportions as between heating and cleansing?—There is a certain scale laid down—so much for heating and so much for cleaning, depending on the size of the school. We do not object if the manager pays more.

Deputy Bartley.—I do not think you would have much cause for objection anyway.

VOTE 41—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Labhrás Ó Muirthe further examined.

335. Chairman.—Paragraph 49 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

“Subhead A.1.—Capitation Grant.

Subhead A.2.—Laboratory Grants.

In the course of a test audit of the capitation and laboratory grants paid in respect of the school year 1951-52, it was observed that grants in excess of those payable under the rules were made to a number of schools. I have been informed that the sums overpaid have been recovered except in the case of one school in which recovery will be made by deduction from the grants payable in respect of the school year 1952-53. The relevant claims for payment bore evidence of departmental check and I have inquired whether the Accounting Officer was satisfied that the arrangements for the checking of the claims were adequate for the safeguarding of public funds.”

Mr. Ó Caahla.—The overpayments referred to were small in relation to the total payments from these subheads but, since the claims bore evidence of having been checked, I feared that these overpayments might indicate some lessening of the general standard of efficiency maintained by the Department. The Accounting Officer has informed me, however, that it is not so and that he is quite satisfied that the checking arrangements are adequate. He ascribes the overpayments to the inexperience of the checking officer who had been newly appointed to the particular job.

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—Newly appointed in that particular year.

336. Chairman.—I suppose you have to decide how elaborate your checking can be because otherwise you might have to pay more for checking than you would have to pay for actual losses?—If we had to impose a fool-proof system of checking, the cost of the checking would far outweigh the possible loss—at least ten times; but we have a system of checking, and now we have a spot check in addition.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is quite right.

VOTE 42—TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.

Labhrás Ó Muirthe further examined.

337. Deputy Donegan.—On subhead I. —Appropriations in Aid—what is the Church Temporalities Fund?—That is there a very long time. It is an old fund that came over from the good old days, and it was devoted to the purposes of education. You will find it not only in this particular Vote but in the Secondary Vote. It is really derived from the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland.

VOTE 43—SCIENCE AND ART.

Labhrás Ó Muirthe further examined.

338. Chairman.—Paragraph 50 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead B.1—Publications in Irish.

A sum of £2,500 was provided under this subhead for grants towards the publication of books in Irish by independent publishers, to be paid in accordance with conditions laid down by the Minister for Education with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The grants are disbursed by Bord na Leabhar Gaeilge, which was appointed for the purpose by the Minister for Education. Sums amounting to £2,440 issued to this body during the year are charged to this subhead. I have inquired whether vouchers are available in support of the charge and also whether the publishers to whom payments were made by an Bord had fulfilled the conditions attaching to the grants.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The Accounting Officer has submitted to me all the papers relating to this case, but I fear the accounting position is not very much altered. Vouchers have not been furnished in support of the final charge to the subhead of this sum, £2,440. Included in it is £700 which was issued on the 31st March, 1953, and, therefore, could not have been expended in the year of account. This sum together with any cash balance in the hands of the Board would not appear to be properly chargeable to the Vote. It looks as if the Department had treated this grant as a Grant-in-Aid not to be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—I should not like to go so far as the Comptroller and Auditor General in this respect. Bord na Leabhar Gaeilge is an independent Board consisting of eminent and reputable people, Irish scholars, and the purpose of the grant to them was to enable them to give aid to publishers willing to publish certain Irish books of literary merit which reached a certain standard. First of all they had to have 500 printed and 250 sold before the publishers got any grant. So far as we in the Department are concerned the money was available and paid over to them on demand.

339. Chairman.—On demand?—It was the Board’s money and they made their own arrangements in regard to paying over to the publishers all the relevant amounts. They satisfied themselves that the conditions governing the payment of these amounts were fulfilled.

340. Would you say that it was, so to speak, their money, thus bearing out what the Comptroller and Auditor General says, that the Department were inclined to look on it as a Grant-in-Aid rather than a grant?—The whole purpose of the amount was to encourage publishers and Irish writers to produce material of a high literary quality.

341. I still do not see what that has got to do with the payment of £700 on the 31st March with no vouchers to meet it?—I will have to make an inquiry into that to see what actually happened on that particular day, the very end of the financial year. I have some information on it and I think there must have been a little confusion. The Board, I believe, was to report to the Minister not later than the 1st May and I think they probably took it that the financial year went to the 30th April rather than the 31st March. I hope they will be better advised in future.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No vouchers have been produced for any of this expenditure.

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—I think we have submitted information to the Comptroller and General.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I received statements of the cash payments but they are of very little value.

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—It was a statement signed by the chairman and the secretary of the Board that the money had been expended in accordance with the rules.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It is not a cash statement. It is really a statement showing both the payments and the liabilities at the end of the financial year. As I pointed out, the Board could not possibly have spent the £700 but the greater portion of that £700 is included in the statement. The position at the moment is that I have seen no vouchers to support the charge of even £1 of the sum of £2,440.

342. Chairman.—I hope you will get this dealt with, Mr. Ó Muirthe.—I will obtain proper accounts showing how the money was expended within the year.

Chairman.—And vouchers. I understand even at the 30th April there was still a balance in the Board’s favour of over £200. All that should have been surrendered at the 31st March.

Deputy T. Lynch.—What publications did they subsidise or did they help to publish?

Chairman.—We can always get that information in a Parliamentary Question. I take it you will pursue this matter.

343. Deputy Bartley.—Does the sum of £16,000 in the Book of Estimates cover expenditure other than the moneys provided for Bord na Leabhar Gaeilge?— That is quite a different thing. That is part of the operations of what we call An Gúm.

Deputy Bartley.—There is a note headed “Subhead B.1” on page 117 of the Appropriation Accounts. I take it this £16,000 includes the sum of £2,500.

Chairman.—Yes. In page 222 of the Book of Estimates for the year ended 31st March, 1953, the sum of £16,000 is divided as between £13,300 for one item, £200 for another and £2,500 grant towards the provision of books in Irish by independent publishers. Therefore, the Estimate does segregate the amounts.

Deputy Bartley.—This money is not a Grant-in-Aid? Is that the position?

Chairman.—That is the point. The Comptroller and Auditor General considers that it is being treated by the Department as if it had been a Grant-in-Aid whereas in fact it is not. It is money provided under a subhead in the ordinary way.

Deputy Bartley.—Perhaps I am a little more ignorant than others in the matter. Would the Comptroller and Auditor General give us a short explanation of the administration of sums under these two headings, Grant-in-Aid and an ordinary grant?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—A Grant-in-Aid is treated as a final charge to the subhead or issue. It is not further accounted for. This grant is subject to all the rules governing ordinary payments from voted moneys. It must be accounted for.

Deputy Bartley.—I do know that for a very long time there were serious complaints about the interference—described as red tape—with the operations of An Gúm, and that publication was unduly delayed. This new method was introduced to obviate delays caused by red tape. If I am not correct in the letter I think I am correct in the spirit and it seems to me that the expenditure of the money has been in accordance with the spirit of the grant, whatever we may think of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s fulfilment of his duties in respect of it. However, there is one question which arises. There has been a controversy recently about the printing of books in London. Can that be tied up with the conditions governing the granting of this money?

Chairman.—I think, Deputy, that matter would be a question of policy to be raised in the Dáil.

Deputy Bartley.—Could we clear it in this way? Conditions for the grant were referred to here. I am not well informed on the merits of the dispute but it seems that the matter is topical. I merely want to see if in any way the position could be affected by the conditions governing the granting of this money.

Deputy A. Barry.—I understand this refers to a commercial transaction by a commercial firm.

Deputy Bartley.—Yes. This money has found its way to these commercial publishers. It is only since the granting of this money that this new development has taken place and it would not be extravagant to assume that the granting of the money may have, in fact, influenced the decision to go outside the country for the purpose of speeding up the production of the books.

344. Chairman.—I do not quite see what this has to do with the Committee, but perhaps Mr. Ó Muirthe could enlighten us on the point.

Deputy Bartley.—I think that the conditions governing the granting of this money have been referred to. The net point that I want to make is as to whether there is any condition touching in any way on the expenditure of the money outside the country?

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—The only thing that I know about this is from what appeared in the public Press. As far as I know, it has no relationship whatever with the Department. This firm, as far as one could gather from what appeared in the public Press, saw fit to use certain blocks for the illustration of children’s stories which have a circulation all over Europe. These were translations from little books that had been published for children with coloured prints to illustrate the text. I have no technical knowledge whatever of the process that is employed. I understand it is a very expensive business. As this particular firm had the blocks, the Irish firm was able to get them to use for illustrating the texts in Irish, at no great expense, because I understand they have a wide circulation in several languages in Europe. As I have said, I have no knowledge of this, but I do not think that these books could be described as of high literary merit. With regard to the matter that you referred to, Mr. Chairman, as to how we can get proper accounts furnished to the Comptroller and Auditor General within the financial year, I will look into that.

345. Chairman.—Paragraph 51 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to subhead B.16—Grants to Irish Colleges in the Gaeltacht—and reads:—

“A payment of £2,500 was made from this subhead to Comhaltas Uladh of the Gaelic League towards the erection of a hall at Ros Goill, County Donegal, to be used for the furtherance of the Irish language. The cost was originally estimated at £5,000 but I understand that the amount expended was £8,252 and that the Minister for Finance has approved of a grant towards the additional expenditure.

Also included in the charge to the subhead is £2,272, 7s. 0d. paid to Comhaltas Choláiste Múinteoireachta na Mumhan towards the cost of purchasing and adapting premises as a residential Irish College at Ballingeary, County Cork.”

346. We can now turn to the Vote itself. On subhead A.6—Fittings, Materials, etc.—there is a note which says that the saving indicated was due to high cost and scarcity of fittings and materials. Does that mean that you did not buy them?—Yes.

347. Deputy Bartley.—With regard to subhead B. 9—Production of Films on behalf of Government Departments—what is the position with regard to that?

Chairman.—That no films were produced for public Departments, I presume. If they are not asked for you cannot expect Mr. Ó Muirthe to go on producing them.

348. On subhead B.11—Centenary Commemoration of Thomas Davis and the Young Ireland Movement—when did the charges on this matter stop?—The charge there is the amount given to one of the artists who had prepared a full-scale model. I think that the actual cost of the statue was considered to be so high that nothing came of it. It may arise at some future date. At the moment, I think it is moribund.

349. On subhead B.13—Summer Courses in Music—there is a note which says that the excess is mainly due to payment of income tax on visiting professors’ fees for the previous financial year.—In connection with the Summer School of Music, we employ eminent professors from abroad. There is a certain standard fee which we pay each of these professors, but in our contract with these professors we have to pay their income tax as well. They like to have a net fee, and we have to pay the income tax in respect of the fee they receive.

350. Do they actually stay here for more than six months?—No, they are only here for about three weeks or a month.

351. I did not think that a person was liable for income tax here unless he was resident for longer than six months?— We have to collect the income tax on the fees they receive. Suppose a man gets a fee of £150 for three weeks, we have to add the income tax to that and collect it.

352. Could the representatives of the Department of Finance tell us how this happens?

Mr. MacInerney.—I do not know the exact position, but my impression is that a person coming here, who is not a citizen of the country, is liable to tax at the full rate on moneys paid to him or earned by him.

Chairman.—This probably arises from agreements between various countries in regard to tax.

Mr. MacInerney.—I can find out. What I have said is only an impression.

Chairman.—I think it would be well if you did find out something about it for us. There must be other people visiting here in connection with various other courses. It would be interesting to know the reason for this.

Mr. Maclnerney.—My impression is that income tax is deducted from any fees these people get.*

Chairman.—I am interested to know because this is the first time that I have seen it referred to.

353. As regards the Appropriations in Aid, and the various notes in connection with them, has there been no presentation made of the medal in memory of President Douglas Hyde?

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—No. No painting has been considered of sufficient merit so far.

VOTE 44—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Labhrás Ó Muirthe further examined.

354. Chairman.—Paragraph 52 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General relates to subhead F.—Appropriations in Aid—and reads:—

“In the course of a test check it was observed that sums amounting to £320 18s. 10d. which had been received as parental contributions during the year under review had not been brought to account and I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In the course of a test check of the parental moneys received and of the collector’s commission paid thereon, it was observed that sums amounting to over £320 which had been received in the Department had not been brought to account. The Accounting Officer has informed me that two officers of the Accounts Branch of the Department were charged in connection with the misappropriation of these and other moneys amounting in all to over £518. One of them, who pleaded guilty to misappropriating £117 and who refunded that amount, was given a suspended sentence. Sentence on the other has been postponed until the 30th of this month to enable him to make restitution in respect of £393 to which he pleaded guilty. Both officers have been dismissed from the public service. The defalcations have been fully investigated and a report is being furnished to the Department of Finance.

Chairman.—This was an unfortunate occurrence.

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—Very unfortunate.

355. Have you anything more to tell us about it?—It was one of those sad things which happen even in the best regulated society. In the Accounts Branch we had two senior, well-conducted and experienced officers with very good records, one acting as cashier and the other, who was a Higher Executive Officer, acting under the title of deputy checking officer. The real checking officer had been absent for a considerable period through illness and had, by arrangement, handed over his duties during his absence to his deputy. But, unfortunately, this deputy checking officer and the cashier acted in collusion. It probably started in a very mild way as all these things usually do. Over a period of years they were failing in making cash lodgments and when it came to these particular moneys the process they were engaged in was discovered. That meant a very long and thorough investigation with the results which Mr. Ó Cadhla has described.

356. Chairman.—These were cash receipts?—Yes, from parental sources and various other sources.

357. How long do you say this was taking place?—Some years.

358. Surely, where cash payments are involved the fullest possible check should be instituted periodically?—We have that.

359. There is a difficulty, of course, where there is collusion?—Were it not for the collusion it could not have happened.

360. Still, I think it should be taken as a general rule that where cash receipts are concerned particular care is necessary?—We have arranged for that. It is a thing that never happened before. When it does happen, you have to arrange that it will not happen again.

361. One case is still sub judice?—Yes.

362. I take it that you will communicate with the Comptroller and Auditor General as to the final outcome?— Certainly.

363. Chairman.—Paragraph 53 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General relates to Extra Receipts Payable to the Exchequer and reads:—

“Grants amounting in all to £40,000 were made from the votes for the years 1946-47 to 1950-51, inclusive, to a Teaching Order towards the cost of providing suitable accommodation for an industrial school. The project was subsequently abandoned and following the disposal of the property which had been acquired, the sum of £40,000 was refunded by the Order and has been brought to account as an exchequer extra receipt.”

364. We can now turn to the Vote itself. The savings on subhead A.—Reformatory Schools, subhead B.—Industrial Schools, and subhead C.—Please of Detention—are very satisfactory?—It is very satisfactory that these savings are possible. It shows that the position is improving. Incidentally, I might mention that the Extra Exchequer Receipt of £40,000 was due to the fact that this building which was to provide an extra industrial school was not required when it was built, which is a very happy circumstance.

365. Deputy Bartley.—But it was built and completed?—Yes.

366. What use are they putting it to now?—It has been taken over by the Order of St. John of God for subnormal children.

Chairman.—A very useful purpose.

367. Deputy A. Barry.—To go back to the grant of £40,000 for this building, would it not be possible in the forward planning of a Department like this, to prevent a project reaching the stage of being built without finding out that the need for it did not exist?

Chairman.—I think it took some time to acquire the property—did it not? And of course this was not the full cost of the building? The State was only paying part of it?—Nothing approaching the full cost.

368. Deputy Donegan.—Was the St. John of God Order to run the building in the first instance?—No, the Christian Brothers. This was originally undertaken during the war years when there was a considerable and understandable increase in juvenile or youthful delinquency with parents away in England and mothers not having proper control. When the building was nearing completion, however, it was found that the number of boys requiring to be detained in the interests of the public was not as great as was anticipated and the building was no longer required for an industrial school. But it was urgently required for the purpose for which it is now used. The other Order stepped in with, I think, the approval of the Department of Health and the building is now being used for the treatment of subnormal children. It was a fortunate development in a sense.

369. Chairman.—I presume you mean fortunate in the accounting sense?—Yes, because we would like to have no subnormal children but when you have them. you like to have accommodation to deal with them.

370. Some such institution was badly needed?—Yes, definitely.

VOTE 45—DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES.

Labhrás Ó Muirthe further examined.

371. Chairman.—I take it that this Vote will probably lead to greater notice in the future?—I am sorry I have to agree with you.

I think that disposes of the business. Thank you, Mr. Ó Muirthe, and may I say your Votes have shown very close estimation which is a happy circumstance.

Mr. Ó Muirthe.—Thank you.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix VIII.

* See Appendix VIII.

* See Appendix IX.

* See Appendix VIII.

* See Appendix X.

* See Appendix XI.