Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1959 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1958 - 1959

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 25 Samhain, 1959.

Wednesday, 25th November, 1959.

The Committee sat at 12 noon.

DEPUTY COSGRAVE in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Mr. C. J. Byrnes, Mr. P. S. MacGuill and Mr. J. F. Maclnerney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 35—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.

61. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead D.— Appropriations in Aid—is the surplus the result of an extra half-year’s dividend during the year of the account? —That I cannot say at the moment, but judging from the figures I would say yes.

There has not been any re-investment? —No.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 65—DUNDRUM ASYLUM.

Dr. W. J. Coyne called and examined.

62. Chairman.—Has a decision yet been reached on the uniforms?—Yes. It was tied up with the question of collars, shirts and ties, but they are in hand and we hope to have them within four weeks.

63. What arrangements do you make for patients maintained outside the Asylum?—It is only in the case of serious illness that we cannot treat them inside the Asylum. At present they are sent to St. Kevin’s where they are treated medically free, but we have to pay for their costs—the cost of their food and their beds—and as well as that we have to have two attendants all the time which runs away with a lot of money. It means four every 24 hours. We get them back as quickly as possible.

Does St. Kevin’s bear the medical costs?—They pay the medical costs.

64. Deputy Sheldon.—What produce from the farm and gardens is, in fact, used in Dundrum?—Potatoes—we are not growing them at present—cabbages. cauliflower, carrots, the usual garden produce.

The number of persons, roughly, who are fed comes to over 120, which means rather less than £3 per head in a year for the whole receipts from the farm and gardens. This, apparently, includes things sold off that are not used in the Asylum. It seems a very low figure if there is any productivity from the land at all?—They are charged at a fixed price and the patient’s labour is costed at a very low figure.

So that the receipts really are, in a way, notional?—You could say that.

65. Deputy Desmond.—I should like to know if those patients who go to outside hospitals are covered by the Health Acts?

Chairman.—Are those patients covered by the Health Acts when they go, for instance, to St. Kevin’s?—I cannot tell you that offhand. When they come to us they become State patients automatically and we are responsible. We have to pay for their maintenance in the outside hospitals.

Deputy Desmond.—It seems to me that if they qualify under the Health Acts they should be a charge on the local authority.

Chairman.—Do you get any contributions from the local authorities in respect of some?—No.

Deputy Desmond.—Could we go further into that? If they are covered by the Health Acts surely the charges should be on the authority concerned rather than on Dundrum.

Deputy Sheldon.—The local authority would have to pay half.

Deputy Desmond.—The local authorities are contributing in some degree to mental hospitals.

Chairman.—Perhaps you could send us a note about the position vis-à-vis the Health Acts, at your convenience?— Yes. I shall do that.*

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 27—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called and examined.

66. Deputy Sheldon.—I have a general question on the matter of salaries. I shall have to refer to some of the other Votes. I have been trying to make out the principle, if there is one, which governs the application of money from Vote 67 to the salaries subheads. Could Mr. Coyne say the basis on which the sums for the Departments under him were arrived at?—As far as I understand, the principle is that the several Departments were asked to make an estimate of the possible savings under the Votes. I know our Department was. We made an estimate of the savings we thought might be effected. The Department of Finance took account of these possible savings and allowed us out of Vote 67 the difference between our savings and the increased remuneration authorised.

Some of the amounts, particularly in the Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, look a bit odd. For instance, in the Registry of Deeds, under subhead D., there is a saving of £1,730 and £31 was received from the Vote for Remuneration. The relationship between the relative saving and the very small grant from the Vote made me wonder about the possible basis of calculation?—In that case there was a substantial saving in the Registry of Deeds due, I think, to the delay in filling certain positions. As you say, is it a relatively substantial saving. That explains why we received less from the Vote for Remuneration.

67. Chairman.—What is covered by subhead A.4.—Legal and Technical Assistance?—Principally the preparation of the Rules of Court. As you know, the Rules of the Supreme Court and the High Court have not yet been finally drafted. The rules committee have been engaged in their drafting for several years and their work is not yet completed. We get a certified claim from the draftsman—certified by the Chief Justice—and we pay on the work actually done.

That is for typing and other work of that sort?—No, it is the fee of the draftsman. The draftsman gets quite a substantial fee, 200 guineas or 400 guineas at a time.

The draftsman in this case is a lawyer? —Senior Counsel. I think the present draftsman is Mr. Raymond O’Neill.

68. Deputy Sheldon.—May I take it that the note on subhead A.3. means that the clerical officer estimated on that subhead in fact did not work but that his work came in under subhead A.1.?—That is so. We had a vacancy in the Accounts Branch which is in our headquarters office, and under subhead A.1. We required a clerical officer in the Censorship of Publications Office. It was suggested to us by the Department of Finance that, instead of increasing the establishment by one clerical officer, we might see whether we could make do without a clerical officer in the Accounts Branch. That is what we did. We are, at present, considering whether we would be able to retrench the post in the Accounts Branch. I am not sure that we will. Instead of filling the vacancy in the Accounts Branch, we seconded an officer to the Censorship Office.

VOTE 28—GARDA SIOCHANA.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

69. Chairman.—Paragraph 52 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Stores

52. Reference was made in paragraph 49 of the report on the accounts for 1954-55 to the system of accounting for transport stores. At a local audit during the year it was noted that the storage arrangements and accounting control were not entirely satisfactory and I have communicated with the Accounting Officer.”

Mr. Suttle.—The accounting officer has informed us that he will shortly be in a position to remedy the dofects in the system.

Mr. Coyne.—I actually visited the workshops myself recently. I must confess I am not very good at this kind of thing. The storeman is a very experienced member of the Garda. Like all storemen, I suppose, he operates to some extent by folklore. There is a very old fashioned system of racks and bins, which we hope to have replaced by steel bins which will be more convenient to use. At the moment the bins are numbered in various ways, but the actual contents of the bins bear numbers that have no relation to those on the bins. The spare parts are numbered in accordance with the manufacturers’ catalogues. A stranger going into the place would be unable to find where a spare gear wheel was or anything else. But the storeman can get it unerringly. I made a spot check. I said “I want to see the bin card for that bin.” There were gears in the bin and the bin card showed “4”. He went straight to the appropriate bin like a homing pigeon. I do not think the thing is entirely satisfactory. I then inspected an outside garage owned by a friend of mine. They had an elaborate system— a Kardex system—and a somewhat better bin card. In addition, they had a job card. Our own workshops have job cards, too, on which is set out what is requisite to be done. The system is defective, however, in the absence of some sort of Kardex system. We will try to institute one. One of the difficulties is that, under the system operated, spare parts are issued without a written requisition being filled out beforehand. The mechanic says to me, holding out his hands filled with oil, “I cannot sign a requisition. In any case, I am no penman.” The sergeant mechanic, who has authorised the supply of the spare parts, says “I have been called off to test this car and I should be half-way down the Park now. This is a priority job and I have simply to tell the mechanic to get the parts and I have to sign the requisition afterwards.” That is not entirely satisfactory, but it is not easy to remedy without increasing the supervisory staff. That is what I am thinking of doing. I hope to have consultations with my own experts, and, if necessary, I shall consult the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office again to see if the arrangement is satisfactory.

70. Chairman.—How do the costs of maintenance compare with private garages?—We have been making a most elaborate, but still not elaborate enough, check of all this. On the advice of some efficiency experts we have had, we have been trying to establish a system of cost control. The latest communication we have had from the Commissioner tells us what he has done and what the results have been. It seems to me that we are doing too little or too much. By that I mean it is doubtful whether what we have done already is worth what it has cost us. It has cost us a great deal. We have had a sergeant wholetime on this. Within the last few days we have had some indication of the results, and the results do not seem to be valuable enough to warrant the money we have expended. If we are to get more valuable results, we will have to spend a great deal more money. We are considering at the moment whether it is worth going on with.

71. Deputy Moloney.—I am sorry that, because of a Party meeting, I was unable to be here at the commencement. I take it that the storage arrangements and accounts control in the workshops were not entirely satisfactory? I am rather surprised to find that. I know something of the arrangements in operation in the Garda workshops and I can compare them with the arrangements existing in commercial firms. Even the best scheme in the world is not foolproof. I should like to know if a mechanic or workman requires an item of material, is that applied for on written requisition every time, or is there a docket given afterwards?—The answer to that is “No”. What happens is, the car is stripped down. It comes in for repairs, possibly as a result of an accident. It is stripped down and the mechanic on the job notes what parts appear to him to be in need of replacement. He then reports verbally to the sergeant mechanic in charge, who himself inspects the car and specifies what replacements are requisite. The sergeant then verbally authorises the mechanic to go to the storeroom and obtain the requisite parts from the storeroom. There is a “job card” on which the requisites are noted. The mechanic goes to the storeroom and asks for the parts and the storeroom issues the parts and fills out a requisition form. The form is filled up by the storeman. It is not signed at the time. It is subsequently signed by the sergeant who has authorised the parts. What is unsatisfactory is that the requisition is not signed simultaneously with the issue of the parts. That is impracticable. I visited a particular garage myself —a very sizable one—and they were kind enough there to show me all over it. There are certain precautions which they do not insist on being taken because experience has shown them that it is more expensive to take these precautions than to operate a less watertight system. That may not be generally true, but the short answer to the Deputy is that a written requisition is not signed before the issue of the parts. It is to that that the Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention.

Deputy Moloney.—The only comment I have to make is that the system as explained by Mr. Coyne appears to me to be perfectly suitable. I should be quite happy with it in a private commercial firm of a similar type. It might not work in a concern in which the public have to be served, as such. There is here, however, a very high degree of supervision and it is quite obvious to me that the sergeant mechanic in charge does verify, as far as he can possibly do so, that the parts were issued and were put into the car. I think that is as good as one could have it. That is my opinion anyhow. I offer it in case I can give any help in that line.

Mr. Coyne.—May I say, I am obliged to the Deputy.

72. Deputy Booth.—On subhead C., there is an excess there which, according to the note, resulted from the performance of special duties “involving a large number of temporary transfers for extended periods”. Were these temporary transfers as a result of Border duties?

Chairman.—Was this Border work?— Yes. We have extra men on Border duty.

73. Deputy Booth.—On subhead H., 1 notice a reduction there, but on checking the Estimate I noticed that this subhead covers maintenance and expense on cars for various people, including the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Is a car, in fact, provided for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle at the moment?—I believe that is an error in the note. Apparently when the Ceann Comhairle is absent, through illness or for some other reason, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle gets a car. I do not know if that is the justification for the note. In fact, there is no car permanently earmarked for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

74. On the Appropriations in Aid, there is a note “Payments for services rendered”. Is that in relation to the Garda Band. What services are rendered on a repayable basis?—In connection with certain sporting and other public fixtures, police are laid on normally for the regulation of traffic and the preservation of public order; these are laid on free of charge. In addition, the promoters of these things ask for special police inside the ground, or for some other purpose; in that case we make a charge.

Would the Band also be covered under that heading?—Yes, but only in relation to the cost of official transport. I think the demand, in fact, for extra police services is in excess of our ability to supply police.

75. I possibly should know this, but I do not: how is the Reward Fund financed? The total amount credited in the year was £11,122; where exactly does this money come from?—The matter is governed by section 18 of the Garda Síochána Act, 1924, as amended by section 51 of the Garda Officers Act, 1926. The Fund is fed roughly in the following way: disciplinary fines imposed on any member of the Garda Síochána, except fines imposed to meet damage caused by such member; all fines and proportions of fines, or penalties directed by or under any Act for the time being in force, to be paid into such Fund; and all fees allowed by law to be taken by members of the Garda Síochána as ex-officio inspectors of weights and measures, in so far as such fines are not applicable to the payment of expenses in carrying out the provisions of the Weights and Measures Acts; and all fines directed by the Act of 1924 and the Act of 1926 to be paid into the Fund. The Fund is governed by regulation dated 4th February, 1925, made by the Minister for Justice with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. The short answer to the Deputy’s inquiry is that the bulk of the moneys by which the Fund is fed comes from the fees allowed to be taken by the ex-officio inspectors of weights and measures. The other fees are a relatively small proportion of the Fund.

VOTE 29—PRISONS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

76. Deputy Desmond.—Could we have a little information on subhead P.?

Chairman.—The Deputy wants to know why the expenditure was £5,000 less than the grant?—The short answer to that is that less materials were purchased than were estimated for because of the fact that certain contracts with the Post Office Stores, which were anticipated, were not in fact forthcoming. We do some manufacturing for the Post Office Stores—I think, mail bags—and we have to estimate, or make a guess, at how many mail bags or how much material will be requisite for this purpose. In this particular year the estimate went awry. We did not get as many contracts as we anticipated.

Deputy Desmond.—Is the bulk of the £5,000 involved in less contracts from the Post Office?—Yes.

77. Could I be told, under the Appropriations in Aid, when was the value of Cork Prison fixed at £5,000?—I am not sure that I can give that information offhand. I have not got the date. I shall have to give you a note on that. I think I can say that it was shortly before the decision to hand it over to Cork University.*

VOTE 30—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

78. Deputy Sheldon.—Do I take it that, under subhead A., where various sums are noted, those sums should be added to the expenditure under the subhead? In this there is a sum of £2,700 from Vote 67. Is that to be added to the £3,672 to get the true figure?—That is so.

79. Chairman.—Under subhead D., is the grant still the same?—I am glad to say it has been increased somewhat. Your predecessor commented rather scathingly on the small amount of the allowance and it has been increased from 15/- to 25/-per week.

VOTE 31—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

80. Deputy Moloney.—Do I take it that the salaries of County Registrars are covered under subhead A.?—Yes.

VOTE 32—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

81. Chairman.—Under subhead F.— Expenses of High Court—what exactly is covered by that?—It covers the High Court going out on circuit to hear both circuit appeals and ordinary actions.

Deputy Moloney.—May I ask how are those expenses incurred and by whom? Do I take it they are travelling, hotel and subsistence allowances?—Yes. Actually the circuit going judges are provided with board and lodging at the State expense. In most cases the lodging house keeper is paid a retainer so that the circuit going judge is boarded and lodged free of charge. There is an allowance of £100 in respect of each sitting, of which there are two a year, to cover the travelling and other expenses of the judge and his crier. In addition some Court officials go out with the judges on circuit and their ordinary expenses and subsistences are paid.

82. Deputy Moloney.—I do not know if I am entitled to make a comment—if I am not the Chair can correct me—but I should just like to make a point which may or may not be already known to the officials of the Department and perhaps something could be done about it. There seems to be an undesirable practice that has crept in in connection with the boarding of High Court and Circuit Judges who only lodge with certain people who are not in the catering business. For instance in one part of the country a judge stays with a district justice and in another part with some other official of the Department. The objection to that is that they may be sitting on a case previously tried by one of these men. It does not look good.

Chairman.—I think that is more appropriately a question of policy. Is there any basis on which lodgings are decided?—No, it would be impossible to lodge with any human being who might not become the subject of legal proceedings but the matter is determined by practical considerations. It is enormously difficult to get people with houses which are sufficiently large and otherwise suitable to accommodate the judges. An attempt is made to get the kind of house that has a sufficiency of sitting-rooms, bathrooms and bedrooms for the judge and his crier, or two judges and their criers, and maintaining the standards which it is reasonable to expect for judges. It is difficult to get people who are willing to receive the judges. I am not saying that in any offensive way, but people with sufficiently large houses of the requisite kind are unwilling to put themselves to the trouble and inconvenience of opening up their houses twice a year to strangers. Consequently the houses available to us are extremely limited.

83. In some cases do they stay with officials?—Sometimes they stay in hotels but they prefer lodging houses. Lodging houses are difficult to find. So far as I know we have never experienced any difficulty of the kind which the Deputy has in mind. I am not aware that that question has actually arisen, though it could arise. Certainly we would try to avoid lodging the judges with a household which is notoriously litigious.

Deputy Moloney.—That is not the point at all. It looks bad that people in good private circumstances have to be picked out to accommodate the judges. I am not attempting to suggest that these gentlemen would in any way get at the judges, or try to influence their decisions, but they are turning themselves in to catering establishments while there are very suitable hotels available. I am referring only to High Court and Circuit Court Judges?—That is a question of policy, whether judges should be accommodated in lodging houses or in hotels.

Chairman.—I think the Deputy should raise the matter on the appropriate Estimate.

VOTE 33—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 34—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

84. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—can you tell us how it happens that the Deputy Keeper gets less than the Assistant Keeper?—Because the Deputy Keeper has the misfortune to be a woman. I am not free to express any opinion but, in fact, women are paid less than men.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 57—DEFENCE.

Mr. H. C. Brady called and examined.

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

“Subhead K.—Provisions and Allowances in lieu

90. 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 £80 and £77 per head, respectively, as compared with £73 and £71 in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 713 lbs. and 675 lbs., respectively, as compared with 712 lbs. and 680 lbs.”

I notice, Mr. Brady, that the price of cattle purchased increased. Was that due to a market fluctuation or was the quality better?—It was a market fluctuation.

86. Chairman.—Paragraph 91 reads:—

“Subhead M.—Clothing and Equipment

91. In June 1958 the Government acceeded to a request from the Secretary General of the United Nations Organisation to provide officers to serve with the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon. 50 officers were sent and on completion of the mission 48 returned. Two were transferred to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation in Jerusalem. The conditions of service provided that the cost of travel by air from the home country to the mission area, and return, would be paid by the United Nations, together with a daily subsistence allowance. The salaries of the officers were borne by the Department. As noted in the account expenditure amounting to £2,584 was incurred on special clothing allowances, etc., and £150 was paid towards the travelling expenses of the family of one of the officers still serving in Jerusalem.”

In connection with this paragraph can you say if any of the expenditure incurred in regard to the officers sent to the Lebanon is recoverable from the United Nations?—This is a matter for the Department of External Affairs and we have taken it up with them.

87. Have all the officers returned?—All except two. They were kept on in Palestine. They are Colonel McCarthy and Captain Jordan and their period of duty has been extended for another year. There were 50 officers in all and 48 have returned.

88. Chairman.—We now turn to paragraph 92 which is as follows:—

“Subhead P.2,—Naval Service

92. Certain properties at Haulbowline, including a jetty, were leased to an oil company in 1931. In 1947, following discussions with the Department regarding the unsatisfactory conditions of the jetty, which was essential for its business activities, the company indicated that if a new jetty were erected at State expense it would, as soon as it became available for use, agree to an increase of £1,000 per annum in the rent payable and would make the free use of the new jetty available to Naval Service vessels for refuelling, etc. A contract for the construction of the new jetty was placed by the Office of Public Works in 1949 at a cost of £69,000.

In August 1950 when approximately one-third of the construction work had been completed, the contractor suspended work pending consideration of representations which he had made regarding site difficulties. The oil company gave notice in 1951 terminating all its leases in Haulbowline and a revised contract was subsequently entered into with the contractor for the completion of the jetty on a smaller scale. This work was completed in 1953, and the total amount expended was approximately £85,000.

Following the surrender of the leases certain oil storage tanks and equipment were purchased from the company for £30,610. The tanks are used to some extent for the storage of fuel oil for the Naval Service. In view of the amount expended, I invited the observations of the Accounting Officer regarding the future use of the jetty and installations. I was informed that tenders have been invited in December 1957 for a lease of the oil installations and jetty to enable an oil bunkering business to be carried on at Haulbowline but that no offers were received. Recent arrangements for the development of a dockyard industry in Cork Harbour provided for the granting of facilities at Haulbowline to the development company at any time up to January 1964 should that company so require, and the grant of such facilities might compel the Naval Service to use the oil base as alternative accommodation. In addition, the jetty was in constant use by the Naval Service for the efficient functioning of which it was essential. In all the circumstances it was not proposed to take any further action with a view to leasing the oil installations and jetty.”

Are the installations and jetty in use at the moment by the Naval Service?—We have since sold 15 of the tanks. There are ten remaining and eight are needed for the Naval Service. We are considering the position with regard to the other two.

89. Deputy Booth.—Can we have some further information on the question of property which was realised? Originally, I note, the arrangement was that there was a rent of £1,000 per annum. Could we find out what was the original rent charged in 1931? Was £1,000 per annum a very big proportionate increase?—It was £2,000 a year from 1931 for a period of 42 years.

It was £1,000 and went up to £2,000? —No, it was originally £2,000. The increase of £1,000 never became operative because these people surrendered their leases before the jetty was finished.

90. How was it that there was a contract placed for the new jetty at a cost of £69,000 and that subsequently a revised contract was entered into with the contractors for the completion of a jetty on a smaller scale and yet the work cost £85,000, instead of the original figure of £69,000?—The trouble with the original contract was that the contractor came on bad foundations and was not able to go ahead. Presumably in overcoming those difficulties the cost was increased.

Was there an escape clause in the contract, or how did the contractor get out of his original liability to complete the contract on a larger scale for £69,000?—The contractor represented that he could not carry out the work according to the plans and specifications because of these unexpected difficulties.

91. Deputy Booth.—We have had so many instances where contracts have been entered into and where the contractor has failed to comply and has come back and made representations or ad misericordiam pleas that the contract should be varied in his favour. It seems that there is no point in placing a contract for a comparatively big job like that if a man can come along when approximately one-third of the work is finished and say: “I cannot go on. Please let me re-tender.” It seems it is not the sort of thing that is normal in ordinary business that you should be able to get out of a contract.

Chairman. — The Comptroller and Auditor General may be able to assist us in this.

Mr. Suttle.—If I remember rightly the original contractor in this case got into financial difficulties apart from the difficulties in the work. Perhaps Mr. Brady could assist?—I cannot, because it was an Office of Public Works contract.

Mr. Suttle.—It was an Office of Public Works contract but I think the original contractor got into financial difficulties apart from the difficulties of the work itself, that he had difficulty in finding foundations for the piles?—That is so.

Mr. Suttle.—And that the original boring made prior to the submission of tenders apparently proved to be wrong. When the contractor was sinking the piles he found he would have to go to a much greater depth to get a proper foundation and it was on that account that he ran into those physical and financial difficulties or rather the physical difficulties drove him into financial difficulties.

Deputy Sheldon.—Could Mr. Brady say if it was the same contractor who finished the job?—No, it was a different contractor.

92. Deputy Booth.—Is the Comptroller and Auditor General happy about the placing of this contract originally because I feel there is sometimes a danger of accepting a contract or placing a contract where the financial stability and technical ability of the contractor may not have been given full weight? My own experience has been that very often a higher price contract is cheaper in the end.

Mr. Suttle.—I think it is the normal practice that the technical ability and capability of all contractors are taken into account before contracts are given. Price alone is not the prime reason for giving any particular man the contract. We have found that, in general, capabilities are investigated before a contract is given. I think, in this case, the Office of Public Works was quite satisfied that this man also appeared to be quite capable of carrying out the work.

Deputy Booth.—He appeared to be?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

93. Chairman.—Can you say when the second contractor was invited? Was that by means of tender?

Mr. Suttle.—It would be by means of tender, yes.

Chairman.—I take it that contract was to complete work already started?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes, it was in a modified form.

Deputy Booth.—I presume costs had just gone up in the meantime and that possibly explains the increase in quoted prices.

94. Chairman.—In paragraph 93 of his Report the Comptroller and Auditor General says:—

“93. The engine of the s.s. “Wyndham”, one of the Department’s vessels engaged on garrison duty at Haulbowline, broke down in March 1958. The spare parts necessary for its repair were not received until April 1959 and as a result the vessel was out of service until June 1959. In reply to my inquiry as to the cause of the delay I am informed that it was considered necessary, before seeking the sanction of the Department of Finance for the carrying out of the repairs, to obtain a Surveyor’s report on the nature and cause of the damage. This report was received in June 1958 and, after it had been considered, work on the preparation of drawings of the parts required for the repair of the engine was put in hand. The drawings, which were highly complicated, were completed in September and tenders were received in October. Sanction for the repairs, estimated to cost £870, was received in December following which the order was placed.

The hiring of alternative vessels, attributable to the s.s. “Wyndham’s” being out of service, was, I am informed, confined to some twenty days in June and five in November 1958, and the cost, £642, was borne on this subhead.”

In connection with the s.s. Wyndham, would it not be cheaper to hire a vessel when one is required rather than maintain this one?—These vessels are in constant use and the costs of renting one all the time would be absolutely prohibitive.

95. Deputy Booth.—What actual duties are performed by a boat like that on garrison duty? Is it just for the transport of men and materials, carrying them backwards and forwards?—The principal duties are carrying passengers and cargoes to and from Haulbowline and the other islands there.

96. It does seem odd—does it not— that when the s.s. Wyndham was out of service for a very considerable time an alternative boat was required only on a total of 25 days? Is that unusual? —We had two vessels of the Wyndham type and some time previously it had been decided, as a matter of economy, to lay off one of them and the Wyndham and another vessel were being used six months at a time. When the Wyndham got knocked out we called the other boat back into service.

So that means that you are really holding one boat in reserve?—That is so.

97. Deputy Moloney.—In connection with the repair of this engine, it seems to me that the time spent in requisitioning, in getting certain internal sanctions and in getting the parts was, to say the least of it, rather protracted. Was there any reason why all that time lag took place between one operation and another before the work could be put in hand?— In the ordinary course a naval service court of inquiry would be held to ascertain the cause of the damage if it was felt there had been some neglect. As this boat was operated by a civilian crew it was decided that a naval court would not be suitable and the Department of Industry and Commerce were asked to hold an inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts. They told us they were not in a position to do so as they were very busy. In the meantime, some time had elapsed. It was then found that the damage was due to a flaw that had been in the engine from the time it had been made, in a piston casting made in 1947. The Naval Service then carried out a survey of the damage and recommended that a new casting should be purchased and that the old machinery should be repaired. A drawing was required for this. Apparently it was a drawing of a very intricate type and it took a long time to get it done.

98. Deputy Sheldon.—Would Mr. Brady say that the original casting was defective from the time it was put in?— That was the opinion of the Naval Service.

Was that matter pursued with the suppliers?—The casting was obtained in 1947. No, it was not pursued.

Surely the time of itself would not be material if it was defective originally?— Well, we would have the job of proving that it was not due to fair wear and tear; besides, the metal available in 1947 was possibly not very good.

99. Deputy Moloney.—Arising out of what Mr. Brady has said about the piston casting being defective, I take it that he is working on reports that have been sent to him by the technical people. I think any technical men would find it very difficult to explain how a defective piston casting or part could continue working from 1947 to 1959, approximately, being defective the whole time. I should like that to be further explained. In any case, irrespective of what the cause was, the engine broke down and the obvious thing to do was to get it repaired and if the present arrangements regarding inter-departmental sanctions are such that they are going to repeat that performance on similar occasions my suggestion is that this Committee should consider, in its report, referring to that point with a view to trying to improve the present position?—When a vessel has an accident it must be surveyed and we felt that it should be surveyed, under the appropriate Act, by the Department of Industry and Commerce and we reported the matter to them. They told us they were not in a position to survey it because they were too busy. We then went ahead on our own and decided to get the Naval people to survey it. They did so and recommended that this engine should be repaired. All that took time and then, apparently, there was some difficulty about getting a drawing as the drawings were rather intricate. This was a concealed part not normally open to examination.

100. Chairman.—Paragraph 94 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

“Subhead Q.—Engineer Stores

94. In the course of an examination of the log books of concrete mixers, compressors and other plant located at an Engineer Maintenance Company store it was observed that some items had been out of use for considerable periods. In reply to an inquiry regarding eleven items I was informed that five were awaiting sale as the result of recommendations of Boards of Survey and that one was in use. The remainder were either undergoing repairs or were held as stand-by equipment to provide against breakdowns, large scale field exercises or emergencies.”

It is stated, Mr. Brady, that there was an excess charge on public funds and your observations were invited. Have you anything further to say on that?— Five of the items have since been sold. In the case of one of them it was decided it would be uneconomic to repair and that it should be put before a Board of Survey. Another has been repaired and put back into service. That leaves five items and they are held as stand-by equipment in the case of breakdown of similar equipment, or in the event of pressure of work, or large scale field exercises.

Have the others been disposed of?— Five have been disposed of.

101. Chairman.—Paragraph 95 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:—

“95. Fire extinguishers in general use are of two main types, viz., water type for ordinary risks—buildings, furniture, etc., and foam type for special risks, oils, paints, fats, petrol, etc. Investigations by a board of officers appointed to inquire as to the most suitable fire extinguishers for use by the Defence Forces revealed that 90 per cent. of the 6,000 extinguishers in use in 1956 were of the foam type whereas 25 per cent. was considered a more reasonable proportion for this type in view of its limited purpose.

I noticed that £3,000 was expended on 332 foam type out of a total of 392 extinguishers purchased during the year, and having regard to the recommendations of the inquiry board I invited the observations of the Accounting Officer. I am informed that it is the intention gradually to replace foam extinguishers by water type until the proportions approximate to those recommended by the board. But for the present, unserviceable foam extinguishers are being replaced by new foam extinguishers as the use of water types by untrained personnel would create certain risks, e.g., where electrical wiring is involved. It would not, I am informed, be possible to organise and train special fire parties for each barracks and post, pending the promulgation of proposed Defence Force regulations.”

Deputy Booth. — What exactly is a water type fire extinguisher? Is that just a pump or is it a bucket?—No, it is an extinguisher.

Chairman.—Is it just connected to a hydrant?—No, it is independent.

Deputy Sheldon.—Would “liquid” not have been a better term than water? Surely it is not just water?—The water extinguisher has some sort of acid in the water as distinct from the foam extinguisher.

102. I am not very clear about the decision in this matter? Are we to have fewer foam extinguishers or not? It seems a bit confused?—We are going to have fewer foam extinguishers. The difficulty of carrying out the recommendations of the Board of Officers who recommended these extinguishers is that, under existing regulations, the Corps of Engineers are responsible for fire prevention and protection in barracks. Buildings in the barracks may from time to time be changed from one use to another by the Officer Commanding at the barracks. The Engineers feel that they would not be in a position to decide what particular type of fire extinguisher should be in a building when the purpose for which the building is used may be changed. So it is proposed to transfer responsibility for fire prevention to the Officer Commanding the barracks and Regulations are being prepared to carry that into effect. In the meantime where we need extinguishers we will buy foam extinguishers because water extinguishers are dangerous to use on account of electric wiring. It is felt that it is absolutely necessary to have fully trained crews to use water extinguishers, as against foam extinguishers.

103. The reason for my confusion is that I thought these water-type extinguishers were the sort of thing sold to the general public and did not require skill in use at all?—The view of the Corps of Engineers is that foam extinguishers are not dangerous to use in any circumstances, whereas water extinguishers definitely are in some circumstances.

Was that report before the Board that reported the other way—that there ought to be water extinguishers instead of foam extinguishers?—It was.

Deputy Sheldon.—It seems a bit confusing.

104. Chairman.—Paragraph 96 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead S.—Barrack Maintenance and New Works

96. Reference was made in previous reports to the erection of 88 houses for married soldiers by direct labour under the supervision of the Corps of Engineers as the Office of Public Works could not give the project the required priority. Other major constructional works of a type normally carried out by the Office of Public Works have been undertaken on a similar basis and the principal projects are as follows:—

105. Chairman.—Paragraph 97 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead U.—Compensation

97. The charge to this subhead comprises:—

106. Chairman.—Paragraphs 98 and 99 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:—

“98. A privately owned lorry was damaged in a collision with an Army vehicle and compensation amounting to £190 (including £122 the estimated cost of repairs) lodged in Court by the Department was accepted by the owner in settlement of her claim. Under a “halving” agreement between the Minister for Finance and the company with which the lorry was insured £61 was claimed by the Department. But the company had already paid on behalf of the owner £178 for the repairs and it counterclaimed £89. The matter was referred to an arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the “halving” agreement and his award provided for the payment by the Department to the company of £89 which is charged to this subhead. There accordingly appears to have been an excess charge on public funds for the cost of repairs to the lorry and I have invited the observations of the Accounting Officer.

Statement of Losses

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

The corresponding figures for losses in the previous year were £51 and £10,923.”

Have you any observations to make on this matter, Mr. Brady? Apparently there was an excess charge on public funds?— The reply since given to the Comptroller and Auditor General indicates that the Attorney General is considering the question of proceeding against the owner of the lorry to recover the amount which we paid in respect of repairs to the lorry.

107. Deputy Lynch.—With regard to subhead A.2—Expenses of Equitation Teams at Horse Shows—I notice that the Grant was £8,500 and we only spent £3,673. Are we not competing?

Chairman.—There is an explanatory note at page 182.

108. Chairman.—Are the horses for the Equitation Team purchased by a Board? —They are, yes.

How is the Board constituted?— Until quite recently the Chairman of the Board was Judge Wylie, who has retired. There is also the Officer Commanding the Equitation School and an Agricultural Inspector of the Department of Agriculture.

109. There is no Army veterinary surgeon?—He is not a member of the Board, but he examines a horse before it is purchased.

110. Is there any limit to the amount which may be spent on an individual horse?—No, none whatever.

111. Deputy Lynch.—Is the team of horses up to strength?—The team is up to strength but the horses are regarded as being in training. We have very few horses that are fully trained. We bought a number of horses during the year and they are regarded as being in training.

112. On subhead P.—Defensive Equipment—what kind of defensive equipment are we buying? Would that be arms?— Yes.

Would I be entitled to ask what kind of arms have we bought with that £90,000?—There were various kinds of arms and I have not got a list with me. The excess was due to an increase in the price of Bren guns, which we did not anticipate.

I take it we are not buying any old-fashioned arms?—No.

They are up-to-date automatic arms?— Yes.

113. Deputy Sheldon. — Could Mr. Brady tell us what he did with the truncheons he got from the Garda Síochána? I notice they handed over spare truncheons to the Department of Defence. Do the M.P.s get them?—They were probably for issue to detention barracks and camps. I am not quite sure about that. I really could not say.

Deputy Lynch.—Would we class these truncheons as out of date weapons?— Presumably the Gardaí would.

VOTE 58—ARMY PENSIONS.

Mr. H. C. Brady further examined.

114. —Deputy Lynch.—On subhead I.— Military Service Pensions—would they be old I.R.A. pensions?—Yes, that is as distinct from special allowances.

115. Connaught Rangers are mentioned in subhead M. What about them in regard to special allowances?—As you know, a special allowance may be awarded, apart from a pension, to a man with I.R.A. service who has been awarded a medal and who is in necessitous circumstances. The same applies to Connaught Ranger Pensioners.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix VII.

* See Appendix VIII.

* Estimate only—work still in progress.”