Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1956 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1954 - 1955

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé hAoine, 20 Iúil, 1956.

Friday, 20th July, 1956.

The Committee sat at 11.45 a.m.

Mr. Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. Seán Ó Buachalla and Mr. J. E. Twamley (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 37—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.

61. Chairman.—The Appropriations in Aid are very small, are they not?—Yes. It consists of an old fund of £1,060 approximately in 3½ per cent. Exchequer Bonds that was handed down to the Commissioners in 1816. The fund had originally been in control of the Protestant Archbishops of Dublin and Armagh for the purpose of providing a fund to recover embezzled charities. When the Board of Commissioners was set up their Graces decided they had no further use for the fund and they transferred it to the Commissioners. For a great many years—I should say for nearly 60 years— the annual income from this fund, amounting to £37 at the present time, has been paid to the Department of Finance as an Appropriation in Aid of the office.

62. You show a small amount under Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer. Why do we not also treat that as an Appropriation in Aid? A sum of £8 was realised. Have you any information on that point?—That is in connection with the recovery of overpayments of salaries. That amount was calculated to cover the additional costs of salaries. It was subsequently adjusted to £8.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Had anybody actually been overpaid?—I do not think so. I think it was just a paper transaction and that there was no difficulty about it. It was probably just a rough estimate.

63. Deputy Sheldon.—Do the funds that come under your charge continue to increase?—Yes. During the year ended 31st December last, our funds increased by £74,390. As a matter of fact, this year there is likely to be a very marked increase because, under a decision of the Supreme Court in New Jersey in regard to the estate of William J. Sweeney, deceased, the Court directed that the trust fund left for the erection of a library in Kilkee be left to the Commissioners. According to the judgment, the amount to be transferred is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 320,000 dollars. Incidentally, I should say that the Supreme Court of New Jersey paid a very high tribute to the Irish nation. I should like to quote from the judgment, with the permission of the Committee. It was delivered on the 13th June in New Jersey. Dealing with the arguments put forward against transferring the funds to Ireland, the Court said:

“The substituted co-trustees do suggest that ‘undefined international conditions’ pose the risk that the corpus may not remain invested in United States Government bonds. But apart from the fact that the proofs indicate that the Commissioners would continue such investments, the co-trustees do not indicate why other investments would not be equally sound. They conjure possible catastrophe for the charity if ‘in the future, by statute or otherwise, memorial libraries are forbidden in Ireland, or suppose all libraries are nationalised or suppose (the most unlikely) that reading in general is suppressed in that country’. These are admittedly most strained conjectures without the slightest evidential support. With far greater force we may take notice that the Irish nation will not so lightly forsake the traditions of freedom and the historic adherence to the free world standards which are as fervently held dear in Ireland as they are in our own country.”

I think that was a remarkable tribute to our country.

64. Deputy Sheldon.—What will your function be in the matter?—When the funds have been transferred to us, in all probability the Commissioners will apply to the Irish courts to settle a scheme to govern the future management and regulation of this charity in Kilkee. At the moment, they are concerned with accepting a transfer of the American securities and property comprising the trust.

65. Chairman.—Is there any account of your payments?—Yes. Our accounts are audited yearly by the Local Government auditors.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Why by Local Government?—I think it is an accident of history. When the Commissioners were originally set up, the audit was conducted by the Treasury Remembrancer. I am not sure of the status of this official, as he was before my time. Subsequently, by statute, the powers of audit were transferred to the Local Government Board who have continued them to this day. It is more by tradition than logic.

Does it work out all right?—It is a very satisfactory arrangement. The Department of Local Government also audit educational endowment schemes in respect of funds left for educational purposes throughout the country.

Would you not think that that should be for the Department of Education?— I should prefer that Department to deal with this question.

Does a certain section of Local Government deal with your accounts?—Yes. Local Government auditors audit the accounts. We furnish an abstract of the accounts to them prior to audit and they go through every payment and every financial transaction carried out by the Commissioners.

Is there an additional charge on Local Government because of auditing the accounts?—I do not know. We pay them nothing. We are a charitable body. We pay nobody.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It is a statutory duty.

Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Martin.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 29—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called and examined.

66. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—With regard to subhead A.1.—Headquarters Staff—what is the explanation for the sum of £3,495?

Chairman.—There is a note in connection with that subhead. The saving in that case was due mainly to retrenchments.

67. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the subhead A.2.—Film Censorship—might I ask how is film censorship carried on when there is no film censor?—The Minister is authorised to appoint a deputy to act as film censor. The present incumbent is an officer of the Department who has considerable experience in this connection. He has done this work before. He endeavours—and I think he has succeeded —to give satisfaction.

68. Chairman.—The question I desire to put is connected with subheads A.2.— Film Censorship—and A.3.—Censorship of Publications.—Has there been a large increase in the number of films and publications for censorship?—We must distinguish between films and publications. So far as I know, there has not been any sizable increase in the number of films submitted for censorship in the year we are talking about. The increase on subhead A. is due to the fact that we had to provide for the salary of an adviser which was not provided for in the previous year. There was a new film censor appointed about that time. We do not breed film censors in this country and there is no recipe for making a film censor. We considered it more prudent that the new incumbent should have the advice and assistance of his predecessor. Consequently, the excess is mainly in connection with the salary of the adviser.

With regard to the censorship of publications, there was an increase in the volume of publications examined this year, mainly these paper-back publications. I think they are produced either directly in America or in England under licence. They are mainly American publications—cheap paper-back publications that are—if I may make a generalisation —more apt than any other kinds of publications to emphasise unduly sex and crime. The Board felt they ought to make an effort to examine a greater number of such publications. We had to provide them with additional assistance to do so. The limiting factor in the censorship of publications is, of course, staff. It is impossible for the Censorship of Publications Board to examine more than a proportion of the output of fiction, without going into other sorts of publications. To spread the net wider, you would have to greatly increase the staff but our objective is a reasonably modest one. This particular year, as a result of complaints received about this type of publication—the paper-back publications—we recruited extra staff to assist in examination. The Board itself, of course, had to read the publications. The preliminary examination is made by the readers on the staff.

69. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Is every one of these publications read thoroughly or are they taken haphazardly? Say a particular author has written a book, is every one of his books examined? It strikes me that to do so you would require a gigantic staff?—The Board have always said they read in full all the publications they ban.

70. There are some publications that should be banned and I do not know how they ever got in. Is there a system of reading every type of book?—They could not possibly do that. Having regard to the number of publications produced in the country and imported, they could not possibly read all such publications. They confine themselves to the examination of publications in respect of which specific complaints have been made to them or which are referred to them by the customs authorities. There is provision in the Censorship Act which authorises customs officers to refer to the censorship books they think the censorship ought to examine. A large number of books are referred to the censorship in that way. In addition to these books, there are other books which are the subject of complaints by members of the public to the censorship and they examine these books. I thought the Deputy was asking a sort of technical question as to whether the Board read the books they examine in full. They have always said they did. I do not suppose that that means that every member of the Board reads every book. It may be that that is so but, in general, you may take it that the Board does read the books completely before it prohibits them.

71. The actual books read completely are those referred to the Board by this screening body or the books referred to it by the customs people under the authority of the relevant Act?—Yes, that is right. The books which the Board reads and examines are such books as they receive complaints about or are referred to them by the customs authorities. There are a great many other books some of which some people would think objectionable which are never examined by the censorship at all. If all the books in circulation in this country or imported were to be examined we would want to have more censors than we have staff in the Department of Justice. It would be an enormous job.

72. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead A.5—Irish Legal Terms Advisory Committee—would you tell us what the total cost to date has been of this Committee?—I have not that figure and I could not give the information offhand, Deputy. I will have to get a note of it.

Part of the cost of the Committee is under subhead B.—Travelling Expenses. I imagine that the greater part of the cost would come under that heading?—Are we talking about the Irish Legal Terms Advisory Committee?

Yes. There are travelling expenses under subhead B. It is provided in the Estimate but I doubt if they do any extensive travelling. What is the provision in the Estimate?— It is quite small. The Committee in the Act of 1945 consists of certain specified people. A paragraph is tacked on to the subhead which provides that other persons may be nominated.

I was wondering whether on that account its expenses had been widened?— My impression is that for some years the amount of work which this Committee had to do was relatively restricted and that the back of the thing has been broken. The saving we have here is due to the fact that we have not had to retain the services of a second paid secretary. That raises a presumption in my mind that merely a single secretary would suffice and that probably the volume of work has fallen off considerably. I had positive information of that some time ago. If the Deputy wants to know exactly what we spent up to date and have some idea of all the expenses incurred in travelling I would have to have notice of that.

73. In the present year subhead B. provides £30 for travelling expenses. I presume that as regards this Committee, that there will be finality to it, that it will not go on for ever? Surely legal terms are not the sort of thing that new ones keep cropping up that require Irish versions?— Well, as a sort of lawyer, I think there is an almost unlimited field. I think they have set themselves, sensibly enough, a fairly modest objective of devising Irish versions of the legal terms in most common use and they are in no hurry to go beyond that until they see to what extent their work is of practical utility and is being used. But I think there would be a very wide field if they were to seek to devise equivalents for everything. The number of expressions, even in statute law—or perhaps chiefly in statute law— which acquires technical significance after a very few years is enormous because law proceeds on the basis, as you know, that when one particular form of words has been interpreted in a certain way, that interpretation is given to it by successive courts, and I think this is a thing that grows, the legal terminology. It is not something that when it is done, it is done with, but I think this Committee. sensibly enough, are going very slowly. I think that is the general answer to the inquiry.

74. Chairman.—The details of Extra Exchequer receipts are on the bottom of the page. Receipts under this head, Mr. Coyne, are double what you anticipated. It this exceptional?

Deputy Sheldon.—I think at one time you expected this to disappear?—I just want to see the particular point we are on.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—At the bottom of page 84, Nationality Fees?—I am sorry I am slow in getting to the point. Yes, it is the particular fee in respect of nationality you are talking about?

Chairman.—Yes?—I never expected that fee to go down, you know, because Irish Citizenship, despite emigration— or, perhaps, because of it—is becoming more and more popular and it is likely to be still more popular as a result of recent legislation where we have adopted the principle that people may have dual or multiple citizenship. The explanation in this case, broadly speaking, is that twice as many people applied for naturalisation as in the previous year—not quite twice. The fee we took in the previous year—the year we are considering is 1954/55. In 1953/54—I am sorry now, my explanation is ill-founded, and I will have to qualify it by something I will say in a minute. I find I am looking at the note I have that in 1953/54 the fees taken in respect of nationality were almost exactly what we took in the year in question.

In other words we received £1,084, whereas in the year we are dealing with we received £1,080. We only estimated for £500. In the previous years, as you see, we had taken £600 and £700, and we took, apparently, the mistaken view that the figure £1,084 in 1953/54 was abnormal and to avoid inflating the estimate we cut it by half. Obviously, we were mistaken in our calculation and overdid the cut.

75. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—On A.6. —Excess due to Employment of Additional Staff—was the additional staff necessary because there were more applications for adoption?—That is right. That is broadly speaking the explanation, and I think we may have appointed investigators in that year. We certainly had to provide additional staff, anyhow.

VOTE 30—GARDA SIOCHANA

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

76. Chairman.—Paragraph 49 of the Report of the Controller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“49. The results of a local audit carried out by my officers were generally satisfactory. But having regard to the increase of the transport fleet in recent years I have inquired as to the adequacy of the arrangements for the storage and periodic stocktaking of transport stores.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—My inquiry referred to the control of certain spare parts for motor cars, stocks of which have tended to increase with the increase in the number and variety of transport vehicles. I am satisfied that the more valuable items such as tyres and batteries, tool kits etc., are adequately accounted for, but the records of other items were not kept up to date and a record of stocktaking was not available. The Accounting Officer agrees that the present system can be improved. He has informed me that steps have been taken to use existing accommodation to better advantage by some structural alterations pending extension of the stores. More compact records are to be introduced and more comprehensive stocktaking than heretofore is to be undertaken.

The Comptroller and Auditor General’s comment relates only to a small section of mechanical stores. Are your general stocks very large? Uniforms for example? —Yes. The largest individual store is apparently the clothing store, that is to say, made-up uniforms. The reserve of cloth itself I think is kept by the Post Office. We purchase cloth with a view to making uniforms but the cloth, before it is made up, is stored by the Post Office. We have, apparently, as one might suppose, a large clothing store, but apart from the fact that we are carrying out the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General with a view both to improving accommodation and improving the method of accounting and stocktaking—actually there is in process at the moment an investigation by some British or Scottish efficiency experts, Messrs. Urwick Orr, who are inquiring, among other things, into the possibility of instituting a simple cost control system of records for the car maintenance services. They are investigating the staffing of the police offices in headquarters and in the divisions and they are also specifically going to investigate the cost control of maintenance depots so that with both these measures being taken I hope that the Auditor General will find no further cause for complaint in the future.

77. Deputy Sheldon. — How many transport centres has the Department?— You see, the main depot is in Dublin. There is another depot in Cork and then recently we have been providing a number of cars at district headquarters. There are always cars at divisional headquarters. These cars, so far as I know, are garaged and maintained locally in the division or in the district. I do not think we have any depots outside Dublin and Cork.

78. But the Department does store petrol in various Garda barracks for the use of State cars and so on?—Yes, it does.

79. How is the accounting for that done? Is that done locally by whoever is in charge of the barrack?—Literally, I do not know but I take it as a matter of course—I understand that the petrol is bought in reasonable bulk from local garages. They simply send us the bill. That explains the purchase of the petrol. Each driver who is entitled to draw on this petrol has to enter his withdrawals in a log book and there is a counter check by the man issuing the petrol. It seems to be all right.

80. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—On subhead E.—Clothing and Equipment—it is a big figure over the amount granted.

Chairman.—The excess is stated to be due to delay in delivery of uniforms and increased purchases of cloth. To what extent were you affected by the delay and what was it due to?—The real excess was due to our buying a larger quantity of cloth than is usual in any particular year in order to restore our reserves of cloth which had run down. We allowed the reserve of cloth to run down. You would find, if you looked back to an earlier year—I think it is 1951-52—that we had practically no expenditure on cloth then because we were using up a substantial reserve we had on hands. Then, we let the reserve run down and there was some delay in securing sanction to replace the reserve. We ourselves were responsible for the delay because we held our hand as we were seeking to get financial sanction for providing a better type of cloth. After that, we got sanction to provide a better type and then we built up our reserve again. It is necessary to have that reserve; otherwise you would be left without uniforms at the beginning or end of the financial year. The bulk of that is due to this building up of the reserve. I have a precise figure, £50,000, which is in respect of the reserve. The balance is due to the delay in delivering uniforms.

81. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — On subhead F.—Furniture, Bedding, etc.—the note says the saving was due to delay in deliveries. What was the reason for the delay?—The bulk of the actual grant was intended, as is indicated, to cover the cost of providing furniture and bedding and other items such as floor covering, and so on, for some of the barracks which are very poorly furnished at the moment. We were not able to secure delivery of the articles we required and were left with this large sum on hands.

82. Do you know the reason why you were unable to get delivery? Some of the barracks are in a bad way and leave a lot to be desired.

Chairman.—That could be more appropriately raised in the House on the Estimate. We are inclined to wander from the accounts.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Could I have information as to the reason for the delay in delivering the furniture and bedding, etc.? Was it lack of material or lack of supplies?—I cannot give you precise information. It is the Board of Works that provide us with these.

83. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead H.— Transport and Carriage—why were fewer vehicles bought? As far as I know the Dáil has always been pressing for more mobility and the Guards have been asking repeatedly for more police cars to be put on the road. Why, having set out to do that, did you not do it?—There is always a conflict between the desire of the police and ourselves to have more cars and to have more cars with small mileage and the desire of the Department of Finance to secure all practicable economy and to get as much life as possible out of the existing cars. There is room for difference as to when the useful life of a car comes to an end and the Department of Finance are sometimes inclined to put it at a higher mileage than we are inclined to do. There is a certain amount of horse trading in these transactions and we came to the conclusion that in the interests of economy we should make do with some of the older cars for a longer time. We have done that with the result that we have secured that saving.

84. It does not mean you would be having fewer vehicles than you desired but that they were not of the type you desired? I would have taken it from the Vote, which showed a very considerable increase for the purchase of transport, that the Dáil had agreed that it would be desirable that the Guards should have more motor cars and motor bicycles for the discharge of their duties. The Estimate on that particular item went up from £29,000 to £46,000 that year. Perhaps you were not tough enough with the Department of Finance? — Various parts of our original programme were abandoned. We originally contemplated supplying cars to certain districts which, in the event, we left without cars for the time being. We also, in particular, proposed to buy certain types of small cars and we decided, on further examination, to substitute 19 Consuls, a larger type of car, in replacement of a greater number of small cars. The object was to secure economy, if it was an economy, by postponing purchases of additional new cars in that year. You can always squeeze another 10,000 or 20,000 miles out of car but it is questionable whether it is sound economy, and that is what we argue about.

85. Chairman.—On subhead J.—Medical Expenses—the medical expenses on this subhead seem very high, over £5,000 for allowances and over £3,000 for medicines. With a young force newly recruited one would expect a fall in costs?—There is a fairly high incidence of sickness in the Force, much higher than you would expect since, as you say, they are recruited from young, physically fit men. I do not know what the answer is. So far as I know medicines are only paid for in respect of the Dublin Metropolitan Division. You are not complaining of the excess there? It is only a trifling amount. The estimate is fairly accurate and would be dead accurate but for the fact that it is not possible to estimate precisely the cost of remunerating these medical officers who are paid on a fee-by-visit basis. You can estimate exactly in respect of those who are paid a kind of retainer. However, I think the estimate was accurate.

86. On subhead M. — Compensation— what was the cause of the big increase in compensation? — This subhead is quite conjectural but in the compensation for damage and injury from accidents in which police vehicles were involved there was a sum of £1,600 more than we estimated for. What the explanation of that was I do not know.

Deputy Sheldon.—Probably from having to keep on the older vehicles instead of getting new ones. Blame the Department of Finance?—It was simply one bad case where a sum of £1,600 was involved.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Was it an old car?—I have no particulars on that.

87. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—On subhead N.—Incidental Expenses—what type of advertising does the Department do? The increase is somewhat large?—The principal source of expenditure was that there were two lots of recruiting advertisements for the admission of new recruits to the Force, and for the first time we advertised in provincial newspapers extensively. Formerly we only advertised in the principal daily papers.

Chairman.—On that point, and a very good one made by Deputy Mrs. Crowley, do you think it is strictly necessary to advertise in provincial papers for recruits?—It seems to me not an unreasonable thing to do. Local patriotism puts a certain pressure on us to begin with; secondly, we draw most of our policemen from rural areas and it does not seem an unreasonable thing to do. It was a departure and in relation to the entire Vote the amount involved is trifling.

The original intention was to spend £500 on it. What actually did you spend? —We spent about £1,500.

That was three times the original provision. Could you say roughly how many papers you advertised in? — I could not give you the number but we restricted advertisements to papers with a circulation of 7,000 or upwards, which is a sizable enough circulation for these local papers. I can give you fuller information if you would like me to write you a note.

Chairman.—No, thank you.

88. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—On subhead O.—Local Security Force — surely there is no Local Security Force at the moment?—No.

I presume this item relates to the emergency Force and that the provision is retrospective?—Yes. It relates to certain allowances to the families of former members of the Local Security Force. There is also provision in this for surgical and medical treatment. In fact the expenditure we incurred under this subhead was £50 less than we anticipated.

89. Chairman. — On subhead Q. — Appropriations-in-Aid—of which there are details on the following page, is this an agreed figure?—Apparently there is a sort of scale applicable to each specific article. If the article is lost, so much is paid in respect of it. That appears to be the system.

90. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — There is an item here for licences for car park attendants. The amount is small—£4. That seems very small in relation to the large number of attendants in Dublin.

Deputy Sheldon. — This item does not cover licences. My recollection is that this sum is not properly chargeable at all to these persons?—I am afraid you are only too right.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—How do you manage to collect even £4?—That sum was formerly payable under a regulation which has ceased to be in force. In order properly to answer the question I would need notice of it. It is a complicated matter. There are certainly more attendants in the city than are covered by that figure.

There is one to every five yards?—It appears there was a regulation in force compelling all of them to be licensed, but it is no longer in force.

91. Deputy Sheldon.—In the note at the bottom of this Vote there is a reference to payments for driving licences in Northern Ireland. I understand this is no longer payable, that there is an arrangement that our licences will, in future, be accepted in the Six Counties and that theirs will be accepted here?—I was not aware of that.

If it is not so, I have been driving illegally in the North for some considerable time. I was not asked to purchase a Six Counties licence there. My adviser tells me we are still paying for licences for police officials though it does not appear we should be.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—They have not refused the money in the North?

Deputy Sheldon.—My understanding is that if you ask for and pay for a licence you will get it, but that there is an arrangement between the two sets of authorities under which the purchase of a new licence in either area is not necessary?—I am not aware of that arrangement.

VOTE 31—PRISONS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

92. Chairman.—Did you not close two prisons?—We recently closed them but that would not be reflected in the accounts for the year under review.

93. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead B.— Victualling—have you got a figure for the average cost per day per prisoner?—I can give you an annual cost figure, which is £36 13s. The figure for the previous year was £34 11s. The figure has been going up slowly since 1951 when it was £28.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—I take it this figure covers long-term prisoners and that it represents the over-all cost of maintenance?—That figure covers the over-all cost of maintenance of each prisoner. It is an average, taking all prisons together. The cost of maintenance of a prisoner in Mountjoy, for instance, might be higher or lower than that for a prisoner in Portlaoise. They are all taken together and an average made out. There is a lot of information relating to the costs in the different prisons in the Annual Prison Report.

94. Chairman.—Under subhead B., you told us last year you bake your bread in prisons. You appear to produce it cheaper than commercial bread?—I should like to have notice of such a question.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Could you let us know later?—Certainly.*

95. Under subhead J.—Fine Fund— could you tell us what the item for fines represents?—Strangely enough, I do not understand this myself. I do not understand why it is made a matter of accountancy at all, or why it is included in the Estimates. What appears to me is that if police force members are guilty of disciplinary offences they may be fined. The fines are subsequently appropriated for the benefit of the force. When the amount of the fines is received they are paid into our accounts.

96. Is this item not dealing with prison officials?—Oh, yes. I am terribly sorry. I thought we were still dealing with the Garda Síochána. This is a statutory regulation. The figure is made up in the same way as the figure under the same subhead of the Garda Síochána Vote. If officials are guilty of disciplinary offences they are fined and the amount is paid into the Vote. It is subsequently paid out to some benevolent fund attached to the prison officials.

Deputy Sheldon.—I take it the money would be paid out for such items as compensation?—That is so.

97. Chairman. — Under subhead M.— Maintenance of Prisoners confined in District Mental Hospitals—what is the duration of your liability in respect of these prisoners?—In respect of criminal lunatics transferred to district mental hospitals, or prisoners unfit to plead, or prisoners found guilty but insane, or prisoners found unfit to plead, this liability continues during the whole period of the person’s detention. The liability continues for the duration of the sentence only in respect of prisoners found to be insane while serving sentence. That, I think, is the answer to the question.

98. Deputy Sheldon.—I think subhead P. — Manufacturing Department and Farms—is of some interest. It gets mixed up with receipts from the manufacturing department, and with demands for mailbags from the Post Office. We had this before, if you remember. The Post Office Vote showed a saving in that they did not purchase as many mailbags as they had anticipated. Would that have arisen because of some lack of liaison between the Post Office Department and your Department? — A note I have here will perhaps throw some light on the matter. I know our accounts are right. I have not followed the canvas of which the mailbags are made to its ultimate destination. My note says that it was found that prisoners were able to do more work than was provided for in the matter of mailbags and that, in order to keep them employed, more canvas and other materials was purchased. The extra materials were bought towards the end of the year in question and the increased expenditure is not, therefore, reflected in the subhead receipts. That may be the answer.

99. Deputy Sheldon. — In other words you are concerned more with keeping the prisoners employed than in the question of the supply and demand from the Post Office for mailbags?—Precisely.

At least you have the compensation that here you have higher production than you anticipated.

VOTE 32—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 33—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

100. Deputy Sheldon.—What was meant by “reorganisation scheme” for the Circuit Court?—From the establishment of the State the Circuit Court offices were staffed in a makeshift way. We took over the staffs from the former staffs of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace, most of whom were the personal employees of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace and for years we had under consideration a proper staffing scheme which would result in suitable gradings and allocation of duties and provide for an established staff. In the meantime we made do with all kinds of temporary clerical assistants. The temporary clerical assistants are much less costly than the permanent staffs would be. We had hoped to be able to effect the reorganisation earlier than it was in fact effected.

101. Chairman.—On subhead C.—Incidental Expenses—where do you advertise? —There would be advertisements about the sittings of the court and, I suppose, in respect of certain court proceedings. I do not suppose the advertisements in connection with the lists of jurors would come in there. They are paid separately, I think.

102. Do you advertise in provincial papers?—I think so and only in provincial papers in the case of the ordinary Circuit Court.

VOTE 34—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

103. Chairman.—In regard to subhead E.—Costs and Expenses of Services under Section 55 of the Court Officers Act, 1926—this amount is recoverable from the income of the estates controlled by the court?—In general, yes. I hope I have not misled you here—not the provision in the Vote. In general, the expenses of the General Solicitor for Minors and Wards are recoverable from the estate of the wards, but in certain other cases the Registrar has to incur expenses for medical visits and sometimes legal expenses that are not recoverable in all cases.

VOTE 35—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

104. Chairman.—In regard to subhead C.—Compensation for Losses payable under Section 22 of the Registration of Title Act, 1942—there were no claims in the year?—No. We rarely have claims. There used to be an insurance fund and then that provision was altered by the law and we now, so to speak, carry our own insurance. But, it is very rarely that they make mistakes involving the State in expenditure.

VOTE 36—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 54—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.

Leon Ó Broin called and examined.

105. Chairman.—On this Vote there are notes by the Comptroller and Auditor General at paragraphs 90 to 94 of his Report, as follows:—

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

90. The losses borne on the Vote for the year ended 31 March, 1955, amounted to £3,436. A classified Schedule of these losses is set out at page 176. At page 178 particulars are given of 34 cases in which cash shortages or misappropriations amounting to £2,059 were discovered; the sums in question were made good and no charge to public funds was necessary.

Stores.

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

In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix II as valued at £2,419,068 on 31 March, 1955, engineering stores to the value of £24,362 were held on behalf of other Government Departments. Stores other than engineering stores were valued at £749,238 including £238,481 in respect of stores held for other Government Departments.

Revenue.

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

The net yield of revenue for the years 1953-54 and 1954-55 is shown in the following statement:—

£6,610,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year, leaving a balance of £441,336 at 31 March, 1955, as compared with a balance of £390,673 at the end of the previous financial year.

Sums due for telephone services amounting to £2,469 were written off during the year as irrecoverable.

Post Office Savings Bank Accounts.

93. The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31 December, 1954, were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results. The balance due to depositors, inclusive of interest, amounted to £76,967,779 on 31 December, 1954, as compared with £71,056,613 at the close of the previous year. Interest accrued during the year on securities standing to the credit of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund amounted to £2,655,954. Of this sum, £1,842,919 was paid and credited to depositors in respect of interest, management expenses amounted to £176,577 and £636,458 was set aside towards provision against depreciation in the value of securities.

Post Office Factory.

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

Including works in progress on 31 March, 1955, the expenditure on manufacturing jobs during the year amounted to £58,973, expenditure on repair work (other than repairs to mechanical transport) to £39,882 and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs to £10,908.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—These five paragraphs are for information. They contain no adverse comment.

106. Chairman.—You are satisfied about the position in regard to subhead H.2.—Losses by Default, Accident, etc.?

Mr. Ó Broin.—Yes. Actually we were rather lucky in 1954-55. The losses amount to a normal figure. The largest single item was only £225.

107. Chairman. — On paragraph 91. There is a big increase in the value of stores held for other Government Departments under both heads. What is the reason for this?—Our Department, of course, has no control over the amount of the stocks held for other Government Departments. We simply buy as requested by the other Government Departments who pay for the stocks as soon as we obtain delivery and our money, of course, is not involved. It is true, as you say, that between 1954-55 and 1953-54, there has been an increase in the amount of both engineering and non-engineering stocks held by us for other Departments.

108. On paragraph 92. The receipts from these services show an increase of approximately £500,000 on the previous year. Did the Post Office make a profit for the year 1954-55?—I do not think so, Sir. I do not think we have made a profit in the Post Office for quite a number of years. We are always hopeful, however.

109. Deputy Sheldon.—I do not know whether it is a fair figure to take or not, but the difference between these receipts and the net expenditure on the Vote is about £750,000 but, then, the Vote does account for services that are not really recoupable. You could not fairly say the Post Office made a loss of £750,000?— No. If you simply compare revenue with expenditure the loss, of course, is greater than the loss we show on a commercial account basis. When we take credit for services for other Departments the picture looks somewhat better.

110. The difference in the receipt of revenue and the amount paid into the Exchequer is roughly about three weeks’ takings. I take it there is bound to be a time-lag?—Of course, we are in the hands of the Department of Finance as to what we actually pay into the Exchequer. We do not actually pay in every penny. We always keep a certain amount back. They tell us what they want from us from our revenue for Exchequer purposes.

111. In paragraph 93 there is reference to £176,577 management expenses. What is the relation between that figure and the amount of £149,165 in the Appropriations-in-Aid — Receipts from Savings Bank Funds. Are the receipts in the Appropriations-in-Aid these management expenses?—I am afraid I have not quite got the question. Would the Deputy mind repeating it?

Deputy Sheldon. — The management expenses of the Savings Bank accounts, I took it, would be paid to the Department. They seem to me to bear some relationship to the item.

Mr. Ó Broin.—I think I explained on a previous occasion that those figures do not relate to the same set of four quarters.

112. Chairman.—On subhead A.2.— Metropolitan Offices. There is a decline of £14,500 on Telegraph services. Is this service to die out in the course of time? —It would be difficult to say at this stage that it will die out altogether. It has been declining over a number of years and our action last year was deliberately designed to reduce the user of the telegraphs and at the same time to reduce the rate of loss.

113. Deputy Sheldon. — The drop in receipts was only £2,000 but you managed to cut £14,000 off your expenses, so that really you are a little better off?—Yes. The situation is still better in the current year.

114. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—On sub-head E.1.—Conveyance of Mails by Rail. The explanation says: “Saving due to anticipated increase in traffic not materialising (£27,500), to fall in outward traffic to Great Britain (£3,500), and to introduction of departmental motor services in lieu of rail conveyance of letters (£1,450).” Have you any reason to anticipate such a falling off? — On parcel mail conveyance there was a saving of £31,000. That was due to some extent to a fall in the outward parcel traffic to Britain because of the improved food situation there and also to over-estimation. When the Estimate was being prepared, an increase in the inland parcel maximum weight from 11 lb. to 15 lb. was impending. A guess had to be made, but the additional traffic attracted was not quite so high as we had visualised.

115. In regard to the other part of the explanation—the introduction of departmental motor services in lieu of rail conveyance of letters—what was the result of that?—You can take it we would only take on a service of that sort when we were satisfied we would do it better and more economically than C.I.E.

116. Chairman. — On subhead G.2.— Uniform Clothing. There is a saving of £19,250 due to reduction in stocks as a result of the change in the design of Post Office uniforms. How would the change in the design of Post Office uniforms bring about a reduction?—Actually, we allowed the old stock to run down before we got on to the new uniforms.

117. On subhead H.3.—Incidental Expenses—how much is due to advertising? —The note says it was mainly due to deferment of the savings publicity campaign.

118. What was the cost of advertising? —Actually, in that year we did not, I think, carry out a savings campaign. We reported to the Department of Finance in 1953 on the campaign which had concluded and sought authority for a further campaign. Later on, at the Estimate stage, we reduced by half what we had asked for but, in the event, the sanction sought not being given, our plans for a continuance of publicity were deferred. We got sanction for the subsequent year, but in that year 1954-55 there was no publicity campaign.

119. Is that the only type of advertising you do?—Yes, usually, but I happened to see only the day before yesterday some new material, apart from Press publicity, hand-outs and that sort of thing, that has been prepared in connection with this new effort.

120. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—On sub-head L.3.—Contract Works—the note says a saving was due to the postponement of certain works and to anticipated contract accounts not coming within course of payment. That is said to account for a saving of £54,753?—I have not got any particulars of those works, but you can take it that from time to time problems arise which make it necessary to postpone the actual doing of a particular job. I have not got with me particulars of the precise works which were postponed.

I suppose we could get them? This is a considerable amount of money?—Yes we can give you particulars certainly.*

121. On subhead Q.2.—Provision and Installation of Equipment and Operating and Maintenance Charges, Rent, etc.— this is again due to a deferment of work. On this Vote alone there is a total of some £86,000 due to deferment of work? —Our administration is bound by international agreements to provide the best available safety equipment. We have to make substantial provision every year in anticipation of various matters in relation to that. In the course of the year it is not always found necessary, for one reason or another, to spend that money. That is the reason we spent less than was granted.

122. Is it a question of protective works?—The air organisations agree internationally on certain devices and we have to keep up to these minimum standards.

123. And you did not find it necessary in this particular year?—I do not know what the precise works were. Everything necessary is done, but we avoid any expenditure we possibly can. That is our principle.

124. Deputy Sheldon.—On the introduction of the supplementary estimate Mr. Ó Broin anticipated savings on certain subheads. Would that cover some of the points raised by Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll? The Dáil was informed it was proposed to do less?—I assume that is so. We combed the Vote to see what we could postpone for one reason or another.

That meant that the Dáil gave permission for these things?—Yes.

125. Chairman. — On subhead T. — Appropriations-in-Aid—heading (6) deals with the rent of post office premises sublet in respect of which we realise £1,100 in excess of the estimate. The explanatory note says the excess was due to refund of property tax in respect of premises leased from this Department proper to a previous year (£1,330); offset by the taking over of premises for official purposes (£230). Is it the position that the tax is deducted by the lessees, paid out to the Revenue Commissioners and refunded by them to the Department?—I have no information about that at the moment. If the Deputy wishes I will send him a note. *

126. On heading (14) — Miscellaneous receipts—how does the rebate on petrol arise and what rebate do we get?—If the total quantity of petrol purchased in the year exceeds a certain prescribed amount a rebate on the price per gallon is allowed. This is allowed to other large purchasers as well; it is not confined to Government Departments. It is a long standing arrangement.

127. Deputy Sheldon.—On the registration of parcels, is there a separate figure in the Department for the receipts from fees paid for registration?—No.

VOTE 55—WIRELESS BROADCASTING.

Leon Ó Broin further examined.

128. Chairman.—Paragraph 95 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead A.—Expenses of Broadcasting.

95. A sum of £18,623 was transferred to the Vote for Posts and Telegraphs in recoupment of the cost of certain stores, mainly valves, purchased in previous years as an emergency reserve for the broadcasting service. It appeared that some of these stores were obsolete or in excess of requirements and I have inquired regarding their disposal.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have been informed that this emergency reserve was purchased in the years 1951/1952, 1952/1953 and 1953/1954. Stores to the value of over £15,000 are obsolete or surplus to requirements. This sum includes over £12,000 worth of stores purchased for a short wave transmitter which was not put into regular service. Efforts have been made to dispose of these stores, but the prospect of disposing of them at a reasonable price appears to be remote.

Mr. Ó Broin.—That is our view too. As the Comptroller and Auditor General says, the sum involved for the spares for a short wave transmitter was over £12,000. The only prospect really of getting any reasonable return for those spares is if we succeed in selling the short wave transmitter and the spares with it. At the moment I am not too sanguine that we shall be able to do either of these things.

129. Deputy Sheldon.—As a matter of interest, where does this figure of £18,623 show in Vote 54?—I understand it is brought in as a credit under sub-head K.

130. Chairman. — On subhead B. — Equipment, inclusive of Labour—how do you control your stock of musical instruments?—In the ordinary way the smaller instruments are purchased by the instrumentalists themselves. Out of the equipment provision in the Vote we purchase the larger instruments, such as pianos, organs, electrical orchestral tuners, harpsichords, as well as percussion instruments, tympani, tubas, double basses, contrabassoons and D trumpets. These things are taken into stock and carefully controlled, of course, and made available to the instrumentalists as and when they are required.

Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Ó Broin.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. N. McGrath called and examined.

131. Chairman.—On the Appropriations in Aid, what are the agency services performed by the Government of Ireland?— They are mostly British Government services. One of them is Leopardstown Hospital. We provide an office in the Custom House for medical examination in relation to British pensions. That is the main service.

VOTE 25—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.

Mr. J. N. McGrath further examined.

132. Chairman.—To what extent was the scale of fees increased?—50 to 75 per cent.

133. What are the miscellaneous receipts and to what do they amount as a breakdown?—We will send you a note about that. * I cannot tell you off-hand.

VOTE 26—ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. J. N. McGrath further examined.

134. Chairman.—On the Appropriations in Aid, are the maps sold from the Stationery Office or direct by the Ordnance Survey?—They are sold through the Stationery Office; we sell some in our own office and some are sold in the Ordnance Survey, too.

135. What were the miscellaneous receipts referred to?—We will have to send you a note about that also.*

136. I notice that under extra receipts payable to the Exchequer a sum of £1 has been brought to account: that seems to be going to extremes in accounting?— It is only 15/-. It covers lost stores. It is a payment by members of the staff for items of equipment lost by them.

137. Could it not be included as an Appropriations in Aid? — I think that would be a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—There would be an appreciable saving if small receipts of this kind were treated as Appropriations in Aid where there is an Appropriations in Aid subhead. The present practice certainly does not tend to reduce the volume of accounting.

Deputy Sheldon.—It is a pity there is nobody here from the Department of Finance. We could have asked their opinion.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix VI.

* See Appendix VII.

* See Appendix VIII.

* See Appendix IX.

* See Appendix IX.