Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1940 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1939 - 1940

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 16adh Bealtaine, 1940.

Thursday, 16th May, 1940.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair.

Mr. J. Maher (Roinn an Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste) and Mr. C. S. Almond (Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 65—ARMY.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon called and examined.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“83. A Vote of £323,370 was taken in February, 1939, to supplement the original Vote of £1,672,314 in order to provide for additional expenditure arising out of the transference to Eire of the Coastal Defences, schemes for the protection of the civil population against air and gas attack, and increases in the reserves of clothing and warlike stores. As shown in the account, a balance of £223,963, or 11.2 per cent. of the estimated expenditure, remains to be surrendered. This surplus is due mainly to the fact that owing to the international situation it was not possible to obtain delivery of requirements of warlike and allied stores before the end of the financial year.”

573. Chairman.—Have you any further comment to offer, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—No. The purpose of the paragraph was to show how the relatively large surrender in the Vote arose.

574. Chairman.—Has that situation improved at all, General MacMahon?—Not very much, sir.

575. I take it, General MacMahon, that everything possible was done? I do not think it would be expedient to be investigating these matters too closely at the present time?—Everything possible has been and is being done.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General (second part of paragraph 83):—

“An Agreement regarding Articles 6 and 7 of the Articles of Agreement dated 6th December, 1921, was signed between the Governments of Eire and the United Kingdom on 25th April, 1938; and under Article 2 of this Agreement the Admiralty property and rights at Berehaven, and the harbour defences at Berehaven, Cobh and Lough Swilly were transferred to the Department of Defence, together with buildings, magazines, emplacements, instruments and fixed armaments, with ammunition therefor, at the said ports on the 25th April. 1938. The transfer, which also included the plant, machinery and vessels necessary for the maintenance of the defences, was completed before 31st December, 1938, and the property and stores acquired are shown in the records of the Services entrusted with the control of the defences.”

576. Chairman.—I take it that is an informative paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—Yes, for the purpose of showing how the Articles of Agreement of April, 1938, were carried out.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General (third part of paragraph 83).—

“In addition to the equipment handed over free of charge, a considerable quantity of stores—mainly barrack service and engineering stores—was purchased for the sum of £27,949, which has been charged to various subheads of the Vote. These stores were valued at a percentage of the British Army vocabulary prices, and the rates paid appeared from a test examination to be reasonable. I have made inquiries regarding the inclusion in the charge of the cost of certain items of regimental property, which did not appear to be properly chargeable to the Army Vote.”

577. Chairman.—Did you receive any reply to these inquiries?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. As regards the paragraph generally, we have received certificates covering the stores purchased, as well as detailed lists. It appears from the test carried out that the prices paid were reasonable and that the stores were suitable for Army requirements. As regards the last sentence, the regimental property referred to is now being used mainly on public services.

578. Deputy Brasier.—Would that include launches and that kind of thing? Would it include launches and services to places like Spike Island, General MacMahon?—Launches are included in the second paragraph, but they are not included in the items to which Mr. Maher has drawn attention.

579 Chairman.—What are the items actually referred to in the last half of the third part of paragraph 83? What sort of property is there referred to?— The articles that Mr. Maher drew attention to are lawn mowers and tools for cleaning up the place.

Mr. Maher.—And, in addition, there were five boats purchased at Lough Swilly.

General MacMahon.—There were five boats used by the British Army in Lough Swilly and we took over those boats. According to regulations a boat must be available when men are being taught swimming. A boat has been transferred to Galway for a similar purpose and another boat was handed over to the Army Corps of Engineers to be used in connection with the building of pontoon bridges, etc. Three boats are being used at Lough Swilly.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General (4th part of paragraph 83):—

“Ex-gratia payments amounting to £700 were made to British regimental funds in respect of squash courts and tennis courts, some of which had only been completed a short time before the date of the Agreement. The amount is included in the charge to subhead U. Information is not yet available regarding the question of maintenance of these courts, the cost of which is not chargeable against public funds under existing regulations.”

580. Chairman.—Have you since obtained any information, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. We have been informed that the maintenance of the buildings containing squash courts would be met out of public funds, but any expenditure for their up-keep would be met from welfare funds

581. Chairman.—That is a thing that recommends itself to the Comptroller and Auditor-General?

Mr. Maher.—We have no objection.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General (final part of paragraph 83):—

“Certain recreational equipment and stores not provided for in the Army Vote were purchased for a sum of £556, and it is proposed to recover this amount from military funds. Meanwhile it is charged to a suspense account, and I have inquired whether arrangements for its collection have yet been made.”

582. Chairman.—Have you received any reply, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Since the report was issued we were informed that the question of collecting the sum referred to was under consideration. Probably General MacMahon will be able to say what the present position is.

General MacMahon.—We are making every effort to recover it and we will recover it. The difficulty was that a number of units were new units and they had not any mess funds. It will take some time to accumulate funds, and as soon as they do accumulate this sum will be paid. We hope to have it recovered, certainly before this time next year.

583. Chairman.—Is it proposed to recover the full amount, or is it proposed to allow the officers and men to have this recreational equipment and stores at a valuation, inasmuch as they were not purchased at the discretion of the regimental messes? I take it they were taken over en bloc by the Government in pursuit of a more comprehensive arrangement?—We took them over simply because the Quarter-Master-General said they would be required. It was at the military request we took them over. We propose to recover the full sum, £556.

Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

Subhead A (1)—Military Educational Courses Abroad for Specially Selected Officers.

84. “Concerning allowances payable to officers attending courses of instruction abroad in respect of incidental travelling and miscellaneous expenses, certain certified claims were received, which were not in agreement with statements received from the school authorities, and the matter has been referred to the Department of Finance. I have made representations regarding the present system of authenticating such claims, as it does not appear to be satisfactory, and the practicability of certification by the officers in charge of schools is, I am informed, being investigated.”

584. Chairman.—That paragraph falls into two parts, one particular and the other general. In regard to the particular case referred to in the first part of the question, have you anything to tell us, General MacMahon?—We discovered that there was a conflict of evidence between our officers and the officers in England, and the matter was referred to the Deputy Judge Advocate General, who, I should like to explain for the information of the Committee, is our legal officer. He stated that if these officers were court martialled it would be necessary in order to get a conviction, to bring a number of people, officers and possibly N.C.O.s from the other side, and documents from England would have to be made available here, and even then, with the conflict of evidence, it was doubtful whether a conviction would be obtained. He recommended to the Adjutant-General that, in the circumstances, a court martial be not held. That recommendation was endorsed by the Adjutant-General and agreed to by the Minister. The officers concerned were paraded and told that the Minister and the Army authorities took a very serious view of this matter and they were reprimanded and the facts were entered on their files. That in itself is really a punishment, because every time a name goes up for promotion the file is produced. This is certain to have a very prejudicial effect on their future career in the Army.

585. Have any steps been taken to repay the moneys that they have improperly drawn?—The moneys that they improperly drew were disallowed. The question involved is really one of disciplinary action and punishment. The extra money that they claimed has not been granted to them. It has been disallowed. They only got what they were entitled to in accordance with the statement of the officer commanding the school in England. As I have said they did not get what they claimed, and the real question involved is a disciplinary one. We are not very happy about it. If it were not for the fact that it would be necessary to bring officers and possibly N.C.O.s in England over here, and to make available here a number of documents which are in England these officers certainly would have been court martialled.

586. The second paragraph is the general one inquiring whether a proper system for authenticating their claims has been set on foot?—As far as that is concerned, we did consider Mr. Maher’s suggestion, that these claims be certified by the officer in charge of the school. Under the present arrangement the claims are sent to the particular officer’s commanding officer for examination. I will admit that he does not know very much about the merits of the claim, but the junior officer knows they are examined by him and then transmitted through the High Commissioner to the War Office and to the officer commanding the school. That officer has in fact to certify them, it may be in an indirect way, but still he has to certify them, and if he does not do it correctly his own authorities may be at the loss of some funds. We believe that under our present system we have indirectly, at all events, the certificate of the officer in charge of the school.

587. Chairman.—Have you, Mr. Maher, any comment to make on that?

Mr. Maher.—At the present stage we could not make any comment on the future, until a specific case arises. It did occur to us that under the present arrangement we have no means of ascertaining the authenticity of the claims, or whether these travelling allowances had been incurred. The position is unsatisfactory.

588. Chairman.—Have you, Mr. Almond, anything to say on the matter?

Mr. Almond.—Two cases were reported to us in which irregular claims were put forward. We do not wish to confine ourselves to these two particular cases. We want to examine the whole position. I am inclined to agree with General MacMahon, that the present arrangement serves as a very satisfactory check on the correctness, or incorrectness, of the claims made, because in these two cases that were reported to us the irregularity of the claims was discovered as a result of the reference to the British Air Ministry. I do not think that a certificate by the officer commanding the school would have provided any more effective check; but, as to whether that would apply in every case, I would not like to say at present. I should like to have the opportunity of looking into the position more fully.

589. Chairman.—Perhaps the matter might be left for discussion between Mr. Maher, the Department of Finance and the Army authorities with a view to fixing up a regulation.

Mr. Maher.—I am not aware whether those facilities exist at the moment for sending officers across, or whether there are likely to be more claims in the future.

General MacMahon.—They do not exist at the moment, and will not while the war is on.

590. Chairman.—In the meantime the three parties concerned will have ample opportunity of arriving at agreement on the matter.

General MacMahon.—I would like to assure the Committee that we are examining the matter to see if we can arrive at a more satisfactory arrangement.

Subhead C—Pay of Civilians attached to Units.

“85. As shown in a note appended to the account, a sum of £172 15s. 3d. is charged to the Vote in respect of services rendered to civil aviation on behalf of the Department of Industry and Commerce. A further sum of £259, expended in connection with the survey of aerodrome sites, remains charged to a suspense account. The figures do not include the cost of additional appointments to the technical staff of the Air Corps to deal with matters pertaining to civil aviation. These appointments were created in response to representations made by the Department of Industry and Commerce, but only three of the seven authorised by the Department of Finance were filled in the year under review, the duties attaching to the remaining posts being performed by military personnel. The annual charge to subhead C. in respect of appointments already made to deal with civil aviation matters amounts to £1,387, and the indirect expenditure incurred up to the present is also considerable, but the Army Vote contains no provision for expenditure on civil aviation except a “token” sum of £10 under subhead O. 1., which enables the Department to provide various services on a repayment basis. As it appears to be desirable that the position regarding this service should be clarified, I have communicated with the Accounting Officer.”

591. Chairman.—Have you any further comment to make on this, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—An agreement is being reached with the Department of Finance on the matter. They have sent out a letter of authority in which they say that expenditure incurred by the Army arising out of the services rendered in connection with the establishment of a transatlantic airport and seaplane bases and the Dublin airport should, except where a specific direction to the contrary has been given, be borne as a final charge on the Army Vote. That disposes of the matter in suspense. The authority also makes arrangements as regards future charging to the Army Vote in respect of this service and similar services relating to civil aviation.

Chairman.—As this is a purely accounting transaction, that is satisfactory to us. The second part of paragraph 85 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General requires further consideration. It reads:

“The attention of the Department has been drawn to certain matters relating to the method of control and time recording of civilian tradesmen employed in Army workshops who are paid at hourly rates. No general instructions on these matters appear to have been issued, and there appears to be lack of uniformity in the procedure followed.”

592. Chairman.—Would you care to elaborate that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Our view is that a general instruction, covering all civilian employees in the Army, is desirable. For instance, at Baldonnel we found that there was a discrepancy between the hours for which civilians were paid and the actual number of hours they worked. There was a military reason, I understand, for that discrepancy. We also found that at Island-bridge attendance books and time sheets are not kept. One or other may be kept. but in our view both should be kept so that there would be a complete and effective check on the work of those civilian employees. We think that if a general instruction were issued to cover all those civilian employees it would be desirable. and would put the matter on a firm basis for the future.

593. Chairman.—What is your view, General MacMahon?—I should like to explain to the Committee that we have civilian employees attached to five corps In the case of four corps, the civilians attached to them are trade unionists and are paid trade union rates. In the case of the Air Corps, the civilian employees are specialists and are paid a weekly rate. We certainly are prepared to act on Mr. Maher’s suggestion, and see if it is possible to get out a regulation which will cover all trade unionists, and the others as well. We will submit it to the Department of Finance for their approval. At the moment I, personally, am satisfied with the arrangement in force, but if Mr. Maher wants a regulation governing the matter I shall have it prepared.

Mr. Maher.—We are not pressing for the regulation, but we think it might be considered, because it seems to us desirable that there should be either a regulation or some method of control more satisfactory than the present one.

594. Chairman.—May we take it, Mr. Almond, that your view would correspond generally with the view of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this matter?

Mr. Almond.—We have not been able to examine the position fully yet. This matter only came to our notice through the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General but, in view of what has been said, I think it is desirable that the matter should be thrashed out and some satisfactory system evolved for the future.

Subhead J—Mechanical Transport.

“86. In connection with the scheme for the gradual mechanisation of the Army a fleet of lorries was hired for four periods during the year for the use of Units undergoing annual training. The contract terms stipulated for the payment of a fixed charge per day for each lorry for a minimum of seven consecutive days in each period, including the days of collection and return of the lorries at the contractor’s depots. It appears, however, that the exigencies of training did not require the continuous use of the number of lorries hired, and the payments under the contract, which amounted to £1,130 15s. 0d., include nearly £200 for lorries which were not used on various days within the contract periods. In consequence the contract charge was high when related to the mileage run on military duty.”

595. Chairman.—Can you tell us, General MacMahon, if on the days on which the £200 was spent on the lorries which were not used, the lorries were, in fact, under the control of the military authorities?—They were. In connection with this may I explain that I am afraid we can never arrive at a definite arrangement when we hire lorries for manœuvres. A particular section of the Army may be in a defensive position. It may be there all day, but transport has to be at its disposal. On a particular day it may have only covered a mile. There are one or two small points in connection with this that were investigated but, generally speaking, I am afraid that expenditure such as this £200 is unavoidable when transport is required for manœuvres. If, for instance, you were dealing with the conveyance of stores or something like that, you could guard against it. One force engaged in the manœuvres may cover a big distance. In that case the transport with that force would consume a lot of petrol. The force in a defensive position may not move any distance at all, and therefore the transport attached to it would not consume any petrol.

596. Were these lorries hired on the basis that the contractor, or the Army, was to supply the petrol?—The Army supplies the petrol and the drivers. We pay £1 2s. 6d. per day for each lorry. I think that compares favourably with what other people have to pay. It is not at all unlikely that other people would have to pay 30/- a day.

597. Chairman.—Have you any comment to make on this, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Except to say that our point was not quite the same as the one that has been explained by General MacMahon. We were of opinion that it might be possible, under a contract for hireage, to make some arrangement whereby the hirer would allow for days on which the lorries were not being used. We understood that the period started on a Saturday: that the lorries would not be used on a Sunday, for instance, and that they would not be used on days when the weather was extremely bad. Our point was that, when a future contract of this nature was being entered into, some allowance might be made for those days.

598. Chairman.—Do manœuvres start on a Sunday?

General MacMahon.—No. Sometimes, when they are commencing, they might set out late on a Sunday evening or very early on a Monday morning, possibly at four or five o’clock on a Monday morning. We have to get this transport from the railway company on a Saturday evening. They would not hand it over on a Sunday. We will consider Mr. Maher’s suggestion, but in view of the fact that the railway company give us this transport at a reduced rate, they might, under the suggested arrangement, consider it necessary to charge a higher daily rate.

599. Deputy Hughes.—What usually is the duration of the manœuvres?

General MacMahon.—They usually extend over a nine-day period.

600. And the transport costs in or about £10 for that period?—Yes.

601. What would be the average mileage?—It would be impossible to say what the average mileage would be. The attacking force might have a very big average, but, as I have said, the force on the defensive might be in the same position for a long period, resulting in a small mileage.

602. But, when you propose to hire lorries at a reasonable cost, you must surely base it on some average?

Chairman.—I am not a military man, but I cannot conceive a general taking the field with an equipment of lorries on the basis that the Deputy suggests. It seems to me that he must have his lorries at his disposal as the emergency demands. I cannot see how you could possibly arrive at what his mileage basis will be. In fact, to be quite frank, I think the Army is right and that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is wrong in this matter. If I were in the position of the Army authorities I would hire my lorries, and if I did not use them, well, then, it would be just too bad. But the position is that I might have to use them.

603. Deputy Hughes.—Supposing the Army was in a position to point out that in their manœuvres for over a period of five years the mileage travelled by the lorry was never more than ten miles a day on the average; in other words, that in nine or ten days the distance travelled by the lorry would be under 100 miles— would that make any difference?

Mr. Maher.—This is the first time the matter was at issue.

General MacMahon.—Yes, this year and last year, and we will not require the lorries any longer.

Chairman.—Is it not true that whether you travelled 100 miles of 1,000 miles, that the Railway Company are at the loss of the lorry for the time?

Deputy O’Rourke.—Yes. it does not matter to the Railway Company very much how many miles it travels.

604. Chairman.—Has the Department of Finance any views on it?

Mr. Almond.—We consider that the rate charged by the Railway Company was reasonable. We think if the Railway Company were asked to give the lorries at a mileage rate they would not give them any cheaper. They presumably require certain moneys for the use of their lorries, no matter what basis is adopted. But we need not worry about this matter any further because the Army have lorries of their own now and they will not require to hire lorries in the future unless some specially unforeseen circumstance or emergency arises.

Chairman.—There is a note to Subhead K—Provisions and Allowances in lieu. It is paragraph 87, which reads:

“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 average prices of cattle purchased for the Dublin and Curragh areas were £21 16s. 10d. and £19 13s. 3d. per head respectively, as compared with £20 10s. 10d. and £18 8s. 1d. in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 761 lbs. and 688 lbs. respectively, as compared with 763 lbs. and 680 lbs.”

605. Chairman.—Continuing the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report—

Subhead O—General Stores.

“88. In connection with the purchase of aeroplanes, an advance payment of £43,000 was made on 31st March, 1939. The consignment of aeroplanes and equipment had been delivered and accepted by the Air Corps after examination, but it was not possible to obtain the certified claims for payment at the time, and the exact prices of some of the machines have not yet been notified by the suppliers. The payment, which does not discharge the full liability in respect of the purchases, has, in the circumstances, been admitted as a charge against this subhead.”

Mr. Maher.—We are satisfied that the payment of £43,000 made in this case is less than the amount due. We are also satisfied that it was extremely difficult to get bills to cover all the expenditure, because we understand that the suppliers of the aeroplanes themselves could not obtain the bills.

Chairman.—The second part of the note reads:

“Regarding the question of repair and reconstruction of damaged aircraft is has been noticed that a number of damaged machines has been held in the Air Corps workshops for long periods without the work necessary to render them available for service being carried out. I have not yet been informed of the causes of the delay.”

606. Have you since received any explanation?

Mr. Maher.—Yes, the delay is due to the delivery of the spares.

607. Are these British?

General MacMahon.—Yes.

608. Is it still difficult to get the necessary spares?—We are getting in some but not all that we require.

609. Deputy Hughes.—To how many aeroplanes does this refer?

General MacMahon.—In this case there is a reference to three.

610. Chairman.—The sub-paragraph speaks of aeroplanes which are damaged and in your workshops awaiting repairs. I take it that the number is substantial?

General MacMahon.—I think Mr. Maher only referred to four.

Mr. Maher.—We simply took these four; we were not aware that there were any more.

611. Chairman.—Have representations been made to the British Department of Supplies as to the desirability of giving us at least the spare parts so as to be able to put these machines in the air?

General MacMahon.—Yes, frequently, through the High Commissioner.

612. Deputy Hughes.—Is that all reconditioned work?

General MacMahon.—Principally parts that have been damaged or become defective.

613. Chairman.—We may take it that everything possible has been done to get the machines into the best possible order. At the present time we should consider not pressing General MacMahon too strongly. When peace is restored we can have a gala day and an inquest into these matters.

Deputy O’Rourke.—I hope there will be no inquest.

Chairman.—I think it is not advisable to go too closely into this matter. The third part of paragraph 88 reads as follows:—

“As a result of the extension of the use of mechanised transport for military purposes it has apparently not been found necessary to put into service horse-drawn equipment which was acquired in recent years, and a large proportion of the horses held on Army charge have been sold. As regards harness and saddlery, the equipment of a number of Units had been completed in accordance with the scales laid down in the authorised schedules, but it cannot be stated at present to what extent its use will be effected by the new conditions. I have made inquiries regarding the arrangements made for the preservation of equipment which has not been put into service.”

614. Chairman.—That paragraph is a very natural one. There would be a tendency naturally to allow this harness to fall into pieces. Yet the time might come when it may be required at very short notice. Could you tell us, General MacMahon, if this harness is being kept in perfect order?—Yes, the military authorities have in mind the possibility you mention. When we decide it will be no longer required we will dispose of it.

615. We can remain quite certain that it is being kept in good order?—Yes, Sir.

Subhead P. 1.—Protection of Civil Population Against Air and Gas Attack.

“89. As shown in the account, a sum of £48,921 was expended under this subhead on the purchase of equipment for the protection of the civil population against air raids and expenditure was also incurred in providing services for the training of civilians in air raids precautions. This expenditure is authorized by Section 60 of the Air Raid Precautions Act, which became law on the 26th July, 1939, and I understand that the regulations contemplated by Section 61 of the Act to therefrom being confined to items essengovern all matters relating to the storage, distribution, loan and sale of the equipment are being prepared. Meanwhile, it is held in store, issues therefrom being confined to items essen tial for training purposes, which are lent to various interested bodies in accordance with schedules which have been approved. The question of suitable storage for those supplies which are otherwise liable to rapid deterioration is receiving the attention of the Department.”

616. Have the regulations contemplated by Section 61 of the Act been made yet? —No, only preparations have been made, the regulations have not actually been made yet.

617. Ought we not do something about it—surely, with continental armies ranging around Europe, regulations should have been made governing the storage, distribution and sale of this equipment? —If we produce regulations we will probably have demands from people who are not likely to get the material. That is the reason why we are holding off making the regulations. We have not as yet full equipment for all the scheduled areas. If we produce the regulations we will have demands from the various areas for the equipment at once.

618. Deputy Hughes.—When do you hope to have all the necessary equipment —is it when the war is over?—I cannot answer that.

619. Chairman.—If an emergency arose would you have statutory authority to distribute this equipment at all without some provisional arrangements?—Oh, yes, we could distribute the equipment immediately.

620. Are we to understand that you do not propose to make the regulations until you are satisfied you have sufficient equipment to meet all the demands?—I can assure you that the regulations will be issued in the near future. We will not wait until we have the full supplies of equipment. I think a statement of policy will be made before the regulations are issued.

621. I think the Committee would like to be assured that you would not indefinitely postpone the regulations?—The issuing of the regulations will not hold up the distribution. The regulations will deal particularly with the custody of the equipment. When the emergency comes, this equipment will be got out.

622. Deputy Hughes.—How long would it take to distribute the equipment?— Only a few hours.

623. Chairman.—I hope I will get my gas mask before I need it?

General MacMahon.—Dublin is the only place that we are dealing with.

624. Deputy Cole.—What percentage of Dublin have you equipment for?—As far as gas masks are concerned we have complete equipment for all the adults in Dublin. The remark the Chairman kindly made before applies in this case.

625. Chairman.—Yes, I can quite understand that. I do not want to question the matter of the supply at all. All that I am concerned with is the propriety of making the regulations so that whatever supplies we have can be distributed to what the authorities consider is the best advantage.

General MacMahon.—All the arrangements have already been made. The regulations will not hold up the distribution.

626. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that the storage is of such a character as to preserve the supplies in good order?—I am. The reason we are not pressing the matter of regulations is that we have the equipment in perfect storage at the moment. The intention of the Government is that this equipment will not be distributed until it is required for use. Therefore, the question of regulations is not urgent.

627. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote which reads as follows:

Subhead Q—Engineer Stores.

90. “The excess expenditure under this subhead was due to the emergency purchase of sand bags to meet military requirements, about £9,000 having been paid on the contracts, up to the end of the financial year. Owing to the international situation it was not possible to obtain competitive tenders, but the price was regarded as reasonable, and it was appreciably less than the price at which orders were placed in the current year. It has been ascertained that with suitable storage conditions the sand bags can be preserved for a very long period.”

I take it, Mr. Maher, that that is just an informative paragraph?

Mr. Maher.—The purchases are for military requirements for the protection of the State.

628. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads as follows:—

Store Accounts.

“91. A test examination of the store accounts was carried out during the year, and the results proved generally satisfactory.

It has been noticed that the method adopted for controlling the issues of medical stores and accounting for them does not appear to provide sufficient safeguards to ensure the exclusive and necessary use of those stores in the public service, and the exercise of economy in their distribution. As it appears that an approved system of accounting for medical stores has not yet been provided for in Army regulations, I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter. I have also inquired regarding the method of accounting for books and other items purchased for educational purposes in recent years.”

So far as that note applies to medical supplies, I seem to remember that this matter was before us in some previous year?

Mr. Maher.—It was. We have brought it on rather a different basis at the moment. We have been informed since the date of report that the present system of accounting for medical stores is under consideration.

General MacMahon.—Medical officers will not standardise prescriptions for a particular case. One medical officer may favour one prescription while another may favour something else. We have got agreement now and regulations will be issued in the course of a few days.

629. Chairman.—The latter part of the paragraph refers to methods of accounting for books, etc. Do you wish to add anything, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Instructions have been issued regarding the control of books, and I believe it is satisfactory now.

630. Chairman.—The note continues:—

“In its reports on the accounts of previous years the Public Accounts Committee had occasion to comment on certain purchases of barrack service stores which were subsequently found to be unsuitable for Army requirements, and were not issued for service. The Department has now succeeding in disposing of the major portion of those stocks by public auction, the prices obtained being approximately 50 per cent, of the original cost. Relatively small quantities of the stores have been retained to meet possible future demands.”

From a list which has been handed to me, I see included vegetable dishes, percolators, bacon and bread slicing machines, liqueur glasses, stew pans, teapots, sugar bowls, cream jars, mop handles and broom handles. One might have made a fortune with these now, as they have become extremely expensive.

Statement of Losses.

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

Cash losses charged to “Balances Irrecoverable” with the sanction of the Department of Finance: £1,184 6s. 2d.;

Deficiencies of stores and other losses not affecting the 1938-39 vote: £1,456 13s. 6d.

The former figure includes £1,016 2s. 1d. in respect of the default of an officer of the Forces, to which reference was made in paragraph 82 of my report on the accounts for the year 1936-37. The figures also include £222 18s. 3d. in respect of the loss during a storm of a launch acquired a short time previously in connection with Air Corps exercises. This loss was apparently due to unsuitable anchorage. The corresponding figures for the previous year were £88 17s. 0d. and £2,200 8s. 7d.”

631. Have you anything further to add, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Nothing beyond the fac that we understand that the marine surveyor of the Department of Industry and Commerce was of the opinion that the moorings were too heavy for the type of craft, and that it should not have been anchored in the open sea.

General MacMahon.—The Board of Works supplied the moorings, and regarded them as suitable. The other authorities disagreed with the Department of Industry and Commerce representative on the question. The Board of Works had certain experience in connection with launches, and they supplied the moorings which we believed were suitable. We regarded them as an authority, to start off with, and our own people were well satisfied with the moorings.

632. Chairman.—I suppose we can write it off as due to the perils of the sea.

Mr. Maher.—It has been written off.

VOTE 65.—ARMY.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon further examined.

633. Deputy Brasier.—What are you getting for these military lands under Sub-head T? Are you using them for grazing?—Yes.

634. Deputy Brasier.—Solely for grazing?—Except near Tramore, outside Galway, where part is being used for tillage. Otherwise they are being used for grazing only.

635. Chairman.—Regarding subhead Y.4—payments to secretaries of Sluaighte —is the system continuing under which secretaries of Sluaighte are being paid?— There is a proposal before the Department of Finance at the moment for a new scheme of organisation, and, if it is approved the Sluagh secretaries will disappear.

Chairman.—Deputies will find on page 229 a detailed statement of the losses.

VOTE 66—ARMY PENSIONS.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon further examined.

636. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

93. “Regarding applications under the Army Pensions Act, 1932, for grants in respect of disabilities attributable to military service, it has been noted that considerable additional expenditure is involved in cases in which it is found necessary to grant a temporary pension for only a relatively short period, as all awards of pensions under that Act are payable as from 1st April, 1932. I understand that a number of applications under the Act still remain to be examined and reported on.”

637. Deputy Brasier.—Could you give some idea as to the length of time which has elapsed since these were examined?

Chairman.—I think an opportunity will arise to deal with that later. This paragraph refers to a particular problem— the granting of temporary pensions with retrospective consequences.

638. Deputy Brasier.—Would it not be possible to grant temporary pensions, where one is sure of the facts?

639. Chairman.—There will be an opportunity to bring that up on a later paragraph. What is the system under which temporary pensions are granted with consequent lump sums?

General MacMahon.—In connection with this Act, the Board picks out obvious cases and deals with them first. If they saw a case which was obviously not a bad one and which would appear not to succeed at all, it would be left on one side. They would deal with the really urgent—that is, the bad cases, first.

640. Chairman.—I find a case in which a gentleman alleged to be suffering from neurasthenia as a result of a gunshot wound in the back. That could scarcely be described as urgent?—His case would be left over until the urgent cases were disposed of.

641. He got a temporary pension and a lump sum of £148 10s. back pay?— When the Act commenced to operate, the Board selected the obviously urgent cases. Probably it was considered that he would not get a pension and they left him on one side and dealt with the urgent cases. When his case came up. they found that he did, in fact, suffer from a disability.

642. Let us take this particular case, so that we may understand the procedure. Let us call this man Mr. X. He presented his application in the usual way. Was he then picked out as an obviously bad case which ought to be examined and disposed of at once?—He was picked out as not being an urgent case and as one where possibly his application would not succeed.

643. Yet he was given a temporary pension?—They could not decide definitely until they had the applicant before them.

644. And gave him a temporary pension?—At this point the Board had only an application form before them. On examining this applicant they might decide that he should get a temporary pension.

645. Therefore, the temporary pension would continue only until such time as his neurasthenia came to an end?—That is the position. Probably the doctors decided that in six months this man might be well if given some treatment in the interval. At the end of six months he would be called up again and, if found all right, the pension would cease; that is, unless they discovered that he was still suffering from disability, in which case they would make him a further award.

646. So the minor cases—in which there was thought to be a possibility of recovery—had their examination postponed. They were given temporary pensions retroactive to the critical day in 1932?—That is so, but they would have been called before the Board earlier had the Board considered that the particulars given on the application form would justify such a course.

647. Are there many of these temporary pensions being granted?—There are a number, but I could not give the exact figures now.

648. We are referring at the moment to the 1932 Act. Have many temporary pensions been granted under that Act, as distinct from the later Pensions Act? —Probably about 60; I could not give the exact figures.

Chairman.—Deputy Brasier, were you thinking of applicants under the later Act?

Deputy Brasier.—There was one case which I had in mind, of a man who has been waiting for years to have a case decided.

Chairman.—Was this a man who actually served in the Regular Army?

Deputy Brasier.—Yes; he also served in the pre-Truce period.

649. Chairman.—Can you give Deputy Brasier any information as to a case of that kind?—I am afraid I will have to know the circumstances. If it is a military service pension case it would have been dealt with in the period from 1924 to 1928. If it is a disability pension I believe that it would have been dealt with long ago. I should like the Deputy to give the particulars of the case.

Deputy Brasier [to Chairman].—Would I be in order in handing a letter to General MacMahon?

Chairman.—I am sure he would be glad to facilitate the Deputy if the Deputy approaches him personally.

650. Deputy Brasier.—It is a military service pension.

General MacMahon.—If it is a service pension I am afraid there is very little hope for him, as he should have applied between 1924 and 1928.

651. Chairman.—I have no doubt, if the Deputy approaches you, that you will give him any help you can?—Yes.

652. Deputy Cole.—Were there not applicants who applied since then and got pensions?—Some have applied since but they have to satisfy the Minister for Defence that there were reasons why they could not have applied when they should have applied, that is, somewhere between 1924 and 1928.

Deputy Brasier.—I shall put the case before General MacMahon.

Chairman.—The next part of the paragraph reads:—

“The terms of section 4 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, provide that pensions granted to members of the Forces who were awarded certificates of military service under that Act shall not commence until the day of discharge from the Forces if that day is later than 1st October, 1924. The Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, does not contain a similar provision, all pensions under that Act being payable as from 1st October, 1934. Pensions have been granted to a number of serving officers under the later Act, but these pensions are, however, abated under Section 20 in respect of the recipients’ emoluments as Army officers. I have inquired regarding the basis of abatement in certain cases.”

653. Chairman.—Have you received that information that you asked for?

Mr. Maher.—Yes. The Department of Finance have now sanctioned the request of the Department of Defence and authority has been given. I should say that the two points at issue were, whether in ascertaining the correct abatement, the uniform allowance and the daily allowance paid to officers should be taken into account; and the Minister for Finance has now agreed that the uniform allowance should be disregarded and, as regards the daily allowance, only so much as represents the ration allowance should be regarded as remuneration, so that the matter referred to in the paragraph may be taken as satisfactorily settled.

654. Chairman.—The next part of the paragraph reads:—

“Under the terms of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme, 1937, a soldier who is specially re-engaged for such further period of service as will complete 21 years’ service with the Forces—termed “a long-service” soldier—is eligible for a pension on discharge. In the course of audit of the awards granted under this Scheme it was noticed that some ex-members of the Forces, who are in receipt of pensions appropriate to “long-term” service, were discharged as medically unfit a relatively short time after they had been re-engaged. In the cases in question the provisions of the regulations relating to medical examination and physical fitness on re-engagement were waived, and I have made inquiries regarding the correctness of the procedure followed in view of the charge to public funds which is involved.”

Chairman.—Am I correct in saying that the distinction here is that the short-term soldier is entitled to a gratuity, whereas the long-term soldier is entitled to a pension?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

655. Chairman.—The admission of these short-term men to long-term service entitled them to pension rights?

Mr. Maher.—Provided they had the requisite service.

656. Chairman.—Have you received any reply to the enquiries you made in regard to the procedure followed in the matter of waiving medical examination in the cases of readmission?

Mr. Maher.—Yes, we have received a reply from the Accounting Officer in which he says that, in the three cases referred to, the men had the service necessary for a reduced pension, but were debarred therefrom by a technicality that unlike others with much shorter service they had not been reattested as long-service soldiers. We are still of opinion, however, that the order of the Minister for Defence in this matter should also have been signed by the Minister for Finance, as he signed the original regulation.

657. Chairman.—What is your view, Mr. Almond?

Mr. Almond.—The point at issue is really whether the Minister for Defence should waive certain conditions of the regulation when, as a result of such waiver, certain expenditure would be incurred. It is quite clear from the Defence Forces Acts that the Minister for Finance should be consulted in such circumstances. The present case is one in which the authority of the Minister for Finance would have been given. It was really a technicality which was involved. These men had the requisite service, but owing to the fact that the necessary arrangements for engagement in the Army were not made until 1926, these people did not actually engage until 1928. The result was that the technical requirement of the Army Pensions Scheme was not complied with, but they had the requisite service for a 15 years’ disability pension.

658. Chairman.—What is your view generally, General MacMahon, as to the necessity for the Minister for Finance joining with the Minister for Defence in making these orders?

General MacMahon.—I certainly will, in future, ask the Minister to authorise me in approaching the Minister for Finance in each case. The Minister exercised this power since the establishment of the Forces, and at the time it was not clear that there was any financial commitment, due to the fact that the medical officer, while pointing out that the soldier was not in all respects physically fit, thought at the same time that he was perfectly capable of performing the duties he was performing. He could not foresee at the time that the soldier would have to leave the Army on medical grounds as soon as he did. It was not evident at the time that there would be a financial commitment in the matter.

659. Chairman.—It is agreed that, in future, orders of this kind will be countersigned by the Minister for Finance in the same way as the original order governing these matters was countersigned?

General MacMahon.—Yes.

660. Chairman.—The next part of the paragraph reads:—

“The charges to subhead L of this Vote include gratuities amounting to £65 paid to the next-of-kin of “short-term” soldiers who died in service. The Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme does not, however, make specific provision for the payment of gratuities or allowances in these circumstances, but I am informed that the matter is being considered in connection with proposed amendments to the Scheme.”

Have you anything to say in elaboration of that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—We understand that provision for gratuities of the kind referred to was apparently inadvertently omitted under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme. We have allowed the charge to stand pending amendment of the scheme.

661. Chairman.—Is it not correct that these are extra statutory payments?

Mr. Maher.—In view of the fact that the Accounting Officer has given us an undertaking that the scheme will be amended, and provision made for this, we have allowed it to stand, especially as we understand that previously gratuities of this kind were paid from the Army Vote, so that there is nothing novel in paying. The question is the incidence of charge.

General MacMahon.—We have the sanction of the Department of Finance to amend the scheme to provide for this. The amendment is with the Parliamentary draftsman, and we hope to have it introduced in the Dáil soon.

662. Chairman.—I take it that the Department of Finance have no special view on this matter?

Mr. Almond.—No. There is a general amending scheme in preparation, and we have taken the opportunity of introducing a paragraph to cover this particular item.

663. Chairman.—The paragraph terminates:—

“A question arose regarding the validity of a payment of temporary pension from a date prior to the date of revocation of a final grant under section 13 of the Army Pensions Act, 1937, and the matter has been referred to the Attorney-General for his advice. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding certain other awards in connection with which the provisions of the relative enactments do not appear to have been fully complied with.”

Can you give us any further information about this, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—As regards the first part, the Minister for Defence by direction dated 29th July, 1938, revoked the final grant as from the previous 2nd April and granted a temporary pension in lieu. This action seemed contrary to Section 13 of the Army Pensions Act, 1937. and we asked for an explanation. We have not yet been informed what is the result of the legal advice sought in this case.

664. Chairman.—Can you give us any information, General MacMahon?

General MacMahon.—In the two cases concerned we have recovered the amounts referred to by Mr. Maher. We have recovered from the pension the overpayments made.

665. Then the payments were incorrectly made?—Yes. The Attorney-General advised us that we should recover.

666. Chairman.—Can you give any further details as to the last part of the paragraph, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—Gratuities would appear to have been paid in a number of cases. The Minister for Finance has given general authority for the payment of the gratuities subject to certain exceptions. Among the exceptions are gratuities payable on retirement on account of infirmity of mind or body. We notice that a number of cases coming under the latter head were paid without reference to the Department of Finance, where the sanction of the Minister for Finance would appear to be required. We understand that this matter, and the general question also, are being referred to the Department of Finance.

667. Chairman.—Have you any information to give, Mr. Almond?

Mr. Almond.—It turns on the interpretation of a paragraph in the Army Pensions Scheme, which reads as follows:— “Where a pension or gratuity may be granted to any person under this Scheme, the Minister (that is, the Minister for Defence) may, in his absolute discretion, either make, subject to the previous consent of the Minister for Finance, such grant or refuse to make such grant.” Before the Scheme came into force, the Department had paid gratuities themselves by delegated authority under the Defence Force Regulations, which are in effect delegated financial authority, and had not come to us in individual cases, the check on their calculations and payments being the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I may say that we are referring only to gratuities, not to pensions. The Department represented that there should not be any delay in payment of the gratuities. The men were going out, they wanted to pay them quickly, and they asked for delegated authority to make payments of these gratuities. We appreciated the fact that it would save a considerable amount of administrative work, and we also realised that if they referred each case to us we would merely act as a formal checking authority. There would be unlikely to be any points of principle involved in the cases, the calculations being simple ones. We accordingly gave delegated authority, subject to certain exceptions where we thought certain matters of principle might possibly arise. We interpreted that paragraph which I read to you as meaning that the consent of the Minister might be either general or particular. It is a question that often arises in the Department of Finance. Certain cases of a similar kind recur and we give a general authority in order to save a lot of red tape in sending each particular case to us. We took the same line in this case. We believed it was a reasonable interpretation of that paragraph, but apparently now the Comptroller and Auditor-General considers our interpretation was not correct. We do not agree with him, and that is the position at the moment.

668. Chairman.—The matter has not been referred to the Attorney-General’s Department for an authoritative interpretation of the section?

Mr. Almond.—Not yet, but if the Committee wishes us to do so we will make the necessary reference.

669. Chairman.—Have you, Mr. Maher, any further observations to make on this question?

Mr. Maher.—On the general question, Mr. Almond is right in saying that the Department of Finance has power to delegate in suitable cases, but where the Department of Finance is, in our opinion, circumscribed by a statute, such as has been read out, we think that before any delegation is decided upon, legal opinion might be obtained to ascertain that the Department is not acting contrary to the statute.

Chairman.—Would I correctly interpret the view of the Committee if I suggested that this section might be referred to the Attorney-General’s Department for an authoritative ruling? I think that would he the most satisfactory method of dealing with it.

Mr. Almond.—We shall do so if the Committee desire it, but I wish the question had not been raised. If the Attorney-General holds that we cannot give a general authority we shall have to amend the scheme so that we can. It seems to involve a lot of unnecessary work.

Chairman.—I have no doubt the Comptroller and Auditor-General would have preferred, if the statute had not imposed upon him the necessity to raise this question. He was obliged to act in accordance with the terms of the statute, imperfect as it may be.

670. We shall now pass on to the details of the Vote. With regard to subhead J—Hospital Treatment—are these persons suffering from disability sometimes sent to extern hospitals rather than to St. Bricin’s?

General MacMahon.—No; to St. Bricin’s only.

671. Chairman.—Why do you have to pay for hospital treatment? Is St. Bricin’s recouped from this Vote?—We have to repay the Army Vote from the Pension Vote.

672. In regard to subhead K—Military Service Pensions—about how many claims are still awaiting decision for army pensions?—About 40,000.

673. How many people in this country are in receipt of army pensions, or are claiming army pensions?—The number of applications under this Act was about 60,000—59,000 odd.

674. Then there were a large number receiving army pensions prior to the passing of this Act?—Yes, under the 1924 Act.

675. Deputy Cole.—How many under that Act?—Under the 1924 Act there were 21,121 applicants, and 3,850 qualified.

676. Chairman.—There were 3,000 out of 21,000 made the grade?—Yes.

677. And 18,000 were adjudged not to be qualified at all?—Yes.

678. There are, therefore, about 81,000 persons in this country walking about suffering under the illusion that they fought and bled for Ireland, of whom only about 8,000 are correct in their assumption. The others are suffering from a delusion?—There were about 7,000 whose claims were favourably considered under the 1934 Act. It would be well to remember that under the 1934 Act, provision is made for men who are not provided for under the 1924 Act. For instance, people who had pre-Truce service, and who had not service with either side after the Truce are provided for in the 1934 Act.

Chairman.—We are very much more war-like than I ever knew we were, and I lived through most of it. There must have been a lot of warriors that I did not know were waging war at all.

The Committee adjourned until Wednesday, 22nd May, 1940, at 11 a.m.