Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1990 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1988

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of Public Accounts)

Déardaoin, 8 Feabhra, 1990

Thursday, 8 February, 1990

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY G. MITCHELL in the chair

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. P. L. McDonnell called and examined.

VOTE 17 — CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. B. Lannon called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee of Public Accounts is examining on the Civil Service Commission Vote No. 17 in the Appropriation Accounts for 1988 and we have the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Brendan Lannon, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Vote this morning. You are welcome, Mr. Lannon.

Mr. Lannon.—Thank you.

Chairman.—There are no paragraphs on this particular Vote so I will lead off by asking a few general questions, Mr. Lannon. In this particular year, 1988, how many competitions were organised by the Commission?

Mr. Lannon.—I have not a figure for the precise number of competitions. The embargo came into effect the previous year but during that year there were competitions for appointments under the Local Appointments Commission, there was the major recruitment competition for the Garda and there was a series of competitions for redeployment of staff from semi-State boards into the Civil Service.

Chairman.—Was it substantially down on the previous year?

Mr. Lannon.—It was, yes.

Chairman.—Did that affect the numbers employed by your office?

Mr. Lannon.—It did, yes.

Chairman.—Substantially?

Mr. Lannon.—The previous year they had been reduced from 150 to 30.

Chairman.—Turning to the Vote itself, can you explain how an excess Vote arose on the subhead D. — Examinations, for unforeseen advertising when savings arose under subheads A.2 and B.1 due to the low level of recruitment. How does that arise?

Mr. Lannon.—Under that heading costs such as the costs of advertising arise and also the costs of any accommodation for examinations. Towards the end of that year we were getting back into advertising and there had been quite a few advertisments. The major costs of the competitions might have been occurring in the following year.

Chairman.—I see. With regard to redeployment of the Commission’s staff, how many were redeployed in other Government Departments and which Departments were involved during the year in question?

Mr. Lannon.—The number involved would have been over 100 and they went mainly to the Revenue Commissioners.

Chairman.—Do you have sufficient staff now for the current workload?

Mr. Lannon.—The number of staff has been increased in recent times, yes.

Chairman.—Sufficiently?

Mr. Lannon.—Barely.

Chairman.—In competitions where there are a large number of applicants for a very small number of posts does the Commission shortlist candidates or is every candidate examined? How do you deal with that situation?

Mr. Lannon.—Shortlisting is used quite extensively.

Chairman.—How do you ensure that impartiality applies when you are doing that?

Mr. Lannon.—Shortlisting is done where practical on a very objective basis using criteria such as educational qualifications, experience and so forth.

Chairman.—Is your office open to examination by the Ombudsman?

Mr. Lannon.—The making of appointments is not.

Chairman.—But if somebody suggested that the question of shortlisting was unfair would the Ombudsman have access to you?

Mr. Lannon.—No.

Chairman.—It is a bit of a gap really because you are removed from the Oireachtas and Ministers and everybody?

Mr. Lannon.—Effectively, the Civil Service Commissioners will see any shortlisting proposals which the office or interview boards wish to make. The Civil Service Commissioners would be the people who would monitor that.

Chairman.—As recruitment fell in the public service I understand the cost per capita of appointment grew? I understand the figure in 1980 was £325 per capita and it was £700 in 1982? What is the present cost per capita of appointment?

Mr. Lannon.—I have not got any up-to-date figures on that. The difficulty arises because legislation requires that there be a competition. If a large number of appointments is made as a result of a competition obviously the cost per appointment is lower. But if a small number of appointments is made, as is the case at present, the cost is liable to be greater.

Chairman.—But surely in measuring the efficiency of how you run your department you monitor figures of this kind in order to ensure that you are getting a satisfactory return?

Mr. Lannon.—We have not had major competitions in recent years.

Chairman.—Could you tell us the situation since 1982? What happened in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987? What was the per capita costs of appointment in those particular years?

Mr. Lannon.—I have not got those figures with me, I am afraid.

Chairman.—But do you know? Is it not something that you would have at your finger tips?

Mr. Lannon.—Undoubtedly measures were taken in that period to keep down the costs substantially. The number of appointments being made from each competition has been quite low in those years.

Chairman.—Would you prepare a note for the Committee on the per capita costs for the years up to date and forward it to us as soon as you can, please?

Mr. Lannon.—Yes.

Chairman.—The last question I want to ask you is; are you satisfied with the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the recruitment process generally? But I suppose, as a measure of that, we would need to look at these particular figures you are preparing. I do not know whether you can make a more general comment outside of these specific figures?

Mr. Lannon.—The range of appointments dealt with by the two Commissions varies quite substantially. Costs for low level appointments could well differ from the cost of making senior appointments under local authorities, for example.

Chairman.—But you are the Accounting Officer. Are you satisfied that it is cost-effective and efficient? Do you also specifically ensure that this is kept under constant review?

Mr. Lannon.—I have no doubt whatsoever about that, that the costs are kept at the lowest possible level.

Chairman.—What does the Department of Finance have to say about that?

Mr. J. O’Farrell (Department of Finance).—We would endorse what the Accounting Officer has just said that when the level of recruitment declined under the embargo the Commissioners co-operated fully in reducing numbers quite substantially and——

Chairman.—My question is in relation to cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Are you satisfied that that particular department reviews its cost-effectiveness and efficiency and has your Department carried out any measure or asked for any measure to be carried out to examine this?

Mr. J. O’Farrell.—This is my point. From our point of view staffing cost is the main cost in the Civil Service Commission and that is what we keep under review in conjunction with the Commissioners. We have found them to be very cost-effective in the deployment of their staffing resources and also to have been consistently to the fore and innovators in the use of mechanisation and the use of computerisation.

Chairman.—Now you are satisfied, could you satisfy the Committee, could you tell us what measure you have used, what is the per capita cost, how do we satisfy ourselves? What measure can you offer us that we can look at down the years and say that is an indication of effectiveness and efficiency?

Mr. J. O’Farrell.—There is no one measure because the point about the per capita cost, which the Accounting Officer will be sending a note on, is that on its own that figure is not necessarily meaningful because the Commissioners have to run a competition at a stage where they do not know, for instance, how many clerical assistants are going to be called. If having run the competition they get an instruction from the Department of Finance, which used to happen at one period, that they call another 200 of that competition, it is very little extra cost to the Commissioners but on paper that would reduce the per capita cost. That would not be to us the measure we would be looking at. We would be looking at the volume of work that they have got, the number of competitions, the work entailed in those competitions and to ensure that the resources for these are adequate and not excessive.

Chairman.—The whole question of what you do and how you do it is an independent situation and that is how it should be; but that it is cost-effective and efficient is a matter for this Committee. We did have in the past over a number of years large numbers of people being recruited, interviewed and gone through for a small number of jobs, maybe tens of thousands for a tiny number of jobs. Surely, because of criticism of that in the past it has caused your Department and the Civil Service Commissioners to introduce some measure of cost-effectiveness and efficiency against which you can measure performance? Has that been done? Is there some particular measure that you have put down as standard?

Mr. O’Farrell.—There is no particular standard for the reasons that I am saying: that each competition exists in its own right. For a high-level competition, for instance, when everyone who is shortlisted has to be interviewed, different criteria would apply to a large-scale clerical competition than to an examination-based competition. We would look at each one on its own merits, agree the best approach with the Commissioners and proceed on that basis each time.

Chairman.—Mr. Lannon, it is on you that the statutory duty is devolved, you are the Accounting Officer. Would you give the figures concerned? Perhaps you might include any other comments that you might find helpful on the whole question of cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

Mr. Lannon.—Yes.

Deputy Culimore.—Recruitment activities fall into two broad categories — school leavers and those with professional qualifications. How many school leavers will be recruited from competitions in the coming year?

Mr. Lannon.—That would not be for me to determine. I do not know that figure. That would depend on the requirements of Departments and what would be sanctioned by the Department of Finance.

Deputy Cullimore.—How many competitions will you have for the recruitment of school leavers?

Mr. Lannon.—There is no decision as yet as to what competitions will definitely be held. At the moment we are holding a competition for executive officers and we expect to have a competition for clerical assistants and air traffic control assistants.

Deputy Cullimore.—Will these all be recruited from the school leaver list?

Mr. Lannon.—Yes.

Deputy Cullimore.—How many people will you interview for those positions?

Mr. Lannon.—We would not know that at this stage. We are in the process of interviewing something of the order of 200 for the executive officer appointments at the moment.

Deputy Cullimore.—Have you any idea how many of those will be sanctioned?

Mr. Lannon.—No.

Deputy McGahon.—On the Local Appointments Commission, can you explain why undue delays take place for the appointment of senior personnel to local appointments such as county engineers, town engineers, town clerks? Why should such inordinate delays take place before people are appointed?

Mr. Lannon.—There are bodies other than the Local Appointments Commission involved in the matter. There are the local authorities themselves and the Department of the Environment. They have a role to play in the whole process.

Deputy McGahon.—Can you tell us what type of role? If there is a town clerk needed to be appointed in let is say Dundalk, what role do the local authority play in that?

Mr. Lannon.—In the first instance, the local authority would have to make a formal request. That does not always take place immediately.

Deputy McGahon.—That can be done in a day.

Mr. Lannon.—It does not always take place immediately.

Deputy McGahon.—I very much doubt that.

Mr. Lannon.—The Department of the Environment are involved from the point of view of sanctioning the actual filling of the vacancy. They are also involved from the point of view of declaring the qualifications and particulars of office.

Deputy McGahon.—Why should that take perhaps a year in some cases? Could any private business function with that type of scenario when an executive is required for a business? Why should a delay of a year take place?

Mr. Lannon.—In the normal course of events it is not taking the Local Appointments Commission a full year to do these things.

Deputy McGahon.—Could you tell me what happens?

Mr. Lannon.—There are the other bodies involved. There are the local authorities and the Department concerned; in addition, when the Local Appointments Commission have finished their role and have recommended a person for appointment, that person very often, particularly with the senior appointments, has to give lengthy notice before he can take up duty. That, we know, is a cause of delay at that stage.

Deputy McGahon.—Does that justify possibly a year’s delay?

Mr. Lannon.—That notice aspect alone can at times take two to three months. That can happen with senior appointments. It can certainly happen with consultant medical appointments where people are coming back home from abroad. It has been known to take six months.

Deputy McGahon.—I can accept that in particular sensitive cases such as medical appointments. I cannot accept that any local authority in any part of this country would be slow in applying to have a position filled.

Mr. Lannon.—In some instances local authorities can appoint people acting in the vacancy before they——

Deputy McGahon.—Do you believe that is a satisfactory situation?

Mr. Lannon.—That is not for me to say.

Deputy McGahon.—Is that fair to the persons in the acting capacity? I am not making any reflection on them. There has to be a degree of permanency to get the best out of a person working in a key position. I cannot understand delays beyond a month or two. I cannot understand why the public service cannot copy the private sector right along the line.

Mr. Lannon.—For a start-off, the Local Appointments Commission must go through the procedures that are laid down by statute for them.

Deputy McGahon.—They are very cumbersome and need to be modernised.

Mr. Lannon.—It involves public advertisement which would not always be a feature in the private sector and it involves a competition, including the short listing in which we are also engaged. The number of applicants for senior appointments in local authorities tends to be very large. You mentioned county engineers, for example. We do get large numbers of applicants at that level and shortlisting has to be a feature of the operation. It is not everybody who accepts that he or she should be excluded from an interview. I agree that the process can be slow at times. The total time in the filling of a job is not entirely attributable to the Local Appointments Commission.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Can I just get this matter clear? We are talking about the year in which the embargo bit deepest, a year when the embargo was virtually universal, where the effect of the redeployment early retirement package was going on at full steam. Can we go back to the staffing point? What had been the normal staffing level of your office and what has it been, say, over an average of the last three years, while we have been experiencing the phenomenon we talked about?

Mr. Lannon.—Going back as far as the beginning of this decade, there were over 200 staff. By 1 January 1987 the figure was of the order of 150. By the end of 1987 it was down to 30.

Deputy Rabbitte.—From 150 to 30?

Mr. Lannon.—Yes. That was the year in which the embargo came into effect.

Deputy Rabbitte.—I fully appreciate that. Where are the 120 staff?

Mr. Lannon.—They were redeployed, mainly to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

Deputy Rabbitte.—I am delighted to hear that. On the question of the early retirement voluntary severance package, presumably that was the main business of the commissioners?

Mr. Lannon.—No. that would not be their function.

Deputy Rabbitte.—But they did have a function where people became redundant because public bodies were rationalised, or shut down, or whatever, and became applicants through the commission system for appointment elsewhere in the Civil Service or in the local service.

Mr. Lannon.—What happened was that the staff of some of the semi-State bodies in which there was redundancy were offered the opportunity of competing in competitions being held by the Civil Service Commissioners for vacancies within the Civil Service.

Deputy Rabbitte.—I do not understand. How does that differ from what I said? Is that not what I said?

Mr. Lannon.—That is it.

Mr. Rabbitte.—That is what I said. What proportion of your work was taken up accommodating that position as distinct from making appointments in an embargo situation? Was not the major number of appointments made in the year under review and, indeed, in 1989, arising from this situation in the public service generally?

Mr. Lannon.—Yes, but in addition to that type of appointment the Civil Service Commission were also dealing with the usual appointments under local authorities, the Local Appointments Commission aspect of things, and, in addition, we were dealing with Garda recruitment. The aspect you were talking about was a major feature, too.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Yes. The Chairman asked you for a note, at your convenience, on the question of per capita cost of appointment and so on and the cost-efficiency of the office. Can you tell us now or can you include in that note or does anybody have figures for the number of people who because of the cutbacks, rationalisation, the entire abolition of bodies like An Foras Forbartha and so on, were redeployed within the Civil Service or local service. How many of them were redeployed effectively, how many of them may still be waiting redeployment? Does anybody have figures on that area?

Mr. Lannon.—I can only answer for what we were asked to do. We were probably only contributing to the whole process. We were asked to hold certain competitions for certain grades and to admit to those competitions people from the redundant organisations but redeployment was happening in other ways, apart from the processes that we were going through. I cannot answer your question in full.

Deputy Rabbitte.—So, if 50 people, for example, came on stream from a particular public body that no longer exists or has been seriously been cut back or whatever, we cannot say whether those people have been redeployed usefully within the service or whether some of them may be twiddling their thumbs somewhere waiting for redeployment or whatever?

Mr. Lannon.—I cannot answer for that.

Chairman.—Could Finance answer?

Mr. N. McSweeney (Department of Finance.—I regret that I do not have information immediately at hand on the position in the State bodies.

Chairman.—I think we will have to write and remind the people attending from the Department of Finance that they are expected to come here briefed on the Departments which they are shadowing on the day in question. I think you should anticipate that you will be asked certain questions from time to time. It is something that you might reflect on for the future. Perhaps, Mr. Lannon, you would include some comments on that in the note that you are sending the Committee. Perhaps you would consult with the Department of Finance, but you might reflect on that point made by the Deputy when you are writing to the Committee with the statistics we asked for earlier.

Mr. O’Farrell.—Just to clarify one point, and indeed for the Deputy, in case it is not clarified. The Civil Service Commission would know and so would the Department of Finance as regards the people from the State bodies who actually applied under the redeployment exercise to get into the Civil Service. Where the gap would be and, where neither the Commission nor ourselves could be certain would be on staffing ratios in the State bodies themselves, because certainly nobody here has a remit for, let us say, Teagasc. We do not control the staffing there. We do control the staffing within the Civil Service and we deal with those people who actually present themselves. We would not be in a position and, no matter what briefing we did before we came, we would not know what the actual staffing levels are like.

Chairman.—This whole process is an accounting process. People are coming here to account for the moneys which we as Members of Dáil Éireann gave them to spend and it is reasonable to expect that when people come here they should anticipate. It is a once a year visit for the Accounting Officer, by and large. It is once a year that the Department of Finance are asked to observe what they have found in that particular Department when asked questions. I do not think that it is too much to expect that people come here well briefed, having read their brief and anticipating questions. Perhaps I should do a note to the Secretary of the Department of Finance reminding him that he should remind principal officers attending here of that duty. This is an accounting process and not just a formula to be gone through, Mr. O’Farrell.

Deputy Rabbitte wants to conclude on the particular point.

Deputy Rabittte.—On a more general question: is the Accounting Officer recommending or has he recommended in the recent past any changes in the appointments system as it operates currently?

Mr. Lannon.—According as each competition comes up to be held we are looking at the format of the competition and making substantial changes in the format of the competition with a view to running them more cost-effectively. There have been major changes in a lot of the competitions which we have been holding.

Deputy Kitt.—Just two brief questions to follow up on Deputy McGahon’s point, not on the local authorities but on the health boards. Could I just ask you on the question of competitions for orthondontists, which is a particular problem, with the Western Health Board that I have been in. I have made several inquiries. Could you just tell us the position as regards competitions for orthodontists and the fact that there is a difficulty appointing them? The other point is there has been some talk about recruiting people in the Department of Agriculture dealing with the delay in paying grants, farm grants, reactor grants in particular. I wanted to know the position on that. We discussed here at a previous meeting the fact that there were staff transferred from the Department of Finance, when the land tax was abolished, back to agriculture. There was something like 100 extra staff there.

On the one hand you have representations from unions about recruiting more people in Agriculture and yet there seems to be a very large number of staff in the Department of Agriculture already. We discovered here that the Department of Agriculture did not know they had 100 people redeployed when we came to examine that particular Accounting Officer. I would like your comments on that.

Mr. Lannon.—On the question of orthodontists, they are very few and far between and we have found in the past that it is extremely difficult to recruit them into public appointments. They do not apply for them. We have tried several times to fill the vacancy in the Western Health Board without success. As regards the Department of Agriculture, I do not think that is an appropriate question for me to have to answer. It is a matter for the Accounting Officer in the Department of Agriculture.

Deputy Kitt.—There was talk of recruiting people to that Department. That is the question I am asking really. Is that the position?

Mr. Lannon.—I do not know of that. We are conducting a competition at present for veterinary inspectors, but that is the only competition for the Department of Agriculture that I am aware of at present.

Deputy Kitt.—Veterinary inspectors only?

Mr. Lannon.—Yes.

Deputy Kitt.—Have you considered any other strategy to try to get orthodontists to work on health boards?

Mr. Lannon.—That would be a matter in the first instance for the health board itself and for the Department of Health. You are thinking in terms of conditions of service and so forth. That would be for them to decide in the first instance. Once they had reached agreement on that it would be up to us then to advertise and to try to attract applicants.

Deputy Taylor.—The salary rates and conditions of service do not come within the ambit of your department, is that right?

Mr. Lannon.—That is right.

Deputy Taylor.—They are notified to you by the Department or whatever?

Mr. Lannon.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—On the question of orthodontists, which I had intended to raise myself, and that of speech therapists, which is a similar type of situation, from your knowledge of appointments and your experience would you agree that the reason that the Western Health Board — and the same thing applies perhaps with even greater force to the Eastern Health Board — cannot fill these appointments is that the salaries being offered for orthodontists and speech therapists are too low and the conditions of service are not adequate?

Mr. Lannon.—It would only be an assumption on my part. People do not disclose their reasons. We have attempted to fill the posts for orthodontists. We have not dealt with speech therapists.

Deputy Taylor.—What scale of salary have you been offering for an orthodontist?

Mr. Lannon.—We have not announced that in recent years. The figures would be out of date. I have not got them with me.

Deputy Taylor.—Are you saying that the figure is the same as it was quite a number of years ago and has not been updated?

Mr. Lannon.—No. What I am saying is that we have no been asked to try again in recent years.

Deputy Taylor.—You have not been asked to try to recruit orthodontists at all in recent years — is that what you are telling us?

Mr. Lannon.—It is two years since we last advertised.

Deputy Taylor.—Two years since you have been asked to advertise for an orthodontist? That is most remarkable, I would have to say, when you consider that a reply from the Minister for Health about two weeks ago showed that there are literally thousands of people in the Eastern Health Board area alone who are in urgent need. Are you quite certain of that?

Chairman.—I think we are straying a little bit.

Deputy Taylor.—I do not know what we are moving into, but I just want to clarify this. There is some doubt about what was raised here by Deputy Kitt. The answer which appeared to be given to Deputy Kitt, or the implication, was that some attempt had been made which was unsuccessful. That is what I took from the answer to Deputy Kitt. He is nodding; he seems to agree. What we are being told now is quite a different matter, that no attempt has been made to get orthodontists for the last two years. Can you clarify that? Is that so, that no attempt has been made, that you have not been asked to try to get orthodonistists for any of the health boards for two years at least?

Mr. Lannon.—So far as I am aware, the Department of Health and the health boards are reviewing their situation. Any attempts that we have made to make appointments in the past have proved unfruitful.

Deputy Taylor.—When was the last time you made an attempt?

Mr. Lannon.—It would be subject to confirmation. It would be approximately two years, yes.

Deputy Taylor.—Two years. What about speech therapists?

Mr. Lannon.—I am sorry, we do not deal with them.

Deputy Taylor.—You do not deal with speech therapists? Why is that?

Mr. Lannon.—They are dealt with by the health boards themselves.

Deputy Taylor.—How many people exactly are there employed by the commission at this time?

Mr. Lannon.—We have been increasing our staff in recent times and it is now about the level of 95.

Deputy Taylor.—Ninety five now. It was down to a low of 30 at one time.

Mr. Lannon.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—What are your projectons for 1990 in so far as expenditure, salaries and so on, are concerned?

Mr. Lannon.—That is the figure for staff now — with perhaps one or two more. That is the figure that has been agreed for 1990.

Deputy Taylor.—So far, what directives regarding competitions have come from the Department of Finance for 1990?

Mr. Lannon.—Advertisements have already been appearing for various appointments. We have announced major competitions for executive officers, administrative officers, third secretaries — that type of thing. We have also advertised for typists. We will be advertising for air traffic control assistants shortly and for the clerical assistants competition.

Deputy Taylor.—How many positions in all, approximately?

Mr. Lannon.—In these cases, what happens is that a competition is held as a result of which a panel is set up. This means that a panel is available for any appointments which require to be made.

Deputy Taylor.—Are there any requirements at the moment?

Mr. Lannon.—That is not really for me to answer. This would be a matter for the individual Departments and the Department of Finance. When the panels are available, they will come asking us for their appointments.

Deputy Taylor.—Perhaps the Department of Finance could clarify that, then?

Mr. O’Farrell.—This will depend on the amount of natural wastage that occurs. There is not a specific number in mind when a competition is set up. Traditionally, these are contingency panels from which you will fill vacancies that it is appropriate to fill. As was recently announced, the attitude now to Civil Service numbers is towards consolidation, with reductions still in some areas but not at the same level. It is reasonable to assume that at least some of the vacancies occurring henceforth will be filled, so you will have to have a panel to fill them. It would never be possible at this time of the year to quantify how many you are going to call, say, from a clerical assistant panel, up to the end of 1990 — that never has been possible — but it will be a worth-while number. It will certainly make them justify holding the competition.

Deputy Taylor.—I suppose, for practical purposes, one could sum up the situation by saying that there are no specific vacancies being sought to be filled at all at present. It would appear that the setting up of panels is for wastage that might possibly occur at some time during the year. That would seem to be the position.

Mr. O’Farrell.—Or, indeed, in some cases, that would have already occurred, but that would not be the raison d’etre of the panel. If the panel existed tomorrow, there certainly would be some calling off that panel. The bulk of it is going to take place. The panel would remain in existence for, say, 12 to 15 months. It would be there for the purpose of calling people to meet further vacancies which it was deemed essential to fill. I do not wish to convey the impression that the era of the nineteen seventies has arrived again because, it has not. The panels will be sparingly used but, nevertheless, we have come through a period in which significant reductions have been painstakingly achieved. They are going to the protected. Within that, there is certainly scope again now for appointments to be filled.

Chairman.—Finally, Mr. Lannon. I think that last year you carried out a competition for the National Debt Agency. Was there much of a response to that?

Mr. Lannon.—There was a good response and we did make some appointments at a relatively junior level.

Chairman.—What sort of staffing number will that agency have?

Mr. Lannon.—I would not know that.

Chairman.—How many junior positions did you fill then?

Mr. Lannon.—I think that we were asked to fill something like six. These would be appointments at the normal administrative officer level. There were other appointments at a more senior level which we were not asked to fill.

Chairman.—You were not asked to fill those. How would they be filled, as a matter of interest?

Mr. Lannon.—As far as I know, they were intended as short-term contract appointments.

Chairman.—That concludes the examination, Mr. Lannon. Thank you very much indeed.

The witnesses withdrew.

VOTE 38 — DEFENCE

Mr. G. Scully called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee is resuming with the examination of Mr. Gerard Scully, Secretary of the Department of Defence, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Department on Vote 38 of the 1988 Appropriation Accounts. Paragraph 55 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

Subhead M.—Clothing

Subhead T.—Barrack Services

It was noted that in July 1988 the Quartermaster General’s Branch reported that stock deficiencies totalling £57,656 had come to light at a military barracks.

I asked the Acounting Officer for information regarding these deficiencies and whether the relevant regulations and procedures governing the custody and control of stocks were adequate and also whether the operation of such regulations and procedures had been reviewed.

I also inquired whether regular stocktaking. Quartermaster General’s Branch inspections or audits/inspections by the Department’s Audit Section has been carried out at these stores and I asked in what Defence Forces’ stores the prescribed annual or two-yearly stocktaking has not been completed in 1987 or 1988.

I was informed by the Accounting Officer that deficiencies totalling £58,606, mainly in the clothing account, were revealed by a check of the stores accounts following a report to the Military Police in June 1988 that an issue and receipt voucher in respect of items of clothing issued to a unit appeared to have a forged signature. Items of clothing subsequently recovered reduced the deficiency to £57,656. He stated that it appeared that misappropriations were involved but that the extent of the loss to public funds could not be determined until the report of the Court of Inquiry set up to investigate the matter had been received and that the adequacy and operation of the relevant regulations and procedures would be reviewed in the light of the Court’s findings. He also informed me that no discrepancies had been found either during full stocktakings carried out at these stores between 1984 and 1988 or during a Quartermaster General’s Branch inspection in March 1987. Furthermore, an audit of the clothing account of the unit carried out by the internal audit section of the Department’s Finance Branch in 1986 did not reveal any deficiencies.

He undertook to provide information as soon as possible regarding Defence Forces’ stores where prescribed stocktaking had not been completed in 1987 or 1988.

Mr. McDonnell.—This paragraph deals with stocktaking and stores problems. You will recall that in the past I reported to the Committee on some problems in regard to the level of stocktaking at Defence Forces stores. The most recent report of mine on that matter was in my 1984 report, but you will also recall that in its examination of the 1987 accounts the Committee raised the question of stocktaking and expressed some concern about it. I do not want to pre-empt anything the Accounting Officer might say, but it might be helpful if I explained that it is the Defence Forces i.e. the Military side, that primarily have responsibility for the custody and the control of stores and the carrying out of stocktaking at the military barracks and installations. The Department has the function of ensuring that the controls as operated are effective and it does this by carrying out periodic inspections in its own right. That is the situation.

On the paragraph you will see that £57,000 worth of clothing went missing over a period. I do not know what proportion of the throughput of the particular store in question that would represent, but in any event it emphasises the need to have continuous and adequate control at stores and it draws attention to what can go wrong if controls are not being operated as they should be. The case here was investigated by a military Court of Inquiry and I understand it has reported, but it would be more appropriate for the Accounting Officer to fill you in on that than for me to do so.

On the general question of stocktaking throughout the Army, the Accounting Officer has told me that the annual stocktaking was completed for 1988 in all but one of the stores which are required to do it annually and in all but three of the stores for 1989. There are other stores which are required to complete a stocktaking cycle on a two-yearly basis and he told me that the only one in which that cycle had not been completed in recent years was in the technical stores in the naval base in Haulbowline. The last time the cycle had been completed there was in 1980, but he told me that stocktaking there is also in progress and is expected to be completed in 1990. There seems to be some improvement in the carrying out of the stocktaking.

Chairman.—This Committee has referred to the Clancy Barracks stocktaking difficulties in the past, but this difficulty took place at the Curragh?

Mr. Scully.—That is right. With regard to Clancy Barracks, in the past you referred to the fact that the roof of one of the stores down there was damaged.

Chairman.—That is correct, yes.

Mr. Scully.—That is being repaired at the moment and all the checks associated with the Supply and Transport stores in Clancy Barracks have been completed. The computer is installed there. It monitors the stock control and the billing of the items. The total number of ledger items has been reduced from 25,000 to 18,000. That is the total number of ledger items. The total number of items altogether exceeds half a million. That is in relation to Clancy Barracks. The Comptroller and Auditor General has raised the question about total stocktaking throughout the Army and he has said that, apart from the Technical Stores in Haulbowline, all the due inspections and audits have been carried out. The Technical Store in Haulbowline is a very extensive store and it contains something like 50,000 ledger headings and over 600,000 total items. The number of items has increased considerably in the last 18 months on account of getting in the two inshore patrol vessels.

Chairman.—Before we deal with the general question of stocktaking, could you deal specifically with this incident at the Curragh which the paragraph refers to?

Mr. Scully.—Certainly.

Chairman.—How did this happen?

Mr. Scully.—In July 1988 the stores officer at the 1st Garrison Company, Army Ordnance Corps, found a voucher; he queried the storeman and it turned out that there was a forged signature on that. Immediately the stores in the Army Ordnance Corps and the stores in the 6th Field Company Signals were closed and the Military Police called in. The Military Police carried out an investigation and the Garda were called in as well. We were very worried at the time because it was clothing that was involved and the security aspect of it was very distressing. But it turns out that the number of tunics involved was very small. It was mostly things like underwear, pullovers and things like that. A board of survey was convened and that reported last December. They pointed out that there was collusion between the two stores. They said that, while they could not prove the collusion, the evidence was such that they accepted that there was collusion. There is disciplinary action pending against individuals and there are other aspects that we have raised with the Quartermaster General in relation to the findings of the Board of Survey. The total number of items knocked off amounted to £51,000. The total value of the stores held in the 1st Garrison Company, Army Ordnance Corps, in clothing alone would be about £300,000. I do not have the turnover figure, but I assume it would be the same as the turnover for the 2nd Garrison Company in Clancy Barracks, which would be about £4 million a year. I do not know what the turnover is in the Curragh as I have not got those figures at the moment.

Chairman.—To use your own term, you would knock off a lot of pullovers for £56,000. Can you assure the Committee that these items were not used by paramilitaries or were not stolen for use by paramiltaries?

Mr. Scully.—As I said, that was one of the prime considerations we had in mind when we heard about it. Neither the Military Police nor the Garda Síochána can find out exactly what happened the items. First of all, the pullovers would not definitely be distinguished as articles of apparel for the Defence Forces. Boots, caps, berets, overcoats and underwear of all sorts were knocked off. I have discussed with the Quartermaster General and with the OC of the Curragh Command what theories they have to account for that. We know some of the people involved in this fraud and they have come up with no reasonable theory other than to say that they were traded at various pubs throughout the area to various people. That is the only excuse they have.

Chairman.—Was there not a discovery of an arms dump on the Curragh last year, or certainly within recent months?

Mr. Scully.—There was a find a couple of months ago. I have no knowledge of this and I am depending totally on press reports for information about it.

Chairman.—This has very serious connotations from the point of view of possible use by subversives. The particular pullovers in question, I presume, are the military ones which look particularly militaristic in their design. They would be of great benefit to a paramilitary grouping. Have the Special Branch or Army intelligence pursued this particular line?

Mr. Scully.—It has been pursued both by the Civil and Military Police. However, I would point out that the vast majority of the clothing was not readily identifiable at all with the clothing worn by the Defence Forces. Most of it consisted of boots, combat trousers, caps, berets, overcoats, shirts and gloves.

Chairman.—That is the sort of thing that I am sure a paramilitary outfit wanting to hold up people on the road at night-time would gladly have their hands on. Is that note a fact? How many units of the IRA would you deck out with this sort of equipment?

Mr. Scully.—First of all, very little of it was identifiable. Most of that stuff could be bought in Alpha Bargains, in any case. Therefore, in no way would it be necessary for an IRA outfit to have it. They could deck themselves out equally without that clothing.

Chairman.—Perhaps we will have a look at your barracks to see the sort of equipment you have there, the stuff that was sold and then we will have a look to see if we can get it in Alpha Bargains. Can you arrange for members of the Committee to have a look at your stores arrangements at the Curragh, in Clancy Barracks, and perhaps on another occasion, Haulbowline?

Mr. Scully.—We shall arrange accordingly.

Chairman.—What was the outcome of the Court of Inquiry?

Mr. Scully.—The outcome was that there had been collusion between certain people.

Chairman.—Were they disciplined?

Mr. Scully.—I am awaiting a report. They are going to be disciplined, but they have not been yet.

Chairman.—Were these members of the Defence Forces or civilian staff?

Mr. Scully.—They were members of the Defence Forces.

Chairman.—Is the Court of Inquiry different from a courtmartial?

Mr. Scully.—Yes.

Chairman.—Will there be a courtmartial?

Mr. Scully.—I would expect so, but I would prefer not to comment one way or another because I do not wish to prejudice the position with regard to these people.

Chairman.—I will not press you on that. How many persons were involved?

Mr. Scully.—We do not know how many were involved altogether.

Chairman.—How many are likely to be facing proceedings now?

Mr. Scully.—Two or three.

Chairman.—Were the items of clothing recovered?

Mr. Scully.—A small quantity of them was recovered.

Chairman.—Was any attempt made to pay compensation to the State?

Mr. Scully.—That must await the findings in regard to the disciplinary action.

Chairman.—Has any attempt been made so far?

Mr. Scully.—By whom?

Chairman.—By persons suspected of carrying out this theft.

Mr. Scully.—No, not yet.

Chairman.—With regard to the ammunition stores and weapons stores, is your control there much tighter?

Mr. Scully.—Yes, that is part of the difficulty in that the safeguarding of the ordnance stores proper, arms and ammunition, is paramount and all activities are devoted to ensuring that they are properly under control at all times. The amount of arms and ammunition involved is considerable.

Chairman.—What sort of stocks would be turned over by the Defence Forces in any given year across the whole variety of stores? What would the figure be — in excess of £100 million?

Mr. Scully.—The turnover for all stores?

Chairman.—Yes.

Mr. Scully.—It would not be that high. It would be, I would think, around £50 million.

Chairman.—What would be the value of stocks held at any given time?

Mr. Scully.—We do not have an overall stock. In this connection we have stocks for various stores but we do not have an overall stock figure for the whole lot together.

Chairman.—Surely you would know, for instance, if you hold stores of £100 million, £50 million or whatever it would be a a given time — an average stock held by the Defence Forces. Would it be in excess of £100 million?

Mr. Scully.—For security reasons, counting arms, ammunitions and ordnance stocks of different kinds, I would prefer not to give a figure, but it would be in excess of the figure you mention.

Chairman.—To conclude on this point, in the Committee’s report on the 1984 Appropriation Accounts, attention was drawn to the fact that regular stocktaking in the Transport Stores and Base Workshop of the Defence Forces at Clancy Barracks had not taken place in compliance with prescribed regulations and that the routine update of stores records had gone into arrears. Has that situation been rectified? Secondly, when you appeared before the committee last year, you stated that up to 1988 frequency of audits and inspections had been quite satisfactory but because of the reduction in staff numbers the position had since deteriorated and that you had written to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Minister for Finance in that regard. Has that position rectified itself in view of the level of stores held and the turnover concerned with this particular Vote?

Mr. Scully.—Yes, the situation has improved considerably. In relation to the main technical stores base workshop at Clancy Barracks, the volume of stores has been totally audited. A new computer was installed there and the day-to-day transactions are being recorded correctly. I am quite happy that what we have done in the Main Technical Stores is completely up-to-date. Regarding the question of stores audits generally, when I was here last year we were preparing to decentralise the Finance Branch of the Department down to Galway. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, and with due respect to everybody here, I would like to pay tribute to the staff of the Finance Branch of the Department of Defence and the people who supervised the move to Galway. It was accomplished on schedule and £4 million of pay-outs each week by computer were transferred without any difficulty to Galway. On account of that move we had difficulty in doing our full audits. We have partly overcome this difficulty, but not fully. There is no doubt that the cutback in staff has affected the audit. We have introduced a new system whereby the people that were in the Command Cashiers are Officers in addition to their normal duties, doing the audits of the stores. We have been training people and look and hope to get the new computers for which we are starting to buy the hardware this year. There is provision in the Defence Estimate this year of over £1 million for computers, which is the start of a major effort to get all Defence stores on computer. We hope that this will finally solve the position regarding the audits and inspections of Army stores, but it would be wrong of me to say that the cutbacks have not affected the position. We would have done better if we had more staff. For instance, the staff of the Department of Defence since March 1987 has gone down by 23 per cent.

Chairman.—Mr. Scully, would you prepare a note for the Committee outlining the precise position in relation to stocktaking in the Defence Forces and also in relation to audit? You might compare it with situations in the past and what plans you have to up-date the situation for the future. Before I call Deputies we can approach the matter in two ways, either a deputation from the Committee can visit the Defence Forces or the Chair itself can do that. Is the Committee interested in making such a visit? The Committee will make a visit.

Deputy McGahon.—I want to echo your own concern about the danger of clothing of this nature falling into the wrong hands or into the hands of the IRA. There were instances in the past where Garda tunics found their way into the hands of the IRA and were used by the IRA for robberies. The IRA have a very long arm. If they can reach into Shorts’ factory and plant a bomb, as they did yesterday, it is not inconceivable that they could at some stage in the future obtain arms from Army barracks. I would ask Mr. Scully if he is aware of the necessity for total security in that area and that all ammunition and all stores where arms are located are fully and totally secured? I would also like to ask Mr. Scully if any womens’ clothing was involved in this and have the soldiers been suspended?

Mr. Scully.—The misappropriated items consisted of uniforms, trousers, overcoats, caps, sweaters, shirts, vests, trunks, socks, gloves, boots, shoes and pyjamas. As far as I am aware, there was no female clothing involved. I can assure the Deputy that, as I said earlier, our major concern, while we were concerned with the loss to public funds, was the point he raised. Myself, the Quartermaster General and all the military personnel are very conscious of this.

Deputy McGahon.—Have the people involved been suspended? I am a little mystified, given that you have identified people who have been involved in this offence, that the Military Police and the Garda Síochána cannot locate where these items of clothing, to the value of £58,000, eventually wound up. Surely, having identified the chief perpetrators of this offence, a follow up operation could enlighten both yourselves and this Committee as to what happened?

Mr. Scully.—I share the Deputy’s concern. I received the report of the Board of Inquiry on 7 December and I have been speaking to the Quartermaster General about it. He has assured me that disciplinary action will be forthcoming. I expect to know about it shortly. From the start we were concerned to know what exactly was done with these clothes. The best information I have is that they were sold at various pubs — that is supposition. The excuse given by the two or three people who allegedly were responsible for this was that they handed them out to ex-members of the Defence Forces. We do not believe that. I cannot answer the Deputy’s question any more than what I have just said.

Deputy McGahon.—It seems extraordinary if they were sold in pubs, particularly in the locality of the barracks from where they were stolen, that there could not be a more effective follow-up by the police. Also there seems to be a possible general conspiracy among other members of the Defence Forces. Two or three people may have masterminded the scheme, an awful lot of other people were accomplices.

Mr. Scully.—Well, certainly we thought that the Garda would come up with an explanation of what happened. They did not.

Deputy Cullimore.—How many personnel are involved in the overall stocktaking?

Mr. Scully.—The overall stocktaking is done by personnel from the Quartermaster General’s Branch. We have a small departmental staff of 15.

Deputy Cullimore.—Thank you.

Deputy Connor.—In relation to the questions put by my colleague, Deputy McGahon, about the kind of clothing that was stolen, I would imagine that Army clothing would have a very limited use. Are we talking about battledress or ordinary Army uniforms or were there any insignia showing rank on any of the stolen clothing?

Mr. Scully.—There would have been ranks shown on the tunics. The other clothing, such as the underwear, would not in any way be distinguished as being from the Defence Forces.

Deputy Allen.—Would some have been battledress or some of it be the heavier material which the Army wear?

Mr. Scully.—There was about £7,000 worth of battledress.

Deputy Allen.—That is often fashionable wear outside of the Army.

Mr. Scully.—It is fashionable outside the Army. Some of the shirts are indistinguishable from shirts you can buy in the shops.

Deputy Taylor.—It seems to me totally unsatisfactory, having regard to the volume of material that has gone missing and the very identifiable nature of most of it, that the Garda response on this issue has been as negative as it was. I do not think that the matter should be just left at that. Perhaps the Committee would consider making inquiries with the higher echelons of the Garda or the Department of Justice to find out why apparently this matter was dealt with in a fairly offhand way and that no serious response has been achieved here. I know that it may be difficult. But we are talking about very large volumes and we are talking about readily identifiable materials; it is not something that merges with other goods of that kind. It is specialised material. I would have thought a more intensive inquiry by the Garda and their resources, having regard to the serious implications of the type of material involved, might have been appropriate. I would suggest that you might consider making some further inquiries to what exactly went on there.

Chairman.—Since you are the Accounting Officer, Mr. Scully, and you are preparing a note, you might include a note on that particular point for the Committee.

Mr. Scully.—Yes. If I may comment on what Deputy Taylor said, the suggestion is that most of this clothing was sold to members of the FCA or was passed on to serving members of the Defence Forces. The indications are that the Garda worked hard on this matter. They certainly spent a couple of months investigating it. They recovered some items from one of the people who was going to be charged. But they did not completely answer the question that both Deputies have referred to, not totally. One can accept — and it is the theory of the Quartermaster General — that most of the clothing went to members of the FCA. To say that a lot of it is identifiable is not true. The tunics would be, all right, but you can remove the rank badges from those and then they are not as identifiable as they might be. They certainly are not as identifiable as they would be if they had the rank badges on them.

Chairman.—The point is, Mr. Scully, that there is a market for this sort of goods from members of the FCA. Would that be because they are called on to supplement the Defence Forces on bank protection work, or whatever, and they do not often have sufficient equipment themselves, so they purchase equipment in this manner to dress themselves out? Would that be a fair summation of the situation?

Mr. Scully.—They do get their own uniforms.

Chairman.—But they do not get sufficient replacement uniforms, and so they purchase these in this sort of market. Would that be a fair assessment?

Mr. Scully.—This was a suggestion put forward by some of the military people. I cannot comment on it.

Chairman.—You anticipated the question. I was going to finish by asking you this question because I suspect that there may well be a market there. The point is that if there is a market there and if there is this looseness of control, clothing can pass out of Army control and into the hands of anybody. That is certainly unsatisfactory. That there is a looseness of control is, in itself, a worry. Should your Department not be concerning themselves with eliminating this potential market in the FCA by ensuring that people in the FCA are properly equipped in the first place?

Mr. Scully.—As I say, FCA members get their own uniforms, and as far as I am aware these are adequate. Again, FCA members do not wear their uniforms every day and what is adequate is arguable. There may be something in what you say.

Deputy Taylor.—If their uniforms are adequate, why would they buy this additional material on a wide basis, which must be what is happening having regard to the stock numbers involved here?

Mr. Scully.—I do not accept this theory put forward by military people. We do not know exactly what happened to these clothes. It is theoretical to say that that did or did not happen. I just do not know and the Garda could not come up with a reason either.

Deputy Taylor.—Have people who were investigated and the two or three or more who may be on charge, not given any information as to how they disposed of the material?

Mr. Scully.—They say they handed it out to people in various units.

Deputy Taylor.—Has that been followed up?

Mr. Scully.—It has, but there is no way in which you can prove anything.

Chairman.—All right. We have run this a fair bit for now. You know the details of the note that we require. Could you be specific in setting out for the Committee what the position is? Please arrange our visit as soon as possible so that we can have a look at the stock. On two occasions in the past you did invite members of the Committee to see your night flying capacity in these famous helicopters, which we have not yet seen. I do not know whether a visit to your stores might be an oppprtunity for us to couple that with an examination of the night flying capacity of your helicopters.

Mr. Scully.—Right. I shall arrange accord-ingly. If I may recap, Chairman, you want a visit to the Curragh clothing stores, Clancy Barracks, and posibly Haulbowline?

Chairman.—It is a long way down, but poss-ibly Haulbowline as well. You know the note we require, as well.

Mr. Scully.—The note you require on the general stocktaking.

Chairman.—And specifically on the out-come in this case.

Mr. Scully.—On the specific case, I pre-sume that I had better wait until I find out what the disciplinary result will be before replying to that.

Chairman.—You can do that for the final note, but you might let us know in your note what the interim position is.

Mr. Scully.—Right, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Scully.

Deputy Allen.—There is a figure of £1.562 million for transportation. I realised that transportation costs would be heavy but I have a query from a constituent in relation to staff cars in the Army. Could I get from the Secretary the total number of staff saloon cars that the Army use for officers in the Forces? In relation to the United Nations Forces in Lebanon, we have read lately that the USA and USSR have, in fact, cut back on their contribution to the peace-keeping force in the Lebanon. I understand that there is a shocking figure of £18.2 million outstanding to this country from the United Nations for the peace-keeping force expenses. Could I ask the Secretary what steps are being taken to recoup that amount of money, which is almost run-ning to 50 per cent of the annual budget of the Department, £18.2 million? What approaches have been made by the Department to recoup the money? Have any approaches been made to Governments of the USSR and the US to put pressure on them to live up to their responsibilities? If the moneys are paid by the United Nations, will our peace-keeping operation in Lebanon be a revenue earner?

Mr. Scully.—First of all, in relation to the staff saloon cars, the total number of saloons we have at the moment is 60 and they are scattered over all the commands. In relation to the UN, the Minister for Foreign Affairs answered a question yesterday in relation to recoupment from the UN, and he gave the full position as it is. At the moment, the UN owe us something like £18 million, that is, on the basis of the extra cost of having the troops out there. The reason for this is that the Rus-sians and Americans have reneged on their contributions and also the Eastern European countries never contributed. Some of the Eastern Europen countries did not agree with the UNIFIL position so from the start they never contributed. Last year and again this year, Russia and the US are making some payments on foot of the arrears. Russia has guaranteed $20 million in relation to UNIFIL and we expect to get our share of that within the next few weeks, which would be around $2.5 million or $3 million. Is there anything else you want to know, Deputy, about that?

Deputy Allen.—Does the money that will be recouped go directly into the Department of Defence budget, or does it go into central Govenment funding?

Mr. Scully.—It goes into our Appro-priations-in-Aid, the subhead in the Defence Vote.

Deputy Allen.—Just a question that was not answered to the Chair. Is the whole operation a revenue earner for the Department or, if we are paid what is due to us, do we just achieve a break-even situation? The whole question of the massive amounts of money outstanding can be put in the context of the whole debate we have at the present time about public services. We could really do with this £18 million for our basic social service in health and edu-cation. It is not good enough that we just put gentle pressure on the USA to cough up.

Mr. Scully.—We have availed of every opportunity that has arisen. I am aware that the matter has been raised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and by everybody who has any contact with the UN and, indeed, with the non-contributing countries. It has been raised with them. I assume that we will get most of our arrears when they do pay off what they owe.

On the question of total funding the best way I can answer that is this. If you take the current situation on an annual basis, take all the countries in which we have troops, which is quite considerable, what it costs in extra funding, such as overseas allowances apart from the pay they would get if they were at home, what we pay them in extra funding for being out in the UN less what we get from the UN, costs us £1.3 million a year.

Deputy Allen.—Has any threat been made at any time to the United Nations that we would reconsider our position in relation to peace-keeping if they did not come up with the £18 million, which may be small in their overall budget but is quite considerable con-sidering our extreme financial difficulties, especially in our own social services at present?

Mr. Scully.—I do not know, Deputy, if we have gone that far; but I am sure it has been implied several times. Certainly, I am aware that at a lower level with the UN officials it has been said to them several times, particularly the point you raised, that the amount of money for this country is quite considerable.

Deputy Rabbitte.—Deputy Allen has raised the question that I wanted to deal with. Would you agree, Mr. Scully, that the Irish public would be surprised to hear, having regard to our generous contribution towards peace-keeping in the Lebanon, that we are in arrears to the extent of more than £18 million because the super powers will not discharge their responsibility?

I think that the Irish public believe that we have made a generous contribution, some-times paying the ultimate price, and would be surprised to find that we are also paying for it in this manner.

Mr. Scully.—I agree. But it is Government policy — and I think it is the policy of the country generally — to have the UN peace-keeping forces where they are. Certainly, from the millitary point of view, the training they receive there is regarded as being extremely valuable. But I agree that it is sad that the very wealthy countries — I suppose to include the USSR as a very wealthy country is probably the wrong thing to say at the moment — do not discharge their responsibility, but it happens.

Deputy Rabbitte.—I think the situation of the Soviet Union was that it did not approve of the initiative originally but that it has now indicated a willingness to discharge its debt. In the case of the United States, it is an extraordinary area of the world to select for cutbacks in an enormous budget for military purposes. Certainly, I am surprised to find that there are arrears outstanding to us of the order of £18 million.

Mr. Scully.—I agree our contribution is extremely significant in relation to our popu-lation and our resources.

Deputy McGahon.—In relation to this question, it is extraordinary that a tiny off-shore island like Ireland is involved in an operation of this nature at all. There has to be a pay-off for it in some way; and is it not a fact that the average foot soldier welcomes an overseas trip as a heaven sent opportunity of getting a sizable sum? Is it not also a fact that, despite the arrears, the Department make money in the long term on this and that when these arrears are paid there will be a credit balance for the whole operation, in addition to giving combat experience? I would like you to confirm that, despite the tragic loss of life that has occurred, there is no shortage of volunteers from the soldiers to go abroad?

Mr. Scully.—There is no shortage of vol-unteers; they all want to go abroad. However, on this question of ultimate profit assuming all the arrears are paid, if all the arrears were paid the extra expenses of having those people abroad would be more than recouped. But we do not have those people at home and we are still paying their at home pay anyway.

Deputy McGahon.—Mr. Scully, a general question. Has there been a reduction in Border duty in the last year and has there been a corresponding saving?

Mr. Scully.—No, Border duties have not reduced.

Deputy McGahon.—They have not reduced?

Mr. Scully.—No.

Deputy McGahon.—Is that a fact?

Mr. Scully.—They have gone up, actually.

Deputy McGahon.—It is not particularly noticeable in my part of the country.

Mr. Scully.—Roughly about the same. It is a question of how do you define Border duties.

Deputy McGahon.—How do you define them?

Mr. Scully.—Military parties supplied in Border areas, patrols, checkpoints, searches and so on.

Deputy McGahon.—Mr. Scully, has anyone ever been apprehended as a result of these searches in the Dundalk area? Have any arms been apprehended?

Mr. Scully.—I do not have that information.

Deputy McGahon.—Could I ask you, in relation to Subhead H.— Defensive Equipment — there is a sum of nearly £9 million there for defensive equipment. What type of equipment would that be?

Mr. Scully.—We do not normally specify the types of equipment, but I would remind you that around this time we replaced the FN rifle with the Styer. That would be a very significant element in that sum. Then there would be other things like the various equipments we have, maintenance and replacement values for them.

Deputy McGahon.—I accept that would save. Can you tell me how many tanks we would have in the Army?

Mr. Scully.—As far as I understand it, we have 12.

Deputy Taylor: To go back to the UNIFIL subject, have you a list of what other countries are involved in these arrears of payments other than the US, the USSR and Eastern European countries?

Mr. Scully.—The arrears altogether amount to about $318 million — about $120 million owed by USSR and about $100 million owed by USA and the remainder by Eastern European countries.

Deputy Taylor.—All of the remainder or other countries as well?

Mr. Scully.—Most.

Deputy Taylor.—What other countries other than Eastern European are involved in arrears? Have you go that information?

Mr. Scully.—I have not got that information.

Deputy Taylor.—Would you not agree, Mr. Scully, that it is about time we finally called a spade a spade on this issue in so far as these arrears are concerned? Is it not a fact that for every single year since our troops have been out there the amount of arrears owing to this country has escalated by aproximately £2 million a year? I recall for example, asking a question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs on this matter two or three years ago and there was great shock and horror when we were told then that the arrears were something like £11.5 million. There was a great hul-labaloo and assurances were given that this was going to be sorted out and rectified, but then, year on year, it went up from £11.5 million to £13 million and to £15 million and now it is £18 million. That is just going to continue. Is that not a fair assessment of the situation? Is there any reason to believe that there is any change in that position under which the figure has simply got bigger every year?

Mr. Scully.—It is true that up to now, up to the last 12 months, it went up every year, but it is now going down on account of the arrears being paid by the USSR, We expect that some of the arrears owned by the USA will be paid this year, too. To say that it was going up every year was probably correct up to a year ago, but now we have reached a peak and it is going down.

Deputy Taylor.—From what figure did it go down? Was it more than £18.2 million?

Mr. Scully.—The figure was £18.2 million at the end of October 1989. The figure given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs yesterday in the Dáil was £17 million in relation to UNIFIL. So there has been a reduction already.

Chairman.—On the question of this £18.2 million due to us, perhaps you could communicate to the authorities the concern of the Committee of Public Accounts that this amount is outstanding and outstanding for so long. You might report on the outcome of your communications with them.

Mr. Scully.—I certainly will Chairman, except that the major people concerned in trying to get these arrears paid are either the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will communicate to them the concern of the Committee in relation to these arrears.

Chairman.—Do the United Nations arrange for visits by personnel to Lebanon from time to time? Is the expense borne by them?

Mr. Scully.—No. Their own officials visit Lebanon, but apart from that they do not cover expenses.

Chairman.—So the cost of any visits by personnel from here is borne by your Department?

Mr. Scully.—That is right.

Chairman.—You might communicate with the Committee on the question of the arrears, to let us know what has been done to pursue them.

Mr. Scully.—Yes. I will raise it with the Department of Foreign Affairs and communicate with you.

Chairman.—The Vote includes a Grant-in-Aid to the Irish Red, Cross Society of £300,000. Are you satisfied that the accounting system and organisational arrangements for grant are adequate to ensure proper administration of the money, Mr. Scully?

Mr. Scully.—I am completely satisfied. The account is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the arrangements are I understand, perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. McDonnell.—Could I make a slight correction, Chairman? I do not not actually audit the accounts of the Red Cross. The books of account of the grant will be made available if required for examination. They are audited by their own auditors and if I had any reason to pursue any matter which was of concern to me I could ask to inspect them. It is a right of inspection rather than actual audit.

Mr. Scully.—I apologise to the Comptroller and Auditor General. At least he has a controlling interest in it.

Mr. McDonnell.—Yes.

Chairman.—Under subhead Y — Military Educational Courses and Visits — the excess of £24,883 is explained as “due to accounts for courses being presented for payment earlier than anticipated”. Can you explain this, Mr. Scully? Surely, if the liability was mature in the year in question, whether it was presented or not you would want them to be paid?

Mr. Scully.—What happened in that case is that an account for an avionics course on helicopters with Aerospatiale which occurred earlier than 1988, was presented in 1988 and had to be paid.

Chairman.—Could you explain that again?

Mr. Scully.—The excess of £24,000 occurred because an account in relation to courses on helicopters with Aerospatiale, which had taken place in the year previous to 1988 was presented in the year 1988.

Chairman.—The note says “due to accounts for courses being presented for payment earlier than anticipated”, not “later than anticipated”.

Mr. Scully.—It should be “later”. “Earlier” is the wrong word to use there.

Chairman.—Finally, would you explain to the Committee, for the record, since this is the year of a presidential election, what is the position — if the President is Commander-in-Chief — in relation to the Minister as Minister for Defence in your Department? It is governed by law. What is the precise situation there?

Mr. Scully.—The President is Commander-in-Chief but all actions of the President are done on the recommendation of the Government, with, I think, two or three exceptions which do not arise in relation to the Defence Forces. The command of the Defence Forces is exercised through the Government, through the Minister for Defence.

Chairman.—But Army officers hold their commissions from the President?

Mr. Scully.—That is right. The commission is signed by the President and the Minister for Defence.

Chairman.—Is there a grey area there?

Mr. Scully.—I do not think so.

Chairman.—So you are quite happy that the position is that the President cannot exer-cise any of his functions as Commander-inChief except through the Government?

Mr. Scully.—That is the way that we would see it.

Chairman.—Are there any other questions? Mr. Scully, we will conclude for now. The Committee may wish to recall you, depending on what we find in relation to stores and stocktaking, but if we are able to satisfy ourselves on the visit, then that may not be necessary. I would say that for now, because we may be returning to the Vote.

VOTE 39 — ARMY PENSIONS.

Mr. G. Scully called.

No questions.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.