|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 5ú Márta, 1959.Thursday, 5th March, 1959.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY DILLON in the chair. Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. P. S. Mac Guill and Mr. J. Mooney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 38—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.Mr. J. Garvin called and examined.342. Chairman.—Paragraph 53 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Motor Tax Account 53. A test examination of the Motor Tax Account was carried out with satisfactory results. The certificates and reports of the Local Government auditors who examine the motor tax transactions of local authorities will be made available to me for scrutiny when the audits have been completed. The gross proceeds of motor vehicle, etc., duties in 1957-58 amounted to £5,542,205 compared with £4,873,727 in the previous year. They include fines amounting to £40,262 collected by the Department of Justice, £5,969 in respect of fees received under the Road Traffic Act (Parts VI and VII) (Fees) Regulations, 1937, and £66,827 received from government departments in respect of State-owned vehicles. £5,683,000 was paid into the Exchequer and £3,204 was refunded leaving a balance in the account at 31 March 1958 of £167,936 as compared with £311,935 at 31 March 1957.” Is there anything further you wish to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. I have no further information to give on that particular account. 343. Chairman.—Could you tell us, Mr. Garvin, why do the gross proceeds of motor vehicle duties for 1957-58 exceed those in the previous year by £700,000? —Many people who would normally take out licences refrained in 1956-57 from taking them out for the first quarter of the year 1957 owing to the conditions which existed in connection with petrol rationing and the levies on motor cars. The licences which were subsequently taken out in respect of the year in question fell into the financial year beginning in April, and thereby the total receipts were swollen to an extent beyond the normal amounts. It was the Suez petrol rationing which discouraged people from taxing vehicles at that time?—Yes, and the receipts fell into the ensuing financial year. 344. I take it that the normal approximate figure would be something in the order of the average of these two figures?—It should be about £5,250,000 for that particular year. That was our original estimate. 345. Deputy Booth. — One point occurred to me in connection with the revenue from driving licences. I have personal experience of this in renewing a driving licence which was six months out of date. On the application form, it asks you to say what date you wished the licence to run from— Chairman.—May I interrupt for a moment? Mr. Garvin, are you administratively responsible for the issuing of motor licences?—My Department is not directly responsible. It is the local motor taxation officers who issue them. Is that under the municipalities?—Yes, under the county councils and county borough councils. 346. Deputy Booth.—Perhaps the Accounting Officer may be able to direct someone’s attention to this. I find that if you have a driving licence which is out of date, you can only get a new driving licence from the date of issue, so that if you have been driving without a licence for a considerable period the amount of the fee applicable to that period is lost. I took that up with the issuing authority, and was informed that a licence could not be back-dated as this might lead to trouble in the Courts with a man who was caught without a licence and then, if he got his licence back-dated, he may have a good defence. In actual fact, however, every driving licence bears on its face the date of issue and I do not know whether it might be worth while inquiring, as a way towards increasing that revenue, whether the regulation might be amended in some way authorising issuing officers to ask for the previous driving licence of an applicant, and to date the new licence back to the date the previous one expired, but to carry on the practice of stamping the actual date of issue on the new licence. Then, if a new licence were produced in Court, it would be immediately obvious to the District Justice that it was only issued on a certain date and was not in force when an accused was challenged by a Guard. I am perfectly convinced from my own experience that I am not paying driving licence fees for the full period that I am driving. Chairman.—Has your attention been drawn to that, Mr. Garvin?—I am aware of the fact that a licence may operate only from the date on which it is actually issued and, on account of considerations such as those already conveyed to Deputy Booth by his local licensing authority, I doubt if his suggestion that power should be given to back-date licences would be acceptable. That is the position. If it were to be changed would that not be a matter of policy for the Minister which would be more properly raised in the Dáil?—It would mean an amendment of the law. 347. However, the question does arise as to whether revenue is being lost by the failure to date the licence back to the date of the previous licence. Is that not so?—I do not think that point is one that could be sustained, having regard to the legal position. The question is really a legal one as to whether an applicant for a licence, having a liability to keep his vehicle constantly licensed, should be free to leave it unlicensed for a certain period and then have his licence dated back to the date on which his previous licence expired. It is not the licence of the vehicle; it is a driving licence. What about that?— Having a driving licence back-dated would be contrary to the present law. It would also appear to give rise to the risk which the local licensing authority told Deputy Booth might arise. Deputy Haughey.—It strikes me that if a person applies for a driving licence on a particular date, nobody can say to him that he should have had it from an earlier date. He may not have been driving a car and not wanted a licence. I could not see it operating any other way but that the licensing authority would grant you a licence as and from the date you apply. Chairman.—The position is that the regulations, as at present constituted, provide that the licence operates from its date of issue. To change that would require a change in statutory provisions. If that is so, then, Deputy Booth, I must rule that this is a matter appropriate to the proceedings of Dáil Éireann and not to this Committee. If there is no other question on that, we can turn to the Vote itself. 348. Deputy Haughey.—On subhead A., there is a saving of £12,559. The note states that savings arose mainly through the non-filling of posts for which provision had been made, and I would like to know in what particular section of subhead A. these savings were made. I am concerned actually with the section which deals with Local Government auditors. I want to know is there any saving under that head?—I do not think that the vacancies on the audit staff were abnormal in any way during the period in question. The only vacancies which remained to be filled were ones for which new competitions had to be held and they arose from the fact that some of the auditors were due to retire on reaching the age limit. In those cases, the auditors in question were retained until their successors were appointed. 349. I do not know if this question is in order but I would like to ask if the staff in this particular section is adequate for the job it has to do?—I am glad to be able to report, and was prepared to do so on the question of motor taxation, that the audits are more up-to-date than they have been for years. All the audits of the motor tax account, in respect of the last financial year, have been completed within less than 12 months of the close of the financial year and the health audit arrears, which were referred to on previous occasions by this Committee, have also been considerably reduced. I think that the whole audit position is in a healthy state. 350. In regard to the total amount spent on salaries, wages and allowances under this particular section of the subhead, we only got £25,358 in fees payable by local authorities. Is it the intention that this section should pay for itself?—No, not in full. The amount which is not recouped from the local authorities is an amount calculated to be referable to the necessity for audit from the point of view of Government Departments and in the general public interest. Large sections of the audit might normally be done by a method of internal audit by the local authorities themselves and to that extent the local government auditors are performing a duty on behalf of the local authorities. To that extent they are required to refund the cost of audit. But 100 per cent. recoupment should not be expected. Therefore, you do not work on the principle of commercial activity, namely, that an auditor charges the client a fee for the audits?—No, not in full. 351. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead C.—Incidental Expenses—as a matter of curiosity what uniforms are referred to in the note on this subhead?—They would be the uniforms of messengers and porters. 352. Chairman.—On subhead G.— Charge under Irish Land Act, 1909, Section 11 (2)—I am sure you have answered this question often before. What is the charge under this subhead? Deputy Haughey.—And why is it £2 less than granted? Mr. Garvin.—The charge represents a contribution of 20 per cent. of the annuities on post-1906 labourers’ cottages financed by advances from the Land Commission. This contribution is additional to the 16 per cent. paid for the same purposes from the Labourers’ Cottages Fund. It was a form of State assistance for housing in those days and it is now merely a question of liquidating the outstanding charges. It related to housing expenditure before the State came into existence here. Chairman.—And the £2 less than granted—does that represent a gradual diminution of the charge?—No, the mode of calculating prospective expenditure is almost automatic, but not quite. 353. In subhead H., is that a disappearing charge?—Yes. And it will probably disappear from the accounts in the next two or three years? —We are making provision for the wiping out of some of these accounts by capital sums. 354. Subhead I (1)—Is this a grant-in-aid or how is it that the expenditure is exactly as estimated?—It is a recoupment of loan charges payable by local authorities on foot of loans obtained by them for housing. We are in a position to calculate the prospective loan charges fairly accurately and, if the amount recoupable is in excess of the provision made, all we have to do is to pay up to the limit. That was the case in this particular year. And the local authorities have to pay out the remainder?—Ultimately the local authority has to meet its own proportion only. Any balance of the subsidy would be carried forward to subsequent years and paid in full. 355. I see a Note here which says that the number of applications for grants for the erection of new houses has fallen considerably in recent years?—Yes. Does that suggest that the housing situation in certain parts of the country is substantially resolved?—The Note refers to applications for grants towards the erection of new private houses. The tendency had been, when the Note was written, for those applications to fall in number. I think that the fall has since been arrested and, so far as applications for grants towards reconstruction, repair and improvement are concerned, there has been a very considerable increase in the numbers. The amount paid, as you can see there, was about £473,000 less than the £2,000,000 provided. In the year 1958/59, the present financial year, we have provided £1,300,000 in the Estimate and we propose to spend it in full. For the financial year 1959-60 we are providing £1,700,000 so that there does appear to be a tendency for the expenditure on new houses and the reconstruction of old houses to increase again. 356. You spent this year £1,300,000?— Yes. That is somewhat less than was spent in 1957/58?—Well, the fall in applications to which reference is made in the Note here is reflected in the subsequent year by a fall in expenditure, but the increase in the applications which we are now experiencing will, we estimate, be reflected by a further increase in expenditure in subsequent years. 357. For the record, I would like to ask you, Mr. Garvin, what time should elapse between the receipt of applications in your Department for a building grant or a reconstruction grant and the visit of the Inspector?—In putting the matter on record, possibly I would have to refer back to my own records to be quite sure. There has been a change in the last year whereby the work of inspection for new house grants has been taken over, from the people who were called appointed officers throughout the country, by the engineering and architectural staff of the Department of Local Government, so that our experience in respect of the work as a whole is still somewhat tentative. I imagine, however, as we work to an arrear of something like a fortnight and having regard to the fact that an inspector would have perhaps two or three itineraries in respect of his district as a whole, that the time which might normally be expected to elapse between the receipt of an application and the making of an inspection would be between four and six weeks. So that where a Deputy is approached by a constituent it is safe to say he would be wise to wait for six weeks and if he has not then received a visit from the Department’s inspector, it would be appropriate to draw the attention of the Department to his case?—I think that is a fair statement of the position. 358. Is there any time limit, if you notify a reconstruction grant of £50, within which the work has to be completed?—Subject to continuing legislation there is no limit, but every three or four years we go through the dormant or dead applications and declare them to be dead unless we receive within a certain time notice to the contrary. 359. Deputy Browne.—On subhead K.— Grants to Local Authorities for the Execution of Works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949—I take it that the £170,000 expenditure shown here was on jobs commenced in the previous year or years?—That is correct. Is the Department continuing or completing jobs commenced previously?—We have only a nominal sum for the coming financial year, but we expect to pay up balances on all grants that may still be due to local authorities on old schemes by the 31st of this month. 360. Chairman.—Some recent statement to the Dáil by the Minister for Finance, I think, contained a reference to the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949. Do you know has there been any official statement as to the intentions in respect of the Local Authorities (Works) Act in the coming year?—Yes, the intention is indicated in the Book of Estimates published the other day. No provision for new works is being made. 361. Deputy Haughey.—On subhead L. —Contributions towards Loan Charges of Local Authorities in respect of Sanitary Services Works—so far as I remember, Mr. Garvin explained this before but I would like to refresh my mind on it. Has there not been a change in this regard?—Yes, a change which occurred about five or six years ago. You do not pay capital grants?—We do not pay capital grants. You just make contributions towards the loan charges?—That is correct. 362. Chairman.—Regarding the Extra Exchequer Receipts on page 108, what are appointed officers’ fees in connection with housing grant applications?—That was in respect of the time when appointed officers were still due to be appointed by the Minister but, where a vacancy occurred, in view of our intention to terminate their employment generally we did not fill the vacancy and we employed one of our own engineers to carry on the work. Any sums received by him in respect of such work, which would normally be payable to the appointed officer, were not of course retained by him but refunded to the Department. Are all the appointed officers gradually ceasing to exist?—They have ceased to exist, except in County Borough areas and Dublin County, where they are not personally employed by the Minister but by local authorities and do the by-law work and other work which is analogous to the work of inspectors of housing. They receive no special fees as such fees in those cases are paid to the local authorities. Chairman.—We are very much obliged, Mr. Garvin. The witness withdrew. VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.Mr. J. N. McGrath called and examined.363. Chairman.—There is a Note by the Comptroller and Auditor General which states: “Subhead A.—Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc. 28. Contributions in lieu of rates are based on the rates struck by local authorities, any provision for domestic water rate being excluded. In calculating the contributions in certain cases it was noted that the rates were not reduced by an appropriate amount in respect of domestic water supplies although the Office of Public Works, the Department of Defence and the Garda Síochána paid local authorities direct for water supplied to premises under their control. I have invited the observations of the Accounting Officer on the matter.” Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Water rates or rent have been paid direct to the local authorities by various Departments including the Office of Public Works, the Department of Defence, the Post Office, etc. It would appear that payments from this Vote include charges for water rates and in view of the possibility of duplication of payment for the supply of water to State-owned premises, I issued an inquiry with a view to having the position clarified. Mr. McGrath.—The position as far as we are concerned is that, first of all, we are not responsible in any way for that. What the county councils do, I think— and the urban councils, I should say— is they claim the rates on the exempted valuation and send this further demand, which we consider must be in consideration of non-domestic water, to the Department. That has nothing to do with us. We cannot do anything about it, unless a Department sends a demand to us —say. We are going to take over next year—then we can see what the situation is. The question seems to be whether the water is domestic or non-domestic. Domestic water is in the combined rate; non-domestic is not. 364. Chairman.—Before the demand is met, should not someone inquire whether it is, in fact, due?—Well, should it be us? Who should it be, in your submission?— Shall I read out the legal position, our reply to the Auditor General?* It is quite long. Perhaps you could summarise it?—It is difficult to summarise. The law relating to the charges made for water supply from local authority mains differs as between boroughs and urban districts on the one hand and county health districts on the other. In the latter case the charge for water supply does not appear to be included in the county rate and consequently no question of deduction of domestic water rate or its equivalent from claims for contribution-in-lieu-of-rates by County Councils would appear to arise. As regards boroughs and urban districts the law is as follows: . . . . . 365. I do not want to interrupt, but these are considerations you have borne in mind when deciding to pay these rates. As I see it, you are the Accounting Officer for Rates on Government Property and nobody can make you disburse money unless you believe it to be your statutory duty to do so?—We do not; these demands for rates are paid direct by the Departments. We are satisfied the payments we made, which are based on the exempted valuations, are perfectly correct, as far as we are concerned. If there is an extra demand made by the local authority, they should send it on to us if there is any trouble about it, to see if we can do anything about it. So far, they have not done so and, therefore, we are more or less in the dark about this matter. 366. Chairman.—I understand from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s record that the problem is that you pay the rates and these deductions are made by certain local authorities for water rates and the question is whether your original payment of rates has not already provided for the water rate?—That is all involved in the question as to whether the second demand is for domestic water rate or non-domestic water rate. Our opinion is that the second demand must be for non-domestic water rate, because the inclusive rate includes a domestic water rate. Chairman.—I understand from the Comptroller and Auditor General that he feels that, where there is a second demand for water rate as distinct from the ordinary rates, the Accounting Officer for rates on Government property has a duty to query the second demand. Is that correct?—It does not come to us. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In the case of the Department of Justice, for example, the rents are paid in respect of water supplied to the various Garda stations, for the most part, and in the case of the Department of Defence, a large proportion of the payments made for water are in respect of the supply to officers’ and soldiers’ houses. Whether that supply would fall within the definition of domestic water supply or not, I cannot say?— The horses, etc., are not domestic. That has been settled before. 367. Chairman.—I think that what the Committee would want to be satisfied on is this, Mr. McGrath. You pay rates in respect of, say Garda stations and you get a supplementary demand, which you are called on to discharge?—We do not get it. We do not pay that. The Department pays that. If we were to pay it, we would probably query it and say it is a duplication, but it does not come to us. It is paid direct by the Department. For next year, we have asked all those people to send those extra demands to us and we will investigate whether there is duplication or not. Now we are getting places?—It is a legal question for testing in the courts, as between domestic and non-domestic water. 368. I am glad you are able to give us that information, for I feel that the Committee would have felt that, if a situation existed under which you paid some of the water rates and Departments made other payments, there was a lack of co-ordination. But if you tell us now that, in future, the practice will be that if any rate demand is received by a Department it will be forwarded to you to determine whether your original payment of rates on Government property had already covered it?—We decided that, in view of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s note, we must do so, to get the position clarified. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I understand that, as a result of discussions between the Departments concerned, it has been decided that all water rates or rents should be paid by the Valuation Office out of this Vote as from the 1st April, 1959, and provision has accordingly been made in the 1959/60 Estimates for this expenditure. Mr. McGrath.—Yes, that is right, but I do not think that excludes our querying that. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The point of the query was that it seemed that there were duplicate payments—one payment by the Valuation Office and another payment by one of the major Departments for water supply. 369. Chairman.—Mr. McGrath, would you consider that, in respect of the year 1957/58, the rate payments which have been made by Departments should now be reported to you with a view to determining whether they were in fact due, in the light of your payments?—Yes. And that in the future all such demands should be referred to you, before being met by the Departments concerned?— Yes, and we would have to decide, then— legally, I suppose—whether the second demand is domestic or non-domestic. We cannot say offhand. Chairman.—I think that would meet the situation. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Quite so. 370. Chairman.—Under subhead B., I observe that claims were not received to the extent anticipated. Are they since being received, or are they not going to come in at all?—They will turn up, I think. Some of them may come and some of them may not. We do not know about these foreign governments. Some of them claim and some of them do not claim. So we maintain a discreet silence and hope they will not?—As discreet as possible. VOTE 25—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.Mr. J. N. McGrath called.No questions. VOTE 26—ORDNANCE SURVEY.Mr. J. N. McGrath further examined.371. Chairman.—On the Appropriations-in-Aid, subhead G., how do you arrive at the value of a map?—That is done by the Ordnance Survey people and I presume it is based on the cost of materials and labour. They have increased it in the last 12 months. They were reasonable up to this but they have been increased now. That is the only possible way we could base it. We do not expect to make a lot of profit out of that. 372. In regard to the Place Names Commission, could you give us any information as to what the situation is now?—I think I may say that the situation at present is quite satisfactory. It has not been so up to the moment. We have turned out a number—mostly post town names—and we have turned out altogether, accepted by the Commission and passed by the recommendation of the Commission, 828 names ready for publication. 373. Who constitute the Commission at present?—There are various parties. There is An Seabhac. It is all in Irish. They are mostly old men, you see—wise old men—and they take a certain amount of time about deciding on these things. Do you want the names? Yes, if you please?—They are all in Irish. There is An Seabhac (Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha), an tOllamh Oirmh. Eoin Ó Riain, an Canónach Micheál Ó Conalláin, S.P., an Dr. Oirmh. Pádraig E. MacFhinn, an tAthair Tomás Ó Fiaich, an tOllamh T. S. Ó Máille, an tOllamh R. de Valéra and Seán Ó Súilleabháin. There are also: an Breitheamh Liam Price, an tOllamh M. Ó Duígeannáin, Seán Mac Airt agus Seumas Ó Dúbhghaill. 374. Is the work being pressed forward?—Oh, it is definitely so, now, for the first time. We had a lot of trouble, because the Senior Place Names Officer resigned in the middle of a year and it took quite a long time to replace him. That upset the work of the previous year. They are now able to go ahead definitely with a full staff. The work is going ahead rapidly. 375. Deputy Haughey.—Would it be in order for me to comment at this point on the fact that an obsolete, hand operated pressure press, apparently no longer of any use to the Ordnance Survey, was received with open arms by the Army Ordnance Corps?—It was of no use to us. We got new presses. Chairman.—I suggest, Deputy, that you take it up with the Accounting Officer for the Department of Defence and ask him why he allowed Mr. McGrath to palm off that press on him?—It was not palmed off. It was worth about £10. Chairman.—Then, as Accounting Officer, I think you are to be congratulated on that. We are very much obliged to you. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
