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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 8 Bealtaine, 1958.

Thursday, 8th May, 1958.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the chair.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Miss M. Bhreathnach, Mr. P. S. Mac Guill and Mr. J. Mooney (Department of Finance) called and examined.

VOTE 58—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. C. C. Cremin called and examined.

263. Chairman. — The first Vote to be dealt with is that for the Department of External Affairs. Mr. Cremin is here to assist us in any way we may want him to assist us. There is no paragraph by the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of this Vote.

Deputy Sheldon. — On subhead B.1.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—is any of the saving due to a delay in relation to what was a new service in connection with the United Nations?—Yes. It is attributable to a number of factors, one of which is in respect of salaries of staffs and officers of the United Nations. The saving was substantial. There were other factors in the saving. There was a number of posts for which provision was made and which were not filled. There were vacancies in certain posts in the same period which were in that year exceptionally high because of the large number of transfers. All these are reflected in subhead B.1. The last factor is reflected in subhead B.2 in another sense.

264. Deputy Flanagan. — With regard to subhead B.2.—Travelling Expenses— there seems to be a big discrepancy between the grant and expenditure. The grant is £15,000 and the expenditure £26,000.

Deputy Brennan.—Too many went to Strasbourg.

Mr. Cremin.—The explanation is that there was an abnormal number of long-distance transfers in that year, consequent on the appointment of our Ambassador in London to the United Nations which led to very many other transfers. It was an extraordinary year as regards transfers, some of them over very long distances.

Deputy Brennan.—The Ambassador in London came to Dublin.

265. Deputy Booth. — With regard to subhead C.2.—the Irish News Agency— how was that additional £10,000 provided? Was there a Supplementary Estimate for the News Agency?

Chairman.—Was there a Supplementary Estimate to provide that £10,000?— Not a Supplementary Estimate. It was made from savings on the Vote but it was an additional expenditure by reference to what was contemplated.

Deputy Brennan.—There was a net surplus.

Chairman.—I believe it would be correct to describe it as an instance of virement?—That is correct, Sir.

266. Deputy Booth.— With regard to subhead C.5.—Gift from Ireland to His Holiness Pope Pius XII—is that usual in that there was no such subhead in the Estimate at all? Was that a Supplementary Estimate?—The position there was that the decision to make this gift to the Holy Father was taken at very short notice after the Estimates had been prepared and having regard to the way in which the celebrations of the Holy Father’s 80th birthday developed. In fact, it was not in the original Estimates at all. It was covered by a Supplementary Estimate.

Chairman.—Does that dispose of that?

Deputy Booth.—Yes.

267. Deputy Haughey. — I wanted to refer to subhead A.2. — Travelling Expenses. Are these expenses incurred within this country?— In this country and abroad.

There is a note in relation to subhead B.2 which refers to travelling expenses which I thought might be in respect of abroad alone?—I am sorry. Subhead A.2 refers to travelling expenses by the Minister and headquarters staff at home and abroad. Subhead B.2 refers to travelling expenses in respect of officials who come under the heading of representatives abroad.

Deputy Brennan. — Mr. Cremin fully explained the matter in the Deputy’s absence.

268. Deputy Haughey. — I wanted to raise a question in relation to subhead A.3.—Incidental Expenses.

Chairman.—What exactly is this question?

Deputy Haughey.—The note on subhead A.3 states: “Expenditure on purchase of newspapers for headquarters and on purchase and postage of Irish newspapers for offices abroad proved higher than anticipated.”

Chairman.—It goes on to say: “Expenditure on miscellaneous items was also greater than expected.” Can we get any further information on that?

Mr. Cremin.—We had an estimate for expenditure on newspapers which proved to be too low because we had expected to have been able to effect economies in one direction which, in fact, did not materialise but the total excess derives from a number of factors of which newspapers is undoubtedly one, but not the only one. I could give the details. Postage was £791; newspapers for the Department and sent from home, etc., £1,528; bank charges on transfer of funds, £383 —a rather high figure relatively; messengers’ uniforms, £84; miscellaneous, a number of items including the preparation of letters of credence and recall, advertisements and the purchase of wreaths on three occasions, £177. Of the total figure about 40 per cent. was for newspapers and the other items in order were: postage, bank charges, miscellaneous and uniforms. The impression would seem to be that the Estimate was unrealistic in so far as it was based upon certain assumptions which were too optimistic.

269. Deputy Sheldon.—In the Estimate there is a figure of £870 for newspapers. Mr. Cremin mentioned that a sum of £1,528 was spent on newspapers, including postage. In the Estimate postage and newspapers seem to be quite separate?— Postage is quite a separate item but postage of newspapers is to be included in the figure for newspapers.

Actually postage as such was down on the Estimate?—That is correct—by £109.

270. There was one item in respect of bank charges, £383, mentioned by Mr. Cremin which does not appear to be provided for in the Estimate at all. Miscellaneous is only for £60?—The figures I am giving are internal figures. They do not correspond with notes in the Estimates. In other words, the miscellaneous figure of £60 which appears here was exceeded very substantially. It became £560 instead of £60, bank charges being one heading. There were three items under that heading—letters of credence and recall which are elaborately prepared, advertisements and the purchase of wreaths. I think these were purchased by Ministers of State abroad.

271. Deputy Haughey.—The Accounting Officer mentioned the sum of £383 for the transfer of funds abroad, the bank charges. Is that correct? — That is correct.

It seems very high. Could we have a little information on that point?—It represents one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the amount transferred.

What funds were advanced?—All the funds which appear under the subhead— the general subhead is subhead B.1.— the total expenses of missions abroad which are about £300,000 in this Vote and certain expenditure in the Vote for International Co-operation.

Chairman.—Does that dispose of the matter?

Deputy Haughey. — I am wondering whether any economies could be effected. I should like to know a little more about how the bank arrived at their charges.

Chairman.—Would I be right in saying that there is a standard charge by banks of one-eighth of 1 per cent. for the service of transferring funds to foreign bankers?—That is so.

272. Deputy Desmond.—I wish to raise a question in regard to subhead B.2.— Travelling Expenses.

Chairman.—I do not wish to seem to be abrupt in any way with any member of the Committee. Every member of the Committee who came in late raised that question. Mr. Cremin has explained the matter three times already and he would be glad to do it again. Perhaps, I shall summarise it for Mr. Cremin. The fact is that the Ambassador in London was transferred to the United Nations. That resulted in a very substantial number of transfers of Ambassadors and Ministers to various posts. In fact, there was an unusual number of transfers over long distances which had not been foreseen.

273. Deputy Booth. — Again, with regard to incidental expenses, we have been informed that the newspaper figure has gone up from an estimated £870 to approximately £1,500. Is that an unusual expenditure or is £1,500 a more realistic estimate of what should be spent under that heading?

Chairman.—Do you anticipate that the figure of £1,500 for newspapers is more likely to be the future charge than the original sum mentioned in this Estimate? —Yes. The higher sum, unfortunately, is likely to be the more permanent one.

VOTE 59—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.

Mr. C. C. Cremin further examined.

274. Deputy Flanagan. — With regard to subheads C.5 and C.6—Contribution towards Technical Assistance Programme and Contribution towards the United Nations Emergency Force, respectively— are they contributions that will have to be made every year?—That is a matter for decision. It is not an obligation. It depends on the attitude taken by the Government. I think they are also there for this year. However, these are generally explained on the introduction of the Estimate. In the case of the Children’s Fund, the contribution has been going on since 1953-54. In that year it was £10,000. In each subsequent year up to 1956-57, inclusive, it was £5,000. Then it was reduced. This year it has been slightly increased. In this year’s Estimates, it is £3,650. The contribution to the United Nations Technical Assistance Programme has been going on since 1951-52 with the exception of 1953-54. It also was reduced in 1957-58 and it is slightly increased again in the current Estimates.

275. Chairman: And what about subhead C.6—Contribution towards the United Nations Emergency Force?—That may be recurrent. We cannot say that. It depends on the period during which the United Nations Emergency Force will be active.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 49—GAELTACHT SERVICES.

Mr. Seán Ó Braonáin called and examined.

275a. Chairman.—Paragraph 49 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Stores.

49. An examination of records of knitwear yarn held in Dublin disclosed that stock was taken at intervals and the records adjusted by the storekeeper to agree with the physical stock. No evidence was available that discrepancies were investigated and they were not included in the list of discrepancies revealed at the independent annual stocktaking. I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on this matter, and also regarding defective control over these stocks which are held at three separate stores.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I drew attention in this paragraph to certain defects in the stores accounting procedure. The stock of knitwear yarn was recorded, I think, on approximately 250 cards. The auditor noticed, in the course of his examination of the records, that in some cases the card record of stocks was adjusted to the physical stock on varying dates throughout the year. I am now informed that the discrepancies noticed were in the main due to mistakes in entries on the cards. I must say I have no evidence that there were any leakages of stock.

276. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General reported that the records were adjusted by the storekeeper to agree with the physical stock. That seems to be rather an eccentric procedure. Perhaps you would care to make a comment on it? —We have looked into the cases mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General. We find that the facts are as the Comptroller and Auditor General reported. We have an explanation in respect of each particular item. In two cases the Auditor’s comment was, I think, due to a misunderstanding. In one case the storekeeper put two cards together, the stock on the cards being somewhat similar, and entered the total in on one card. In the others, we did find discrepancies between the stock as recorded on the card and the stock in the store. The storekeeper’s explanation is that he took up the job of supervisor of the storeroom at the beginning of the year and as he thought the explanation of the difference would be that such a difference existed at the beginning of the year he proceeded to put it right as far as he was concerned without mentioning it to anybody. Apparently he got quite flustered. The Storekeeper’s action was not of course satisfactory and he should not have acted as he did. However, following on these cases being brought to our notice, we made a full reconciliation of the stock and found no difference worth mentioning at the end of the year. The stock and records tallied very closely. You can take it, and I am quite satisfied, that the incidents were just clerical manipulations. The actual volume of stock is correct.

We should like you to clarify that. Am I right in believing that on a particular date the storekeeper found that the card record suggested there should be 1,000 lbs. of yarn in his store but, on making a physical check, he found there were only 750 lbs. of yarn. He then took his pen and changed the record from 1,000 lbs. to 750 lbs. and then proceeded to keep the record as from that time forward as he thought best?—That is what he did.

277. Do you tell us that, in your view, when there were 750 lbs. of yarn in the store, though the cards suggested there were 1,000 lbs., there was not any discrepancy?—We are quite satisfied about that. We have worked on the other documents available to us, that is, the issues and receipts.

The card showed there were 1,000 lbs. in the store. The physical check showed there were only 750 lbs. What had become of the 250 lbs.? Was it that somebody had failed to mark the card?—That was the case in some instances.

278. Did any evidence emerge to show that the yarn had gone out in a regular way and that no appropriate entry was made on the stock card?—Yes. The reconciliation that was made proved the stock correct on the basis of receipts and issues; that is on another set of documents apart from the cards. We are quite satisfied that the physical stock was correct but that the records on the cards were not correct.

Chairman.—Your auditors reported to you, Mr. Ó Cadhla, that the disposal of this amount of wool constituted the physical discrepancy as compared with the stock on the card?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I must say I could not find, after a further investigation of the matter, any evidence that there was any leakage of stocks.

Chairman.—May we take it that documents were produced to your auditor which satisfied you that the physical disappearance of 250 lbs. of wool—that is only a symbolic figure for the purpose of the inquiry—resulted purely from a clerical error and not from any removal of stock?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I will not commit myself to that extent. The position is that there were only card records. There was no independent record. This storekeeper had adjusted his card records to agree with the physical stock.

279. Chairman.—Do I understand you to say that, apart from the card with its adjustment upon it, no document has been produced to you to satisfy you as to what became of the stock?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is really the position.

Deputy Sheldon.—I understood that other documents were available which showed that the physical count was right, that it was merely that someone had at some stage forgotten to put entries on the card.

Chairman.—It appears from what the Comptroller and Auditor General tells us that nothing was produced to his auditors other than the stock card and the physical count, which did not correspond except in so far as the stock card had been altered by the storekeeper. On the other hand, you tell us that the Department made an investigation based on other documents and that that examination satisfied you that there had been no physical disappearance of stock?—That is right.

Chairman.—I gather from the Comptroller and Auditor General that these documents were not submitted to his auditors.

Deputy Lynch.—That is what I wanted to ask.

Mr. Ó Braonáin.—That was included in the minute.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I should say that they are not yet submitted.

Mr. Ó Braonáin.—We sent a minute of explanation to the Comptroller and Auditor General but we did not put into that minute details of the kind you mention. But, in each individual case mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the discrepancies on the cards were particularly examined, and we have an explanation in each case as to how the difference arose. In other words we know what entries were missing from the cards. We did this to satisfy ourselves that no physical disappearance of stock took place. We found the stock tallied almost exactly, the difference being something negligible having regard to the total quantities of stock on hands. If the Comptroller and Auditor General wishes us to do so, we shall submit such a reconciliation statement to him.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I suggest that the additional information available which is referred to in the evidence of the Accounting Officer, be submitted for my investigation and I shall report again.

Chairman.—I think, Mr. Ó Braonáin, that would be the correct procedure.

280. Deputy Lynch.—I have heard these words used here, “the adjustment” of these cards, and the “manipulation of accounts”. I think in the whole business the right word to use is “cooked”. The cards were cooked up to fit in with what was there.

Chairman.—Mr. Ó Braonáin is here to help us in any way he can and we should try to confine ourselves to asking him what information he can give us. We shall, of course, discuss that evidence when we are preparing our report.

Deputy Lynch.—I say to the Accounting Officer if members of the staff were prepared to cook their accounts to balance out on one side, would they have been prepared to cook their accounts to ensure there was no physical disappearance of stock? Where you have an enormous amount of stock, and where there was evidently some manipulation going on, great temptations could have been there. I would like to be clearly satisfied that. as the Accounting Officer has discovered there was adjustment made in the case of these cards, there was not adjustment made about what had gone out of the store and what had come into the store.

Chairman.—Are you satisfied, Mr. Ó Braonáin, that apart from the store cards, which undoubtedly have been tampered with, the other records are all correct?—I am.

281. Deputy Haughey.—There is one small point. The paragraph of the Comptroller and Auditor General says:—

“No evidence was available that discrepancies were investigated.”

The Accounting Officer says the discrepancies were fully investigated. Was it just a question of the time at which the paragraph was written?

Chairman.—Mr. Ó Braonáin has told us that in his minute to the Comptroller and Auditor General he did not go into details of the exact procedure followed to make the counter-check. Is that not correct? — In reply to the Comptroller and Auditor General we gave figures of total stock at the beginning of the year, the acceptances into stock and issues from stock during the year, the amount that should be on hand based on these figures and the amount that actually was on hand. We said there should be on hand 41,734 lb. 11 ozs., and the actual stock on hands as per account was 41,738 lb. 15 ozs., which leaves a difference or excess of 4 lb. 4 ozs. That is the result of our investigations of total stock.

Chairman. — With regard to the first figure, the figure that was the stock at the beginning of the year, was it arrived at by physical check or by way of the cards? —At the end of the previous year there was physical stocktaking.

282. Deputy Haughey.—I cannot reconcile the two statements. There is one by the Comptroller and Auditor General on 28th November that no evidence was available that discrepancies were investigated. In clear contradiction to that, the Accounting Officer says he carried out a full investigation of all discrepancies. Who is at cross-purposes?—The investigation I refer to, the reconciliation as I call it, was carried out after the Comptroller and Auditor General had written to us and he probably had not received our reply before his paragraph was published.

Chairman.—Had you not received the reply from the Accounting Officer before the 28th November, 1957, when you prepared this paragraph?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—When I approved of the insertion of this paragraph in my report I had not got that reply.

Deputy Haughey. — Had the Comptroller and Auditor General asked was such an investigation made or contemplated?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. An official query was issued to the Accounting Officer. I did not get a reply to it, as the result of which I approved of the inclusion of that paragraph in my report.

Deputy Desmond.—What time elapsed between the Comptroller and Auditor General asking for this information and the preparation of his report?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The query was issued on the 25th November. I reported on the 28th November and I got a reply to the query on the 26th February, 1958.

Mr. Ó Braonáin.—If I may intervene— the Comptroller and Auditor General’s inquiry to us is dated the 25th November and his report is dated the 28th November, three days afterwards. It was not possible for us to have a reply sent before his report was published.

283. Deputy Flanagan.—As a matter of curiosity, is the same storekeeper employed?—Yes.

On the same work?—Yes, and he has been properly lectured on the procedure.

284. Deputy Brennan.—I am not quite clear as to one point. When the cards were adjusted to conform with the physical stock, was the physical stock showing more or less than that recorded on the cards or was it in accordance with your symbolic example?—I can run down through the figures if you wish. I shall give the position in each individual case. There were nine cases. The first figure will be the stock as indicated by the cards. The second figure will be the actual stock. In the first case we had stock on the card of 27 lb., the actual stock on hands was 73 lb. 5 ozs. In the second case the card stock was 23 lb. 3 ozs. and the physical stock was 21 lb. 11 ozs. In the third case, the card stock was 32 lb. 15 ozs. and the actual stock was 28 lb. 3 ozs. In the next case, the card stock was 129 lb. 2 ozs. and the physical stock 90 lb. 12 ozs. In the next case, the card stock was 56 lb. 3 ozs. and the physical stock 35 lb. 15 ozs. In the next case, the card stock was 10 lb. 12 ozs. and the physical stock 3 lb. In the next case, the card stock was 386 lb. 12 ozs. and the physical stock 490 lb. In the next case, the card stock was 15 lb. 2 ozs. and the physical stock 4 lb. 12 ozs. In the last case, the card stock was 24 lb. 6 ozs. and the physical stock 35 lb. 8 ozs.

285. Deputy Haughey.—There is one case there which is different from the others in so far as the stock was greater than that shown on the card? — There were a few cases where stock was greater than that shown on the card.

It is the 386 lb. and 490 lb. card I am interested in. In that particular case the only explanation I can think of is that an invoice was not entered on the card. An entry of stuff in was not entered on the card—was that the explanation?— There were four mistakes found in that card—three cases in which issues were not entered and one arithmetical error.

Am I right in thinking that when something was not entered on the card, the physical stock should be more than the card stock or is it a fact that the physical stock was greater than that on the card due to an arithmetical error?

Chairman.—I am bound to say that, where there is a combination of omission to enter issues and arithmetical mistakes, it is correct to say that anything might happen.

Mr. Ó Braonáin.—Could I revise what I said? I have my notes in Irish and it is not easy to make the translation immediately. Four mistakes were found on the card in relation to the stock. There were three cases in which issues were entered twice and there was an arithmetical mistake in bringing out the figures. I have two words side by side, “éisiúna” and “iontrálta” and I apparently mixed them up.

286. Chairman.—Tá fhios agam. Were there any cases brought to your attention where issues were not indicated to you at all? — In the case immediately before the one just mentioned the card figure was 10 lb. 12 ozs. and the physical stock 3 lb. We found nine mistakes on the card relating to that particular line, three cases in which issues were not entered, one case in which a mistake was made in the entry and five cases of arithmetical error.

287. Deputy Sheldon. — Do I take it these mistakes were all made prior to this particular storekeeper taking over or was he adjusting his own errors as well as others?—Most were by him.

288. Chairman.—Is there any reason to apprehend that errors of this character are occurring in all the stores?—I find it very hard to commit myself to a definite statement on that point, but I do not think that even though the cases referred to show that this man was careless in his work or had no sense of responsibility, in other words that he did not know what he was there for—as a guardian of stocks always able to reconcile card stock with physical stock, it can be assumed that the position is as bad all through the works.

Have you made any attempt to check these stocks to see if other stores are in a similar position?—It has not been reported to me that anything serious in that respect has been found, but I might say that this whole question of the reconciliation of stocks held by Gaeltarra Éireann going back for a year or two is now under very close examination. In the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts for the year 1955-56 reference was made to a surplus stock of 30,000 yards of tweed at the beginning of the year. We started at that point and while I am not prepared to give a definite figure at the moment, in a very short time we will be able to produce stock figures based on records. There are two factors, however, in this whole business which are now outside our power, the physical count of stock at the end of 1955-6 and 1956-7. We are making, under my personal supervision, an exhaustive reconciliation of stock for those years based on invoices, consignment notes and other basic documents, in fact, all documents relating in any way to the movement of stock. We are making some progress, and I can tell the Committee in regard to 1955-56, that we can explain the surplus of 30,000 yards. Working from that down, I propose to give you a statement of stocks, as found and verified on the basis of documents for 1955-56 and 1956-57. I am not yet in a position to tell you, I regret to say, exactly what the stock position was at the end of 1957. That is the year with which I am concerned as Accounting Officer. In our investigation we are coming close to the end of that year now. We hope to have final figures soon and present indications are that the position will be satisfactory.

289. I think it relevant at this stage to inquire if I am right in believing that you, in fact, became Accounting Officer for this Vote only in the year 1957?—In the middle of the financial year, 1956-57, in October, 1956.

290. Deputy Flanagan.—Is Mr. Ó Braonáin satisfied with the method of accounting?—I must say I am. I have seen nothing wrong with the method of accounting. If I might venture an explanation, I would say that the business of Gaeltarra Éireann has expanded tremendously in the last few years and the Civil Service system has not been able to keep up with the expanding business. The management had not got the power to arrange staff and everything else on the spot at a moment’s notice to meet a particular situation. There were many delays and many postponements that would not happen in a commercial organisation. Even with the best intentions in the world the Department of Finance cannot supply staff overnight; they must get them from the Civil Service Commission unless they are available on transfer. I think that was a contributory factor in the business becoming overpowering for the staff available. I am not trying to make a case for, or to ask for, complete absolution for those mistakes. Mistakes did take place that, perhaps, with a little more care would not have taken place.

291. Chairman. — I think, Mr. Ó Cadhla, that the present position suggests that the Accounting Officer and your Department should get together to prepare some kind of finalised report for this Committee as to what was the final state of affairs of Gaeltarra Éireann up to the time of its transfer to the new Board, which, I understand, has taken place as from the 1st of April. Do I clearly interpret, gentlemen, your view that we are not satisfied with the information at present available but that the Accounting Officer and the Comptroller and Auditor General should have an opportunity of going more fully into this matter with a view to giving the Committee a finalised and agreed, or disagreed, report on the state of affairs that obtained as at the date of transfer?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I accept the proposal made by the Committee.

Chairman.—Does that accord with your view, Mr. Ó Braonáin?—That is a perfectly natural thing to request and to suggest, because we have made a careful and exhaustive physical stocktaking at the 31st March, 1958. Apart altogether from questions of good accountancy, good bookkeeping and good business we had to do that because the assets of Gaeltarra Éireann are transferred under the appropriate Act, at a valuation, to the Board, as from 1st April and we are required by the Act to strike a valuation of assets at that date. This was the last stocktaking that we will be concerned with and for that reason, I gave instructions that the stocktaking must be absolutely reliable so far as it was physically possible to make it.

Chairman.—Does the view I have expressed correspond with the views of the members of the Committee?

Deputies.—Yes.

292. Deputy Lynch. — Is Mr. Ó Braonáin perfectly sure that goods cannot be and have not been sent out to any firm or firms without being invoiced from Gaeltarra Éireann? — In reply to the Deputy, I would venture to say that it could not happen that goods would be delivered to firms without invoices. The system is there; invoices are checked; the goods are packed according to invoices, and the invoice is sent out when the goods are being despatched.

Chairman. — I suggest that pending further investigation of this matter by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Accounting Officer, we cannot profitably pursue it further apart from letting both officers know that the existing state of our information does not appear to us to be adequate and that we want further and better information

Deputy Haughey.—And that we are satisfied that the Accounting Officer seems to be making a determined effort to clear up the position.

Chairman.—Mr. Ó Braonáin requires no tribute from the Chairman of this Committee. Our long association assured me of that before he appeared before us.

293. Deputy Lynch. — I would like to ask one question, as this business is being handed over to a new company. In what state are the accounts of Gaeltarra Éireann? Are there many accounts outstanding? Is that figure high?—That would be debtors?

Yes?—£120,000.

Deputy Lynch.—That is a fair amount.

Chairman.—On a turnover of what?—Approximately £500,000, between £500,000 and £600,000.

294. Deputy Lynch.—Have you any of these people that we would call in ordinary business “old offenders”?—I wonder what “old offenders” means?

Chairman.—I think what Deputy Lynch means is long overdue accounts?— Chronic cases. I could not say that definitely without examining the figures, but I can tell you that proceedings are quite frequently taken to recover debts. There is no question of just letting things slide. The figure that I gave you has been running for a few years. Quite recently we have cut down very considerably on the credit terms allowed to buyers and this has probably begun to show effect already. In course of time, I think you will find the figure of outstanding debts will be considerably reduced. The credit terms were rather generous. Discounts were allowed up to periods of three or four months. Now they are cut down to a maximum—I think—of one month. Anything not paid within one month is not liable to discount and it is then overdue. I think the figure of outstanding debts will be less from this on.

295. Chairman.—I think, pending the receipt of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Accounting Officer, we can leave the matter rest and turn to the subheads of the Vote.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It will take some little time. The last account I have received is for 31st March, 1956, and this is 1958.

Chairman.—I do not doubt, Mr. Ó Cadhla, that, in view of the opinion of the Committee, anything your staff can do to expedite disposal of this matter will be done.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Assuredly, Mr. Chairman, but it will require very close co-operation.

Chairman.—Which, I have no doubt the present Accounting Officer will be very glad to give.

Mr. Ó Braonáin.—I can give that undertaking straight away. As a matter of fact, it will be a source of great relief and pleasure to us when this matter is finally resolved. I might say we have already done the year 1955-56. I was brought into this officially when we got the Report for that year, and we set about this investigation to resolve the matter one way or another. As I have already said, we have eliminated the 30,000 yards of tweed which figured so prominently in the Report. We have arrived at a figure, which is still only tentative, for the reconciliation of stocks at the end of 1956 but, in a day or two, we hope to have a figure which we will be prepared to stand over. Then we can proceed to 1957-58, that is up to the end of March, 1958, when the whole business was transferred to the new Board. We will then see how the stock figure based on documents stands in relation to the physical stock. That, I take it, is what the Committee wants, and also that these inquiries should proceed in the closest collaboration possible with the Comptroller and Auditor General. We want and welcome that.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I assure the Accounting Officer of the closest co-operation of the members of my staff who are concerned in this matter.

Chairman.—Very well. We can then turn to the subheads.

296. Deputy Flanagan.—On subhead B., I notice that almost all the items of expenditure are less than the grant estimated, but that travel expenses were, in fact, more. It would seem from that that there are more people travelling for less grants and getting less results.

Chairman.—There is a note of explanation which says that the excess was mainly due to an increase in rail and bus fares which came into operation after the formulation of the Estimate, and that, in addition, subsistence allowances were increased.

Deputy Flanagan.—I am sorry. I did not see that note.

297. Deputy Haughey. — Would it be possible to get an indication as to what was the cost of travelling expenses by public transport and by private cars?

Chairman.—Is that figure available?— Most of the travelling is done by private car on the official mileage rate. The industries are so scattered that it would be very difficult to use public conveyances.

Deputy Flanagan.—The note is not accurate then.

Chairman.—The note says that the excess is mainly due to the increase in rail and bus fares which came into operation after the formulation of the Estimate?—There is a lot of travelling by rail and bus. I did not mean to convey that travelling is almost entirely by private car. Such travelling would be by the higher officials only.

Chairman.—Do you wish to have a note on that, Deputy Haughey?

Deputy Haughey.—Yes.

Chairman.—If it would be convenient, we would be glad to have a note stating how much of the expenditure under this subhead is in respect of private cars?— You mean a break-down figure.

Chairman.—Yes, as between travel by rail, omnibus and private car.*

298. Deputy Haughey.—With regard to subhead C., the note says that it was not found practicable to proceed with the installation of a revised cost accounting system. Could we have some explanation of that?—There are two reasons. One is that it became obvious this money would possibly be got ultimately through the American Grant Counterpart Fund. It has actually been provided from that source. Having regard to the fact that the Bill for the transfer of Gaeltarra Éireann to the new Board was ready to be presented to the House, it was considered that it would be better to leave the matter over until the Bill came in. There is provision for £12,000, a bigger figure, in the current Estimates as it is proposed to send technicians outside the country for training. That is being proceeded with this year.

299. Deputy Booth.—With regard to subhead D.4.—Fuel, Oil and Light— there is a note which refers to an increase in the price of petroleum products. It seems to be a large amount. Who actually uses this fuel oil?—It is used principally in the factory at Kilcar to produce steam. Fuel oil is used there and is used in some other centres also.

Deputy Haughey.—In the tweed factory?—The tweed factory and the spinning mill.

300. Deputy Brennan.—Is there any move being made at the moment to instal a turf-burning system at Kilcar?—There is. For quite considerable time this matter has been the subject of close discussion between the Office of Public Works engineers who were responsible, up to its transfer to the Board of Gaeltarra Éireann, for this service—and engineers of Bord na Móna. I think there is a difference of opinion between them as to whether turf would be entirely suitable as a substitute for oil.

301. Chairman.—In fact, am I right in saying that the decision in respect of that matter ceases to be your responsibility as from the 1st April, Mr. Ó Braonáin?—Not personally, because I happen to be on the new Board. I can tell you that the new Board has already been considering the matter and they intend to engage some industrial consultants, who are experts in the matter, to advise the Board as to the relative merits of turf and fuel oil for the production of heat and steam.

Deputy Brennan.—If I might express an opinion——

Chairman. — I must sound a note of warning. This touches on a very delicate matter as to our discretion in investigating the affairs of an independent Board. That is clearly outside our existing terms of reference. While we appreciate Mr. Ó Braonáin’s gracious reply, it really goes beyond the realms of this Committee and I must ask the Deputy not to pursue it.

302. Deputy Cunningham. — Fuel includes the use of some turf I take it?—I understand that turf is used in the smaller stations and that the main consumption of fuel oil is in the big station at Kilcar.

303. Deputy Booth. — With regard to subhead D.5.—Freight and Postage—is that freight paid on raw materials coming to the factories or freight on articles leaving? Is any of the freight recouped from any other source?—I think the freight would be on goods coming to the central depôt in Dublin from the manufacturing centres. At present the tweed and knitted goods are transferred to Dublin and stored there.

304. Deputy Brennan.—In regard to exported goods, would the price quoted be c.i.f.?—Most of the exports are on a c.i.f. basis.

Deputy Brennan.—That would account for some of the freight.

Deputy Booth.—In that case it would be recouped from the purchaser.

305. Deputy Flanagan. — With regard to subhead D.6. — Advertising and Publicity — how much of the advertising and publicity is done in this country and how much in connection with foreign trade? — About half and half.

306. Did the volume of trading done outside the country not justify the expenditure? The money was not spent? —I do not think so. The trade in 1956-57 in some lines, particularly in knitwear, was less than in the previous year and very much less than we estimated for. That would mean that there would be less advertising. That may sound paradoxical. It may be a principle of business that when trade is going down your advertising goes up, but that was not the position with us. We did not think advertising would improve the position.

That was for foreign trade?—For both.

307. Deputy Haughey. — The various subheads from D.1 to D.8 are trading accounts along the normal lines prepared for these industries? — Yes. The Comptroller and Auditor General referred to these earlier.

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — I have already mentioned that the last account was for the year up to the 31st March, 1956.

308. Chairman. — Was the last trading account the one furnished to the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of the year ended 31st March, 1956? —I am not sure of the word “furnished”. The Accountant tells me that the account for the year ended March, 1957, has been submitted, but it has not been cleared by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — The 31st March, 1956.

Mr. Ó Braonáin. — Yes that is correct: the Accountant tells me he has made a mistake.

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — This account has not yet been certified?—Which one is that?

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — The account to the 31st March, 1956. There are a few matters to be cleared up yet.

Chairman. — Has the account for 1957 been furnished yet? — No.

309. Deputy Haughey.—It would be helpful if we had the trading accounts to hand when we are considering the Appropriation Account.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Apparently that is not quite feasible. This Committee would be considering expenditure incurred two years previously. There would be too much of a time lag. My objective at the moment is to get the annual Appropriation Accounts presented to the Dáil within three to four months of the end of the financial year. Heretofore, there has been a time lag of eighteen months to two years on occasions.

Chairman. — The Clerk to the Committee will arrange, then, that as soon as the certified accounts of Gaeltarra Éireann are available, they will be brought to the attention of the Committee.

310. Deputy Brennan. — With regard to subhead F., the note in respect of the saving on which says that building operations are carried out by the grantees themselves but that the amount of work done during the year was not quite as large as anticipated when the Estimate was prepared, I wonder how much of it might be due to Departmental delays in issuing approval certificates and thus not permitting the applicants to order the builders to get ahead expeditiously with the work.

Chairman.—Are there any delays in certifying work and thus enabling the grantees to get ahead and qualify for their grants?—It must be admitted that there have been delays, more than we would wish. I am trying to bring my mind back to the position in 1956-57. I think for portion of that year we had only two housing inspectors. Three is the full staff. We now have three. We do not think there is any very serious delay at present in the issue of approvals but I would have to make inquiries before I would be more definite. I know there is quite a considerable volume of work in the office. At the end of 1957, we had 644 cases of new buildings and 535 cases of improvement works being dealt with in the office in all stages of development from the initial application right through to the completion of the case. In the year 1956-57 we completed and paid for 258 new houses. Improvement works were completed and paid for in 293 cases. So the number of cases dealt with in that year, which comes to 550 roughly, was about half of the cases running or current in the office.

VOTE 68-ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.

Mr. Seán Ó Braonáin further examined.

311. Chairman.—Paragraph 80 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“80. Roinn na Gaeltachta was established as on and from 2 July 1956 by the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Act, 1956, and an additional estimate was taken to provide for salaries and expenses in connection with the new service.

The administration of the votes for Gaeltacht Services and for Oifig na Gaeltachta agus na gCeantar gCung were transferred to the new Department during the year.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The paragraph is for information.

Chairman.—I think the position in regard to this Vote, Mr. Ó Braonáin, was that the Department was just in the process of formation in this financial year?—That is the position.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 47—LANDS.

Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.

312. Chairman.—Paragraph 48 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead I.—Improvement of Estates, etc.

48. The cost of repairing a breach in an embankment protecting certain lands from the River Fergus; Co. Clare, was estimated in 1943 at £185. It appears that the work was not then undertaken, and in August 1953 expenditure of £1,198 was approved. It was found necessary to increase this figure to £1,708 in May 1954 and to £2,529 in November 1954. I understand that the work was commenced in June 1955 and I have inquired whether it has been completed, and if so, at what cost; the cause of the delay in effecting the repairs and whether responsibility for the future maintenance of the embankment has been determined.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. I asked the Accounting Officer a few questions. He has informed me that this work was completed in August, 1957, at a cost of about £2,500. He has also told me that the delay is attributed to protracted negotiations with a landlord and that liability with regard to the maintenance of those embankments is not a matter that can be settled in a day. The original landlord has made a contribution towards the maintenance of the embankment. As far as I can see, all these embankments seem to be in County Clare.

Deputy Cunningham.—Not all.

313. Chairman.—Can you give us any information about this particular case, Mr. O’Brien?—The question of liability was a thorny one. The embankment protects one tenanted holding. When the first fair rent of the holding was fixed in 1887 it was on the basis of the tenant keeping the embankment in repair. The second fair rent was fixed in 1906 on a somewhat different basis, the landlord not undertaking to keep the embankment in repair. It appears that since 1906 the tenant carried out no maintenance work on the embankment but the landlord effected some repairs. After the holding was admitted under the Land Act, 1923 the liability for the maintenance remained unsettled. I believe it has been settled now by the landlord consenting to have a capital sum deducted from his purchase money. The sum is £500.

Does the liability for the maintenance of the embankment hereafter attach to the Land Commission, subject to the income from that capital sum?—Yes, but a chain of other embankments is affected and the £500 is to cater for all but, in fact, it will not do anything like it.

314. The difficulty revealed by this paragraph suggests that the delay resulted in an increase of costs from £185 in 1943 to £2,529 in November, 1954. I take it that now that liability for these embankments has been settled no similar cases will arise in the future?—No. I would like to say that the approval of August, 1953—a sum of £1,198 was mentioned—was not really effective at all. Actually, we did not seek the requisite sanction from the Department of Finance for it at the time because it was based on an estimate that was 15 months old. It was in the period August-September and our inspectors had advised us against commencing work in the winter due to the difficulty of high tides and storms and also the limited period of daylight for work on these embankments. A revised estimate of £1,708 was got but, before that could be put through, the winter of 1954 was on us and the inspectors advised against starting that year also. In November, 1954, the same year, an inspector made an assessment of the position as he would envisage it in April, 1955. He advised that £150 should be spent forthwith on emergency repairs and £2,363 early the following summer. The £150 was spent in November and the remaining amount was expended in the following summer when the work was virtually completed. We have a lot of trouble with embankments. There are about 350 of them altogether. For years, the Land Commission have been trying to divest themselves of responsibility for them as we have no permanent, on-the-spot organisation for looking after them. Once a breach occurs, it requires immediate action; we have not an organisation of that type. The problem was referred to specifically by the Drainage Commission which reported in 1940. I have the Report on that matter; paragraph 257 refers to it. When legislation following that Report was enacted, viz. the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, it was decided that these embankments be gradually transferred to the Office of Public Works. That is being done. In fact, I learned only yesterday that this particular Clare embankment is expected to be transferred to the Office of Public Works for inclusion in a general embankments scheme for the Fergus estuary within the next few months. If that happens, as we expect, then the fund that has been set aside will be surrendered to the Exchequer; the Office of Public Works will take over the reconstruction of the whole chain of embankments and the maintenance of them afterwards will be under the Arterial Drainage Act.

315. Chairman.—Have you any observations to make, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—With the approval of the Committee, I suggest I should submit as evidence Mr. O’Brien’s complete reply to my enquiry.

Chairman.—May I see it? I shall read it. It states:—

“This embankment protects one tenanted holding, to which the Land Act, 1923, applied. The first fair rent of this holding was fixed in 1887 on the basis of the tenant keeping the embankment in repair. The second fair rent was fixed in 1906 on a somewhat different basis, viz. the landlord not undertaking to keep the embankment in repair. It appears that, since 1906, the tenant carried out no maintenance work on the embankment but the landlord effected some repairs.

In 1929, the need for further repairs was indicated to the Land Commission by the landlord. In correspondence which followed, both landlord and tenant denied liability for repairs. The second fair rent order went to support the landlord’s denial. After the matter was pressed in correspondence from the tenant, he was officially notified in 1941 that the Land Commission were not responsible for repairs. This decision accorded with the second fair rent order and with the dictate of policy that while maintenance was within a tenant’s capacity, it would be contrary to the public interest to dispense him from his duty to protect his property. It was necessary, moreover, to resist the attempt to impose on the taxpayer the recurring uncertain financial burdens, both for repairs and contingent damages, implicit in liability for maintenance of embankments.

The position was affected, in turn, by emergency conditions and the enactment of Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, and also by severe storm damage, the repair of which was clearly beyond the tenant’s capacity. In such cases, the policy has been to require reasonable contributions from beneficiaries, towards the cost of repairs, with suitable provision for subsequent preventive maintenance. This tenant, however, was unwilling to co-operate on that basis. He later became less intransigent, although not entirely co-operative. It was with considerable reluctance, therefore, that expenditure on repairs was undertaken by the Land Commission with the authorisation of the Minister for Finance. This expenditure was undertaken on an ex gratia basis, on condition that the tenant would contribute £100 in cash, in accordance with his oral undertaking.

Repairs were completed by August, 1957, at a cost of £2,513.

It would be wrong to infer that the increase in estimated cost was due to deterioration occasioned by mere delay in effecting repairs. The circumstances were exceptional and important considerations were involved. The tenant’s attitude of non-co-operation, especially in regard to preventive maintenance, could not be condoned. It will be noted that his contribution of £100 has not been forthcoming and compulsory proceedings are contemplated, to charge the holding with the appropriate annuity.

Negotiations with the former landlord and proceedings before the Judicial Commissioner, in regard to the creation of a fund to yield income towards the maintenance of several works on this estate, have resulted in an order for allocation of £500—4½ per cent. land bonds with interest, from the guarantee deposit, to be transferred to the Public Trustee, pursuant to Section 44, Land Act, 1923. A scheme has yet to be framed by the Land Commission for the application of the limited income from such fund which is unlikely to be adequate for all the works. It is a matter for further consideration, therefore, whether the particular embankment in question should be included in such scheme and responsibility for its maintenance formally assumed by local trustees, if procurable, or alternatively, by the Land Commission.

Irrespective of the incidence of legal liability, such embankments are generally comprehended within Part IV of Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, the intention being that, in due course, they will be considered by the Office of Public Works for restoration at State expense and subsequent maintenance as a county-at-large charge on the rates. In relation to embankments generally, it is the position, therefore, that the Land Commission’s functions are limited and transitory. It will be appreciated that the Commission is not constituted as a drainage authority, and does not possess a corps of specialist technical personnel and mechanical equipment, appropriate for such work, according to modern standards.”

316. Deputy Cunningham.—I take it that this discussion with the Office of Public Works was in general and did not apply to this particular embankment only?

Mr. O’Brien.—There was a general discussion on embankments.

Chairman.—As a result of that the Office of Public Works have undertaken, or are about to undertake, responsibility in this particular case?—Yes, for a whole chain of embankments.

Chairman.—If there is no other inquiry on that we shall turn to the Vote itself.

317. Deputy Brennan.—A number of section of Acts are quoted at the top of this Vote. I was surprised at all the sections of the different Acts that are quoted.

Chairman.—They are not sections. They are the Nos. of the Acts in the year of their enactment.

Deputy Sheldon. — Some of them are sections.

Chairman. — Some of the British ones are. They are very ancient. In regard to the old statutes of the British Parliament sections are referred to but the figures appearing before the Irish Statutes refer to the number of the Act in the year of its enactment.

Deputy Haughey.—I presume “Vic.” stands for Victoria?

Chairman.—The reference, I understand, is made to Queen Victoria and King Edward.

318. Deputy Booth.—On subhead I. there are two points in that on which I would like explanations. “Compulsory Saving”—I presume that for economy reasons it was decided not to proceed with the expenditure that had been approved in the Estimate?

Mr. O’Brien.—In the summer of that year the Minister for Finance emphasised to each Department the seriousness of the need for savings, and certain savings were suggested for each Department. This was part of the Land Commission’s contribution to general savings.

319. The second point in reference to that same subhead has to do with the payment of £141 to meet the increased cost of wages to a building contractor. I appreciate that Department of Finance sanction was given to that but I would like to know was there any provision in the building contract for increased cost of wages. If not, is there any reason why the terms of the contract were not complied with?—This was a building contract for some houses in County Meath and it contained a price variation clause. The tender was dated the 3rd October, 1955, but, when the contractor sought the increase for wages we discovered an increased wage rate had been agreed to between the Federation of Builders and Contractors and the Trade Unions on the 28th September, 1955, which was five days before his tender was submitted. The contractor pleaded that he was not aware at that time that an increased rate had been agreed to. In support of that plea he furnished a letter, dated 6th October, 1955, from the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives notifying him of the increase. His tender was made on the 3rd October and on our examination we eventually concluded that his claim was genuine and we paid it. He was only a small contractor, he was not a member of the Federation, and he did not know on the 3rd October that the increase had been granted.

320. Deputy Haughey.—With regard to subhead K. I would like some information on what the procedure is under this heading. Why is the Department compelled to make good these deficiencies?

Chairman.—Why is there a charge on the Vote in respect of deficiencies on the realisation by a Government Department of Land Bonds?

Mr. O’Brien.—The provision is mostly to meet Revenue Commissioners’ claims against purchase monies of estates for income tax and estate duty. The Revenue Commissioners insist on getting their full pound of flesh and the subhead is to meet the deficiencies on the realisation of Bonds at a discount.

321. Chairman.—Do the Revenue Commissioners accept Land Bonds at their face value for death duties?—Yes. but on realisation of those Bonds if they are under par there is a loss.

A deceased’s estate can hand to the Revenue Commissioners £5,000 in Land Bonds in discharge of £5,000 death duties. The Revenue Commissioners then sell those bonds and notify you that they have not realised the £5,000 and this Vote is charged with the difference?— That is so.

Deputy Haughey.—I do not know enough about it but it seems to me it would be better to cancel the Land Bonds.

Chairman.—It might well be but I imagine there is no statutory provision to enable that to be done.

Deputy Brennan.—Why do the Revenue people not accept the realisation value rather than the face value?

Chairman.—I imagine, Deputy, it is entirely a bookkeeping transaction.

Mr. O’Brien.—If we did not make it good in our Vote it would have to be made good in another.

322. Chairman.—How is it that the £2,500 odd that was spent on embankments in Clare was not taken up under subhead N.?—The tenant would not agree; he did promise to give £100 in cash but, in fact, he did not do it. It turned out that we had to make a compulsory order charging the holding with that amount. Subhead N. applies only where people agree to take an advance and repay the money spent.

I see, but if there is subsequently a charging order made there appears £100 there as an advance to that tenant which has to be repaid by an annuity?—Yes.

323. Under subhead S., what is a gratuity under Section 29 of the Land Act, 1950?—When land is acquired by the Land Commission and a person loses his employment by virtue of that acquisition then the ex-employee is eligible for land if he is qualified to work it, but if not so qualified he may be paid a gratuity.

Deputy Flanagan.—I have never come across it.

Chairman.—Neither have I.

324. Deputy Sheldon.—On losses, subhead T., there is a sum of £34 written off. I wonder where is that written off? Presumably the Vote paid the £34 to something. It is about lead and a gate which were stolen. What did the Vote pay the £34 to?—It would be repaid to the Land Bond Fund because the stolen property was part of the capital of the estate.

It is just the phrase “written off”. I was wondering how you wrote off something that is factually the price of the gate?—The value placed on the gate was not excessive.

What I am getting at is that if this money was paid to the Land Bond Fund it was not written off?

Chairman.—But the revenue had to discharge it.

Deputy Sheldon.—Yes, I know. It is met from voted moneys, but I do not see the application of the term “written off”?—It was, as a matter of recovery, written off. That is the expression we use.

Deputy Haughey.—Deputy Sheldon is being pedantic.

Deputy Sheldon.—No, I was curious.

325. Deputy Lynch.—Going back to the £17, you did not give a lot for the man’s sheep and lambs when you gave him £17 compensation? — Strictly speaking that was in the nature of an ex gratia payment. What we did was to forgive him rent. The sheep had suffered from fluke but under the terms of the agreement we were not liable at all. It was a compromise settlement.

Deputy Lynch.—Oh, I am complimenting you on it, Mr. O’Brien.

326. Deputy Haughey.—I see that in the case of Extra Receipts Payable to the Exchequer the amount realised is three times in excess of the Estimate. This is immediately under the end of the account?

Chairman.—Could you tell us what is the surplus income of Rent and Interest Account No. 3 in the year 1955-56?— £25,312.

What does it consist of?—It consists of the payments the Land Commission get for lands let while they are on hands, less outgoings, rates, wages, etc.

327. Why is it that they are estimated in this year at £7,000 and realised £25,312?—The letting value of land went up, I think. Our letting values depend largely on the price of cattle and in the year 1955-56 I think cattle prices tended to go up and the letting price of land went up also.

Deputy Flanagan.—Was it not also due to the fact that the Land Commission held on for a long time to a considerable acreage of land?

Chairman.—I think Deputy Haughey’s problem was that the Estimate was out of proportion to the sum realised for certain reasons.

Deputy Haughey.—What is the Interest on Account Number 3?—the surplus income of rent and interest?—It all goes together; it is a rent and interest account.

328. Deputy Haughey.—The same position arises under “Miscellaneous” under Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer.

Chairman.—How did they get £2,713 when they anticipated receiving only £5? —It is “miscellaneous” and very unpredictable. The receipts were partly recoupment for loss of officers’ services; we also got about £2,600 from unclaimed balances which we treated as a windfall during the year. The particular accounts from which we secured those receipts as a windfall have been wound up.

329. Deputy Haughey. — Just one more query. In the notes on page 140 reference is made to the fact that annuities were written off because the holdings were damaged by coast erosion. Can we be assured that the public interest there is being adequately protected?

Deputy Sheldon.—You can be perfectly certain it is.

Deputy Haughey.—I should prefer the Accounting Officer’s answer.

Deputy Sheldon.—I am speaking from my heart.

Mr. O’Brien.—There are only four holdings altogether concerned and the power to write off is given in section 37 of the Land Act, 1933. It seems reasonable, when a holding has been permanently submerged or damaged by coast erosion, that part of the annuity should be written off. Of the four holdings affected, three are in County Wexford. The amounts written off were 16/- in one case, 6/10 in another, 8/8 in a third and in one case in Kerry £4 9s. 8d. amounting in all to £6 1s. 2d.

330. Deputy Haughey.—Who would be responsible for protection from coast erosion? Is it the Department of Finance or the Land Commission or is it anybody?—I think there has been some recent coast erosion legislation—I do not know whether it is going through the House or whether it has already gone through — suggesting responsibility as between the Office of Public Works and the local authorities. Before the Land Commission write off an annuity they must be satisfied that the damage or the submergence is not due to neglect on the part of the tenant himself.

331. Deputy Sheldon. — The Note on page 140 about the Repayable Exchequer Advance — is that final? Does that finally dispose of this advance?—Yes, I think that advance is now wound up.

332. Deputy Brennan. — In regard to protection against coast erosion is there a difference between vested and non-vested land?

Chairman. — Is there any difference between vested and non-vested land in these cases of coast erosion where a claim is made for the extinction of a land annuity?—I do not think so. I am almost certain there is not. It would be quite clear from the section of the Act which is section 37 of the Land Act, 1933.

Would you like to have a note of that, Deputy Brennan? Mr. O’Brien would be very glad to give you a note I am sure?—Certainly.*

332a. Deputy Jones.—Deputy Sheldon last year raised the question of the extra remuneration payable to the solicitor and assistant solicitor. I think the same position has continued. It is on page 140 under “Extra Remuneration”.

Chairman. — The solicitor and assistant solicitor received £200 and £75 respectively for the performance of additional duties. We got an explanation for that last year but there was some suggestion by Deputy Sheldon to the effect that the salary scales might be revised. Is that contemplated?—We are not certain that that arrangement of being represented by the solicitor or his assistant will be continued indefinitely. Meanwhile the Department of Finance thought — and I agree with them — that it is better to pay them by means of annual gratuities. If it becomes a permanent arrangement in the future there probably will be salary adjustment. There are a number of these cases and sometimes we are represented by our own solicitor and in the important cases we are represented by counsel whom we engage specially and brief for that purpose.

VOTE 48—FORESTRY.

Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.

333. Deputy Jones. — On subhead B., Travelling Expenses, despite the fact that there are less salaries, wages and allowances there are more travelling expenses. I would like to know the manner in which travelling is divided between public and private transport.

Chairman. — Mr. O’Brien, could you conveniently let us have a note of your travelling expenses to show what part of them was in respect of travelling by public conveyance and what part was payable in respect of private cars owned by officials and paid on a mileage basis?—I have not got it just now, but I would say that 90 per cent or more would be in respect of officials’ own cars paid on a mileage basis.

If it would be convenient, Mr. O’Brien, we would like to have a note on that as Deputy Haughey has raised it on some other Votes? All we want is the global figure of how much was spent on private transport and how much on public transport.—I shall certainly supply it.**

334. Chairman.—Would thinning come under subhead C.2.?—No, Sir, under subhead C.3. Under subhead C.2. would come all operational work, new planting, road construction, nurseries, maintenance of all descriptions, weeding and pruning.

335. On subhead C.3. it was alleged to me that there were certain forests where thinning was not undertaken, to the detriment of the forest itself, because the money that could be realised from the thinnings was thought to be insufficient to pay for the work of thinning. Could that happen?—No; that should not happen.

It was suggested to me that in respect of certain forests in County Wicklow, I think, in or near Glenmalure, some forests were suffered to deteriorate for want of thinning because it was estimated that the thinnings would not realise a sum sufficient to pay for the actual operation?—The doctrine to which the Department works is that thinning is one of the most essential operations. It is the most effective, if not the sole, means by which growth and development of established plantations can be altered to meet requirements. All trees cannot reach a final crop and the object of thinning is to favour desirable trees at the expense of undesirable ones. The foresters tell me that to leave trees to fight it out for themselves would not be forestry but folly and thinning is carried out whether there is a market or not even if we have to leave the material there. They are quite adamant about thinning.

I will trouble you, if I may, to let us have a note to show how you are dealing with that problem. I would venture to say that I did not believe such things as were alleged could be done. I would be grateful if the Committee could be assured that such things cannot happen and that thinning as required is carried out?—I could give you thinning acreages for the last few years to illustrate a general upward trend.

Chairman. — If I could have a note setting out what is the practice that would be sufficient.*

336. Deputy Cunningham. — On subhead C.3. does the figure of £115,980 less than granted arise because of a change in the system of thinning. Heretofore the forestry people did it themselves but in later years has the practice been to let it out on a con-acre, if you like?—To sell thinnings standing has been a growing practice for some time.

And that has caused the saving there? —It has, yes. We found that many timber merchants prefer to buy standing material, cut and remove it at their own convenience to meet their market requirements. We would get practically as much for the standing timber as we would get by felling it ourselves and extracting it to the roadside.

337. Does allowing the tenderer to take it at his convenience coincide with the best times of the year, the most suitable times for carrying out thinning operations? Do you specify certain times?— Yes, there is always a final date suggested.

Deputy Sheldon.—Is it done under the supervision of the forester?—It is, yes, and a final date is fixed.

Deputy Lynch. — The important thing is to have it done under the supervision of the forester?—All the trees for sale are marked.

Deputy Lynch. — I would not mind about that so long as the forester is present.

338. Deputy Haughey. — Why was it that you were not able to get foresters in training to the number anticipated?— We expected 22 and we got only 8. Frankly, the material that came forward was not up to the mark.

Are there still vacancies?—There are— for foresters.

Chairman.—That is a very pregnant question.

339. Deputy Haughey.—There is a note on page 143 in regard to the sum of £400, the value of oil drums missing.

Chairman.—Could you tell us about the sum of £400, the value of oil drums missing? What became of the oil drums?

Deputy Cunningham.—And the oil?

Deputy Haughey. — I presume the drums were empty?—Yes.

Deputy Lynch. — They often celebrate the result of elections with oil drums.

Mr. O’Brien.—This loss occurred over a 7½ year period. We had a surplus of 280 small drums—five to ten gallon capacity. We had a deficiency of 181 in regard to the 45-50 gallon drums. Actually, these 181 drums represented, over a 7½ year period, an average loss of one drum per forest.

340. Deputy Haughey.—There is a note on page 143 in regard to the sum of £16, carriage and packing charges on the return to the manufacturers of an unsuitable starter. We had the same thing last year in the Appropriation Account?—It is the same item, the write off did not occur until 1956-57.

Chairman.—How was it missing in one case and packed and sent home in the other?—It was the switch which was missing.

I see that? — The other is a faulty starter.

Deputy Sheldon. — There are two starters.

Chairman.—One is a switch and the other is a starter. One is the collar and the other is the tie.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.

Mr. Eugene F. Suttle called and examined.

341. Chairman.—Remarkably enough, there is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor General on this Vote.

Deputy Haughey.—With regard to subhead A., apart from the established civil servant members of the staff, is there anything paid under this subhead to other people for special purposes?—There was one outside auditor engaged by the Comptroller and Auditor General who examined the programmes of audit used by our office on commercial accounts. We wished to have them examined to see if they were up to the standard of modern practice. He was engaged on a day-to-day basis.

What does the total include?—I think about £150 that year.

Deputy Haughey.—Am I in order if I ask how was he selected?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—He was selected by me and offered his services at a fee of 15/-per effective hour, which I regard as nominal.

342. Deputy Booth. — With regard to subhead D. — Appropriations in Aid— what other element enters into the Appropriations in Aid other than the fees receivable from audit?—I could not tell you off-hand. I have not got the details. 99 per cent. are audit fees. I could not say what the remainder is.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 29—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called and examined.

343. Chairman.—There is one question in respect of which Mr. Coyne has been good enough to come back to help us to resolve. It arises out of paragraph 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which was discussed when the Chairman of the Office of Public Works was before us. I do not think I need recapitulate the evidence as you have all received a copy of it but, in substance, it was that the accommodation provided in a Garda station appeared to be in excess of what was actually required. We asked Mr. Fagan why that was so. He said it was so because he was asked for that accommodation by the Department of Justice and that the need for it was not a matter for him to determine and if it has proved surplus, then the information in regard to that matter could best be had from the Department of Justice. Mr. Coyne has come back to tell us about the matter.

Mr. Coyne.—This matter was originally raised in 1934. The war intervened and there were delays. It was not until 1947 that a proposal was put forward by the Commissioner for the building of a station providing for accommodation for roughly 18 single men. In or about that time—actually, in February, 1948—the Commissioner told us he thought it was safe to assume that in 10 years’ time the majority of the station party would be single men residing in the station. It was on the basis of that forecast that the original plans were proceeded with. There were the usual delays in acquiring a site and drawing up specifications and plans and so on. On the last opportunity I had of considering the matter, about 1952, the Central Statistics Office was asked to make a forecast of what the wastage in the force would be. By wastage, I mean the numbers who would retire or cease to be members of the Force by death, dismissal or otherwise. The Director of the Central Statistics Office, on the basis of the annual losses to the Force, through various causes in the period 1922 to 1950 and in particular from the experience of the years from 1947 to 1949, furnished an estimate of the probable losses in the ten years from 1952 to 1962. I do not think he would profess that his forecast was infallible but it was the best estimate that could be made on the data available. It showed that in the 10 years in question we might expect to lose 4,000 Gardaí and that in the first five years of that period we might expect to lose about 1,850. There was an extension in the age limit granted in 1951. Formerly, the retiring age was 57 with a possible extension to 62 years, but no member of the Force could count on getting that extension. The Force generally knew they might be required to retire at 57. Then, in 1951, it was decided to extend the age of retirement to 60 with a possibility of an extension, at the Commissioner’s discretion, to 62. Nobody could have been sure what the effect of that particular extension would be or whether, in fact, a large number of serving members of the Force would avail themselves of it or not because, under the retirement regulations, a former member of the D.M.P. is entitled to retire after 25 years’ service and any member of the Force is entitled to retire after 30 years’ service. Sometimes a man who is contemplating retiring will say to himself: “If I wait until I am 57 or”—in the case of the later age— “60 I will find it harder to get employment and if I have the 30 or 25 years’ service”—as the case may be—“I had better retire now at 51, 52, 53 or 54.” It was not easy, in 1952, to forecast what exactly would happen. We were influenced in our consideration of what should be done not merely by the fact that there had been this extension. You can say that the extension was not a radical change really. The old system was that a man retired at 57 but might do so at 62. In 1951, the change was that he would be entitled to retire at 60 but might be kept on until 62. Therefore, the discretionary age limit was unchanged at 62. Subsequently a further extension was given—a flat retirement age of 63. That altered the position, perhaps not to any great extent, but, as I was considering the matter in 1952 I was faced with the possibility that during the next ten years we would lose 4,000 members of the Force. I think it was fair to assume that a high proportion of the replacements would be single men and would remain single men for a number of years. In the event, men have availed themselves of the extension in the age limit to a greater extent than we anticipated. However, we are in a somewhat unfortunate position by reason of the fact that, as I am speaking to you now, over 3,000 members of the Force could walk out on pension in the morning. Those who have to go, whether they like it or not, that is, who will have reached the absolute limit of the age extension within the next five years, number 932 and, within the next ten years, a further 1,780. So, roughly, 2,700 will have to go within the next ten years.

344. Chairman. — Do you think this accommodation for single men will, in fact, probably be required at this station over the next ten years?—I am certain that a considerable portion of that accommodation will eventually be required. Our plans were based on a, roughly, ten-year estimate of the position. I would be less than candid if I were to leave the Committee under the impression that the whole of this accommodation will be utilised. In recent years, we have been asking ourselves whether it is wise to compel single men to live in, in all cases. In this particular station we would seek to utilise all the available accommodation for single men because it is a large station, but we have under consideration the possibility of converting some of the existing accommodation in Thurles into married quarters. There is a deplorable shortage of married quarters which has resulted in members of the Garda Síochána, probably over 100, being separated from their wives by reason of the fact that when transferred from one station to another they cannot get any accommodation for the family. We feel a social and a public purpose would be served by following in future a policy, subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance, of abandoning to a large extent—certainly in the smaller stations —the idea of providing any living-in accommodation and substituting as the standard station, two married quarters or, if possible, three married quarters and office accommodation and letting the other single man or men lodge out. We inherited the present system to some extent from the R.I.C. and were influenced to some extent by their approach to the problem. Their approach to the problem was based on the idea of building block-houses where they could fight it out, if needs be. Moreover, they were less inclined than we are to encourage the members of the constabulary to fraternise with the inhabitants of the town in which they were stationed. We feel that these considerations no longer operate to the same extent. If we have our way in this matter, we will never do again what we did in Thurles. We will retain some accommodation for single men. We will try, if it is feasible and not too expensive, to convert some of the existing accommodation into married quarters.

Deputy Cunningham.—Is this Thurles? —Yes.

Chairman. — We are very much obliged.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XIX.

* See Appendix XX.

** See Appendix XXI.

* See Appendix XXI.