asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that the Superintendent of the Ordnance Survey Section, which surveyed the Tully Bog, Castlerea, County Roscommon, in 1924, certified the survey as correct; that errors were subsequently found to have been made in the survey; whether he will state if these errors were corrected; if so, whether other sections corrected them, and at what cost; and whether he can state if this man is still employed in his old position in the Ordnance Survey Department.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - SURVEY OF A ROSCOMMON BOG.
The area known as Tully Bog, Co. Roscommon, contains about 1,000 acres of bog which is almost entirely devoid of the usual physical features which are of such value to surveyors, and prior to the revision of 1924, the area as shown on the ordnance maps was without detail. The work referred to by the Deputy was carried out by a Surveyor belonging to the section then in the district, and his results were examined by the Superintendent of the section. Ordinarily a test of accuracy would have been applied by means of what are known as check lines, but owing to the flooded state of the bog (which had considerably impeded the Surveyor) these check lines were not undertaken at the time. Later on it was decided to have the work tested by means of check lines, and a Surveyor was accordingly detached from the nearest section. He found it necessary to make some alterations due to fresh "lockspitting" and the shifting of an undefined road which had been utilised as the basis of the original survey.
It seems clear that in the circumstances mentioned the alterations made in the course of the second survey cannot be regarded as what are known as "errors." It is not the duty of the Superintendent of a section to certify the accuracy of the work of the Surveyors, as that would obviously be an impossible task. In the case in question the Superintendent, who is still employed, is a most reliable officer, and has an excellent record in the Department. The cost of the revision of the first survey was not any greater than would have been involved had the check lines been originally possible.
Mr. BOLAND
The Minister says that there is no error in the ordinary accepted sense of the word?
Yes.
Mr. BOLAND
It has been publicly stated in the Press that there was an error, and that in this Department an error of that nature was criminal. In any case that was stated in the paper "Honesty."
DEPUTIES
Oh, oh!
Well, it has not been contradicted. It was stated that five private "sappers"—that is what they are called—were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 56 to 90 days for slight errors. It has been stated that this particular individual was charged by a civilian employee who had 22 years' service with having deliberately altered his map. If the Minister says there is no error I will have to accept it, but it was also stated that there was an error and that the smaller people were punished with imprisonment. If that is so, it is a most extraordinary thing that this man should be retained in the service. I can give the Minister the references and the papers and bring them to his attention. Possibly they are worthy of note.
Of course, I could not examine anything that appeared in a paper which specialises in that sort of thing, as I believe this paper does. Apart from the paper, if the Deputy has any grounds for believing that there is anything that should be investigated, and will put down a question or write to me, I shall have it examined, but so far as I have investigated this matter for the purpose of answering this question I am satisfied there was no error in the accepted sense of the word. That is, the survey was not completed on the ordinary form at the time. Certain checks were not applied, and there were certain errors due to the survey not being completed on the ordinary form at the time.
Mr. BOLAND
Arising out of the latter part of the question, as to whether this man is still in the service, will the Minister say whether it is a fact that this definite charge is made against him, namely, of altering another person's maps.
I cannot answer that question. I know that a certain individual who was in the Department made certain charges which were fully investigated, with the result that the person who was bringing the charges was dismissed. I do not know whether it is this person who was dismissed who is making these charges. If it is, I am satisfied that the person dismissed was rightly dismissed. I do not know whether there was any such charge made against this man.