Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1948 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1946 - 1947

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 16ú Meitheamh, 1948.

Wednesday, 16th June, 1948.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY MacENTEE in the chair.

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

VOTE 63—ARMY.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon called and examined.

368. Chairman.—Paragraph 74 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

“By Defence Force Regulation dated 1st December, 1938, revised rates of pay for medical and dental officers, appointed subsequent to that date were introduced, the new rates being considerably lower than those in force previously. The Regulation purported to apply also to officers appointed prior to that date and to provide that the pay of such officers as on 1st December, 1938, should remain unaltered until on promotion the reduced rates of pay for the higher rank would be more favourable to them.

The pay of an officer who was commissioned prior to 1st December, 1938, and who was promoted in 1940, remained unaltered on promotion as the revised rate for his new rank was less than the rate at which he was paid prior to promotion. The officer resigned in 1943 and subsequently claimed that the regulation of 1938 could not be held to apply to him and that he was entitled to receive the pre-1938 rate of pay appropriate to the higher rank held by him. Proceedings were instituted against the Ministers for Finance and Defence and by judgment of the High Court, confirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that, on the wording of the regulation, it could not apply to officers appointed prior to 1st December, 1938, and that as it failed to withdraw, in clear and unambiguous language, entitlement to the pre-1938 rates of pay, the applicant was entitled to succeed.

The Regulations governing pay and allowances provide that amounts not claimed within 12 months from the date on which they become due for payment shall be deemed to be forfeited unless the Minister otherwise determines, and in the case referred to, the claim having been made on the 11th October, 1943, the Supreme Court awarded arrears of pay to the officer with effect from 11th October, 1942. It was subsequently decided that arrears should be allowed in full to all medical and dental officers appointed prior to 1st December, 1938, and promoted after that date. The amount charged to the Vote in the year under review consequent upon this decision is £23,204 12s. 11d.”

Mr. Maher.—This paragraph sets out the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court with regard to the pay of officers of the medical services. It was subsequently decided that full arrears should be paid, with effect from the date of promotion in each case, to all medical and dental officers concerned.

Deputy Briscoe.—I suppose it would generally give rise to a position where in the case of all officers of the State in all Departments where regulations were made subsequent to their appointment, the appointment date and their terms and conditions would be regarded by the judgment of the Court as a contract and that they could not be overruled by subsequent regulations?

Chairman.—No, no. The Court, I think, held that the regulation was not effective for want of clarity.

369. Chairman.—Paragraph 75 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

“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 £39 18s. 0d. and £37 16s. 0d. per head, respectively, as compared with £38 13s. 10d. and £37 6s. 11d. in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 681 lbs. and 646 lbs., respectively, as compared with 725 lbs. and 674lbs.

Mr. Maher.—This is an annual paragraph for information.

370. Deputy Briscoe.—Could the Comptroller and Auditor-General indicate to what he attributes the increase in the cost of bread production?

Mr. Maher.—We have got accounts, but there may be local conditions and circumstances of which the Accounting Officer may be aware but which are not known to me.

371. Deputy Briscoe.—The price of flour is more or less static because of the food subsidy?—The increase is due in the main to increased charges for labour, fuel, light, power and maintenance costs.

372. You have not split up these. I suppose?—We have.

373. Deputy Sheldon.—A point that struck me is that apparently delivery is doubled from ·2 pence per lb. to ·4 pence per lb. this being the difference between 2·7 and 2·9 and between 3·1 and 3·5. Would that be the effect of a smaller amount of bread which would have rather the same over-all cost of delivery?—To a certain extent it would and also to the cost of petrol for delivery.

374. It is apparently doubled from .2 pence per lb. to .4 pence per lb.?—They are the only factors affecting it.

375. Chairman.—The first sub-paragraph of Paragraph 76 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

Subhead M.—Clothing and Equipment.

“The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained in March, 1946, for the purchase of 5,500 civilian suits at an estimated cost of £15,400, the requirements being calculated by reference to the number of men due to be released from service in the ensuing months, and orders were issued accordingly. Approximately 8,500 civilian suits were held in stores in October, 1947, and it appears that the accumulation of these surplus stocks was due partly to the fact that the demand for suits was greatly reduced in the later stages of demobilization, the men opting for cash allowance in lieu, and partly to a miscalculation of the stock position in March, 1946. I have inquired regarding the circumstances in which the stock position was not correctly ascertained prior to the issue of the orders for 5,500 suits, and also regarding the disposal of the surplus stocks held.”

Chairman.—Perhaps, Mr. Maher, you would like to amplify that.

Mr. Maher.—Since the date of the report the Accounting Officer has informed me that had all the men who were demobilised elected to take suits instead of cash the surplus would have been insignificant and that it is proposed to sell the surplus suits now in stock.

376. Chairman.—Is there any comment to be made on the note?

Deputy Coburn.—Except that it would be better to have no option in that case.

Chairman.—That might not be fair. Some men might not want to take suits. They may have had a sufficiently large wardrobe.

377. Deputy Pattison.—Would that be because of the general make-up of the suits?

General MacMahon.—Some soldiers had good civilian suits of their own, and it would be very unfair to press these inferior suits on them. On the other hand, certain soldiers had no civilian attire and we could not send them out naked and therefore we had to provide these suits for them.

378. Chairman.—The second paragraph of note 76 is as follows:—

“Defence Force Regulations issued in August, 1945, provided that temporary officers to whom uniform and equipment had been issued should, on being granted permanent commissions, retain any articles of kit in their possession and should, in addition, receive a cash allowance of £45 towards the cost of providing the full scale kit prescribed by regulations, in lieu of the initial grant of £60 provided for officers who had not previously held temporary rank. Issues of uniform to temporary officers were, in general, suspended from June, 1945, in view of pending demobilization, and as appointments to permanent commissioned rank were not made until November, 1946, it was considered that the articles in the possession of the officers concerned no longer represented the value of £15 assessed when the cash allowance of £45 was fixed. The sanction of the Department of Finance was accordingly obtained for the issue of articles of uniform to the value of £15 to temporary officers who were being appointed to permanent commissioned rank. I have asked for information regarding the basis on which the value of the articles issued was assessed. Whilst issues of clothing to temporary officers were, in general, suspended in 1945, certain issues were made in 1946 as replacements of unservicable articles became unavoidable. As it appeared that the sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained on the ground that the issues of uniform were suspended from June, 1945, I have also inquired whether any action was taken in relation to the unexpired value of the replacement issues made in 1946, either by surrender of the articles in the officers’ possession or by adjustment of the cash allowances.”

Mr. Maher.—Two points arise in this paragraph. As regards the first point, according to the vocabulary rates the value of the articles was £16 11s. 8d., but the articles issued were assessed at cost price and I have been informed recently that the covering sanction of the Department of Finance will be sought for the difference. On the second point, the arrangement under which each officer received a uniform valued at £15 together with a cash allowance of £45 was sanctioned on the basis that issues of clothing were suspended in June, 1945, and, accordingly, the uniform in possession of the officers had become time expired by November, 1946. In a number of cases, however, replacements of certain articles were authorised as necessary between October, 1945, and November, 1946, and I have been informed that the sanction of the Department of Finance is being sought for the proposal that the assessed unexpired value as at 31st October, 1946, of such replacement issues shall be recovered from the officers concerned.

General MacMahon.—That is right.

379. Chairman.—Have the Department of Finance sanctioned that proposal?

Mr. Almond.—No, but we are ready to give sanction subject to any observations of the Committee. That is on the second point raised. On the first point, as to the difference between the contract price and the vocabularly price, we are asking that a sum of £1 11s. 8d. be recovered from the officers in each case.

380. Chairman.—The last paragraph of note 76 reads as follows:—

“Articles of uniform which had been made to the individual measurements of certain temporary officers remained unissued as the officers for whom they had been purchased had been released from service, and the authority of the Department of Finance was sought for the sale of the items in question to regular officers at reduced prices. Information has been sought regarding the present position in this matter.”

Mr. Maher.—I have since been informed that these are being issued at repayment rates to the officers for whom they were made where these officers are appointed to the reserve and to other officers at repayment rates less 25 per cent. The question of the disposal of the balance I understand is under consideration.

General MacMahon.—That is correct. We hope to sell all the articles with the exception of the breeches. The breeches cannot be issued to N.C.O.s and we propose to sell them.

381. Deputy Briscoe.—There is no indication of the amount involved.

Mr. Maher.—The Accounting Officer has informed us of the items which have been disposed of. I think he has particulars of the total quantities of clothing made up.

General MacMahon.—We do not know what price we will get for the eighty-nine pair of breeches.

382. Deputy Briscoe.—There does not appear to be much involved in the total? —In any case we had to purchase these at the time. We had no option.

383. Chairman.—Paragraph 77 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report reads:—

Subhead O.—General Stores.—

“A contract was placed in April, 1944, for the supply at a cost of £2,321 10s. 0d. f.o.b. English port of equipment for testing marine engines. Proposals for the cancellation of the contracts were made to the contractor in December, 1945, as the plant was no longer required owing to a change in policy regarding the use of motor torpedo boats. As the plant had then been completed to the special requirements of the Department of Defence the contractor was unable to agree to cancellation and delivery was made in June, 1946. I have inquired whether any action has been taken with a view to its disposal.”

Mr. Maher.—I have been informed that efforts have been made to dispose of this equipment, but so far without success. Whether it is likely that it can be disposed of General MacMahon may be able to say.

General MacMahon.—Since we reported to the Comptroller and Auditor-General we have got a couple of offers, but I must admit that the offers are very small compared with the cost of this instrument.

384. Chairman.—How many motor torpedo boats were in commission or were likely to be in commission when this plant was ordered?—At that particular time we had six, and the then Director of the Naval Service advised that it was essential to buy this piece of equipment.

385. The question which arises in my mind is whether, for the sake of testing six marine engines at fairly prolonged intervals, it would be necessary to buy this expensive testing equipment. It is customary, I think, to test the engines at the contractor’s works before they are taken over?—There were 24 engines involved. There were four engines in each boat, and this particular officer, who has left the service since, was our expert in the matter. He said that in order to keep the boats in commission it was essential to have this piece of machinery and we just had to buy.

386. This was used for testing the output of the engine. But beyond testing it perhaps after an overhaul in some two or three years I do not think it is necessary to use it?—I think these engines have to be overhauled very frequently. In any case, if the boats were out of commission and this instrument was not purchased, I think the Accounting Officer would be in trouble. The Accounting Officer knew nothing about the engines and this man was supposed to be an expert.

Chairman.—I know, but it seems to me that it was an unnecessary purchase.

387. Deputy Pattison.—On what ground did he base his opinion that it was necessary?—From his experience and in order to keep the boats in commission.

388. How would that be determined? Is it by the amount of fuel consumed by the boats or the intervals between tests? —These boats, of course, were very fast boats, and after a run usually they had to be tested again. I understand that they are as difficult to keep going as, say, a racing engine in a motor car or an engine in an aeroplane.

389. Chairman.—Still, the person who runs a racing car does not keep this type of equipment. If we were turning out thousands of them we could understand.

General MacMahon.—Of course, there is this difference between it and the motor car, that you can take the engine out of a motor car and if he had not this instrument he would have to take each engine out and put it on the test bench for test. That would be a very troublesome job.

390. Chairman.—I think he could have ascertained the indicated horse power of the engine without doing that. A diagram would have given a fair indication as to the condition of the engine. However, as the Accounting Officer has said, he acted on technical advice. That is all that is to it.

391. Deputy Coburn.—What was the amount of the offer? You say it was small?

General MacMahon.—The highest one is £200.

392. Chairman.—The first sub-paragraph of Note 78 in the Report is as follows:—

Subhead P.—Warlike Stores.

“The original provision under this subhead was £16,235 and this was increased by a supplementary estimate to £31,135. The expenditure amounted to £73,165 10s. 2d. and I have been informed that the excess was due to the fact that it was not possible to forecast with any degree of accuracy the extent to which stores and accounts would be received, and that the number of accounts received towards the end of the financial year was greater than was anticipated.”

Would the Comptroller like to add anything to that?

Mr. Maher.—I have been informed that actually the Supplementary Estimate was prepared in January, 1947, roughly three months before the end of the financial year and that at that date it would have been difficult to estimate the probable claims which might be submitted in the remaining months of the year.

General MacMahon.—In fact, it was impossible, Mr. Maher.

393. Chairman.—The second sub-paragraph is as follows:—

“Reference was made in paragraph 79 of the report on the appropriation accounts for the year 1939-40 to advance payments of approximately £44,000 which had been made to two Continental firms on contracts for the supply of certain stores and had been charged to a suspense account pending clarification of the delivery position. As stated in paragraph 70 of the report for the year 1943-44 a sum of £22,337 17s. 8d. refunded by one of the firms was applied towards clearance of the suspense accounts. The account has now been finally closed by the refund, during the year under review, of the sum of £21,678 by the second firm.”

Mr. Maher.—The purpose of this paragraph is to place on record the clearance of the suspense accounts, to which reference was made in previous reports.

Chairman.—I suppose we have no comment to make on that.

Deputy Sheldon.—Except that it is satisfactory.

394. Chairman.—Yes. The third subparagraph of the note is as follows:—

“Advance payments amounting to £12,779 17s. 6d. made under contracts and charged against votes for previous years, in respect of stores which have not been delivered, were recovered in the year under review and have been brought to account as appropriations in aid.”

The Accounting Officer may be able to say whether any similar advance payments are still outstanding?—There is a small sum of about £197. It is referred to later on.

395. Chairman.—I suppose we may regard that position as being satisfactory also. Note 79 of the report is as follows:—

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

“The Government decided in November, 1945, that accumulated reserves of medical stores should be maintained as a matter of post-war policy and that the stocks held by the State and by local authorities should be distributed amongst hospitals throughout the country to be used by these hospitals subject to replacement. All State-owned perishable stocks which were held in central stores or were located at certain hospitals have now been redistributed amongst hospitals generally with the exception of items to the value of £400 3s. 10d., which had deteriorated and the disposal of which is under consideration. I was informed that as the allocations to the various hospitals were based on the hospitals’ potential consumption it was not found possible to include in the redistribution scheme the stocks held by local authorities which had been purchased with the aid of grants under the Air-raid Precautions Act, 1939, and that it was, therefore, decided that these stocks should be disposed of by the local authorities concerned. The appropriate percentage of the amounts realised will be applied in relief of the grants payable under the Act in future years. Arrangements for the redistribution of non-perishable stores have not yet been made.”

Mr. Maher.—As regards the £400 worth of perishable stocks, I understand efforts are being made to dispose of these stocks by sale.

General MacMahon.—Yes, They are principally drugs and articles made of rubber.

396. Deputy Sheldon.—Have you finally disposed of them?—No; we have not completed disposal of them yet.

397. Deputy Briscoe.—The first few lines of the paragraph reads: “The Government decided in November, 1945, that accumulated reserves of medical stores should be maintained as a matter of post-war policy.” The rest of the paragraph goes on to speak of the disposal of stocks. Could the witness amplify the position? First of all, we are at this disadvantage that we do not know the quantity or value of these accumulated stores? —I cannot at the moment give you the quantity. The value is roughly £40,000— £39,874, or something like that.

398. It is difficult to assess the rate at which these stocks are being used by the local authorities and hospitals and at what rate it will proceed. How many years will it take to use up these stocks?—The hospitals are using them up. When the hospitals use part of these stores they have to replace them by new ones.

399. Chairman.—A pool of drugs is being kept which is replenished as used.— That is correct.

400. Deputy Sheldon.—The only thing is that instead of being kept in Army stores they are being given to the hospitals?

General MacMahon.—And they are being turned over, which they would not be if they were kept as Army stores.

401. Deputy Sheldon.—They are still the property of the State?—They are still the property of the State.

402. Chairman.—Have we information as to the position of the local authorities’ stocks, Mr. Accounting Officer?—The local authorities’ stocks have been sold by the local authorities.

403. What about the question of grants —We recovered our proportion. It is higher in Dublin than in other areas.

404. Has that matter been wound up? —Not quite, but it is in process of being wound up. It is practically wound up.

405. That is to say, the question of the adjustment of the local authorities’ liability in respect of the grants received by them is being dealt with?—Yes; there are some small items in dispute at the moment, but the matter is being brought to a conclusion.

406. Deputy Briscoe.—This concerns purely medical stores and does not include items of timber?—Medical stores.

407. Deputy Sheldon.—The value of the non-perishable stores is in addition to the £40,000 you mentioned—that was for perishable stores?—No. Non-perishable and perishable stores are valued for almost £40,000.

408. The non-perishable stores?—Both types of stores are held in hospitals.

409. Chairman.—The first sub-paragraph of note 80 is as follows:—

Subhead P.2.—Marine Service.

“The charge to this subhead includes the sum of £207,000 in respect of the purchase of three corvettes with appropriate stores. The agreed purchase price was £210,000, the sum of £3,000 being withheld pending check of the stores supplied. I have asked for certain information regarding these stores, and also regarding liability for expenditure incurred on repairs and renovations, as the contract provided for the delivery of the vessels free of all defects affecting seaworthiness.”

Mr. Maher.—It would appear from the Accounting Officer’s reply that precise details of the stores covered by the purchase price may not yet have been received.

General MacMahon.—That is correct.

410. Chairman.—There is a prolonged delay, is there not?—The delay is with the British Admiralty. We will have to get from them a complete list of stores of a ship of this type so that we can check what we actually got with our vessels with what is the normal thing, to see in fact whether we got everything we are entitled to or not.

Mr. Maher.—As regards the other point, expenditure has been incurred on overhaul and the question of how far this expenditure may be regarded as affecting the issue of the seaworthiness of the vessels has not been decided?—Yes. We have checked up on that but we have not taken it up with the Admiralty. My opinion is that we cannot recover any of it. That is my personal opinion. I do not think the repairs affected the seaworthiness of the vessels.

411. Deputy Coburn.—Had these repairs to be carried out immediately, or what time elapsed between delivery and the carrying out of repairs?—They were undertaken immediately we took delivery at Haulbowline.

412. It is strange that there would be repairs at that stage?—It consists to a great extent of painting and that kind of work. These ships had been on convoy work. They were seaworthy but not in a presentable condition and I think it was our responsibility to put them in a presentable condition.

413. So, the repairs consisted in the main of painting and doing up the vessels?—Yes.

414. I thought they might have been to the structure of the vessels?—No, not at all.

415. Chairman.—They were sound and seaworthy?—They were.

416. Deputy Briscoe.—You did not find it necessary to buy anything in the nature of stores. I mean, no difficulty arose because of shortage of stores, necessitating replacement?—None whatever.

417. Chairman.—I shall now read the concluding portion of paragraph 80:—

“At the beginning of the emergency certain fishery patrol vessels in the possession of the Department of Agriculture were taken over for defence purposes and certain sea fisheries protection duties formerly carried out by that Department were undertaken by the Department of Defence. It has now been decided that these duties shall continue permanently to be carried out by the latter Department.”

Mr. Maher.—I understand that the arrangement does not involve any change in the statutory position in the administration of the various Sea Fisheries Act as carried out by the Department of Agriculture?—That is correct.

418. Deputy Briscoe.—Would it be possible to get from the Comptroller and Auditor-General the amount of the saving which will now arise on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture, seeing that the Department will not have to carry out this protection duty?

Mr. Maher.—I do not think it would be possible at this stage to do so. We may at a later financial stage be able to get comparative figures.

General MacMahon.—Did I understand Deputy Briscoe to ask if the Department of Defence charged Agriculture anything? I may say we did not charge them anything.

419. Deputy Briscoe.—I think it would be interesting for the Committee to know what was the previous expenditure by the Department of Agriculture on the protection of sea fisheries, a duty which is now taken over by the Department of Defence.

Mr. Maher.—I think it would be possible to obtain fairly accurate figures of the expenditure, but we have not got them available at the moment.

420. Deputy Briscoe.—I should like if at some time the Committee was furnished with that information. Is there any reason why the Department of Defence is not permitted to make a charge for this service?

Mr. Maher.—That is a matter on which I think, probably the Department of Finance might have some views. It does not arise on these accounts.

Mr. Almond.—It has been decided that sea fisheries control should actually be a function of the Department of Defence. Therefore, that Department should bear it on its own Vote. It has ceased to be a function of the Department of Agriculture. That is the position.

General MacMahon.—From the point of view of the Exchequer, it does not matter.

Deputy Briscoe.—The maintenance of the Muirchú used to be a source of considerable expenditure to the Sea Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture.

420a. Deputy Sheldon.—Is the Department of Finance satisfied that such a change is compatible with the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Acts?

Mr. Almond.—The memorandum we received from the Department of Agriculture raised no objections on the ground of their statutory requirements. The requirements of the Acts are now transferred to the Department of Defence.

421. Chairman.—I think we can now take paragraph 81. in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

Subhead S.—Barrack Maintenance and Minor Works.

“The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained for a total expenditure of £3,222 on alterations and renovations at a military barracks, the sum of £2,453 representing the cost of portion of the work undertaken by the Corps of Engineers, and the balance of £769 the amount of the lowest tender received for that portion of the work which it was proposed to put to contract. The tenders were received in August, 1945, but it appears that no decision as to acceptance was taken. Tenders were again invited in January, 1947, when the lowest price quoted for the work was £989 8s. 11d., subject to a price variation clause. The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained for the excess expenditure involved and the contract was placed in September, 1947. I have inquired regarding the circumstances in which the original tender was not accepted.”

Mr. Maher.—I have been informed that the original tender was not accepted as it would involve an excess on the Department of Finance sanction, and that the original tender had lapsed before this acceptance could be authorised. The difficulty of obtaining supplies of material has been responsible for a considerable delay in carrying out the work.

General MacMahon.—I might mention that the tiles are not yet available and that we do not propose to use tiles. The intention is to use concrete.

422. Deputy Briscoe.—The first part of the note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General states that the information given to him to explain this is that it was due to the holding up of sanction by the Department of Finance.

Chairman.—No.

Mr. Maher.—What I said was the tender was in excess of the Department of Finance sanction. Therefore, of course, they could not accept immediately without going back to the Department of Finance.

General MacMahon.—We gave an estimate to the Department of Finance and we exceeded that. Had we proceeded with the tiling we would have to exceed that estimate, but we could not do that without the prior sanction of the Department, so we had to go back to the Department of Finance and tell them that we were going to exceed the original estimate.

423. Chairman.—What was the amount of the expenditure sanctioned by the Department of Finance?—£3,222 for the complete work, including the tiling.

424. Deputy Briscoe.—What did the excess amount to?—Some hundreds. The real point in connection with it is that we do not propose to go on with this tiling now. If I had that information at the time for the Comptroller and Auditor-General he might not have found it necessary to raise this query at all. It was only recently we decided that we would not go on with the tiling and would be satisfied with the concrete.

Mr. Maher.—At the date of the Report I had not got any reply. The reply did not come in until the middle of March and the report was finished in February.

General MacMahon.—The matter was under discussion quite recently, and it was only then that the decision was come to.

425. Chairman.—At the time, was it decided that the work was to be carried out by the Corps of Engineers?—No, by an outside firm.

426. Who prepared the estimate of cost?—The Director of Engineers.

427. Deputy Coburn.—The Note states that the amount of the lowest tender was £769?—That was the second tender.

428. The sum of £769 added to the figure of £2,453 gives the total of £3,222? —I may say that there was other work to be done besides the tiling. As a matter of fact the greater portion of the expenditure was on work other than tiling.

429. Deputy Briscoe.—Is the position not this, that the estimate which was submitted to the Department of Finance included not only what was tendered for outside but also the expenditure undertaken by the Corps of Engineers?—Yes.

430. And that when the total of both these items was ascertained it was found that it was above the estimate and consequently required sanction. It could have been that the excess expenditure arose partly, if not wholly, by what was done by the Corps of Engineers. There could have been a mistake there of underestimation. So far as the Department of Finance was concerned their sole interest was the total amount?—Yes.

431. The position then arose that, due to delay, the period of tendering expired, and that when you decided to go on again the new tender for the work originally tendered for indicated an increase. The position now is that you have decided not to do the work at all?—The tiles are not available even now.

432. Chairman.—Did the tender cover other work than tiling?—It covered only the cost of the tiles and of the labour involved in laying the tiles.

433. And the work was not proceeded with?—No, and we do not propose to proceed with it.

434. Were tiles available at the time the first tender was received?—The work started in 1945. This was a building that had to be converted into a dining hall during the emergency owing to the fact that there were so many troops in barracks. At present the ordinary dining hall can cater for the number of men who are there, and that, of course, was the principal inducement to us to drop this proposal.

435: There has been no expenditure incurred on the work referred to in this note?—No.

436. So there was no loss of money by failing to accept the first tender?—That is so.

437. Chairman.—We can now take paragraph 82 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

Subhead U.—Compensation.

“Payment of £1,900 together with £95 for architect’s fees and £10 10s. for legal costs was made in settlement of a claim for compensation for damage caused to certain premises whilst in military occupation and I have asked for certain information concerning details of the claim.”

Mr. Maher.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that a further reply will be sent at a later date.

General MacMahon.—I do not know whether the Committee would like me to explain the position.

Mr. Maher.—It will come up in the next financial year.

438. Chairman.—I take it that we need not occupy the time of the Committee, or of the Accounting Officer, in pursuing the matter further at this stage. We can now take paragraph 83 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

Subhead X.—Incidental Expenses.

“Expenditure amounting to £3,929 7s. 2d. was incurred during the year on advertisements, etc., in connection with a publicity scheme relating to recruiting and further expenditure was incurred in the financial year 1947-48. In according sanction for the proposals the Department of Finance stipulated that tenders should be invited from advertising and publicity agents generally and as it appeared that tenders were not sought I have asked for an explanation.”

Mr. Maher.—I am informed that tenders were not sought as to do so would involve delay in initiating the publicity campaign, and also that tenders would not be any advantage as the cost would be based on standard charges.

General MacMahon.—We were under the impression that all these agencies charged the same amount because their remuneration is recovered from the newspapers, etc. McEvoy’s had done other work for us and it had been very satisfactory, so the Minister for Defence decided that he would allot this work to McEvoy’s. It would save time and he was anxious to get on with the recruiting campaign. If we went out to tender there would be considerable delay, and another agency might not know so well what we required. This fact weighed with the Minister for Defence, and he gave the work to McEvoy’s.

439. Chairman.—Might the position be put this way, that McEvoy had previously worked for the Department, that his work had been satisfactory, and that as there was no saving likely to result from making a change, you decided not to make a change?—That is what we believed at the time.

439a. Deputy Sheldon.— Has the Department of Finance any views on the matter?

Mr. Almond.—When the Department of Defence came to us for sanction to expend this money on advertising and other publicity generally, we said that the Minister considered that competitive tenders should be invited for the advertising and other publicity. The Minister for Defence did not act on that minute from the Department of Finance. When a proposal came to us for publicity in connection with a second recruiting campaign we made the same condition that tenders should be invited, and they were invited.

440. Deputy Briscoe.—In view of the stipulation by the Department of Finance, should there have been a procedure whereby the Department of Defence would notify the Department of Finance that this stipulation was not being complied with?—We naturally assumed they would act on our minute. We had no reason to think otherwise.

441. Deputy Sheldon.—Did the Department of Finance give sanction for the expenditure?—Yes, but we added a paragraph to the effect that competitive tenders should be invited.

442. The matter did not come before the Department of Finance subsequently? —No. A second proposal came along on which we took the same line. Of course, we normally insist on competitive tenders. One simply cannot pick a man and say that he will be given a certain job. Otherwise there may be abuses.

Chairman.—As a member of the Committee, I should have to accept that statement with a great deal of reservation, particularly when it would be applied to work of this kind where merit and quality is a very large factor in determining whether the work should be given to one firm rather than to another. If the matter were to be based entirely on cheapness, then, of course, the work could be done very cheaply by a not too competent firm. But if an effective publicity campaign is required I am afraid one would need to take into consideration factors other than the mere percentage which the agent would charge.

Deputy Sheldon.—On the other hand, last year and I think the year before, this Committee took exception to the system which appeared to be growing by which works of various kinds were being given without tenders. I think it reported very strongly on the matter. I should not like to do anything which would indicate to Departments that we in any way agree with them that any circumstances could arise in which they should not ask for tenders.

443. Deputy Briscoe.—We had this matter under consideration, I think, the year before last with particular reference to the giving out of Department of Industry and Commerce contracts to builders on the grounds of urgency and so forth. This Committee then held that it would be a bad practice to develop and that competitive tenders were a protection. Allowing for what General MacMahon says about urgency and so forth and allowing for the special requirements, would the Department of Finance feel that had their recommendation been followed there might have been a substantial saving in this expenditure?—Not exactly, but we did not know. I may say that when they went out to tender in connection with the second campaign the first two tenders were passed over although they were the lowest because the designs submitted were not suitable. A proviso that the work must be suitable must always be attached. For instance, you would not expect a contract to be given to a builder if you knew that he could not do the work or that he was not a good builder. All that must be taken into consideration.

444. Deputy Briscoe.—Then you had indicated that there were to be tenders?— Yes, and they were actually invited in the second case.

445. And on this occasion was the employment of the same firm the result?—The result was very peculiar. The people who quoted the third lowest tender were accepted. It was a lower tender than that submitted by the firm previously employed, but the people who submitted this tender had made a mistake. Actually their correct tender would have been higher than that of the people previously employed. The Department of Defence did not recoup them for their mistakes. They had to bear that loss themselves.

446. In the heel of the hunt it was proved that the original firm was in fact the cheapest and the best?—No, not exactly. There may have been some tenders in between. I do not know whether we were able to clear that up.

Deputy Sheldon.—I should consider that a detail. My concern is with the principle that we should in every way back up the Department of Finance when they consider it necessary to secure competitive tenders. To have one case and to go back to another proves nothing. It is also arguable that in the first case where no tender was invited the firm which succeeded might, had it known it was to be given on the basis of competition, have tendered lower than they actually did. One cannot argue from the particular; I should rather stick to the general aspect.

447. Chairman.—From my point of view I would be quite prepared to take that as a general principle, but there are certain reservations in relation to this question of advertising. The most successful firms in the City of Dublin are those who charge the highest—not merely 10 per cent., but additional fees for special services—because their campaigns are more effective.

Deputy Sheldon.—But I take it that that was considered, because the two lowest tenders were not accepted?

Deputy Briscoe.—In making our report we shall have to keep in mind the general procedure laid down by the Committee from year to year; also that it has a view that it is advisable to have tenders.

Chairman.—My view is that it is advisable to have competition by tender in these matters. I do not, however, think that in a case of this sort where professional services are involved which differ in merit, the matter should be determined entirely by financial consideration.

Deputy Coburn.—At the same time does a specification not govern these contracts?

Chairman.—Not for advertising.

Deputy Coburn.—Are there no rules or regulations about advertising—the forms and so forth?

Deputy Briscoe.—The Department would decide that.

Chairman.—The question is how much one is going to pay a man for an attractive design and a slogan.

Deputy Coburn.—It does not follow that because a particular builder does not give satisfaction that no other builder will give satisfaction either. There would be an architect to see that he carries out the terms of the contract.

Chairman.—It is very difficult to specify a slogan which would be effective.

Deputy Coburn.—Further, it does not follow that because a man was satisfactory in regard to a particular contract he should get the contract the following year without advertising it on the score that he does his work well. It does not follow that other men cannot do the job at least equally well.

Chairman.—That would not be my position at all.

448. Mr. Maher.—Arising out of Mr. Almond’s point, the contract where tenders were invited occurred in the subsequent financial year—1947-48.

Mr. Almond.—That is true.

Mr. Maher.—That is referred to in the note where I say that “further expenditure was incurred in the financial year 1947-48.” The whole point of the paragraph is that it indicates a departure from the strict terms of the Department of Finance sanction. The question of the suitability of one contracting firm as against another does not arise at all.

449. Deputy Coburn.—What is the meaning in this case of the Department of Finance stipulation? It means an order, does it not? It is not a pious expression of opinion.

450. Chairman.—The first part of a further note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:—

Subhead Y.3.—Army Reserve—An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil (Grants-in-Aid).

“84. A considerable number of persons who had enlisted in An Fórsa during the year 1946 were under the minimum age prescribed by the relevant Defence Force Regulations and some of these persons were subsequently discharged as having been improperly enlisted. I have inquired regarding the steps taken by attesting officers to ensure that the requirements of the regulations are complied with, and also regarding the grants-in-aid paid in respect of persons improperly enlisted.”

Mr. Maher.—I have been informed that in cases of doubt the attesting officers request the applicant to produce his birth certificate or other evidence of age, and that if the age given is doubtful recourse is had to local knowledge of local officers. The amount paid as grant-in-aid in respect of persons improperly enlisted is £12 10s., while the number of persons discharged is 61 in the year ended March, 1947.

451. Deputy Briscoe.—Is the minimum age not 17 years, General?—Yes.

Chairman.—Some of the people who were enlisted were as young as 14½ and 15 years.

Deputy Briscoe.—I can quite understand that, in the large numbers going forward, there is bound to be confusion in regard to the age of a certain percentage of them. You will see every day in schools the great difference that exists in the appearances of boys of the same age. It is quite easy to confuse a boy of 17 years with a boy of 15 years in any part of the country. You will meet them every day in communal affairs. You will find that in the case of children going for Confirmation one child looks years older than the next one. I do not think we should be too unreasonable in the case of a young boy who comes along and says that he is anxious to join up, if he is of good physical appearance and says that he is the age. What do you think, General?—You cannot put him to the expenditure of getting a birth certificate.

452. Deputy Sheldon.—It looks as if the number is considerable.

Chairman.—About sixty were discharged.

Mr. Maher.—I think that refers to one battalion only—the 46th battalion.

Deputy Briscoe.—That would be in Dublin?

453. Chairman.—There is an obligation on the person enlisting to ensure that the regulations are being complied with.

Mr. Maher.—My information is that it would emerge from inquiries that some 140 members out of a total of 1,400, were under age on enlistment. The vast majority of these were born in the year 1929.

Chairman.—That would be about 10 per cent.

Deputy Sheldon.—That is a bit high.

454. Deputy Briscoe.—The Army would bear the expense of paying for the birth certificate in every case where they are in doubt.

Chairman.—The State pays the grant. We do not.

Mr. Maher.—It is on a per capita basis.

Deputy Briscoe.—In the case of a doubt about the age of a certain individual are you not penalising him for the cost of his birth certificate?

Deputy Sheldon.—The only point we have to be concerned with is that a per capita grant is given. If 10 per cent. of that is wrongly given I think the Committee is bound to agree with the Comptroller and Auditor-General that it needs tightening up.

Deputy Kitt.—Would that not be a matter for the Army authorities?

Chairman.—These cases occurred in the year 1946.

455. Deputy Briscoe.—Where is the 46th battalion stationed, General, if it is not a dangerous question to ask?—That is a Dublin battalion.

456. Deputy Sheldon.—Has the position improved since 1946, General?—In the country it is not so difficult because the local people know each other. The local N.C.O. or officer knows whether a boy is 16, 17 or 18 years. In Dublin it is not so easy. To be quite candid if I were the officer concerned and if the boy looked strong and fit and about 17 or 18 years of age I would have no hesitation in taking him.

457. Chairman.—Would you take his word?—Yes, rather than risk turning down a man who was the proper age.

458. I suppose most of us would do that in our personal capacities. It is different, however, here for the Committee. The second part of the paragraph reads:—

“The regulations provide that members of An Fórsa who fail, without reasonable excuse, to complete the prescribed minimum training in any year shall be posted to a non-effective list, and that grants-in-aid shall not be payable in respect of persons so posted. Claims were submitted in the year under review in respect of a number of persons who, due to lack of facilities or other causes, had not completed the required training but had not been posted as non-effective and payment of grants in these cases, which was with held in the first instance, has been made in the financial year 1947-48, following the receipt of advice from the Law Officer on the matter. I understand that the issue of instructions on the question of eligibility of members for retention on the effective strength is under consideration.”

Mr. Maher.—Since the date of the report, Mr. Chairman, I have been informed that it is not considered desirable that instructions should be issued until the present position in regard to accommodation and uniform has improved. Is that not so, General?

General MacMahon.—Yes.

459. Chairman.—There is a further note from the Comptroller and Auditor-General which reads as follows:—

Subhead D.D.1.—Local Defence Force, 1941 to 1946.

“85. Local Defence Force Regulations provided that on the resignation or discharge of a member all articles of clothing and equipment on issue to him should be returned to stores, and that such clothing as was regarded as serviceable should be available for reissue. Under Emergency Powers (No. 61) Order, 1940 (Amendment and Revocation) Order, 1946 (Statutory Rules and Orders No. 28 of 1946) all persons who were members of the force on the 31st March, 1946, were discharged as on and from that date, and the Order conferred power on any member of the Defence Forces, or of the Garda Síochána, to recover any articles of clothing or equipment which had not been surrendered. The power so conferred was removed, as from the 2nd September, 1946, on the revocation of the Order by the Emergency Powers (No. 387) Order, 1946 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 263 of 1946), and accordingly the surrender of outstanding articles could no longer be enforced. The sanction of the Department of Finance had been obtained for the retention by all former members of the force of greatcoats, groundsheets and boots on issue to them and authority has been sought to write-off the amount of the loss, estimated at £1,059 11s. 0d., arising from the non-surrender of other articles of clothing. In reply to an inquiry regarding the basis on which the estimated amount of the loss had been calculated I was informed that as the clothing in question had not been surrendered there was no method by which its serviceability could be determined. Owing to the length of time that the articles had been on issue, and to the fact that such clothing as had been surrendered was found to be almost entirely unserviceable, the deficient articles were assessed as being of rag value only. I understand that the position regarding deficiences of equipment is under consideration.”

Mr. Maher.—I am not aware of the present position as regards the equipment. I do not know whether it has been decided yet or not.

General MacMahon.—It is with the Department of Finance at the moment. We have asked them to write-off deficiencies in clothing at rag value, to the value of £1,059 11s. 0d., and equipment, at 25 per cent, of its original value, amounting to £5,505. These deficiencies cover six years, in a force of 100,000 men and based on a territorial organisation. We have in that period recovered about £4,000 worth of equipment.

460. Deputy Briscoe.—What is defined as equipment, as distinct from clothing? —All web equipment, some of which was made in 1908.

461. It is not war-like stores?—No. I could give a list of the equipment, if necessary.

Chairman.—I do not think any member of the Committee is dissatisfied with the position.

Deputy Briscoe.—I think the explanation of General MacMahon, particularly in relation to the number of people involved, shows that the deficiency is comparatively small. Clothing and equipment that has been bandied about for six years is only of rag value.

462. Deputy Sheldon.—Is this still with the Department of Finance?—We sent it to the Department about a week ago; it is not very long with them.

463. Chairman.—That is in relation to equipment?—Yes. We had considerable difficulty at arriving at a figure. We had been in touch with all the Commands and only sent it to the Department of Finance four or five days ago.

464. Deputy Sheldon.—Has their sanction been got for the clothing?—They were both covered in the same submission.

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

Subhead Z.—Appropriations in Aid.

“86. Surplus stores to the approximate value of £229,000 were shipped to Europe for relief purposes during the year ended 31st March, 1947, and payment of approximately £198,000 was received from the vote for Alleviation of Distress, the balance being received in the financial year 1947-48. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the basis on which the value of certain of the stores was assessed.”

Mr. Maher.—The point in this paragraph is as to whether the basis of rag value for these articles was the correct one, as the articles-were obviously serviceable.

General MacMahon.—They were only of rag value to us. We could not sell them unless we dyed them first, and the cost of dyeing them would be more than what we would receive. It was the only basis on which we could go.

466. Chairman.—Were these articles of uniform?—Yes.

467. All second-hand?—Yes.

468. They were greatcoats, trousers, breeches and tunics and then F.C.A. greatcoats and trousers?—Yes. There were certain greatcoats charged at a higher rate.

469. Deputy Briscoe.—They were generally all second-hand clothing?—Yes.

470.—Deputy Sheldon.—Was the Department of Finance satisfied with the valuation?—Yes, they agreed with the arrangement.

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

Suspense Account.

“87. Payments amounting to £384 18s. 6d. in respect of pay, etc., of Reservists have been charged to a suspense account pending investigation of certain irregularities.”

Mr. Maher.—This matter I understand is still before the Courts, and while it is sub judice probably the Committee will consider it desirable to defer consideration.

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

Stocktaking.

“88. Reference was made in paragraph 74 of my last report to arrangements which had been sanctioned for partial stocktaking in cases in which officers in charge of stores were being released from service. I have been informed that a complete stocktaking has now been concluded and that reports regarding ascertained discrepancies are in course of preparation.”

Mr. Maher.—That states the present position as regards this matter, which was referred to in previous years.

473. Chairman.—What is the present position?

General MacMahon.—We have not submitted it to the Department of Finance yet, but generally it is satisfactory. As pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it will be before the Committee next year.

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

Statement of Losses.

“89. 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 £276 18s. 4d., and £12,757 18s. 3d.

The amounts written off include items of £1 1s. 3d. and £41,536 4s. 3d., respectively, in respect of losses arising from the fire which occurred in December, 1943, at the Air-raid Precautions Stores Depot to which reference was made in previous reports.

The deficiency of £17,138 9s. 5d. noted in head 8 of the Statement of Losses includes £6,691 13s. 4d. representing the loss on the re-sale at 17s. 6d. each of 5,500 small size greatcoats which had been purchased for the Local Defence Force at an average price of £2 1s. 10d. each and which were surplus to requirements. 4,500 of the greatcoats were made available for the relief of distress in Europe, the sum of £3,937 10s. 0d. being recovered from the vote for Alleviation of Distress, and the balance was sold to a charitable organisation.

In accordance with the request of the Public Accounts Committee for information regarding losses during the period of the Emergency a statement has been furnished to me showing the total losses written-off in the years 1939-40 to 1946-47 inclusive. The figures are as follows:—

These figures include losses attributable to the period prior to the Emergency and further losses which occurred during the Emergency will fall to be written-off in future years.”

Mr. Maher.—That paragraph is an annual one, for information only. In addition, it gives the information requested by the last Committee as regards the total loss during the emergency.

General MacMahon.—In connection with the first part of it, it might be well to explain that the principal item is £41.536 4s. 3d., due to the fire at St. Anne’s.

475. Chairman.—Allowing for the fire, that leaves a balance of approximately £25,500 in respect of other deficiencies and losses?—Yes. Those losses went over a couple of years.

476. Deputy Briscoe.—Apart from the fact that this amount has been exceeded, on a previous occasion I asked whether, when officers are sent abroad for special courses, steps are taken to retain such officers for the benefit of imparting to the Army here the particular training they received abroad. I have reason to believe that in some cases where officers were sent abroad on special courses they subsequently retired?—In the case of officers sent abroad on special courses, unless they retire for reasons of ill-health or as a disciplinary measure, they must refund the cost in which the State was involved in sending them abroad.

477. Is there a time limit attached to that?—Five years.

477a. Deputy Sheldon.—There is a considerable saving under subhead F., £7,296. Is that due to having stores on hands?—Yes, and also to demobilisation. We provide so much for each man serving and we had not so many serving in that year.

478. Under subhead H. provision is made among other things for men travelling on discharge. It struck me that if there was demobilisation there should be an increase on that?—No, because a man is entitled to leave once per year. If he is discharged you have not to meet that.

Deputy Coburn.—There is a reduction shown on petrol and oils.

Chairman.—That is due to utilisation of stocks. Under subhead O. there is a saving on general stores of ú65,409. The original grant was £211,911.

479. Deputy Sheldon.—That was due to aeroplanes not being delivered?—It is due to a provision made for aeroplanes which we did not utilise.

480. Chairman.—Under subhead P. there is an over-expenditure?—Yes, because we had certain material on order and we did not anticipate that we would get it within that year. Actually we did get it within that year and paid for it.

481. Deputy Sheldon.—Would it be due to long term orders for war-like stores? Do you have to give long term orders for war-like stores?—Yes.

482. Chairman.—There is no question but that these stores were urgently required?—No question whatever.

483. Even though orders may have been placed some considerable time ago you still required these stores?—Yes. We took the precaution of cancelling orders for any material that we did not require when the war came to an end.

484. Deputy Sheldon.—Under subhead P.2 the explanation is that deliveries of stores were less than was expected. The amount provided in the estimate for stores is something over £13,000, whereas the saving is £65,000. There must be some other reason other than the non-delivery of stores?—There were fewer men than we expected and we merely give the main item there.

485. Would it be also due to non-delivery of vessels?—It was principally equipment and stores for the dockyard which we did not purchase.

486. I still cannot understand how a saving of £13,000 is a major explanation of a saving of £65,000?—There was equipment in addition to those stores. The explanation should have been much fuller than it is there. We intended buying additional corvettes.

Chairman.—Perhaps the Accounting Officer would amplify that note for the information of the Committee.*

487. Deputy Briscoe.—Is subhead P.3 now disappearing?—Yes, completely.

488. Deputy Sheldon.—Under subhead S the question of explanation again arises. Can you tell us what was saved on maintenance costs. Maintenance costs and minor works are getting very near one another. I see that something more than had been estimated was spent on minor works, which brings the two even nearer still. Maintenance and ordinary repairs and renewals must have fallen very considerably?—They did. We evacuated a number of posts and barracks.

489. Even with such evacuation the army still has a considerable number of barracks, and maintenance charges on those would be fairly high. The army did not save too much on maintenance?—No. In addition to barracks that were evacuated there were certain other minor works which we proposed to do but which we were unable to do.

490. The note at the end of page 243 says “partly offset by greater expenditure on minor works.” That struck me as rather odd because if there was a greater expenditure on minor works then maintenance must have suffered very considerably.

491. Chairman.—Perhaps we might have a fuller note on that later.† Before we leave that subhead, is Barrack maintenance carried out by the Engineering Corps?—That is correct.

492. And minor works also?—Sometimes civilians are employed but it is carried out by the Corps of Engineers.

493. In the case of Subhead U relating to compensation, there is an excess of £14,457 in expenditure. The explanation given is “payment of compensation arising out of accidents in which military vehicles were involved and in respect of damage to premises during occupation by military personnel was greater than was anticipated.” Was there any particularly large item that would account for that excess?—I do not think there was any large item.

Deputy Coburn.—I think there was a greater number of accidents.

494. Chairman.—You have a smaller estimate and yet there is a very considerable excess expenditure under that subhead?—We are dealing with accidents in the previous year; they became due for payment in this year.

495. Insurance comes under Subhead W—that is not fire and accident, is it?— No, it is National Health.

496. No other questions arise on the estimate. Subhead Z, Appropriations in Aid, shows a surplus over the estimate of £38,832.

Deputy Sheldon.—Was there any particular reason why the receipts from clothing issued on repayment failed to meet the estimate. The estimate was £36,000 and £19,000 was realised? It would appear that the supplementary estimate was not required at all for the £16,000? —I shall have to give give you a note on that.*

497. Item (30), dealing with the sale of chemicals, refers, I take it, to phosphorus? That has come to an end?—It has come to an end.

498. Deputy Briscoe.—As regards item (10), revenue from bands, what was the basis of the charge for the bands?—It has been £10 for No. 1 and £8 for Nos. 2, 3 and 4, plus the cost of travelling. We have increased those sums recently.

Chairman.—They seem very moderate charges—the charges seem to err on the side of moderation.

Deputy Sheldon.—It has advantages from the point of view of publicity.

Chairman.—They look on it as having a certain recruiting value?—Undoubtedly. They have increased the charges;

Deputy Coburn.—The general public like to hear the bands.

499. Chairman.—As regards item (27), receipts for use of power for private wireless sets, are these transmitters?—These are wireless sets in officers’ and non-commissioned officers’ houses. We charge for the current supplied to private wireless sets.

500. You do not meter the current?— We do, in most of the barracks, but where we do not, we estimate what it would be normally and we charge that.

501. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you charge an officer who lives in barracks?—An officer living in private quarters who has a wireless set. If he is living in the mess we do not charge the current for each individual; it is charged to the mess.

502. What is the position for an officer on duty and in married quarters?—We insist if a plug is put in for his set that he must pay for the current.

503. Chairman.—A special plug may be put in for him?—Yes.

504. It is not customary to instal power plugs in officers’ quarters?—No.

505. Suppose they want to run a Hoover as distinct from a wireless set?—We do not encourage the use of electricity except for lighting purposes. There have been exceptions, of course.

506. So officers in married quarters are denied things they would enjoy if they were living outside?—Yes.

507. We shall now proceed to consider the Losses Statement. I see here an item of £17,138 9s. 5d. Does that cover a considerable number of items? It does not relate to one incident only?—It refers to stocktaking generally over the Army.

508. Deputy Sheldon.—I am surprised, as regards item 7, which refers to one beast which was slaughtered and condemned as unfit for human consumption, that the Department does not safeguard itself fully against such a loss?—How would you do that, Deputy?

509. By putting in a clause in the contract, but of course you might then get no contractors?—That could be.

510. Deputy Briscoe.—As only one beast was condemned in that financial year, I think it is only fair to say that that speaks very favourably for those in charge. The experience in city abattoirs is that there is a very much higher percentage of condemned beasts.

Deputy Sheldon.—The contractor should have some responsibility, in paying part of the loss.

Chairman.—We shall now deal with the Notes.

511. Deputy Sheldon.—On page 249, there is a reference there to an aeroplane. An offer of £46 was made to the owner of the aeroplane, that being the estimated value of missing parts This offer was rejected and a civil bill was issued for £250. Rather than pay the £250 the Army handed over the aeroplane, plus £30 plaintiff’s costs. It struck me as somewhat odd how you valued the aeroplane?—The aeroplane was scrap to us, nothing more.

512. Chairman.—You mean the one-handed over to the owner of the original aeroplane?—Yes.

513. You did not disclose that fact to him?—I think he knew what he was taking.

514. Deputy Sheldon.—Did he attempt to fly it?—He probably thought he could make one good aeroplane out of two defective ones.

515. He also had his own aeroplane?— Yes, he had his own aeroplane plus what we gave him.

516. Deputy Briscoe.—What is the position now with regard to the long discussion we had on one occasion here about the control of petrol? Inquiries and examinations were to be made by the Department. Is the Accounting Officer satisfied that leakage of petrol by any means is now safeguarded?—We are satisfied.

517. New apparatus was installed on the tanks?—That is so and the position is quite satisfactory.

VOTE 64—ARMY PENSIONS.

Lieut.-General P. MacMahon further examined.

518. Chairman.—Paragraph 90 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

Subhead E.—Wound and Disability Pensions and Gratuities, etc.

“A final pension of £52 10s. 0d. per annum was awarded in 1939, with effect from 1st April, 1932, to an applicant under section 10 of the Army Pensions Act, 1932. The amount of £761 5s. 0d. paid in respect of the period 1st April, 1932, to 30th September, 1946, was refunded by the pensioner and payment of the pension was terminated with effect from 1st October, 1946, at the pensioner’s request. The sum of £730 12s. 6d., being the amount of the refund proper to previous financial years, has been brought to account as an extra receipt payable to the Exchequer.”

That is an unusual note, but it is only for our information.

519. Chairman.—Paragraph 91 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

Subhead I.—Military Service Pensions.

“A pension of £10 2s. 9d. per annum, with effect from 1st October. 1934, was awarded under the Military Service Pensions Act,1934, to a person in respect of whom a favourable report was furnished by the Referee in November, 1945. It appears that subsequent to the submission of the report evidence became available which created doubt as to the bona fides of the applicant, but the power to request the Referee to review his report in the light of the additional evidence had been removed by section 5 of the Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Act, 1945. The matter was referred to the Law Officer who advised that the Minister must issue a service certificate in accordance with the report, and the award of pension followed accordingly. Section 9 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, provides, inter alia, that if a person with a view to obtaining a pension makes false representations he shall be guilty of an offence under the section and that on conviction any pension granted by reason of such representations shall be forfeited, and I have inquired whether the question of taking any action under that section was considered.

A pension of £73 15s. 0d. per annum which had been granted under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, was revoked by the Minister in May, 1945, following the Referee’s finding, on review, that the pensioner was not a person to whom the Act applied. It appeared that certain other awards were regarded as being affected by this case and that the question of referring these awards back to the Referee for review had been under consideration, and I have asked for information on the matter.”

Mr. Maher.—We inquired whether action under the penal provisions of section 19 of the Act of 1934 was considered and it was stated that it was assumed that if a case for prosecution under that section existed, the Attorney-General would have so advised when the question of the issue of a Service Certificate was submitted to him.

General MacMahon.—We drew his attention to the possibility of perjury in this case.

520. Chairman.—Has the Attorney-General decided that no action should be taken?—He did not refer to the perjury element. He merely said we must issue a certificate and give this man a pension.*

521. Is it possible for the Department to take the matter up with the Attorney-General on the specific issue of whether a prosecution should be taken?—We assumed, having drawn attention to the possibility of perjury, the Attorney-General would have taken action if he considered there was a case for taking action.

522. Should it not have been more specifically drawn to his attention?—We thought, having put all the facts before him—he was in possession of all the facts and the suggestion that there was perjury —that he had considered them. He replied to the effect that the man must get his pension.

523. Surely the Attorney-General would not be the initiating officer in a matter of that sort if the Department had reason to believe that in the proceedings before the Referee the person committed perjury? —The Chief State Solicitor would not take action without the Attorney-General’s approval.

524. Is this not the position, that the Attorney-General never advised except on the specific question put to him, and if the only question he was asked to advise on was whether a service certificate should be issued, he would confine himself to answering that question?—We have no evidence that the man committed perjury and neither has the Referee. We had doubts and we were of the opinion that the Attorney-General must have had considerable doubts as otherwise he might have acted differently.

525. Subsequent to the submission of the report evidence became available which created a doubt as to the bona fides of the applicant. Was this evidence submitted to the Attorney-General?—All the facts were before him.

526. And he was not asked to advise whether a prosecution for perjury should be instituted?—He was asked for advice generally.

527. Deputy Coburn.—Was he asked under section 19?—The possibility of perjury was referred to but that section was not quoted.

Mr. Maher.—One of the persons who testified intimated subsequently that he was mistaken in his evidence. Further evidence was produced to support the view that the applicant’s claim was unfounded. It was on this evidence that the paragraph was based.

General MacMahon.—That is not proof that the man committed perjury.

Chairman.—No, it is not.

General MacMahon.—It is merely an indication that the witness made a mistake.

528. Chairman.—We can consider this matter when we are discussing our report.

General MacMahon.—The Referee was a legal man and if he thought there was a case he would have advised the Minister to take proceedings under that section.

Deputy Briscoe.—The difficulty arises because of the procedure adopted. The applicants have to adopt a particular procedure in making claims for military service certificates. They make a claim and have to produce confirming evidence of individuals. In this particular case I take it one of the witnesses withdrew his statement in favour of the applicant. It does not follow that the rest did and that this man perjured himself. There are thousands of cases before the Pensions Board. Statements and claims were turned down because sufficient evidence was not there to substantiate them.

General MacMahon.—The Referee under the Act must be a barrister of at leas ten years’ experience. He did not recommend any prosecution for perjury.

Chairman.—We cannot pursue this question any further.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix VIII.

† See Appendix VIII.

* See Appendix VIII.

* See Appendix IX.