|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTN(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 25ú Deireadh Fómhair, 1951.Thursday, 25th October, 1951.The Committee sat at 11a.m.
Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. M. Breathnach, Mr. P. M. Clarke and Mr. P. O’Kelly (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 32—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.Mr. T. J. Coyne called and examined.415. Chairman.—How does it arise that you needed two cleaners in the Censorship of Publications Office? You had no cleaners the year before and you provided for one in the Estimate. Now you have an excess which is explained by the appointment of a cleaner, so that there must have been two appointments?—I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question. We have increased the staff of the Censorship Office in recent years, I think in the year previous to this. Consequently, we had more accommodation. I think we share the office with another Government Department. The only information I have readily available is that the governing principle is that one is entitled, so to speak, to an additional cleaner if the amount of cleaning to be done exceeds a certain superficial area and that suggests that the explanation which I have tentatively put forward is the correct one, viz., that we actually acquired additional accommodation for the larger staff and that for that reason we had to get an additional cleaner. Actually, I have not looked into the point and I simply do not know. 416. It is just that in the Estimate it is shown that no cleaner was provided in 1948/49 and then there was an extra charge of £129 for a cleaner in 1949/50. Then you have an excess which is explained by the appointment of a cleaner. Therefore, it would not appear to be the cleaner provided for in the Estimate?— I will just have to look into it; I cannot tell you. I would be only guessing. I have no notes on the point. 417. My concern is not with the amount on the Vote but with the explanation. It does appear at first sight to be at variance with the Book of Estimates?—I will send you a note about it.* 418. As to subhead A.5—Irish Legal Terms Advisory Committee—I take it it had been expected that a joint secretary would not be required?—Yes. There was some hope that it might be possible to retrench the post as an economy measure. On reconsideration, it was felt that we ought not to do that. This is a work on which there is a vast amount to be done —the fixing of the Irish equivalents for legal terms. It could theoretically be done over 20 or 50 years and in any particular year you could theoretically stop doing any work. We were being pressed for economies by the Department of Finance and, generally, there was a call for economy and it was thought that it might be possible temporarily to suspend these activities. We rather resisted that and, finally, we got our way and the work went on. 419. As to Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, you did not realise as much in fees for these two headings as you expected?—No. We estimated, I think, for slightly more than in the previous year and actually we realised very much less on the fees for certificates under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act. That accounts for the smaller amount of fees taken. I think there was something like £300 or £400 less than the previous year. My recollection is that we had taken £850 odd then and that we took only £525 this year. In addition, we had over-estimated what we would get in fees. It is conjectural, of course. It is in that item—the fees for certificates under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act— that the discrepancy arises. 420. Why do you link these two together in the Estimate? Would you not get clearer figures if you provided for the separate amounts you expected to get under the Dangerous Drugs Act and under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act?—I can think of no good reason for linking them together. I asked myself that question. I do not see why they should not be set out separately. Let us see how we do it in the Estimate. 421. I think they are put the same way in the Estimate?—In general, the form of the Estimate is settled by agreement with the Department of Finance. Actually, we are no longer responsible for the Dangerous Drugs Act. That portion of our activities has, I think, been transferred to the Department of Health. At any rate, it does follow the form of the Estimate. It does?—The form of the Estimate is effectively settled by agreement with the Department of Finance and their word goes. 422. The explanation probably is that in these two cases the fees are in cash. The other item in the Estimate for fees is a stock item. Probably the Department of Finance decided that as long as they separated the cash and the stamps it was not necessary to give details of the cash? —That may well be the explanation. Certainly, the fees for the documents of identity are for stamps in the case of the Nansen ones. 423. The only stamps referred to in the Estimate are the fees for film censorship? —Yes: the ordinary document of identity costs 12/6, I think. 424. I take it from the Appropriation Accounts that there was no estimate of receipts for documents of identity. You will see in the Appropriation Accounts that there was a sum of £192 7s. 6d. realised for fees for documents of identity. That is left outside the bracket and does not appear to be in the Estimate. Probably the form of the Estimate was based on keeping separate the cash from the stamps and it was not thought necessary to segregate the cash items. However, your Department has ceased to have any interest in the Dangerous Drugs Act?—You will observe in the original Estimate that they say specifically “Fees (Cash) for Licences for Dangerous Drugs (No. 1 of 1934) and for Nationality and Citizenship Certificates (No. 13 of 1935)”. Yes?—They say in the case of film censorship fees “stamps”. I think that explanation is almost certainly correct. 425. I presume, Mr. Coyne, the Department is never too worried about extra receipts?—No. VOTE 33—GARDA SÍOCHÁNA.Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.426. Chairman.—In connection with subhead E—Clothing and Equipment—I take it the surplus arose from the fact that what you expected when you introduced this Supplementary Estimate did not happen?—Precisely. 427. Deputy Palmer.—Under subheads D and H you have locomotion expenses and transport and carriage. Are not these much the same? How do you account for the difference between locomotion expenses and transport and carriage?— Locomotion expenses are the actual travelling expenses of police officers. It covers car hire, boat hire, rail fare and the transfer expenses of members of the Force removed at public expense from one station to another and allowances to officers and inspectors for the use of their own cars and in certain cases a cycling allowance. These are, so to speak, actual cash payments paid out. Officers and inspectors in certain cases are required to provide themselves with cars and they get an annual allowance at a flat rate and so much in addition for mileage. What we mean by locomotion expenses are the sort of payments which we actually make by way of allowance to officers who have to use cars or who have actually to buy railway or bus tickets or to hire boats or cars. “Transport” is concerned with the provision of the actual mechanical transport, motor cars for official use, vans for official use. That is the difference. I see. Thank you. 428. Mr. Coyne.—I think Deputy Mrs. Crowley asked me last year about subhead K, the conveyance of children and young people. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Yes. Mr. Coyne.—I think I gave you the correct answer last year. At any rate, I have ascertained that in nearly all cases in the country, wherever possible, children and young persons are conveyed by women. The police employ women. Where they cannot be conveyed by women, they are conveyed by plain clothes policeman in ordinary cars or by public transport, occasionally. But, we do make an effort to see that children are not conveyed by policemen at all, if possible, and where they have to be so conveyed that the policemen are plain clothes men. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Thank you. 429. Chairman.—In respect of No. 5 of the Appropriations in Aid, does the surplus indicate an increase in the number of hackney cars or an increase in the cost of the licence?—I called one of my officers in to ask him that very question before I came over, but before I could do so, my attention was distracted. From the note I have got here, it appears that there has been no change in the fee, so it must be an increase in the number of hackney cars. I do not know what the explanation of it is. I mean as to why hackney cars should have been increased. It may be the tourist traffic. 430. Yes, it might be that. Possibly, it was affected by a readier availability of cars. For a number of years they could not get new cars and then they were able to get them?—Yes, fodder and everything else. 431. How does it come that the payment from the Road Fund was lower than estimated when, as far as my recollection goes, the Road Fund receipts were greater? Had you expected them to be even greater than they turned out to be? —There should be a sort of proportion between the two things. What actually happens is that we are paid 2 per cent. of the amount paid into the Road Fund in a financial year. Our percentage for expenses should not be variable. My adviser tells me (which I knew) that it is the Department of Local Government that advises us of what the percentage will amount to. They give us a figure. I do not know whether their figure is a firm figure or a conjecture. Apparently it is conjectural. At any rate, what we get is invariably 2 per cent, of the amount. 432. The amount estimated shows an increase of £10,000 on the previous year. The increase is rather high. That is all it means?—Yes. 433. In respect of extra receipts payable to the Exchequer, you seem to make a habit of putting your extra receipts in bulk in your estimate. Again, you have estimated for a round figure. You do not estimate for the various items. The bulk of it is one item really?—Yes. “Park attendants’ licences” is insignificant and is never over £2 4s. 0d. In one year it was because the question had arisen as to our right to take this fee at all and then we collected two years’ at once. 434. Deputy Brady.—Does that mean that this is all the car park attendants we have got or do you collect only from some of them?—I am afraid we collect only from some of them. You see, the legal position is doubtful and it is under consideration at the moment. 435. Chairman.—What is the percentage charge to insurance companies?—Two and a half per cent. charge is made from the quarterly premiums collected before payment to the insurance company. I presume it is 2½ per cent. per annum. Who collects these insurance premiums or whose insurance premiums are they? —The insurance premiums of Garda personnel. There are some 1,000 policemen insured with various companies, most of them with one company. They are a sort of private life insurance, just as civil servants are insured with the North British and Mercantile. I do not know whether the State makes a deduction in their case. Mr. Clarke.—Not in the case of the older ones. In more recent years there is a tendency to make a charge. It pays the company to have the premiums collected in bulk by the Departments and remitted to the company. It is optional with the individual civil servants or Gardaí. For existing policies, up to some years ago, no charge was made but with an extension of these facilities in recent years it has been customary for the State to make a percentage charge to cover the cost of collection and remission to the companies. 436. Chairman.—The State is now a sort of insurance agent? Mr. Clarke.—More or less. 437. Deputy Brady.—What is the amount of the fee charged for the motor park attendant’s licence? Mr. Coyne.—One shilling. 438. Chairman.—As far as I know, these receipts only appear in this particular Vote. Could Mr. Clarke tell us if the Guards are the only ones who are charged an agency commission? Mr. Coyne.—That is what I was trying to explain, that in the case of the police, so far as I know, we have always made a charge. But most civil servants are also insured—I am myself—and formerly the Department of Finance made no charge. They agreed really to facilitate the personnel of the Civil Service by deducting the premiums from the salary and paying them over. I think I am right in saying that that is done as a concession to the Civil Service and not to the insurance companies. Mr. Clarke.—I am not certain whether it applies in the case of the Civil Service. It applies in the case of Army officers who effect insurances. Mr. Coyne.—Until recent years, but of this I am not too certain, the State made no charge for collecting from civil servants. There is another side, an obverse, to the picture. It is that the insurance companies in the old days—I do not know whether it is still so or not—used to give what one may call most favoured nation treatment to the Civil Service. That is to say they gave civil servants terms more favourable than an ordinary member of the public would get. I suppose it was a sort of service amenity, and the State agreed to facilitate the service in that way. 439. Chairman.—I suppose the insurance companies considered it a good risk? —Yes. VOTE 34—PRISONS.Mr. Coyne further examined.440. Chairman.—Paragraph 40 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “The statement of the manufacturing and farm accounts appended to the appropriation account has been examined, and local test examinations of the conversion books and other records dealing with manufacturing operations have been carried out with satisfactory results.” Mr. Wann.—That is for the information of the Committee. The Abstract Statement of the manufacturing accounts of the Prisons and St. Patrick’s, Clonmel, for the year ended 31st March, 1950, appears on page 122. 441. Chairman.—If members of the Committee have no questions to ask on the Abstract Statement we can now take the subheads of the Vote. On subhead P—Manufacturing Department and Farms—I see that the expenditure is less than the sum granted, and the note to the subhead states that this is “due to the demands for mail bags for Post Office use being less than anticipated”. I suppose that is just a temporary matter?— I think so. Sometimes, we do not get the number that we anticipate. It is a temporary matter. It does not seem to run absolutely evenly. Occasionally, we are caught out one way or the other. 442. I remember that at one time there was a considerable difference of opinion between the Post Office and your Department on this?—I remember that, in my predecessor’s day, there was. 443. I see that under subhead Q— Appropriations in Aid—the receipts from the manufacturing department were less than anticipated?—There, again, that reflects the fact that we got fewer orders, and, consequently, we made less profits. VOTE 35—DISTRICT COURT.Mr. Coyne further examined.444. Chairman.—On subhead D—Our Lady’s Home, Henrietta Street, Dublin— I take it this relates to capitation fees? —Yes. I think the capitation fee is something like 15/- a week. 445. Apparently, there were not as many committals to this home as had been anticipated?—No. I was speaking to the chief probation officer this morning about this, and what he said to me was somewhat remarkable. He told me that the fact was that fewer women or girls were bound over, and he went on to say that not all the women or girls that the court would be willing to put on probation are themselves willing to be put on probation. Usually, when a person is put on probation it is for a minimum of six months or a maximum of three years, but there are some offenders who would prefer to take a short prison sentence than enter into recognisances to stay for two or three years in a home. That, of course, is only a partial explanation, because in fact there were fewer people falling to be bound over, if I may so put it. That is to say, there were fewer people coming up whose cases could have been appropriately dealt with in that way. VOTE 36—CIRCUIT COURT.Mr. Coyne further examined.446. Chairman.—On subhead F— Appropriations in Aid—I take it that a county registrar is paid on a different basis from that of an under sheriff. The fees which the under sheriff used to get now fall to the State?—They have to be surrendered by the county registrar. We have no longer, I think, any under sheriff. We have three sheriffs—one in Dublin and two in Cork. They are paid sums of £400 or £500. In the case of Dublin, I think the sum is £600. They have to provide their own offices and staff. They are allowed to keep the fees prescribed by the Under Sheriffs Fees’ Orders. The county registrar is paid an inclusive salary for all the work that he is required by statute to perform. He is required to surrender the fees he takes as under sheriff, and he does so, of course. In his capacity as registration officer, or as returning officer at elections, he is required to surrender what may be described as his profit fees. As registration officer, or as returning officer, he receives large sums of money which he has to pay out to his assistants, and, of course, he is not required to surrender these, but in the case of any fees that could be regarded as personal profit, he must surrender these. 447. As regards extra remuneration, I notice that on this Vote it is explained that “from the Vote for the Supreme Court and High Court of Justice stenographers receive £550 as stenographers to the Central Criminal Court”, but on the Vote for the Supreme Court and High Court of Justice, there is this note in regard to extra remuneration, “Two stenographers to the Central Criminal Court received approximately £278 each from the Vote for the Circuit Court.” Are these the same persons, and is it a case of transferring them backwards and forwards?—The individuals are the same. There are two of them, and they do criminal work both in the Circuit Court and in the Central Criminal Court. The bulk of the criminal business, of serious crime, is of course, done in the Circuit Criminal Court, which sits more or less continuously and in the Central Criminal Court, which sits periodically. Stenographers have to be provided for each court. I suppose this note is merely to put the Dáil and the Public Accounts Committee on notice that there are separate Votes, and that the salaries of the stenographers are apportioned between the two sorts of work they do. 448. That is why I asked the question. Reading the two notes, I could not determine for myself to which Vote the salaries were normally charged?—Their salaries are apportioned between the two Votes. I am advised that the salaries are actually borne on the Circuit Court Vote. I think that the note on the Supreme Court Vote is to show that the provision there is to defray the proportion of the salary of the stenographer who also acts for the Dublin Circuit Court. When the High Court Judge sits in the Central Criminal Court, stenographers to the Circuit Court do the work and the sum shown is the amount paid to them for the work they do for the Central Criminal Court. The Estimate does not help us because it does not give any details, but, looking at the Appropriation Account as it stands, it is reasonable to suppose that, as I have said, the salaries of the stenographers are borne on the Circuit Court Vote. When we come to the High Court, we make a provision for stenography for the Central Criminal Court and the provision is for the proportion of the remuneration of the Circuit Court stenographers which is earmarked for Central Criminal Court work. I can tell the Committee what we pay the stenographers. There are three whole-time stenographers provided for in the Circuit Court Vote paid at the rate of £550 per annum, plus the recent increase, and these are the three we are concerned with. There are certain casual stenographers also employed, but in respect of the services of these three we recover £550 from the Supreme Court.* 449. The only confusion I got into was in looking at the Estimate because stenographers are not mentioned as such. There are shorthand-typists but no stenographers?—They are not mentioned in the Circuit Court Estimate either. 450. There is an item in the Supreme Court Estimate on page 192 for stenographers but it is only £100?—In the Circuit Court Estimate, we provide under subhead A, item No. 7 for remuneration to stenographers for taking shorthand notes. That is a bulk sum for the whole country and not merely Dublin. It does not show the details and consequently the Dublin figures do not stand out, but we employ three stenographers in Dublin who are paid £550 plus the recent increase granted to the Civil Service generally. In respect of the services they render to the Central Criminal Court we recover £550. I admit that it is not set out in a very clear fashion in either the Estimate or the Appropriation Account though we do make it clear in the Appropriation Account under the Supreme Court that we have to pay £550 for stenographers. What we do not make clear is that these are Circuit Court stenographers. We could put a note in the Supreme Court Vote setting out with regard to the £550 for stenography, that the stenographers were actually employed in the Circuit Court. 451. It would have been clearer if in the Circuit Court Appropriation Account where this note was made you had just said that this sum was the sum provided in subhead D of the Supreme Court?— We will do that in future. VOTE 37—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.452. Chairman.—Paragraph 41 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:— “Extra Receipts Payable to Exchequer. A sum of £2,500 was provided by Supplementary Estimate in the financial year 1940-41 for an advance to make good certain deficiencies in estates of minors, the expenditure against the provision being £2,252 4s. 0d. The deficiencies were caused by defalcations of a General Solicitor for minors, who died in February, 1938, and it was stated in a note to the Supplementary Estimate that an Order of Court would be sought for recovery of portion of the advance from the estate of the deceased, and that legislation would be introduced to provide for the recoupment of the balance to the Exchequer from other sources. The estate has now been administered and a sum of £482 4s. 6d., received by way of dividend, is brought to account as Exchequer extra receipts. I have inquired as to the position regarding the recoupment of the balance of £1,769 19s. 6d. to the Exchequer.” Mr. Wann.—The Vote of £2,500 in 1940-41 was authorised as an advance which would be repaid and not as a final payment. As stated in the paragraph, the charge against the provision was £2,252 4s. 0d. Of this sum £482 4s. 6d. is brought in as an Exchequer extra receipt in the year under review, leaving a balance still unrecouped of £1,769 19s. 6d. I understand that it is not at present proposed to proceed with the legislation contemplated in 1940-41. Mr. Coyne.—As the Comptroller and Auditor General has explained, the actual amount which the State has been called on to provide to meet the deficiencies is the sum of £1,769 19s. 6d. It was not until the administration of the estate of the former General Solicitor for minors had been completed towards the end of 1949 that it was possible to ascertain the exact figure the State would finally be called upon to make good, but meanwhile, in pursuance of the undertaking given to the Dáil, a Bill was drafted with the object of making good the amounts lately provided by the Dáil by way of recoupment from the High Court Suitor’s Fund. This fund includes what are popularly known as dormant balances or dormant funds, that is to say, accounts to the credit of suitors in the High Court which have not been drawn upon for several years. Needless to say, the suitors were to be given complete indemnity for any loss they might sustain as a result of the proposed legislation. That shortly is the way in which it was proposed to implement the undertaking given to the Dáil, but as a result of the discussion on the draft Bill with the Department of Finance and after further consideration, both Departments came to the conclusion that, instead of drawing on the dormant funds as had been intended, it would be more in accordance with the accepted procedure and principles of public finance to proceed on the principle that where money was required by the courts for any purpose whatever the procedure should be, as in the case of every other State institution, that the Dáil should be asked to vote the money ad hoc, particularly in a case such as this where there was a question of defalcation by a public official. In these circumstances, it was decided not to proceed with the legislation. If the Committee are satisfied with the explanation I have given, that the undertaking to the Dáil has not been implemented for reasons which the Committee are satisfied are valid reasons, I would respectfully ask them to consider whether it might not suffice, in the rather unusual circumstances of this case, if they were to insert a note in their report to the effect that, having investigated the matter, they had come to that conclusion, that is to say, to the conclusion that there were valid reasons why the undertaking had not been implemented. I should, perhaps say that, after the two Departments had come to the conclusion that it would be unsound in principle to proceed on the lines originally intended, a question arose of making good deficiencies in the Circuit Court in somewhat similar circumstances where moneys, including the funds of suitors, had been misappropriated and there was a question of making good an amount of some £4,000. At that time, 1944, we went to the Dáil with an Estimate, including a special subhead to cover losses saying unequivocally that these moneys had been misappropriated and being prepared to furnish the Dáil with any explanation they might require and asking them to vote the necessary funds, which they did. I merely mention that to illustrate the point that the two Departments, having agreed on the principle that ought to govern this matter, proceeded in practice in subsequent cases to follow that principle. It does seem to me that the way out, assuming that the Committee are satisfied at all with my explanation, is for the Committee to draw attention to this matter in their report which in due course will be presented to the Dáil and will provide the Dáil with an opportunity, if it desires to avail itself of the opportunity, of raising the matter in any way that might be considered appropriate. Alternatively, the Committee might think we could put the Dáil and everybody on notice, if I were to insert a note in this year’s Appropriation Account setting out the facts. 453. Chairman.—It is a bit difficult to decide anything like this to-day and the Committee will have to consider it later when drafting its report. I would say, however, it would have been better if the precedent already established had been followed and if the Dáil had been informed on the main Estimate or the Supplementary Estimate as to what has happened. As a Committee of the Dáil, we are bound to take the view that the Dáil was told that in 1940-41 there was a certain set of circumstances and it was proposed to deal with them in a certain way. That certain way was not carried out. To my mind, it is not a question really so much as to whether the reasons for the change of mind were valid or not: the fact is that the Dáil is so far only aware that it was intended to do things in a certain way. I think, personally, that when the Department changed its mind, the best way would have been to inform the Dáil of the change of mind and ask them for the money as a final payment and not as an advance?—I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. I appreciate fully that what has happened is that the Dáil was given what one may describe as a pledge, an undertaking, and that that pledge or undertaking has not been redeemed, because on further consideration it was felt that such a pledge ought not to have been given, that it was not the appropriate way to proceed. Now, there is no desire in any official quarter to conceal the facts at all and it is a question merely of determining what is the most convenient way of bringing the matter again to the notice of the Dáil. It does occur to me—and I say this with all respect and I hope I will not be misunderstood—that there is something unreal about introducing an Estimate at this stage. You see, the Dáil has voted the money, £2,500, admittedly on a certain understanding, but the money voted for the Supreme Court Vote was expended actually in the same year and shown in the Appropriation Account for that year. We were able then to recover some of the expenditure when the administration of the estate had been concluded, so we were left with a net deficiency of £1,700 odd. All these transactions have actually taken place and we are now if the proposal which you suggest is to be adopted—I see, of course, what is to be said for it—going to ask the Dáil to vote again this precise sum, £1,760, to the account of the Supreme Court Vote, we are going, that is to say, to rob Peter to pay Paul. True, it would give the Dáil an opportunity to reconsider the matter: it would bring forcibly and quite clearly to the notice of the Dáil that the undertaking given had not been implemented; and the Dáil could even refuse to vote the money—though a curious situation would then arise, seeing that the money has been spent. It does seem to me that there is an air of unreality in this. I admit that procedure, particularly where financial order is concerned, is most important. We civil servants are often accused of red tape, formalism and precedent, but it does seem to me that this is a case where to go through such a procedure is to acquiesce in a futility, in a sense—if I may say without disrespect. Any procedure which would put the Dáil on notice that we had not implemented the undertaking, because we thought the money should have been voted outright, that in the first instance we should have asked the Dáil to vote it outright, and any procedure that puts the Dáil on notice as to what has happened, so that any Deputy might if necessary raise the matter after your report has been presented, would seem to me to preserve the full authority of the Dáil and would ensure that nothing was done, so to speak, behind their backs. I realise that perhaps not every member of the Dáil pays close attention even to the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and perhaps it might not be brought so forcibly to the notice of the Dáil in that way; but there does seem to be a certain awkwardness about taking the Vote. I do not know whether you agree with me at all. 454. I appreciate what you say. My difficulty is that this Committee has been set up for a certain purpose and I am not sure that that purpose includes a decision like this, that where money has been advanced by the Dáil, we should just say we are satisfied, and instead of it being advanced as a final payment we are telling you what happened. A matter like this will have to be discussed by the Committee and I cannot say more on it now? —I think I can give you an assurance, though I have not had an opportunity of putting this to my Minister, that if the Committee feel that another Estimate ought to be taken, the Minister will be perfectly prepared to fall in with that course. We can see what arises later when the Committee considers this. 455. On subhead G—Appropriations in Aid—there is a very alarming increase in the receipts from bankruptcy percentages?—I am only too conscious of that, as the bankruptcy office are constantly asking for more staff. In general, one may say it is an index of prosperity, curiously enough—spurious prosperity. It is only in good times that one has bankruptcies, since it usually means that credit has been too freely expended. Perhaps I would be trenching on the field of politics if I developed that. It is true that there was an increase in this year and I think in subsequent years also. 456. By all indications, it will not happen this year. There is also mention here of lunacy percentages. How are they arrived at? Does it mean that out of estates in lunacy there are certain expenses paid for work done?—Where an insane person is under the charge of the State, if he has any income the income is payable to the Committee representing the insane person or lunatic. Some of the percentages we charge the estate of the insane person are: where the income is under £500, 2½ per cent.; £500 to £1,000, 3 per cent.; and above £1,000, 4 per cent. These are for administrative expenses. If the estate does not exceed £700, or £50 per annum, there is statutory power given to remit the expenditure, on the order of the President of the High Court. 457. Are these the only expenses charged by officials of the State courts? —I think, in so far as administration of estates in lunacy is concerned, yes; but in the preliminary proceedings leading up to a person being taken into the care of the court, there are probably other court fees, as in any other High Court suit. 458. The reason I mention it is that it arose on a Committee of which I am a member, where there were people committed and there appeared to be not only the percentages charged but fees also. The local authority was concerned to find that no balance ever accrued to them towards the upkeep of the person committed. That is my information and I would like to hear your side. The explanation given to me was that it was all swallowed up at this end and that expenses were charged for letters written or any work done in connection with it, apparently over and above these percentages?—I just could not answer you that question. I simply do not know accurately but I should have thought that the percentages covered all the expenses of actually administering the insane person’s estate after he is taken into the care of the court. Before he is taken into the care of the court, there may be other expenses. I will look into it and let you have a note, in so far as I myself can secure the information. Lunacy jurisdiction, wards of court generally, is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the President of the High Court, who exercises a most jealous control over that branch of his office, and who is very loth to disclose information—for obvious reasons—about either minors or lunatics. However, I would be surprised if I were not supplied with information, in the nature of a general statement as to whether in addition to the lunacy percentages there is a charge ad hoc for the work done or day-to-day charges. I will let you have a note of that.* Thank you. VOTE 38—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.459. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—On subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances —have those vacancies been filled since? —This is 1949-50. I am sure these particular vacancies have been filled, but there are other vacancies that have arisen. I am informed that at the moment we have a full professional staff. The staff is, broadly speaking, divided into professional, clerical and technical—the professional are the legal men, the clerical explains itself, and the technical staff are the mappers and draftsmen. I believe we have now a full professional staff and clerical staff but that we are short of mappers. In the case of the professional staff, when a vacancy occurs either through death or retirement—I think we had a couple of retirements within these years—it takes a very long time to fill the post. For a professional post you have to go to the Civil Service Commission, settle the conditions of the competition, invite candidates and so on. In our experience, it takes anything from six months to a year to fill a professional vacancy. If we had our way, we would have staff available like tap-water when required, but the Department of Finance have other ideas. They will not allow us to anticipate requirements by holding competitions for vacancies that have not actually arisen. In that way there is sometimes a delay—I am afraid it is unavoidable. In addition to holding the actual competition, the Civil Service Commissioners have to make inquiries as to the character and antecedents of the persons concerned. The specific answer to the question is that the vacancies which then existed have been filled. The witness withdrew. VOTE 41—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.Mr. J. Garvin called and examined.460. Chairman.—Paragraph 42 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:— “Subhead I.1—Contributions towards Housing Loan Charges. A Supplementary Estimate provided £16,000 for the payment of nonstatutory contributions towards loan charges on certain loans advanced from the Local Loans Fund to local authorities. The charge to the subhead includes payments amounting to £13,950 in respect of these contributions, being the amount required to recoup local authorities the additional loan charges incurred on subsidy housing schemes by reason of the increase from 2½ per cent. to 3¼ per cent. per annum in the rate of interest on advances from the Local Loans Fund prescribed by the Local Loans Fund (Rate of Interest) Direction, 1948 (Statutory Instrument No. 158 of 1948). Contributions towards loan charges of local authorities under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1949 account for the remainder of the charge to the subhead, £690,163 11s. 2d. In addition grants totalling £1,848,770 in connection with housing schemes were made to sixty-five local authorities out of moneys provided from the Transition Development Fund.” Mr. Wann.—The paragraph indicates the three different forms of financial assistance to local authorities to assist them in providing houses for the working classes and to meet the charges on borrowings for this purpose. 461. Chairman.—What about the Transition Development Fund? Has it been exhausted? Mr. Garvin.—It has not been exhausted, Mr. Chairman. The amount that remained over from the last financial year has been transferred in this financial year to the Vote for Local Government and is being applied towards meeting the subsidies from that source which were allocated to schemes sanctioned before the 1st November, 1950. The alternative arrangements which are to replace the subsidies previously given from the fund will be provided for in the Department’s Estimates in subsequent financial years. 462. I understand that in one place there were some difficulties about houses which appeared to fall between two stools. In Letterkenny the urban council seems to be in some trouble about houses they set out to build under the first scheme. The houses were not completed in time and were then done too soon for the other scheme. I believe that some arrangement has been come to?—I think the difficulty arose more out of the economics of the scheme. The grants from the Transition Development Fund were never intended to be disbursed to local authorities where the economics of the scheme made the houses self-sufficient on the face of it. In so far as they tend towards that degree of self-sufficiency the Transition Development Fund grant would be reduced accordingly. I think you are referring to a number of high-class houses for which the local authority will get more or less economic rents. I must admit they did not tell me that part of it, but it is quite possible?— There are some very nice houses in that scheme. I think the local authority will probably do well on them. 463. Chairman.—Paragraph 43 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead I.3—Grants under the Housing (Amendment) Acts, 1948 and 1949. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the grants paid under section 16 and the Second Schedule of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, to certain persons towards the cost of reconstructing houses in their own occupation.” Mr. Wann.—The grants mentioned in this paragraph were paid under section 16 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, which provides for the payment of grants (subject to certain conditions) to agricultural labourers and other persons who derive their livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture. The original definition of agricultural labourer was extended by various Labourers Acts, the 1936 Act defining it as any person (other than a domestic or menial servant) working for hire in a rural district whose average wages exceed 2/6 per day. In the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1941, it was further extended by the provision that a person working for hire shall not be prevented from being an agricultural labourer solely by reason of the fact that he is not working for hire in a rural district. This extension was apparently necessary to enable persons who had become urban workers to continue in legal occupation of local authority houses in rural areas. In the course of audit it was observed that grants were paid to persons employed in urban areas—for example, hairdresser, bar assistant, unestablished civil servant, gas fitter. In reply to my inquiry regarding eligibility for these grants, I was informed that the extended definition of agricultural labourer makes no reference to the nature of the employment—the important consideration being the terms of the employment—and that any person working for hire at any occupation in which his services can be freely dispensed with may be considered as coming within the legal definition of agricultural labourer. 464. Chairman.—Any observations on that, Mr. Garvin? Mr. Garvin.—I have nothing further to say to that. That is the legal position as we are advised. 465. Was it not the position under the 1941 Act—in so far as the intention went, anyway—that this dealt with people who lived in rural areas but worked in urban areas? It looks to me now as if people who not only work in urban areas but live there come under it?—Very few cases would arise. The terms of the amending section in the Act of 1941 are as follows: “(1) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 93 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of section 1 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1919, a person who is working for hire shall not be prevented from being an agricultural labourer within the meaning of the Principal Acts solely by reason of the fact that he is not working for hire in a rural district.” That has been held to lead to the position which you mention. Since then, reconstruction provisions in respect of other classes not covered by that have been enacted and they are also referable to both urban and rural areas. I refer to section 8 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1950, which provides for something similar in the way of grants by the local authority and the State in respect of persons other than the class covered by the statutory provisions we are discussing now, so that persons who work for hire in what you might call a non-permanent capacity, people who have to pay national health insurance and so on, who come within the definition of agricultural labourer, are eligible for reconstruction grants under the provisions we are discussing. Under section 8 of the Act of 1950, the remaining classes, that is to say, people in permanent employment or working on their own, such as fishermen, cobblers, small shopkeepers and the like, are eligible for a reconstruction grant under the 1950 Act if the valuation of the house they are occupying comes within the limit of £12. 466. Under the 1941 Act, the limit is £35. Would it be possible, say, for some one working for hire in Dublin, the valuation of whose house did not exceed £35, to qualify under the 1941 Act?—That is a possibility, but in view of the very small number of cases that have arisen in any county borough area, I think the anomaly is not very pronounced. It may, however, be a matter to look into in connection with amending legislation. 467. What frightens me is that the small number of cases may be due to the fact that people are unaware of the position. Once they become aware of these things—it is extraordinary how quickly they become aware of them—we might have a terrible flood of applications which we could not refuse. You are looking into the matter?—The matter will be considered. The whole question of reconstruction will be brought under review in connection with legislation which must be introduced in any event before the 31st March. All current schemes and grants are based on financial provisions which terminate on the 31st March next. 468. You are personally satisfied that in respect of the cases to which Mr. Wann has referred in more or less detail it was impossible to refuse the grants?—We felt that these people were entitled to the grants. One was a clerk, another a bar assistant, another a hairdresser, another a signalman and another a gas fitter. Those were all the cases brought under our notice. 469. The position was that they were within the terms of the Act as written although they were not within the terms of the intention of the Act. Would that be correct? The intention of the Act was to provide for a specific type of person who lived in a rural area but worked in an urban area?—It is difficult for me to assent or dissent as to what the intention was but, having regard to the very wide extension of the definition of agricultural labourers, I think that its wider application cannot be regarded as entirely illogical. 470. Chairman.—Paragraph 44 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to subhead J J and reads as follows:— The Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949, which became law on 20th July, 1949, enables certain local authorities to execute works affording relief or protection from flooding, landslide, subsidence and similar occurrences, and a Supplementary Estimate for £1,250,000 was taken to provide for grants to the local authorities concerned towards the cost of works undertaken under the Act. The expenditure of £1,227,200 charged to the subhead represents payments on account in respect of work done on schemes approved by the Minister for Local Government.” Mr. Wann.—All payments made were on account. No final payments were made during the year. 471. Chairman.—There appears to me to be a considerable difference in the different local authority areas in the interpretation of this Act. Does the Department exercise firm control over the various county engineers, for instance, in their interpretation of this Act? Mr. Garvin.—This is a very large sum of money and a correspondingly large amount has been voted in the two subsequent years. Large and all as it is, it is disbursed in small amounts covering an enormous number of small schemes. The normal schemes would amount to £200 or £300 each and only in exceptional cases would the figure go into the thousands or tens of thousands. It is therefore practically impossible for the Department’s limited inspectional personnel to get after every one of those schemes on the spot before the schemes are approved. They are submitted by the county engineers of the respective counties and in so far as our inspectional staff can do it, checks by way of actual inspections are made on the schemes before they are approved, but I cannot assure the Committee that the inspectors see every scheme before it is approved. From discussions with local engineers at the preparatory stages and from what they see of the schemes in course of execution and when they are completed, however, the inspectors have a fair check on the programme undertaken by each local authority and under the supervision of higher inspectors they can easily ensure uniformity of application of the terms of the Act in so far as the divergent views of the local authorities themselves permit. The procedure is that the local authority, the county council, submits a programme of schemes considerably in excess of the total amount they are likely to obtain by way of grant. From time to time we tell them the amount of grant which will be available and they are free to select schemes from the pool of schemes which we have approved out of those they originally submitted. We do not approve of every scheme. 472. I was not expecting that it would be possible for the inspectional staff to see every scheme because I know that there are a great many schemes. Has it not been apparent, however, that in different counties a different interpretation has been given by the county engineers and that some of them take a more limited view than others do of what is a scheme appropriate to this fund? If it came down to cases it would possibly be easier to understand. I have naturally been watching what is happening in my own county and I have also been watching what is happening, say, in County Monaghan as I pass through it. It struck me that a great deal more real drainage work has been done in County Monaghan under this Act than in County Donegal. As far as I can gather the work is limited almost entirely in County Donegal to road works and I was just wondering whether the Department exercises any supervision over the general picture of the type of work?—You asked whether there was divergence of interpretation between one county and another. The answer is that schemes of both the categories you mention are capable of being carried out under the Works Act. As regards administration, the practice may vary. In some cases there may be a tendency to concentrate upon small drainage works in the vicinity of roads. The Act also enables protection as well as drainage work to be done, for example, on a lowlying level of road which can be built up for protection against flooding. In other counties the tendency may be to concentrate on carrying out drainage work on private lands or on bogs which in the opinion of the local authority would be work in the public interest. Both categories of work can be carried out but one local authority may prefer one category and another the other, according to the extent and urgency of the schemes which they find it practicable to carry out under either head. 473. All I am trying to establish is that your Department does not prohibit a local authority from carrying out drainage schemes or insist on its carrying out road schemes?—No. 474. Chairman.—The first sub-paragraph of paragraph 45 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:— “Motor Tax Account. A test examination has been applied to the Motor Tax Account with generally satisfactory results. The certificates and reports of the Local Government Auditors who examine the motor tax transactions of local authorities were scrutinised, in so far as they were available, but in five cases this audit had not been completed at the date of my test examination.” Mr. Wann.—I understand that in regard to the cases outstanding the audit has now been completed except for one authority. 475. Chairman.—Is that case likely to be finished yet? Mr. Garvin.—I am afraid I have no information on the particular case. 476. The paragraph continues:— “The gross proceeds of motor vehicles, etc., duties in 1949-50, including £36,372 19s. 6d. attributable to fines collected by the Department of Justice, amounted to £2,644,197 15s. 8d. as compared with a total of £2,390,203 9s. 9d. in the previous year. Fees amounting to £6,313 17s. Od. received on behalf of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána under the Road Traffic Act (Parts VI and VII) (Fees) Regulations, 1937 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 92 of 1937) are also included in the receipts. A statement of the gross and net receipts of the Motor Tax Account, and of the payments thereout to the Exchequer, appears on pages 6 and 7 of the Finance Accounts, 1949-50.” 477. With regard to the note on subhead E on page 131, what is “Building Documentation”?—I would be glad if somebody would give me a definition myself. I have seen the physical results of it and I must say that they are tremendously impressive in bulk and volume. There may be a tendency in international officialdom to multiply documentation even more than in the civil services of individual countries, but I do not wish in the least to imply that the work they are doing is not very valuable. The representatives who attended that congress got very valuable information which enabled us to assess our position with regard to building processes and building standards in relation to the advances made in other countries. While we are by no means complacent, neither do we find any grounds for thinking that we are behind the mark attained by other countries. 478. Is this a sort of pool of information on building?—Yes. The congress was attended by technical representatives and by some administrative representatives of the various countries who submitted reports regarding the nature of building materials used, the standard of housing attained and so forth in their respective countries. All these things, as the description suggests, are put into a mass of documents which are prepared and circulated among the delegates of the various countries. 479. With regard to subhead FF—Expenses of Committee on Road Surfacing in relation to horse-drawn traffic—has a new chairman been appointed to this committee?—No new chairman was appointed. Another engineering representative of the Department of Local Government who was already on the committee helped to bring the work to a conclusion under the original chairman. As I indicated when I attended here last year, a report is available and will be printed in due course. 480. With regard to the note on subhead 1.4—Grants to Local Authorities under the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1946—was there any particular reason why building schemes under this particular subhead should be delayed considering that so many schemes under other subheads apparently went on at a very good rate?—This was discussed the last time I was before the Committee, when it was suggested that possibly the rate of building attained under the grants available under other subheads was tending to let this slide into the background. It never proved to be as popular a proposition as we expected when we introduced it originally. As better accommodation is made available by local authorities and private enterprise with the aid of other forms of State subsidy this provision is apparently less needed. We have no means of providing a check on how far the individuals concerned will respond in any particular year and the tendency in recent years has been to reduce the grant more and more. However, regarding the net amount provided for the grant this year, I expect that it will be spent. That means that we are getting to a closer estimation of the actual needs. 481. With regard to subhead M—Text book on Local Government—I presume that we are still not quite clear about this textbook although the reason may have changed?—Yes, we have reached finality on the matter now. We decided to send it for printing last summer and I understand that the proofs are being got together. 482. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—With regard to item 2 of the Appropriations in Aid, does “Inquiries” include the compulsory acquisition of land for housing sites?—Yes, that includes all local inquiries held. 483. Chairman.—I think that we should compliment you on the very close estimation on this Vote. The surrender is about a half of 1 per cent. and that is very welcome to see. Mr. Garvin.—Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
