Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1979 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1977

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 10 Bealtaine, 1979

Thursday, 10th May, 1979

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

1. Deputy C. Murphy.—I move that Deputy O’Toole be elected as Chairman of the Committee.

Deputy N. Andrews.—I second the nomination of Deputy O’Toole.

Question: “That Deputy O’Toole be Chairman of the Committee”—put and agreed to.

DEPUTY O’TOOLE took the chair.

2. Chairman.—I thank Deputies once again for electing me to the chairmanship of this Committee. I am pleased that the membership of the Committee is unchanged, having regard to our harmonious working relationship during the examination of the 1975 and 1976 Appropriation Accounts. I look forward to our continued partnership. The accounts before us relate to 1977 and a programme has been planned with a view to concluding the taking of evidence by the end of June and the draft report will, I expect, be ready following the Summer Recess. This will have the effect of bringing our work up to date. It is an ambitious programme but with co-operation we should get through it and reach our target.

Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Mr. M. J. Healy called and examined.

3. Deputy Woods.—Everybody concerned seems to be particularly efficient in not taking more than was granted. There is only a total of about £8 overall under various expenses more than granted.

Deputy N. Andrews.—The total less than granted is £34,630.

4. Chairman.—We acknowledge the accuracy of the Vote and we thank the Accounting Officer for his attendance, and for his co-operation in getting us full-time clerical assistance.

—I appreciate the Committee’s remarks.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH

Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin called and examined.

5. Deputy Woods.—On subhead B— Travelling and Incidental Expenses— obviously there was a considerable amount less than granted. Would that include foreign travelling?

—That is where the big money is, naturally. It is hard to decide six months before the year starts what the Taoiseach, for instance, will do, and where he will go.

6. There is an added contingency element?

—That is correct.

7. Deputy N. Andrews.—Would there be any reduction in these expenses as a result of the use of an executive jet by the Air Corps for Ministers attending EEC meetings?

—The Department of Defence will account for Air Corps expenses.

8. As far as the Accounting Officer’s Department are concerned, there would be a reduction?

—I would hope so.

9. On subhead D—Information and Public Relations Services—the expenditure on this was £4,653. Can the Accounting Officer outline how and why that money was spent?

—That is relatively easy in this case. About £4,000 of it was a bill that had been owing for about four years for public relations work done in 1972 for the Department by a public relations officer in CIE.

10. These were expenses that he incurred?

—Expenses that he incurred mainly in America.

And they were only paid in 1977?

—That is correct.

Was that because of delay in presenting his accounts?

—Yes.

Chairman.—It was his fault and not the fault of the Department.

11. Deputy Belton.—In other words, if this bill had not to be met, only £500 or £600 would have been spent in the year under review in respect of this subhead?

—That is right. There is a very big contingency element here. One never knows what will come up in the public relations’ field.

VOTE 5—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON

Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 12—OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. D. Quigley called and examined.

12. Chairman.—On subhead E—General Law Expenses—what is covered there?

—We incur a variety of expenses, the chief ones being jury expenses and witnesses’ expenses—the expenses incurred when a case is in court, other than the expense of counsels’ fees which have a separate subhead.

We must approach this with a certain amount of flexibility, I suppose?

—It is not easy to estimate it accurately.

13. Deputy N. Andrews.—On subhead F —Defence of Public Servants—I see that there is a large increase in the expenditure here. Is there any specific reason for that?

—There are a few reasons, the chief one being that an election petition involving a county registrar was brought by Mr. Dillon Leetch and it lasted for quite some time. The expenses of defending the county registrar had to be paid out of our Vote and they amounted to almost £12,000. That was the biggest single item that we had not estimated for. It is nearly always a token sum there, but that year we ran into heavy expenses.

14. Obviously there were other expenses in addition to defending the county registrar, what were they?

—The chief one incurred, a bill of about £2,000, and that was in relation to the costs of a sergeant in the Dunne’s Stores’ case which were paid on direction.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 13—OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Mr. S. P. O’Leary called and examined.

15. Chairman.—On subhead E—General Law Expenses—will you give a brief outline of what is covered by this?

—These are the occasions when costs are given against the prosecution.

16. We have been looking at this in the Vote for the Attorney General’s Office. In what way is it distinguishable from that of the Attorney General?

—Subhead E in our Vote is exclusively confined to the costs against the prosecution. The Attorney General’s Vote would be more varied because there is a civil aspect to his work and there is a greater variety of cases. We are concerned specifically with costs against the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 16—VALUATION AND ORDNANCE SURVEY

Mr. D. F. Ryan called and examined.

17. Deputy N. Andrews.—Can you explain the reason for the considerable under-expenditure on subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances?

—The underexpenditure is 4.1 per cent. It refers to the Valuation Office and the Ordnance Survey Office. With the abolition of domestic rates we were cautious about filling posts. There were posts for five valuers which we did not fill because we were not sure what would happen. There were also a number of posts for clerical officers and clerical assistants. We had a saving in respect of five valuers for 12 months. There were two map examiners whom we did not appoint because they did not have the four years’ service that was necessary. We also had a number of vacancies in the Ordnance Survey Office in that year. The reason was that we had to set up competitions, go through the Civil Service Commission, advertise and so on. That caused some delay. We had a vacancy for one place names officer for nine months, for 11 cartographers and vacancies also for six trainees. That amounted to £41,000. The £25,000 saving in respect of the Valuation Office and £41,000 in the Ordnance Survey Office should account for the £66,000 which is the full amount.

18. Overall you have a total surplus of almost £250,000 to surrender. Is this due to abolition of domestic rates? I am not complaining that there was such an underexpenditure. If it is justifiable that is a good thing. Can you explain how this surplus came about on the subheads generally?

—One of the major areas in which we made extra money was in the sale of maps. In the previous accounting year we estimated we would sell a certain number of maps but we did not reach the target. On this occasion we were more conservative in our estimate. We plugged it hard to sell as many extra maps as we could and we sold 66 per cent more than what was anticipated. That gave us quite a considerable amount of extra money. That was one of the main items in addition to the other factors I mentioned.

It is very satisfying to hear a Government Department say they are making money on their operations. I should like to pay tribute to the people in the Ordnance Survey Office for their tremendous work during the years. They have begun to project their image and they are to be congratulated.

Chairman.—I endorse what the Deputy has said.

19. You mentioned vacancies for valuers, cartographers and so on. You referred to five valuers. What is the proportion of vacancies in this sector? Secondly, are you experiencing difficulty in getting qualified personnel under the different headings you mentioned where vacancies exist? Are you finding it difficult to fill these vacancies? I presume this holds back some of your work.

—At that time we had an authorised staff of 76—50 valuers and 26 district valuers. That was in 1977. The picture changed with the abolition of domestic rates which has affected the volume of work. Quite a number of people have been tempted away by outside firms since the accounting period. A few have retired prematurely and a number of young men have taken up employment with estate agents in the private sector. There is a certain difficulty in getting the calibre of people we would like. In the accounting period under review we were only five short of the then total authorised staff of 76. A valuer’s job was never the most popular.

20. Is that because of the remuneration in the private sector?

—There must be a certain amount of steel within one and one must be able to deal with the public and be nice about it. When a valuer calls on him, a member of the public generally knows it will cost him money.

In other words, it is not the nicest job in the world?

—I think it is a great job, but many people are not very keen on it and would prefer to work for an auctioneering firm or estate agency.

21. Are you quite confident you have sufficient numbers to carry out the work in hand?

—This is 1979 and I have problems. It is premature to say how things will be in the future. Whatever the Government direct should be done will be done. The number of staff required is being investigated by me. When I am absolutely satisfied as to our requirements, I will be able to give a definitive answer to the question.

I appreciate your problem at the moment.

22. Deputy Belton.—On subhead E— Equipment—why was there an over-expenditure?

—There was an increase in expenditure on expendable items. We got additional supplies of film and printing plates, which account for £7,100. We also got better and more expensive types of levelling and trigonometrical markers for use in the field; these cost an extra £4,500. We had a contract with the Norwegians and the exchange rate of the Norwegian kroner dropped from ten to the £ to 9.7 to the £, thus costing us £4,000.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

Mr. D. F. Ryan called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE

Mr. T. P. Linehan called and examined.

23. Deputy N. Andrews.—On subhead D —Office Machinery and other Office Supplies—there is an under-expenditure of £22,504. In the course of the year under review was any preparation made for the recent census? This office equipment would be used in the collection and collation of statistics?

—The census was not the cause of the under-expenditure. Preparation for the 1979 census was undertaken in 1978.

24. Was there any anticipation of it in this Vote?

—There was extra expenditure on the 1978 Vote but not in the 1977 Vote.

25. On subhead E—Collection of Statistics—what kind of expenditure is involved?

—The main items under that subhead were the collection of agricultural statistics and the carrying out of the 1977 labour force survey. Both inquiries involved the employment of enumerators who collect the information in the field. The agricultural statistics involve the collection of information on a very large scale in June in the enumeration of crops and livestock. There is also an inquiry into livestock in December and several other inquiries on a smaller scale throughout the year. The 1977 labour force survey carried out in May 1977 also involved a number of field staff employed for the purpose of collecting the information from households.

26. Chairman.—You may say if this is not relevant—as regards agricultural inquiries and figures compiled and collated, I feel that in the past few years, particularly since we joined the EEC, there has been a greater demand for figures across the board and all the facts in this area. Is your office responsible for that or is it done as a result of Directives and such from Brussels? Who pays for the collection of this sort of information? If you are involved, do you get a refund?

—The statistical surveys that are carried out specifically for the EEC do involve a subsidy from the EEC which normally does not cover anything like the full cost but in some instances it is possible to carry them out as an integral part of the national collection of statistics. The Central Statistics Office would not be responsible for what I may call the day-to-day management type of information such as that, for example, for the Common Agricultural Policy which is provided by the Department of Agriculture. But there is a number of purely statistical EEC surveys for which we are responsible, but for which we do not get full recompense.

27. But you get a subsidy of some degree?

—The usual procedure adopted in the EEC is that where surveys are being set up on a regular annual basis some subvention is received for the first three years to enable a system to be set up and put into operation. But a permanent subsidy is not received in respect of the carrying out of those surveys.

28. The carrying out of surveys can go on indefinitely—further directives and so on?

—Yes. If I may take the labour force survey as an example, this is specifically an EEC survey. It produces a tremendous amount of valuable information on the national level. It is because of EEC initiative that we have carried it out, but I think we are benefiting by having the information available nationally. We do get money from the EEC for it which would cover at a rough guess about one-quarter of the cost.

29. Even if we are not benefiting nationally from such surveys they are all to our advantage eventually. Would it be possible—this is purely a matter for the Committee and for yourself—if there is a subsidy and surveys of this nature are ongoing, to differentiate it, or show what subsidy has been received and for what purpose under a different subhead or section of a subhead?

—The information given here on Appropriations-in-Aid, item 1, European Economic Community Receipts—the bulk of that amount would be money received for such surveys. There is a refund in it for travelling expenses incurred by people from our Office attending meetings in Brussels or Luxembourg, but the principal constituent is the receipts for surveys.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 38—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA

Mr. L. Tóibín called and examined.

30. Chairman.—There is a considerable saving on this Vote amounting to something like 17 per cent. This is significantly above what may be regarded as the normal tolerance between expenditure and grant. The problem arises obviously on subhead H2.—Gaeltarra Éireann—Caiteachas Caipitil (Deontas-i-gCabhair). Can you comment on that, please.

—Is amhlaidh atá an nós ann go mbíonn airgead caipitil de dhá shaghas ar fáil do Ghaeltarra. Bhí an deontas sa Vóta ró-ard agus an t-airleacan, an chuid eile den airgead—nach mbíonn sa Vóta—ró-íseal. Fágadh cuid den deontas agus fuair Gaeltarra níos mó ná sin mar airleacan breise. Is deacair an t-iomlán a roinnt go cruinn tamall maith roimh ré mar tarlaíonn rudaí nach mbíonn smacht againn orthu. Taobh amuigh den fho-mhírcheann áirithe sin, tá níos mó caite ná mar a bhí ar fáil sa Vóta i gcoitine.

31. Of the grants payable by Gaeltarra Éireann towards industrial development as many as expected did not mature for payment. They matured at a later stage, I presume?

—Yes. A grant does not mature until, say, a machine is delivered, installed, checked out and so on.

32. Deputy Belton.—On subhead E—Improvement Schemes in the Gaeltacht— there was extra expenditure?

—Yes. The main extra expenditure was on co-operative societies, about £90,000 more than in that part of the subhead. Also on marine works there was about £75,000 more spent; and on holiday accommodation—supplementary grants to hotels and guest-houses—the expenditure was some £30,000 higher than the provision. Those amounts would more than make up the excess.

33. Chairman.—If there are no further questions, that completes Vote 38. Thank you.

—Would it be in order for me to refer to the Committee’s recent Report?

If the Accounting Officer wishes to comment on the Committee’s Report he can do so through the Department of Finance and the matter will come to our attention through the Minister’s Minute, at which stage we will be able to consider it. That would be the more appropriate channel. I do not wish to impede the Accounting Officer but the course I have suggested is, procedurally, the most appropriate one.

—It occurs to me that the summary of my evidence on a particular point was rather inadequate.

The Accounting Officer has an opportunity to comment on the Committee’s Report and the matter will come before us through the Minute from the Department of Finance.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 45—DEFENCE

Mr. M. P. Healy called and examined.

34. Chairman.—Paragraph 37 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead Q.—Engineer Stores

In the course of a local audit at Corps of Engineers Stores, Curragh Command, it was noted that a number of items of equipment and stores recommended for sale by Boards of Survey in the years from 1970 to 1973 were still in stock in September 1977. The Accounting Officer informed me that the delay in disposing of the items in question was due to the lack of a properly defined procedure for follow-up action on the reports of the Boards of Survey. He stated that appropriate action has been taken with a view to obviating similar delays in future. He added that some of the items of equipment referred to in my query had already been sold and that the other items would be included in a forthcoming sale.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The recommendations of the Board of Survey that the items of equipment and stores be disposed of by sale had not been implemented at the date of the audit and I communicated with the Accounting Officer regarding the delay. These items have now been disposed of by sale.

35. Chairman.—In the Comptroller and Auditor General’s paragraph there is a statement to the effect that the delay in disposing of the items in question was due to the lack of a properly defined procedure. I presume that the disposal of stock has been going on down the years?

—Yes.

36.—It seems rather strange that there was a lack of a properly defined procedure at this stage. Will the Accounting Officer explain that please?

—It seems to have been an occasion where the officer who initiated the action for the disposal of these stores had them brought before a Board of Survey, got the decision that they were to be disposed of and then took no further action but allowed them to remain in the stores. The initiative rested with him. In all previous cases we have not had this experience of an officer taking no further action when he has had a decision from the Board of Survey that the stores should be sold. We have now clearly defined a procedure to ensure that, in future, no officer will sit back and take no further action once he has had a formal decision that he is permitted to list these stores for sale. It is a most unusual case where an officer who initiated action and got authority, relaxed and allowed the stores to remain in his store rooms, without taking further steps to have them listed for sale.

Human nature, I suppose?

—True. We will attend to that now and ensure that where an officer takes the initiating action and gets the authority to dispose of stores, he will follow it up immediately and have the stores listed for sale.

37. What is the composition of the Board of Survey referred to?

—The board of survey is set up by the Quartermaster-General and is a board of officers drawn from units and corps other than the one in which the stores accumulated. The Board must be quite certain that there was no other area of the Defence Forces in which these stores would have a transfer value.

38. There is liaison?

—Yes. The Board having inspected the stores and checked on their unsuitability for other use would then come to a decision.

39. What kind of items would be involved? What was involved in this case?

—The bigger items included two caterpillar tractors, one International tractor, a scraper and a generator. In addition to these larger items, there were a number of smaller spare parts, flat picks, drills, spades, jack bits and various assorted items that would accumulate in the stores of the Corps of Engineers.

Deputy N. Andrews.—Certainly it took a lot of time to sort out the procedures here. Obviously the matter has been taken care of and there will not be a recurrence?

—Quite so.

40. Chairman.—Paragraph 38 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead Z—Appropriations in Aid.

The hiring charge for army helicopters comprises an inclusive charge for flying time and a charge for non-flying time in respect of the crew. In the course of audit it was noted that these charges were last fixed in 1969 and 1971 respectively. Having regard to the increases in pay and allowances and in the cost of fuel and materials since these dates I asked the Accounting Officer whether consideration had been given to the question of increasing these charges.

He informed me that this matter has been under consideration for some time and that the Department’s Professional Accountant has been asked to furnish a report in the matter.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Paragraph 38 deals with the need for updating the hiring charges for Army helicopters. The Accounting Officer recently informed me that the charges have now been increased.

41. Deputy N. Andrews.—Only now?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—I was so informed last March.

42. Deputy N. Andrews.—The charges have not been increased since 1971?

—That is so.

43. What is the charge?

—The charge in 1971 was £80 per hour. It has now been increased to £165 per hour with charges for the time spent by the crew. It might be as well to mention the background to this. We are talking here about the use of helicopters for two purposes basically. One is the air ambulance missions where helicopters are used to transfer patients from local hospitals or from their homes to hospitals at a distance where they get specialist treatment. The second class of hireage is the commercial kind where somebody outside the service says he needs a helicopter and hires it. There are about 100 air ambulance missions each year but there is on average only one per year for commercial hiring. We are talking principally about air ambulance missions. We charge the local health authority who requisition the helicopter to have the patient in their administration transferred to a specialist hospital and in turn, the local health authority get back the money almost entirely from the Vote for the Department of Health. What is being done here is that we are going to make the Department of Health pay the Department of Defence a sum of money greater than what it was in 1969 or 1971. We suggested to the Department of Health that we might deal with this in a note in the Appropriation Account, simply saying that helicopters were used for air ambulance purposes, that the Department of Health took responsibility for that and a paper transaction would be shown in relation to the two Votes.

44. Chairman.—To recoup you directly?

—The question is whether there should be any recoupment at all.

Deputy N. Andrews.—I would agree with that.

—We are considering that at the moment with the Departments of Finance and Health. There is really no loss to the taxpayer involved in whether the charge is £100, £120 or £150 per hour.

45. Chairman.—You are just trying to obviate the necessity for extra administrative procedures?

—Yes.

46. It is a laudable endeavour to attempt to cut down on administrative expense. However, while in the long run a loss to the taxpayer in this case does not arise, there is the fact that no updating of costs took place over a seven-year period. Could a system of review after a certain period be introduced, or indexation of costs to keep up with CPI increases, to make it more realistic?

—We would aim to do that in the case of commercial hireage. In fact, we seem to be facing a situation in which commercial hireage is not going to be a problem for us to any great degree. There are outside companies who make helicopters available for commercial hireage and the demand for Army helicopters for that purpose is falling. Before there was availability in commercial quarters we made more helicopters available for commercial purposes but it does not arise very often now. So far as air ambulance missions are concerned, even though it is only a paper transaction, it would be as well to show a realistic figure. Before the Comptroller and Auditor General raised this matter a review was initiated. In due course we got the Department’s professional accountant to go into it in great detail as to the costs of operating the helicopter service so that we could come to an appropriate figure for these charges. I agree we should continue to do that, and to do it at more frequent intervals. That is our objective.

47. Deputy Belton.—On subhead L— Petrol, Fuel Oils, etc.—this is a very topical question at the moment. You seem to have estimated quite accurately in this case but, in the light of recent developments and pronouncements with regard to supplies and costs, I am sure you anticipate difficulties in trying to arrive at accurate estimates for the future?

—It will be a problem. Estimates are prepared well in advance of the commencement of the financial year so that we have to project in advance as well as we can what we will pay for petrol, fuel oil and so on. It will be more difficult now. There was relative stability in the past but we are not going to get that from now on.

It will be nearly impossible for you to be accurate?

—Yes.

48. Deputy N. Andrews.—On subhead M —Clothing and Equipment—what proportion was spent on clothing, uniforms and so on?

—I am not sure if I have a detailed breakdown. We might get a guide to the proportions by taking the 1978 figures: uniform clothing for cadets, NCOs and privates came to £2,041,000 and the cost of uniform clothing for the reserve Defence Force was £400,000; civilian clothing for men on discharge, or allowances in lieu, cost £40,000; clothing for crews of marine transport vessels cost £4,000; and there was a deduction in respect of repayments of £60,000 and a provision for under-expenditure for stores not delivered. In 1978 the figure was £2.45 million and it was £2.26 million in 1977. These proportions would be relevant to 1977. In fact, I now have the 1977 figures. The cost of uniform clothing for men, including cadets, was £1.9 million; for the reserve it was £338,000; the cost of civilian clothing for men on discharge, or allowances in lieu, was £28,000; clothing for crews of marine transport vessels cost £2,500. That came to £2.28 million and there was a deduction for clothing on repayment and stores ordered which brought the figure down to £2.262 million, which is the provision in the 1977 Vote.

49. Are all these uniforms provided by the same supplier?

—We buy them through the Post Office stores.

50. Does that include uniforms for officers, NCOs and other ranks?

—The officers’ uniforms are not included. They are paid to provide their own uniforms. They go to their own tailors and we pay them appropriately.

51. Are the officers’ uniforms of standard material?

—They are.

52. Is there a specification for the officers’ uniforms?

—Yes. The Post Office stores arrange for the making available of the material and the officers’ tailors get their supplies through them.

53. What is the difference between the cost of the material used for officers’ uniforms and that used for the uniforms of other ranks? I wish to know the difference in quality.

—The Post Office would know it.

54. Of course they would know it, but do you know it? Have you any idea what it costs to supply the cloth for a private’s uniform?

—The provision in the Vote is the amount for which we are responsible in relation to uniforms. We have not a breakdown of the cost of a uniform as between the cloth and the making-up. The allowance for officers’ uniforms is £181,000 in a particular year. It would not be very helpful to utilise that figure in comparison with the figures for the uniforms of NCOs and men.

55. Chairman.—You pay for the cloth when you get an account from the Post Office? They actually supply the uniforms?

56. Deputy N. Andrews.—To your specifications?

—Yes.

Including the cloth?

—It is all in the account we get from them.

But you specify the quality of the cloth?

—We certainly take their advice. They tell us the varieties on offer.

I should like to see a better quality uniform. I do not see why a private should have to wear a hairy, sack-like uniform. This has been the case for years and there should be an improvement. That is why I wanted to establish the relative costs.

57. Chairman.—Perhaps you would submit a note giving the Committee this information.

—We will be glad to do so.*

Deputy N. Andrews.—We would very much appreciate that.

VOTE 46—ARMY PENSIONS

Mr. M. P. Healy further examined.

58. Chairman.—Paragraph 39 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Excess of Expenditure over Grant

The Appropriation Account shows excess expenditure of £22,589 over the gross estimate and a surplus of appropriations in aid of £154. The net deficit is therefore £22,435.

The Accounting Officer explained that the excess arose because of overexpenditure of £55,342 under Subhead E (Provision £7,006,000) on pensions, gratuities, etc., for former members of the Permanent Defence Force. While it is possible to make accurate provision for pensions and gratuities payable to Army personnel who retire on reaching the prescribed age limits it is very difficult to forecast commitments in respect of personnel who retire voluntarily before reaching the age limits or who die in service. The number of gratuities, eighty-six, which came in course of payment in December for personnel who retired voluntarily was higher than anticipated. The Accounting Officer added that he is having the accounting arrangements of the Vote examined with the object of improving control measures so as to avoid any excess expenditure in the future.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph gives in brief the circumstances in which the provision made in this Vote was exceeded. To bring this matter to the notice of Dáil Éireann with a view to having the position 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 see no objection to this course.

59. Chairman.—It would seem that this is a rather serious matter in that the amount had been exceeded by a substantial sum without authority. Perhaps you would comment on that?

—I agree it is a very serious matter and it caused me considerable concern when it came to my notice. As a result, I have arranged for certain redeployment of staff and the provision of an additional monitoring level to ensure that authorising officers will be quite certain of what balance of money is available to them before authorising a payment. In this case the payments which led to the net excess of £22,000 could really be attributed to payments made in the last two days of the financial year, 29 and 30 December 1977, amounting to £24,338. These payments were all in respect of gratuities to people leaving the Army, whether officers on retirement or NCOs and men on discharge. Section 47 of the Defence Act provides that any officer who is qualified under the Defence Force Pension Scheme may, with the permission of the Minister, retire. At any time an officer who has sufficient service may decide to seek permission to retire and this permission is never withheld. We have no idea how many cases must be provided for. Each year we get an approximate figure which, in the light of our experience, would appear to cover the cost of gratuities on retirement. As far as NCOs and men are concerned, any man with more than 21 years’ service can seek his discharge and it is granted. Men with lesser service, when they reach the end of their enlisted period can opt not to renew and they also receive gratuities. What happened in December 1977 was that we had an unprecedented amount of these discharges, about 86 in the month. This is no excuse for the authorising officer who allowed payments to be made in excess of what he had available in the balance on the Vote. It seems he misled himself in this respect and there is an explanation of this which at least can be understood as to why he misled himself. It is that with pension warrants which are payable under the same subhead the amount in the warrant is the net amount after deduction of income tax. The tax is held until the warrant is discharged and returned to us and the pensioner has actually received the payment and only then, or perhaps a little later, is the tax element paid over to the Revenue Commissioners. Warrants that were cashed late in the month and the element of tax in them which had not been paid to the Revenue Commissioners created a false balance. The money was committed but it was not actually paid to the Revenue Commissioners. The officer misled himself by thinking that this amount not paid over was still available and the amount was considerably in excess of the net amount of £22,000. It had not actually been paid to the Revenue Commissioners but it was so committed that it was not at his disposal and it was not a live balance in the Vote. This is no extenuation. I consider that the officer should have made certain from his own experience what the situation was. Therefore, it is, as you say, most unfortunate and was a matter of considerable concern. We have taken steps to ensure that this type of thing, hopefully, can never happen again.

60. The officer was a man of experience presumably and should have known that the money at his disposal was not all available for this disbursement and that some of it was due to the Revenue Commissioners?

—Indeed he should.

61. Deputy N. Andrews.—I think, having regard to the circumstances in which the excess expenditure was incurred, that we can recommend that it be sanctioned by way of an excess Vote taken in the Dáil. The Accounting Officer is obviously aware of the seriousness of the situation and it is unlikely to occur in the future in view of the assurance we have received from him.

62. Chairman.—The Committee are agreed on that point. We appreciate the Accounting Officer’s problem and his guarantee that it will not happen again as far as he is concerned.

—Thank you, Chairman.

63. Deputy N. Andrews.—The Connaught Rangers are still around, I see.

—There was one at least. The last surviving pensioner has died.

64. Deputy Belton.—On subhead I— MacSwiney (Pension) Acts, 1950-1964— what exactly is involved here?

—The widow of Terence MacSwiney who is still alive is in receipt of a pension. The Act was introduced in 1952.

65. Was there an increase? The expenditure is £1,876 more than granted.

—No, strangely enough what happened was the pensioner did not cash her 1976 pension warrants in that financial year. They came up for encashment in 1977 and this created an excess because we did not anticipate this would happen.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix 4