I want to call the attention of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture to the fact that there is a good deal of discontent amongst the officials in the Ordnance Survey at present. They complain that their position has been materially worsened by their transfer to the Free State Government, and they also complain, in common with other civil servants, of the absence of any conciliation machinery. I merely mention this now in the hope that when the Minister for Finance takes up the question of a Whitley Council or other conciliation machinery in the Civil Service, the Ordnance Survey will not be overlooked.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. VOTE 45.—ORDANCE SURVEY.—(RESUMED.)
I, too, want to stress the importance of giving consideration to the state of feeling prevailing in this Department in common with other Departments. In one way or another we are made aware that the service is very dissatisfied with the present situation. I am given to understand that the charge for pensions under the Treaty is rapidly mounting up, by virtue of the fact that this general dissatisfaction prevails and I hope that there will be speedy action taken to set up some kind of machinery, such as that which has already been indicated, which would cover the Ordnance Department as well as every other Department.
I would also like to give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Dáil what is the position regarding documents, maps and plates, etc., that should have been taken over, if they were not taken over by the Government after the Treaty. It is alleged that considerable numbers of plates and maps were removed, and perhaps also other documents, and that they have not been handed over since. Not only were maps and plates removed, but a considerable number was destroyed. I have not details, but those and similar allegations have been current and appear to be well-founded, and I hope we shall have from the Minister some statement giving the facts of the case as he knows them.
I want to assure the Minister, in the first instance, that what I am going to say on this Vote is on evidence supplied to me, and in good faith on the authenticity of that evidence. It is made with the intention of giving the Minister an opportunity of denying or affirming what I am about to say. It is mainly in the interest of endeavouring to make the Ordnance Survey what it might be, an institution that would be of some use and service to the nation, and so that whatever dissatisfaction exists in the service might be removed. In this connection I am going to ask the Minister whether he would consider the advisability of having an inquiry held into the affairs of the survey by a committee, or a commission, that would be responsible and report to the Dáil as to the condition of affairs within the Ordnance Survey. I do not intend to read all the matter I have in connection with this service. If I did I could occupy the time of the Dáil until October. I do not wish to do that for the sake of Deputies as well as myself. As far as the lay mind can, I will endeavour to give some of the evidence given me.
The first essential to the survey of any country is the laying down and measurement of a "Base." The site selected for the base was on the eastern shore of Lough Foyle. The total length of the base is 41640.8873 feet. On an average six officers and 35 other ranks were employed on the base measurement between September, 1827, and November, 1828.
The base was extended by means of thirty primary stations of which about 28 are in the Free State. The primary triangulation was broken up into smaller triangles (known as secondary triangulation) and these again were broken down to smaller triangles of about one-mile sides. The point I want to make in that connection is that these records, according to my information, are not available in the survey at the moment, and therefore your trigonometrical calculations cannot be verified and your verification maps are merely a paper affair. You cannot verify them from the original calculations. I want to assure the Minister that I am giving the information I have in good faith and nothing more. The Irish Free State is in the peculiar position of having no trigonometrical divisions. It is the only nation in Europe that does not possess such divisions. The effects of this are that your map revision becomes a paper transaction without mathematical control, and in time becomes unreliable. You cannot undertake a new survey. Your artillery is only of secondary importance to your infantry, i.e., it can only hit what it sees, and thereby does not fulfil its purpose. Property boundaries in destroyed areas like Dublin, Cork and Balbriggan cannot be accurately determined and coast defence is an impossibility. It would, I am told, be practically impossible to compute what the cost of this survey was. It was something like two or three millions. To my mind we should have these records in the survey. If we have not got them we are at a disadvantage. I think that is a very serious position for the Saorstát. There were also matters arising out of the survey which were of great importance to the nation such as Land Judges' records and decisions, baronial maps, electoral maps, military maps and plans. I am assured that within a week after the Treaty was signed, hundreds of empty packing cases arrived from Southampton. A gentleman who was representing the English Government at the time interested himself in packing up for despatch to Southampton and Belfast the plates, etc. Those that belonged to the Six Counties were despatched to Belfast and the remainder to Southampton. Unfortunately there was not unaminity in the Parliament as to what would become of the Treaty and operations in the Survey Department were slowed up for a time. When the Treaty was accepted the removals and destructions were intensified. Between 30 and 40 tons of plates I am assured were removed from the Survey Department. I am also assured that this information was conveyed to a responsible Minister. I have here some indication of the amount of plates that were removed.
|
No. of. Plates. |
|
|
Original 1 inch (outline records) |
204 |
|
Matrices for same |
204 |
|
Original 1 inch (hills) |
204 |
|
Matrices for same |
204 |
|
Geological 1 inch |
204 |
|
Matrices for same |
204 |
|
Original ¼ inch (outline) |
4 |
|
Matrices for same |
4 |
|
Original 10 mile |
1 |
|
Original 10 mile (Basins and Rivers all Ireland) |
1 |
|
Original 10 mile (Geological) |
1 |
|
Matrice for same |
1 |
|
Printing Plates of Duplicates 1 inch |
26 |
|
Original 10 mile Outline and Index to 1 inch |
1 |
|
Originals (various scales) (list incomplete) |
32 |
Two-thousand two-hundred-and-fortynine engraved manuscript plates have been removed, not taking into account the military areas—Curragh, etc.—at least 1,000 more.
I pass from that to the destruction of documents and destruction of the levelling of the country, which is a very serious matter. I could have brought to the Dáil, if I wished, the remains of a good many of the destroyed records. Here are (documents produced) some that were salvaged from the heap that were destroyed in the survey and destroyed by some officers who, I am informed, are still in charge of the records and in charge of the survey. To my mind that was an attempt to put it out of the possibility of the Saorstát to have the necessary information for its survey for any military operation, or any military defence, or for any scientific purpose for which it might require this scientific data. Yet, we keep in the chief positions in the survey some of the men who were responsible for the destruction of these documents and the transportation of these plates.
There is another matter in connection with levelling to which I wish to refer. In this connection, it is serious to know that a good deal of misleading information has gone to the public. In the levelling of the country, I estimate it would be very important in the case of water supplies, drainage and the laying of railways and tramways that levelling statistics would be very accurate, and that the information in regard to them supplied to engineers and people of that kind would be such as could be relied upon. My information is to the effect that very much of this levelling data that has gone to the public is entirely inaccurate and unreliable. The number of bench marks in error is 576, and the list is by no means exhaustive. The number of bench marks to a mile of normal work is three, and 576 bench marks give 192 miles of levelling. Taking a six-inch sheet for the County Waterford as a standard there are five miles of interpolation levelling to a six-inch sheet. There are 16 1:2500 (twenty-five inch) plans in a six-inch sheet. Therefore, 192 miles ÷ 5 miles × 16 = the number of 1:2500 plans in error; therefore 548 plans. The actual cost of producing one 1:2500 plan is £112. 548 plans multiplied by £112 equal the value of work spoiled—£61,376.
As regards the work of publication, would the Minister see that a list of the errors published be prepared and submitted so that he could verify them? Extensive lists have been supplied to me to the effect that inaccurate work is still being published, with the resultant effect that errors are being perpetuated, with the result that the public, as well as engineers and others are being misled. They cannot make proper scientific calculation while these errors continue to be published. Would the Minister. I ask, say what exactly is the position in the survey regarding the transfer of plans to Southampton and of plates to Belfast. Rumour has been current regarding these transfers, and comment has been made on the matter by what passed for a Press in this country, but I may say that that comment has not influenced me in the least. I should like the Minister to tell us whether these plans have been returned from Southampton or whether we have got substitutions for them. I should like to have information from the Minister on the following points. Have we kept copies of the records, and have we got back any of those that went to Belfast? Were the records destroyed, and if so, by whom? What would it cost to replace these records and plates if we cannot get them back? Is the levelling information at present supplied to the public accurate or inaccurate? If it is inaccurate, will the records and publications issued by the Survey be withdrawn or recalled, and will correct and accurate levellings be issued? In order to clear up the whole matter, will the Minister undertake to have a small committee appointed, which will be responsible to the Dáil, and will report back to the Dáil, this committee to be empowered to inquire into the whole working of the Survey? If that is done, it may help to silence effectively the rumour and the capital that is being made throughout the country on this matter.
With regard to Deputy Cooper's point, which was also mentioned by Deputy Johnson, I desire to say that the officials of the Ordnance Survey will get the same treatment as the officials of any other service, and whatever steps the Minister for Finance takes in regard to the other services will also be taken in regard to the officials of the Ordnance Survey. As to the documents taken from the Ordnance Survey and transferred to Southampton I, too, could keep the House until October reading files of correspondence that came to me from the same man, and I want to say that the officials in the Ordnance Survey have not got exactly the same consideration as they should get from the Press, generally speaking, in regard to this matter. This particular agitation has been started by one who was in the Ordnance Survey, an ex-officer of the British Army who joined the National Army. He sent me sheafs of letters pointing out his particular qualifications for the headship of the Ordnance Survey.
Will the Minister accept the statement I make when I tell him that the position I take up is that I am not speaking in the interest of any individual but in the interest of the national good?
I quite agree, but in fairness to the other officials, I must state that this particular officer approached other persons and Deputies, and I have on my files letters from all sorts and conditions of people pointing out the various qualifications of this particular man for the headship of the Ordnance Survey and also transmitting information he is supposed to have given.
With regard to the documents themselves, there seems to be an idea that what happened was that after the 6th December, 1921, the officials of the Ordnance Survey, in conjunction with those from Southampton, rushed out of this country documents, maps and books from the Ordnance Survey here. That is an incorrect picture. The fact is that the Ordnance Survey was run in conjunction with the Ordnance Survey of England and that from the year 1900 to 1921, and particularly in the years 1920 and 1921, after the Government of Ireland Act was passed, documents were transferred from the Ordnance Survey in the Phoenix Park to the Ordnance Survey in England. It is a further fact that some maps and documents were transferred from the Ordnance Survey here after the 6th December, 1921, and up to the 20th March, 1922, to England. The maps and documents transferred during that period after the Treaty and before we took over practical control in March, 1922, are, comparatively speaking, few. They were very few as compared with the documents transferred in the years 1920 and 1921 and previously. I should say the main bulk of the documents were transferred in 1920 and 1921, after the Government of Ireland Act was passed. The suggestion is that what happened is that after the Treaty and before we took over control, documents were rushed out of the country, and that is an absolutely incorrect picture.
What about the plates?
I made it clear that there were documents sent out after the Treaty and before we took over control in March, 1922, but they were comparatively few as compared with those sent out in 1920, 1921 and previously.
Further, it is absolutely incorrect to say that records were destroyed. That is an incorrect statement. Waste paper may have been destroyed. In all those offices where thousands of old maps are collected and where you have duplicates of maps, I take it a certain amount of documents are disposed of in one way or another in the ordinary routine, but to say that any records of any kind were destroyed is absolutely incorrect, and incorrect to the knowledge of the particular person who has desseminated that particular story.
Will the Minister say can be verify the maps he has in his hands with those transferred to Southampton?
Will the Deputy allow me to deal with this matter point by point? He will agree that to say that maps and documents were destroyed to prevent this country from getting a certain amount of military knowledge is a serious charge. It is absolutely incorrect to say that anything that can be dignified with the name of records was destroyed and it is absolutely incorrect to say that the officials of the existing Ordnance Survey co-operated in any way with the officials across the water to destroy or dispose of documents of that sort. The documents removed in the period roughly between 1900 and March, 1922, were all listed. Lists were made of every single one of these documents, maps, instruments, and machinery. A formal request was made to the British Government to transfer from England, not only the comparatively few documents that were removed between the 6th December, 1921, and March, 1922, but also all the important documents dealing with Ireland which were removed from the Ordnance Survey Office, Phoenix Park, to Southampton from 1900 to March, 1922. They were asked to give back the maps, plates, instruments and machinery. They agreed to return every map asked for, with the exception of the military maps in connection with Bere Island and other places that have been reserved under the Treaty. They refuse to give back all the maps in connection with the Northern Boundary. They sent back half the maps and they retained half the maps; that is to say, the maps which included territory on each side of the Boundary. That is the position in regard to these maps. Every other map asked for has been returned and has arrived at the Ordnance Survey.
Does the Minister mean to say that maps dealing with both sides of the Boundary were retained? I did not quite follow his point.
These maps were in England, some of them before the Treaty, and indeed it is very hard to know when exactly they were transferred; perhaps some of them after the Treaty, but some of these maps were in England. A list of maps dealing with the Free State was made out, and these, of course, included maps on this side of the Boundary and the other side. They were asked to return these, and they promised to return them, and as far as we know—they are not all checked over yet—they have returned the maps except half the maps in connection with the Boundary. They have retained half the maps which include territory on the other side of the Boundary. As to the other half, that question is still open.
Is it correct to say that officials from the Northern Government came down to the Ordnance Survey and took away all maps and that no list was taken of them?
No, not to my knowledge. Documents were transferred after 1920, after the Government of Ireland Act was passed, but I could not say what happened in 1920 and 1921. They might have come, it is quite possible, but in any event in regard to maps and plates in connection with the Free State, they have been returned, except plates and maps in connection with places like Bere Island and other places reserved under the Treaty, and also half the maps which deal with the territory going over the existing boundary.
When the Minister speaks of half the maps does he mean half the supplies of maps of particular places?
Half the total number of maps. Now, with regard to documents. A certain number of books were taken and a list was made of the books taken, as I say, from 1900 to 1922, and that list was presented to the British Government. They refused to return some books, but those books dealt mainly with Northern Ireland and England and Wales. The officials of the National Library have been consulted with regard to the books they have refused to return and they state they are practically of no importance, and that with regard to most of them they have copies of them already in the National Library, and that these include any of the important books.
With regard to instruments, these instruments have been transferred and were transferred in the ordinary course of work between 1900 and March, 1922. They have all been returned, at least all those we asked for; and with regard to machinery, two printing presses were taken away some time ago, in 1905, and they refused to return these.
Is the Minister sure that the instruments returned are all equal in quality to those taken away?
It would be extremely difficult to say whether the instruments returned now are of as good quality or worse quality than the instruments which were sent away in 1905; that would be quite impossible. I certainly could not say now what exactly is the position in regard to them. Remember that these instruments were transferred ten or fifteen years ago. The best that could be done was to make a list and ask for a return of a certain class of instruments. These instruments were not sent away in view of the Treaty or any circumstance in connection with the Treaty and they were transferred in the ordinary course of business from one country to another, and in fact they have agreed to return any instruments asked for.
With regard to machinery, two machines were removed about 1905. They have refused to return those two machines which were two printing presses. So that first of all, no documents and no record and nothing that could be dignified with the name of records has been destroyed. Secondly, all maps and plates have been returned with the exception of maps and plates I mention. Thirdly the books taken away are all in connection with either Northern Ireland or England and Wales, and the Librarian of the National Library assures us that these books were practically all unimportant and so far as any of them are important they are duplicated by other books in the National Library.
With regard to the charges about the levels I was asked whether the maps issued by the Ordnance Survey are accurate. No maps issued by any survey in the world are absolutely correct, and no level is absolutly correct. I do not know much about the technical side of this but I understand that there are two systems of levelling. One is interpolation levelling. I do not know the name of the other, but it is a much more expensive system and has been recently introduced into England. The system in vogue here is the interpolation system. The charge is that the margin of error allowed in closing levels is too great. There is a margin of error always allowed, and the only question is whether the margin of error allowed here by certain officials is too great or not.
That is not the question. It is .002 for first class work, .004 for second class work, and .01 third class work. The question is that there is a complete foot in error in some cases.
When the Deputy takes me into decimal points I confess I do not know much about them. I have had these figures from Captain MacNamara, and the figures he gives are those which are current in connection with the system of levelling which we have not got in this country, and which is much more accurate but much more expensive. There is a margin of error allowed for interpolation levelling.
What is it?
I cannot say. No maps are absolutely accurate and no levelling can be absolutely accurate, and even under the English system it is not accurate. Our system is not absolutely accurate, but the margin of error allowed here, as a rule, in the Ordnance Survey during last year, makes no practical difference whatever, and for all practical purposes for which these maps could be used, the margin of error in it is of no account. That particular point is a pedant's point, a point about which a great number of figures can be quoted, and great confusion caused. It is a fact that one particular officer is believed to have allowed a somewhat larger margin than is allowed in the regulations of the Ordnance Survey, but that makes no difference to practical users of the maps and makes no practical difference, but that, however, does not excuse the officer for going beyond his regulations.
Does the Minister suggest that a foot in a mile is of no account?
I do not admit that there is a difference of a foot in a mile, but so far as there is any mistake made by any officer, and that is not at all made clear yet, as this particular officer is engaged in other work at present, it is of no practical account that these figures given are incorrect. If any officer of the Ordnance Survey in charge of closing levels has allowed in any case a larger margin than he should, he can be suitably dealt with. The particular officer in question is doing other work in connection with the Shannon scheme, and when he returns the particular figures will be put before him and he will be asked to explain in the ordinary official routine way. There is no occasion whatever to make a cause celebre out of it. Any officer can make a mistake. It is absolutely inaccurate to say that any of the maps published are inaccurate or that they will have to be withdrawn. This whole question is a storm in a tea-cup. It is easy to say that the maps are inaccurate. The same statement could be made of maps published by every Ordnance Survey in the world. The maps in the Phoeix Park are, strictly speaking, prepared within the regulations, and if an officer goes outside the regulations he would be dealt with in the ordinary way.
Has the Minister investigated the abstract in which at least in 20 cases the level has been out from .01 to one foot?
These charges have been investigated, and the statements I make are based on that investigation. If the Deputy asked me whether I investigated every document put up by Captain MacNamara, I say no, and I do not intend to do so.
In sub-head D there is one item that I do not understand, Medical Bills, £350. I would be glad if the Minister will state the nature of that item, as it seems to me to be an extraordinary thing to have an item of that kind stuck into the Estimate for Ordnance Survey.
I am afraid the Deputy has caught me out.
It will be all right if the Minister lets me know what it means at some other time.
It is an extraordinary thing to have £350 for medical attendance for 250 employees.
There is one point that strikes me in the explanation given by the Minister about which I would like to have further information. An officer has been under discussion and the Minister stated that this officer is doing work on the Shannon scheme. I would like to know if the work that he has been sent to do is of greater importance than the work on which he was previously engaged, or if any charges were made about the way he did his work previous to his being sent to work on the Shannon scheme, and whether they were taken into consideration.
The officer in question, who was sent to do this work, is thoroughly competent and thoroughly qualified to do work in connection with the Shannon scheme.
Were the charges that have apparently been made against him investigated before he was sent to do work on the Shannon?
Certainly. This particular charge was known. There is not a single officer who has not charges made against him, all of which came from the same source.
I do not want to go into the details gone into by Deputy Hogan and the Minister, but arising out of the statement by the Minister regarding maps, plates, and, perhaps, other documents relating to Bere Island and other places referred to in the Treaty, and also the territory outside the present jurisdiction, six north-eastern Counties, it seems to me that here we have an illustration of one of the minor difficulties that arise through the failure to insist upon the rights of the Treaty respecting the Council of Ireland. There is nothing in this annexe to the Treaty which, to my mind, justifies the retention of any maps or plates in connection with those districts. If it is said that those maps were Admiralty property, even then such property would have to be retained, as they were retained prior to the Treaty. Is that the contention?
They are War Department maps. If the Deputy wants to know whether those were to belong to the British War Department or not, I can say they did.
The paragraph speaks of Admiralty property to be retained from the date hereof. If it was not Admiralty property, they have no right to retain it.
No one said they had a right.
Someone apparently has said it, inasmuch as the maps, according to the Minister's own admission, have been retained. They may not say that they had a right, but they are acting as if they said it.
My point is that the question is still open.
I hope the question is open regarding the maps of Northern Ireland. I hope the Minister is not going to concede the right of retaining those maps. Otherwise what is to be the position? Even at the end of the five years, which period, as I contend, has been unwisely allowed to elapse before this Council of Ireland provision is insisted on, it is laid down that the Council of Ireland must come into operation. What is going to be the position then in regard to those maps? What is going to be the position of the nominees of the Free State Government on the Council of Ireland if and when it comes into operation, if all the property and Ordnance Survey materials are outside its jurisdiction and unattainable? It is just a little indication of one of the details that was involved in this question, and it seems to me to require very close vigilance, so that the future will not be compromised owing to laxity in safeguarding the rights of the Treaty respecting the Council of Ireland, and covering the whole of Ireland.
Will the Minister state whether the military maps, sketches, impressions and diagrams of the Curragh, Cork, Dublin, Belfast, Bere Island, Kilworth, Lough Foyle, Athlone, Wicklow, Lough Swilly, etc., are in the possession of the Ordnance Survey still, and state what trignometrical books have gone to Belfast, and whether we have any records of all the library books and sketches of the six north-eastern counties, comprising MSS., plans, name-books, boundary sheets, initial sheets, and all such things? These are historical books of priceless value, and should not have been allowed to go. I want to know if we have any record of all those that went to Belfast.
I stated that a list was made out of the maps, books and documents that were sent away, and that was sent to the British Government and I stated all that they promised to return and not to return. Those documents are coming in every week, and are being checked every week. When the Deputy asked me is such a document in the department, I can only answer that I do not know.
What I want to do in connection with this Vote is to ask the Minister to have an inquiry into the administration of the Ordnance Survey. If not, I was going to propose that the Vote be referred back.
I am speaking here for the Minister for Finance. I will recommend to him to have some sort of inter-Departmental inquiry into the whole question, and I am sure he will make the results of that inquiry available.
That does not satisfy me. Give me an inquiry of the Dáil, because there are some very important things in connection with this Department that need looking into, and if I read all that I have to read I will exhaust my three ten minutes' intervals, and then I will pass the remainder to another Deputy to be read.
Deputy Hogan has read some of it.
He could not have read it all. He has not read beyond the documents sent to the Six Counties.
DEPUTIES
He has.
I would not like to be the reporter. It would take me an hour to read them. I want to know why the levelling records of the Six Counties were sent up north. They were sent up by a gentleman who went to the Ordnance Survey with an order from the Minister of Agriculture. I want to know why. They were the property of the thirty-two counties, and were paid for by the thirty-two counties and should not be sent to the Six Counties, unless the Government had made up its mind that those counties were to remain outside the Saorstát. There was no reason why those documents should be sent and the people —I challenge the Minister to deny it— in charge of the Survey Department at the present time are not competent surveyors. They were dug in by the British Government because, I suppose, they wanted to get rid of them. They are not competent to carry out the work. If they were surveyors the levelling records would not have been destroyed as they were destroyed, and I hold in my hand portions of levelling records that it took thousands of pounds to compile, and which were destroyed by the present acting Director of the Ordnance Survey. There is another point also. The Ordnance Survey maps at present being sold to the people are not correct maps, and the acting Director of the Ordnance Survey does not know whether they are correct or not, because he does not know anything about it.
This is a serious statement that Deputy McGarry is making for people down the country. I would like to know if he is perfectly certain, because it is a serious statement.
All this has been gone into already, and the Minister has made three speeches. Deputy McGarry has raised the whole question again and has made a serious statement. As Deputy Baxter says, it is an important matter to speak in that way.
It would create a feeling of uncertainty among the people in the country.
It will shorten the whole matter if he promises us an inquiry, not an inter-departmental one but a committee acting for the Dáil, and which will report back to the Dáil.
I am acting for the Minister for Finance in this matter. I cannot promise any such inquiry. I will recommend to the Minister for Finance to make whatever inquiry he thinks proper—a departmental inquiry of some kind; and I am sure the results of that inquiry will be available to any Deputy. But I cannot promise anything more.
Is it constitutional for an extern Minister to act for the Minister for Finance? I think it is entirely unconstitutional.
Deputy Cooper has raised a constitutional point. I want to put a question to the Minister, but perhaps the question of Deputy Cooper might be judged by you to require an answer first.
I am not competent to judge constitutional points. I have refused over and over again to do so. This Department is now under the Minister for Finance since the passing of the Ministers and Secretaries Act; and, therefore, under the law at present the Minister for Finance would have to set up the inquiry. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture is now answering for the Minister for Finance as a matter of convenience.
The point is as to an inquiry?
The point is not only as to an inquiry but as to an inquiry by a Committee of the Dáil which would report to the Dáil. That was the demand made. Is not that so?
If an inquiry by a committee of the Dáil is what is suggested, let us understand what that means. The Dáil is going to adjourn after a very strenuous session, and it is suggested that a Committee of the Dáil will sit during the adjournment. I do not think there is any likelihood of that at all. So that in any case, we would scarcely do anything until we return in October. I think that would hardly meet the Deputy's point. But if the Deputy will enter into communication with me some day next week or the following week, we could see whether we might not have a departmental inquiry or something of the sort. If the Deputy were dissatisfied with such an inquiry, he could move for a Dáil Committee of Inquiry some time after we re-assemble. He would then be in no way in a worse position than now, because even if he were to carry a Dáil Committee of Inquiry now, I do not expect that such a Committee would operate until October. But between now and October we might get a more expeditious and perhaps a more satisfactory solution, if he would consult me during the week.
I was going to urge an inquiry into this matter if Deputy McGarry had not put it in that form. I think that the suggestion the President has made does help really very considerably and meets, as far as I am concerned, my point fully. But without putting it to a division on a vote, in the event of there being a general body of desire that there should be a Dáil Committee of Inquiry, without necessarily implying dissatisfaction with, or criticism of, a departmental inquiry, would the President in that case allow a Dáil Committee of Inquiry and not oppose it? Because, if he were to do that, and give latitude in this matter in the interests of efficiency and general satisfaction, I think the suggestion that he made would be a very practical one and would help very largely.
I am not quite satisfied. If the President will agree to give us a Dáil Committee of Inquiry I will withdraw my motion. I made a very serious statement and I made it with a full sense of responsibility as to the purport of it; and I think the statement is serious enough to have an inquiry into it. I go further, and I say that if and when the Boundary Commission finishes its deliberations, if it alters the boundary, there is no surveyor in the Saorstát who will be able to fix the boundary, because the documents necessary for fixing the boundary are in the Six Counties and there is no means of getting them. The Ministry of Finance is not the Department for Ordnance Survey and I would suggest that it should be a matter for the Ministry of Defence. How is your artillery going to work if you want to use it? If by any chance you have to use the two or three eighteen-pounders that you have at the present time you could not hit your target unless you could see it.
That does not follow.
It is the truth and the simple truth, because your Ordnance Survey maps are wrong. I have made all those statements seriously and with a full sense of responsibility as to what they meant, and I think they are serious enough to warrant an inquiry by a Committee of the Dáil. If the President agrees with that, and if he tells me that when we re-assemble he will appoint a Committee of the Dáil, I will withdraw my motion and allow the Estimate to go on.
There are two issues involved in this matter, both of great importance. The question of the competence of the chief officer is not the kind of question that ought to be the subject of an inquiry by a Committee of the Dáil. I think if we got into that line of policy and procedure we would be relieving the Ministry of their responsibilities. No Committee of the Dáil can with any sense of responsibility undertake to judge of the competence of an officer acting under a Ministry. The question of the position of the ordnance records is quite a different one. Deputy McGarry did not hear the Minister's explanation. Whether that explanation is completely satisfactory I cannot say until I read it, and even then I may not be quite satisfied. That may be a legitimate subject of inquiry, and I would like to deal with it before discussing this matter further and to avoid mixing up the two propositions.
I was not looking at this question from the point of view of the position that our artillery should take up, but from the point of view of the people down the country. Deputy McGarry made a very serious statement, because if it be accurate the ordnance sheets in possession of our people throughout the country may not be correct. These sheets are the sheets that are produced in courts. And what sense of security will our people in the country have if Deputy McGarry's statement that the Ordnance Survey is all wrong is to be accepted? I do not know whether he himself recognises the seriousness of the statement; but it is a very serious statement. That statement having been made publicly it will go out to the people, and we have to consider what sort the decisions of the courts are which are grounded on the maps that have been produced by the Ordnance Survey. I recognise, too, that this is, to a very great extent, a very technical problem, and I recognise that there are not many Deputies here who would be in a position to go into it in the way in which it ought to be gone into. It will take people with technical minds in conjunction with others interested from another point of view to do so; and I suggest to Deputy McGarry that if he is in a position to do so, it is better that he should go before a Departmental Committee, make his charges and bring forward his proofs in substantiation of them, and then see whether he or any other Deputies would be prepared to go any further. But something must be done. Inasmuch as this statement has been made by Deputy McGarry he has either to prove it or to withdraw it.
I agree with what Deputy Baxter has said. I was not in when Deputy McGarry made his statement, but now after his statement I think it would be unwise to wait two or three months to have this matter investigated. I would be prepared to set up a Departmental inquiry to go into this matter. I think it is unthinkable that maps should have been prepared that are not correct, and that the whole efficiency of the Department should be such as to have maps that are not true maps. I think the very fact that a statement of that sort is made makes it our duty to meet it. If, as a result of this inquiry, Deputy McGarry is dissatisfied, I will undertake, after the re-assembling of the Dáil, if he puts down a motion for a Dáil inquiry, to give time for its consideration. I should say that I do not anticipate in my wildest imagination ever having to plant artillery near the Border.
The map I hold in my hand has been given to me, because a decision has already been arrived at in the Courts of Justice in a certain area. One of the parties was not quite satisfied with the decision. His claim was not in accordance with what the map shows, and, therefore, this map may not be correct. Deputy McGarry's statement going out will mean that thousands of people throughout the country will jump to the conclusion that the maps are not correct, and that unfair decisions have been given because incorrect maps have been introduced.
Do not take me as saying that I want an inquiry into the competence of the officials, for that is a matter for the Ministry and not for the Dáil. The official is not responsible to the Dáil, but the Ministry is. I do not like the idea of a Departmental inquiry, for I think it will result in shelving and in whitewashing. I would sooner we had a committee of the Dáil. I think you can get two or three members of the Dáil to look into this matter. In connection with this there is another and very serious question from one point of view: if I have to produce people who are employees of the Government to substantiate the statements I have made, will there be any action taken against these people? If they say what is wrong, if they make state ments that they cannot substantiate, I do not care what happens to them, but if they substantiate what they say, will anything happen to them?
I should say off-hand nothing would happen to them if they can substantiate the statements they make, and I should say if they do not substantiate the statements it might be serious for them.
That is too much to say. We have put into certain Indemnity Bills the words "in good faith." A man makes a statement in good faith, and even though he cannot substantiate it to the satisfaction of the court, surely you are not going to make that man suffer because he cannot substantiate the statement he made?
"Good faith" is a very big thing.
True; I quite agree.
It is in the Act.
The onus is on somebody else of proving it is not in good faith. Well, if that is suitable in certain cases, surely it is suitable in this. We heard from the Minister for Justice many times, and only yesterday, that things can be such that they may not be capable of absolute proof in court, and yet are known to be true. I suggest that unless there can be some malice proved in the making of a statement which could not be substantiated, that no penalty should be imposed on the person who made the statement.
That line of thought would lead us to a big field. If every dissatisfied officer who wishes to make a statement in good faith does so, and I am sure a number could be made, then the Department in question is to be the subject of inquiry by reason of grievances being ventilated or allegations made here. I do not think I could subscribe to a policy of that sort. I do not know that it would tend to the discipline of the service. I said that the statement I made regarding indemnity is off-hand, and I will not go beyond that just now.
I was not ventilating anybody's grievance. I was ventilating a national grievance.
I also was not ventilating anybody's grievance in the matter. I want to make that clear. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what Deputy Baxter said and what Deputy McGarry understood. I would not bring a purely lay mind to bear upon a technical matter. The only charges I brought forward were with regard to the levels, which is an entirely different matter from the accuracy of boundaries and areas of districts and farms. My charge was that the levelling is inaccurate.
I also said that the maps which show the levels are inaccurate.
Deputy McGarry's point is the same as Deputy Hogan's.
So many irresponsible statements have been made that it is better to have an inquiry to blow them sky high.
Deputy McGarry wants a certain kind of inquiry. The President considers, apparently, in view of what has happened today, that an inquiry should take place immediately of a particular kind, but he offers if that does not satisfy Deputy McGarry and other Deputies that when the Dáil re-assembles after the Recess he will afford time for discussion on this question. I take it that the Estimates afford the opportunity of discussion here. The President promised an inquiry, such as may seem good to himself in the interval, and an opportunity after the Recess of raising this whole matter again if Deputies are still dissatisfied. Does not that meet the position?
I think if the President promised a Dáil inquiry after the Recess, it would meet our views. I have no faith in a Departmental inquiry.
The Deputy can raise the question of a Dáil inquiry after the Recess as well as now.
Will the President promise that he will appoint some qualified engineer to act as chairman of the Departmental inquiry? I am not questioning the impartiality of a Departmental inquiry, but it might give confidence to have an outsider, a qualified engineer, as chairman.
There are engineers in the service of the State, not in that Department, who, I think, would give confidence in the matter of an inquiry of that sort. I have two in my mind, one who was in the service of a certain Department of Dáil Eireann in the periods of 1920 to 1922. I think an official of that sort with good engineering qualifications would be suitable to hold such an inquiry.
Might I suggest that no doubt that would be quite satisfactory to the President, but what is requisite now, following upon Deputy Baxter's statement, is a course which would ensure confidence on the part of the public, and whether we like it or not, the impression prevails that when a Department of the Civil Service is attacked there is a closing up of the ranks, and the Civil Service will defend itself. To meet that as a possibility in the minds of the public a non-Civil Service surveyor as a member of that committee, and preferably as chairman. would inspire the confidence that is requisite, now that this matter has been made public.
I would press that point on the President. I think he can very well concede it. He can get. I am sure, some qualified engineer outside the service who will be as capable, as reliable and as trustworthy as a man he would get in the service. It will make all the difference in the world in the public mind.
I would probably be able to do so.
While the President is considering it will he consider asking the Surveyors' Institute to put forward such a person?
The members of the Surveyors' Institute are not qualified surveyors at all. They are land agents.
Whoever the body may be. I may have the title wrong, but I do know that this matter was first brought before my attention by certain civil engineers who desired to use these maps, and perhaps that institue might serve the purpose.
I will undertake to give that the most favourable consideration, and to announce this day week the name of the person I propose to select.
Under these circumstances I withdraw my motion.
Will the Deputy tell us what his motion was?
This was the motion: That a sum not exceeding £36,201 be granted to defray the salaries and expenses of the Ordnance Survey, and of minor services connected therewith.
Vote put and agreed to.
took the Chair.