Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1958 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1956 - 1957

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 1 Bealtaine, 1958.

Thursday, 1st May, 1958.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Mr. P. S. Mac Guill, Mr. J. F. Maclnerney and Mr. S. Ó Buachalla (Department of Finance) called and examined.

VOTE 64—DUNDRUM ASYLUM.

Dr. W. J. Coyne called and examined.

224. Chairman. — I see you are doing very well with your receipts from the Farm and Garden? — Yes.

I see you are feeding a few pigs? — We have given up the pigs. We found they did not pay. It meant keeping a man specially to look after them. We used to have patients who looked after them but these patients have now died. The result was that it meant keeping a man specially for the purpose. The Accountants found we were losing money by keeping the pigs, so, since this year, we sold them.

Deputy Lynch. — You have swill? — It goes out now by tender.

What does that make? — The tenders vary from about £1 to a guinea a week.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 46—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Mr. Brinsley MacNamara called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called and examined.

225. Chairman. — Subhead C. relates to the preparation of Irish vocabularies. What is the total vote on that subhead for? — It has been there a long time. We used to have a committee to collect technical vocabularies. Irish words for terms in various subjects, for example history, geography, science, and so on, and we used them to put these in booklet form so as to assist the schools to teach these subjects through the medium of Irish. We published a number of such booklets and we were continuing to collect words but, in the meantime, we were going on with a dictionary which is now nearing completion. We had a great many words. We had reached such technical school subjects as woodwork, and so on. We threw our collections into this large dictionary which we hope will appear before the end of the financial year. In the meantime we left this token vote there in case we might at some time want to bring our committee together again to make any special collection of words relating to a particular subject.

VOTE 40—PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

226. Chairman. — With regard to subhead C.1. — Schools: Salaries, etc., of Teachers in Classification Schools and Grants to Capitation Schools — a point arises in connection with our examination of the Vote for the Office of Public Works. As will be seen at Questions 376 and 377 of the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts in respect of the year 1955-56, page 75, the following information was sought by Deputy Jones from Mr. Fagan, Commissioner, Office of Public Works, in regard to the provision for building national schools. The relevant quotation from page 75 of the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the 24th October, 1957, is as follows:—

“376. Deputy Jones.—In regard to subhead B., is there any itemised statement in relation to national schools as there is for Garda stations, for instance?—We do not list individual schools as we do Garda stations. That has not been the practice and we have never been asked to do that.

Chairman.—It is taken in globo in the schedule?—Yes.

It is the local parochial authority who really builds the school?—Yes. As a matter of fact the large schools are all built by them. They employ their own architect and the bulk of the grant, or the major portion so far, has been for what we call “managers’ cases”.

377. Deputy Jones.—I was interested in discovering how the grants go in the various counties.

Chairman.—I can assure the Deputy that Mr. Fagan is only too anxious to give any information the Deputy wants. Would it be possible to ascertain the counties which received grants out of this £1,041,000 spent in 1955-56?—It would be possible to do that, but it would be a very big task. There are a lot of schools. We arrange for the plans and the approval of plans. In some cases we build. As you said, Mr. Chairman, the managers build in a lot of cases. It is the Department of Education which allocates the grants.

Chairman.—Perhaps Deputy Jones would let the matter stand this year. If he thinks it is desirable to secure such a segregation, we can raise the matter on the Department of Education Vote.”

I wonder if you, Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh, could give us the information which Deputy Jones wanted on that occasion? Can you tell us how the grants for national schools were allocated with special reference to the counties where the grants were made? Perhaps, Deputy Jones, you would explain to Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh exactly what information you wanted?

Deputy Jones. — The sum of money allocated each year for the building of schools contains naturally the amount of the cost of building and what portion goes, we will say, to administrative costs in the line of planning, and so on. I was interested to know what number of schools were completed in any county and the amount of the grant—the amount of money which was provided by the State towards the cost of that school. Actually, I was not concerned with the larger schools so much. I wanted to get the information as to how, in counties, the sum of money available over the State at large was distributed. I wanted to know what was the allocation as between the larger schools in the populous centres and the rural types of schools in the counties? —For a particular year, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman.—Certainly. It would be with reference to the year 1956-57.

Deputy Jones.—In general I raised it on the Vote for the Office of Public Works because the expenditure incurred on Garda stations was listed, county by county. I thought, at that time, that the same information would be available in regard to other buildings carried out by the Office of Public Works and that each county would be listed.

Chairman.—It seems to me that if the Committee wants information regarding the specific grants that were made in respect of each national school in any given year, the Committee is entitled to have it. I imagine the information is in your Department, Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh, rather than in the Office of Public Works. Of course, if you have not the information here at hand could you conveniently give us a list of the national schools for the building of which grants were made in this year of account, showing the grant authorised in respect of each school in each county in this year? —Well, yes, Mr. Chairman. We have to find the information. If we take a particular year, we may give a false picture. You mentioned the grants made and the grants authorised, and it is very difficult to sort out these things. We may authorise a grant for a school now, but the school might not be built for two or three years, and the building of it might extend over a couple of years as well; and even when it is built there is still some money left over, because the Office of Public Works naturally waits six months or so—perhaps more or less—to see whether the job is a good job or whether it reveals any faults afterwards.

I think the only figure you could give with any degree of certainty as relating to a particular financial year would be the grants authorised?—Authorised, yes.

Chairman.—Would that meet with your requirements, Deputy?

Deputy Jones. — Yes. It was just to bring it into conformity with what appeared in relation to the Department of Justice at the time?— Yes. The figures in relation to actual expenditure on the school are figures in the possession of the Office of Public Works. They actually spend the money. We authorise it, so we could give the figures authorised in a year.

Chairman.—The name of the school and the amount authorised in respect of it in the financial year 1956-57?—County by county?

Deputy Jones.—Yes?—Very well, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—You will let us have a note of it? I sometimes am rebuked for saying to an Accounting Officer, “I would be grateful for a note at your convenience” as it is sometimes said to me that Accounting Officers interpret that very widely; but I have such complete confidence in you, Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh, that I have no hesitation in employing that form with you?—Very well. We will do our very best.*

Chairman. — Does that meet your requirements, Deputy?

Deputy Jones.—Yes.

227. Deputy Carty. — On subhead C.5, there seems to be a very large increase, over 100 per cent., in the amount estimated for the free grants for schools requisites. I can say as a teacher that I saw none of that in my years at school. I wonder would it be in connection with new schools?—It applies to new vested schools. It covers the provision of equipment for those schools—blackboards and chalk, and, I think, maps and other school equipment of various kinds. I think the Deputy means that there was a large saving there, larger than might be expected in that year. Perhaps I could explain that. The rates of grants were quadrupled as from the 1st April, 1956, and therefore, provision was made in the subhead for 1956-57 for £1,300 or four times the average expenditure during the two previous financial years. That is how we got the estimate. The number of claims, however, was less than anticipated and the expenditure was somewhat less than twice that of the previous year—it was only twice instead of four times. But the expenditure in 1957-58, the following year, was £1,454 as against an estimated £1,300. This would seem to indicate that in 1956-57 managers were not fully aware of or alert to the fact that the grants had been increased. They seemed to tumble to that in the following year.

228. Chairman.—What is the difference between a vested school and an unvested school?—A vested school is, to put it very simply, a school towards the building of which the Department contributes. It is vested then in trustees and the Minister’s name is also in the deed. The idea is that in the deed it is laid down that that school must be kept open as a national school as long as the Minister requires it to be kept open. If the school is non-vested, it is simply a private school or at least the building is privately owned, but we pay the teachers. The manager could close the school, he could sever his connection with the Board at any time if he chose and we would have nothing to say in the matter. It arises from old historical reasons. In the beginning of the National Board system, the schools were there already, very many of them, and they were owned by the local patron or manager or somebody of the sort and they may have been connected by them, or the school manager, with the Board on certain conditions. Sometimes in those days the manager found he could not fulfil the conditions imposed by the National Board. For example, the National Board insisted on utter and absolute undenominationalism, even when the school was 100 per cent. of a particular denomination. The managers sometimes—very often—a hundred years ago felt that they could not conscientiously carry on the school under those conditions and they simply carried on themselves and severed the connection with the Board.

Would I be right in saying that this is a small and disappearing category of school?—Yes, Mr. Chairman.

229. Deputy Carty.—Into what category does the Model School fall? Are Model Schools vested or unvested?— There are very few Model Schools left now and we try to get rid of them at every opportunity. They were built entirely by the old National Board about a hundred years ago and they were vested in the Board itself. The arrangement at the moment in regard to them is that there is a joint managership between the Minister and the local religious authority, whatever that may be.

Chairman.—These schools referred to at subhead C.5., they are old landlords’ schools, are they not? At one stage there was one outside the demesne gate of Lord Dillon’s demesne?—Very often they were, but as a rule the old landlord-manager liked to bring the school under the Board and to vest it. The remnants of the non-vested schools are schools which for conscientious reasons were not vested and so did not come under the condition that they must be kept open once they had entered into the deed.

Chairman. — Does that clear up your query?

Deputy Carty.—Yes, Mr. Chairman.

230. Chairman.—On subhead C.7, this is the Irish Language Grant?—Yes, Mr. Chairman.

231. Deputy Carty. — With regard to subhead C.9, I am of the opinion that that scheme should not be in operation at all, as I think it is not availed of generally by schools.

Chairman.—Deputy, we must not ask Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh if he thinks a scheme should be in operation or not. That would relate more to the discussion on the Estimate in Dáil Éireann.

Deputy Carty.—I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

232. Deputy Jones.—On subhead D.D., have all these ex-gratia payments been made to these retired teachers at this stage? I notice there is a provision for claims by next of kin. Are there many of those claims outstanding?—There were 3,002 teachers eligible and payment has been made in all but about 45 cases of deceased persons, where probate is awaited.

I take it that when probate is obtained these sums will be paid. I know of one case where the next of kin must be waiting about three years or so. I take it that the sum will be available when the necessary formalities are completed?—It will.

VOTE 41—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

233. Chairman.—There is a paragraph by the Comptroller and Auditor General on this Vote as follows:—

“Non-voted Services.

The Registration Council.

46. An account of the receipts and payments of the Registration Council in respect of both Capital and Income in lieu of a statement of securities is now appended to the Appropriation Account.”

Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No, Mr. Chairman. It was to comply with the request of the Committee that the form of the account was changed in the year under review.

234. Chairman. — Under subhead B.2, what are “allowances in aid of rent”?— These are allowances paid to all married teachers. In this case it is secondary teachers, but they are paid to all married national, secondary and vocational teachers. They vary from £40 in Dublin to £10 in a rural area.

Where the teacher is not living on the school premises?—Yes, where there is no teacher’s residence.

235. On subhead H., Appropriations in Aid, is the sum payable out of Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties, a statutory payment? I ask you the question because your estimate was for £35,390 and you actually received £35,391?—It is a statutory payment.

How did they manage to give you the extra £1 under the heading? That is an unusual feature?—We round off the figure to a pound: we do not bring in the shillings and pence.

But in the current estimates you still have £35,390, which rather suggests that a certain figure is mentioned in the statute that you should receive. I am wondering why you should have received the extra £1 in this year? — I understand there are odd shillings carried on from year to year and sometimes the amount will vary by £1.

Sometimes you have an optimistic estimating officer and sometimes a pessimistic one? — Yes, on the consumption of whiskey. It arises from the consumption of whiskey.

VOTE 42—TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called.

No question.

VOTE 43—SCIENCE AND ART.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

236. Chairman.—On subhead A.5, who is Director of the Museum now? — Mr. Lucas.

He is now full-time curator?—Yes, he is the Director.

237. On subhead A.7, does the National Library not retain its grant? Does it surrender anything unspent at the end of the year?—It surrenders any savings.

238. Deputy Lynch. — Have they any difficulty about the storing of books over there?—Oh, yes, there is great difficulty. We are very short in storage space.

239. Have they a complete catalogue of everything they have? — They have not got it in a form that is available for publication or that could be published. They have not got that, but they have a catalogue themselves, for their own use, and for information if anyone wants a book.

240. I have an idea that the same thing is happening in that Library as happens in the National Gallery — that through not having sufficient space, they are not able to get out a catalogue or a proper inventory. We would not be able, as the saying is, to produce a catalogue, and if you went over and asked them for a book it could be possible they would not be able to turn it up? — Well, the shortage of space is a very serious difficulty that is causing us anxiety for some time, but I think that anyone who wants a book will get it. They are very efficient in that way in the National Library. They will find you the book. I am quite satisfied of that.

Deputy Lynch. — I have no doubt of that. From my experience of them, I think they are a dedicated group of people, trying to carry on under great difficulty. My only reason for asking this question was to see whether we could, as Parliamentary representatives, do something to discover whether it would be possible to have the storage space of both the National Library and National Gallery extended?

Chairman. — Does it appear that the storage space available to the National Library is insufficient for the regular disposition of the books in the Library?—I do not think it has reached that point yet regarding the regular disposition of books, but the shortage of space at the moment is extremely inconvenient. They do know where particular books are or particular categories of books, but they are very, very short of space, and, of course, the problem is naturally becoming more acute every year.

241. Before leaving subhead A.7, I think it is true to say in regard to the National Gallery and, apparently in regard to the National Museum, that their Grant-in-Aid can be carried forward from one year to the next? If they do not spend their entire Grant-in-Aid in this year they can carry forward to next year?—No, Mr. Chairman. It has been so for the National Gallery which comes under this Vote, but the Museum Grant-in-Aid is not carried forward.

Chairman. — You observe that the Museum Grant-in-Aid here is estimated at £1,500 and that in fact——

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, you are quite right. Once it is issued, it is carried forward.

Chairman.—Does that not happen in regard to the National Library? I notice the National Library apparently did not ask you to issue £1,200 of the £5,000 Grant-in-Aid in this year?—That is so. The money was not issued with a view to general savings.

242. Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh. — May I say something on subhead B.1, Publications in Irish?

Chairman.—Yes, of course.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—You mentioned at the beginning that you would like certain information “at your convenience,” and you asked on the last occasion I was before the Committee for information about the details of certain stocks of books in Irish and we have not been able to furnish that information yet. The reason is that we are having a detailed list prepared, but for your better information we are breaking down the various titles into categories, viz.:—Translations, original works, school texts, dramas and so on, and we hope to let you have that list very shortly. While I am on the subject, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could expand a little the information I gave the last time in respect of those books in relation to the 1955-56 Appropriation Account?

Chairman.—Certainly.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—From the information I then gave, an impression might arise that the sales of Gúm books are small and that the reading public for Irish books was very limited. Perhaps you will allow me, to-day, to emphasise the other side of the picture, that is that the Gúm has, to date, sold over 1,250,000 copies of works and when it is considered that the Department is not a commercial organisation and has no travellers on the road and that the sales of general works, not to speak of translations in English, in this country is so small that the publications of original novels and so on in English are few and far between, perhaps it will be seen that the Gúm, starting with a reading public which it had almost to create, in the circumstances has not done badly in selling 1,250,000 copies, many of them translations. The reason I say this is because the Committee has reserved comment on the position and I felt, in justice to the scheme, that the positive side of the sales deserved to be underlined.

Deputy Lynch.—Over how many years?—Over 30 years the Gúm has sold 1,250,000 works. That is an average of 40,000 books a year starting with a reading public which was only beginning to learn Irish in the schools.

243. Would these be all sold at, we will say, top publication prices?—The average as far as I can make out is 3s. or 4s. each, which is not bad for an average.

How would that compare with the original published prices?—Most of them are sold at the original published prices and they are still selling. Of course, we had special lots we found it quicker to sell—I mentioned them the last day——

244. Who is actually responsible for the sale? Is it the Department of Education or the Department of Finance through the Stationery Office?—The Stationery Office sells the books, actually.

245 Deputy Jones.—In regard to these publications in Irish, I think it would be fair to say that the reading of such books now is increasing and that you had in the early stages perhaps some of the books left over which were referred to the last day, but there is an increasing demand, an increased reading of these publications?—I could not tell you that for certain, but I do know it is holding its own. If these were not published, Mr. Chairman, there would not be a supply of books available to people who want to read publications in Irish and this work had to be done to provide these texts so that there would be reading material for people who want to read in Irish.

246. Chairman. — If there is no other comment on that we can turn to the next subheads. In regard to subhead B.4, might I ask how it came about that the savings arose from (a) the number of scholarships awarded being less than anticipated, (b) scholarships being relinquished by a number of scholarship-holders and (c) scholarships not being renewed in a number of cases? In regard to (a), scholarships not being awarded because the number was less than anticipated, had that anything to do with the standard of answering — in other words, the standard which would merit the award of scholarships? — No, Mr. Chairman. When we began first, we thought in terms of up to 40 scholarships but we found that usually about 30 covered the cream of the candidates. The others would have been quite capable, too, but we felt we should get the very best candidates for these scholarships. We generally had up to 30 awarded and then one or two people would not accept or decided to go into training as teachers, perhaps, or something of that kind. In that particular year we only awarded 27 instead of the 30 we were thinking of. What happened in that particular year was that 14 of the scholarship holders either relinquished their scholarships or did not fulfil the conditions for renewal and 20 scholarship holders did not seek renewal for post-graduate courses. Those who relinquish their scholarships generally do so because they have obtained some good post in the Civil Service or they graduate in Science or Arts and they just simply do not go on any further. It is open to them to take a year or two, or even three years in some cases, on post-graduate courses. These decided to take up a post of some kind.

In regard to (c)—scholarships not being renewed—it is a pre-requisite that the student must obtain honours in the first year in the university to qualify for renewal of the scholarship. Is that not the case?—In the first year we expect them to obtain First Class Honours in one subject and Second Class Honours in a second subject. In the second year, if there is an examination — sometimes, in some Faculties, there is not—we simply ask them to obtain Honours in one subject because Second Year is really what is called a House Examination with them.

247. On subhead B.8, are these grants available to any paper that publishes in Irish or is there a minimum requisite?— There are conditions. We have a number of papers published entirely in Irish which we subsidise. Most of them are monthlies. One is a weekly actually. We also pay local newspapers for publishing a minimum amount in Irish during the year. There is a minimum amount.

248. How many papers, all in Irish, are subsidised on this Vote? — There is a monthly paper, Feasta; a monthly paper, Comhar; a weekly paper, Inniu; there is a Galway learned journal called Galvia; there is a children’s paper called Tir na nÓg, run by the Christian Brothers.

Is Tír na nÓg a regular publication?— Yes. There are two provincial papers, Ar Aghaidh, a Connacht monthly, and An tUltach, an Ulster monthly. That is all.

Deputy Jones. — Is there not a paper called Rosc? — There is, but we do not subsidise it. I think it is a bilingual paper. I am not quite certain.

249. Deputy Desmond.—Could we get the approximate number of newspapers that use Irish in part?—I cannot tell you the number, but it applies to newspapers which are published in the Gaeltacht or in adjoining areas to the Gaeltacht. I can let you have the actual number for this particular year later, if you wish. It varies.

250. Chairman.—Could you let us have a note as to how much each of these papers, Feasta, Comhar, Inniu, Galvia, Tír na nÓg, Ar Aghaidh, and An tUltach, have received in the year of account 1956-57 and their approximate circulation?—Yes, certainly.*

251. In that year, under subhead B.9, no grant was paid to Irish colleges in the Gaeltacht. Can you tell me why?—All the outstanding balances of the grants were paid in 1955-56, but at the time the 1956-57 Estimate was being prepared there was some doubt as to whether all the requirements would be availed of in the case of Teelin College in Donegal to enable the full balance of £1,500 of the approved grant to be paid before the end of the financial year 1955-56 and it was to meet that possibility that the £500 provision was made in the 1957 Estimate. The reason why no one else was paid was because there were no outstanding claims. These grants were actually to build colleges, and there were no outstanding claims then.

All claims had been discharged in the previous year of account?—Yes.

VOTE 44—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

252. Chairman.—Paragraph 47 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead F.—Appropriations in Aid.

47. In paragraph 52 of the report on the accounts for the year 1952-53 I referred to certain sums received by the Department which had not been brought to credit. As noted in the account the total amount misappropriated by two officers of the Department was £518. They were prosecuted and dismissed. £367 was made good by the officers concerned and has been brought to credit. The balance of the loss amounting to £151 has, with the sanction of the Department of Finance, been written off as irrecoverable.”

Is there anything you wish to add to that?

Mr. Suttle.—No, Mr. Chairman. The paragraph is merely for information.

253. Chairman.—Does subhead C. cover Marlborough House?

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—Yes.

What is the staff in Marlborough House now?—The staff is: 1 superintendent; 1 matron; 1 attendant; 2 temporary assistant attendants and 1 maid.

254. Is there any provision made for the psychiatric examination of the children there?—No, but we have the whole matter of the Detention House under very close consideration at the moment.

As you are aware, it has been under consideration for very many years?—We really have it under consideration now. I can say that.

255. What is the average population of the place?—I cannot give you the average just now, but I can tell you the average for the 12 months ending 28th February, 1956. The average was 11. There is accommodation for 50 boys.

VOTE 45—DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 54—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.

Mr. Leon Ó Broin called and examined.

256. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

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

66. The losses borne on the Vote for the year ended 31 March, 1957, amounted to £3,160. A classified schedule of these losses is set out on page 169. At page 170 particulars are given of 19 cases in which cash shortages or misappropriations amounting to £526 were discovered; the sums in question were made good and no charge to public funds was necessary.”

Is there anything which you wish to add to that paragraph, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The paragraph is for information.

257. Chairman.—Paragraph 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Stores.

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

In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix No. II as valued at £1,718,905 on 31 March, 1957, engineering stores to the value of £15,871 were held on behalf of other Government Departments. Stores other than engineering stores were valued at £570,624 including £201,092 in respect of stores held for other Government Departments.

Including works in progress on 31 March, 1957, the expenditure on manufacturing jobs in the factory during the year amounted to £31,924, expenditure on repair work (other than repairs to mechanical transport) to £54,761 and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs to £10,193.”

Is there anything which you wish to add to that paragraph, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Again, that paragraph is for information.

258. Chairman.—Paragraph 68 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Revenue.

68. 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 1955-56 and 1956-57 is shown in the following statement:—

£7,800,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year, leaving a balance of £699,079 at 31 March, 1957, as compared with a balance of £639,337 at the end of the previous financial year.

Sums due for telephone services amounting to £2,878 were written off during the year as irrecoverable.”

I take it that the number of telegrams continues to decline?

Mr. Ó Broin.—Yes. We are now back to what I might call the normal rate of decline prior to our drastic reorganisation of a few years ago.

259. Chairman.—Paragraph 69 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Post Office Savings Bank Accounts.

69. The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31 December, 1956, were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results. The balance due to depositors, inclusive of interest, amounted to £84,941,414 (including £11,398,492 in respect of the liability to Trustee Savings Banks) on 31 December, 1956, as compared with £82,176,317 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 £3,157,430. Of this sum £2,082,176 was paid and credited to depositors in respect of interest, management expenses amounted to £212,793 and £862,461 was set aside towards provision against depreciation in the value of securities.”

Is there anything which you wish to add to that paragraph, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No.

Chairman. — Let us now turn to the Vote itself on page 165.

260. Deputy Desmond.—With regard to subhead L.2.—Contract Work—could we have some more information?

Chairman.—Why was the contract work not undertaken? According to the note on page 168, telegraph and common service works provided for were not undertaken. The expenditure was £84,502 less than granted?—The principal works not undertaken were three in number. The first were voice frequency systems, costing £20,000. We did not do that particular group of jobs because the equipment was not delivered in time. The second item was the re-equipment of the radio stations at Malin Head and Valentia, the estimate for which amounted to £27,000. There we had second thoughts about what we should do and held up the work. Thirdly, a sum of £22,000 was allocated for a telegram conveyor in the Central Telegraph Office. Again, however, the equipment was not delivered in time.

Deputy Desmond.—Was the equipment delivered afterwards?—Yes.

261. Chairman.—What is the average delay now if you are looking for a telephone? — It depends on where you are living, whether in the city or the country. The situation varies from place to place, depending upon such things as the availability of spares in the cables. I could not therefore give you a general answer offhand and it might not be of much worth but if you are concerned with any particular area I shall be glad to send you particulars.

Would it be true to say that generally the delay is not very long?—It is less than formerly. We have not yet, however, reached the desirable stage of giving a telephone on demand. We look forward to doing that in a few years’ time.

Deputy Lynch.—When an election is coming up and when we ask for a telephone for our election rooms, you are able to do it, are you not?—We have a list of priorities. That might be a high priority, for all I know.

VOTE 55—WIRELESS BROADCASTING.

Mr. Leon Ó Broin further examined.

262. Chairman.—There is one matter, Mr. Ó Broin, which you may recall and which I had occasion to raise when you were last before the Committee. The question was raised in regard to the disappearance of certain sheet music. At that time a criminal charge was outstanding. We decided that the matter was sub judice and that it would not be appropriate for us to discuss it further at that time. Can you tell us now if the matter is still sub judice?—It might still be said to be sub judice in the sense that the person involved was remanded until June, 1958, to see if he would repay the money.

Chairman.—If the person is still on remand, perhaps it would be better to postpone the question. We shall return to it when it has been disposed of.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XVII.

* See Appendix XVIII.