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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 27 Samhain, 1958.

Thursday, 27th November, 1958.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Miss M. Bhreathnach, Mr. C. J. Byrnes and Mr. J. F. Maclnerney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 56—DEFENCE.

Mr. H. C. Brady called and examined.

133. Chairman.—This morning Mr. Brady is here to assist us. I do not find it hard to welcome Mr. Brady on this occasion because my mind goes back to 18 years ago when we used to be together here on the Defence Conference. To-day, he is here in another capacity and he is very welcome.

Mr. Brady.—Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—Paragraph 84 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead C.—Pay of Civilians attached to Units

Subhead S.—Barrack Maintenance and New Works

84. With the approval of the Minister for Finance a military camp was made available to the Irish Red Cross Society in November 1956, for the accommodation of Hungarian refugees whose care and maintenance the Society undertook at the request of the Government. The work of adapting the premises for the housing of the refugees was carried out by the Corps of Engineers with civilian labour and certain equipment was provided on loan. No charge was made for the services of the Department’s purchasing organisation which assisted the Society to procure supplies and equipment. The Society has undertaken to make good any loss or damage arising out of its occupation of the camp. The expenditure on adaptation of the premises up to 31 March 1958, which amounted to £8,471, was borne on the Vote.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The note indicates the expenses incurred by the Defence Forces in putting the camp in order for the Hungarian refugees.

134. Chairman.—The camp has not yet been closed?

Mr. Brady.—No, but it is practically closed. All the refugees are fixed up now with the exception of about two families. It is hoped to close the camp before Christmas.

135. Chairman.—Paragraph 85 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead K. — Provisions and Allowances in lieu

85. Statements have been furnished to me showing the cost of production of bread at the Curragh bakery, and of meat at the Dublin and Curragh abattoirs. The unit costs are as follows:—

The avereage price of cattle purchased for the Dublin and Curragh areas was £73 9s. 1d. and £71 4s. 9d. per head, respectively as compared with £64 7s. 4d. and £62 17s. 5d. in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 712 lbs. and 680 lbs., respectively, as compared with 705 lbs. and 664 lbs.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The removal of the subsidy is responsible for the increase in bread production costs. The slight increase in the cost of meat is due to the increased cost of cattle, as indicated in the last part of the paragraph.

136. Chairman.—Paragraph 86 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead P.1.—Civil Defence

86. A sum of £127 was paid to a local authority towards annual expenditure on the storage of air-raid precautions equipment. I inquired whether the transfer of this equipment to less expensive premises had been considered and I was informed that the possibility of availing of one of the Department’s premises was under consideration. I have also asked for information as to the nature and condition of the equipment.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This equipment consists mainly of steel helmets and respirators. It was purchased in the period around 1938 to 1941. It is on loan to Cork Corporation. It is held in store, and £127 is the Department’s contribution towards the rent of the store. I am informed that, although the equipment has not been examined in detail, it is assumed it has remained serviceable, having regard to the condition of similar equipment stored elsewhere.

Mr. Brady.—The equipment is in process of being transferred to Rockgrove Camp where we hope to have it inspected. The transfer will take two to three weeks. From the condition of similar equipment elsewhere, we believe this particular equipment will be found serviceable.

137. Chairman.—What is it proposed to do with it when it has been checked for condition? Are you going to return it to the store?—No. We will hold it at Rockgrove Camp.

This charge for rent then is not likely to recur?—It will not recur.

138. Deputy Sheldon.—Is this an annual charge?—It is an annual charge.

It is part of the rent?—Yes.

Is the store very large? Is there a considerable amount of stuff being stored? —A considerable amount of stuff—respirators and steel helmets.

Do you know the amount of the full rent?—£212.

Chairman.—Who owns the store?—A furniture removal firm in Cork.

139. Chairman.—If there is no other question on that, we will turn to paragraph 87 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report, which reads:—

“Subhead U.—Compensation

87. The charge to this subhead comprises:—

The charge at (a) includes payments totalling £7,444 in respect of an accident in which two persons were killed and four persons, in addition to the army driver were injured.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This is just the general details of the compensation paid. The expenditure referred to in the last part of the paragraph arose out of a collision between an Army vehicle and a hackney car. The Army driver was held to be at fault. The driver of the hackney car was killed. Proceedings are apparently not yet completed and further compensation may be paid.

140. Chairman.—Has anything transspired in the matter since, Mr. Brady?— No. There has been no further development.

Have any proceedings been started against the Minister in respect of this accident?—No. I understand there may be no proceedings; the claims still undisposed of are likely to be settled.

Negotiations for settlement are proceeding?—Yes.

141. Chairman.—If there is nothing further on that, we will turn to paragraph 88 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which reads:—

“Statement of Losses

88. Losses written off during the year are detailed in a statement appended to the account. The total is made up of:—

The corresponding figures for losses in the previous year were £267 and £11,584.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No. The details appear on page 191.

Chairman.—If there is no other question on that, we can turn now to the subheads of the Vote. They are on page 186.

142. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead A.1., it is stated that the number of courses in which vacancies were available was less than expected. Is there not a fairly constant arrangement in regard to these courses? Does it vary from year to year?—It does. We propose attendance at certain courses. The British authorities may not have vacancies for us on these courses, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Does the decision have to be taken very much in advance?—We have to make provision in the Estimates in the hope that the courses will be available. As far as we know at the time we are making the provision, they will be available. There is a rush on these courses from other countries.

143. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead A.2., is the entire expense paid by the Department?—As a rule we pay the travelling expenses. The entertainment expenses, for the actual period when the show is on, are usually defrayed by the organising Committee.

Chairman.—In fact, in most shows are not our expenses paid to the port, whereas we, in Ireland, pay the expenses of the teams the whole way and provide entertainment?—No. In the United States, we would pay expenses to the port, but in the case of other countries we pay all the travelling expenses and the organising Committee just pays the maintenance cost of the team while the show is on. The R.D.S. looks after the teams that come here.

144. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead B. does the surplus indicate anything more than that the expected reduction on this subhead did not quite materialise? In other words, there was no change in the rate?—There was not.

Chairman.—I suppose romance may have been more active in the ranks than your prudent foresight provided for?—I am afraid it is something unpredictable.

145. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead I., conveyance of stores, how does it arise that conveyance of heavy machinery was greater than expected. What circumstances necessitated that?—That conveyance of stores covers more than just military equipment. The increase in this particular instance was partly due to the fact that a large number of officers retired and they were entitled to have their furniture removed. Then, the transfers of officers were greater than anticipated: when an officer is transferred he is entitled to have his furniture removed free of charge.

Chairman.—There is a reference in the note to expenditure on the conveyance of heavy machinery?—That is in connection with building operations in Athlone.

Deputy Sheldon.—I take it the heavy machinery does not belong to the married officers?—No.

146. Chairman.—On subhead N., is there much animal transport in the Army?—Very little.

What are these animals? Are they horses?—Yes, mainly in the School of Equitation.

Deputy Sheldon.—Are you sure you are giving them enough to eat?

147. Deputy Jones.—On subhead R., where were the further amenities provided?

Chairman.—The note speaks of the extra charge being consequent on the provision of further amenities for soldiers during the year.

Mr. Brady.—There is a constant effort to improve conditions, such as the provision of toilets and washrooms. That is largely responsible for the extra expenditure. It is going on all the time.

Chairman.—It must be something other than washrooms because the increase is in respect of fuel, light and fuel oil?—There is an increase in electricity and fuel oil.

It is heating the water and that kind of thing?—Yes.

148. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead T., the note refers to a decrease in the cost of maintenance of military lands. I was wondering what precisely is involved in that?—Maintenance was not kept up on the land that we intended selling. There were no improvements carried out on those lands that we proposed selling.

149. Chairman.—In that connection, has your attention been drawn to the matter of acquainting tenants with the necessity of continuing the programme of the eradication of noxious weeds on Army property?—Yes.

Because, no doubt, you are as familiar as I am with the lands of Finner Camp and I think one of the most striking exhibits of buachalláins in Ireland is to be seen at Finner Camp?—I am afraid I did not notice them.

Might I direct your attention to the fact that it is a continuing problem with the Department of Agriculture but it is extremely difficult to prosecute a 20-acre farmer in East Donegal for allowing buachalláins to grow if he can point the finger to West Donegal and say there are more buachalláins on the land of the Minister for Defence than there are on all the small farms in East Donegal?—It is something that we do pay attention to. We have to, in order to comply with the law. We have never had any complaints about weeds.

I am happy to hear from the Accounting Officer that there have not been complaints but I am bound to tell you that there was a time when I threatened to prosecute you. Quite seriously, I think that is a matter to which the Army might turn their minds?—I shall call it to their attention.

Chairman.—The presence of noxious weeds on Army land does make the enforcement of the Noxious Weeds Act extremely difficult.

Deputy Brennan.—It is the duty of the Gardaí to inform the people concerned and I am sure that applies to the Army.

Chairman.—The difficulty is that to ask the Gardaí to notify the military that they propose to arrest them if they do not remove the buachalláins creates potential conflict.

Mr. Brady.—Possibly in the case of Finner it may be the responsibility of the tenant. The land is rented on the 11 months system for grazing. Anyway, I shall look into it.

Chairman.—I shall be grateful if you will look into that generally in regard to Army land because it is a matter of consequence.

150. Deputy Lynch.—Is not subhead X.1 very high—£49,770 was the grant and expenditure was £47,777 for Telegrams and Telephones? It is nearly a £1,000 a week.

Chairman.—Does that depart from the average appropriation for that service?— No, that is the usual for salaries, wages and Post Office charges.

Deputy Browne.—It includes all operating staffs, I take it?—It does, yes.

151. —Chairman.—In regard to subhead X.3, Mr. Brady, who were the refugees from North China?—White Russians.

I remember now. There was a group of elderly people who were accommodated in a house in Dublin?—That is right.

152. Deputy Haughey.—In regard to subhead Y.2, I just want to know in what circumstances was training of An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil curtailed?—On economy grounds.

In what way?—The annual training programme was curtailed. In the main, annual training was limited to 14 days and men were not called up more than once in the year.

Deputy Jones.—Mine is more or less the same question. Was the curtailment more in the nature of curtailed activities of An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil rather than by reason of Reservists of the First Line not reporting. Which would be the greater?—The greater saving was on An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil.

153. What is the basis of the grant payable to An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil. Is it still on a basis of 10/- to 15/-?

Chairman.—Can you tell us what is the basis of the grant to An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil?—£170 per unit.

Deputy Jones.—Irrespective of strength?—There is a minimum strength —150 for a Battalion.

Deputy Brennan.—The unit must be up to 150 before they qualify for a grant? —That is so.

154. Deputy Sheldon.—On No. 2 of the Appropriations in Aid—sale of surplus land—the fact that Land Bonds were not disposed of within the year prevented the amount estimated being realised. Could Mr. Brady say what amount was held in Land Bonds that were not cashed?— £18,255. They were sold in April last.

Does that mean that not as much surplus land was sold as had been expected or that you got a lower price than estimated?—Not as much land was sold.

155. Deputy Sheldon.—On No. 16— Receipts for fuel, light and water and barrack services—I can understand the difficulty in getting a great degree of accuracy but there is a very considerable difference here between the estimate and realisation. Is there any particular reason?

Chairman.—The sum estimated was £16,000. The sum realised was £9,528. Is there any special reason why there was such a wide discrepancy there?

Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead R., which deals with fuel, light and water, there was an excess.

Mr. Brady.—We have no control over the expenditure there. We can only estimate to the best of our ability. We have no control over the amount consumed.

Deputy Sheldon.—There is not necessarily any connection between the amount in subhead R. and this receipt?—No; there is no connection.

156. Deputy Lynch.—In regard to No. 9—sale of cast horses—the amount estimated was £1,200 and the amount realised was £835. That was not good estimating of horses?—We cannot foresee with any degree of accuracy what a horse will fetch at a sale and we do not know how many horses will be sold during the year when the Estimates are being prepared.

I thought you had an idea that so many horses would be disposed of and that somebody would put a value on them?— Not necessarily. It is an estimate.

You just make an estimate?—An estimate of what we believe will be the position.

157. Chairman.—Could you tell me, Mr. Brady, from whom do you get receipts for fuel, light and water and barrack services?—From married officers and from the Army Canteen Board—they are the principal ones.

Married officers occupying married quarters?—That is so.

They are entitled to free quarters but must pay for light, fuel and water?— That is right. They pay rent for the quarters also, Mr. Chairman.

158. There are some items, outstanding from previous Appropriation Accounts, Mr. Brady. I do not know if your attention has been directed to them. There was a technical question, Mr. Suttle, that was raised in the 1955/56 Accounts on which the Accountant of the Department of Defence was to consult with the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding the desirability of having the commission on insurance premiums collected by the Department treated as Appropriations in Aid rather than as Exchequer extra receipts.

Mr. Suttle.—This item has been cleared on a general point discussed at previous meetings. It was a question of treating small receipts—Exchequer receipts—as Appropriations in Aid which has now been settled. These particular receipts have been dealt with and are being brought in as an Appropriation in Aid.

Deputy Haughey.—You will recall my view, also, that the commission should be returned to the officers in question.

Chairman.—I do not think you should recall that here, Deputy. Mr. Brady has no discretion in that matter but the Minister, doubtless, would be interested to hear your view when the Estimate comes to be discussed in Dáil Éireann.

159. There were certain emergency medical stores and the Committee was to be informed regarding the disposal of such stores as proved unsuitable for retention. The matter, I think, was dealt with in the 1954/55 Report. I wonder if there is any further information in regard to that matter. Have you heard anything, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I think it would be better if Mr. Brady would deal with that matter.

Mr. Brady.—These were stores bought in the early years of the emergency as emergency stock and they were given out to 99 hospitals. They have now been inspected in 90 hospitals and we hope in the next few months to have the inspection completed and the stores fully examined. Examination so far shows that there is a small percentage of them that is of no further use.

Chairman.—May I take it, then, that by the time of the next Appropriation Accounts, you will probably be in a position to give the Committee a final statement as regards the entire stock?— That is so.

160. In the same Report, there was mention of the sale of 125 motor cycles which were part of a consignment of 500 purchased in 1945. The Accounting Officer explained that, as an emergency arrangement, these machines were retained as a reserve, but, in 1953, it was decided to dispose of this reserve as the model, including spare parts, was no longer in production. During that time some of the accessories, such as tyres, tubes and batteries, showed signs of deterioration. In the circumstances, it was decided to sell them and a tender of £6,938 was accepted. The prospective purchaser failed to carry out the contract and, following a further invitation to tender, the highest offer received, amounting to £4,632, was accepted. The Committee was informed that the matter of recovering the loss from the defaulting contractor was under the consideration of the law advisers?—That is still the position. The case has not come to Court yet and is still with the Chief State Solicitor.

Since 1954-55, three years ago?—That is so.

Do you not think that you might inform the Chief State Solicitor that, with due regard to the anxieties of his Office, this Committee thinks that three years is time enough to consider a matter of this kind? —Apparently there has been correspondence going on between Counsel on both sides, for discovery of certain documents, and all that. Apparently it is the normal legal delay.

Well, Mr. Brady, I think I correctly reflect the views of this Committee if I ask you to inform the Chief State Solicitor that, in the view of this Committee, it is not the normal legal delay, and that we express surprise that a matter of this kind should be outstanding for three years?—Very well.

Chairman.—Would that correctly represent your view, gentlemen?

Deputy Sheldon.—Yes.

Chairman.—You may say also, Mr. Brady, that we propose to return to this next year with some emphasis.

VOTE 57—ARMY PENSIONS.

Mr. H. C. Brady further examined.

161. Chairman.—Paragraph 89 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead J. — Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, 1937 to 1956

89. Defence Force regulations which empowered the Minister for Defence to grant an extension of two years beyond their normal retiring ages to officers who had been awarded the 1916 Medal or the Service (1917-1921) Medal were revoked with effect from 1 November, 1957. On the withdrawal of this concession the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes were amended to provide for payment to these officers on retirement of amounts equivalent to the pay they would have received had they served the additional periods allowed under the revoked regulations. Payments to such officers in the year under review in excess of their normal retired pay amounted to £3,659.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—Up to 31st March, 1958, 27 officers had retired under the amended pension schemes. Most of these had already been granted extensions of service under the revoked regulations and full pay will continue only for the unexpired portions of the extensions already granted.

162. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead I., I notice that the number of cases falling due was less than expected. Would that also be due to the higher mortality rate? —There is a certain loss every year but I feel that we are able to estimate it fairly well.

It was nothing more than anticipated in the year under review?—No.

163. Deputy Jones.—On subhead O., might this also be due to a number of people who had medals and were not getting credit for medals in this case, so that it would not entitle them to a pension? Would it be due to this review that is taking place?—The re-investigation of cases certainly does hold up Special Allowance awards.

Might I also ask if it possibly has resulted in a number of them going out?

Chairman.—Have any recipients of pensions ceased to receive pensions as a result of the review?—They have, yes.

164. Can you give us any indication of the number who lost pensions?—I could not give the number, but they are very few.

That would be, say, less than 20?—In recent years that would be so; but some years ago there were probably more than that.

Of course, we are dealing with 1957-58? —Very few. It would be much less than that.

165. On subhead Q., what was the Pensions Act, 1952?—It dealt with the widows of the two murdered Mayors of Limerick.

Chairman.—We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Brady.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called and examined.

166. Deputy Cunningham.—What is the provision in respect of Preparation of Irish Vocabularies? Has work started on that?

Chairman.—What work is envisaged under subhead C., Preparation of Irish Vocabularies, for which there is a token vote?—The token vote has been there for a number of years. In the beginning we had a committee who compiled vocabularies of history and geography, literature, grammar, science, music, commerce, games and medical terms. All these terms and other terms compiled in the meantime are being embodied in a comprehensive dictionary which we hope to issue during the coming financial year. While we did not think we would need any money for the expenses of bringing people together to advise us on technical terms, we felt that we should leave the token there because something might arise. There might be some special point on which we might have to consult University experts or have a discussion and bring them up from Galway or somewhere else.

In fact, no charge came in course of payment in that year?—No.

167. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead E., Appropriations in Aid, as a matter of curiosity, from what did we realise the £95?

Chairman.—The Note says it is a contribution from Registration Council Account in respect of salary of officer acting as secretary to the Council, £65; and Miscellaneous, £30. Do you want the details of the miscellaneous items, Deputy?

Deputy Brennan.—No. I did not see the note.

VOTE 40—PRIMARY EDUCATION,

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

168. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead A.1.—Training Colleges

54. This subhead provides for the payment of capitation grants to the authorities of Training Colleges in respect of students in training. During the year sanction was obtained for an increase in the salaries of the administrative and professorial staff and special grants amounting to £13,780 to meet the additional expenditure were issued to the colleges. At the invitation of the Minister for Education one college agreed to extend its accommodation to provide for more students at an estimated cost of £185,000. Owing to increase in costs and extra works the estimate was exceeded by £35,000 and the sanction of the Minister for Finance was obtained for payment of a capital grant of this amount as the college authorities were not in a position to meet the excess expenditure. The liability of two of the colleges for rates on their properties was substantially increased following revaluation by the local authorities. To meet this additional expenditure special grants amounting to £4,300 were paid during the year. These additional grants, totalling £53,080, account for the excess of more than 50 per cent. on the provision for Training Colleges.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph sets out the circumstances in which special grants, for which provision had not been made in the Estimate, were paid during the year under review.

169. Chairman.—What College extended its accommodation to provide for more students at an estimated cost of £185,000 and at an ascertained cost of £220,000?— That was the College of Mary Immaculate, Limerick, a Women’s Training College.

170. Chairman.—Their buildings were not entitled to the seven years exemption from rates, I gather from the note. I see now that the note does not refer to that particular College. It says that the liability of two of the Colleges for rates on their properties was substantially increased following revaluation by the local authorities. It did not refer to that College.

Deputy Sheldon.—This is really a question to Mr. Suttle. Is it correct to say “following revaluation by the local authorities”? Surely it is the Valuation Office which should’ get the blame for the revaluation, not the local authorities?

Deputy Lynch.—The local authorities always get the blame for everything. The Manager does it and says it is done by the local authority.

Deputy Browne.—Is it not at the request of the rate collector?

Chairman.—I think it would be correct to say that the paragraph would be more accurate if it set out that the rates on their property were substantially increased by the appropriate authority at the request of the local authority.

171. Paragraph 55 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

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

55. The average cost per student for maintenance and tuition for the year has been assessed at £154 based on the expenditure charged to this subhead in 1956-57, excluding payments amounting to £1,170 in respect of grants in necessitous cases towards the cost of outfit, travelling, etc., of students. The average fee paid by the students was £28.

I understand that the expenditure by the Office of Public Works on the maintenance, etc., of the college buildings in 1957-58 amounted to £27,000 which would increase the average cost per student by £50 approximately.”

Have you anything you wish to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Hitherto the average cost per student for maintenance, etc., has been based on the relevant expenditure incurred on this Vote and did not take into account the expenditure referred to in the second part of the paragraph. I understand that a revised method of assessing the average cost has been introduced to give more realistic results.

172. Chairman.—I draw the attention of the members to the fact that on a previous occasion we asked for a schedule to show us the revised fees payable in respect of students attending preparatory colleges. That has now been furnished to us and will appear in the minutes of the evidence as an appendix. I think the members of the Committee have each received a copy of it.*

173. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead A.1—Training Colleges—were it not for the very heavy saving on subhead D.—Superannuation, etc., of Teachers— there would have been an excess. Would it not have been thought proper to bring in a Supplementary Estimate rather than do it out of savings on superannuation?— I am not quite clear as to the subhead.

Chairman.—There was an excess on subhead A.1 that was met by virement, under authority from the Minister for Finance, out of a saving on subhead D. which relates to the superannuation of teachers. Deputy Sheldon has enquired, in view of the size of the excess on subhead A.1, would it not have been more appropriate to bring in a Supplementary Estimate rather than exercise virement in respect of such a substantial sum?—The question arose on several occasions in the past when provision of the same kind was required. There was a question of £6,000 in 1954/55 and £5,000 in 1955/56 to a girls’ training college for capital expenditure. There was a provision of £7,000 in 1956/57 for interim salary increases to the staff of a men’s training college, so we considered those could be regarded as precedents.

This is approximately eight times as great as either of the two sums you have mentioned?—That is true, Mr. Chairman, but it just happened.

174. How did it happen that this exceptional excess arose in respect of training colleges?—For the new building.

175. Deputy Sheldon.—Did the Department of Finance consider the possibility of a Supplementary Estimate?—Yes. We consulted them about it, of course. We would naturally have to.

Chairman.—It was decided in view of the saving on the Vote, that virement was appropriate in this case?—Yes, it was. It is a thing that would not occur very often.

Deputy Sheldon.—There is the point that the saving on subhead D. arose during the year out of a new decision in regard to the continuance of teachers’ pensionable service. In other words, it was a stroke of luck from the point of view of not having an excess on the Vote. In the circumstances, I would have thought that, in respect of both these questions, the question under subhead A.1 and this new decision under subhead D., it would have been proper to have consulted Dáil Éireann.

Chairman.—Have you any observation to make on the procedure, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—We had seen the correspondence with regard to the question. We saw that the Department of Education had approached the Department of Finance and that the Department of Finance had considered the matter and decided that the Supplementary Estimate was unnecessary in the circumstances. On that basis it was decided to ignore the question.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh. — Both things happened in that year. There was a large saving in one and it happened that the necessity for this special grant for the building came along rather suddenly, I remember, so it was an accident that both these things happened in the same year. We had Finance sanction, dated 4th March, 1958, for it.

Chairman.—Does that furnish the Deputy with the information he requires?

Deputy Sheldon.—Yes.

176. Deputy Jones.—The decision to continue teachers after 65 years of age was taken before this year. It is in operation for a number of years. It could not be in this particular year that it arose.

Chairman.—From the Note, it seems that, as a result of that decision, lump sums which would have become due in this year, did not, in fact, become due.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—That is true. In other words, the decision was taken that year as to continuing them in pensionable service till the end of the school year in which they would reach the age of 65.

177. Deputy Brennan.—With regard to subhead C.7—Grants towards the cost of free school books for necessitous children —by what means is this brought to the notice of the parents of the children?

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh. — Through the Manager. It is a matter for the Manager to know which children are necessitous and to make a case for those children.

Deputy Brennan.—My experience is that throughout the congested areas there is a lack of knowledge in connection with this matter. The children just do not seem to know that there are such facilities in existence. Sometimes it would appear to be administered just by giving the books to the children and leaving them under the impression that they have just failed to pay for them.

Chairman.—This is a marginal situation. How far that comes within Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh’s discretion is hard to say. I think, perhaps, that it is a matter that might be raised more appropriately in Dáil Éireann, if the present machinery for operating grants is not sufficient. I take it, Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh, that you act within the scope of a settled scheme?— Yes, entirely.

That is settled by the Minister?—Yes.

I think the matter mentioned by the Deputy is appropriate for the Estimate. Does that meet the Deputy’s view?

Deputy Brennan.—Yes.

178. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to some of these Funds on page 116, the first one, does the fact that no expenditure occurs mean there was no necessity for maintenance in this particular year?

Chairman.—The Deputy refers to the Killury or Nelan Fund.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh. — There is no expenditure in that particular year because a new school is being built there and the money is being withheld in the meantime.

179. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the next one, the Liss Endowment, the money is voted to the teachers?—The school concerned closed in December, 1955 —Ballycumber, Offaly. No payment was made in the financial year. It has since been decided to apply the endowment to Clara No. 2 school, Offaly.

180. Deputy Sheldon.—Do you have to go to the court to get the endowment changed or is it done through the Commissioners?—I do not think we have in that case. We go to the Commissioners and they permit us to do that.

VOTE 41—SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. T. O Raifeartaigh further examined.

181. Deputy Cunningham. — With regard to subhead E.—Grant towards Publication of Irish textbooks—to whom are these grants payable?

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—They are payable to the Stationery Office which has the books printed. We pay the Stationery Office for the printing costs of producing these books. There is also a smaller part of the payment made to the authors by the Department directly, but the bulk of it is related to the cost of printing.

Deputy Sheldon.—May I suggest that the wording of the subhead is rather misleading in the sense that, in relation to the word “grant”, one would normally expect to find this sum paid to some outside body? Surely payment to the Stationery Office for work carried out for the Department would hardly constitute a grant. The advisability of changing the word might be considered.

182. Chairman.—Does this payment by you enable the Stationery Office to sell the books at less than the cost of production? —The machinery of it is that the Stationery Office make a contract for the publishing of a book, which costs so much. Then the price of the book is fixed and that, I take it, will have some relation to the cost. In fact, it has some relation to the cost of publishing the book. It would also have some relation to the potential market for the book. It is true we do not get the book printed for anything less than someone else would have the same book printed outside but in the working out of the sale price we have that in mind.

Does this payment by you enable the Stationery Office to sell at less than the cost of production?—The Stationery Office make a contract for the publishing of the book. That costs so much. Then the price for the book is fixed. These costs would not have any relation to the actual selling price of the book. They are simply publishing costs. I think we must use the word “grant” because these include payments to the authors.

183. Deputy Cunningham.—Does the Department just decide that a certain book is required for the sanctioned list or for the list you would like to have in use in secondary schools, and does the Department then ask the Stationery Office to get out a book of that kind? Is that the procedure?—No. These are textbooks. Some author sends in a book to An Gúm. It may be a book on Latin, Commerce, or something like that. We have a look at it. We generally ask authorities outside in these things to assist us and advise as to whether they think the book is suitable. If it is suitable, we then ask the Stationery Office to make a contract with a publisher and publish the book as soon as they can. That is the procedure.

184. Chairman. — Where does the element of grant come in?—It would come in in the payment to be made to the author of the book. There would’ be that element in it. I have a note here for 1957-58: £3,000—for printing, paper and binding £2,750, and £250 for payments to authors, translators, advertising and incidentals. I suppose the grant will arise there.

185. Mr. Cunningham.—Could we have an example of the procedure in relation to one book so that the Committee can get a clear picture of what actually happens? —I have the names of the books here and I see one of them is Thucydides Part IV. That is a Greek book used in the Leaving Certificate. I do not remember who translated that book, but I imagine it would be some teacher of Leaving Certificate Honours Greek. He would be an Honours Graduate himself in Classics who was actually teaching and felt that this book should be available, not only for himself personally but for others, and he sent in a translation.

Chairman.—Surely he would not send in a translation of Thucydides. He would send in Thucydides with notes in Irish?— That is quite right.

He would be very popular if he sent in a “cog”?—He would send in a chapter edited with notes first and we would submit that to some authority in the matter and get his views. We might submit it to more than one person, if the views of one were doubtful or wavering. The second authority might be told to look at some particular point, or something of that kind. If the second opinion were favourable we would then decide to go ahead. We would fix a price within a certain range, and the author would then go on with the work. When complete, we would accept it and send it to the Stationery Office to enter into a contract for its publication. The book would eventually be produced. The proofs would be sent to the Department for correction. Sometimes these proofs may be corrected twice. Finally, the book appears.

186. When the book appears it is, I take it, sold to the students and presumably the sale price would meet the cost of producing the book?—That would be a matter primarily for the Stationery Office. Sometimes we are consulted. There would be a very small demand for Thucydides and we could not ask students to pay anything like £1 or 30/- for it.

187. Is the grant element in subhead E. a contribution by the Department for the purpose of reducing the price of the book? —Not in that case. Possibly the wording of the subhead should be changed. It is not strictly a grant.

Would I be right in saying that the money under subhead E. is made available for the purpose of carrying out the necessary revision of proofs and payment of fees to the authors so that the book becomes the sole property of An Gúm from the date of publication. The author does not get royalties on it?—He does. There is an arrangement for royalties. If it is an edition, he would get royalties.

Quite honestly, then, I do not understand where the element of grant comes in?—Probably you are right about the wording, except where the author gets paid a certain sum and subsequently gets paid royalties, but, in the main, it is not a grant.

Deputy Lynch.—It is a subsidy?—It is a subsidy towards the printing of the books. It is not strictly speaking a grant.

188. Deputy Sheldon. — Does the Department pay the authors directly or does the Stationery Office pay them?— The Department pays the authors directly.

189. At any rate, apart from any other change, it would obviously be better to make it “grants towards publication” rather than “grant” because grant gives the impression that some one body is getting the money for distribution?—I agree it is not the most appropriate or the most suitable heading.

190. Chairman.—On subhead C., I think many of the authors get royalties, judging from the sales?—The royalty does not amount to very much. The sale of Thucydides, edited in any language, would be very, very small.

191. Deputy Cunningham.—Are the books in respect of which these grants were paid on an official list of secondary school textbooks?—Hardly any of them would be, because the list of official textbooks in secondary schools is very small indeed. The main bulk of the textbooks prescribed for reading would be in Irish, and it would not arise there at all. It would not arise in English. It does arise in the Classics, but the cycle is a four-year one, and so, Thucydides, for instance, which is a very well-known textbook for Leaving Certificate, would come up every four years, and that is all. The sale would be very, very small because the number of students taking Greek in Leaving Certificate would be only 1,000 to 1,500. Textbooks would in the main be general textbooks in mathematics, geography, hygiene or something like that. In those subjects. we do not prescribe any textbooks.

192. I am just a little bit afraid of a situation developing something like the situation we had with regard to An Gúm where there were large quantities of books unsaleable.

Deputy Lynch.—97,000.

Deputy Cunningham.—It would be just too bad if we went ahead with this and produced secondary school textbooks which were not on the sanctioned list and which were not in demand.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—The point is that it would be very undesirable in a subject like geography, for instance, if there were only one textbook available. It is very desirable that a teacher should have a choice of texts. He might go on with one particular book for three, four or five years, and then discover a new book on the market, or new ideas which had evolved in relation to geography or science, or some such subject. While there may be some danger of a surplus of textbooks, it would not arise to the same degree at all as it would in relation to general works. The textbooks eventually go back to the authors, if they pay for themselves, and a number of them have done so. They have reverted to the authors and they, in turn, have sold them to a private enterprise since the books obviously are paying their way.

VOTE 42—TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called.

No question.

VOTE 43—SCIENCE AND ART.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

193. Chairman.—In regard to the National Library Vote, Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh, I understand there are large collections of family papers which have been acquired by the National Library. Under which of these subheads, do you know, did they meet the expenses of cataloguing and binding these papers. I suppose it is A.9. —is it?—No, Sir. Subhead A.9. is actually a salary of an inspector of manuscripts employed by the National Library to discover manuscripts in local hands. He is continually travelling and reporting on these and the National Library then microfilms them. The actual expenditure would be part of the normal expenditure on staff, Mr. Chairman. It would be subhead A.1.

194. What does subhead B.1. cover— that deals with the list you sent us of books published by An Gúm?*—Yes.

195. Deputy Cunningham.—Does subhead B.4. cover grants?

Chairman.—Yes. It is a Grant-in-Aid.

196. Deputy Brennan.—In respect of subhead B.3. the note says: “Saving mainly due to the fact that scholarships were not renewed in a number of cases.”

Chairman.—Can you tell us why certain university scholarships were not renewed, with a consequential saving of £3,550?— Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Estimate provided for the award of 20 new scholarships and four scholarships awarded in 1956 which were postponed until 1957. Only 19 new scholarships were awarded and of these, two were postponed. Of the four postponed from 1956 only one was taken up, the other three being postponed for one more year until 1958. That is one thing. In addition, three scholarship holders actually attending the college relinquished their scholarships to take up employment. Fifteen failed to fulfil the conditions for renewal at some point during the course and 11 who were elegible to have their scholarships renewed to enable them to pursue post-graduate courses did not seek such renewal. They got their degree and probably took up employment of some kind. That is the cause of the saving.

197. In respect of subhead B.7. you have provided us with a detailed note which will appear in the Minutes of our proceedings, Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh?—Yes.*

Chairman.—Deputies will have seen that note and I think, having considered its contents, I correctly interpret your view if I say that, having ascertained the information the Committee required, we shall probably take the view that this moves now into the sphere of policy. Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh has given us all the information he has. As to whether this is the proper course or not to continue these grants is a matter of policy and not within the discretion of Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh in the light of what his note states, that he is satisfied that due care and efficiency are shown in the publication of these periodicals. However, we can return to the consideration of that when considering our Report, if Deputies wish to do so.

198. In the Report for the year 1954-55 the question of grants to Colleges providing courses in Irish for persons other than teachers was the subject of certain questions and the Comptroller and Auditor General was to hear further regarding proposals by the Department of Education to the Department of Finance covering the payment of grants in respect of teachers attending courses in Irish. Did anything further transpire in regard to that matter?

Mr. Suttle.—I understand that the matter has been settled and the sanction of the Department of Finance obtained for the present procedure.

Chairman.—That, I think, disposes of the query of the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of those accounts?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

VOTE 44—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

199. Chairman.—On subhead C., I think you told us a year ago that proposals in respect of places of detention were under consideration. Have you any good news for us?—I know that matter is very near your heart, Mr. Chairman. It is only six months ago, I think, that I said that.

Chairman.—The expedition with which this Committee is discharging its duties is, of course, dramatic.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—At the same time, I should like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that negotiations are well advanced.

Chairman.—So that I had better leave further inquiry with regard to this matter to our next account, Mr. O Raifeartaigh? —I hope I shall be in a happy position on the next occasion in relation to it.

VOTE 45—DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called.

No question.

VOTE 22—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

200. Chairman.—In regard to subhead D., what is happening to the proposal to provide additional accommodation at Galway, Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh?—That is the provision of £10,000?

Yes. It was not taken up?—Their plans did not mature and it is re-voted at the moment. They are going ahead, we understand, with that. There was actually a payment of £1,940 in the year 1956-57 as architect’s fees. So, even if there had been a payment due in 1957-58 it would have been £8,060 only, but the 1958-59 Estimate repeats the provision of £8,060.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 29—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 30—GARDA SIOCHANA.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called and examined.

201. Chairman.—There was a question, Mr. Coyne, about the cost control of Garda transport maintenance service and paragraph 5 of the Report for 1954-55 states:—

“5. Maintenance of the Garda transport fleet is carried out in workshops at the Depot. The attention of the Committee was drawn to the inadequacy of control over stores held for this purpose —records had not been kept up to date and a record of stocktaking was not available. In view of the increasing strength of the fleet, this matter has now become important. It is informed that steps have been taken to improve storage accommodation and to introduce a better system of recording and stocktaking. It also notes that efficiency experts have been engaged to introduce a system of cost control over the transport maintenance services and it trusts that this will lead to economies and will be glad to be informed in due course.”

Can you say anything further on that point?—I am afraid we are not in a position to do so yet. Certain recommendations were made by these efficiency experts. We have been experimenting on the lines they suggested. The Commissioner informed me recently that he is not satisfied yet that the recommendations made are going to produce the desired results and he has asked me to wait a little longer before he presents a final report on them.

202. Deputy Cunningham.—Could I ask if it could happen that a Garda patrol car would have to be brought from Donegal to Dublin for repairs?—I suppose it could happen, but one would not expect it to happen.

I have heard that it did happen and it seemed to me that unless the repairs were major repairs it was a waste of money and of a man’s time and so on?—I would agree absolutely that unless there were major repairs to be done, prima facie it would be an extravagant method. If the Deputy could give be particulars of such a case that he knows of, I will have it investigated. I am quite sure that where the repairs could be done locally and are of a minor character they would be done locally.

I do not know. I know of a case by second-hand information but sometimes it is not reliable?—I would be very glad to get even general information about it so that I could look into it.

203. Deputy Lynch.—I take it that the majority of repairs are done at local garages all over the country but there is often a case where it could happen, as it happened to myself, that the car would have to be sent back to the distributors here to have something special done to it. I think that would be the only time it would happen?—That is true. One would have to know the facts, to be sure.

VOTE 31—PRISONS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

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

“Subhead M.—Maintenance of Prisoners confined in District Mental Hospitals

52. Under the Lunacy (Ireland) Act, 1901, the State is liable for the maintenance in district mental hospitals of prisoners found insane while serving sentence, but the liability ends with the determination of the period of sentence. When the claim of a district mental hospital for 1956-57 was being examined by the Local Government auditor he discovered that it included the maintenance of three inmates whose prison sentences had expired—in one case during 1956-57, and in the other cases in earlier years. An examination of claims disclosed that the hospital had been overpaid £1,952 in respect of the years 1948-49 to 1955-56. The sum of £949, due in respect of 1956-57, has been withheld as an off-set against the overpayment, leaving a balance of £1,003. It is expected that the claim for 1957-58 will approximate to this amount.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The Asylum in question was Portlaoise. A further £779 has been recovered during 1958-59 and it is hoped that the balance of the over-payment will be recovered next year.

Deputy Sheldon.—This is a question of policy, perhaps. I wonder if consideration has been given to an amendment of the Act in respect of this particular point.

Chairman.—That is not a question appropriate to the proceedings of our Committee. It is not for Mr. Coyne to say whether the Minister is considering amending legislation or not.

Deputy Sheldon.—That is so, but I would like the Committee to be sure that steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the error which occurred in this case.

Chairman.—You will excuse me, Deputy, but the amendment of the law is clearly outside the terms of reference of this Committee.

Deputy Sheldon.—I was only looking for information.

Chairman.—It sometimes makes the Accounting Officer embarrassed if he is asked to comment on the diligence of his own Minister.

205. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead A., there is an excess here said to be due mainly to recruitment of temporary staff and heavy overtime requirements. I wonder how that arises, when the average daily number of prisoners was actually 12 less than the estimate?—It arose principally because we had a different class of prisoner during the year in question. We had 24 people on the average who had been convicted of offences against the State and who acted as a sort of organised body and constituted a special problem in respect of safe custody. As a result, we had to increase the staff to provide for greater vigilance and to secure the safe custody of those particular prisoners—and we had to work overtime as well. That is the explanation of it.

VOTE 32—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

206. Chairman.—On subhead D., is this grant to Our Lady’s Home, Henrietta Street, regulated by the number of persons actually detained?—Yes. We make a grant of a very moderate sum—I think it is 15/- a week—to the Home in respect of women who go there voluntarily at the instance of the Court, as girls are sometimes asked to do.

207. Is it within your discretion, Mr. Coyne, to comment on the adequacy of 15/- a week to a charitable institution or is this fixed by regulations in which you have no discretion?—Well, I think it is acceptable to the parties. I would not care to comment on its adequacy. It is manifestly inadequate as a subsistence but the members of this Religious Order are engaged in a charitable work and they may feel that it is a sufficient contribution to the work of charity.

Have their sentiments in this regard been tested?—On the papers in front of me I am unable to answer that question.

I do not think we would exceed the appropriate limits of zeal if we suggested to the Accounting Officer that the sentiments to which he referred, admirable as they are, might be tested with a view to inquiring whether the Reverend Sisters, on being offered some addition to this 15/-a week, would favourably consider this alteration?—I shall have your observations brought to notice in the proper quarter.

VOTE 33—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

208. Chairman.—I see a subhead for Sheriffs. Is this a disappearing service?— The duties discharged by the former Under-Sheriffs are now performed throughout the country generally by the County Registrars; but by a recent Statute the office of Sheriff was created in and for the City and the County of Dublin, and also in the case of Cork. We have two Sheriffs in Cork for City and County and two in Dublin, but outside that there are no Sheriffs.

VOTE 34—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 35—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 36—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

209. Deputy Sheldon.—When was the change made about the Public Record Office? I have forgotten. Surely the Assistant Deputy Keeper used to turn up here?—That is so. It was suggested, I think by the Department of Finance, that I might act as Accounting Officer for that Vote and I said I had no objection. There is seldom any variation in the Vote and it was a matter of convenience, I suppose. The service is actually one of the services for which the Minister for Justice is responsible under the Ministers and Secretaries Act. It appeared to all concerned that it was convenient that I should act as the Accounting Officer; and I myself saw no objection.

Deputy Sheldon.—I cannot recollect the change being brought to this Committee’s notice. One point which struck me was that for the first time a Deputy Keeper has been appointed—formerly there was only an Assistant Deputy Keeper—and it seems odd that a battle went on for a great many years on the matter of this appointment and when it is resolved in favour of the office, then for the first time they cease to account here.

210. Chairman.—Who determines who is to be the Accounting Officer for a Vote? —The Minister for Finance appoints the Accounting Officer. I owe my appointment to the Minister for Finance and in the last analysis he determines this question of change but of course we were consulted and both the Deputy Keeper and myself said that it was a matter of indifference to us as to which of us accounted.

Was the Deputy Keeper the Accounting Officer heretofore?—The Assistant Deputy Keeper was the Accounting Officer. There is one other Vote in respect of a service in which the Minister for Justice has some responsibility, that of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for which the Secretary to the Commissioners is the Accounting Officer. Formerly, as Deputy Sheldon has said, the Assistant Deputy Keeper of the Public Record Office was the Accounting Officer for this Vote, but it rests with the Minister for Finance to determine this matter. It seems to me that it is a matter really of administrative convenience.

Chairman.—We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Coyne.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix XIII.

*See Appendix XIV.

*See Appendix XV.