|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 12 Bealtaine, 1977.Thursday, 12th May, 1977.The Committee met at 11 a.m.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.1. Deputy Governey.—I move that Deputy de Valera be elected as Chairman of the Committee. Deputy Griffin.—It gives me great pleasure to second the nomination of Deputy de Valera. Question: “That Deputy de Valera be Chairman of the Committee”—put and agreed to. DEPUTY de VALERA took the chair. 2. Chairman.—I thank Deputies once again for the honour of being elected to this office. It has been a privilege to sit in this Chair with this Committee. I am sorry that the Committee will no longer have the assistance of Mr. Geoghegan. There was a heavy backlog of work to be caught up with after 1969 and our success in coping with the problem was in great measure due to Mr. Geoghegan’s devoted attention to the Committee’s work and to his own ability and expertise which was always available to us. I am sure Deputies will join with me in congratulating him on promotion and in expressing our appreciation of his work with us. As Chairman I shall miss him greatly. We are now almost up to date—an achievement when compared with the position four years ago when this Committee was appointed. If the 1975 accounts at present before us can be completed by the end of October next, the work of the Committee will be up to date and its efficiency and service to the Dáil fully restored. I hope we can achieve this. Deputy Tunney.—I agree with the Chairman’s remarks regarding our former Clerk, Mr. Geoghegan, and I extend my best wishes to him. If this Committee were to be established now de novo we would have a permanent Clerk. In this Committee, which is required to do the amount of work that we do, the official acting as Clerk seems to be allowed time only when he has finished all the other duties which are required of him in the outside Office. I do not know to whose attention we should bring this. I remember referring in the Dáil as to whether or not the other duties devolving on the Clerk of this Committee could be lessened. This matter should be looked into. Chairman.—Our Clerk is a member of the Ceann Comhairle’s staff. I, as an appointed member but not as Chairman of this Committee, have already taken the liberty of mentioning to the Ceann Comhairle the needs of the Committee in general terms. With my experience, when I heard that Mr. Geoghegan was going, I saw the necessity of speaking to the Ceann Comhairle about this. The Secretary of the Office of the Minister for the Public Service will be the Accounting Officer first before us today and we can inquire if he has any function in this. We should also take up the question of the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General with him this morning. Deputy MacSharry.—I agree with everything the Chairman and Deputy Tunney have said. I propose that the Chairman take whatever steps are necessary to see that these matters are brought to the notice of the authorities and hopefully are resolved satisfactorily. Chairman.—These are important points. We will do that. Deputy MacSharry.—I should also like to be associated with the good wishes of the Chairman to Mr. Geoghegan and to welcome the new Clerk. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I should also like to be associated with the good wishes to Mr. Geoghegan. Deputy Governey.—May I be associated also with the good wishes expressed by the Chairman to Mr. Geoghegan. Mr. Mac Gearailt.—As Comptroller and Auditor General, I should also like to be associated with the remarks of the Chairman. 3. Chairman.—For the information of the Committee I should like to state that we decided the last time to defer calling the Secretary of the Department of Finance until we had the Finance Minute, but we would want to have the Finance Minute on time. Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE.Mr. S. Ó Conaill called and examined.4. Chairman.—Under Appropriations in Aid and in relation to receipts from computer services rendered by the Central Data Processing Services, are these internal within the service or from outside? —The services rendered to Departments are set out separately. This item covers mainly payments by the Social Insurance Fund and by boards of health for work done on their behalf. VOTE 11—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.Mr. S. Ó Conaill further examined.5. Deputy MacSharry.—On receipts from County and County Borough Councils, Harbour Authorities (No. 39 of 1926 (sec. 12) and No. 9 of 1946 (sec. 38))—what are the receipts from county and county borough councils? —They are the expenses of conducting examinations by the Local Appointments Commission. On their behalf? —Yes. 6. Deputy Tunney.—On subhead A2— Examiners, etc.,—would this money be paid mainly to teachers and people who are already being paid by other Departments in respect of their whole-time employment? —Yes, it is a purely part-time service. It is done by teachers and by members of the public. 7. It is just regarded as that, for a person’s expertise rather than whether or not the person might be unemployed. Would the fact that a teacher was unemployed militate against him in the matter of being employed here? —It would not. The Civil Service Commissioners have built up a panel of people requiring certain expertise to set examinations. 8. It is a matter of qualified people submitting their names to the Civil Service Commission? —Yes. 9. Deputy C. Murphy.—I note that the et cetera includes fees for medical examinations. Could I have a breakdown on what precise amount is spent on the actual setting and adjudication of examination papers? —The Deputy can take it that the bulk of the sum goes for payment to people setting and examining papers. 10. Then the fees for medical examinations are very low? —They are the smaller part of expenditure from this subhead. 11. After a competition a general panel of successful candidates is set up, is that right? —Yes, a list of qualified candidates is set up. 12. People would be drawn from this list in turn. What is the duration or the likely duration of such a list of candidates? —For most panels it is a year. 13. As regards the payment of fees for medical examination, what about people who have qualified for a panel one year after a further successful examination, on the extinction of that panel must they undergo a further medical examination? —No, they are examined only when appointment is imminent. 14. Chairman.—As head of the Department of the Public Service and being in the position of overlordship as regards the whole of the State service, I would like to refer the problem of the staff of this Committee to you. I realise that this is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle, but the Committee are concerned that they are carrying on in a traditional way with very much more work to cope with than they would have had in the past. Other Oireachtas Committees have had a whole-time Clerk and officers assigned to them. We will make these representations to the Ceann Comhairle. I only mention this directly to you as it may very well come back to you. This is one of the ambiguities in the situation. The last Committee in their report were extremely concerned at the amount of staff available to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the multiplication of Departments over the years, and the increase in activities. The number of matters which must be attended to suggested that this Committee look into the suggestion that the Comptroller and Auditor General has not sufficient staff at his disposal. I understand representations were made in the past but the Committee now feel that they should intervene. The Committee believe that the Comptroller and Auditor General requires an expansion of his staff. I would ask the Accounting Officer to consider that request in a sympathetic way. We understand the restrictions and all the problems involved. On the other hand, the whole financial control of the public service depends, both from the point of the Committee and of the Department of Finance, on the efficiency and thoroughness of the work that the Comptroller and Auditor General can carry out. If he is not able to cover the field adequately or to give sufficient attention to any point, then not only are this Committee hampered in their duty of reporting to the Dáil and the control of the Dáil lessened but the control of the Department of Finance and the Accounting Officer’s control would be seriously affected. It is common sense that the Department of Finance, the Accounting Officer’s Department and this Committee are largely dependent on the service which the Comptroller and Auditor General can supply through his audit. For that reason I make an urgent case for the point carried in the Report on the 1974 Accounts by the last Committee. Later on I will follow up a point I made before about the relationship of the Accounting Officer’s office to the Department of Finance in the control of public expenditure. This is a difficult problem, and we will leave it to the very end if everyone is agreeable. We will now proceed to Vote 13, Superannuation and Retired Allowances (Excess Vote). There is also Superannuation and Retired Allowances, Paragraph 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which we must formally take separately but which are so linked that we may have to refer to one in the course of dealing with the other. VOTE 13—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES (EXCESS VOTE).Mr. S. Ó Conaill further examined.15. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Excess of Expenditure over Grant The Appropriation Account shows excess expenditure of £107,904 over the gross estimate and a surplus of Appropriations in Aid of £104,318. The net deficit is therefore £3,586. Some Departments have delegated authority to pay lump sums and gratuities and claim recoupment from this Vote. The Accounting Officer explained that the excess arose because recoupment claims from such Departments exceeded the estimates furnished by them. He added that it is difficult to estimate lump sum and gratuity requirements because of such unpredictables as deaths, voluntary early retirements, marriages and ill-health retirements. As a result, savings on Subhead D.—Additional Allowances and Gratuities in respect of Established Officers—which had been provided for in a supplementary estimate, passed in December 1975, did not materialise to the extent anticipated. The Accounting Officer stated that expenditure under Subhead F, which covers the pensions scheme for non-established staff, is also very difficult to forecast. He further stated that this scheme, which was introduced with effect from 1 January 1970, has not yet settled down to a fixed pattern of retirements, that it is particularly difficult to predict the number of voluntary retirements before the normal pension age and that the proportion of such retirements had turned out to be considerably higher than for established officers. The number of pensioners under the scheme increased from 1,030 at the beginning of 1975 to 1,303 at the beginning of 1976. The Accounting Officer added that the accounting arrangements for the Vote are at present under examination with a view to improving control procedures and avoiding the possibility of an excess in the future.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to an Excess Vote which arose in the year under review. The circumstances in which the excess occurred, as explained by the Accounting Officer, are outlined in the paragraph. To bring this matter to the notice of Dáil Eireann with a view to having it regularised it will be necessary for the Committee to submit an interim report on it in order to enable the Dáil to vote the sum required to make good the excess, if the Committee sees no objection to this course. I have recently been informed that new arrangements have been put into operation to secure closer control of expenditure from this Vote. 16. Chairman.—Would the Accounting Officer like to comment at this stage? —Yes. There is very little to add to what the Comptroller and Auditor General said in paragraph 21 of his Report. The excess arose here because recoupment of claims from Departments with delegated authority to make payments exceeded their estimates. The position was specially reviewed in November, 1975. A close estimate for December was that about £1½ million would be required. There was a balance of £1¼ million available and, accordingly, a Supplementary Estimate of £¼ million (gross) was presented and passed. When the accounts were finally made out, there was a net excess of £3,586. The main reason for the excess was an under estimation of variable items, such as deaths, marriages, ill-health retirements and voluntary retirements, particularly in the non-established pensions scheme where expenditure was about 50 per cent higher in December, 1975, than in any other month in that year. 17. Deputy MacSharry.—When was the Supplementary Estimate brought in? —In December of that year. 18. When was it finally learned that there was more than £3,000 in excess? —When the accounts were presented, shortly after the end of the month. In January? —Yes. 19. What is the procedure to be adopted now to regularise the position? —The procedure is that, if the Committee so agrees, an excess Vote will be presented by the Minister for the £3,586. 20. It is 18 months since that happened and I should like to know what happens in such a case in that 18 month period? —Payments had been made in the Departments and recoupment had to be made to enable their accounts to be finalised. 21. Who is informed when in January it is found that £3,586 more than was voted had to be paid out? Do you inform anybody then? —It is included in the Appropriation Account and we draw the particular attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General to this. 22. Chairman.—I should like to make this comment on it. Firstly, 1975 we realise was an awkward year. Secondly, you brought in a Supplementary Estimate to cover as far as possible your anticipated excess. Am I correct? —Yes, in the month of December. 23. We recognise that 1975 was an exceptional year from that point of view. Secondly, you did bring in an Estimate to cater for an excess and these points certainly suggest that the Committee should approve of an Excess Vote. I should like to ask if any part of that Excess Vote can be attributed to the pensions mentioned in paragraph 22? —No. 24. That is a convenient answer for the Committee in a sense because the Committee are very perturbed about a matter that arises under paragraph 22. We are awaiting a Finance Minute and, therefore, we will say no more. We have drawn attention in our last report, the Committee that examined the 1974 accounts, in paragraph 12, to the need for regularising payments which have not already statutory sanction. —I should like to mention that the statutory procedure has now been completed. 25. This is the point here but since you have answered “no” to that question, it is not tied up with paragraph 21 I imagine, and ask the Committee whether they will recommend an Excess Vote or not in this case. Deputy Tunney.—Having considered all the circumstances we will be happy to recommend sanction. Chairman.—We will recommend an Excess Vote in this case. VOTE 13—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.Mr. S. Ó Conaill further examined.26. Chairman.—Paragraph 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead B.—Payments under the Civil Servants’ Widows’ and Children’s Contributory Pensions Scheme. Subhead C.—Ex-gratia Pensions for Widows and Children of certain former Officers As mentioned in previous reports, a contributory scheme was introduced in the year 1968-69 to provide pensions for widows and children of certain public servants who died on or after 23 July 1968. Ex-gratia pensions were granted to the widows and children of public servants who died or retired prior to that date. Pensions, including ex-gratia pensions, for dependants of members of the Garda Síochána and for dependants of National Teachers, Secondary Teachers, Post Office officials and Army officers are paid from Votes 22, 29, 30, 43 and 45, respectively. In previous reports I drew attention to the fact that the necessary legislation had not been enacted. The Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1976, enacted in June 1976, enables the Minister for the Public Service to validate, by order the payment of these pensions in relation to established civil servants. I understand that appropriate action will also be taken in the case of the other groups mentioned.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The delay in enacting legislation to validate certain awards of contributory and ex-gratia pensions has been considered by the Committee of Public Accounts and referred to in its Reports in previous years. This paragraph points out that the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1976, enables the Minister for the Public Service to validate the payment of these pensions in relation to established civil servants and I understand that the appropriate schemes have been drafted and are expected to be executed in the near future. We have been informed that enabling legislation already exists for the other groups mentioned in the paragraph, that is, members of the Garda, Teachers and Army Officers and these schemes will be prepared for them when the Civil Service schemes are finalised. 27. Chairman.—Will the Accounting Officer say anything on that? —So far as Civil Servants are concerned, the necessary statutory instruments have been made. 28. That is your responsibility? —Yes. To be fair to other Departments, they will use these as a model. There was considerable difficulty in bringing to completion the statutory instruments regarding the Civil Service. There should be less difficulty now for the other bodies because they have a headline. 29. What do you mean by the other bodies? —The Army, Gardaí and Teachers. 30. I just wondered how you define civil servants. In view of what is before us, also that we are awaiting a minute on the point and also as the Accounting Officer told us, the matter is being regularised and steps are being taken to regularise the situation in the light of the statutory authority required, has any Member of the Committee any further comment to make on that paragraph? Deputy Tunney.—Every Member would feel like making a comment on something that is so fundamental. There should not be any expenditure without the necessary legislation being enacted. I find it somewhat tiresome that we should have to refer to this at all. Remembering my own few years in the Civil Service where we lived so much in dread of Finance, tends to aggravate the position. Chairman.—We are awaiting further information on this fundamental point. —In reply to Deputy Tunney, we note that the most recent Report of the Committee recognises that in certain cases it may be necessary to proceed first by way of Supplementary Estimate drawing specific attention to particular items which later would be regularised by legislation. One of the real difficulties here was that pensions had been up to now covered by statute and not by statutory instrument. That meant that every item had to be the subject of a Bill before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Now that position no longer holds. Since 1976 it is possible to proceed by way of Statutory Instrument to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. I do not see this problem arising again in regard to pensions. If changes have to be made in regard to pensions, the Statutory Instrument can be prepared when the Supplementary Estimate has been taken. Yes. In view of your position with the Department of Finance, in a supervisory position over all the other Departments, we should make it clear that the Committee recognises the need from time to time for ex post facto regularisation of expenditure that is incurred in the way indicated. There will be occasions when ex post facto regularisation will be necessary and justified. The Committee do not, and cannot accept, that the Appropriation Act per se is sufficient validation for any expenditure incurred. This is the essential point in our Report and we would add, from the experience here this morning, that in the case of ex post facto regularisation there should be the minimum of delay. It should not drag on from year to year. —I can assure the Committee that that is our intention. 31. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On what basis are pensions increased—in relation to the national pay agreement, the cost of living or the decision of a Minister? —There was a general decision in 1974 that pensions would be reviewed on the 1st July each year and that pensions would be brought up to the position that would have obtained had the officer retired on the current 1st July instead of at the time at which he did retire. 32. That would be in relation to the officer retiring. What about those who are retired two or three years? —The pensions of people who have retired are reviewed and they are brought up to date in relation to the current position of holders of their posts. 33. So that it is the national wage agreement that more or less decides? —The national wage agreement, plus any other increase that might come for any other reason. The national wage agreement, of course, is by far the most important factor in determining pension increases. 34. Chairman.—On subhead C—Ex Gratia Pensions for Widows and Children of certain former Officers—that does not contribute to what is required for the Excess Vote, is that correct? —Yes. By far the main item which led to the excess was the number of officers who voluntarily retired under the non-established pension scheme. 35. Deputy MacSharry.—Subhead D.— Additional Allowances and Gratuities in respect of Established Officers—the savings under this subhead did not materialise. At what stage was it decided to take off £100,000? —When we were going for the Supplementary Estimate at the beginning of December. In relation to this subhead? —Having reviewed the position at the beginning of December of that year, it looked as if we would not require as much as had been provided in the original subhead. We were wrong: a little more than the revised figure was required. 36. Chairman.—On subhead F—Pensions, Allowances and Gratuities in respect of Unestablished Officers and other persons— there is a big discrepancy there, but there is a note which says: this scheme is comparatively new, and it is still difficult to make an accurate forecast of the number of retirements. 37. Deputy MacSharry.—When was the Supplementary sought? —The Supplementary was sought at the beginning of December. As accurate an estimate as possible was made at that time of what the requirements would be for the month of December. The estimate was framed on that basis. It turned out that it was wrong, largely due to a number of voluntary retirements before normal retirement age. 38. Was that in a particular Department or was it widespread through all the Departments? —It was mostly in the Departments that employ manual labour—Lands, Agriculture, Defence and the Board of Works. 39. Even as late as December, in the year just ending, that was the most accurate information you had which proved to be £124,000 out? —Yes. 40. What action was taken by your Department in relation to these Departments with regard to submission of earlier notice than days before the end of the year when you had to provide the funds? —They made the best estimate they could of the amounts that would come for payment but it turned out that they were inaccurate to that extent. Do they know now that they were? —Yes. You informed them? —Yes, and the Appropriation Accounts made the position clear. It arises again in connection with subsequent Estimates. 41. Surely the Estimates for the following year will have been discussed at this stage with the various Departments. —They would have been in the course of preparation towards the end of 1975. One of the difficulties here is that, year by year we have found out that more manual workers are retiring before the maximum retirement age. The tendency seems to be continuing that way. To a lesser extent it seems to be occuring in regard to established civil servants. Quite a number of established officers are not now waiting until they are 65 to retire. That is one of the things one cannot forecast accurately. 42. I agree, but the note in itself is misleading because it says the scheme is comparatively new and so it is difficult to make an accurate forecast of the number of retirements. If that is the case after six years, then it may never be possible to make a near accurate forecast? —Of course, the age of retirement is coming down. It was 70 in this particular year for the people covered by the unestablished scheme. It is 67 at the moment and will be 66 from 1st October. In itself, that will mean there will be fewer people going from the age group between 66 and 70. 43. In a situation like this where there is quite a sizeable excess one accepts the explanation for it, but the note should be more specific and state more than it does. It should go on to say that a particular Department notified so many additional staff retiring. That sort of information should be available to us. It should be in a note when there is such an excess. —We would be happy to do that. Especially when there was a Supplementary Estimate within days of the end of the financial year. Chairman.—It would be a great help to the Committee and save a great deal of time if this could be done. The Committee would completely agree with Deputy MacSharry on this. 44. Deputy C. Murphy.—How many actually retired under this during 1975? —Pensioners increased from 1,030 to 1,303, which would be a net increase of 273 pensioners in that year. 45. Deputy Griffin.—On subhead E— Compensation Allowances under Article 10 of the Treaty of 6th December, 1921—to whom are the allowances being paid? —The Treaty enabled officers who were transferred to the Irish Government to retire if their conditions of service were worsened. There was an elaborate procedure set up to enable officers to retire and the amounts are recouped by the British Government as an Appropriation in Aid. There are now 113 Article 10 pensioners, including 34 widows; 81, including 30 widows, are met from this Vote and the remainder from the Post Office Vote. 46. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead G —Injury Grants and Medical Fees—are those people who were injured before the Occupational Injuries Act? —Yes, it would include those. 47. Would there be many of those? —No. It is mostly a question of lump sum settlements. 48. Would there still be some pending? —Some people who are entitled to weekly payments occasionally seek to have a lump sum settlement. 49. Would there be many of them on your books at this stage? —No, there would be very few. 50. Chairman.—When dealing with paragraphs 21 and 22, we understood your position, and the Committee have already decided to recommend an Excess Vote but, in order to make the Committee’s position clear for the future, it will be noted that the total excess of expenditure over gross estimate was £107,904, and subtracting from that the Appropriations in Aid, left an excess of £3,586, which we have agreed to recommend for payment. The point is that in arriving at that excess the £107,904, the gross excess, includes the sum of £9,562 in respect of ex gratia pensions for widows and children of certain former officers and that is, precisely, so far as I can see, what is referred to in paragraph 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In the view of the Committee, if they did not accept your explanations as satisfactory and extenuating, that payment would be ultra vires. Since that is included in the total from which the Appropriations in Aid are subtracted to give the net excess Vote and, further, since the excess under subhead C is greater than the excess Vote agreed to, this Committee would be very justified, on a purely technical and accounting basis, in refusing to recommend the Excess Vote. I merely make this point for the record to show the Committee’s concern and attitude to these things. We do not in any way wish to dilute our acceptance of your own position in this case. Your explanations are, of course, completely accepted, as they were at the beginning, but you will appreciate that this is a point that the Committee would certainly not overlook if you had not the explanations to offer that you had in this case. I hope I have made the point clear. This is a matter that presumably the Department of Finance would be interested in since they are responsible for the financial side of Accounting Officers. There is no dilution of our acceptance of your explanation in this case. VOTE 51—REMUNERATION.Mr. S. Ó Conaill further examined.51. Chairman.—This is a simple matter. —The purpose of the Vote was to provide for increases in pay due in 1975 under national agreements which were not met from savings or which were not included in separate Supplementary Votes. 52. Last year I asked how the splitting up of the Department of Finance’s control over the Civil Service by setting up your Department and placing you in charge of organisation, administration and personnel in the Public Service was going to work out from the accounting point of view. It seems the Accounting Officers are, in one sense, responsible to Finance but they are also responsible to you for their staffs and for their efficiency. Is that correct? —Yes. 53. Particularly since the Accounting Officers or some such persons are usually the heads of the Departments. At this stage, I do not think I should ask you to comment specifically but the Committee would be very interested to know if any problem or difficulties are arising from this new situation. Much of what the Committee said this morning about the excess Vote is really a matter for the Department of Finance but it is still a matter for you in that individual accounting officers would conform or have excess Votes. —It is also complicated by the fact that the Department of Finance accounts branch acts on an agency basis for our Department. We have not a separate accounts branch of our own. 54. It seems to me that, after a little experience, the two principal Accounting Officers, the Secretary of the Department of Finance and yourself, might get together. We find ourselves having to treat you with the same type of “overlordship”, as the Secretary of the Department of Finance. In our last Report we had to comment on the promptness of replying to queries from the Comptroller and Auditor General. I thought that would be more a matter for you than for the Department of Finance. If a question arose as to whether an Accounting Officer would or would not comply with the requests of the Committee, I would imagine that the matter would come to you rather than to the Department of Finance. The Committee is finding itself in the position that it may have to deal with the Accounting Officer for the Department of the Public Service and the Accounting Officer for the Department of Finance as two Accounting Officers as well as accounting for their own individual Departments. I am wondering if you and your colleague in Finance may have more detailed views and information. At this stage, after the year’s experience, the Committee would be interested in finding out if there are any problems and in discovering the correct mechanism. This Committee’s effectiveness has heretofore depended completely on the harmonious working of the Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Department of Finance. If the relations between any one of these agencies breaks down, the control machinery breaks down. Both the Department of Finance and the Committee are very largely dependent on the Comptroller and Auditor General for their supervisory information. On the other hand, the Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General are totally dependent on the Department of Finance for executive action. The three agencies are very closely related and have a common interest. One must support the other. Now we find that you are coming into the picture as a fourth element that we cannot depress to be merely an accounting officer because of your functions so that instead of having machinery with three parts, we have machinery with four parts. While co-ordination between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Accounting Officer for the Public Service and the Committee can be very easily established on the same basis as the existing one with the Department of Finance, there is always the fear in our minds that some inconsistency may arise between you and the Department of Finance that will not come to the surface until there is a problem. We want to head off problems rather than solve them. It is in that spirit that I put all this to you today. It would not be fair to ask you without notice to make any comment, but we would ask you to consider what we say and, if necessary, to take whatever steps you think proper in that regard. The Committee will be available to you for contact whether through the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Chairman and members of the Committee or the Clerk. —Yes, we are at the disposal of the Committee if they wish to pursue this matter. 55. We are depending on the executive arm of both Departments for workable procedures. —There is no problem, as yet, over the division of functions between the two Departments. We keep in very close contact. The division is reasonably clear-cut by virtue of the Statutory Order that defined the functions at the time our Department was set up. In very broad outline, the Department of the Public Service are the sanctioning authority for pay, for numbers and for complicated office machinery. Having sanctioned expenditure in these areas the Department of Finance remains the executive agency for seeing that the financial proprieties are maintained. 56. The Committee will have to ask you to consider your supervisory roles and cooperate with them in this in the same way the Department of Finance do, if I could put it that way. —Yes, we would be very happy to do that. We would like to establish that relationship with your Department. 57. Deputy H. Gibbons.—You say that you are the Department responsible for finance and numbers? —For pay and numbers. 58. If you decide on the pay then it is mandatory on the Department of Finance to provide the money? —Yes, but we are sensible enough to ask in advance if the money will be available. The witness withdrew. VOTE 44—DEFENCE.Mr. M. P. Healy called and examined.59. Chairman.—This is your first time and you are welcome. —Thank you Paragraph 61 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead P.—Naval Stores Reference was made in the reports for 1970-71 and subsequent years to expenditure on the construction of a fishery protection vessel, which was completed at a cost of £1,068,505. In April 1975 the Government approved a proposal of the Minister for Defence to negotiate an agreement with an Irish company for the construction of another such vessel within a price ceiling to be agreed with the Minister for Finance subject to completion of a formal contract. The price agreed for the construction of the vessel was £2,708,700 exclusive of value added tax, and with provision for labour, material and currency variation clauses. Certain components and items of equipment will be purchased separately by the Department of Defence. The charge to the subhead in the year under review includes £300,000 being the initial instalment paid to the company in respect of the construction of this vessel. I understand that the formal contract has not yet been signed.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. I understand that the formal contract with the company has now been signed. —Yes, the contract has been signed. 60. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Has the ship-building started? —Yes. Indeed, we are making payments in stages. There are seven stages over which these payments are being made and the first three stages have been completed. Approximately 40 per cent of the contract price has, in fact, been paid. 61. Deputy Griffin.—Where is the vessel being built? —It is being built in the Rushbrooke yard of the Verolme Cork Dockyard Company, Ltd. 62. Chairman.—Paragraph 62 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead Z.—Appropriations in Aid As stated in my previous report the balance due to the Department of Defence on claims for the expenses of Irish contingents with the United Nations peace-keeping forces amounted to £322,020 at 31 December 1974. Of this sum £145,366 was received from the United Nations during the year under review and brought to credit as appropriations in aid. Further claims totalling £82,086 were submitted to the United Nations during the year bringing the balance outstanding at 31 December 1975 to £258,740. In addition a balance of £248,763 was due to the Department in respect of pensions, allowances, etc. (Vote 45—Army Pensions). Further amounts totalling £253,674, also credited to appropriations in aid, were received in respect of the Irish contingent in the Middle East under the terms of a United Nations General Assembly decision of November 1974 providing for a flat rate of contribution per man per month to cover pay and allowances. Formal claims are not required to be made under this arrangement.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. It sets out the position at 31st December, 1975, regarding recoupment from the United Nations in respect of the costs of providing the various Irish contingents serving with United Nations peace-keeping forces. 63. Chairman.—On subhead B—Permanent Defence Force: Pay—there is an original Estimate, a sizeable Supplementary Estimate and £258,000 saving, but there is still no note. Was that due to numbers being smaller than anticipated? —Yes. The original provision was based on an average strength of 11,000 NCO’s and Privates. The actual strength on 1st January, 1975, was 10,212 and on the 31st December it was 12,193. It was difficult, of course, even at the time the Supplementary Estimate was prepared, to know exactly what strength one would have to cater for between then and the end of the financial year. While the saving amounts to about 0.82 per cent of the grant, this is how it came about. 64. On subhead D—Reserve Defence Force: Pay—I presume the saving was for a similar reason? —Yes. 65. Deputy H. Gibbons.—In relation to the explanation of the causes of variation between expenditure and grant on subhead 02—Helicopters, the excess is due to expenditure on spares and maintenance being greater than anticipated—is there any reason why the expenditure on maintenance is in excess, or is this normal? —In this case the excess was mainly due to a spare helicopter engine which was ordered in 1973, was actually delivered in 1974, but was not paid for until 1975. That accounted for £22,000 of the £23,000 excess which was really a carry-over from 1973. 66. Deputy C. Murphy.—Was the £22,000 the price in 1973 or the price on date of payment? —It would have been. The £22,000 was the actual payment. As arranged in 1973? —Yes. So we had two years’ credit. We paid for it in 1975 at the 1973 price? —That is so. 67. Deputy Griffin.—On subhead S— Buildings—the saving is due mainly to progress on buildings being slower than anticipated. Where were these buildings? —One of the causes for the saving was that progress in the construction of the new military barracks at Monaghan was slower than anticipated. We also had a delay in the erection of an additional 50 houses for married soldiers at the Curragh. Both these items made up effectively the major part of the saving. 68. On subhead V—Insurance—is it on the personnel or on the buildings that the insurance is paid? Is it social welfare insurance? —Yes; it is insurance under the Social Welfare Acts. 69. Chairman.—On subhead AA—Military Educational Courses and Visits—the saving is due to accounts for courses not being presented in sufficient time for payment to be made in 1975. Could they have been paid in 1975? —Perhaps, yes. We find that in some of these cases, where, for example, we send personnel for training to British establishments and where the claim would be coming from a Government department in Britain, they are not terribly quick in getting them through. All we can do is exhort you to try to get the payments within the year? —Yes, in a case like that. 70. On subhead BB—Irish Red Cross Society—there is a Grant-in-Aid, but it was not completely spent. —The reason for that is that there is an element in that Grant-in-Aid which covers emergency relief in cases of disaster due to floods and storms and so on. We are not always asked to give a contribution or perhaps the amount of the contribution would not come up to the amount which we vote. 71. Deputy C. Murphy.—On subhead EE1—Assistance to Sail Training—the excess is due to the purchase of the Creidne as an interim replacement for the Asgard pending the building of a new sail training vessel. I believe that a design has been accepted for the new sail training vessel, the Brendan. Is that correct? —I am not sure whether we have completely decided on that but it is at an advanced stage. 72. No money has been put aside as yet towards the building of this sail training vessel? —There is no provision in the 1977 Estimate. I do not seem to have the 1977 information here but perhaps we could furnish you with a note? No; there is no necessity. 73. Chairman.—On the total surplus to be surrendered, £839,822, that is roughly about 1½ per cent of the vote? —Yes. 74. It is a fairly substantial sum of money. The Defence Forces have not in any way been pared down for expenditure? —No. I am tempted to ask that question in view of experiences before 1939. It is important that efficiency for the purpose for which they are required is maintained, and of course it has to be paid for. 75. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Has the Prison unit which is being constructed in the Curragh been started this year? Has it been included in the Estimate this year? —Does the Deputy mean in the year of this vote, or in 1977? When was the construction of it started, 1975 or 1976? —Are we talking of the re-organisation of the Curragh? I understand that a detention unit is being constructed in the Curragh. I assume that is under construction now. It usually takes about two years unless such things are pushed rapidly. I was wondering if it is included in the 1975 estimate of expenditure? —No, there is no provision for it. It was not started in 1975? —That is correct. 76. Chairman.—On item No. 12 in Appropriations in Aid, under what circumstances are officers facilitated in buying cars? —Officers of the Permanent Defence Force who are assigned to special duty with the FCA and Civil Defence are involved in a considerable amount of travel in the course of the year. They are facilitated in purchasing cars. They are given an advance and the advance is repayable, without interest, over a period of three or four years. But the car is their’s? —The car is their’s. 77. Deputy Griffin.—On item No. 2 in Appropriations in Aid, the sale of unserviceable clothing, could the Accounting Officer specify what clothing is involved? Can he give any guarantee that if they are uniforms they do not fall into the hands of illegal organisations? —The clothing is cleared of all insignia and other indications of it’s being a uniform. 78. Chairman.—Would combat jackets and things of that nature be so disposed? —They are. 79. There is very little insignia that could not be put back? —True, but combat jackets are a common item in any event. One can pick up these things new which would be of a very similar pattern. The unserviceable items sold would not be identifiable from non-Defence Force garments. 80. Deputy C. Murphy.—In relation to Army helicopters being availed of by Garda personnel during 1975, in the case of bank robberies in the city would the Garda call on the Army for use of helicopters as spotters? —Yes. We would always wish to come to the aid of the civil power in a case like that. 81. How closely located to the city are these helicopters? —Baldonnel is our main base. We have a helicopter station for Western Command duties at Finner but the main base for helicopters is in the Air Corps station at Baldonnel. Just one base in the Dublin area? —We have eight helicopters in all. But just one base? —Yes, one base in the Dublin area. 82. Chairman.—Would they be operated always by Army personnel? —Yes. They are totally in the charge of the Defence Forces. 83. Deputy C. Murphy.—I gather they could be very effective in spotting a build-up of traffic, for instance? —Yes. That is recognised and in a case where they would need to cover an area which would not be susceptible of easy search from the ground the Garda authorities could certainly look for them. 84. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Do the Garda authorities make any payment to your Department for the use of the helicopters? —In such a case, that would not arise. 85. Chairman.—It is security really? —It is. VOTE 45—ARMY PENSIONS.Mr. M. P. Healy further examined.86. Deputy Griffin.—On subhead B— how many pensioners approximately are there? —Under subhead B there are 815. Under subhead D there are 4,700 Military Service Pensions actually on pay. 87. Chairman.—On subhead E—Defence Forces (Pensions) Schemes, 1937 to 1975? —The number involved there is 3,921. 88. On subhead F—Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Acts, 1936 to 1964? —There are only two of those. 89. On subhead G—Compensation for Death or Personal Injuries sustained by Members of the Local Defence Force? —There are 48 cases on pay there. 90. On subhead H—Special Allowances under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1973, to Persons who served in Easter Week, to Persons awarded Medals and to Persons granted Pensions or Gratuities under the Connaught Rangers (Pensions) Acts? —There are 8,500 recipients. 91. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Are you still getting applications for special allowances and medals? —We are. 92. Deputy C. Murphy.—On subhead L— Special Compensation; United Nations Force—what would that relate to? —This is compensation for people who are serving abroad on United Nations duty and who are injured, or in the case of people who die on duty, it would be paid to their next of kin. 93. I understand now that service during the emergency is taken into consideration for pensions. Is that right in relation to a person who served during the Emergency who then went maybe into a position with a local authority? —That scheme was introduced as a supplement to the service from which the person has retired. A maximum of two years Army service during the Emergency can count towards pension on retirement. 94. I understood that it was five years. —It is, I understand, under consideration in the Department of the Public Service. It may well be that what the Deputy has in mind may materialise, but it has not been finalised. Chairman.—Thank you very much, gentlemen. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
