Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1963 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1961 - 1962

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 14 Feabhra, 1963.

Thursday, 14th February, 1963.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit) Mr. P. S. Mac Guill and Mr. M. Ó Murchadha (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. Seán Réamonn called and examined.

122. Chairman.—Paragraph 8 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances, etc.

8. The extent to which staff was engaged for lengthy periods on overtime in connection with Income Tax work came under notice in the course of audit. In two cases officers were employed on overtime for up to 30 hours a week and totalling more than 1,300 hours in the year. Their overtime earnings almost equalled their normal salaries. I invited the observations of the Accounting Officer on the economy of employing staffs for such protracted spells of overtime having regard to the high rate payable for overtime in excess of 12 hours a week and the impairment of efficiency usually associated with prolonged working hours. I was informed that the abnormal circumstances arising out of the introduction of P.A.Y.E. and the urgent need to dispose of the large number of cases of Schedule E arrears necessitated the employment of all available officers on overtime, and that it was essential in order to maintain continuity to have a nucleus of experienced officers on more or less continuous overtime.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The working of overtime has always been regarded as an evil and Departments have been urged to curtail it to a minimum. Where it is unavoidable, a limit of 12 hours a week is normally applied and payment for overtime in excess of 12 hours a week is allowed only where the circumstances are quite exceptional. In my report, particulars are given of two of the more serious cases which came under notice in which overtime working for months on end was far in excess of that normally permitted.

123. Mr. Réamonn.—Perhaps the Committee might like me to say something generally about this matter. The Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention to the fact that two officers, during the period under review, that is to say, the year 1961-62, drew overtime pay which approximated to the amount of their normal earnings. The two officers in question were Clerical Officers attached to Head Office. In this case, when I say Head Office, I have in mind the Central Collection Branch which we operate in O’Connell Street, Dublin. It may be no harm to recall for a moment the regulations governing overtime pay. Overtime is paid in respect of all hours worked by general service grades in excess of 42 a week. Where the hours worked in any week exceed 42 and do not exceed 54, that is to say, up to 12 hours overtime, the overtime is paid at time and a quarter rate. Where the hours exceed 54 hours but do not exceed 60 hours, in other words, between 12 and 18 hours overtime, the rate is time and a half. Above that, it is double time rate. For Sunday work, the rate is time and a half. We are also concerned with Tax Officers. That is one of our departmental grades. Similar regulations apply, subject to the provision that in the case of Senior Tax Officers, overtime is limited to the maximum of the Tax Officer rate. The total figures for overtime pay at Head Office are striking. For the year 1958-59 at Head Office the overtime pay was £4,100, in 1959-60, it was £11,100, in 1960-61, £24,900 and in 1961-62, £34,000. These are the figures for Clerical Officers, etc. There was also prolonged overtime in the Office of the Chief Inspector among the Tax Officers. Needless to say we are very far from being enamoured of prolonged or continuous overtime. We are conscious of the drawbacks and dangers and we prefer to avoid it wherever possible, but we are in an era of transition and we are confronted with special circumstances. There was a very big and very grave arrears problem in relation to income tax under Schedule E. The problem had to be tackled vigorously. The arrears had to be cleared as speedily as possible without causing any undue hardship. Then we were concerned with the launching of P.A.Y.E. which was a completely new method of collecting income tax from the salaries and wages of employees. What happened in that regard was that the Minister for Finance appointed a commission to inquire comprehensively into Income Tax. On the 19th December, 1958, the commission recommended that the previously existing system of collecting Schedule E tax should be replaced as soon as possible by a statutory tax deduction scheme on the general lines of the British P.A.Y.E., that is, incorporating the current year basis and the cumulative principle. The sequence of events was somewhat rapid. Various necessary steps intervened until on the 6th October, 1960, the new arrangements began to operate. The introduction of P.A.Y.E. entailed some increases in clerical staff for two main reasons. In the first place we had more than three times as many cases to deal with than formerly. People who earn more than £6 per week but, who, by reason of the system of personal allowances and reliefs, are not liable would under the previous dispensation, have been more or less written-off in our books. Under P.A.Y.E. on the other hand, we have to furnish each of these people with a certificate of tax-free allowances to produce to his employer. For the year 1961-62 for the Dublin tax district alone 240,000 tax-free allowance certificates were issued. The second main reason is that under P.A.Y.E. you have to watch three years at the same time: the year that has gone by, for review of liability; the current year, for any change in the taxpayer’s circumstances; the coming year, for the preparation and issue of forms of return and certificates of tax-free allowances. In spite of all this it has been a good departure. P.A.Y.E. has been a success. This, of course, is due almost entirely to the spirit of co-operation shown by the Association of Chambers of Commerce, as the Minister has so often pointed out, and representatives of employers, on the one hand, and trade unions and the various representatives of employees on the other hand. The Central Collection Branch was set up originally on the 1st January, 1952, and its function was simply to collect income tax under Schedule E (which is income tax due by employees) in the Dublin area for the years 1950-51 onwards. In other words, it functioned as the ordinary machine for collecting Schedule E income tax in the Dublin area. The reason why it was set up was that there was a tremendous growth in the number of Schedule E assessments which had really got beyond the capacity of the ordinary collectors. With the coming of P.A.Y.E., it assumed new functions, four chiefly: first of all, the registration of employers, which is something to which they had to give attention all the time but, naturally, it was a bigger task at the beginning when the scheme was being set up; secondly, the collection and accounting for Schedule E tax over the whole country: thirdly, following up of cases of non-payment; and, fourthly, the balancing of the end of the year’s statements that come in from employers with the amount of tax which they have remitted during the year. With the coming of P.A.Y.E. these functions were added to the Central Collection Branch. We also required it to assist in the disposal of arrears which had accumulated since the Branch had been set up. Therefore, we had a special problem at the beginning of this period which the Committee is considering in relation to overtime. The question was whether we would recruit staff on a fairly considerable scale or resort to overtime. We had to bear six considerations in mind. The first was the transitional nature of the work. The disposal of arrears was a very big task but of a transitional nature. Another transitional feature of the work was the initial operation of P.A.Y.E., The second consideration to which we had to pay heed was that the volume of preliminary work on P.A.Y.E. was largely an unknown quantity and this made it difficult to assess staff requirements in advance. The third consideration was that if we were to recruit staff on a large scale, we would be faced with the very difficult questions of training and accommodation which at that time was limited. There was then, fourthly, the necessity for the urgent completion of the work. The fifth point is a very important one altogether, that even at that time we were contemplating the installation of the electronic computer. The electronic computer was referred to in the Government White Paper on direct taxation and an order for a complex machine of this kind had to be placed quite a number of years in advance. What we ordered was the type of computer that is known as the 1301. It is calculated that the intake of basic information, the processing of this information and the printing of notices of assessment will be at the rate of 1,250 cases per hour with simultaneous punching of debit cards for account, preparation of summaries and compilation of all associated statistics. We expect to receive this computer in the coming summer but, of course, it will not go into operation immediately. The fundamental job of the computer will be the collection of income tax for the entire country. In other words, it will have to do the work of 57 Collectors. It is one of the many reasons why we had to get rid of the arrears because, with this big task which the computer and the people working it will have to assume, we cannot afford to be encumbered with arrears. The sixth point which really brings us to the kernel of the matter is that, if the staff had been increased commensurately with the volume of work, we would have been faced in the relatively near future with serious redundancy problems. Therefore, reluctantly we were driven to the conclusion that prolonged overtime was the only course. It was essential as you will appreciate, to retain a nucleus of experienced officers on more or less prolonged overtime in order to maintain continuity. The Comptroller and Auditor General has pointed out that two Clerical Officers drew overtime pay nearly equal to their ordinary salary and, in fact, among the Clerical Officers 38 got more than 25 per cent of their normal salary, 16 more than 50 per cent and 47 more than 75 per cent. Nobody would like to say that the end justifies the means but the results of the Branch’s labours have been good because when we look at the arrears position under Schedule E for the Central Collection Branch, we find that at 1st June, 1960, the arrears amounted to £2,578,000. At 1st June, 1961, the figure was £2,023,000 and at 1st June, 1962, it had come down to £740,000. I might add the amount that we expect to be eventually payable is £250,000. There has been a big drop in the arrears for Schedule E over the whole country. The figure at 1st June, 1960, was £3,153,000 and on 1st June, 1962, it was £914,000. As regards the Central Collection Branch, they started off with more than 80,000 cases of pre-P.A.Y.E. arrears and these cases have now been reduced to approximately 3,000. Therefore, the results have been good. When I speak of the reduction in arrears, that is not to say that all the arrears have been collected. A large amount of Schedule E arrears has been collected, but some of the assessments have been discharged in whole or in part and some of the tax has been remitted as irrecoverable. When we consider the collection by the Dublin Central Collection Branch, we find that for the year 1960-61 the Schedule E arrears collected, whether by direct payment or by coding in under P.A.Y.E., was £800,000 and in the year 1961-62 the amount of arrears collected and reaching the Exchequer was £750,000. As well as that, the P.A.Y.E. system has been remarkably successful. I might merely point to the fact that the yield of Schedule E tax has climbed very considerably. The estimated yield of tax under Schedule E for 1957-58 was £6.9 million while for the current year, 1962-63, we estimate that the yield will be £14,000,000. It has doubled the former figure in spite of the fact that, in the meantime, the standard rate of income-tax has been reduced from 7/6 in the £ to 6/4 in the £ and there have been improvements in allowances as well. I must apologise to the Committee for speaking at such length but I thought, as this matter was so important, it might like me to say something about it generally. For the current year i.e., 1962-63, we are not yet out of the wood. Overtime has been running high but we have made a rule that normally no officer is to work so much overtime that he will draw more than £200. In that respect, it means, for example, that we have fixed a limit of roughly 400 hours which is considerably less than the 1,300 hours referred to in the report. As regards the year 1963-64, we have this big and revolutionary change of bringing in the electronic computer to do various kinds of work. We expect some overtime will be required but we will certainly try to keep it to a minimum and we look forward to a time when we shall be as completely current as is practicable in our collection and assessment and when there will be little or no overtime.

124. Deputy Clinton.—In connection with this electronic computer, it has been stated that it is expected to replace 57 collectors. When will those 57 collectors be replaced and is there alternative employment for them? Is that going to be taken up by the overtime now being worked?

Chairman.—That is something you will have to pursue at a later stage.

125. Deputy Treacy.—Has the price of the electronic computer been mentioned? —I have not got the precise figure but I know this computer is costly. It is a very delicate and complicated machine but I regret I have not got the precise figure of what it will cost.

Deputy Treacy.—Can you give us some idea of the approximate cost?

Chairman.—At your convenience, Mr. Réamonn, you might send the Committee a note on that?—I will be very pleased to do that.*

Deputy P. J. Burke.—I think we should thank Mr. Réamonn for the detailed explanation which he has given on the whole position.

126. Deputy Booth.—One thing that concerns me is how people can work such extremely long hours and remain efficient. Has the experience been that these long overtime hours have proved economic from that point of view? I can quite see the Accounting Officer’s difficulty in overtaking such arrears but I would be interested to know whether he is satisfied that it is economic from the efficiency point of view. Has there been any question of a breakdown of men working that rate for so long?

Chairman.—Deputy Booth would like to know whether you have found it economical for officials to work these long periods of overtime or whether efficiency was impaired?—I should say that we set our face against these long periods. I cannot recall any cases of a breakdown in health. Of course, it is not to be thought that all the people who were working overtime were working those extremely long hours. The number of hours vary as between one officer and another but the officers who worked what I will call the excessively long hours were the nucleus of experienced men who, in the circumstances, had to be there to guide the other people along and ensure continuity. I am glad to say, as far as my recollection goes, that we had no great or extensive problems in the domain of health. Of course we looked upon this as a temporary expedient which was forced upon us. There is no doubt that if there were a danger that excessive overtime working was becoming a normal feature, its effect on health would have to be given very serious consideration.

127. Deputy Clinton.—The income tax collected in 1957-58, under Schedule E, was £6.9 millions and that went up to £14 million in the year under review. Was that mainly due to catching those who had been escaping the net previously?—It is due to a number of causes. One is what the Commission on Income Tax called the immediacy of Pay-As-You-Earn, that is that instead of allowing arrears to accumulate, which is what happened under the old system, one might almost say the tax is levied before the income is received; there is an immediate levy of tax and it follows then that you must have a bigger yield in the current year. Under the old system, a man had to face two comparatively large instalments, one on 1st January and the other on 1st July, and they used find it very difficult to meet these demands. Very often they went into arrears of tax which perhaps were collected as arrears years afterwards. Under P.A.Y.E. tax is levied immediately. The second point is the point raised by Deputy Booth and with which I agree. We are catching people who would not have been caught under the old system. Sometimes there would be large construction jobs, with considerable numbers of employees, and by the time we would have got going on the collection under the old system, the job might be finished and, in some cases, people might have left the country and so on, so that really where the employer collects tax as the wages are paid and where it is part of our function to see that the new machine is working, it follows that people who would have escaped under the old system will be caught.

128. Deputy Clinton.—Is there a considerable element of arrears in the £14 million?

Chairman.—What Deputy Clinton wants to know is whether there is a considerable portion of arrears in the £14 million as compared with the £6.9 million?—No, it is really current. As a matter of fact, I can give you some figures that might help you. In the year 1960-61, the arrears collected, by coding in under P.A.Y.E., came to £50,000. In 1961-62, arrears were collected, by coding in under P.A.Y.E., to the tune of £400,000. There is a point which I should have mentioned which affects the yield, that is, that, in 1961-62 we had what has come to be known as the eighth round wage increase and that affected the yield also. In fact, it would affect it more so, under P.A.Y.E., than under the other system because the older system was directed towards the basis of the preceding year’s earnings. Therefore you had to wait before you got tax on an increase in wages or salaries. Under P.A.Y.E., the tax on the increased wages or salaries comes into effect immediately the wages or salaries are increased. I had omitted to mention that point.

129. Deputy Lalor.—Mr. Réamonn mentioned that the arrears collected in 1961-62 totalled £400,000. How does that tie in with the statement that, on 1st June, 1961, the arrears, under Schedule E, were £2,023,000, and the arrears on 1st June, 1962, were £740,000, which would show a drop of about £1,500,000 in the arrears figure for the period?—I should point out that when the arrears are reduced, it does not necessarily follow that they are all collected. When an assessment is made, then until the tax is collected, it stands as an arrear in our books. Later on, as a result of an appeal or something of that kind, that tax is discharged either in whole or in part and then it disappears as an arrear. Another possibility is that the tax may have to be remitted under a composition settlement or passed as irrecoverable. In fact, we have been working pretty hard in 1961-62, and in prior years, on this task of getting out of the books amounts of tax which stand as arrears and which nevertheless prove to be irrecoverable. I might mention that, without coming to Schedule E at all, if we look at income tax and surtax as a whole and consider, first of all, the amounts of £50 and over which were passed as irrecoverable or remitted, in the year 1957-58, we see that the total was £169,057. In 1961-62, the amount of tax passed or remitted, where the amount was £50 or over, was £285,843. The number of cases in 1961-62 was 2,038. If we look at the cases where the amounts were less than £50 and confine ourselves to 1961-62, we find that the amount passed or remitted was £230,376 and the number of cases was 17,450. In fact, most of these cases were Schedule E cases and it illustrates that we were busy removing from the books what we found to be non-productive matter.

Chairman.—There is a large element of people who have left the country. Is that not true?—Yes, that is true.

130. Deputy Kenny.—How much do the Revenue Commissioners collect per annum from people who have been assessed for the first time?

Chairman.—As distinct from arrears? I am sure it would be very hard to get that information readily?—I do not think I have those figures.

131. Chairman.—I am sure that it would be very difficult to get these figures. We will now take up paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. In these paragraphs he says:—

“Revenue Account

9. A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out with satisfactory results.

10. The net yield of revenue for the years 1961-62 and 1960-61, under its main heads, is shown in the following statement:—

£119,225,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £2,019,695 as compared with £2,017,955 at the end of the previous financial year.”

On paragraph 10, I notice that there is an increase, under all headings, except in regard to “Estate, etc., Duties”. Is there any particular reason why there is a decline in the Estate Duty yield?— We are depending on rich people dying. Sometimes some of our people say, when a big estate falls in for estate duty taxation, that there is a windfall, but others say that, taking one year with another, that there is no such thing as a windfall. It is just the timing of events which makes the difference, the yield from death duties being fairly constant. It is about the £3 million mark but there have been reliefs given in the last year or two and there are also these fluctuations which are traceable really to big estates falling into one year rather than another.

132. Chairman.—Paragraph 11 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“11. I have been furnished with the following statement of outstanding tax assessments:—

Note: The bulk of the tax shown in the table is charged in estimated assessments and assessments which are under appeal or inquiry.

Comparative totals of outstanding assessments for the previous year are—Income Tax, £9,429,276; Sur-tax, etc., £2,111,583 and Corporation Profits Tax, £925,380.”

That has been dealt with very fully by Mr. Réamonn.

133. Deputy Booth.—This has always been a rather favourite topic of mine. We have made some progress over the years in getting more emphasis placed on the amount of income tax arrears which will eventually be established to be payable but the fact remains that, in the table, the second column still sets out. “Income Tax outstanding at 1 June, 1962.” The total given is £5,763,500 but I feel it is still somewhat misleading to the public, and particularly to the Press, that it appears merely as a footnote that the Revenue Commissioners do not expect that the tax which will eventually be established to be payable will exceed £1,500,000. I wonder if I could possibly suggest that, if the heading of column 2 were amended to read “Income Tax assessments outstanding,” it might make the matter more clear to the public and possibly to the committee. The present table gives a false picture when it shows £740,000 as outstanding when we find, from the footnote, that only about 20 per cent of the total assessment can be expected to be sustainable.

Chairman.—If Deputy Booth looks at the note he will see that the bulk of the tax shown in the table is charged on estimated assessments and assessments which are under appeal or inquiry.

Deputy Booth.—We are making progress, but I should like to put that suggestion forward in view of the fact that very often a person reading a document like this would go to the table rather than to the footnotes. It might be better if the column were headed “Income Tax assessments outstanding.” As Deputies, many of us are often asked how is it that there are so many millions of pounds outstanding in respect of income tax. The amount is grossly exaggerated in the public mind. To protect the reputation of the Revenue Commissioners, if nothing else, perhaps it could be shown in the heading to the column. To my mind, the actual amount outstanding is quite incredibly small.

134. Chairman.—Next, we have paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which reads as follows:

“Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and other Duties

12. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties (including Special Import Levy), £10,269, Excise duties, £8,460 and Stamp duties, £67, were made during the year.”

To whom are these repayments made?— I think the best answer would be to give some examples. There are the cases of diplomatic privilege which I need not explain. If we look at the Customs and Excise side, we find five cases of extra-statutory repayments. The first I might mention is that Article 16 of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement of 1938 provided that we were obliged to charge 3/- per ton import duty if we were importing coal from sources outside Great Britain. On 1st July, 1961, a very sharp increase took place in the price of British coal and at the same time British coal became scarce. The Association of Irish Coal Importers requested that the duty on foreign coal, from sources outside the United Kingdom, should be waived temporarily during the period when British coal was very scarce. The price increase was considerable. The British Board of Trade had no objection to the temporary waiver of the duty and it was decided by the Minister that there would be this extra-statutory waiver applied to the duty on coal imported from abroad other than from Great Britain. This temporary extra-statutory waiver of the duty related only to household coal which is known in the trade as “large coal”. “Large coal” is defined as coal which at the bottom size will not pass through a circle of two inches in diameter irrespective of the top size. Having to administer that condition we rely upon the invoices and other documents we get from the importers. In the year under consideration, there were three cases in which this 3/- per ton duty had been paid subsequent to 1st July, 1961. Consequent on the waiver of the duty, we refunded it with the Minister’s sanction. Another case I might mention is that of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. They have tenders based at Dun Laoghaire and they service the navigation lights around the whole coast of Ireland. They use oil which is known as marine fuel oil. On 11th May, 1956, this type of oil became liable to an effective duty of 1d. per gallon and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, in so far as they consume or use this marine fuel oil in waters of the Six Counties, would have been entitled to drawback. Owing to circumstances beyond their control, they did not submit a claim for drawback in time. The law provides that the claim must be made within two years but, as I said, because of circumstances beyond the control of the Commissioners, the claim was made late but we made this extra-statutory refund of £508. The third case was in regard to South African still wine. South Africa withdrew from the British Commonwealth on 31st May, 1961. There had been preferential rates under the Finance Act, 1919. This was a case where the duty had been paid without claiming Commonwealth preference and we refunded the difference between the full rate and the Commonwealth rate. There were other cases on the excise side. There was an excise duty imposed on tubes and tyres. Duty is chargeable at the point when the tyre leaves the factory. If the customer thinks the tyre is unsound, he returns it, and in the case where it is actually found to be quite sound when it comes out of the factory again duty is payable the second time. The point of collection is when the tyre leaves the factory. When it comes out again, duty is charged again but we refund the duty originally paid because otherwise duty would be paid twice in cases of that kind.

You mentioned £508. Was that figure for tariffs?—We have 379 cases of these tyres going back to the factory and being found to be sound. The amount of duty involved was £698 18s. 11d.

135. I take it there were a number of diplomatic concessions?—That is so. On the customs side, the total of extra-statutory repayments was roughly £10,000; in diplomatic privilege cases, it was roughly £9,000. On the excise side, it was roughly £8,000, diplomatic privilege accounting for £7,000.

Do our people abroad receive the same type of concession?—It might not be exactly the same in all respects but, in general, diplomatic privileges and immunities are agreed on a basis of reciprocity. That is the general rule.

On what evidence are these repayments made?—In the diplomatic field, we get a diplomatic list which is supplied by the Department of External Affairs. They give us the complete list of the diplomatic persons. We more or less accept the evidence of the diplomats. They submit bills and accounts which are examined and, in general, accepted.

They are accepted?—Yes, I think so.

136. Chairman.—Paragraph 13 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Remissions and Amounts Irrecoverable

13. I have been furnished with schedules of the cases involving a loss of £50 or upwards in which claims for duty under the Revenue Acts were remitted without statutory authority or passed as irrecoverable during the year ended 31 March 1962. I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results. The total amount, £288,020, remitted or passed as irrecoverable is made up as follows:—

The distribution according to the grounds of remission or write-off is:—

Deputy Booth.—In this paragraph there is a reference to composition settlements totalling £20,907. Are those settlements made where the assessment has been found to be technically correct but some reduction is made on compassionate grounds or simply on the ground that where the Revenue Commissioners find they cannot collect what they had properly assessed, they agree to take half a loaf where a full loaf is not available?—That is perfectly correct. Of course we have various types of cases but, by and large, the position is as outlined. Where the assessment is technically correct but a person’s circumstances change very much for the worse and we get an offer and we are convinced it is the best we can hope to obtain in the circumstances, without imposing undue hardship, we accept it and settle the case finally. Of course, there is a distinction between the case referred to and the case where we write it off as irrecoverable. In the latter case, we simply mean that for the time being we are unable to collect the duty and it is written off as irrecoverable, as for example, if a man leaves the country and his whereabouts are unknown; but if he reappeared we would be ready for him.

137. Chairman.—We will now turn to the Vote. On subhead E., I note that provision was made for three issues of postage stamps but only two were produced and there was a saving of £7,637. Was the third issue which was not produced a more costly one?—I really cannot say. We act here on the advice of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and we made provision for the production, by what is called the recess process, of three special issues of postage stamps. In fact only two were produced, one major issue and one small issue. The stamps which we produced were the Patrician Year Commemoration stamp which cost £2,556 and the Aer Lingus stamp commemorating their 25 years in existence which cost only £819. You are speaking of the saving?

Yes. The third stamp would have been the most costly?—It would have been. I suppose we wanted to be on the safe side and we made provision for £11,000, but we had only the two stamps which cost £3,000 and we consequently had the saving of £8,000. It may be that we were too safe about the estimate we made but it is certainly attributable to the cause you mention.

138. Deputy Booth.—On subhead G.— Motor Vehicles for Frontier Patrols, etc.— the note on page 12 reads: “Excess due mainly to the purchase of radio telephone equipment and motor cycles, partly offset by a saving on petrol, stores and driving allowances.” Is there a connection between these three items? Was there a saving on petrol by reason of the use of radio telephones or was that purely coincidental? —I think the chief point as regards the petrol is that the new cars had a lower petrol consumption than the cars which they replaced.

So that was purely a saving on petrol consumption rather than any direct connection with increased use of radio telephones?—Yes.

Deputy Kenny.—What cars were replaced?—I cannot answer that question but I should like to say, in amplification of what I have already said, that we had made no provision for the purchase of motor cycles which accounts to some extent for our excess.

139. Chairman.—On subhead I.—Law Charges, Expenses of Prosecutions, Fees, Rewards, etc.—was this excess of £2,687 due to the volume and importance of the work?—Both causes. We were involved during the year in some very big cases, which was one reason, but there was also the fact that higher fees had to be paid.

140. On subhead K.—Losses by Default, Fraud and Accident—the explanatory note indicates that a sum of £1,729 lost through embezzlement was written off?— It was. On 8th July, 1954, Mr. R. P. Rice, one of my predecessors, was examined by the Committee in connection with the Appropriation Accounts for 1952-53 and he gave an account of this case. If the Committee wishes, I can give an account of the case now but it is, I suppose, past history.

Was there a delay in writing off the balance of £456?—Yes. There had to be an inquiry. Mr. Rice used to say that this was a case which taught him that red tape had its uses. Briefly, what happened was this: This officer who embezzled used to handle moneys from taxpayers who were in arrears. It was altogether against his instructions and, in order to escape observation by the staff, he used to interview taxpayers, sometimes in the office corridors, sometimes at their places of employment and sometimes in other places. The rule used to be that Schedule E tax was payable in two statutory instalments, half of it on 1st January and the other half on the next 1st July. As we have already seen, taxpayers had difficulty in meeting this and, therefore, our Arrears Branch used to accept the tax in non-statutory instalments. If the total tax was £20 the two statutory instalments would be £10 each. We would accept £1 a month or £1 a week, or whatever it was, until the £20 was paid. The rule was that when this man paid £1, he should get an official receipt and our Arrears Branch should notify the Inspector and the Inspector should notify the Collector. Of course, with the multiplicity of small payments, there would be a huge increase of paper work and, to avoid all this, it was decided by our people at the time that taxpayers making these small payments would merely get a cyclostyled slip by way of acknowledgement rather than by way of official receipt but that when they had paid the full amount of the statutory instalment, they would get the official receipt. This officer told the taxpayer that he could not be given an official receipt until he paid the full amount of the statutory instalment. It usually happened that when taxpayers paid the full amount of the statutory instalment, they were so relieved that they did not bother to get an official receipt at all. When the case came to light, we had to make certain inquiries which we knew would take a number of years. We had to go to the Collector’s records of defaults and verify that every default which the Collector had reported through the Inspector to our Arrears Branch bore an Arrears Branch number; in other words, we had to see that there was an Arrears Branch file for every case of default. Then we had to verify that the Arrears Branch file for each defaulter recorded all his defaults. We had also to find out what sums had reached the Accountant-General of Revenue and what sums appeared to be still in default. At the final stage where the sum appeared to be still in default, we had to contact the taxpayer and if he could satisfy us that he had discharged the liability and that the money had been embezzled or misappropriated, then the sum had to be written off as a loss. That process occupied a number of years but we are now as satisfied, as reasonably as we can be, that we have come to the end of the case. There were originally 43 cases in the £1,729 and in the ensuing years as a result of this inquiry we unearthed 12 more cases involving this £456. However, we are reasonably satisfied now that we will not discover any additional cases.

We may regard the case as being closed?—I think so.

141. Deputy Booth.—One officer was involved in all these cases?—Yes. In fact what brought the case to light was that one of these taxpayers, who mistakenly thought he was getting preferential treatment from the officer in question contacted an officer of the Branch other than this particular officer.

Deputy Kenny.—How long was this officer operating?—I should say for about five or six years. At the time the arrears were mounting and there were great difficulties. We were concerned about the progress of collection and we had to relax some of our normal checks and accounting procedures. However, my predecessor used to say that it showed you that you cannot, with safety, relax these checks.

142. Chairman. — On subhead M. — Appropriations in Aid—in regard to items 4: Fines, forfeitures, law costs recovered, etc. and 6: Proceeds of customs sales (seizures, etc.), these have more than doubled. Is there any explanation for these increases?—You can disregard forfeitures in item No. 4 because forfeitures really refer to forfeitures of currency which is a thing that no longer affects us to any extent. Fines are the important item and they vary with the number and importance of the cases involved but, I should say that the higher penalties ranged from £300 to £2,000. As regards No. 6, which varies with the number of seizures, receipts from the sale of smuggled butter amounted to approximately £5,000.

Deputy Kenny.—What procedure is adopted in selling the seized goods? Is it by public auction?—Yes, public auction held at the Custom House. It is advertised.

You must have a great number of assorted lots?—That is quite true but, as regards this figure with which we are concerned, the receipts from butter amounted to approximately £5,000 and the balance is made up of receipts from the sale of pigs, fireworks,* wearing apparel, etc.

143. Deputy Lalor.—In regard to No. 3, what is covered in the “Moneys received from merchants, etc. for special attendance of officers”?—There is a 2/- charge for motor vehicles crossing the frontier outside of the free hours. The free hours are from 7 a.m. to midnight and the receipts for this year showed an increase of almost £1,500 on the preceding year’s figures.

That would be payment for, say, 500,000 cars at 2/- a car?—On a visit.

Deputy Booth.—The money received from merchants for attendance of customs officers would be for the clearance of consignments to the merchants’ premises? —Yes.

144. On No. 2—“Clerical services and incidental expenses on account of General Lighthouse Fund”—would you enlighten me as to what the General Lighthouse Fund is?—What happens is that when ships put into port, they have to report to our Collector and the Collector, in the course of his business, collects from the Master of the ship the light dues, which are sent to Trinity House in London, and the charge for these services which we render is paid by the British.

It is just a collection fee?—Quite so. It is payment for the service we render which is not strictly a revenue service at all but it is a very convenient method of collection for all concerned.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 21—VALUATION AND ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. J. Mooney called and examined

145. Chairman.—As there are no paragraphs, we will turn to the subheads. In regard to subhead B.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there is a Note which refers to the delay in the delivery of equipment. Last year you told us that you were going to widen the recruitment and take more advantage of technical schools. Have you gone ahead with that proposal?—It is still under consideration. We have not made very much progress on that really.

146. You refer to the primary triangulation of the State. Does it mean that the work will not be completed this year?—We expect it to be completed very soon, by about September, for the whole country.

Deputy Lalor.—What is the meaning of that?—It is a re-survey in a more accurate and up-to-date manner of the whole country. It takes the form of dividing it into large triangles of about 30 miles to each side and measuring in the most modern and up-to-date way. We start off with the primary triangulation, that is, the measuring of areas in big triangles, and move to a secondary triangulation, to a tertiary triangulation and to a fourth triangulation, which you would do in the case of built-up areas or cities where you want to show great detail accurately on the map. We will have the primary triangulation completed in September and then we will go on to the next stage.

147. Deputy Booth.—Note No. 3—on the Appropriations in Aid refers to the increase in the sales of maps. What is the reason for the gratifying increase in income from the sales of maps? Is there any particular reason for that?—I referred to that last year. I think you asked the same question then. We have been doing all we can to expand the sale of maps by advertising and by talks and so on and interesting people more in maps and trying to persuade them how useful they are. We propose to extend this advertising. Indeed, in the Estimates for the coming year, we have sought provision for £300. I think, to cover the cost of press advertising. We have never gone in for advertising of this kind before. We hope to start it off experimentally to see whether we could not push these sales much higher. We have a feeling they could be pushed much higher. They have gone up a lot now and they went up in previous years also. We have great expectations.

Chairman.—Have you increased the price of the maps?—We have not varied the prices very much but we are investigating the whole question of prices and ancillary matters.

148. Deputy Kenny.—Does your Department supply every type of map?— “Every type” is a very wide expression.

It is. “Every type” to me means that you do not change the configuration of the country. Suppose a person wanted a map of some particular type, your Department could supply that?—I should think so.

I mean in regard to villages and townlands and things like that, and any item he wished to have put on that map, could your Department supply it?—Yes.

You will fit that out with backing and whatever kind of material you use?—If you visualise a farmer who wants a map of a farm, we will give it to him. It would include a lot of other farms also, of course. That would be a large scale map.

There are certain standard scales. Over the past year, there has been a change in the constituencies and if, for instance, a Deputy wished to have a detailed map of his own constituency, could that be supplied?—I think we can supply that on a charge basis. If he wants us to work on the existing large scale map for the area and mark out special features on it, we could do that for him for a charge.

Or a farmer wishing to get the title deeds on a map of his own land, you supply that, too?—Yes.

149. I understood it came from the Land Registry?—You can get it there also.

Are you working in conjunction with them?—We supply all the maps to the Land Registry.

Deputy Booth.—It is the Land Registry which works out the holdings on an Ordnance Survey map?—Yes.

150. Deputy Lalor.—In regard to the increased sales of maps mentioned by Deputy Booth, I am just wondering is it as a result of the State publicity that they are being sold or is it in connection with new house building in, say, country areas. I meet people who are seeking 25-inch maps. They are asked by the county councils to supply plans to show where the house is to go and the most convenient thing they can do is to get a 25-inch map of the area. What type of map has shown increased sales?— There is very little demand for the large scale maps because only individuals would be interested in them. It is the small scale map for tourists and travellers—road maps—for which the demand really is. It is really from the larger sales of the small scale ones that the increase in income arises. The income from the large scale maps is more or less static.

151. Chairman.—In connection with the Note on page 43 regarding the remuneration of staff temporarily lent, what type of staff would they be?—It consisted of telephonists employed in the Valuation Office in connection with the completion of the annual revision. They were employed on clerical work. The revision of the valuation lists has to be issued on 1st March and there is a tremendous pressure of work for some weeks, indeed for some months before, and we have to get assistance from elsewhere. In this case the assistance took the form of telephonists whom we were able to use on simple clerical work.

VOTE 22—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. Mooney further examined.

152. Chairman.—In regard to subhead B., have you any idea when you may expect agreement on this matter?—I think not. The Department of External Affairs are negotiating with the Americans in that regard. I might mention that we have been considering—indeed, we have sought Finance sanction for— paying off the amount of money we have owed over the years to the local authorities concerned to get rid of this anomalous situation in which we have to provide a huge amount for arrears every year. The absence of its being finalised results in the recurrent big saving. We would propose to pay our share of the rates arrears on the basis we operate in connection with other Governments with which we have no dispute.

How long is this going on? Since 1949-50?—A big number of years—ten years or more.

153. In regard to the Minute of the Minister for Finance dealing with payments for water supplies, have you anything to report?—Negotiations are proceeding. The Department of Defence are primarily concerned. They are particularly directed to arrange an agreement for a new basis for charging for water supplies over and above what is covered by the ordinary rate. If agreement is reached with one local authority, we will probably make a similar agreement with the others. There are about half a dozen concerned.

The Committee will be informed in due course?—Yes.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 23—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. P. Berry called and examined.

154. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead A.2. —Film Censorship—do the film companies pay anything towards the censorship of films?—Yes.

How is that arranged?—The statute provides that all expenses of the office must be met by fees. We make no profit and no loss. A charge is made of so much per foot of film to the renters. That covers all expenses including the salary of the censor and his staff and the upkeep of the building. The charge does not apply to educational films.

Chairman.—Deputy Kenny will find a note on Page 48 in respect of fees.

Deputy Kenny.—I wanted to know who paid the fees. Is it the renters?— Yes, the renters.

155. I see. On subhead A.6.—An Bord Uchtála—how many applications a year would you have for adoptions?—In 1959 there were 601 applications and 501 orders made; in 1960 there were 620 applications and 505 orders made; in 1961 there were 730 applications and 547 orders made. I have not the number of applications made in 1962 but I know that 699 orders were made. All the time there is an increase.

An increase?—That is right.

156. Chairman.—On subhead B.— Travelling and Incidental Expenses— can you tell us how much was spent on travel abroad and on what business?— The greater part of the expenditure on travel abroad was brought about in this way: £110 was expended by the attendance of the then Parliamentary Secretary at the Conference of European Ministers for Justice in Paris on 30th May, 1961. An officer accompanying him cost another £29. The Secretary of the Department attended at the Lawless case in Strasbourg before the Commission on Human Rights in the same year. We sent a principal officer of the Department, a justice of the District Court and a senior police official to attend a United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in London from the 8th to the 20th August, 1960.

157. Deputy Kenny.—On Item No. 1 in the Appropriations in Aid—Fees for Nationality and Citizenship Certificates —do you accept every application for citizenship?—No.

What is the procedure to become a citizen?—The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1956 sets out specifically certain statutory grounds under which a certificate may be granted. The granting is at the absolute discretion of the Minister for Justice but he must be satisfied that certain conditions are all fulfilled. In the normal way, a person must have at least five years residence and must be of good character and that kind of thing. There are some exceptions where the period is reduced, that is, for persons with Irish association, association by blood or by marriage to an Irish citizen.

How do you find out about the application?—There are regulations which require the applicant to make a statutory declaration giving full particulars of his life and whether he had convictions abroad. We make the usual inquiries through the police and other sources.

158. Deputy Lalor.—In view of the fact that £900 was estimated and £1,431 realised, does this mean that like the Adoption Board it is something that is progressing?—No. I would say the greatest number of certificates granted was post-war. At present it has levelled off and it is around that figure all the time. We cannot foretell when there will be an increase in applications. A person may want to purchase land. He may suddenly find that he fulfils the statutory requirements and he applies.

159. Deputy Kenny.—Have we any stateless people here in the State?—Very few. We had quite a number post-war. We became a party to an international Convention which obliged us to give favourable treatment to stateless aliens and refugees. When a stateless alien or refugee has the minimum statutory requirements, his application for citizenship is granted.

160. Is a travel document a passport?— It is a document issued by the Minister for Justice to stateless aliens or refugees, to persons who cannot get a passport because they have no Governments of their own. We charge precisely the same fee—30/— as for a national passport. It is not as valuable as a national passport because foreign Governments are loath to allow that class of people, stateless aliens and refugees, into their countries for fear they might stay there. An Irishman can travel freely through France or Germany but the travel document of a stateless alien requires a visa. So far as we are concerned, it fulfils the same purpose.

161. Deputy Lalor.—I see under the heading “Extra Remuneration” that a staff officer received £112 for service in the Army Reserve. How does that arise?

Chairman.—He is on the reserve of officers and he is called for training. Is that the explanation?—Yes.

Deputy Booth.—This is purely for in formation and it is not accounted for in the Vote in any way. It does not go to the Departmental Vote in any way but is purely for information?—Yes.

VOTE 24—GARDA SÍOCHÁNA.

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

162. Chairman.—Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead C.—Subsistence Allowances

26. The Garda Síochána Allowances Order, 1958, provides inter alia for the payment of allowances at specified rates to members of the Force employed on duty away from their permanent stations. I observed instances in which nightly subsistence allowances under this order were paid to members for periods they would appear to have spent in their homes. Although these payments are permissible under the order, I considered them to be contrary to the general intention that subsistence allowances should cover only extra expenses necessarily incurred on the public service. The Accounting Officer has informed me that he agrees with my contention and that as soon as a suitable opportunity presents itself he proposes to give consideration to an appropriate amendment of the Allowances Order with a view to preventing such payments in future. He also informed me that in the meantime claims in similar circumstances would be resisted.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No. I think the paragraph gives all the information we have.

163. Chairman.—What is the present position in regard to the Allowances Order?—Quite recently matters were brought to my notice which have persuaded me to modify my views as to how subsistence claims of the kind in question might be dealt with. I am now satisfied that it would be preferable to handle the matter administratively rather than by way of attempting to amend the Allowances Order. It is conceivable that any amendment of the Allowances Order would require to be dealt with under the Garda Síochána Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme which is a long drawn out precedure. The number of subsistence claims of this kind are very few and the number in which the claims are of any substantial dimensions are very rare indeed. A claim arises where a member is in receipt of a separation allowance on being transferred to another station leaving his family behind because he is unable to find accommodation for them. In very rare instances, the member may find himself doing temporary duty in his former station. I accept that in such circumstances the member should not be given subsistence allowance —having it both ways, so to speak: separation allowances when at point B and subsistence when he is temporarily back at point A with the family he had left behind. I am satisfied that the matter can be adjusted to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of the Comptroller and Auditor General without recourse to any change in the Allowances Order. I propose to have further discussions with the Auditor General in the matter.

164. Deputy Booth.—The Comptroller and Auditor General states that he has been informed that in the meantime claims would be resisted. Can the Accounting Officer resist a claim if, technically speaking, it comes within the terms of the Order? Either the Order has got to be observed or contravened. I can see that possibly he might ask a member of the Garda to waive a claim but if he makes a claim, he must, with the Order in its present form, be paid?—I agree the word “resisted” was misused. We will see that the circumstances do not arise in future.

Deputy Kenny.—Have you a specific case for that?—I have a particular case in mind and I can read you the brief I have here. An officer of the Force was permanently transferred from Garda Headquarters to Portlaoise in December, 1959. He was unable to secure suitable accommodation for his family at his new centre and they continued to reside in Dublin. He was recalled to the Depot from the 20th February to 14th May 1961, to act as Chairman of an Examination Board. In respect of that period, he claimed, and was paid, subsistence allowance to the amount of £67 10s. under the provisions of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Garda Síochána Allowances Order, 1958. Paragraph (1) of the article referred to reads as follows:—

“Members of the Force employed on duty away from their permanent stations shall be paid allowances at the rates set out in the following paragraphs.”

There are no other conditions to be fulfilled and, accordingly, payment of the allowance became mandatory.

165. Have you any specific date on which to bring in this Order resisting these claims?—I have mentioned that I propose to deal with the matter administratively by seeing that such a case would not arise in the future.

Deputy Lalor.—What you mean is that that officer would not be recalled from Portlaoise to do that in future at all?— Yes, it was pure mischance.

Chairman.—It will not happen again? —No.

166. On subhead D.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there was a supplementary estimate of £17,602 and also a saving of £7,679. Was that an error of estimation or was it that claims were not cleared up at the end of the year?— Faulty estimation.

167. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On subhead E.—Clothing and Equipment—how does that saving come about?—The saving is slightly over five per cent, which is fairly small. Expenditure is largely by way of recoupment to the Post Office of expenditure incurred on our behalf.

168. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead F. —Furniture, Bedding etc.—I understood the Office of Public Works furnished the Garda stations?—Yes, they supplied the furniture.

Why is it on this Vote?—They supply it and we pay for it.

Chairman.—Who is responsible for delay in the delivery?—The Finance sanction was sought late in the financial year.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—You are improving the furniture in Garda Stations generally?—Yes.

There is a general demand?—Chairs, tables, beds, lino, and so on.

169. Chairman.—On the Office of Public Works Vote with which we dealt earlier, there was a paragraph dealing with the Templemore Military Barracks and we asked the accounting officer why staff other than that of the Office of Public Works was engaged on this work and also we inquired about the provision for fees for the architects, surveyors and so on. Could you say now if there was any endeavours to get reduced fees for this work?—That was the whole purpose of getting outside contractors and outside architects. The Office of Public Works told us they could not do the job within a measurable time and we got the consent of the Department of Finance to go outside. The job will be finished and the place furnished and ready for occupancy by October of this year.

I asked also why this contract was not placed on a lump sum basis. You could not offer any explanation of that?—One does not occur to me offhand.

170. Deputy Kenny.—Did we not ask another question about the percentage of fees paid?

Chairman.—Yes. We thought the fees were very high, approximately eight or nine per cent. There was also the question of checking on the work of the contractors. Then there was the expenditure of £435,000 on that work. Would that be new work and adaptations?—I can answer generally that this is a very old barracks. The Government has made a decision on decentralisation, that we should move from the existing depot which we would have had to renovate; it would almost need to be pulled down because it is in a very bad state of repair. When this policy of decentralisation was decided upon Templemore was selected as the most suitable for adaptation. Our estimates of the wastage in the Force were that, in the peak years between now and 1968, we might have anything from 450 to 600 going out each year and we want to provide fairly large accommodation. The normal wastage would be nothing like that going back in years or going forward after 1970. Because so many Gardaí came in in 1923-24 who are now about to retire, we have to make provision for the training of a large number of new recruits. In consequence, Templemore which is an old disused barracks built over 100 years ago was selected. Again we had to have regard to modern conditions, to give them privacy, better furniture and that kind of thing. In consequence, the sum is as high as it is.

Can you say how the expenditure was divided between new works and adaptations?—It is all adaptations practically. When I say adaptation, it is almost new work because the building is well over 100 years old. There are some new works like tarmacadam on the square, a new recreation hall right in the centre, a completely new diningroom in the centre of the barrack square but in general it is adaptation of this building surrounding a barrack square.

171. Deputy Kenny.—When Templemore was selected, did you inspect any other buildings throughout the country?—We considered buildings in almost every county. Finally it was decided that because of the location and other considerations, Templemore was the most suitable.

Did you consider the military barracks in Castlebar?—Very much so.

Let us put it on record that it was not suitable?—No, it was not suitable for adaptation as a Garda training depot.

172. On subhead G.—Station Maintenance—when the Accounting Officer on the Vote for Public Works and Buildings was here, I asked about the advisability of renovating Garda stations when they were about to be closed. Is it advisable to spend money on establishments that are about to be closed? I would not have thought of this at all except for the fact that a colleague of mine from Roscommon was called to a protest meeting in connection with the closing of a station in Roscommon. Looking over the Office of Public Works programme, I found out that the particular station was renovated at a cost of £600. I think it is in Cootehall where the station is about to be closed. That station will probably be sold for a lesser sum than that?—Yes.

Is it not advisable that there should be more co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Office of Public Works so that there should not be money spent on renovations in such circumstances?— There is close co-operation but circumstances may arise which alter things. I do not know where Cootehall is located in County Roscommon, whether it is towards the northern end, but it has happened that we had to renovate and staff stations within a depth of the border because of particular circumstances in the last five or six years. Happily that situation is over, we hope, and we are now vacating quite a number of stations along there which had to be renovated in order that men would be properly accommodated. That may not be the explanation in this particular case but it is the general explanation.

I would say that Cootehall is not in the precincts of the border at all. It is miles away?—I see. There again, while we have close co-operation, it may happen that the Government will decide that the strength of the force should be reduced and we should have more mechanisation in the interests of efficiency and economy, where that can be done. Our primary consideration is men, not materials.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Possibly an explanation is that people have become very law-abiding?—I would like to assure you that there is the closest co-operation

173. Deputy Kenny.—When buildings such as that are being sold, is it by tender or by public auction?—That is matter for the Office of Public Works.

Chairman.—The Office of Public Works will decide that.

Deputy Kenny.—I am fully satisfied with the explanation that has been given.

174. Deputy Lalor.—If a Garda is compelled, in a country district, to live outside the station, he gets an extra allowance, is that not right?—I would put it in the reverse. We are obliged to find him suitable quarters. I think the Order provides that we have an obligation to provide suitable accommodation. If he lives in, we charge him so much, but if he lives out, there is no deduction from his salary. If you would like me to give you a general note, I could.

No. I have a particular case in mind where the Garda stayed in but now he is staying out. Apparently it is because of the size of the station sergeant’s family. Is it not the case that a station is built to accommodate the sergeant and one or two Gardaí? If the sergeant’s family becomes large, he can move his family into the quarters of the Gardaí and the Gardaí go out. There is a case where the sergeant’s family has increased in size and the station used to accommodate single Gardaí as well. The single Gardaí have now to stay out and I am sure it costs them more than if they were in the station?—It is all a matter of adjustment. We try, for instance, when a station sergeant’s family gets too big, to move him to another station where the accommodation consists of four bedrooms or three, and that kind of thing. There is nothing more we can do. Somebody has to suffer.

175. Deputy Booth.—In regard to subhead L.—Local Security Force: Compensation for Death, for Personal Injuries and Medical and other Expenses in connection therewith—could we have some information about how this item keeps recurring in respect of members of the Local Security Force who were injured 20 years ago? Is there any question of a pension or regular maintenance payments still being made?—I have a note on this which says: Local Security Force: Compensation for Death or Personal Injuries and Medical and Other Expenses in connection therewith:—(1) Payments of Compensation under Article 33 of the Emergency Powers (No. 61) Order 1940. (2) Payments for medical and surgical treatment (including provision of medical and surgical appliances), hospital maintenance, medical examination and reports, funeral expenses, travelling and other expenses. The payments are made in pursuance of the Local Security Force (Compensation for Personal Injuries) Scheme, 1943, (Second Amendment), Scheme, 1949, (Third Amendment) Scheme, 1960. Certain persons were awarded pensions and others got awards payable over limited periods. The full rate of basic compensation in cases of total disablement is 90/- weekly and proportionately as the degree of disablement relates to 100 per cent. The minimum compensation is 4/6 weekly. There are nine persons currently drawing benefits under the scheme amounting to £9 14s. a week, an average of £1 2s. a week.

176. Deputy Kenny.—Perhaps I should have asked this question on a previous subhead, but over the past four years, recruiting for the Garda has decreased substantially. In 1959, there must have been something like 400 Gardaí recruited and over the past two years, it has dropped to 200. What is the explanation of that? I do not know if my figures are absolutely correct?—We are constantly trying to reduce the Force while keeping the same standards of efficiency. At one time, going back to 1950, the strength was around 7,000. It is now slightly less than 6,500. We have tried to stabilise it around the 6,400 or 6,500 figure. Where we possibly can, we would like to mechanise, to use radio equipment and so on, that is, if we can carry on with the same degree of efficiency, because men cost more.

I was under the impression that the Ban-Ghardaí were taking over?—We have only a handful of Ban-Ghardaí. There again, when you talk about the reduction of strength in the past two years, we have been able to draw on the 350 or so men, stationed along the Border during the previous five years, who have been returned to normal duty. Outside the city of Dublin, the country is mainly crimeless.

Do you find the utilisation of mobile units more economic?—Yes.

More economic that the preservation of Garda stations in rural areas?—Very much so.

177. Deputy Lalor.—In regard to car transport, why is it that when you have a squad car in an area and a prisoner has to be brought to Mountjoy prison, that car is not used to bring the prisoner to Dublin but a car may be hired, perhaps at a cost of 1/2 a mile?—Again it is a question of trying to use the most economical method of conveyance. It might appear that hiring a local car would be better than bringing cars from long distances but, in practice, it does not work out that way.

The car has to be hired and two Gardaí have to come with the prisoner. In practice, you say, it would cost more than 1/2 a mile to send the squad car to Dublin?—I do not quite grasp your point.

You say that in practice it would actually work out cheaper to hire a local car at, say, 1/- or 1/2 a mile to bring a prisoner from the country to the city. You say it would be cheaper?—I misinformed you. I should have said that the alternative cost is always gone into. That is an invariable rule.

I thought the squad car was never used for that purpose?—No, the alternative cost is always gone into.

178. Chairman.—In regard to subhead N.—Appropriations in Aid—and the Note No. 5 which says “Payment from Road Fund in respect of expenses of Garda Síochána in the execution of Roads Act, 1920, and Road Traffic Acts, 1933 and 1961.” how do you arrive at this figure?— Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, the Minister for Finance has approved of the determination of the expenses incurred by the Commissioner, Garda Síochána, in respect of each of the financial years 1960-61 to 1964-65 inclusive, at a sum (1) equivalent to the amount collected in respect of fines and penalties (including “fines-on-the-spot”) plus (2) one and a half per cent of the remaining income of the Road Fund from motor taxation, that is, after deduction of the amount of fines and penalties. It was further directed that the sums so determined at (1) and (2) above should be paid to the Department of Justice for appropriation in aid of the Garda Síochána Vote. In the financial year 1961-62, the sum received was £140,347 2s. This was made up of £58,167 in respect of fines and £82,207 2s. in respect of the percentage of the Fund. With “fines-on-the-spot” about to be imposed as from April, 1963, it is expected that the amount of receipts under fines and penalties will increase. The total estimated receipts in the current year is £150,000 and £170,000 in the next financial year.

179. Deputy Kenny.—May I ask a question under subhead H.—Transport and Carriage—what type of cars are usually used by your Department?—We have the following types of cars. We have three Ford trucks, one patrol van, one Dodge van, one ambulance, one car ambulance, five vans, one station wagon, one minibus, one Bedford prison van, 69 Ford Zodiac saloons, 94 Ford Consul saloons, 37 Prefects, 14 Vauxhall Victors, one Rover saloon, seven Humbers. 19 Mercedes and a number of motor cycles.

Are those cars got by tender?—Yes.

The dealer tenders for the supply of cars to the Department?—The Post Office purchase for us. The Controller of Stores in the Post Office makes the purchases for us.

Deputy Booth.—Does that list include Ministerial cars?—That is right.

It is not strictly Department of Justice vehicles?—No.

Deputy Kenny.—So the Post Office supply cars for every Department?— They supply them to the Department of Justice anyway.

180. Chairman.—Coming back to the Appropriations in Aid, on Item 6, fees for accident reports, did you increase your charge there at all?—Not to my knowledge at this moment.

181. Deputy Booth.—Out of sheer curiosity, would you tell us the history of the unmade tunic and trousers valued at £7 which were eaten by moths? Is the material normally kept by the Garda authorities? I always understood the uniforms were supplied complete?—An unmade tunic was issued to a member in Athlone and the trousers were issued to a member in Kilmacthomas in November, 1960. The materials, together with other materials were forwarded by these members to Messrs. John Ireland and Sons, tailoring contractors, to have the uniform made up. The contractors found that the materials were moth eaten and beyond repair. It is not possible to say where the materials were when they were damaged. One of the members states that he examined the material when it was in his possession but that he did not notice the damage. It could, however, have escaped his notice as the holes, though numerous, were very small.

VOTE 25—PRISONS.

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

182. Deputy Lalor.—On subhead A.— Pay and Allowances of Officers, including Uniform—at what stage was Portlaoise Prison reduced in rank? It used to be on the same plane and the Governor had the same basic salary as other Governors. When did the change come about?—It was not that Portlaoise was reduced but that Mountjoy was increased. The numbers in Portlaoise are well under the hundred. They may have dropped as low as 60 at times. The average is between 60 and 90. The numbers in Mountjoy are around 300. Furthermore, Portlaoise is a prison for long-term prisoners and Mountjoy deals with remands, committals for trial and short-term prisoners. Every time a prisoner goes into and comes out of prison, there is paperwork and supervision. The number of staff employed in Mountjoy is at least three times the number in Portlaoise and there is no comparison between their duties.

You say that it was a question of the status of Mountjoy going up and not that the status of Portlaoise went down?— We have ceased to grade them as they were graded in the old days: grades 1, 2, 3 and 4. Nowadays we pay a rate for the work. We pay the Governor of Mountjoy considerably more than the Governor of Portlaoise. We pay the Governor of St. Patrick’s more than the Governor of Portlaoise because there are many more prisoners there.

183. Chairman.—I see on page 54 a statement of the estimated daily average number of prisoners and the actual daily average number of prisoners. The actual number is 24 less. That is five per cent of the total. Normally one would expect that would mean a reduction of, say, £1,000 whereas the reduction shown is £2,100. Is there any other explanation for that variation?—No. I have no other explanation.

Deputy Kenny.—On average what does it cost to maintain a prisoner for a year?— It costs us £10 per week to maintain a prisoner. Of course that is taking staff and buildings and all that into account.

So each prisoner costs the State £520 a year?—That is right but you must remember that we have to provide 24-hour supervision.

Deputy Kenny.—I understand that perfectly well.

Deputy Lalor.—On that point, you say the overall cost of maintaining a prisoner is £10 a week. Is the average higher in Dublin than in Portlaoise?—I cannot say offhand but I rather think that, because of the numbers, the cost might be less.

Portlaoise has its own farm? Would it be possible to find out?—Yes. I could send a note.

Chairman.—Perhaps you would send us a note.*

Deputy Kenny.—As a matter of interest how much does it take to feed a prisoner on the average per year?—Forty five pounds per year approximately to feed each prisoner.

184. Chairman.—On subhead C.—Clothing, Bedding, Furniture, etc., why was the amount expended less than the amount provided?—Reduced purchases of clothing and bedding during the year resulted in a saving of £2,819 under this subhead. In estimating for expenditure, provision had been made for the replacement and renewal of depleted stocks of bedding, clothing, etc., and for an average daily prison population of 480. Purchases were, in fact, less than provided for and the daily average number of prisoners did not reach the figure anticipated.

185. Deputy Lalor.—On subhead H.— Maintenance of Buildings and Equipment —the note on page 54 says that structural work at Portlaoise Prison did not progress as far as anticipated. That accounts for the saving. I wonder what was the structural work you had in mind?—Flues in the chimneys of Portlaoise Prison were found to be defective and will have to be reconstructed.

Provision was made last year?—We could not get around to it.

It has not been got around to yet?— That is right.

VOTE 26—COURTS OF JUSTICE.

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

186. Chairman.—Item No. 4 of the Appropriations in Aid refers to fees in connection with grant and renewal of publicans’ licences. I notice that the amounts estimated and realised were dead accurate. What is the nature of those fees? —The Revenue Commissioners collect those fees for us. Under the licensing laws, a licence only lasts 12 months. It has to be renewed then. Application is made to the courts for a certificate of fitness mainly on the grounds of character rather than fitness of buildings. A fee is charged.

Deputy Kenny.—The same applies to exemption?—Precisely. A fee is charged for area exemptions.

Chairman.—The main portion of the fee collected goes to the Revenue Commissioners and only a portion goes to you?— That is right.

187.—In Item No. 7 of the Appropriations in Aid, there is a reference to bankruptcy percentages and further down in the note there is a reference to bankruptcy fees. I want to know the difference between the percentages and the fees?— I am afraid I am not familiar with this point. I will send you a note on the subject.†

VOTE 27—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

188. Chairman.—Under the heading “Extra Remuneration,” I notice that six legal assistants in the Land Registry were paid gratuities. Are you under-staffed in the Land Registry?—No. The position is very satisfactory to-day. There have been complaints in the past but we are quite happy now.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—There seem to be better reports now.

The witness withdrew.

The committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XVII.

*Exclusive of amounts for which before 1 June 1962 provision was made for collection under “Pay As You Earn” during 1962-63.

†Break-down over the various years not available.

* Note by Accounting Officer: Fireworks are sold for export only.

* See Appendix XVIII.

† See Appendix XIX.