|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 20 Samhain, 1975.Thursday, 20th November, 1975.The Committee met at 11 a.m.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.1. Deputy Pattison.—I move that Deputy de Valera be elected as Chairman of the Committee. Deputy Griffin.—I second that. Question: “That Deputy de Valera be Chairman of the Committee”—put and agreed to. DEPUTY de VALERA took the chair. 2. Chairman.—Thank you very much for the honour of putting me in the Chair again. Since we are the same Committee that got through the last accounts, I think we should be able together to expedite scrutiny of the 1973-74 accounts. Again, I want to thank you for your co-operation. We did not miss one meeting of the last committee for want of a quorum. That is a very satisfactory record and I hope we will be able to do the same on this Committee. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.VOTE 40—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.Mr. P. Ó Slatarra called and examined.3. Chairman.—Paragraph 51 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead T.—Ardmore Studios Purchase The Government decided in July, 1973 that the Ardmore Film Studios should be purchased and managed by Radio Telefís Éireann on behalf of the State until such time as the Minister for Industry and Commerce would establish a new body for the promotion of a film industry. Advances of £433,500 were made from the Central Fund to Radio Telefís Éireann under Section 23 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, 1960, to finance the purchase. The charge to the subhead, £457,473, represents the repayment to the Central Fund of the advances together with interest. The Government decision directed that any surplus land attaching to the studios should be sold and I inquired whether such land had been identified and, if so, whether steps had been taken to have it sold. The Accounting Officer has informed me that it will not be possible to identify the studios’ exact requirements in terms of land until the board of the proposed state company to run the studios has been appointed and has considered the matter. He further states that legislation is being promoted in relation to the film industry and that it will include provisions in regard to the company to run the studios. He adds that proposals are, however, being formulated to incorporate the company and to appoint a board of directors in advance of the enactment of the legislation.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee. I understand that a company has been incorporated under the Companies Act to operate the studios and that the lands and premises have been transferred to it by RTE with effect from 1st July, 1975. 4. Chairman.—How does this affect this Estimate? Mr. Mac Gearailt.—It is a recoupment to refund the cost of acquisition of the studios. 5. Deputy C. Murphy.—Does this mean that if surplus lands are found to be available they will be sold and the money will be reimbursed to Industry and Commerce? —This would mean if there are surplus lands that they would be sold. I could not say immediately what ultimately would be the disposal of the money. Initially the company would sell the lands. There would be an accounting procedure later but I am not in a position to say at this stage what it would be. 6. Deputy Moore.—Is anything happening in the studios at the moment? —Yes. The company have been running the studios. Some films have actually been made in them. Others have been made on location and the general services of the studio for processing and so forth have been available as well. They are active. 7. Chairman.—There is the transfer of responsibility in this? —Yes, that is right. 8. Deputy C. Murphy.—I know that there has been new fencing in this area which would indicate that they have been deciding where precisely are the boundaries of the studios vis-à-vis the private lands in the area. —I have no information about fencing. I have not been in the area myself. All I know is that we have brought to the notice of the company the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General and have asked them to decide as soon as possible what land will be surplus to their requirements. 9. Chairman.—On subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is a saving of £84,458 as against the grant. The note explains that that is due in the main to expenditure by the National Prices Commission on the employment of technical advisers, which was £69,000 and the balance was accounted for by unfilled staff vacancies. The technical advisers in your Department are casual, is that not so? —They are recruited for a specific purpose. 10. In view of the substantial commitment in that regard that is likely to occur from time to time in your Department, should you not consider breaking subhead A into two categories, say, subhead A (1)—Salaries, Wages and Staff—in which case you would have shown a saving of £15,000 only in relation to a sum in excess of £1,500,000, which would give a truer picture of your staff position and then subhead A (2) for which you might find a proper description. Would you consider that suggestion? —Certainly I would consider it. It has been a long established arrangement that we put all this under subhead A. Offhand, I would see no immediate difficulty. There may be some technical accounting procedure in it but certainly we would consider it. 11. May I make that suggestion? It would give the Committee a clearer view on the Estimate, giving your Civil Service staff accurately and briefly and your experts, where you command advice or services from time to time from outside, particularly where you have something like the National Prices Commission, which will be a significant load on your Department for a foreseeable time. —There is one factor that could affect your suggestion, Mr. Chairman. That is that within the Prices Commission we have now established a consultancy unit which will be able to do an amount of the work but not all of it. 12. Yes, well there again you would have to decide. This is, roughly speaking, what I am suggesting: a permanent staff of civil service category—again using very loose, inaccurate language to convey the idea—accounted for in one and, additional to that, ancillary to it, what I might again call, inaccurately, casual employment by your Department. However, we need not delay on it. —The only comment I would like to make is that, while you have referred to these as casual employees, which in a sense is correct, they are in fact firms of consultants engaged for a specific project. I understand that. I have been using these terms in an inaccurate and loose way in order to convey the generality of the idea. It is merely a suggestion but I think it would be helpful. 13. Deputy Griffin.—In view of the large number of people at present unemployed in Ireland, would it be possible that every single staff vacancy be filled immediately in your Department? —There are a number of issues involved in that. We have both administrative, or executive staff, and technical staff. In the case of the administrative or executive staff we rely for recruitment on the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, there may be times during a year when staff may not be available for our authorised vacancies. In the case of technical staff, we often find difficulty in recruitment because our levels of remuneration do not always compare favourably with those in competitive areas outside. You may take it that, so far as we are concerned, we are anxious to fill any vacancies that we have, to keep our staff at the authorised level, because of the pressures that exist at present. 14. Deputy Tunney.—Why was the employment so much less than anticipated? —It is one of these things that can never be accurately predicted. You have a number of staff vacancies which you know are coming along. You know you will have the vacancies. You make an assumption that they will be filled but, for various reasons, including two of the points I mentioned just now in response to the earlier query, you may not be able to fill them. 15. What would be the total? —The total there is £15,000. I am talking about the employment of technical advisers, the matter of £69,000? —This related to staff—consultants— required by the National Prices Commission. At the beginning of the year when one is budgeting for the work of the Commission one knows that certain matters may require further examination by them and that there is a likelihood that consultancies will be necessary. That £69,000 relates to the employment of firms of consultants rather than the direct engagement of staff. So this would relate to consultancies which were expected might be required but which, for one reason or another, did not occur during the year. 16. Chairman.—The Deputies’ questions, together with your reply, reinforce the suggestion I have made, because the £15,000 for staff would represent approximately only seven people over a year. But the £69,000 is really a payment to a group, to a consultancy agency probably? —Or agencies. It is not any measure at all of the number employed. I should like to add that to reinforce my suggestion. —I appreciate the significance of your suggestion, Mr. Chairman. 17. On subhead B.1—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there is an excess of £758, which is a reasonable proportion. I take it that that represents increased costs? —Yes, there has been an amount of increased travelling. We are dealing here with 1973-74. As you will recall, that was part of the first year we entered the EEC. The result was that there was a good deal more travelling than we had expected. There was also increased travelling by prices inspectors. And in your Supplementary Estimate there was actually a shortfall? —Just a little under what was actually required. 18. On subhead C—Advertising and Publicity—there is a note which says that claims for payment for advertising were not received to the extent anticipated. Was there actually advertising placed and the people who carried it did not claim? —They did not claim within the year. Possibly I explained this on previous occasions to the Committee. These claims for advertising go through the Stationery Office. The Stationery Office present the bills to us and we have to wait until they come in. Often, particularly towards the end of the year, the bills do not come in within the year and we have to carry them into the following one. But I assure you that there is no philanthropist who has withheld his claim. 19. Deputy Moore—Taking subheads D— Geological Survey—Equipment, Stores and Maintenance—and E—Minerals Development —together, what exactly is done with the money? Do the mining companies use our services? —If I might explain that: subhead D is purely related to our own geological survey and the costs entailed in its operation. Subhead E is what I might call almost a contingency subhead in the sense that it is related only to areas where minerals were compulsorily acquired and where compensation may have to be paid to the landowners The two subheads do not go any wider than that. 20. What do they do? Do they actually undertake a physical survey? —The Geological Survey? Amongst other things, they carry out physical surveys themselves and report on geological structures and so on. They do an amount of practical field work. 21. Deputy Bermingham.—Do they engage in water exploration? —They do a certain amount of that as well— water resources. 22. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The staff number shown for 1972-73 is 43 and it is the same for 1973-74. Have the numbers increased since then? —They have increased. We have got authority to bring up the establishment considerably over the figure of 43. One of our difficulties is the recruitment of staff and the time taken to do that, especially in the case of technical people. 23. Deputy Tunney.—Would there be any liaison between your Department and, say, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries who administer a scheme of grants for sinking of wells and who would encounter a certain amount of geological information in that exercise? —The geological information that would be obtained in the sinking of a well would not be of considerable significance. It would be of some? —It could be of some significance. 24. You would bore maybe 300 feet and oftentimes maybe more when looking for water? It is a relatively small thing but I just wondered was there any link-up at all between the two. —There is not what I would call a formal link. There could be a casual one in relation to a particular area. I thought you would have some information, that is all. —The geological resources have been surveyed so intensively by the Geological Survey itself supplemented by the prospecting done by companies who have been given licences that, I think, the main geological formations are known fairly well. 25. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Is the Accounting Officer satisfied that there is adequate advice available now to him and his Department on the question of geological surveying, excavating and examining results coming in from the activities of various people? —I would like to see the staff we have now got authorised brought up to full strength. At the moment there is more work for the Geological Survey to do than they can cope with with their present resources. With the increased staff I would expect that that position would be remedied. 26. It is accepted that multi-nationals, or call them what you like, are very well equipped with expert advice. Are we adequately equipped in the same way as they are? —I think one might reasonably say that no medium-sized country such as ours could ever hope to be adequately equipped in that particular sense but I think that with the resources that are available to us at present we are sufficiently well equipped to ensure that we look after our own interests properly. 27. If there is an area where you may not have that information available can you invite in consultants at that point? —There is a difficulty about consultants in that area because there are only a limited number of consultants worldwide who could be regarded as completely independent. Quite a number of the consultants would have connections with some of these oil interests but there are a few very reliable, very competent and completely independent consultants that are available. In some cases we have used the services of some of these people. 28. Chairman.—On subhead F—Institute for Industrial Research and Standards—the original Estimate was £2 million and the expenditure was £2 million. There is a Supplementary Estimate, which is shown as unexpended. This was an accounting adjustment supplementary? —The supplementary was part of a general supplementary for the Department which had been introduced and there were variations accounting for deficits on one side and surpluses on another and the subsequent readjustment over the Vote. It was really an accounting operation? —Yes. 29. On subhead I.2.—Industrial Development Authority—is any reason advanced for the saving of £250,000 there? —It is a relatively small amount in relation to the total grant and it could be explained by either a slowing down in activity towards the end of the year, where a payment had not been finalised, or to some extent a slowing down— but very little at that stage—in the activities of the IDA. It would be mainly related to actual proposals which had been approved and where for some reason towards the end of the year payment of grant was not made. An application for grant could be under query, for instance. That would be one explanation. 30. Deputy Griffin.—Can that saving of £250,000 be carried over and ongoing to the next financial year? —It can be carried forward in the case of a grant-in-aid when it has actually issued. If not issued, as occurred in this instance, it must be surrendered. 31. Chairman.—On subhead J.2.—Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited —why should industrialists be slow to claim? Could the Accounting Officer hazard an explanation? —The possible explanation there would be that again, coming towards the end of the year, the industrialists were not ready to claim their grants and the expenditure then was carried over on to the following year. Industrialists are not normally slow to claim money where they are in a position to do it, but they themselves for some reason may not have been ready to make their claims. In some of these cases in Shannon certificates have to be obtained from architects and so on as to the proper completion of the work. That would be one reason. The words “industrialists being slow” in the note might give a wrong impression that they themselves were being tardy. I think it means that they were slow in getting their final claims in. 32. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead L— Technical Assistance—what would the technical assistance be? —This is the subhead which provides for technical assistance for consultancy projects in relation to both manufacturing industry and distribution. It will also cover the limited arrangement for technical assistance grants for study visits abroad in the case of the distributive trades. Would that not be done by Córas Tráchtála? —The purpose of this particular technical assistance grant is to enable these people to improve efficiency in their activities at home. It is distinct from Córas Tráchtála which is export-oriented. 33. On subhead N—Commissions, Committees and Special Inquiries—from where is the authority for spending the small sums derived, the £276 and £196? —It is not an item that requires a specific authority. It comes within the general scope of that subhead on Commissions, Committees and Special Inquiries. 34. Chairman.—In other words, in your estimate for committees, special inquiries and such matters you had not allowed for the particular ones on which you did expend money? —Quite, because during the course of the year it might be necessary to have a committee established. The decision might be taken by the Minister or the Government to establish such a committee and the expenditure would be met out of this subhead. You make provision generally, but you cannot pinpoint the actual committees in advance? —A general provision. The position changes from time to time. For instance, the first two items there, the Committees on De-Pyramiding of Tariff Protection and on Industrial Progress will disappear from later Estimates because their functions have ceased. 35. Deputy Moore.—On subhead O.1.— Shipbuilding Subsidy—does that sum represent the total State subvention to shipbuilding? —This represents the provision for a particular year for shipbuilding, as such. The position is that the subsidy is only paid where the Verolme-Cork Dockyard have an actual loss on the construction of an individual ship. If they can produce the ship without incurring a loss no State subsidy whatever is paid. If there is a loss then the subsidy comes into the accounting. 36. Would the New Ross dockyard get a subsidy? —No question of subsidy for the New Ross dockyard has arisen. 37. It is a very low figure for shipbuilding? —While it may be a low figure in relation to a State contribution, the fact is that there is a commercial operation in Cork. Where they are able to work commercially and construct ships without incurring losses, then the State does not intervene. Chairman.—Without falling back on the taxpayer? —Without falling back on the taxpayer. Deputy Moore.—It is a great contrast there to another part of the country? —I presume from the State’s point of view one should be happy. Chairman.—Very commendable. Mr. Mac Gearailt.—We are dealing here with larger ships and one must remember that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara is involved in smaller ships. Chairman.—Talking about bigger ships, the current news may raise questions on the accounts for the present year under that subhead. Deputy Moore.—Yes, indeed. 38. Deputy Crotty.—To what extent can the shipyards be subsidised? This is a grant of £100,000 which was not required. Is it not expected that they will be subsidised. If they suffer a loss of £500,000, £1 million or £2 million does the State just throw this into the kitty for them? That would be a very loose arrangement. —I can assure the Committee that the State is not that generous and money is not given loosely. There is an advisory committee in existence which advises the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to any matters of this kind. In addition to that, the extent to which we can give assistance for the building of ships is regulated now by EEC directives. The position to date has been that we can pay a subsidy at the rate of 8 per cent of the contract price of each ship, or the actual loss incurred in building the ship, whichever is the lesser. In the case of a loss, only 60 per cent of normal depreciation is allowed. We work within defined parameters. In fact the EEC will be looking for a reduction in the level of subsidy that can be paid by the member countries. 39. Deputy Griffin.—On subhead R—Wool Textile Industry, Provision for Temporary Assistance to aid Restructuring—is that given to one particular industry, the wool textile industry in general, or divided between different firms? —It is purely related to individual firms in the wool textile industry, where they were in trouble, seemed unlikely to be able to continue and where they were helped for an interim period until a replacement industry could be secured for the particular area. Chairman.—In other words, the textile industry was unviable in particular areas, one had to face the fact it had to go, and this was a lifesaving operation to continue economic activity in the area until a substitute industry could be found? —That is so. That explains the position. 40. On item No. 1 of the Appropriations in Aid, why was there a substantial increase on the estimate for contributions and fees under the Weights and Measures Acts? —The increase was related to increased maintenance costs on the building. This is a case where we recoup money from the receipts for work carried out in connection with weights and measures. We do it on the basis that we provide in one year for the actual costs incurred in the previous year. 41. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On item No. 3— Fees under the Minerals Development Act, 1940—how many companies would be involved under that heading? —Speaking from recollection and dealing with the applications for non-exclusive licences, it is 60 or thereabouts. In addition to that there are included in that payments of royalties and dead rents. Chairman.—This was the year when the black gold rush started? —Exactly. There was a great deal of commendable enthusiasm that year. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Would it be too much trouble to have a note on this? —On the number of firms who had applied for non-exclusive licences? The breakdown of the sum, how it is made up? —We can give a breakdown of the total sums involved in royalties. We are not in a position to give the breakdown for individual firms. This is a matter of confidentiality. Could we have a breakdown under the heading of that? —We will give the best breakdown we can, It is not too much trouble? —We can do that.* 42. Chairman.—On item No. 5, I take it the fees were increased? —Yes. We too have to take account of increasing costs. We increased the fees in that year for applications of that kind. 43. On Extra Remuneration, you have significant fluctuations and demands in regard to such things loosely called overtime? —Yes. And additional responsibility? —Additional responsibility accounts for some of it. We endeavour to keep this down to the minimum. It is a reflection at times of staff pressures and urgent work coming up that has to be tackled in a defined time limit. 44. When a member of the permanent service is appointed as, say, the director of a semi-State or similar body, who makes the appointment? —It can vary with the companies. In some cases the Minister may do it on his own responsibility but it is more generally made by the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance or the Minister for the Public Service. It is a direct ministerial responsibility? —Yes. It is a direct ministerial responsibility to make the appointment and then the continuance of the appointment depends to a great extent on the particular Memorandum and Articles of Association. 45. Would the Accounting officer like to add anything before we conclude? —I do not think I need add anything. I am happy that the Comptroller and Auditor General had not any serious fault to find with us. We would like to express our appreciation and thanks that you were able to come at such short notice. —Thank you, Chairman. The witness withdrew. VOTE 43—DEFENCE.Mr. P. Ó Murchú called and examined.46. Chairman.—Paragraph 56 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead H.—Defensive Equipment In paragraph 85 of my previous report I referred to negotiations in 1972 between the Department of Defence and an Irish company for the production of three prototype armoured personnel carriers, subject to a maximum expenditure of £90,000 approved by the Minister for Finance. The three vehicles have been delivered and are undergoing proving tests. Including £72,350 charged to the subhead in the year under review, payments to 31 March 1974 amounted to £97,374 and I understand that at November 1974 they amounted to £154,000, approximately. I have inquired regarding the increase in the cost of the vehicles and whether the formal agreement with the company has yet been signed.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—I understand that payments on this project amounted to £175,000 approximately at 30th September, 1975. The Accounting Officer has recently informed me with regard to prototype No. 1 that problems were encountered during proving tests and that further development work on this vehicle was regarded as uneconomic. It will be used as spares for Nos. 2 and 3 prototypes. Proving tests on these two vehicles are continuing. 47. Chairman.—Does the Accounting Officer wish to make any comments on that? It is an experimental research problem, is it not? —Essentially it was a development project from the start. We hope it will be finished by the end of this year when the Defence Forces will make their appraisal of the project. We shall see where we might go from there regarding possible production on a larger scale. 48. Deputy Crotty.—What Irish company was involved in the production? —In the production? Yes. —The project was put to us by an Irishman, a professor of mechanical engineering. It was his project. We would like to see it developed because it is an Irish scheme. At the same time, our primary need is for vehicles and we must be satisfied that they work. 49. The development was carried out by an Irish firm? —Yes. What Irish firm? —Tectonics Research (Ireland) Ltd was the name of the firm. 50. Chairman.—This is a question where a proposal is put to the Department, that is to the Minister; a political decision is made to pursue it. The Accounting Officer’s responsibility is to see that the administration of that decision is in order and, being a research project, it is impossible to forecast with certainty the outcome of the experiments. Is that correct? —That is right. But if the experiment, tests and finances provided are satisfactory, then it is hoped that a return in the form of an Irish industry and supplies from home sources for the Defence Forces will follow. Is that a fair comment? —The Comptroller and Auditor General probably had much the same problem as I had because, in the course of our negotiations about the project, it was expressed to be a project to design, manufacture and deliver three armoured personnel carriers. So far we have three vehicles. I am not so sure that we have got an APC yet. This is where the appraisal comes in, when the two remaining ones—apart from the one converted to spares—have finished their tests. The third is the important one. That is being tested with an infantry battalion in Cathal Brugha Barracks at the moment. 51. Does the Comptroller and Auditor General wish to say anything further? Mr. Mac Gearailt.—No. We were concerned with the fact that we were paying for three prototypes and we wanted to see that we got three prototypes. We now understand that one of the prototypes has been broken down into spares. —That is right. When I wrote to the Accounting Officer recently I wanted merely to confirm that that was the position. 52. Chairman.—That is all very correct but I think I speak with some personal experience of the type of problem that exists there, that a situation like this can occur? —Three prototypes really represent a contradiction in terms; there should be one prototype only. Essentially it was a development project. I expected three armoured personnel carriers. There was a confusion of vocabulary at the start of the negotiations which led to the situation where we are getting two perhaps for the price of three and at a much greater cost than was originally projected. But they are prototypes? —That is right. They are not actual contract vehicles that you would hope to have as a result. In other words, this is a research and development project. —Essentially it is that. There is an element of speculation and risk involved in all such projects? —Yes. To put it another way, we invested in an Irishman’s expertise with the object of getting produced here at home vehicles that would otherwise have to be imported. Chairman.—In my view a very commendable effort. 53. Paragraph 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead Z.—Appropriations in Aid The balance due to the Department of Defence in respect of the expenses of Irish contingents with United Nations peace-keeping forces amounted to £380,643 at 31 March 1973. Of this sum, £273,446 was received from the United Nations during the year under review and brought to credit as appropriations in aid. Further claims totalling £139,645 were submitted to the United Nations during the year bringing the balance outstanding at 31 March 1974 to £246,842.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. Of the £246,842 due to the Department of Defence at 31st March, 1974, £53,162 has since been received. Further claims amounting to £100,314 have been made bringing the total sum due under this Vote at 30th September, 1975, to £293,994. In addition £94,055 was due in respect of Army Pensions (Vote 44) at that date. While no claim has been yet made on the United Nations in respect of the costs of the Irish contingent in the Middle East a claim is at present under examination by my officers. Sums on account totalling £409,453 towards these costs had been received by the Department by 30th September, 1975. 54. Deputy H. Gibbons.—It is a changing situation in income and expenditure. What is the position just now? —In connection with Cyprus the outstanding figure at the moment is shown at £290,000 roughly. That indicates a slight slowing down in the payments. I think the explanation for that is that contributions in the case of Cyprus have been on a voluntary basis by the member States. Generally the situation is, you might say, static. We are that much behind all the time and there is nothing remarkable about it. 55. Chairman.—On subhead B—Permanent Defence Force: Pay—was the shortfall on the Estimate there simply a question of the forces not being up to strength? —That is right; but it would be as well to look at D with it because we had a number of reservists up on wholetime duties. 56. On subhead D—Reserve Defence Force: Pay—were the First Line called up compulsorily or were they voluntary? —We called them up. That is the 1969 call up. We did not stand them down. 57. On subhead F—Civilians attached to Units: Pay—there is a substantial sum involved, £2½ million. What are the duties of these civilians? What civilians are covered in this? —Provided you do not think they are civil servants, I am happy. No, civilians. —They are tradesmen, clerks and so on. 58. On subhead G—Civil Defence—there is a comfortable feeling that that does not seem to be needed nowadays. It is not a very big sum we are spending on it? —No. 59. On subhead K—Provisions—it is surprising that the amount does not seem to be as much as one might expect. —In 1973-74 the recruiting campaign was only starting. 60. Deputy Governey.—On subhead M— Clothing and Equipment—would the saving be due to the delay in delivery of goods. —It is a very small amount out of £900,000. Deputy Crotty—You must take it in relation to increased recruiting. 61. Chairman.—On subhead N.—Animals, Forage, etc.—these are all horses? —We started a buying campaign for show jumpers. 62. On subhead O.2.—Helicopters—they are proving useful? —Yes. The sum shown is roughly the price of one helicopter. We got an opportunity of buying it during the year. We had not provided for it but we bought it because we needed it. 63. Deputy Governey: How many have we got at present? —It brings our number to eight. 64. Chairman.—They are pretty constantly in use? —It is a remarkably good service not purely for defence purposes but for mercy missions and so on also. They are found to be very reliable too? There was great nervousness about them in the beginning. —Yes, when it was new. 65. On subhead P.—Naval Stores—there was a saving. —Projects including the purchase of a transport vessel for Cork Harbour were held up. That is the explanation. 66. There is a note on subhead S.—Buildings. What building contract is referred to? —That was the new accommodation in Galway for young officers and cadets attending the university. 67. Deputy Crotty.—On subhead T—what would those barrack services be? —Bedding, furniture, cutlery. We buy a lot of this in Britain? —They are mainly supplied here. The saving is £164,000 due to non-delivery of orders placed in Britain? —One item which was ordered from Britain and which is not made here is linoleum. 68. Chairman.—On subhead AA.—Military Educational Courses and Visits—is the delay in receiving accounts due to the institutions concerned rather than to the personnel concerned? —Yes. 69. There is a note on subhead DD.— Lands. What purchase of lands is referred to? —The site for the new barracks in Monaghan. 70. On the Losses Statement—I—Losses consequent on negligence, proved or suspected —these are losses written off? The Finance sanctions are quoted in each case. —That is right. 71. With regard to item No. 7 of the Losses Statement, a sum of £253 was found to be deficient in one of the command cashiers’ offices? —It was something that happened during the bank strike. There was no responsibility fixed on anybody? —No. 72. In regard to the Notes, why was a military officer seconded to the Louth County Council? —For Civil Defence. He is a whole time Civil Defence officer there. It is the only county with such. There are a few others as Assistants in Dublin. What about the officer to Carlow and Kildare County Councils? —He is an Assistant there. The man in Louth is the Civil Defence Officer but the man in Carlow and Kildare is Assistant Civil Defence Officer. VOTE 44—ARMY PENSIONS.Mr. P. Ó Murchú further examined.73. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead N— Funeral Grants in respect of deceased Special Allowance holders and Military Service Pensioners—is the funeral grant payable in every case of special allowance? —Yes, in the case of a special allowance holder dying while in receipt of the special allowance the funeral grant is payable. In every case? —Yes. Has the Deputy one in mind? I think I have. It was refused. —If the Deputy has a particular case in mind, perhaps he could ask me about it afterwards. I will inquire about it again. —I had a case before me recently of somebody who had a special allowance at one stage but who was not in receipt of it at the time of death. Maybe that is the type of case. If the Deputy has a case, he should not hesitate to come to me about it. On second thoughts it does not arise. His wife is now dead and there is no heir. I think we applied for it but did not get it. —I will look that one up for the Deputy. 74. Chairman.—Now, unless the Accounting Officer wishes to say anything, that concludes these Estimates. Go raibh míle maith agat. —Agus agatsa leis. Thank you again for coming at such short notice. We appreciate the fact that you were prepared to come because we wished to make an immediate start on our work. —I took over an organisation in great shape. Good. That is a nice tribute to your predecessor. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
