Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1947 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1945 - 1946

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 16ú Deireadh Fómhair, 1947.

Thursday, 16th October, 1947.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m

Mr. J. Maher (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. C. S. Almond and Miss Máire Bhreathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 52—LANDS.

Mr. M. Deegan called and examined.

“Subhead I—Improvement of Estates, etc,.

47. In connection with the scheme whereby certain lands in Co. Meath, available for the relief of congestion, are reserved for allottees from the Gaeltacht, sums amounting to £108 4s. 0d. expended in providing necessary general improvements are charged to this subhead. The total expenditure borne on the Vote for Lands in connection with the scheme from its inception in 1934-35 to 31st March, 1946, amounts to £103,542 5s. 2d. In addition, expenditure amounting to £2,050 9s. 10d., which was subsequently recouped to the Land Commission by the Office of Public Works, was incurred in the erection of a schoolhouse.

Under the scheme for the provision of holdings in certain counties in Leinster for migrants from districts where there is acute congestion, the expenditure, apart from the cost of general improvements (roads, drains, fences, etc.) borne on the Vote for Lands during the year amounts to £4,341 7s. 8d. The expenditure on this scheme from its inception in 1937-38 to 31st March, 1946, amounts to £111,993 4s. 0d., made up as follows—

Until the scheme is completed it is not possible to apportion the expenditure on general improvements in respect of migrants’ holdings on the estates.”

597a. Chairman.—The Scheme has not been completed yet?—Well, there is generally something hanging over on all these estates and, until everything is wound up, it is not possible to have a final statement with regard to expenditure on general improvements. So far as most of the estates are concerned, the figures are correct and final.

598. Deputy Sheldon.—I presume that all these amounts, with the exception of advances on buildings, are grants?—Except for those advances, they are all grants.

599. Chairman.—Are migrants still being brought from certain congested areas?—If we have the land. At the moment we have no land in the east to which migrants can be brought from the west but, if and when land is available, the scheme will start again. The Gaeltacht migrants’ scheme is finished, but as regards the group migrants’ scheme—the second one there—that will continue.

600. Deputy Blowick.—With regard to Subhead H (1), to what does that refer? —That is the interest on the 10 per cent. additional to the purchase money under the Land Act, 1923, and the interest on the 2 per cent. cost fund; the State has to meet that charge.

601. What is the explanation of Subhead H (4)?—That covers the deficiencies in the Land Bond Fund arising under Section 37 of the 1933 Land Act. These are cases where lands are submerged by the sea, by a river or by sand. Where they are totally submerged we have power, under the 1933 Act, with the consent of the Department of Finance, to wipe out the annuity. This represents portion of the annuities wiped out in relation to submerged land.

602. Deputy Sheldon.—As regards Subhead J, I presume the amounts mentioned in the note will appear in next year’s Exchequer receipts?—They will; we will make a profit of about £9,000, I think.

603. With reference to Subhead L (1), could you tell us more about that?—That refers to the loss on unoccupied holdings. These are the holdings of defaulters which we have on hands and, while they remain on our hands, we are responsible for the rates, the repairing of fences and so on. We have to bear those expenses until we dispose of the holdings.

604. It is not an amount that can be forecast?—No. It represents the loss to us while they are on our hands.

605. Chairman.—As regards Subhead N, are these embankments under this scheme confined solely to holdings allotted by the Land Commission?—No, some of them may be in the occupation of tenants and not merely allotments; they might be old estates that were purchased and are now in the hands of tenants.

606. Deputy Sheldon.—What about Subhead P—can you tell us more of it?—That is the amount required to complete purchase proceedings under the Land Acts, 1903 and 1909. It is more or less a finished item. It took £895 19s. 3d. in this year’s Estimates, but in the next year’s Estimates it took only £50.

607. I wondered what were the circumstances that led up to this subhead?— There was trouble of all sorts to be dealt with, with tenants who refused to sign for one reason or another.

608. What were the circumstances that led to there being so much of it after clearing things up in this one year?—We are tired looking at that item, which is there since 1903 and 1909.

609. I can quite appreciate that?—We made a special effort that year to clear it up. We got out an instruction that it was to be put off the books no matter what the trouble. It is ridiculous to see an item of a couple of hundred pounds coming along year after year. We are entirely clear now, even to the last pound, and are very glad to see the last of it.

610. There is a reference in the Notes to two losses through contractors failing to complete contracts. I see that the Department of Finance has agreed to the writing off. Does the Department not usually safeguard itself against failures by contractors?—We usually have sureties and in these two cases referred to on page 168 we had sureties, but these are casualties due to the war conditions. A number of people went down, as you have seen from our reports year after year. One of these cases was a 1937 tender, the work going on in 1938 and 1939. The other was a 1939 case and the people found that credit was restricted and unless they had cash they were held up. I see by a note of my own that in one of these cases the man had a loss of about £500 himself. I have read the papers and these were not really bad cases at all. The men went down owing to the war conditions, which were too much for them.

611. Chairman.—What is dealt with under “Contribution for Cost of Management of Church Property Branch”, given at page 166?—That comes out of the Church Temporalities Fund to the Land Commission. It helps to pay the cost of our management of the Church Temporalities. It is an estimated figure.

612. Deputy Blowick.—If I am not out of order, I would like to know if the redemption value of holdings and farms fluctuates?—I think the Deputy has a Parliamentary Question about that, which the Minister will be answering to-day or to-morrow. It is fully answered, but if the Deputy wants to know anything further we will give him full information about it.

VOTE 53—FORESTRY.

Mr. M. Deegan further examined.

613. Deputy Blowick.—On Subhead D, what are these grants for? Are they for small plots to private land owners?—Yes, it is the £10 an acre scheme.

614. Is the £1,000 fully availed of?—We will not know for some years whether this is going to be a successful scheme or not. We have not got going rightly yet, as there are difficulties with regard to plants and fencing.

VOTE 54—GAELTACHT SERVICES.

Mr. M. Deegan further examined.

615. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

“Subhead H (3)—Grants under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 to 1939.

48. Under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 to 1939, the aggregate amount of grants and loans which may be made is not to exceed £750,000.

At 31st March, 1946, the position regarding such grants and loans was as follows:—

“Subhead I—Appropriations-in-Aid.

49. The workers’ wages and agents’ commissions deducted before arriving at the amount credited to this subhead include a sum of £39 19s. 3d. in respect of which the original vouchers are missing. The vouchers had been examined in the Department and returned to the industrial centre concerned, and were subsequently mislaid. It appears that duplicate vouchers cannot be obtained. The covering sanction of the Department of Finance has been given for the charge, which I have, in the circumstances, admitted.”

Mr. Maher.—That paragraph is for information only.

616. Chairman.—In what circumstances were the vouchers mislaid?—The actual vouchers were sent up from the country to Dublin, but headquarters wanted to have some errors corrected and sent them back for amendment. There they were put right, to the satisfaction of a couple of our inspectors who happened to be on the spot in the centre. They were returned to Dublin but never reached Dublin and the originals were destroyed in the country. As they had been passed by two of our men, there is no doubt that the work was done and the figures are correct.

617. Chairman.—There is a further note, as follows:—

“Industrial Loans.

50. I have been furnished with a schedule concerning the industrial loans from which it appears that there were no advances made during the year ended 31st March, 1946. Arrears, including interest accrued, due at that date amounted to £10,515 4s. 5d., as compared with £10,396 18s. 11d. on 31st March, 1945. Included in the arrears is a sum of £10,462 16s. 6d. due by a company which ceased to exist in 1925. As stated in previous reports, the realisation of such security as is held by the State was the subject of negotiations, but owing to certain legal difficulties realisation cannot be effected.”

On Subhead E (3), is it surprising, with the present shortage of fertilisers, that kelp is not in greater demand?—It has come to an end. There is simply no demand for it. Conditions this year are worse than in 1945-46 and there is little or no demand now.

618. Is its value for manure purposes or otherwise not as great as formerly?— Other forms of fertiliser are taking its place. The scarcity is not as great as it was and the long and the short of it is that there is now no market for kelp, no matter what we do.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 63—ARMY.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon called and examined.

619. Chairman.—The first of the notes by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to this Vote is contained in paragraph 71 and is as follows:—

“The Estimate for the year under review reverted to the usual form in which the sum voted is allocated to the various subheads of expenditure. Due mainly to the deferment of demobilisation, the original grant of £8,200,047 proved inadequate and an additional sum of £1,081,906 was required. This was provided by a net supplementary grant of £707,141 and by an increase of £374,765 in the amount authorised to be appropriated in aid of the Vote. The surplus to be surrendered is £62,907 19s. 7d. or 0.7 per cent. of the net Estimate.

The sanction of the Department of Finance has been sought for the application of savings under certain subheads to meet excess expenditure under other subheads.”

Mr. Maher.—That paragraph is for information only. I understand that the sanction referred to in the last sub-paragraph has been obtained.

General MacMahon.—That is correct.

620. Chairman.—Paragraph 72 deals with demobilisation and is as follows:—

“A White Paper (P. No. 7053) containing the Government’s proposals in connection with the demobilisation and resettlement of members of the Defence Forces was issued in May, 1945. Demobilisation began on the 1st November, 1945, and was arranged in stages, priority being given to those for whom employment was available and to those seeking release on other grounds. The final stage of demobilisation was completed on 31st October, 1946, by which date, it is understood, all temporary and reserve personnel who had not been absorbed in the Regular Army had been released.”

Mr. Maher.—That paragraph is also for information.

621. Chairman.—Paragraph 73 deals with disposal of surplus stores and is as follows:—

“Considerable quantities of stores became surplus to requirements on the termination of the war in Europe and the question of the method of their disposal arose. It was considered to be in the public interest that the normal basis of sale by public auction or competitive tender should be departed from in certain cases and that stores in short supply should be made available to certain concerns and charitable organisations at fixed valuations. The arrangements sanctioned by the Department of Finance provided:—

(1) That surplus stores should be offered, in the first instance, to other Government Departments without repayment;

(2) That the balance should be offered to local authorities and Government sponsored concerns at cost price plus overhead charges;

(3) That subject to the requirements at (1) and (2) the stores, save certain items to be made available for the alleviation of distress in Europe, might be disposed of to bona fide charitable organisations at cost price, overhead charges being waived;

(4) That any remaining balance should be sold by public auction or competitive tender.

Proposals for a modification of these arrangements are under consideration by the Department of Finance. Notes are appended to the account showing the value of stores transferred to other Government Departments during the year and the amounts waived in respect of overhead charges on sales to charitable organisations. Cash receipts from sales are brought to account under subhead Z.”

Mr. Maher.—That paragraph, so far, shows the method of disposal of these surplus stores. The particulars will be found on pages 230-235 of the accounts.

622. Chairman.—Have the Department of Finance sanctioned any modification of those arrangements?

General MacMahon.—Yes, but only, a very slight modification, new stores to be sold to local authorities, hospitals and State concerns at cost price plus 25 per cent. for overheads; old stores to be sold to local authorities, hospitals and State concerns at Departmental value and catalogues of stores to be prepared and sent to Government Departments, local authorities, hospitals and State concerns.

623. Chairman.—The paragraph of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General continues:—

“A considerable number of motor vehicles surplus to requirements was sold by public auction. In connection with a proposed sale of 300 lorries it was decided that a public company should be afforded an opportunity of purchasing any items found suitable at prices to be determined by arbitrators to be appointed by the Minister for Finance. Particulars of the vehicles and of their locations were furnished to the company, which was requested to indicate its requirements in order that prices might be fixed, and the company intimated that it would consider purchase of all the lorries subject to agreement as to prices. Valuation of the vehicles was accordingly carried out and particulars of the valuers’ assessments were submitted to the company which decided to accept only 35 of the lorries at the prices quoted and it purchased these at their assessed value of £4,260. The remainder were sold by public auction and realised approximately 76 per cent. of their aggregate value as assessed. The expenditure incurred in connection with the fees and expenses of the valuers amounted to £1,484 18s. 9d.”

Deputy Briscoe.—What was the total amount realised on the vehicles not taken by the public company?—I am afraid I have not that figure at the moment. I can arrange to send it in.

Deputy Briscoe.—That would bear some relation to the amount of the fees.

624. Chairman.—It would appear from this note that the public company originally implied that they would take all the lorries?—Yes.

625. Subsequently, they decided to take only 35?—They felt that the value put upon them was too high.

626. I presume that the valuer was appointed after they had stated that they would take the whole of the lorries?—They did not commit themselves to taking them all. They said they were interested in taking all of them. The lorries were valued and the company were informed of the amounts. As a result, they took only a small number of the lorries.

627. Deputy Sheldon.—Apparently, the company was right, judging by the result of the public auction?—Yes.

628. Deputy Briscoe.—The total number of lorries offered to the company was 300. They took 35. Therefore, 265 must have been sold by public auction. It would be well to have on record the total amount realised for the 265 vehicles in view of the fact that the valuer’s fees amounted to a substantial sum.

Mr. Maher.—I have a note here that 177 lorries of an average value of £321 16s. 2d. were sold by auction in the provinces at an average price of £257 0s. 3d. That would cover some of the lorries referred to.

629. Chairman.—This company did, in fact, purchase additional lorries at the public auction?

General MacMahon.—Yes, 36, at an average price of £240 8s. 4d.

630. I suppose we can get the total figure?—Yes, I shall arrange to send it in.

631. Deputy Sheldon.—I presume that the first offering of the lorries to the public company was made on the assumption that the lorries would fetch very high prices. It was thought that the public company should be offered them at a valuation but the high prices which were anticipated were not realised?—It was a Government decision that the company should get the first offer.

632. Chairman.—It does appear that portion of the payment to the valuers was nugatory?—Yes.

633. Chairman.—Paragraph 74 refers to stocktaking and is as follows:—

“Certain officers in charge of stores were due for release on 1st April, 1946, on pre-retirement leave. Under the normal procedure a complete 100 per cent. stocktaking of the stores involved is carried out on a change of quartermasters, but owing to the limited time available between the appointment of successors to the retiring officers and the release of the latter it was not found possible to have complete checks of the stores carried out by the 1st April, 1946. The Department of Finance sanctioned a modified procedure involving partial checks, subject to the condition that a 100 per cent. stocktaking would be completed by the 31st December, 1946, and the results of this stocktaking will come under observation in the course of audit of the account for the financial year 1946-47.”

Mr. Maher.—That is for information. It will be noted that the Department of Finance sanctioned the procedure.

634. Deputy Sheldon.—Was the stocktaking actually completed by 31st December, 1946?

General MacMahon.—Not in all cases. Nine stores were involved. In eight of them, we had 100 per cent. stocktaking. In the ninth case, there were actually five different store offices and we have now completed the stocktaking of four of these. There is still one outstanding and we have Department of Finance sanction to extend the date until 31st December of this year.

635. Deputy Sheldon.—The complete results of the stocktaking will not come into the audit for 1946-7? They will only come into the 1947-8 accounts?—That is so.

636. Chairman.—Paragraph 75 relates to cancellation of contracts and is as follows:—

“In the altered situation following the termination of hostilities in Europe the position regarding supplies for the Defence Forces was reconsidered and outstanding balances of orders placed prior to the 1st January, 1945, were cancelled, except in the case of items needed to fill normal requirements.”

Paragraph 76 deals with alleviation of distress in Europe and is as follows:—

“As noted in the account, certain surplus stores to the value of £66,180 6s. 11d. were issued, without repayment, for the relief of distress in Europe. In addition, stores to the value of £24,563 were also issued, the cost being recovered from the Vote for Alleviation of Distress. This sum includes approximately £6,800 for stores which were not surplus to requirements and which were replaced with a corresponding charge to the Army Vote.”

Deputy Briscoe.—Does that mean that they were replaced to the exact number or value? Was any loss involved?—No loss was involved. The only articles we had to replace were 4,000 pairs of socks.

637. The Army got credit for their replacement value?—Yes.

Deputy Sheldon.—Why was a distinction drawn between the amount issued without repayment and the amount in respect of which the cost was recovered. Where did the distinction lie?—It was a Government decision. Our Department merely carried out directions.

638. Chairman.—Paragraph 77 deals with the military tattoo and exhibition as follows:—

“With the sanction of the Department of Finance, Army personnel and equipment were made available in connection with the military tattoo and exhibition held in 1945. Army transport was provided on a repayment basis and stores were supplied on repayment or on loan subject to guarantees against loss or damage.”

Paragraph 78 deals with Subhead A.—

“Pay of Officers, Cadets, N.C.O.s and Men.

Defence Force Regulations dated 25th July, 1945, governing payment of emergency gratuities provided that members of the forces on full-time service on or after that date, and eligible for gratuity, should be granted pre-demobilisation leave with pay and allowances. Certain personnel who were released from service on or after the 25th July, but before the Regulations were published, had not been granted the appropriate leave and the matter was rectified by the recall and amendment of their discharge certificates, the dates of discharge being put forward to the dates required to complete the prescribed leave periods, pay and allowances being issued for these periods. This action was taken following the opinion of the Department’s legal advisers that, as the grant of pre-demobilisation leave was mandatory under the regulations, discharge without such leave was irregular and could be rectified by alteration of the discharge dates. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding certain cases in which similar action was taken. The soldiers concerned, while not entitled to pre-demobilisation leave, had not been granted the pre-discharge leave allowable under Regulations issued in August, 1943. Some of these men had been awarded and paid disability pensions with effect from the original dates of discharge.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed that the opinion of the legal advisers obtained in the case of pre-demobilisation leave did not govern cases in which predischarge leave had been granted. Predischarge leave was not granted in this particular case because of an instruction given by an officer in charge of records which was based on an incorrect interpretation of the paragraph of the Defence Force Regulations.

639. Chairman.—Did the recall of these men to service mean that they became subject to military law?—They were not actually recalled to service but they became subject to military law. It was mandatory on us to give them the leave. A mistake had been made by an officer and it had to be rectified. There was no loss to public funds. The men were entitled to leave and they got only that to which they were entitled.

640. Deputy Briscoe.—There is a difference between pre-demobilisation leave and predischarge leave—Predischarge leave has been in operation since the Army was established. Pre-demobilisation leave referred to those who joined for the emergency.

641.—Is there any difference in the period of leave in these cases?—Both are the same.

642. Chairman.—Paragraph 79 is as follows:—

“Subhead A (4)—Emergency Gratuities and Re-enlistment Bounties.

Payments of emergency gratuities of £31 18s. 3d., £12 12s. 0d. and £30 7s.6d., respectively, were made to three soldiers who had been convicted by courtsmartial on charges of desertion and had received sentences of imprisonment. On completion of the sentences they returned to Army service and served for periods of 15 months and upwards, after which they were discharged ‘on sentence of imprisonment by courtmartial’. The relevant Regulations provide that emergency gratuities should not be paid in cases of discharge in these circumstances but it was decided, in the cases in question, that gratuities should be paid in respect of service subsequent to release from imprisonment. Section 71 (4) of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, provides that a non-commissioned officer or private soldier sentenced to imprisonment is automatically discharged from the service unless the court shall otherwise direct. As no such direction was given in the cases under notice, I communicated with the Accounting Officer, and was informed that the retention in the service of the soldiers concerned was contrary to the provisions of Section 71 (4) and that failure to effect their discharge was due to administrative oversight. I was further informed that they remained soldiers of the Forces, for all purposes, up to the date of actual separation from the service.”

Mr. Maher.—There is nothing further to add to that report, Mr. Chairman. As you notice, the failure to effect their discharge was due to an administrative oversight.

643. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you not think that they would still have been members of the forces while doing their sentences? That being so, would they not have a claim for payment or would they receive payment during that period and, further, if they were married would their dependents be maintained?—No, not during that period.

644. Chairman.—Was any action taken against the person concerned for failing to advert to the terms of Section 71?— There was only a reprimand. At that time we had only a limited number of officers with experience. The men in question were, therefore, not given their discharge as they should automatically have been given. In the emergency period men convicted served their terms in detention barracks whereas prior to the emergency they were sent to civil prisons and I think it was owing to that change that the officer failed to carry out the wording of the order.

645.—Were these men who served subsequently paid in respect of subsequent service?—Yes. It is only in connection with the subsequent service that they were paid a gratuity. The Minister was in doubt and he referred the matter to the Government. The Government decided that as the service subsequent to the sentence was satisfactory they should get a gratuity based on the subsequent service.

646.—In view of the terms of Section 71 (4) was any legal opinion obtained as to the legality of the retention of these men? —They were serving in the Army and, as members of the Forces, they had to be paid.

647. Chairman.—Paragraph 79 continues:—

“Emergency gratuities of £52 13s. 0d. and £60 9s. 0d., respectively, were paid to two soldiers who were discharged on determination of emergency service in October, 1945. The soldiers had been arrested by the civil authorities in July, 1945, and were sentenced in November, 1945, one to five years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and concurrently to six months’ imprisonment for taking a car without the owner’s permission, and the other to six months’ imprisonment for the latter offence. Whilst they were awaiting trial, the forms in connection with the payment of gratuities were completed and as these forms did not disclose the position regarding the charges pending, the gratuities were assessed and lodged to the credit of the soldiers in the Post Office Savings Bank. The governing regulations provide that no gratuity shall be payable to a person the circumstances of whose termination of service are such as, in the opinion of the Minister, should debar him from payment of gratuity. In the cases under notice the Minister ruled that payments should not issue but his direction was not sought until after the payments had been made and it was not found possible to cancel the awards nor could recovery from the payees be effected. I have inquired why the matter was not submitted for the Minister’s direction before the payments were made.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed, Mr. Chairman, that these soldiers were discharged in the normal way, the civil proceedings against them not being regarded as affecting such discharge. Owing to an error of judgment, however, the Area Records officer concerned did not bring to notice, when submitting the forms for the payment of emergency gratuities, the fact that charges were pending against them. In the absence of this information there did not appear to be any grounds for seeking the Minister’s direction before payment was made.

648. Chairman.—Can you say in what circumstances payment was made before the facts were brought to light?—As the Comptroller and Auditor-General has pointed out, these men were due to be discharged in the normal way but a very short time before being discharged they stole a motor car and killed a lady cyclist. They were let out on bail. The records officer felt there was nothing against them from the military point of view. He thought the civil courts were dealing with the criminal action in connection with the killing of the lady cyclist and he did not report the fact that they had been arrested and that they were on bail. We, of course, were completely unaware that there was anything against these men. Their military conduct was satisfactory.

649. Deputy Briscoe.—With reference to what the Comptroller and Auditor-General has just read out, he stated that it was not thought necessary to ask the Minister’s sanction at first. Apparently somebody thought otherwise. Somebody thought it would become necessary. What were the circumstances?—We discovered, quite by accident, that these men had subsequently been convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. One had been sentenced to five yards’ imprisonment and the other to six months’ imprisonment. We then took up the matter.

650. Chairman.—Has the Department of Finance any views with regard to this payment?

Mr. Almond.—The demand was legally made and we could not do anything about it. We have had numerous discussions on this particular case, which was very complicated. The Minister could not, however, invalidate the payment of the gratuities. Nothing could be done about it. The mistake occurred in the Records Office and I understand it was due to the omission by an inexperienced soldier clerk to post it in Routine Orders and to notify the appropriate authority with details of the circumstances of their escapade with the motor car. That did not appear at all in Routine Orders and the Pay Section had no clue whatever that this was anything but a normal discharge. In replying to the Department we have asked them to ensure in future that all appropriate details are given in Routine Orders so that the Pay Section will be fully informed and that no such case will recur.

651. Is it not the practice to have Routine Orders checked by an officer, before publication?—Yes. They must be signed by an officer but this was not a military offence and it was not, therefore, essential to enter it in the Routine Orders.

652. Chairman.—Paragraph 80 reads:—

“Subhead F—Medicines and Instruments.

It was noted that stocks of certain drugs and surgical dressings sufficient to fill several years’ requirements, on the basis of normal annual consumption, were held in store and I have asked for information regarding purchases made during the year and the use of reserve stocks. Proposals for the sale of certain surplus stores of a perishable nature were formulated during the year and I have inquired regarding the disposal of these stores.”

Mr. Maher.—I understand that the question of the disposal of the surplus stocks is at present under consideration and that it is anticipated that such stocks as are liable to deterioration will shortly be offered for sale. That information, of course, refers to the position which existed some time ago. What is the present position?—Since then we have sold a considerable quantity. All the material liable to deteriorate has been sold.

653. Chairman.—I notice from some figures here that, apparently, stocks considerably in excess of normal annual consumption, such as bandages and lint, were held. Did they accumulate over a number of years?—They were really emergency supplies. We know now that in 1945, the year referred to, we need not have purchased this material because of the stocks then held. However, in 1945 we could not be certain. There was a risk that we could not get in any more supplies and it was considered advisable to make the purchases that year. It was felt that the danger was not completely over and that stocks might not be available for a number of years.

654. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you think it was wise even under present circumstances to dispose of these surplus stocks, considering the tremendous increase in prices that has now followed and in view of future replacements? Am I right in assuming that all the materials were not perishable?—All the perishable stuff is already sold and we are disposing of large quantities of non-perishable material. I thought Deputy Briscoe was going to raise another point, that is, that even at this stage it may not be safe to sell these emergency supplies.

Deputy Briscoe.—I was. This Committee, Mr. Chairman, must bear in mind the fact that during the emergency it was a question of getting anything. The trouble is that everything costs much more to-day. Now that the emergency is regarded as being over we are confronted with two situations. It might be advisable that the Army authorities should be encouraged to retain and store large quantities of non-perishable goods because their annual requirements in any event may mean buying at higher prices. Secondly, nobody can say when this emergency is going to break out again.

Chairman.—Is all this merely a question of interest and political speculation?

Deputy Briscoe.—No. The Army is there. It must do certain things at certain times.

Deputy Sheldon.—But that is a matter for itself, is it not?

Deputy Briscoe.—Nevertheless it is the wise view.

655. Chairman.—Paragraph 81 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 price of cattle purchased for the Dublin and Curragh areas was £38 13s. 10d. and £37 6s. 11d. per head, respectively, as compared with £35 2s. 0d. and £34 0s. 4d. in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 725 lb. and 674 lb., respectively, as compared with 710 lb. and 667 lb.”

Mr. Maher.—That is for information only.

655a.Chairman.—The next note reads:

“Subhead M—Clothing and Equipment

In according sanction for the purchase of clothing to provide for the year’s requirements the Department of Finance stipulated that the demand for certain articles should be met from existing stocks and that no purchases should be made. It appeared that contracts to the value of £15,000, approximately, were placed for the supply of these items and I have inquired regarding the circumstances in which the contracts were placed and the stocks held at the end of the year.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed that, due to misinterpretation of the terms of the old sanction given by the Department of Finance, forage caps and greatcoats were ordered without taking into account the stocks in hand at the time and that the sanction of the Department of Finance for the excess expenditure is being sought.

656. Chairman.—Has sanction been obtained?—We did make a mistake but I have taken precautions to see that it will not occur again. The forage caps, however, were required and, in fact, we had to purchase another 5,000 in 1946. The greatcoats are good stock because in future we are going to supply that type of greatcoat to the Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil.

657. Has the Department sanctioned it? —Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Almond.—I may say that the only reason we have not given sanction is that we do not quite agree with the figures put to us by Defence. We think our sanction would have enabled them to purchase more than they themselves think they had sanction for. That is the only reason for the delay.

658. Deputy Briscoe.—That is not what the Comptroller and Auditor-General has given us to understand. He has given us to understand that, according to Finance, they had sufficient stocks.

Mr. Maher.—No, what I said was that the sanction of the Department of Finance for the excess expenditure is being sought. It has not been obtained.

Mr. Almond.—According to our calculations, on the old sanction we gave, the excess expenditure only arises in the case of the greatcoats, not in the case of the caps.

659. Chairman.—According to the figures I have here, after purchases of 5,000 greatcoats in 1945-46 sufficient stocks were held to satisfy requirements to the 31st March, 1949?—Yes, if we were supplying them to the Army only. Now that they are being supplied to the F.C.A. we will not have sufficient. I admit that we went outside Finance sanction and we are taking precautions to see it will not occur again.

660. Chairman.—Of course, the supply of these coats to the F.C.A. is a later development?—That is correct, yes.

“Subhead O—General Stores.

83. Certain equipment was received during the year as a free gift from an external Government. I am informed that the estimated value of the gift was £800, that some of the items are being retained for the service of the Signal Corps, and that the balance, which is not suitable for Army purposes, will be disposed of by sale.”

661. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—What is the nature of the equipment?—Principally signalling equipment.

662. Chairman.—Has it been disposed of?—Not all, yet.

663. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—Who is likely to purchase what may be available? What market is there for it if it is put up for sale?—Some of it will be scrap, I am afraid. Some of it is useful for the Army. Some of it is useful to Aer Lingus. Some of it would not be useful for anything, except scrap.

664. Chairman.—You got it for nothing? That is correct.

665. Chairman.—Paragraph 84 reads:

“Subhead P (1)—Protection of Civil Population against Air and Gas Attacks.

84. It was decided in November, 1945, that arrangements should be maintained for the protection of the civil population, as envisaged in the Air-raid Precautions Act, 1939, and directions were given regarding the retention of certain stores and equipment for purposes of post-war Air Raid Precautions schemes, and for the disposal of the balance. The stores included State property held centrally or distributed on loan throughout the country, and stores purchased by local authorities subject to payment of grants from State funds. The arrangements sanctioned for the disposal of surplus Army stores to which reference is made at paragraph 73 were, in general, adopted, but provision was made for the sale of certain items, on special terms, to members of Air Raid Precautions services and for the retention by them of certain articles of equipment on their disbandment in January, 1946. In the case of the stores purchased by local authorities, which were subject to a State grant of a percentage of the cost, the appropriate percentage of the amounts realized on disposals will be applied in relief of the grants under section 35 of the Act payable in the year 1946-47 or in future years.”

Mr. Maher.—That sub-paragraph is for information only, Mr. Chairman.

665a.Deputy Sheldon.—I am afraid I cannot follow what is involved in that last sentence—“... stores purchased by local authorities, which were subject to a State grant of a percentage of the cost, the appropriate percentage of the amounts realized on disposals will be applied in relief of the grants”. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong but I cannot quite follow what is to happen?— In connection with certain expenditure by local authorities the State has to contribute a percentage and the State, or the Department of Defence in this case, when paying that percentage will take into consideration the value of these supplies. That is what the Comptroller and Auditor-General means there.

665b.Chairman.—Paragraph 84 continues:

“Records of stores held on loan by local authorities were destroyed in the fire which occurred at the Stores Depot in December, 1943, and returns of the stocks held were obtained from the several locations. I have inquired how far it has been found possible to reconcile these returns with the records as reconstructed.”

Mr. Maher.—I understand that in the returns received from the locations there was a number of discrepancies but we have no information yet regarding the nature of the items involved or the cash value of the burnt surplus and deficiencies. The Department of Finance sanction is also being sought for the adoption of the reconstructed location accounts.

Witness.—We have got that sanction now.

666. Chairman.—Paragraph 84 (continued):—

“Certain tinned foodstuffs, to the value of £1,120, approximately, were held at Food and Rest Centres throughout the country and it appeared that the suppliers had recommended their immediate use early in 1945 owing to the length of time that had elapsed since their production. In reply to my inquiries regarding the disposal of the foodstuffs I was informed that the authority of the Minister for Finance had been sought for their destruction.” Has that sanctioned?—We have that sanction, yes.

667. Deputy Sheldon.—How did it arise that the recommendation of the suppliers was not complied with?—At that period, in 1945, it would have been impossible to replace them and we considered that they were better than nothing. We just held on for another while. We felt the war was coming to an end.

668. This is tinned foodstuff and it is not a matter of ordinary deterioration. Tinned foodstuffs, after the time guaranteed by the makers, becomes dangerous. Surely there would not be much advantage in keeping it after that time?—It was examined from that point of view. Tests were taken at the time. These foodstuffs were stored at various places throughout the country. Looking at it now, we should have disposed of it at that time, at some price, however small it might have been.

669. It just struck me that if a proper check was being kept as to when it should be used, it is odd that it should have had to be destroyed. Some use would surely have been better than no use at all.

670. Deputy Briscoe.—Was the quantity involved significant?—£1,100—tinned meat value £620, tinned fish value £183, coffee substitute £12, biscuits £21, café au lait £292. The total was £1,128.

671. I take it that this would be food which would be put in different parts of the country as a kind of iron reserve in the event of some serious situation and that the quantity involved would not have warranted bringing in fresh supplies and consuming these, in rotation. Probably it would have been dearer to do that. They would not be foods normally consumed?— Quite so.

672. Chairman.—Paragraph 84 contiuues as follows:—

“Grants are paid to local authorities under Section 35 of the Act of 1939 in respect of approved expenditure incurred in connection with arrangements for the protection of persons and property from injury or damage by air attack. The law officers have advised that Air Raid Precautions schemes may be amended under Section 13 (5) of the Act to provide for works of demolition and restoration. The several schemes have been amended accordingly, and expenditure on demolition and reconstruction works will be admissible for grants.

Expenditure by an essential undertaker, a manufacturing company, in the period January, 1939, to December, 1943, amounting to £8,538 7s. 4d. was approved for the purposes of grant under Section 46 of the Air Raid Precautions Act, 1939, and payment of £3,808 17s. 4d., being 50 per cent. of the approved expenditure after deduction of £920 12s. 9d. in respect of the agreed value of materials and equipment salvaged, was made in January, 1946. The expenditure approved included a sum of £1,447 12s. 7d. in respect of the salary of an official of the company for a period of about three years during which he was wholly engaged on Air Raid Precautions duties, his ordinary duties being suspended in the meantime. Further items were also included in respect of wages paid to employees of the company for periods during which they had been diverted from their normal work for purposes in connection with the essential undertaker’s scheme, no additional appointments having been made, or expenditure incurred, by reason of such diversion. The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained for payment of grants under Section 46 in respect of the salaries and wages of employees of essential undertakers withdrawn from their ordinary work for Air Raid Precautions purposes, provided such withdrawals did not take place during slack or idle periods, the view apparently being held that the diversion of employees from their normal profitmaking activities resulted in a loss to the firm concerned and that accordingly salaries and wages paid in such circumstances came within the definition of expenditure admissible for grant. Article 4 of the Air Raid Precautions (Approval of Expenditure by Essential Undertakers) Regulations, 1940 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 180 of 1940), provides that only net expenditure actually and specifically incurred may be approved for the purposes of Section 46 of the Act. As it did not appear clear that the admission of charges in respect of labour diverted without replacement or the recognition for grant purposes of hypothetical loss of profits was consistent with this Article, I have inquired whether legal opinion on the matter had been obtained.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed that the legal adviser has advised that the admission of charges in respect of labour diverted without replacement is consistent with the regulations.

673. Chairman.—Paragraph 85 reads:

“Subhead P (3)—Expenses in connection with the National Blood Transfusion Council and the National Blood Donation Centre.

85. The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained in May, 1944, for expenditure not exceeding £6,800 on the production of 1,000 bottles of human blood serum for emergency reserve purposes. On the termination of hostilities in Europe the necessity for the production of serum for emergency purposes ceased and further sanction was received for its continued production, as an Army service, pending the organisation of alternative arrangements for the provision of normal peace-time requirements. Information has been sought regarding the cost and disposal of the serum produced.”

Mr. Maher.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that the total cost was £5,420, the average cost being £8 4s. per bottle, and that the bulk of it has been sold to civilian hospitals at £2 10s. per bottle.

673a. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—Will this be continued as an Army service?—No, Deputy. We ceased to produce it. Local Government took it over and the Department of Health will follow on.

674. Deputy Briscoe.—During the period that the Army had this blood bank in operation, certain persons attended and gave their blood, regularly. While it was not used at the time for what might be regarded as emergency purposes, the Army did supply the existing hospitals with blood during all that time. Was that on a charge basis?—Oh, yes, on a charge basis.

675. Was it at a reduced charge of £2 10s. per bottle? The cost of it was £8 but they supplied it at £2 10s.?—Yes.

676. The blood bank ceased at a certain time?—Yes.

677. Local Government has the responsibility now of restarting it?—Yes.

678. Was there no effort made to keep it going until such time as the new blood bank would be working? When you had not spent the full amount sanctioned, was there any reason why it should be suddenly stopped, as it was?—We had no provision in the following year’s Vote and we notified the Department of Local Government in time. We gave them adequate notice. It was not work normally proper to the Army Vote at all.

679. Deputy Briscoe.—It appears to me that this blood bank is an essential part of our life now and that it does seem to be wrong to have stopped it, owing to technicalities, before the new blood bank had started in view of the fact that this had been of tremendous service to the State. I mean, the publicity that this particular operation should have got was not given. It is within the knowledge of all of us that, particularly in cases of burns and shock from burns, the blood available saved many lives and it was also very much used in maternity cases and was very helpful. It appears to me that the Army should have kept it going a bit longer.

Chairman.—There was no Vote provision, apparently, the following year.

Deputy Briscoe.—It is the Army itself that decides what it will include in its Vote.

Witness.—We notified Local Government that we were closing down and we did think that they would be ready to take over from us.

680. Deputy O’Sullivan.—What time would have elapsed from the time that you notified the Department of Local Government until, in fact, it did close down?—At least nine months. We continued for a period of three months, and for a second period of three months at the request of the Department of Local Government. They had at least nine months’ notice.

681. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads:—

“Subhead U-Compensation.

86. A claim for £4,846 for damage to premises and £132 8s. 0d. in respect of furniture was submitted by the owner of certain premises which had been occupied by troops. An offer to pay £842 0s. 9d. was made to the owner in October, 1944, and of this sum it was decided to recover £174 2s. 2d. from the troops concerned on account of wanton damage. The offer was not accepted and, following the institution of legal proceedings, a settlement was arrived at providing for payment of £2,500 as compensation for damage together with costs when taxed. I understand that the sum of £174 2s. 2d. has been recovered from the troops and as this amount was assessed by reference to a liability of £842 0d. 9d. I have inquired whether the assessment was on a provisional basis and did not fall to be reviewed in the light of the settlement finally arrived at.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed that the sum of £174 odd against the occupying units was considered reasonable and did not fall to be reviewed when the final settlement was reached.

682. Deputy Briscoe.—Could we have information as to what class of damage was done?

General MacMahon.—The bulk of the latter sum was for general decoration of the premises and for destruction done by dry rot. We could not hold the troops responsible for that.

683. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Were these premises in Galway?—No, in Fermoy.

684. Deputy Briscoe.—Would the fact of the occupation by the troops contribute to dry rot?—We undertook to hand back the premises in as good a condition as that in which we got them.

685. Was the rent payable on these premises?—Yes.

686. I observe that of the claim for £4,846 for damage to premises, £132 was in respect of furniture. I could understand furniture being damaged by troops, but what I could not understand was the kind of damage that was done. Now I understand it was not damage by the troops to the premises?—It was dry rot.

687. We had similar cases before us in connection with premises where claims were made against the Department. I remember that in one case the urgency to get possession of the premises prevented the Army authorities from having them properly examined with a view to seeing what condition they were in. In this case, were they examined before they were taken over?—Yes. There was a report taken before they marched in, and a report taken when the troops were leaving.

Is not dry rot a thing that proceeds at a slow rate of progress?

Deputy Sheldon.—Not necessarily. It can spread within a short period at an alarming rate.

Deputy Briscoe.—If that is so then, I suppose, they did their best.

Paragraph 86 (continued).

“Payment of an agreed sum of £5,500 was made in settlement of a claim for £9,312 10s. 7d. for damage to certain premises due to military occupation. I inquired whether any portion of the expenditure was recoverable from troops in respect of wanton damage and was informed that the detailed bill of dilapidations had not yet been examined and that this examination would now be undertaken.”

688. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Where were these premises?—At Carton, Maynooth.

689. Deputy Briscoe.—There is a word used in that paragraph which, I think, is unfair, if you like, to the Army itself. There is claim for damage to premises, but now we find that it is not damage at all. It was dry rot in the first case. What was the damage in this case?—A fire was the principal cause of the damage at Maynooth.

690. Chairman.—Has the detailed bill of dilapidations been examined yet?—Yes, but the Quarter-Master-General and ourselves have not yet reached agreement. We are in dispute as to the amount that should be recovered from the troops and we are still examining it.

Paragraph 86 (continued)

“Arising out of a collision which occurred in July, 1945, between a motor torpedo boat and a fishing vessel, ex-gratia payments amounting to £913 17s. 0d. were made in respect of damage to the vessel and consequential loss and costs.”

691. Chairman.— What were the circumstances in this case?—A motor torpedo boat was keeping the sea clear in connection with target practice for aircraft. This fishing vessel appeared, and was cut practically in two by the motor torpedo boat. The master of the motor torpedo boat towed the fishing vessel into harbour. He was charged but found not guilty.

692. Chairman.—The next paragraph is as follows:

“Subhead X (3)—Expenses in connection with the Manufacture of Phosphorus, etc.

87. In addition to the charge to this subhead, expenditure on the service included the pay, allowances, etc., of military personnel engaged on the work, these payments being charged to the appropriate subheads. Payments amounting to £43,338 7s. 1d. for chemicals supplied to the 1st April, 1946, were received from the firm for whom the manufacture was undertaken, and of this amount £15,000 was paid in the year under review and is brought to credit under subhead Z. The balance was received in the financial year 1946-47. Owing to the high cost of production the firm declined to accept any further deliveries and accordingly the manufacture of the chemicals was discontinued. Information has been sought regarding the quantities of raw materials and finished products which were on hands when manufacture ceased and the disposal of these stocks and of the production plants.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been furnished with a schedule showing the quantity of raw materials on hand and the method of disposal.

Paragraph 87 (continued).

“Expenditure amounting to £882 was incurred in connection with the construction of fume and odour removal plants. As it appeared that this work was undertaken solely in connection with the production of chemicals for commercial purposes I have inquired whether any part of the cost was recovered from the purchasing firm.”

693. Mr. Maher.—I have been informed that, although this work was undertaken solely in connection with the production of chemicals for match manufacture, it was not found practicable to recover any portion of the cost from the firm concerned.

694. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Why?

General MacMahon.—By the time this had been erected we had ceased producing and the company did not require any more of the product. The supply was only a side line. The factory was put up for a completely different purpose.

695. Am I to understand that this plant was introduced after the manufacture of the phosphorus had ceased?—No. We had complaints from the neighbours as to the odour.

696. I know you had?—We tried to remedy that, but by the time we had it remedied the demand for this material had ceased.

697. Chairman.—I notice that the cost of the production of certain types of phosphorus varied between 3s. 3.098d. per 1b. and 4s. 1.3001d. per 1b. and that subsequently it was sold at prices varying between 2s. and 7s. 3d. per 1b. Was there a gain or a loss on the whole transaction? —A loss. We had only one customer and we got the best price we could.

698. Deputy Sheldon.—Are all the surplus stocks disposed of?—Yes.

699. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Was the loss a pretty heavy one?—If we were manufacturing this solely the loss would be very heavy, but, in fact, the loss was really nothing because we had to have the factory and had to utilise it for other purposes.

700. Chairman.—Has this been completed yet?—We have completed the disposal.

701. Has sanction been obtained from the Department of Finance?—No. We wrote to the Department on Monday or Tuesday and told them what the position is.

702. Deputy Briscoe.—Is it not a fact that the Army was forced into the manufacture of this and other chemicals because of the impossibility of obtaining them during the war period and because they were essential for Army purposes?—I should explain that the Army is very proud of that factory, and of what it did during the emergency.

703. At the time it was imperative that we should have this. Progress was indicated by the fact that the Army was able to produce these chemicals?—Excellent work was done there.

704. General MacMahon.—I can now give the information that Deputy Briscoe asked for about the lorries. We sold 88 in Dublin for £20,835, and in other centres we sold 177 for £45,191. The total of 265 realised £66,026.

Deputy Briscoe.—It is well to have those figures for the purpose of relating them to the fees which now appear not to be unreasonable when one takes into account that a lot of travelling expenses must have been incurred in connection with the examination of these trucks.

705. Chairman.—If the original arrangement with the company had not been adopted, no valuations would have been necessary?—That is true.

706. Deputy Briscoe.—I understand that these auctions were held as a result of valuations that were made. A certain number of the articles were not sold at each auction but were held until the reserved figure was reached. I am informed that this was not the usual form of auction at which one takes the highest price bid. On many occasions they were not sold and were put up again at a later date.

“Statement of Losses.

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

The corresponding figures of losses in the previous year were £1,873 12s. 4d. and £26,915 8s. 2d.”

707. Deputy Briscoe.—We get a figure which shows the deficiencies year by year. Is there anything which shows the total losses for the whole of the emergency period?

Mr. Maher.—The accounts are kept year by year.

708. Deputy Briscoe.—In next year’s account could we have the total losses for the period of the emergency?

General MacMahon.—If the Comptroller and Auditor-General asks for it, we will supply it.

709. Deputy Briscoe.—There was one particular year when it was impossible to give the losses—they had to be carried into the next year. Therefore, you could not tell what the actual year by year loss was and the total for the emergency period. Perhaps next year we may be able to get the final figure?

Mr. Maher.—In the next accounts we will make arrangements to have the information available for the Committee.

710. Chairman.—As to Subhead O (1) —to whom is that grant payable?

General MacMahon.—That is not a grant. It is for the expenses of officers seconded to the Department of Industry and Commerce who acted as control officers at Rineanna.

711. Deputy O’Sullivan.—As to Subhead V (2)—Soldiers’ Club, Dublin—Is the club complete?—Yes.

712. Deputy Sheldon.—As to the item, Boots issued on repayment to the Local Defence Force—I was wondering how it arises that the number issued was so greatly in excess of expectations. Was it that the repayment came in earlier than expected?—In the early days they purchased a number locally from the grant. Later they purchased them from the Army on a repayment basis.

713. Surely the change took place earlier than 1945-1946?—There was not actually a change. If they wished, they could purchase outside, but they availed of the facilities for purchasing on repayment to a greater extent than we anticipated.

714. Deputy Briscoe.—Who fixes the additional rates of pay paid to tradesmen in the Army; is it the Army authorities? —No, we pay the rate in operation in the district in which we employ the men.

715. I means soldiers who are tradesmen. Is it a fact that if a tradesman is a member of the armed forces he gets a soldier’s rate of pay, plus sixpence, for being a technical man?—No. We had a system in operation until recently whereby all such soldiers got additional pay varying from threepence to three shillings and in some cases perhaps five shillings per day extra. Now we have established a star system similar to that in the British Army. A man is graded one star, two star, or three star.

716. Does it not work out that if a man is an N.C.O., as he usually is, if he is a tradesman, he gets much less than outside by way of wages although he is actually performing the same work as an ordinary tradesman?—If you take into consideration that he is supplied with food, clothing and marriage allowance I would not agree. He has also free medical attention and is entitled to a pension. If you take into consideration these additions to his pay, he is at least as well paid as the civilian.

717. Are you satisfied that that is the position?—Yes.

718. Would not those described as riggers in the Air Force if they left the Army and went into civilian employment, even allowing for all these benefits, have far more cash available to bring up their families than they have under existing circumstances?—I think you are referring to a number of boys we took on and trained as fitters and riggers.

719. They are now qualified?—Yes, but most of them are young unmarried men. Definitely, their rate of pay is lower than they could get outside; but I think the State, having given them their training, is entitled to retain them until they carry out their contract. They have to remain with us for twelve years. I think that is no hardship because they have acquired a trade. If they are single, the rate is definitely lower. But, if they are married, I do not think it is lower.

720. I have knowledge of a case where a man who served twelve years signed on for an additional period and now finds himself in receipt of a very low wage in cash and could get outside employment. I have actually written to you about the case. I think that when these men qualify as first-class tradesmen they should be put on a different basis and given a bigger wage. There is no encouragement for a person to go into the Army and be trained as a tradesman if ultimately his wages are not commensurate with the extra amount of energy he has to expend in working, as distinct from the ordinary soldier who just does soldier’s duties?—It is very difficult to compare the Army rates with outside rates because an unmarried soldier gets very much less than a married man with five or six children.

721. Is there a list of the rates of pay that we could have a look at?—Yes. If you take into consideration the pay only, you will get a false impression. You will also have to take into consideration the perquisites they get.

Chairman.—I think we are discussing a matter which is outside the purview of the Committee. It is a question of policy.

Deputy Briscoe.—I should like to get the particulars. Is it a fact that a tradesman who is a soldier only gets sixpence a day extra?

Deputy Sheldon.—That is not a matter for the Committee. All we have to see is that the money is expended properly.

Deputy Briscoe.—It is a matter for us to be satisfied that the rates of pay result in the best types of men being secured.

Chairman.—It is not a matter for the Committee.

VOTE 64—ARMY PENSIONS.

General MacMahon further examined.

722. Chairman.—The next paragraph reads:

“89. A pension of £23 2s. 7d. per annum under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, was awarded to an applicant in April, 1926, following a report as to his military service by the Board of Assessors appointed under the Act.

Section 13 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, provides, inter alia, that the Minister may request the Referee appointed under the Act to review a report of the Board of Assessors on the ground that evidence not available prior to the making of such report has since become available. A request under that section was made to the Referee in the case under notice and on review the Referee found that the pensioner was not a person to whom the Act of 1924 applied. The report of the Board of Assessors was varied accordingly and the pension was revoked by order of the Minister. The finding of the Referee and the Minister’s order of revocation were subsequently quashed by order of the Supreme Court, the Court finding that the Referee had not adjudicated on the question of the prior availability of the evidence presented to him, which question was held to be one within his sole jurisdiction. The case was, therefore, again submitted to the Referee who found, by report dated 18th June, 1946, that the evidence submitted to him in the course of his original review was available prior to the report of the Board of Assessors, and he confirmed the report accordingly, the grant of pension being restored.

As it appeared from the Court proceedings that the Referee had regarded himself as not entitled to adjudicate on a matter which was one for his decision, I inquired regarding the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court on the validity of the findings of the Referee on appeals referred to him by the Minister and reported on prior to the judment.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed that these cases cannot be reviewed or upset except by proceedings in the High Court instituted either by the persons concerned or by the Minister. As the Minister has no reason to believe that the findings were not just, despite the defect in procedure, he does not intend to institute any such proceedings. In view of the reply, I suggest that it should be accepted, because I understand that a review of these cases would entail considerable trouble without any possible saving of public funds.

General MacMahon.—The Minister proposes to introduce an amendment to the Act to prohibit anyone from raising the matter.

Deputy Briscoe.—It will not be retrospective to include these?

Deputy Sheldon.—It will.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 4—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL.

Mr. W. E. Wann called.

No question.

The Committee adjourned.