|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardoin, 15 Iúil, 1954.Thursday 15th July, 1954.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtair Cuntas agus Ciste), Máire Bhreathnach, Mr. J. Mooney, Mr. P. M. Clarke and Mr. J. E. Twamley (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 58—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.Mr. S. Nunan called and examined.119. Chairman.—Paragraph 100 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Officers serving in certain countries whose salaries and allowances are fixed in national currency are paid compensation in respect of the depreciation of the purchasing power of that currency in their countries of accreditation. Regulations approved by the Department of Finance provide for the reduction of the compensation payable in respect of periods of absence of officers from their countries of accredition and I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the method by which the amount of the reduction is determined in such cases.” Have you anything further to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It appeared to us that, in certain cases where the continuity of service abroad was broken, the method of calculating the amount payable by way of exchange compensation was somewhat favourable to the officers. The Accounting Officer has informed me that the method adopted has been in accordance with the regular practice of the Department, and I have asked him to seek the approval of the Department of Finance. Mr. Nunan.—That matter is being discussed with the Department of Finance now. 120. Chairman.—On subhead A.2— Travelling Expenses—the amount of travelling seems to have been very considerably less than was anticipated. Was there any particular reason for this?— There was not the number of conferences that we expected might have taken place. In fact, there were only about two fairly big delegations—One to London and one to Germany. 121. I presume stationery appears in subhead B.3—Postage, Stationery, Telegrams and Telephones—because it is not possible for the Stationery Office here to send stationery to our representatives in North America. In the Estimates the only countries where stationery is specially provided for are the United States and Canada?—They provide their own. 122. Last year on subhead C.2, the question of repayable advances to the Irish News Agency came up. Has any progress been made?—Yes. The proposals for conditions of repayment are with the Department of Finance now. They have been submitted. Chairman.—Have you anything to add, Mr. Mooney? Mr. Mooney.—I am really deputising for the man who deals with this matter. I understand the proposals are being examined, and I am not sure what attitude will be taken in regard to them. They have come in only recently, is not that so? Mr. Nunan.—That is so. 123. Chairman.—You had a token Supplementary Estimate for £10 and a month later a Supplementary Estimate for the Irish News Agency. We are well accustomed here to being told that the reason for the non-introduction of Supplementary Estimates is so as not unduly to overload the work of the Dáil. Here we get two Supplementary Estimates coming very close to one another. Would it not have been possible to arrange for the token Supplementary and the one for the Irish News Agency to coincide?— The £10 Supplementary Estimate was introduced, as you will recollect, to permit the consideration of the general Estimate. You will remember that all the Estimates were passed together previously. The original Estimate for the News Agency, which was for £25,000, had all been paid out. I recollect there had been a lot of discussion as to whether or not the Supplementary would be granted to the News Agency. It was eventually decided that the Supplementary should be taken. I do not think it was possible to do it at the time and we were not ready to introduce the two together. 124. In the case of the Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer, how does the item of £93 5s. 8d.—Recovery of expenditure charged in prior year—arise?— That covers adjustments and recoveries of sums that were charged in error in the accounts of the previous year, overpayments on salaries, on travelling, postage and telegrams and some incidentals, wrongly charged the year before and corrected. They were collected and put in the proper account. 125. How did it come that the official who gave the Commencement Address at Seattle University did not collect the fee himself?—He is not entitled to the fee. 126. This does not come in as extra remuneration?—No, they do not get any extra remuneration. 127. In effect it means that this was an official duty?—He was on official duty. This was a commencement address at the University. They wanted the Ambassador to come down to deliver it, and they proffered him an honorarium of 600 or 800 dollars. His travelling expenses were charged to our Travelling Expenses Account; they were offering him the honorarium, and there was no reason I could see why he should not accept it. It is usual to give honoraria to these people, the V.I.P’s who are brought down to deliver Commencement Addresses. VOTE 59—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.Mr. S. Nunan called.No question The witness withdrew. VOTE 10—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.Risteárd Ó hÉigeartuigh called and examined.128. Chairman.—Paragraphs 14 to 17 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General are for information, and I think we may take them as read. Subhead J.—Development Works in Bogs acquired by Local Authorities has been discontinued? Mr. Ó hÉigeartuigh.—Yes They were grants for the Department of Local Government in connection with turf production by local authorities. Deputies will recall that these grants were given at the start of the Korean War in 1951-52, and they finished also at the end of that time when the county councils “went out” of the direct productions of turf. 129. Subhead L.—Miscellaneous Schemes—has also been considerably changed by the abandonment of harbour works?—Yes. The harbour works have been given back to the Department of Industry and Commerce. They more or less came into our Vote in unusual circumstances, and they have now gone back to where they belonged. The witness withdrew. VOTE 54—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.Leon Ó Broin called and examined.130. Chairman.—Paragraph 85 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead E.1.—Conveyance of Mails by Rail. With the co-operation of the Northern Ireland postal authorities and the Great Northern Railway Company, improved night mail services between Dublin and Portadown were introduced as from 8 September, 1952. The agreed annual payment of £5,720 for the improved services is shared by the British Postal Administration and the Department in the proportions £1,800 and £3,920, respectively.” Mr. Ó Broin, living in the far North, I think the postal services have improved, but just recently something seems to have gone wrong at the week-ends. The banks have told me that their Advice Letter posted in Dublin before 1 o’clock on Saturday does not arrive until Tuesday; it arrives in the same post as the Monday Advice Letter which is posted at 5 o’clock on Monday.—I find it very hard to understand that, but I shall be very glad to look into it. There is no doubt acceleration has taken place as a result of this arrangement with the North. 131. Chairman.—Paragraph 86 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead H.2.—Losses by Default, Accident, etc. The losses borne on the Vote for the year ended 31 March, 1953, amounted to £6,443 10s. 1d. A classified schedule of these losses is set out at page 166. At page 169 particulars are given of 38 cases in which cash shortages or misappropriations amounting to £481 9s. 8d. were discovered; the sums in question were made good and no charge to public funds was necessary.” You were a bit more unfortunate this year, I think, in the number of cases?— The number is actually below the average for the last five years but, amongst those set out here, is one rather bad case. I touched upon it last year when I was giving evidence. 132. Is that the one at the foot of page 166 where the loss is £2,214 odd? Is there not rather more misappropriation and fraudulent conversion than there was the year before?—Yes, three or four more than in the year before. But over the last four or five years the average was higher than for 1952-53. 133. Of course, in relation to the number of transactions and the amount of money handled by the Post Office, it is a very fractional sum?—That is so. 134. Deputy A. Barry.—When you say the average, you mean the average case? —The average number of defalcations. In 1952-53 there were 24; in 1951-52 there were 20; in 1950-51 there were 28; in 1949-50 there were 26, and in that year we had a case which was substantially bigger than the one to which you have drawn attention. Therefore, while this case is a big one in the particular year, it is not by any means the worst case we have had. 135. Chairman.—The only thing I am not quite clear about in this case is the manner in which you account where a balance of wages due is withheld. I can see that the normal procedure is that that affects subhead A, or the salary subhead, and therefore does not affect the amount of loss shown even where there is a withholding of salary. There is, however, a very minor one on page 168 where the loss was 5/- and the balance of wages due, £1 11s. 1d., was withheld. I assume that you hardly withheld £1 11s. 1d., where the loss was 5/-?—The 5/-, of course, was only part of what he had taken; 5/- was the value of postage stamps entrusted to him, but I see in the printed note that there were also other shortages in his stocks. You may take it we did not withhold from him anything he was entitled to get. 136. It was just the apparent contradiction of the normal procedure. What are the “overages” referred to in the third note from the bottom of page 167?—Where in fact the amount of money he had in his till was larger than it should have been; occasionally we have shortages, but occasionally, too, we get an overage. 137. The charging of commemoration stamps is also in the losses. You say here the Minister got sets of stamps. Is it usual, or unusual, for the Minister to get a set?—It is not unusual. The Minister may ask for a set of stamps for the purpose of making a presentation to some distinguished visitor. It is quite a normal thing. It does not happen very frequently, but the tradition is well established. 138. Chairman.—Paragraph 87 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with stores and reads:— “A test examination of the store accounts was carried out with satisfactory results. Included in Appendix No. II to the account (statement of receipts and issues of engineering stores) is a sum of £24,415 being adjustment in respect of the loss of poles arising from an outbreak of fire which occurred at a storage depút. The gross loss was £25,349 but credits in respect of salvaged items amounted to £934. The sanction of the Department of Finance has been sought to write off the loss, and I understand that the question of the adequacy of the fire precautions is under consideration.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have nothing to add except that I am not quite sure that the Department of Finance sanction has yet been obtained. Mr. Twamley.—No. We are at present awaiting a reply to a letter which the Department of Finance has sent to the Post Office. Mr. Ó Broin.—Would you like me to say something about the fire? 139. Chairman.—The material point is in relation to sanction. What is holding it up? As well as that, there is a reference here in the paragraph to the adequacy of the fire precautions? Mr. Ó Broin.—You said at the beginning that we had been unfortunate this year. We have, indeed, been very unfortunate in this year for which we are accounting. Quite apart from the defalcations, we lost as a result of a fire £25,000 worth of poles in 1952-53, and thirteen months later we lost a further £3,500 worth in the same place. We have gone into this matter with absolute thoroughness. We placed the poles in this place in what we thought was a satisfactory order; the actual space between and around the stacks of timber stores was greater than that generally allowed in commercial poles and there were adequate watching arrangements. After both fires we had a most thorough-going examination with the help of the fire brigade and other authorities. We were not able to establish the cause of the fires, but certain recommendations were made with regard to the future which have been implemented. There are no poles now in Islandbridge where the two fires took place. Our main stock of poles is held at Clondalkin where they are entirely isolated from the public. 140. I understand there was some difficulty about the positioning of the poles in relation to fire hydrants?—That was one of the points. The stacks were some distance from the water supply, but water was brought to bear upon them reasonably early in all the circumstances. On the first occasion, there was a tremendous wind blowing down the field which caused the fire to spread rapidly from the stack in which it started to the neighbouring stacks. The fire brigade, helped by the Army, which was called out early on, were unable to save a great deal of the poles. I should explain that we have been carrying abnormal supplies of poles as a result of the decision in 1950 to stock-pile. These were the first fires of that sort of which we had experience. As I have already said, we had left wider spaces between and around the stacks than had been the normal practice; yet the fires occurred. We do not know why they occurred and the police were not able to help us. 141. Chairman.—The paragraph continues:— “In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix No. II as valued at £2,594,944 on 31st March, 1953, engineering stores to the value of £2,449 were held on behalf of other Government Departments. Stores other than engineering stores were valued at £917,933, including £241,940 in respect of stores held for other Government Departments.” 142. Paragraph 88 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with revenue and states:— “A test examination of the accounts of the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services was carried out with satisfactory results. Sums due for telephone services amounting in all to £868 19s. 5d. were written off during the year as irrecoverable.” 143. Paragraph 89 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with Post Office Savings Bank Accounts and reads:— “The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December, 1952, were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results. The balance due to depositors, inclusive of interest, amounted to £65,583,711 17s. 8d. on 31st December, 1952, as compared with £61.406,855 10s. 7d. at the close of the previous year. Interest accrued during the year on securities standing to the credit of the Post Office Savings Bank fund amounted to £2,235,744 13s. 4d. Of this sum, £1,596,585 12s. 7d. was paid and credited to depositors in respect of interest, management expenses amounted to £164,822 19s, 0d. and £474,336 1s. 9d. was set aside towards provision against depreciation in the value of securities.” 144. Paragraph 90 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with the Post Office Factory and reads:— “A test examination was applied to the accounts of the Post Office Factory with satisfactory results. Including works in progress on 31st March, 1953, the expenditure on manufacturing jobs during the year amounted to £38,288, expenditure on repair work (other than repairs to mechanical transport) amounted to £36,542, and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs to £7,944.” 145. We can now take the Vote itself. On subhead A.4—Stores Branch—there is a matter which arises on various subheads and that is the question of relief from telephone capital funds being less than anticipated. This has turned up, I think, several times this year. Can you say if there is any reason for it?—The main reason, of course, is that the Engineer-in-Chief plans his programme very much in advance of the actual preparation of the Estimate. It may also be that, in the course of the year, for some reason or another, the emphasis may switch from capital works to maintenance. In 1952-53 the anticipated telephone capital programme was not fully carried out and hence the handling of issues of these stores was less than had been estimated with a consequent reduction in the relief from telephone capital funds. 146. On subhead G.1—Stores—would it be true to say that the increase in respect of the hire and repair of cycles was due to the fact that you were not able to get as many new cycles as you had anticipated? The note says that there was less expenditure on cycles. It would look as if you had not been able to get the new cycles rather than that you had changed your mind about getting them? —I do not think it necessarily means that. It may mean that, in the course of that year, more cycles came to be repaired and hired than had been provided for. I have not any particular information about it. 147. Why do you hire cycles? It seems an odd thing for the Department to do that?—Offhand, I could not tell you. If the Committee likes, I shall make inquiries. 148. Yes, because I am rather curious to know. It seems funny that a Government Department would be hiring cycles. Would these be pedal cycles or motor cycles?—I could not say offhand. I think they are probably pedal cycles. I have not any information about the point but I will send the Committee a note* about it. 149. Deputy Carter.—On subhead G.3— Manufacture of Stamps, etc.—I take it that these are the ordinary postage stamps. One hears an odd comment about the size of the stamps, particularly in this House where one has to lick dozens of them. Chairman.—The Deputy will have to raise that in the House although I quite agree with him. Deputy Bartley.—I, too, have heard a comment on that. I was told that there were plenty of long tongues to lick them. 150. Chairman.—That is a point of view, too. There is a note on page 164 to subhead K.—Engineering Materials. It refers to ex gratia payments which were made to various contractors under price variation clauses in their contracts. Surely, if there is a price variation clause, and payments are made under it, it is not ex gratia?—Occasionally we run into a case where it is quite clear that a particular contractor is suffering considerable hardship by having to stand by the terms of his contract. In these circumstances, our hearts are sometimes moved and we go to the Department of Finance and ask if they would agree to an ex gratia payment to take him out of the difficulty. 151. The explanation here is that this was done under a price variation clause. Surely, the case you refer to would not be under a price variation clause?—There is not a price variation clause in every contract, but in a very large number of them we have a price variation clause. 152. All that I am pointing out is that the note is not very accurate?—It may not be, but I think that what I have said explains the situation. The contract itself may not provide for circumstances such as I have described, but in such a case we would go to the Department of Finance, if we thought the circumstances warranted it, and ask if they would give something to help the contractor out of the difficulty. 153. Deputy Bartley.—Is the variation common to all contracts?—I do not think it is common to all contracts, but we have it in a large number of contracts. 154.—Deputy Mrs. Crowley—On subhead T.—Appropriations in Aid—there is a reference at No. (9) to receipts for agency services performed on behalf of other Governments. What sort of agency services are provided?—We provide a variety of services for other organisations and other Governments. For instance, we pay out a certain number of British Government pensions here. We also cash their postal and money orders and we have arrangements with them to charge them so much for the job. The receipts are brought to credit here. 155. Deputy Bartley.—Under No. (1) there is a reference to “void money orders”. What happens to the money represented by these orders?—It is brought to credit here under the Appropriations in Aid. We take credit every year for a certain percentage of outstanding money and postal orders. We know from experience that the percentage roughly represents the number that are voided—that are not cashed. 156. Deputy A. Barry.—What happens afterwards to them?—Sometimes, a long time afterwards, a claim is made and we meet it. Nevertheless, we do make a profit from the non-cashing of money and postal orders. 157. Chairman.—The members of the Committee might now turn to page 174 on which appears the “Abstract of engineering expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1953”. On the first of these there is the estimate for telegraph construction. Cash payments were estimated at £11,815 and materials at £29,820, whereas the expenditure shows that cash expenditure was down to one-third or less than one-third of the Estimate. The expenditure on materials, however, was in excess of the Estimate. I wonder how that arose. I am just wondering why more materials were used than had been expected and why the cash and wages payments to contractors were very much less than had been estimated. It seems to be slightly contradictory? Mr. Ó Broin.—Offhand, I could not answer the question. If you like, I will send you a note*. Chairman.—Thank you. Deputy Bartley.—Does the note at the bottom not explain it? Chairman.—It only explains the gross effect. It does not explain the items. VOTE 55—WIRELESS BROADCASTING.Leon Ó Broin further examined.158. Chairman.—What was the reason for the Supplementary Estimate?—The Supplementary Estimate, first of all, was taken much earlier than usual. It was taken on 5th November, 1952. The original Estimate was passed by the Dáil, without debate, subject to an agreement between the Parties that a token Supplementary Estimate would be taken after the Recess to give the Dáil an opportunity to discuss broadcasting. In October, it seemed likely, from the rate of broadcasting expenditure, that the full grant would be required as provided for in the original Estimate. In the meantime it had been decided to continue permanently the morning bulletins which first commenced in July 1952, when the Dublin newspaper strike took place, and the Government had approved the reorganisation of broadcasing. It was, therefore, considered necessary to provide more than a token Supplementary Estimate to cover these new developments. That is the full explanation. 159. In regard to subhead I. is there still no word of the Radio Journal?—No Sir. The situation is as it was last year. The witness withdrew. VOTE 56—DEFENCE.Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon called and examined.160. Chairman.—Paragraph 91 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead A.3.—Expenses of Equitation Teams at Horse Shows. Reference was made in paragraph 66 of the report on the accounts for the year 1948-49 to expenditure amounting to £605 8s. 7d. incurred on the transport of grooms and horses in connection with a continental horse show which was abandoned, and to the undertaking given by the show authorities to consider the question of refund. An offer of 150,000 French francs by way of compensation has been accepted and the sterling equivalent, £153 5s. 11d., is included in the amount credited to subhead Z.—Appropriations in Aid.” This is a sort of windfall. I do not think anybody had very much hope of anything turning up?—We were not very hopeful. This is the best we could do. 161. It is not really concerned with this subhead but do you remember, last year, the question that arose of the horse “Blarney Stone” and of the payment for him in pesetas? Did that Payment actually accrue?—Yes, that was satisfactorily fixed. 162. Chairman.—Paragraph 92 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead K.—Provisions and Allowances in lieu. 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 £69 17s. 2d. and £67 14s. 10d. per head, respectively, as compared with £65 9s. 10d. and £63 17s. 4d. in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 699 lbs. and 673 lbs., respectively, as compared with 698 lbs. and 682 lbs.” That is for information. 163. Chairman.—Paragraph 93 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead S. Barrack Maintenance and Minor Works. Sums of £620 5s. 11d. and £192 10s. 8d., respectively, were paid to two contractors in excess of the amounts stipulated in their contracts for painting work. It appeared that the additional payments arose from the use of measurements taken from Bills of Quantities which had been prepared some years previously and were no longer applicable. Arrangements were made to have the quantities relating to other painting contracts remeasured and checked and I have inquired whether any further contract sums fall to be adjusted.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that a revision of all the quantities is in hand but that it will take a very considerable time before it can be completed. General MacMahon.—It will take about eight years to do it completely. We are simply doing the work that has to be painted first so that we will have exact measurements before we set the contract. To do the complete job would take eight years, unless we put additional staff on it. 164. Chairman.—Could you explain just how this situation has arisen?—The erection of an extra hut would make a big difference. During the Emergency we had to erect an extra hut, sometimes as an addition to a building. That had not been taken into consideration. 165. Where there are huts taken down, do you add or subtract from the bills of quantities?—In these two cases, unfortunately, we did not do that. There was no money lost, of course. 166. The work was done?—We measured the buildings and in fact the contractors were only paid for the work they did. 167.—Chairman.—Paragraph 94 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead U.—Compensation. In February, 1945, approximately 24 acres of land was acquired under Emergency Powers (No. 315) Order, 1944 (S.R. and O. No. 74 of 1944) for the purpose of extending a military aerodrome, the agreed compensation being £4,000. Negotiations on certain matters arising out of the acquisition of the property were not concluded until January, 1953, when the compensation was paid together with a sum of £947 10s. 2d. representing interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum from the date of acquisition, as provided in the Emergency Powers Order.” That, I take it, is for information? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. I have no comment to make. 168. Chairman.—Paragraph 95 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead Z.—Appropriations in Aid. As will be seen from the account, receipts in respect of revenue from lands and premises amounted to £22,013 7s. 4d. The collection of rents, etc., was found to be generally satisfactory save in the case of certain properties in respect of which arrears due from a number of tenants amounted in January, 1953, to £693 16s. 5d. As the arrears continue to accumulate I have inquired regarding the steps taken to secure recovery.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I understand that these rents relate to properties at Castletownbere that were taken over from the British Government in 1938. I am informed that the question of the arrears is bound up with requests by the tenants for new agreements. Apparently, that matter is still under consideration. 169. Deputy Bartley.—Is it land or buildings? General MacMahon.—Land plus buildings. The tenants refused to pay until they got a new lease. We were not in a position to give them new leases. We were waiting for the State Properties Bill, that has been introduced at last. When that is passed, we hope to prepare new agreements and to recover the arrears. 170. Chairman.—I notice your receipts were greater than you had expected, because of the increased rents. Would conacre lettings be the cause of this?— Yes. 171. Chairman.—Paragraph 96 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “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 £820 15s. 1d. and £4,719 17s. 1d. As stated in paragraph 82 of the report on the accounts for the year 1947-48, regulations provide that a soldier who is in occupation of married quarters shall vacate them 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 overheld. Item 7 of the Statement of Losses relates to four cases in which quarters were overheld for prolonged periods and charges amounting to £569 19s. 6d. accrued. After appropriating various credits amounting to £302 0s. 6d. which were due to the ex-soldiers concerned, the balance, £267 19s. 0d., was written off as irrecoverable. I have inquired as to the number of cases of overholding and also regarding the collection of the prescribed charge.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have been informed that there were fifty-two cases on the 31st December, 1953. From thirty-nine of these the standard charge prescribed in the regulations has been recovered; partial recovery only has been made in eleven cases, and in the remaining two cases no recovery was made because the men concerned had deserted and the quarters had been overheld by their dependents. That was the position. 172. Chairman.—I suppose this is just one of those things? General MacMahon.—We always had this difficulty and, I am afraid, we always will. We have reduced the number of overholders now to forty-six. That includes Dublin, Curragh, and Cork, where overholding takes place, and they matter is now in the hands of the Chief State Solicitor to see if he can get possession. It is very difficult. The Court usually gives them an extension of time and has a lot of sympathy with them. 173. The difficulty is that they cannot find alternative accommodation?—That is correct. 174. Chairman.—Paragraph 97 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Suspense Account. In five cases of accidents involving vehicles allotted to units of An Fórsa Cosanta Áitiúil compensation, including costs, totalling £1,716 13s. 4d. was paid and charged to a suspense account by direction of the Department of Finance pending consideration of the question of recovery from the funds of the units concerned. I am informed that the decision of the Department of Finance has not yet been received.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, nothing further. 175. Chairman.—I note the Department of Finance has not yet come to a decision. General MacMahon.—The regulation is now signed, and I understand from Mr. Clarke that he will give us authority to clear the suspense account very soon. 176. Chairman.—To clear it?—Yes. 177. By means of the Vote or by means of these funds?—When we come to an agreement as to the amount to be recovered under the new regulation. 178. From where do you propose to clear it?—The position at the moment is that where negligence occurred the regulation made it mandatory to recover the full amount. We found that quite impossible. The funds were not in the units. The new regulation provides that the amount to be recovered will be an amount to be decided by the Minister for Defence in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, and under the new regulation we hope to clear the matter very soon. 179. Deputy Bartley.—It is not quite clear to me what sort of transaction takes place in these cases. You have, we will say, a vehicle assigned to a local F.C.A. unit and it injures, we will say, a citizen and compensation is duly awarded. That compensation is paid by the Department of Defence in the ordinary way. For the rest, this is only a sort of bookkeeping transaction—is that all? Chairman.—Not quite. General MacMahon.—No. 180. Chairman.—The trouble is that the Department of Finance at one time held the view that the F.C.A. funds, where there were any, should be mulcted and the Department of Defence, I understand, was in the difficulty that the local F.C.A. took a very poor view of their own private funds being touched at all. These funds are raised by means of concerts and other methods. I think this Committee was inclined to side with the Department of Defence, on the basis that it was a bit harsh to attack the private funds of the F.C.A. From that point of view, we felt the matter should be considered. I take it that there will be a discretion, which will be reasonably exercised, and that there will be room for agreement somewhere in it?—That is correct. Chairman.—That will probably be a satisfactory way out of it. 181. Chairman.—Paragraph 98 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:— “A considerable quantity of spare parts for certain motor vehicles became surplus to requirements at the termination of the Emergency in 1946. Sales up to 31 March, 1953, realised approximately £10,900, and I am informed that a list of the remaining surplus spare parts has been prepared and is under examination with a view to determining the most satisfactory method of disposal. I have inquired whether any action was taken to dispose of a quantity of medical supplies which appeared to be surplus to requirements or to have deteriorated in store.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—With regard to the first sub-paragraph I am not aware that the position has altered. General MacMahon.—There is a list of some 1,200 different items, and their value is about £10,000. We are considering at the moment the best way of disposing of them. As far as those already disposed of are concerned we got as much as we paid for them, and in some cases we got more. Chairman.—There is a note on page 192 of the Appropriation Accounts, 1952-53, which refers to some of these stores. It deals with civil defence equipment and medical stores. General MacMahon.—The first sub-paragraph deals with spare parts for Ford vehicles. 182. Deputy A. Barry.—With regard to the second sub-paragraph dealing with medical supplies, why is this necessary? —Some of the supplies are no longer safe to use and will be destroyed. Others which are surplus to the requirements will be sold. 183. Chairman.—You still have more than the quantity referred to in the note on page 192?—Yes. Some of them will have to be destroyed and others will have to be disposed of. 184. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—How is the surplus disposed of? Are the goods put up for auction or sold privately to members of the public?—We have been using it in the Army, but the Army at its present strength is not able to use it up quickly enough. As far as the balance is concerned we will have to dispose of it. We have not made up our minds yet as to the method, but probably we will ask the chemists to tender for it. 185. Deputy A. Barry.—Is there any precedent for that?—This arose from the Emergency. It is the first Emergency we have had, and I hope it will be the last. 186. Chairman.—We will now pass to the Vote itself. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the very full notes which the Accounting Officer has given us, and I would like to compliment him on their comprehensiveness. General MacMahon.—Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman.—Now, it appears, I propose to contradict myself because subheads A.I.—Military Educational Courses Abroad and A.3—Expenses of Equitation Teams at Horse Shows—leave a little to be desired. On A.1 you mentioned that a number of claims for payments had not been received until after the close of the financial year. Could you say about how much was due to this cause and how much to the reduction in the number of courses?—I cannot give you that information at the moment, but I can send you a note about it. We are in the hands of the British authorities as these courses are held in England. When we apply for the particular course we are told that we can get such-and-such a course. We are entirely in their hands, and sometimes we expect to receive bills in connection with these courses before the end of the financial year, but apparently the British officials do not find that always convenient and consequently the accounts come into the next year. 187. It is difficult for you to estimate accurately?—Yes.—Very well, I think you need not bother with the note. 188. On subhead A.3, the note says that the cost of participating at Horse Shows was less than was anticipated. Were fewer Shows attended?—Fewer Shows were attended due to the fact that we had not sufficient competent riders. We had a number of resignations from the Equitation School. 189. On subhead K.—Provisions and Allowances in lieu—the note is: “Owing to the accounting period ending on the 25 March, 1953, the number of accounts for provisions coming in course of payment during the last month of the year was greater than anticipated....” We are used to the period ending on the 31 March, and it seems peculiar that when you save a week you have more expenditure?—We finish on the last Wednesday of the month and the bills came in afterwards for this particular accounting period. 190. Deputy Desmond.—On subhead S.—Barrack Maintenance and Minor Works—how is it that there was a saving of over £11,000? Did you overestimate? Chairman.—There is a note, Deputy, giving details of the saving on page 187. But there is one point in it. Part of the saving was due to the painting of barracks not being proceeded with to the extent anticipated. Then it goes on to refer to an increase in the cost of ordinary repairs, renewals and maintenance. You do not regard painting as maintenance?—We do. 191. It is separated here because one type of maintenance is up and the other is down?—That is so. 192. On subhead X. —Incidental Expenses—there was an excess because there was in the previous year a change of policy in regard to advertising for recruits. Was that put into reverse again?—We provided for it this year. We had made provision. 193. But you did not use it?—In that particular year because recruiting was stopped our advertising was stopped as a result. But I thought you were referring to the following year, Mr. Chairman. 194. Was it not possible to get the payment referred to in the note on subhead A.A.—Expenses in connection with the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 and 1940—back?—This Officer was entitled to it, but we did not know he was retiring from the Forces. It was money he was actually entitled to. These particular gentlemen get a gratuity when they retire from the Special Criminal Court. 195. Deputy A. Barry.—What is it all about?—The Court is still in existence though not in operation. Under the terms of their contract the members are entitled to a gratuity when they retire. We did not anticipate he would retire at that particular time. 196. Deputy Desmond.—On subhead BB.—Medals, etc.—why is it that the delivery of pre-Truce military service medals was not proceeded with to the extent provided? Was there a reduction in the number to be supplied with medals? —No, it was because all the applicants had not applied. We thought all of them would apply and they did not, but they can still apply. I thought it might be because there was a cutting out of some of them?— No. 197. Chairman.—In regard to item No. 14 in subhead Z.—Appropriations in Aid—I take it this does not mean that the Army was more destructive than anticipated, but that you were better able to catch up on the offenders?— Yes. You got twice as much as you anticipated?—Yes, that is really the explanation. 198. On page 191 we have details of losses, and the only one which strikes me as odd is No. 14 which refers to the leakage of gas at the Hibernian Schools. This appears to have gone on for years —about 7½ years?—To remedy this completely we would have had to expend a very considerable capital sum, and so we disposed of the building and avoided the necessity for spending this money. It is now St. Mary’s Chest Hospital. 199. I hope they have stopped the leakage of gas?—I imagine they have as they spent a very large sum on the building. VOTE 57—ARMY PENSIONS.Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon further examined.200. Chairman.—Paragraph 99 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with subhead O.—Special Allowances to Persons who served in Easter Week and to Persons awarded Medals. It reads:— “Section 7 of the Army Pensions Act, 1943, as amended by the Army Pensions Acts, 1946 and 1949, authorises the grant of special allowances to persons who were members of an organisation to which Part II of the Army Pensions Act, 1932, applies, and who were granted medals in respect of such membership, provided the Minister for Defence is satisfied that such medals had been duly awarded. In two cases in which special allowances were granted to the holders of medals subsequent departmental inquiries established that the medals had not, in fact, been duly awarded. Payment of the special allowances was discontinued and recovery of the amounts already paid, totalling £520 17s 1d., has been sought. Of this amount £122 4s. 7d. is charged in the account for the year under review and £393 19s. 2d. in the accounts of previous years. The balance, £4 13s. 4d., was paid in the current financial year. I have inquired regarding the arrangements in operation for the verification of applications for medals, and whether any other cases have arisen in which it has been established that medals issued were not duly awarded.” Have you any further information, Mr. Ó Cadhla, in regard to this matter? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I understand that the recovery of these amounts has not been effected. The Accounting Officer has informed me that in eleven other cases it has been decided that the medal had not been duly awarded. In one of these cases a special allowance was being paid and a request for a refund of £450 19s. 2d. has been issued. 201. Chairman.—General MacMahon, have you anything further to say on the point?—I do not think there is much chance of recovery. As a matter of fact, we are not particularly happy in Defence in regard to these cases. Mr. Traynor, the former Minister for Defence, intended to put the position to the Government and, with a view to doing that, we submitted a memorandum to the Department of Finance. The present Minister, General MacEoin, is examining the matter, and he, too, is satisfied that it should go to the Government. It is going to the Government for consideration with certain recommendations. You, Sir, as a former member of the Committee, may be aware of the position but, as there are some new members on the Committee, I should like to explain the facts. Invariably when we prepare legislation to award pensions or allowances, we provide machinery so that only people entitled to them can get them, but in this case, in 1942, it was decided to issue a medal to men who had 1916 service and another medal known as the Black and Tan Medal to men who had service subsequent to that period and up to 1921. When these medals were issued there was no question of either a pension or an allowance attaching to them. At a later stage, a man who had 1916 service died in circumstances that gave rise to a lot of criticism. He was destitute at the time and then legislation was introduced which provided that a special allowance would be given to a man who was in possession of a 1916 service medal, just sufficient to keep him from being destitute— 30/- in the case of a single man and a larger amount in the case of a married man. At a later period, it was decided to give special allowances also to people in possession of the Black and Tan Medal. The medals were really granted on the certificate of two officers—that is two pre-Truce I.R.A. officers. We found that while in some cases the officers could certify all right, in others they stated it would be quite impossible for them to know every man in their area. When they did not know the men they made inquiries from responsible people and certified on that. We have fourteen of these cases, and it is a question of whether we should introduce machinery, costly machinery, to make certain that only applicants get medals who are entitled to them or whether we should leave things as they are, seeing that the number is so small. Our Department feels rather uneasy about the matter, and the Minister feels that it should be put to the Government. 202. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Would you not agree that medals. and special allowances have been distributed in a rather loose fashion?—I tried to explain that they are issued on the certificates of officers of each particular unit. We are not very happy about the position, as I have said, and it is for that reason we are submitting the matter to the Government. 203. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—I suppose you are aware that if a man makes application for a medal, he generally goes round to the officers and tries to influence them to make a favourable report. Possibly he is well known locally and is it not likely that they would exaggerate his service in order to help him get a medal? Deputy A. Barry.—I am sure they are all subject to ordinary human weakness. Deputy Bartley.—How does it occur that the information becomes available after the allowance has been made and has, in fact, been drawn and that the preliminary inquiries on the application for an allowance has not elicited information in regard to non-eligibility? Chairman.—I take it that is one of the difficulties now being considered by the Government. 204. Deputy Bartley.—Would it not be advisable to refer to the company lists submitted in conjunction with the administration of service pensions?—We do that. Does that not safeguard them?— Not always. Chairman.—The difficulty for the moment is taken out of our hands, anyway. 205. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—On the other hand, you may have an applicant who is not on friendly terms with the verifying officers and it may be impossible for him, even though he may have a reasonable case, to get a favourable recommendation from these officers. They are supposed to furnish certificates in respect of matters that happened more than thirty years ago. In the meantime some disputes, of a kind that we all know, may have arisen between these parties. Then you have applicants stating that they are not getting justice from the verifying officers. In such a position as that, is there any other avenue of approach open to the applicant if he feels that the verifying officers are not giving a fair recommendation in his case?—We leave the onus on the applicant to prove his case. If he can prove it in another way that is all right. We have had allegations of that kind. Deputy Bartley.—That is a much lesser difficult matter than the other one. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—I am of opinion that money has been distributed by special allowance to some applicants who are not entitled to it. Deputy Bartley.—There are only fourteen cases, that we know. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—That we officially know of, but if you were listening to some people down the country, you would hear them say that some of their neighbours are getting special allowances and they do not know what they are for. 206. Deputy Carter.—Are not these special allowances given only to people who can prove that they are in need?— They are given to any man who is destitute and incapable of earning his living. If he is over seventy years, for instance, he is automatically given the allowance. Under seventy years, he has to be incapable of earning his livelihood. 207. Deputy Carter.—That would suggest that he has some infirmity?—Yes. Deputy Carter.—My experience of it is that if you can prove that you are entitled to it, you will get it. Deputy Bartley.—It is the entitlement to the medal that is in question. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—The consensus of opinion is that the procedure should be tightened up. Chairman.—The matter is under review by the Government, and that takes it out of our hands. We shall now turn to the details of the Vote itself. 208. Deputy Bartley.—In regard to subhead P.—MacSwiney (Pension) Act, 1950—is that subject to a means test?— No. 209. Deputy Bartley.—How is it that there was a saving on the grant? Chairman.—You will see a note on page 195, stating that a number of warrants issued to the pensioner was not presented for payment within the year. General MacMahon.—They did not present them to the bank in time. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. * See Appendix VI. * See Appendix VII. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
