Para. 6 of Q. 4585. for the maintenance of the khaki equipment was expended in the purchase of blue equipment. In October, 1926, it appeared probable that savings would accrue on Subheads D and E of Air Vote 2, and the Air Council then proceeded to purchase some 7,350 additional sets of blue equipment, a course which involved an excess of £7,877 on Subhead D. These transactions were carried out without reference to the Treasury, who only learned of them at the instance of the Comptroller and Auditor General. While the Treasury do not claim that the Air Council should have sought Treasury sanction for the adoption of the particular policy involved in the substitution of blue for khaki equipment, they hold that the action taken by the Air Ministry in incurring deliberately an excess on the normal provision in order to accelerate the change of equipment should have been submitted for prior sanction. Your Committee agree with this view and they note that the Air Council accept the Treasury interpretation of the rules on this subject. 23. Loss on Supply of Cheese to Iraq.-Your Committee has had under consideration a loss of £1,083 16s. incurred in connection with a consignment of cheese to Iraq. Cheese is issued to the troops on this station as a winter ration for four months beginning in November. The whole of the supply for the winter season for 1926-27 was shipped in one consignment, despatched in August, 1926. The cheese deteriorated considerably during transit and later while in store pending issue, and only 68.75 per cent. of the whole consignment was found fit for consumption, the loss thus being 31.25 per cent. In 1925 the whole of the cheese required was despatched at the end of September in one consignment, and the loss was 12.6 per cent., and in the previous year when two consignments were sent the loss was 14.5 per cent. The loss of £1,083 16s. was written off departmentally by the Air Ministry as being an incident of the service, and was not referred to the Treasury until the Comptroller and Auditor General had intervened. The Accounting Officer admitted that in writing off this loss as an incident of the service the Air Ministry were clearly wrong, and he attributed the error to a departmental mistake. Your Committee regret that such a mistake should have occurred; further, they are of opinion that the decision to send the whole. winter supply for 1926-27 in one consigument at the end of August was something more than a mere error of judgment. They are somewhat surprised to learn that it was allowed to pass without special departmental comment, and they suggest that the departmental supervision of such orders should be strengthened. For the year 1927, the ration was despatched in separate monthly instalments and the loss was reduced to 6 per cent. SELECT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. xiii C. & A. G's 24. Expenditure incurred in sending two dejective land planes Para. 7 o to Iraq. At the end of 1925, two land planes which had been Report, and in use on the Rhine and after that had been in store for some Qs. 4597two or three years were sent from the packing depot at Ascot 4634. to Iraq where they arrived in March, 1926. On arrival their condition was found to be so unsatisfactory that they were returned within a month to England without having been flown. The cost of sending the two machines to Iraq and back was approximately £400. Your Committee were informed that in accordance with the practice prevailing at the Ascot Depot at that time the machines had been overhauled, i.e., the defective parts had been replaced, but the machines had not been reconditioned in the accepted sense of the term, a process which involves the replacement of all wooden parts. They were further informed that this practice has long been modified, and that now only fully reconditioned machines are sent abroad. The present arrangements thus appear to be satisfactory. There is a conflict of opinion on the question whether the condition of these land planes on arrival in Iraq was attributable to climatic conditions experienced during the journey, or to unsatisfactory workmanship or insufficient care at the Ascot Depot. The Air Officer Commanding in Iraq was inclined to the latter view, but the Air Force authorities at home came to the conclusion that on the whole the probabilities were in favour of the former alternative. While recognising the difficulty of fixing precisely responsibility in an incident of this kind, Your Committee cannot help regretting that further attempts were not made to clear up the matter, and in particular that no inquiry was held by technical experts at the Ascot Depot itself. 25. Purchase of Additional Parts for Hervieu Hangars.-In Para. 9 of connection with another case C. & A. G's Your Committee desire to Report, and emphasise the importance of thorough inspection before expendi- Qs. 4675ture is incurred in connection with utilising or adapting stores 4728. which have been for some time in stock. In March, 1926, a contract was placed at a cost of £2,744 for providing additional panels in order to widen certain Hervieu Hangars for use on the Cairo-Karachi Civil Air Routes. After the contract had been placed suspicion was aroused as to the serviceability of the hangar material in stock, and after inspection of test hangars erected, it was decided that this material was unfit for use abroad. The additional panels, being useless for the purpose for which they had been ordered, have been taken into stock with other mobilisation stores, but the witness could not vouch for their condition. 26. War Reserves.-This raises the general question how far Qs. 4706reserves held are adequate. Your Committee hope that the Air 4724, Ministry will press on with the business of determining the scales of war reserves. £3 = 948 2. 66 27. Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough.-In 1921-22 a house adjoining the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, and known as Woodlands," was bought as the official residence of the Chief Superintendent. The house had been burned down some time before. It was reconditioned, apparently at a cost of £2,250 paid by the Insurance Company, to the extent that the constructional reconstruction was complete, but not the internal decoration. The house was inspected dix 39, and valued by the Chief Land Agent to the Aldershot Command, an official of the War Office, whose report stated that, with the exception of painting, which was required for all wood and ironwork, the exterior of the house was in fairly good condition. As regards the interior, re-decoration was required throughout, the condition being as left by the plasterer on the completion of the re-building. The house was valued by this official at £2,800. As it was held to be desirable for special reasons that the Air Council should acquire this property, the Treasury sanctioned its purchase at £3,250. Shortly after the acquisition it was discovered that there was dry rot in the timbers, and ultimately more than £3,000 was spent on alterations and repairs. The property thus cost rather over £6,000. At 31st March, 1926, its actual value as a residence for the Chief Superintendent was placed at £4,000 by the Air Council, and the difference between this figure and the amount at which the house stood in the books, namely, £6,208, was written off. 3. Your Committee cannot help regarding this transaction as unsatisfactory. It is clear that the examination undertaken before the purchase of the property by advisers, who should have had all necessary technical qualifications, was in fact useless. Your Committee are of the opinion that the State obtained very poor value for the expenditure, and suggest that, before the property was purchased, the surveyor employed should have certified that the main walls, timbers, roof and drains were in a satisfactory condition. 5 lices ARMY. 28. Reconstruction of Catterick Camp.-Your Committee call attention to the heavy expenditure involved in the reconstruction. of Catterick Camp. The original estimate, prepared in 1922, was for an expenditure of £890,000. Subsequent revised estimates have increased this figure to a total of £1,438,000. While recognising the difficulties with which the Army Council had to contend, Your Committee cannot help feeling that the original estimate was prepared with a quite inadequate appreciation of the probable cost of this service. Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM in the Chair. A Statement of Excess on the Vote for the Beet Sugar Subsidy, 1926, was considered. The Revenue Departments Appropriation Accounts and the Civil Services Appropriation Accounts, 1926, were considered. Sir Malcolm Ramsay, K.C.B., Mr. F. Phillips, C.B., Mr. A. E. Watson, C.B.E., Sir C. J. Howell Thomas, C.M.G., Mr. E. C. Cunningham, C.B., and Sir E. A. Gowers, K.B.E., C.B., were examined. DRAFT FIRST REPORT, proposed by the Chairman, brought up, read the first and second times, and agreed to. Ordered, to Report. The Revenue Departments Appropriation Accounts, 1926, were further considered. Sir Malcolm Ramsay, K.C.B., Mr. F. Phillips, C.B., Mr. A. E. Watson, C.B.E., and Sir Henry Bunbury, K.C.B., were examined. [Adjourned to Tuesday next. Mr. Walter Baker. Mr. Briggs. Captain Crookshank. TUESDAY, 6th MARCH, 1928. Members Present: Sir John Marriott. Sir Assheton Pownall. Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM in the Chair. The Post Office Commercial Accounts, 1926, were considered. Sir Malcolm Ramsay, K.C.B., Mr. F. Phillips, C.B., Mr. A. E. Watson, C.B.E., and Sir Henry Bunbury, K.C.B., were examined. Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM in the Chair. The Civil Services Appropriation Accounts, 1926, were further considered. Sir Malcolm Ramsay, K.C.B., Mr. F. Phillips, C.B., Mr. A. E. Watson, C.B.E., Mr. H. A. Ferguson Davie, C.B., Sir Lionel Earle, K.C.B., K.C.V.O., C.M.G., and Mr. J. A. W. Buchanan, C.B.E., were examined. Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM in the Chair. The Civil Services Appropriation Accounts, 1926, were further considered. |