Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1950 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1947 - 1948

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Máirt, 24ú Eanáir, 1950.

Tuesday, 24th January, 1950.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Miss Máire Bhreathnach and Mr. P. M. Clarke (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 51-NATIONAL GALLERY.

Dr. George J. Furlong called and examined.

Chairman.—There is no note from the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote, so we will take the subheads.

497. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead B, was there anything important bought during the year?—Yes, two pictures—one for £600 and one for £1,100.

498. I notice that the Grant-in-Aid for 1946-47—the previous year—was £2,000 and the balance carried in then to this particular year was £1,300. The Grant-in-Aid was increased by £1,000 to £3,000, but actually only £1,800 was expended. It is largely a matter of chance what you do?—Yes, you cannot foretell; some years you might not see anything you want to buy or, perhaps, could buy.

Was there anything particular in view, at the time of the Estimate, in which you were interested, that led you to increase the Grant-in-Aid?—No. It was increased because the price of pictures had gone up so enormously that the grant was quite inadequate. The advances on all pictures were enormous.

499. Chairman.—It seems that there is some anxiety amongst members of the Committee as to how the new lighting scheme is progressing and as to the question of the gallery being made available in the evenings.

Dr. Furlong.—There has been a lot of delay due to technical reasons and they could not get it finished more quickly. They hope now to have it finished by this summer. That is the present estimate and they are working on it at the present moment. They say it will be finished in the summer, but it is difficult to be certain and I will believe that when I see it.

500. Chairman.—How long is the work in hands?—It is going on for two years. It was stopped at the end of the first year because the money ran out. Then it was started again and work is going on at present. They say it will be finished this summer.

501. Deputy Sheldon.—Is it the Board of Works?—Yes, but they are not doing it themselves. It is being done by a contractor.

502. Chairman.—Is there anything binding the contractor to have the work completed before the next winter season? —I could not say, as I have nothing to do with it. It is being done through the Board of Works, who give out the contract. I was talking to the man in the gallery who is working on the job and he said it would be finished actually by the end of April, but I would not like to prophesy.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 63—DEFENCE.

Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon called and examined.

503. Chairman.—There is a note, number 71, by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

“Subhead C.—Pay of Civilians attached to Units.

Subhead S.—Barrack Maintenance and Minor Works.

The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained in 1945 for expenditure of £30,900, being £20,070 for materials and £10,830 for civilian labour, in connection with the erection of a hutted camp by the Corps of Engineers. The expenditure incurred was considerably in excess of the amount sanctioned and I understand that the Department of Finance was made aware of the position in August, 1947, and that formal covering sanction has now been sought. I am informed that it is not at present proposed to carry through the original scheme, but that further expenditure is necessary to complete certain works which it would be undesirable to leave in an unfinished state, or which are essential to the continued partial occupation of the camp.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—Covering Department of Finance sanction has since been given. The excess expenditure amounts to £22,000 approximately.

Deputy Sheldon.—Where is this camp?—It is outside Limerick, in Co. Clare.

504. Chairman.—Well, General MacMahon, do you wish to add anything to what has been said?—I do not think it necessary, except to say that the additional expenditure was caused to a great extent by the fact that soldier tradesmen left the army and civilian labour had to be employed.

505. Deputy Sheldon.—Was there any particular reason why there was a delay in seeking sanction? The Department of Finance was informed in August 1947 and sanction is being sought now?—They gave oral sanction in 1947. A representative from the Department of Finance inspected it in 1947. We had to know what the exact expenditure would be before getting covering sanction in writing.

506. The Army is continuing to use the camp?—To some extent only.

There is no other use to which it could be put?—No.

507. Chairman.—Note 72 reads:—

“Subhead J.—Mechanical Transport.

As noted in the account, additional expenditure amounting to £6,133 9s. 6d. was incurred in providing Army transport for the conveyance of civilian passengers in Dublin during the transport strike in 1947. I have asked whether any expenditure arose from traffic accidents during the operation of the service.”

Has there been any reply, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—Yes. In all, 48 accidents occurred involving Army vehicles, most of them of a trivial nature. The total net charge to the Army Vote arising out of them was only £84. Except in one case this does not include overhead charges. One claim for personal injuries was outstanding in March last. I do not know what has happened there.

General MacMahon.—We had to pay some £300 compensation.

508. Chairman.—By way of arrangement?—Yes. It was settled out of Court.

509. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Why was that not covered by insurance?—The army does not insure—except in the case of boilers where the terms enable us to get expert inspections.

510. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Was it not free travel?—Yes.

511. Chairman.—In connection with the note on subhead K. I notice there seems to be an increase in the price of meat supplied in Dublin by about 35 per cent. from 1946-47 to 1947-48 and about 30 per cent. in the case of the Curragh. The size of the beast seems to have got smaller.

512. Deputy Sheldon.—I thought of asking if it was quite definite that the same size of beast had been killed. If so, the average price per pound would not have gone up?—I think that the butchers outside put up their prices as the price of the animal went up. There always has been more variation in Dublin, where the animals are driven in to the city the previous day; whereas in the case of the Curragh they are purchased locally and are driven in that morning.

513. I was not thinking so much of the difference between the two places. I was thinking more of the point that when the carcase goes down in weight the average price per pound tends to go up. If the carcase weights went down, that might have had an influence, apart from any general increase in the price of meat. I suppose it was largely accidental. There was no policy to buy smaller animals?— No. The cattle are purchased by an agent. They are selected by him and passed by the technical officers as suitable.

Chairman.—Obviously, a beast of 700 lbs. was going to be more economical than one, as Deputy Sheldon suggests, of something over 600 lbs., but perhaps these heavier beasts have been all cleared by this time.

Deputy Sheldon.—The tendency is to go in for smaller cattle. The meat would be better.

514. Chairman.—Note number 74, by the Comptroller and the Auditor-General is as follows:

“Subhead M.—Clothing and Equipment.

Temporary officers serving during the Emergency were required by Regulations to surrender certain articles of clothing and equipment on termination of their service. A number of officers who were temporarily released from service from time to time were permitted to retain such articles pending recall. Some of these officers who were not recalled retained the surrenderable items and I have inquired regarding the resulting loss.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann?— The regulations provided that temporary Officers should, on termination of their service, surrender certain articles of clothing and equipment. A number of these Officers, on being released from Army service, were allowed to retain those articles pending recall. They were not, in fact, recalled or appointed to the Reserve and the articles remained in their possession after their services had been terminated. I have been informed that the number of Officers was 126, that the unexpired value of the articles retained was £298 and that Department of Finance sanction to write off this amount was being sought.

Chairman.—Were any attempts made to get these articles back?

General MacMahon.—Yes, but they failed. It would be well to explain, for the information of the Committee, that we did not attempt to recover these uniforms on financial grounds but merely on grounds of policy—security reasons, if you like. Normally, an Army Officer gets an allowance from which to purchase a uniform. When he leaves the Army he is allowed to retain the uniform—we do not collect it. During the emergency, it was thought that if that arrangement was applied in the case of Emergency Officers the uniforms might not be properly made and it was decided to have the uniforms made to measure and issued to the Officers. It was merely on grounds of security and not for reasons of value that we tried to collect them. The value of most of these uniforms is simply their value as rags—they mostly have to be torn up.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—What is the distinction between clothing and equipment? —So far as these Officers are concerned, the only item of equipment might be a Sam Brown Belt.

515. It would be mainly clothing?—Yes.

The reference in the subhead is to clothing and equipment?—Tunics, breeches, overcoat and cap, Sam Brown belt and valise.

Chairman.—Would it not be well to have some sanction in cases like this if the Department attaches inportance to the surrender of the uniforms and equipment? —To start off, we tried to recover them all. We did our best to do so and when we failed we reported the matter to the Department of Finance and asked for their authority. They are considering the matter and have not replied yet.

If these Officers were getting gratuities or whatever allowance they get on retirement, would it not be possible to ensure that everything would have to be surrendered before their accounts were squared up?—In normal circumstances, yes, but these Officers were allowed to go out on indefinite leave—some in 1942, some in 1943 and some in 1944. It was not decided how many of them and which particular Officers would be put on the Reserve. In the meantime, the gratuity scheme came along and the gratuity was issued. They were still nominally Officers.

516. Deputy O’Sullivan.—It related only to the period of the Emergency and to temporary Officers during that period? —Yes. The Comptroller and Auditor-General did not refer to it, but it is no harm for me to do so. As we realised that they were going out and that these uniforms would have to be recovered, if possible, we underissued to the extent of £1,770, so that on this scheme the State made, instead of lost.

517. Chairman.—Paragraph 75 of the Report reads:—

“Subhead P.1.—Air-raid Precautions.

In connection with the winding-up of air-raid precautions schemes, arrangements were made for the disposal of certain State-owned equipment issued to local authorities, and amounts received on the sale of such equipment are credited as appropriations in aid. Proposals for the adjustment of discrepancies in the store accounts have been submitted to the Department of Finance and the matter will come under review in the course of audit of the accounts for the year 1948-49.

The Fire Brigade Acts, 1940, imposed on local authorities responsibility for making reasonable provision for the protection of persons and property against fires occurring in their districts. Fire-fighting equipment additional to normal peace-time requirements was issued on loan during the Emergency to certain local authorities for air-raid precautions purposes, and the Government decided in November, 1945, that this equipment should be distributed throughout the country for use for normal peace-time purposes, subject to the condition that it might be recalled and re-distributed for air-raid precautions purposes. I have asked for information regarding the scheme of distribution and the arrangements made for periodic inspection of the equipment, which remains State property.”

Mr. Wann.—The Accounting Officer informed me that re-distribution was carried out in consultation with the Department of Local Government and that the equipment, which remains State property, is inspected periodically by the Chief Fire Officer of that Department. Arrangements have been made whereby the Department of Defence is notified of the results of the inspections of the redistributed equipment.

518. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Could we have a note on the actual distribution for record purposes?

Chairman.—Perhaps you could let us have a note on how the equipment is distributed? Do I take it that the number of local authorities is limited or is there a large number in question?*

General MacMahon.—Originally it was issued to local authorities in the scheduled areas along the east coast, in Cork and in Dublin. Later it was issued to other fire-fighting authorities.

Is there an advantage from your point of view in this system?—It saves storage, number one, and it will be required in the event of another emergency.

Does that mean that in the event of an emergency you are dependent on this material?—Yes—this, and whatever other material it may be necessary to get.

So that it would be taken up from Cork or Limerick?—No; it is in Cork and will be kept in Cork for use in Cork under our supervision. There is some in Wexford, New Ross, etc.

519. Deputy Dockrell.—Has it been distributed on the basis of where it would be most necessary in the event of air raids or where it was necessary for peace-time fires? Is the distribution a peace-time distribution or a distribution with an eye on possible use in the event of a war?— Our first consideration is its possible use in the event of air raids. Local Government possibly has the other consideration in mind also.

Chairman.—Is the scheme being maintained during peace-time?—No, only the equipment.

520. If an emergency should arise, you will have to take steps to set up a new scheme?—Yes.

521. You have all the information and plans?—We have not. We are trying to get that information. Great developments were made in England during the last war and as a result of the last war. We are keeping in touch with what other countries are doing because if there is another war I imagine things will be completely different from what they were in the past.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—Is the complete organisation abandoned?—It is. With regard to the note for which you have asked, do you want to know the amount of losses in each area?

I can well imagine local authorities having a very keen interest in fire fighting equipment. It is going to solve a lot of their own problems. What I wanted to know is where did the equipment get to? —We will send a note indicating where the fire equpment is actually located.

522. Chairman.—Has the Deputy the point in mind that this may be relieving the local authorities to some extent?

Deputy O’Sullivan.—Possibly, and I should be rather glad if it were so?—It is so. They are authorised to use it but on condition that they keep it in repair.

There has been a tremendous agitation amongst the public for a long time with regard to local authorities not having made suitable arrangements regarding fire fighting equipment and there has been a complete lack of facing up to the situation in a good many areas. I was interested to know to what extent this has solved the problem for them?—It has helped in some way.

523. Chairman.—Perhaps we ought to ask the question when the Local Government Accounting Officer comes along.

Paragraph 76 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads:—

“Subhead P.2.—Naval Service.

Reference was made in paragraph 80 of my last report to stores delivered under the contract for the purchase of corvettes and to the liability for expenditure incurred on repairs and renovations of the vessels. I have inquired regarding the present position in this matter.

One of the vessels was out of commission from July, 1947, to April, 1948, owing to the collapse of a furnace and I am informed that the cost of carrying out the necessary repairs has not yet been ascertained and that the question of responsibility for the damage is under consideration.”

Mr. Wann.—The points outstanding in connection with the purchase of these vessels were (1) a check of the stores, spares, etc., to be supplied by the British Admiralty and (2) the liability of the Admiralty for the cost of certain repairs carried out at Haulbowline, in view of the British undertaking to make good defects affecting seaworthiness. With regard to the check on the stores supplied, I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that in connection with the stores covered by the contract, comprehensive lists of surplus and deficient items have been prepared. From the information available, the value of the surpluses far exceeds the value of the deficiencies, the approximate figures for the three ships being: deficiencies, £634 and surpluses, £4,272, leaving a net surplus of £3,638.

Deputy Sheldon.—It sounds as if we ought to get in touch with the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee?

General MacMahon.—So that they may increase their bill?

Have these corvettes been paid for?— Yes.

524. With regard to this matter of the collapse of the furnace, had it been tested?—Yes; it had been in use for quite a while. The Director of the Naval Service felt that there was ignorance or carelessness in the handling of it while at sea. It was not the responsibility of the British Admiralty.

It is an internal matter?—It is, completely.

Chairman.—Have any steps been taken to deal with that situation?—Yes; detailed instructions in the matter have been issued by the Director.

Have you to send them out of the country to have them repaired or renovated, or can you have the work done here?—We do the work at the moment at Haulbowline, where we have a dockyard; but the British Admiralty before handing them over did certain repairs to make them seaworthy. We had additional repairs to do when they came here but they were not necessary from the point of view of seaworthiness. They were repairs which we considered necessary.

525. That does not mean that they were not in fact up to a reasonable standard of efficiency. When you speak of making them seaworthy, a neophyte like myself might take it that they were in a bad condition. They were, I take it, in the ordinary condition in which the craft would be?—Yes.

With regard to the collapse of the furnace, have you any information to give us?—That happened because some fuel oil entered the boiler with the water feed. A court of inquiry was held and it was found impossible to fix responsibility. The Director of the Naval Service, as I have explained, was of the opinion that it was due to ignorance or carelessness on the part of some of the crew.

526. Could you tell us the total expenditure incurred?—The furnace cost £179 and the removal of the old and installation of the new furnace cost about £2,110, a total of £2,289.

527. Can any action be taken by way of disciplinary measures or otherwise to prevent a recurrence of this?—It is not a question of disciplinary measures because it was not possible to fix the responsibility but more detailed instructions have been given in the matter so as to avoid a similar accident.

I suppose these vessels are inspected from time to time?—Yes, and they have to be overhauled every year.

528. Chairman.—Paragraph 77 of Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads:—

“Subhead R.—Fuel, Light and Water in kind and Fuel Oils.

Owing to the necessity for ensuring that a reasonable ration of turf would be available for domestic consumers during the winter of 1947-48, and to the prospective fuel supply position, the Minister for Industry and Commerce was unable to agree to Army needs being met from the supplies available for domestic users in the non-turf areas. Accordingly, it was necessary to make special arrangements for the production of turf for the use of the Defence Forces and agents were appointed for that purpose. Deliveries under the agreements with the agents were completed in December, 1948, and amounted approximately to 26,000 tons. In reply to my inquiries regarding the average cost per ton of turf delivered to the various military posts I was informed that as final payments had not been made the total expenditure involved could not yet be stated.

I have asked that the covering sanction of the Department of Finance be obtained for certain payments made to an agent as they appeared to be in excess of the amounts payable under the terms of the agency agreement.”

Mr. Wann.—The Accounting Officer informed the Audit Office that, as the final payments had not been yet made, it was not possible to state the total cost of the turf delivered. Figures were furnished showing maximum and minimum prices for turf. Turf was obtained from two areas, Kerry and Galway, and in the case of turf produced in Kerry the prices ranged from a minimum £3 2s. 10d. for the turf delivered to Limerick to £5 for turf delivered to Gormanston.

529. From where?—From Kerry. In the case of the Galway turf, the range was from £2 3s. 6d. for turf delivered to Galway to £3 16s. 8d. for turf delivered to the Curragh camp, the price, of course, varying with the distance from the bogs.

530. Deputy O’Sullivan.—There seems to be a wide disparity between conditions in Kerry and Galway?

General MacMahon.—Previously when we had a large Army we cut our own turf. When the Army was reduced and practically all the turf cutters demobilised, we proceeded to get authority to go out to tender. The Department of Industry and Commerce said: “You cannot tender for turf; you have to produce your turf”, and they said we could not get it from the national supply. They made a suggestion on which we acted but they specified that we would have to get our turf from west Galway or south-west Kerry. We of course had to carry out the suggestion and that is what is responsible for the high cost of turf. The cost of the turf itself was all right but the transport from Galway and Kerry was very high. We had no alternative in the matter.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Was it necessary to go to Kerry to get the turf for Gormanston? —The Department stipulated that we must get the turf in West Galway or Kerry.

It was not your responsibility?—No. We would have liked to have got it in Kildare, beside the Curragh camp.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—It sounds rather ridiculous to me that anyone should go to Kerry to bring turf to Gormanston.

531. Deputy Dockrell.—It seems very foolish but we have to throw ourselves back two years and to the shortage then existing. I take it that Industry and Commerce were trying to protect the Dublin supply?—That was the idea.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Are we to take it that there is a chance in our lifetime of the supply of turf in the Dublin mountains running out?

Chairman.—You will have to wait for Mr. Leydon of the Department of Industry and Commerce to find out about that.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—I will put the question to him.

532. Chairman.—Have you got the figure for the total all-in cost of the 26,000 tons?—In the case of that particular agent, the total was £35,296.

Delivered?—That is the total for the Galway agent. I have not got the complete total but I can send it to you.*

Mr. Wann.—The agreement with the Galway agent provided that turf should be delivered and loaded into vehicles on the roadside at the point most suitable for loading into motor transport or might be delivered f.o.r. at the nearest railway station. The bogside prices ranged from 31s. to 37s. per ton depending on the location of the bog. The f.o.r. Galway prices similarly ranged from 43/6 to 47/-. About 7,000 tons were delivered by road, via Galway to Athlone, Mullingar and Curragh camp. and were paid for at the f.o.r. Galway rates plus cost of haulage from Galway to the points of delivery. This procedure appears to have resulted in increased payments of from 4s. 2d. to 5s. 3d. per ton. The Accounting Officer has recently informed me that the covering sanction for departure from the terms of the agreement has been received from the Department of Finance.

Chairman.—Has the representative of the Department of Finance anything to say about this matter?

533. Mr. Clarke.—This was a most unusual case. What happened was that the Department revised the terms of their agreement with the contractor without seeking our sanction. We felt that they should have sought our sanction for the alteration which resulted in the increase in price. Had they sought it at the time, they would have got it. The situation was very difficult because the agent had no enforceable contract with his suppliers but was dependent on their good-will to supply him with the turf. They insisted on getting payment on the basis of delivery in Galway and the agent and the Department had no alternative but to accept delivery on their terms. The main thing that interested us was that we were told by Industry and Commerce that the resulting prices paid were not unreasonable for turf at the ultimate destinations, so we gave our covering sanction.

Do I take it that the Department of Industry and Commerce gave some assistance to you or were you thrown on your own resources in making these arrangements with the agents or contractors?

General MacMahon.—They suggested the names of the agents. That is all the assistance they gave us.

But were not prepared to stand behind bonafides of the agents?—Definitely not. We had to make our own arrangements.

534. The point is were they reputable persons to enter into big contracts of this kind or what safeguard is there or might there have been for the Department?— We did not pay for the turf until we had it in our possession. That was the biggest safeguard of all.

But in fact the agent completed the contract, even though at a higher price? —Yes. We disputed the particular figure with him and did not pay it until we got the sanction of the Department of Finance.

535. What alternative has the Department of Finance in cases like that? I suppose they have none but to sanction the expenditure when the work has been carried out?—If they were not completely satisfied, they could take certain steps. I would rather not think of what they are.

Mr. Clarke.—They could recover from the Accounting Officer.

536. Deputy Sheldon.—The only interesting thing from the point of view of the Committee is why the Army did not seek the sanction of Finance at the time?

General MacMahon.—We did not agree to this at all in actual fact. We disputed it with the contractor and it was only when we felt that we would lose the case in Court that we went to the Department for sanction. We did not pay it until we had Department of Finance sanction.

But would not acceptance of the turf be taken as acceptance of the new terms?— The position was very difficult. We had a representative down in Galway. The agent did not own the turf and he was continually having disputes with the people who supplied it. The people would not leave Galway until they got their money into their hands. We had our representative there who, when the turf was loaded on to the railway or into whatever other form of transport was used, gave the agent a draft payment and he in turn went to the Bank and paid these people. It was one of the most difficult things we had to do because nasty snags were arising several times a day.

Deputy Sheldon.—The West was awake all right.

537. Chairman.—Paragraph 78 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads:—

“Subhead S.2.—Construction Corps.

Reference was made in my reports on the accounts for the years 1942-43 and 1944-45 to arrangements under which personnel of the Construction Corps were employed on a development scheme undertaken by the Irish Tourist Board at a seaside resort. The Corps was withdrawn in October, 1946, the value of the labour content of the work completed in the period March, 1943, to October, 1946, being assessed at £3,750 4s. 1d., and this amount has been received from the Irish Tourist Board. Huts were erected at an approximate cost of £7,700 to accommodate the personnel engaged on the scheme and proposals for their sale were under consideration when the Corps was withdrawn. I understand that it was finally decided not to proceed with the sale and that the huts have been dismantled and stored pending re-erection for the use of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil. Expenditure amounting to £276 2s. 0d. was incurred on the employment of a caretaker during the period November, 1946. to October, 1948, and a claim by the Irish Tourist Board in respect of the occupation of the site by the Department of Defence during the same period is under consideration.”

Deputy O’Sullivan.—Where was the resort?

Mr. Wann.—Tramore.

538. Deputy Dockrell.—It seems to have been a most expensive undertaking. Work was done at £3,750 and the huts cost £7,700.

General MacMahon.—The huts are still our property. They were erected all over the country as F.C.A. halls. That was the cost of purchasing and erecting them. We removed them from the site and stored them until we had secured sites in the areas in which we wanted to erect them. They are still our property.

Deputy Sheldon.—The actual value of the work done was higher than £3,750; that was only the labour content?—Yes.

Chairman.—What type of work was it?—Filling up swamps and making foundations on which it was safe to build. At one time there was a sort of bar that kept the sea out, but some 15 or 20 years ago the sea came across and that particular land was covered with water. It had to be drained and proper foundations had to be put in.

539. Deputy Sheldon.—What has happened about the claim by the Irish Tourist Board?—We have settled the matter with the approval of the Department of Finance.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—What is the amount of the Tourist Board’s claim?— £172.

540. Chairman.—Paragraph 79 reads:

“Subhead U.—Compensation.

A payment of £4,900 was made in settlement of a claim for compensation in respect of damage arising from the military occupation of certain premises and I have asked for further information regarding details of the claim.”

Mr. Wann.—The original claim for compensation was £5,564 against which had to be set off a sum for improvements carried out during the period of occupation. The claim was settled for £4,900. Information was sought as to whether a sum was allowed in the final settlement in respect of replaced fittings, having regard to the provision in the settlement for the supply and installation of new fittings. I am informed that the sanitary equipment was slightly damaged when the place was handed back and was quite usable but not with safety. Credit for replaced items was allowed for in the settlement, but the value was relatively small.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—Was this case in Court?

General MacMahon.—No.

Mr. Wann.—It is Mallow Hospital.

541. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—How many years were the Military in occupation?

General MacMahon.—About four years.

542. Deputy Dockrell.—What exactly is meant by “the sanitary fittings were quite usable but not with safety”?— Certain washbasins, for instance, were chipped and cracked and it would cost more to remove them than it would be worth to us. The local authority resented our taking over the hospital and we took it over because there was no other hospital in the Southern Command except a very small one in Cork. This hospital was never occupied until the military went in. The local authority eventually agreed to the military going in on condition that they restored the hospital on evacuation to its original condition or compensated them. We felt that it would be much better for the local authority to restore it at our expense because it would be done then to their satisfaction and our technical people believed that the estimate the local people would get would probably be better than the Department would get. The settlement was for a lump sum and it would be quite impossible to split up that lump sum. In our negotiations with the local authority we used certain bargaining arguments which appeared in the file but in actual fact there was a lump sum settlement. With regard to the washbasins being chipped it is possible that the local authority may still use them, but it would cost more for us to take them out and erect them somewhere else than they would be worth.

Chairman.—What was the amount of the claim we got for the replacement of the items?—It was a lump sum. These are only arguments which were used when we were negotiating

You say you put back these sanitary items?—We did not replace them; we allowed compensation for the damage done to them.

You replaced nothing?—Nothing. We paid the money and let the local authority restore the hospital to its original condition.

543. There was no claim for the loss of the hospital; it was entirely in respect of the damage?—Exactly. It was a new hospital when we went into it and it was only fair that it should be new when we left it. The arrangement was satisfactory.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—There was other damage apart from the wash-basins being chipped?—Yes.

Anything else?—These are really small items. It had to be repainted and redecorated.

The £1,400 was for chipped wash-basins, repainting and redecorating and having doors and fireplaces restored?—They are minor items. When two men are negotiating they use any little arguments, one to increase the claim and the other to reduce it.

544. Chairman.—Paragraph 79 continues:

“The sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained for expenditure not exceeding £275, being the amount of the lowest tender for certain work of site clearance. There was considerable delay in placing the contract with the result that the cost of the work was increased to £370 16s. 2d. because of higher charges for labour. As it was not found possible to fix responsibility for the delay with any degree of certainly the sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained for the charge of the increased amount to the vote.”

General MacMahon.—We were at fault here. The mistake arose in registering. The letter was put on the wrong file and there was some six months delay and labour costs had gone up in the meantime. I do not think it would have affected the matter very materially anyhow, but the fact is that there was a delay and that it was due to this mistake. It would be impossible to trace who was responsible for the mistake.

545. In the case of matters of this kind is there not responsibility on a particular officer of the Department?—There is a registrar all right, but he has got a staff.

And if the staff makes mistakes in these matters is there not some way of dealing with it?—There is, but circumstances have to be taken into consideration. If there is carelessness we make somebody pay but even the best people make mistakes now and again. They happen, I am glad to say. very infrequently.

546. Chairman.—Note 80 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

“Subhead Y.2.—The Reserve.

Premises for the use of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil were purchased, with the approval of the Department of Finance, for the sum of £4,500, a consideration being that the surrounding grounds would be available for training and camping purposes. Investigation of title disclosed that the original lease contained a covenant against the use of the premises for military purposes and whilst the landlord’s consent to some modification of the restrictions was obtained it appeared that the grounds would not be available for all the purposes contemplated. In reply to my inquiries I was informed that the purchase had been completed as the premises were required primarily for use as a Battalion Headquarters for which their location rendered them specially suitable, that the intended use of the grounds for training and camping purposes was a secondary consideration, and that the matter is being resubmitted to the Department of Finance.”

Mr. Wann.—I do not know the result of the resubmission to the Department.

General MacMahon.—I am glad to be able to report that the agent has now agreed that we can use the premises for all the purposes for which we require it. He will permit week-end camps to a limited extent and will even permit a rifle range. It was only yesterday that the agent orally agreed to this.

547. Chairman.—Have you leased it or purchased it?—Purchased it.

That is the usual procedure?—Sometimes we rent and sometimes we purchase. In this case the premises were particularly suitable and for sale and we asked the Board of Works to purchase. Only when the lease was examined was it discovered that it provided that it should not be used as a barracks.

548. Deputy Sheldon.—Is it customary to put this sort of provision in leases; it seems an odd one to me?—We have leased quite a number of premises and this is the only one where the lease objected to the premises being used as a barracks.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Was the clause put in the lease on purchase or was it an old clause which was there for a period of years?—It was a very old clause, but the agent agreed that we could use it for all purposes.*

549. Is the agent in a position to permit it if the agent’s successors objected? —I should have said that we could have used it as a barracks on payment of an additional £25 per annum but he has agreed to waive the £25.

That is different. If he only agreed and if he were shifted someone else might not agree?—We thought it would be good value even if we had to pay the additional money.

That is quite a different matter.

550. Chairman.—The paragraph goes on:

“The Department of Finance sanctioned the purchase of 31,382 coats and 30,376 caps for An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiul for the year ended 31st March, 1948, and contracts were placed accordingly. A further contract for the supply of 5,000 coats was placed during the year and I have inquired whether the sanction of the Department of Finance was obtained. Acceptance of full deliveries under these contracts would have resulted in the provision of stocks of caps almost sufficient to provide for probable requirements to 31st March, 1950, and of stocks of coats in excess of estimated requirements to that date, and I understand that it had been arranged to accept deliveries subject to the cancellation of orders for coats in excess of the estimated demand to 31st March, 1950. I have asked for information regarding the circumstances in which the requirements for the year 1947-48 had been overestimated.”

Mr. Wann.—I understand that the whole matter has been reported to the Department of Finance.

551. General MacMahon.—I should like to explain that we did not exceed the Department of Finance sanction. We cancelled a contract for 5,000 coats from one firm and gave it to another and we kept within the Finance sanction. That is the first point. The second point is that we did not have as many F.C.A. men as we anticipated. It is impossible to anticipate the number you will have in the succeeding year.

Chairman.—Do you only purchase for a particular year in these cases or for a longer period, or were you making replacements?—We have to carry certain stocks but we purchase each year what we estimate will be required the following year.

Will you be able to utilise all these?— We will.

By the 31st March, 1950?—We will not because we did not get as many recruits as we anticipated but if we do not issue them we will issue them next year.

Deputy Sheldon.—Perhaps it is just as well as they may go up in price.

552. Chairman.—In a case of this kind where you are applying for sanction to the Department of Finance for certain purchases I presume that the Department has to be satisfied with your knowledge of the situation. Is there any way, Mr. Clarke, in which Finance can check up on this matter?

Mr. Clarke.—We can check the quantities they require against the strength of the Force at a given time. In this particular case, it turns out that the Department grossly overestimated their requirements, but they could not foresee how recruitment was going to go. Due largely to the fact that there were no special steps taken for recruitment subsequent to the change of Government, the recruitment of the F.C.A. slackened off-Also, there was a big overhaul of the men and a big number of men was put on the non-effective list and did not require replacements. The overpurchases will be offset against the requirements for the current year and, to a limited extent, against next year’s requirements.

You are satisfied they will be justified? —We are satisfied that the stock is good.

553. Do you propose to give covering sanction to this?—We do. We have been in correspondence with the Department and only got a reply to our queries a couple of days ago. From our examination of them we are satisfied that we can give covering sanction, although we are not entirely satisfied with the purchase of such large quantities.

554. Chairman.—The next paragraph of Note number 80 reads:—

“A number of cases was noted in which articles of clothing issued to members of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil were replaced after relatively short periods and it was not clear that the original issues had become unserviceable through fair wear and tear in the public service. I understand that difficulty was experienced in controlling issues of clothing owing to the fact that regulations had not been promulgated, and I have inquired regarding the present position, and the recovery of articles of clothing and equipment in the possession of discharged and non-effective members of An Fórsa.”

Have you anything further to say, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—Regulations relating to F.C.A. clothing have been under consideration for a considerable time but have not yet been promulgated. I do not know what the position is at the moment.

General MacMahon.—They are still under discussion between the Department of Finance and our Department. There are a number of points to be cleared up yet.

555. Chairman.—Will you be able to issue the clothing until the regulations are made?—Yes, we will have to issue the clothing. Even when the regulations are made we will still have irregular use of clothing by the F.C.A. No matter what regulations you have, members of the F.C.A. will use the Army boots now and again when doing their ordinary work. I am afraid you cannot guard against that.

556. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Do you not ask them to hand in the old ones when issuing new ones?—Yes, but very often they are worn to a greater extent than they would be by ordinary wear and tear.

They are worn outside, apart from service occasions?—Yes.

They are brought in?—Yes

Chairman.—I suppose the Committee cannot go into the question very much until the regulations have been made. I think, however, that the question of sanction arises again. In this case it is not easy to suggest how it can be got over. If a large number of members become ineffective, or if it should happen that they join the Force almost for the purpose of securing equipment, it would be rather a pity if that situation could not be dealt with by taking some action? —The regulations will not help you there. They will not give us any more power than we have. The only thing it might be possible to do is what the Comptroller and Auditor-General is thinking of, namely, to provide that uniforms will be issued only at specified periods. These regulations will not safeguard you against the type of thing you mention. The only thing is to get the Gárda after them to see if you can recover them.

557. Do you think this is a serious matter? Is the number of cases likely to occur substantial?—In an organisation like this it is not serious. For instance, a year ago we had 50,000 in the F.C.A. We did not believe we had 50,000 effective men. The matter was gone into and 30,000 of the 50,000 were put on the non-effective list.

Then there are 30,000 issues in question How to get control of this is a problem, I daresay?—Yes, it is a problem that the Guards do not like either. They feel it makes them unpopular. They do not like going around the houses and collecting uniforms.

558. Perhaps the Committee might like to know what proportion of the 30,000 have in fact been recovered?—We do not recover the clothing from men who are put on the non-effective list. These are men who maintain that, for various reasons, they cannot attend weekly drill. They are still on the list and permitted to retain their uniforms. It is only when a man is discharged or resigns that we get after the uniform.

559. You think it is essential that they should have the uniform for the weekly drill?—They will not turn up if they have not got it. You must remember that this is a voluntary organisation. They are only paid when they are up for annual training and, if you do not make it attractive, they will not join—certainly, even if they do join, they will not remain. It is inseparable from a voluntary organisation like this. We had it with the Volunteers before 1939, but not to such an extent as this. In an organisation like this you are bound to have it. Any Army which has an organisation like this has such difficulties. The British have them also with their non-permanent units.

560. Apart from the financial issue, I am thinking of the effect on the organisation itself and on public feeling that people treat the authorities like this, whether it is a voluntary organisation or not?—We are trying to get the local officers to take the matter in hands and also to bring public opinion to bear on the fellows who join just for the sake of getting uniform and boots. It is the only effective way really. We have not the organisation fully officered by local officers. That is the stage which we hope to arrive at. In my opinion, that is the only way in which this can be stopped.

561. Chairman.—The last paragraph of Note number 80 reads:—

“I have asked for information concerning the regulations governing the medical treatment of members of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—Pending promulgation of regulations governing the medical treatment of members of the F.C.A., the Department of Finance agreed to the application of certain old draft regulations relating to the former Volunteer Force. These draft regulations provided, broadly, for the medical treatment of members suffering from disease or injury contracted during a period of annual training. There was also a provision for the treatment of disease or injury contracted in the performance of and arising out of military duty. There are two cases in which illness occurred in circumstances that did not appear to be covered by the regulations and I was informed that covering Finance sanction was being sought for charging the cost of treatment to public funds. I was also informed that the submission of the new F.C.A. regulations to the Department of Finance had been unavoidably delayed.

Chairman.—This is an important matter from your point of view?

General MacMahon.—Yes. The draft regulation is with the Department of Finance at the moment and there are some points to be cleared up in connection with it.

562. Deputy Sheldon.—Have the Department of Finance given sanction in these two cases?—We did not go to the Department of Finance in the case that the Comptroller and Auditor-General referred to. We recovered the sum of £6 16s. 1d. from money due to the officer responsible.

Chairman.—Is there another case?— There was a second case of an officer who had resigned. We withheld a sum of money which he had to his credit—£6 16s. 1d. We will have to go to Finance to write off the balance.

563. There is no contribution in these cases from the members? You have the responsibility of providing medical treatment in these cases. I suppose they go before a Board. In any case, as the Comptroller and Auditor-General mentions, the regulation should be promulgated as soon as possible and then everyone would know where he stands?— Yes.

564. Chairman.—Paragraph 81, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads:—

“Use of Military Aerodromes by Civilian Aircraft.

Landing facilities have been provided from time to time for civilian aircraft at military aerodromes as emergency alternatives to Dublin Airport. I inquired regarding the collection of charges for these facilities and was informed that the collection had been deferred pending agreement with the Department of Finance on the basis of assessment of the charges.”

Mr. Wann.—That is the position.

Gen. MacMahon.—We have come to an arrangement now by which these accounts will be sent to Aer Rianta instead of to the Companies and they will collect from the Companies and remit to us.

565. Chairman.—Paragraph 82, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads:—

“Occupation of Married Quarters.

Regulations provide that a soldier who is in occupation of married quarters shall vacate quarters within a stated period after his discharge or transfer to the Reserve, and also that a charge shall be made for each day during which quarters are overhead. A number of cases of overholding has arisen in recent years and I have asked for information on the matter.”

Mr. Wann.—I have been informed that there were 76 cases in all. Some of them date from 1944 and 1945. One goes back to 1943. The full amounts due in respect of overholding are being recovered in 70 cases. In four cases partial recovery was effected. In the remaining two there was no recovery as there were no credits.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—There is good reason for overholding, unfortunately.

566. Chairman.—Did you get possession in these cases?

General MacMahon.—We have not got possession in any case. There are still 76 overheld.

Did you institute legal proceedings?— We had the matter referred to the Government and the Government are considering it. The Minister for Defence and the Minister for Local Government are going into the matter to see that these people get some kind of priority for new houses. Whether they got it or not, I am not certain. Apart from the financial aspect, of course this matter is very serious because these people are depriving serving soldiers and their families of houses which they really are entitled to.

They are occupying barrack premises?— Yes.

All these are the cases of people in barracks?—Yes, in Portobello and Arbour Hill.

567. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Have you ever considered the advisability of erecting even small houses to which these men and their families could be transferred?— These people are not soldiers.

568. I know they are not soldiers, but they are men who have served in the Army over a number of years. Some have reared their families in them while serving in the Army. I take it the position is that when they finish their period in the Army you claim the houses from them. I know that the claim is not enforced, the reason being that they have no place to go to. The Department of Local Government and the Dublin Corporation cannot, at the moment, supply them with houses. What I am anxious to know is, have the Army authorities ever considered the advisability of undertaking the responsibility of erecting houses themselves?—The difficulty is that we cannot get enough money to erect houses for serving men, and it is the serving men who must be our first consideration. The difficulty is that if we did supply houses we would never get them back. These houses belong to the Army.

But they pay rent for them. They pay a rent which is fixed by the Army?—I do not think the Department of Finance would agree to the Department of Defence supplying houses for ex-soldiers when we really have not sufficient houses for serving men.

569. Chairman.—I think we can now pass from that matter and take paragraph 83 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

“Suspense Account.

Reference was made in paragraph 87 of my last report to payments amounting to £384 18s. 6d. in respect of pay, etc., of reservists which had been charged to a suspense account pending investigation of certain irregularities. Further payments amounting to £666 9s. 6d. were similarly charged during the year under review, the total amount debited to suspense account at 31st March, 1948, being £1,051 8s. 0d.”

Mr. Wann.—Certain members of the staff of the Department were convicted of fraudulently negotiating pay orders. They were sentenced to terms of imprisonment. The total amount that was involved was £1,051 8s. 0d. I understand that part of that amount has been recovered from the Banks, and that the recovery of the balance is being pursued.

General MacMahon.—It is a matter for the Paymaster-General to recover the balance from the Banks. These orders were negotiated mostly in public houses and were then presented to the Banks. The Banks should not have cashed them. The Paymaster-General has been advised on the matter and has told us that he is getting after the traders who accepted the orders.

570. Deputy O’Sullivan.—How much has in fact, been recovered?—The total amount involved was £1,051 8s. 0d. The sum of £384 18s. 6d. has been recovered and the balance outstanding is £666 9s. 6d.

571. Chairman.—We can now take paragraph 84 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“Statement of losses.

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 £129 9s. 6d. and £67,104 16s. 10d.”

Chairman.—Have you anything to say on that, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—The paragraph is for the information of the Committee.

572. Chairman.—The last paragraph of Note 84 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:—

“The deficiency of £71,114 14s. 5d. noted at item 6 of the Statement of Losses includes £57,972 11s. 2d., being the value of self-igniting grenades which, with Department of Finance approval, were destroyed.”

573. Deputy Dockrell.—Why was it necessary to destroy the grenades?

General MacMahon.—They became too dangerous. They were Molotoff Cocktails and we had them emptied.

Is the £57,972 11s. 2d. a net figure after taking off the salvage?—That is the net figure.

574. Chairman.—If there is no other question we can now turn to the subheads on page 235. On subhead A-Pay of Officers, etc.—the explanation which appears on page 237, as members of the Committee will notice, is that “the average strength was below that provided for”.

574a. Deputy Sheldon.—I observe that the explanation on subhead A (1)—Military Educational Courses—is that “the number of officers sent on courses was greater than anticipated”?—Yes, some of the courses were more expensive than others.

Chairman.—Does this mean that it represents only the payment in that particular year, and that the courses may have extended for a longer period but would not necessarily be provided for in this year?—None of the courses extended over a year.

575. Deputy Sheldon.—The explanation given in regard to subhead A (4)—Emergency Gratuities—is that “a large number of gratuities for which provision was made was not claimed.” How did it arise that the gratuities were not claimed? —Some men left the Army, for one reason or another, before the Emergency was over, and it is possible that they went abroad and were not aware of the entitlement to gratuities.

576. Did the Re-enlistment Bounties come to more than had been anticipated? I think that in this year there was only a token Vote of £5. Did the Re-enlistment Bounties come to more than that? —It was a token Estimate.

Chairman.—Will the gratuities be available if they are claimed?—Yes. They will have to be paid.

577. On subhead B-Marriage Allowance—I observe that the expenditure was less than the amount granted In regard to subhead C-Pay of Civilians attached to Units, I see that there is a big variation there between the amount of the grant and the actual sum expended.

578. Deputy Sheldon.—How many civilians were employed in the Army? I take it that some of them would be for a short period?—I would say about sixteen hundred.*

579. I notice that the Army was not quite up to its expected strength. and that there was a saving of £57,000. Some of that strength was made up by the employment of civilians at a cost of £161,000 more than had been expected. The employment of civilians is certainly more expensive than if you were to have the same number of men in the Army?— Civilians are more expensive.

Chairman.—What does the figure of sixteen hundred represent?—The total number of civilians employed by the Army.

Would you be able to give the number that you had to take on?—No, because some of them were employed for very short periods. If the Corps of Engineers had a job they might perhaps take on a a number of men for a fortnight or so, and at the end of that period knock them off again.

580. It is a very costly business apparently to employ civilian tradesmen as compared with Army personnel?—Yes, but we cannot get Army personnel. Tradesmen will not join the Army.

581. Deputy Sheldon.—Could you not train men in the Army as tradesmen?— The only tradesmen we train at the moment are mechanics in the Air Corps. We have a boy mechanics scheme for the Air Corps. We take in young boys and train them as mechanics. The scheme is working very well. We were thinking of extending that scheme and were in touch with some of the Unions in connection with it. Some of the Unions are not in favour of it, but the matter has not yet been brought to a conclusion. The Unions do not care whether you have the scheme or not, but the question is, will they recognise these men as tradesmen when we have trained them. It would not be fair to ask a father to send a boy into the Army to have him trained as a tradesmen if, after serving for 8 or 10 years in the Army, on going back to civilian life he will not be recognised as a tradesman but only as a handy man. The scheme for boy mechanics at Baldonnel is recognised. Those who qualify are recognised as tradesman when they have completed their course.

Chairman.—How is the distinction drawn, that the boy who attends the course at Baldonnel can be recognised as a tradesman while the boy who is trained as a tradesman in another branch of the Army is not recognised?— The attitude taken up at that particular time was that there was no other place in Ireland, except Baldonnel, where you could train a boy to be an aeronautical mechanic. For that reason, those trained there were recognised.

Take mechanical transport for example. Would there be any objection to having boys trained for that in the Army?—The attitude taken at that particular time was that there were any amount of facilities, other than the Army, for boys to get trained for that. The matter has not been finally settled.

Deputy Sheldon.—It looks as if a reduction in the strength of the Army might be more expensive instead of a saving?— A reduction in the Army means a reduction in the number of tradesmen in the Army.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Were the majority of the men in question taken on as tradesmen or as labourers?—There were some labourers, but the majority would be tradesmen or storemen.

I take it that the jobs for storemen would be clerical jobs?—Yes.

Chairman.—At any rate, the matter is receiving serious attention?—It is.

582. On subhead J—Mechanical Transport—the explanatory note states that “the number of vehicles delivered during the year was greater than anticipated and prices were increased; the cost of maintenance was also greater than anticipated.” To which of the two factors referred to do you attribute the major part of the increase, or were they roughly equal?—To the purchase of more vehicles than we had anticipated. In the case of station wagons, for example, one wagon was allotted to each battalion of the F.C.A.

583. On subhead K-Provisions and Allowances in lieu-the explanatory note states: “Saving due to the strength of the Army being less than that provided for; partly offset by increased purchases of provisions for issue on repayment and increases in ration allowances.” Under subhead L—Petrol and Oils—there is a note indicating that aviation spirit and lubricating oils were not required to the extent anticipated and this was partly offset by increased purchases and increased cost of petrol for vehicles. This is on the aviation side?—Yes.

584. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead P— Warlike Stores—was the amount of stores that could not be got, a serious matter? It looks serious from the point of view of the money?—No, it was not very serious.

It would be mostly small arms and ammunition?—It did not affect the position very much; it would be concerned with small arms and ammunition.

585. Do you mean you had budgeted for something you really did not need?—We wanted up-to-date equipment. We could not get the up-to-date equipment and therefore we did not purchase at all.

586. Chairman.—The whole of your purchases of warlike stores must be provided by annual allocation under this subhead? —Yes.

You have no reserves?—Oh, we have— no reserves of money, but reserve equipment.

587. On subhead P (1)—Air-raid Precautions—the explanation is that the expenditure was mainly due to the fact that the amount of the grants payable to local authorities, essential undertakers, etc., the claims for which mature for payment at irregular intervals, was greater than anticipated. I suppose that is being wound up now. Will this subhead appear in the future?—It will, but it is nearly wound up.

588. Subhead P (2) deals with the Naval Service. There is a very big variation there also, mainly due to the nonpurchase of vessels for which provision had been made, and a consequent saving on cost of maintenance?—The policy was to purchase six corvettes. We provided for that, but we purchased only three. That is a big saving.

So there is a saving, a permanent saving?—That would be a matter of policy.

At the moment, at any rate, you are having only three?—We have only half what we originally intended to purchase.

589. Subhead R refers to fuel, light and water in kind and fuel oils. Here we have a substantial increase also. It means that the Estimate went up nearly 2½ times. There is an explanation:—“Owing to the critical fuel position in the early part of the year it was necessary to make special arrangements for the provision of supplies. These arrangements involved greatly increased costs.” The increased costs were due to the emergency situation, were they not?— That is correct, and the fact that the Army no longer cut their own turf.

590. On subhead S—Barrack Maintenance and Minor Works—there is a substantial saving there?—Yes, probably due to the evacuation of certain barracks.

Could that not have been foreseen?— Not at that particular time.

591. As regards subhead S.2—Construction Corps—there is a substantial reduction there. The strength of the Corps was below that provided for?—Yes.

592. Subhead T-Military Lands—shows an excess amount by way of expenditure, the explanation is that this was mainly due to the purchase of premises for married officers’ quarters for which no provision had been made. Perhaps the Committee might like to know what the circumstances were?—There is a shortage of quarters for Officers, N.C.O.’s and men, and a couple of houses came on the market in Athlone and there was one in Kildare We asked the Department of Finance for sanction to purchase. We got sanction and purchased the houses.

You got a good bargain?—We consider we did.

593. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Does that suggest that the number of Officers has increased in the Army?—We have as many Officers as we had four years ago but we have not the same number of men as we had then.

But when you had to get extra houses it looks as if you had the extra officers?— We have more than we had in pre-emergency days-than we had, say, before 1939.

Chairman.—Are you responsible for these, or have you them rented?—We purchased the houses; we purchased three in Athlone and one in Kildare. We also wanted to purchase some in Cork and Limerick, but the Department of Finance did not agree. We have altogether only 125 Army Officers’ houses.

Deputy Sheldon.—It is a good thing to see that the Department of Finance can resist your blandishments occasionally?— Why occasionally? They usually do.

594. Chairman.—Subhead U deals with compensation and there is this note:— “Mainly due to the fact that compensation paid in respect of damage to premises occupied by military during the Emergency was greater than anticipated; compensation for damage or injury in cases of accidents in which Army vehicles were involved was also greater than anticipated; partly offset by a saving on provision for personnel killed or injured during training.” Does this represent the number of cases—this additional expenditure?—Yes, the number of cases of compensation in respect of damage and also the damage or injury in the case of accidents.

Are all these compensation cases nearly cleared up?—You have them occurring yearly.

595. But as regard premises?—We have cleared up the premises question.

596. As regards subhead V.—Barrack Services—there is a note to the effect that Barrack Service Equipment was not purchased to the extent provided for and the cost of laundry was lower than anticipated.

597. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead X— Incidental Expenses—there is a note saying that the increase is mainly due to increased advertising in connection with recruiting drives. I presume there has not been any more difficulty about advertising than there was before. There was trouble over advertising being given without a contract?—We went out to tender on this occasion.

598. Chairman.—As regards subhead Y (2)—The Reserve-there is a very big reduction there and the note says: “Mainly due to the fact that members of the Reserve—Second Line—did not attend for annual training to the extent anticipated and the strength of the Force did not reach the figure provided for . . .” Perhaps you might like to add something to that. I think when there are big variations it would be well to have some explanation?—You cannot estimate accurately for the number of reservists who will come up for training. You hope they will all come but you know they will not. You have to estimate but it is quite impossible to estimate accurately.

599. The ordinary layman gets the impression that the abstentions from training must be very great if you have a substantial proportion of the grant not used?—You cannot compel them to come, but you have to provide sufficient money to pay them if they come. It is something completely outside the control of the Accounting Officer.

Deputy Dockrell.—I suppose many of them have gone abroad?—Very many of them went to England.

600. Chairman.—Subhead A.A. refers to expenses in connection with the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 and 1940, and in the next subhead, subhead B.B., you have a reference to medals, etc. There is an explanation about the non-delivery of Emergency Service Medals.

601. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—Where are those medals produced?—They are made in Dublin. The die was made in the British Mint but the medals are made in Dublin.

602. Deputy Sheldon.—What has happened in the case of rents for canteen lettings that were not realised?—A new arrangement was come to. There is a Canteen Board running canteens now. Previous to that various traders tendered for the canteens and we had to charge rents. Now the Army are doing it themselves and with Department of Finance concurrence we are giving them free accommodation.

603. Deputy Dockrell.—As regards No. 5 of the Appropriations in Aid, there seems to be a big variation in the receipts as regards clothing issued on repayment. What does that mean?—It means that a man might purchase a couple of pairs of socks above his entitlement and he would pay for them and there would be other items dealt with similarly.

604. Deputy Sheldon.—Item 22 in the Appropriations in Aid deals with receipts for X-ray and aerial photographs. Was it from the X-ray or the aerial photographs that the receipts went up?—The Garda are permitted to be X-rayed in St. Bricin’s and we charge for that.

605. What is the position in relation to aerial photographs?—The Army sometimes produce photographs and they pass them on to the Stationery Office and the Stationery Office sells them to other people—to the Port and Docks Board and others like that.

606. Chairman.—Is there any explanation of these bigger variations?—The big one there in that list refers to the Curragh where Welfare Boards purchase supplies from the Army.

607. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—As regards item 25 in the Appropriations in Aid—receipts in respect of stores destroyed by a fire-what stores were involved?—That relates to St. Anne’s, Clontarf.

Chairman.—Does that mean receipts on respect of stores not destroyed?

608. Deputy Dockrell.—It was A.R.P. equipment stored there?

General MacMahon.—In actual fact we occupied one portion of St. Anne’s and the Corporation occupied the other portion. The Corporation had insured the store in which some of our equipment was and they were, therefore, able to pay us that £20,000 odd.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—Does that represent the value of the equipment?—Yes.

They made a good bargain on the purchase of it anyway.

609. Deputy Dockrell.—The place was properly insured.

General MacMahon.—Deputy Mrs. Crowley raised the question of insurance earlier. The Corporation can insure and had insured. We are not permitted to insure.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—Therefore it was the policy of the Corporation that saved the situation there?—Exactly.

610. Deputy Dockrell.—Is the Army not permitted to insure?—The Army is not permitted to insure except, as I pointed out, in the case of certain boilers, etc., that we want overhauled. These boilers have to be inspected every year and it is in our interest to insure to secure free inspection. The State, as a whole, does not insure.

Chairman.—None of the Departments of State insure?—No.

611. There was a statement of loss in the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report. There was a total deficiency of £80,000 and of that sum £57,000 was due to the destruction of these self-igniting grenades.

612. We pass on then to the statement of losses at pages 240 and 241, and we come to extra remuneration. How does the question of staff temporarily loaned stand at the moment? Have you returned all the personnel you borrowed during the Emergency?—Yes.

613. On page 243 I notice that materials and plant estimated at a value of approximately £100,000 were taken over from the Office of Public Works on the transfer to this Department as from 1st July, 1947, of the administration of Haulbowline Island. I would be interested to know what steps were taken to check up on this?—We did check up and the figure is an agreed one. As a matter of fact we are considering the matter at the moment to find out if some of the material may be surplus and disposed of.

614. Deputy O’Sullivan.—There is one interesting item—a Tricolour Flag valued at 14s. 2d. was presented to a British Military College?—An officer of ours had gone there for a course and as it was customary for a foreign officer to present the flag of his country to the college, we were merely carrying on the tradition of the place.

Is that the usual cost?—Yes.

Chairman.—Do you generally supply flags or is there some organisation which will supply such flags if, for instance, some important foreign visitor would like to have one?—We do not sell them, but there are several firms in the city who do.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—If you go in to buy one you will find “Made in England” stamped on the corner.

Chairman.—That is good business.

VOTE 64—ARMY PENSIONS

Lieut.-General P. MacMahon further examined.

615. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note—number 85:—

“Subhead G—Military Service Pensions.

Subsection (5) of Section 8 of the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, provided that where a report had been made by the Referee on an application for a service certificate the Minister might, in certain circumstances, request the Referee to review such report. The power conferred by the subsection was withdrawn, as from the 1st January, 1946, by Section 5 of the Military Service Pensions (Amendment) Act, 1945, except in respect of any report in reference to which the Minister had received an application or request for the exercise of the power before that date. Awards of pension were made during the year following the receipt of revised reports from the Referee, and as in some cases no evidence was available to me of the date of receipt of the applications for review, I communicated with the Accounting Officer in the matter and was informed that the applications in question had been received prior to the 1st January, 1946, but that as they had been referred to the Referee with the supporting evidence, and had been retained by him, they were not therefore available for inspection.”

Do you wish to add anything to that, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—The position is as stated in the paragraph. The Audit Office was unable to verify that applications made in certain cases had been received within the statutory period.

General MacMahon.—I do not quite catch the point. As you know, the Comptroller and Auditor-General is debarred from having these documents. As a matter of fact I am not entitled to get them either. The Government of the day decided that material in these documents which was put in evidence should not be available because it might cause a lot of friction if published; and the Dáil solemnly decided that such material would be absolutely private and not available to either the Comptroller and Auditor-General or anybody else.

Mr. Wann.—But in some cases the information was available and in others not.

General MacMahon.—That was when there was not any evidence on the file.

616. Chairman.—The particular point raised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General is the date of application and the question is whether, in his statutory capacity, he is entitled to have that information in order to assure himself that the applications were made in good time?— Where we have files with that information on them, the information is available to him. Where the Referee has the documents we are not entitled to ask for it. Sometimes the Referee asks for it and sometimes he does not. Once it gets to the Referee we cannot ask for it.

Mr. Wann.—The Audit Office asked in the first instance whether there was any record of the date of receipt of applications and whether such information was available and the reply was that records were contained in Departmental files and were available for inspection. As I have already said, in some cases the files indicated the date of receipt of the applications and in others they did not.

617. Deputy Sheldon.—Surely, the date of receipt should have been entered on every file or some note of it kept. The date of receipt is hardly a confidential matter?

General MacMahon.—But we do not accept any applications after the statutory date. I gathered that some of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s staff were a bit doubtful because evidence came in after the date of application. So long as the applicant has applied within the statutory period that is all right. The evidence can come in later. The application must be in in time. The evidence may come in after the statutory date. I think, perhaps, that did cause some suspicion in the minds of some of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s staff. But I can assure him that he has no grounds for such suspicion.

Mr. Wann.—I think we would have been quite satisfied if there had been a note anywhere of the relevant dates.

General MacMahon.—When very large numbers come in it is very difficult to deal with them. If one could deal with all the applications on a given date that would be all right, but when large numbers arrive they may not be sorted until the following day. It depends on the staff. All we have to ensure is that the application is made within the statutory period.

Deputy O’Sullivan.—Surely a date stamp would provide a simple solution to that difficulty?—That is so, but then the stamped application would pass on to the Referee and would not be available. A particular letter would be stamped and passed automatically to the Referee and it would not then be available subsequently to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Deputy Sheldon.—Is there no register kept of applications?—There is, but we might not be able to give the exact date. All we can ensure is that the application is in time.

618. Chairman.—Would that information be available if a Parliamentary Question were asked?—No.

619. Would the actual number of applications received be available?—It would.

Would that be available to the Comptroller and Auditor-General?—Yes. Anything that is available is available to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I think he will admit that.

620. But he must see the file before it goes to the Referee; he cannot see it afterwards. Am I stating the position correctly when I say he is entitled to see the file but there is a decision against his seeing the evidence and he is, therefore, only entitled to see the date of application?—He is entitled to see anything, but once a document goes to the Referee it is not available to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It is not even available to me.

And these documents go from the applicant to the Referee?—Yes, through a section of the Department.

621. When they are received in the Department are they then legally in the hands of the Referee?—Not until they are referred to him.

622. Chairman.—We will pass on now to the note on subhead H:—

“Subhead H.—Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, 1937 to 1947.

Cases have arisen in which pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1924, based on service to 30th September, 1923, as certified under the Act, were awarded to persons to whom pensions under the Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, based on qualifying service commencing on dates prior to 30th September, 1923, were also awarded. The same periods of time have therefore been reckoned for the purposes of both pensions.”

Mr. Wann.—It was thought desirable to refer to this double reckoning as it is contrary to the normal procedure.

General MacMahon.—It is not contrary to the Act.

Mr. Wann.—It is not contrary to the Act, but it is contrary to the normal procedure. There are very few cases involved and the Accounting Officer stated it was not proposed to reconsider the position.

Deputy Sheldon.—If it is not contrary to the Act we cannot do anything about it?

General MacMahon.—There is very little involved in it anyway. In the case of officers any period of service rendered prior to 1st October, 1923, cannot be counted for retired pay if the officer is entitled to a Military Service Pension, but no such restriction exists in the case of other ranks. The Defence Forces Pensions of other ranks were so small that when the scheme was being prepared it was considered that this restriction should not apply to them. The number of persons affected was 59. Three died while serving and by the time in 1947 when the scheme was made a further 36 had been discharged with Military Service Pensions, leaving only 20 serving at the date of the scheme. It would have been inequitable to penalise these 20 men by amending the scheme. At the present moment only 15 of the persons concerned are serving. There can never be any more. When these 15 leave the Army the matter is finished.

623. Chairman.—We will turn to the Vote proper now. Under subhead H there is a Supplementary Vote?—There was a revised pensions scheme and that scheme is responsible for that Supplementary.

624. I take it subhead L—Compensation for Death or Injuries Sustained by Members of Local Defence Force—is a disappearing item?—I hope so.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XV.

* See Appendices X V I and X X.

* See Appendix XVII.

* See Appendix XVIII.