|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 21 Deireadh Fómhair, 1965.Thursday, 21st October, 1965.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY JONES in the chair. Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. J. R. Whitty (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 23—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.Mr. P. Berry called and examined.248. Chairman.—In regard to the explanation on subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—could we have some details of the figures which are not given in this explanation?—This was a year of expansion in the Department of Justice when we were establishing a new law reform division. We had provided for an incursion of higher executive officers; we were increasing the number of executive officers from seven to 13; we were increasing our clerk-typists’ pool from 20 to 33, but, as it turned out, we were unable to fill the posts. We had difficulty in getting suitable people and this is the explanation. 249. In regard to the clerk-typists, how much did you over-provide for them? Perhaps at the same time, you could say how much the increase in remuneration cost?—I have not the actual figure, Mr. Chairman, but we had intended increasing the number of clerk-typists from 20 to 33; that is to make additional provision for 13: three, say, for our Minister’s office, some for the law reform division and some to take the place of people who had gone abroad to international organisations but, as it transpired, we had great difficulty in recruiting them. You would not have the figure for the increase in remuneration?—I have not it readily available but will supply it subsequently, Mr. Chairman.* Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Berry. 250. Deputy Crowley.—On subhead C.— Expenses in connection with Awards for Acts of Bravery—how many awards were there for these acts of bravery?—The amount of money paid under subhead C. bears no relationship whatsoever to the awards made. The awards are made by Cómhairle na Mire Gaile. The awards of money are ex gratia payments which may be made by the Minister for Justice to people at his discretion, people who, when saving life, might perhaps damage their clothes, watches, etc. The amount involved for that year was very small. Was there only one figure involved?—I can give you that figure. I think it was only one which was involved and this was in regard to a watch—it was a very small amount. 251. Deputy Healy.—The explanation on subhead D.1.—Payments to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for Ireland—says: “Legal text books not ready for publication to the extent anticipated in 1963-64. One only was published.” I presume that money will be used eventually when the text books are printed?—I might explain that the system has changed although this is not strictly relevant to the year 1963-64. In the year 1963-64, we provided £3,500 for the purchase of text books and £500 to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for Ireland for the production of law reports. Since then, owing to improvements in the law reporting system, we have stepped up that £500 to £4,000 and we have reduced the amount for text books to £1,500. Within the year 1963-64, only one text book was actually produced which cost us £700. We paid £250 in fees to the author and the balance for printing. As an offset to that, we received, as you will see from the Appropriations in Aid, refunds of payments amounting to £576. 252. Chairman.—Since we are at subhead D.1 and you have referred to the Appropriations-in-Aid on the opposite leaf—Refunds of payments made under Subhead D.1,— how do these refunds arise under subhead D.1?—I mentioned a moment ago that we had made arrangements with the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting that they would conduct all negotiations for the selection and preparation of suitable legal text books and they would refund to the Department of Justice the proceeds of sales in recoupment of advances received. We had put in £3,500 for the compilation of these various books on administration, mortgage matters, land registry and landlords and tenants. It is our intention that these books will be compiled by experts. We pay for the production of them, including authors’ fees, and we will be recouped by whatever sales there are. There was one book on administration and mortgage matters in 1963 by a Mr. Scanlon. We made an advance in November, 1963 of £700, made up of £250 author’s fees and a printing charge of £450. The sale price was 35/- per copy and the total received from sales up to 31st March, 1964 was £654 against which a sum of £78 was charged to meet incidental expenses, leaving a balance of £576. These are receipts from sales?—Yes. VOTE 24—GARDA SÍOCHÁNA.Mr. P. Berry further examined.253. Chairman.—Paragraph 32 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Road Fund Suspense Account. 32. The system of optional payments in lieu of fines, known as ’fines on the spot’, provided for under Section 103 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, was brought into force in the Dublin Metropolitan Area on 1 April 1963. Of £17,043 collected £15,679 was transferred to the Fines Account, Department of Justice for subsequent transfer to the Road Fund, leaving a balance of £1,364 in the above suspense account at 31 March 1964.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—That paragraph is for the information of the Committee. There was a new type of receipt arising in that year. Chairman.—It was very successful. 254. Deputy Briscoe.—How much of the “fines on the spot” related to Dublin? Mr. Berry.—It was all in Dublin up to this year. Up to August, 1964 we were charging 10/- for the fines on the spot and we then changed it to £1. We extended it, not so much for the purpose of getting in money but for the more efficient enforcement of traffic regulations. We extended it to Cork, Limerick, Bray, and in time it is the intention to extend the system to other centres of dense traffic congestion. 255. Deputy Crowley.—Why was the balance of £1,364 put into the suspense account? Mr. Suttle.—This is just a system of accounting. The money is taken in by the Department of Justice and is paid over from time to time. There is always bound to be a balance on hands. Deputy Crowley.—I know that, but was there any specific reason for the amount? Mr. Suttle.—I do not think so. Chairman.—Mr. Berry, there is a sentence at the end of Paragraph 32 referring to the Fines Account and it says there was a balance in the suspense account. Deputy Crowley wants to know if there was any particular reason why £1,364 was kept in the suspense account? Mr. Berry.—The only reason was the moneys were received so late they could not be transferred by 31st March. 256. In regard to subhead B.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—the explanation gives four reasons for the fact that the expenditure exceeds the grant. It says the excess is due mainly to increased rates of subsistence allowance, greater expenditure on telephones, cost of transfer of Garda Training Centre to Templemore and the visit of the late President Kennedy. Could you give us any figures relative to the four reasons?—Offhand I can give you the figure for President Kennedy’s visit. It was £12,000. That would be almost the whole of it?—Yes. The transfer of the Garda Training Centre to Templemore was approximately £5,000. I could get the figures in relation to telephones and subsistence. Telephones would not be that great. Subsistence would be the balance. Deputy Crowley.—When you made out your Estimates, did you anticipate the coming of President Kennedy?—One could not anticipate his itinerary. It was thought he might only visit Dublin. It developed and there could be no anticipation. The transfer to Templemore was really planned for and allowed for in the Estimate? —Yes. Deputy Healy.—The balance of the amount would be £595. Do I take it that the two items, subsistence allowances and expenses for telephones, would be within that figure?— I am informed we had substantial savings on other subheads. Chairman.—There were some offsets against that. Can you give us any indication where the offsets are?—We had budgeted for £26,000 under Travelling Expenses and another £26,000 under Miscellaneous. 257. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead C.— Clothing and Equipment—the explanation reads: “Excess due mainly to payments made to the Post Office Stores for earmarked materials, to the provision of uniforms for Ministers’ drivers and the purchase of Scotchlite belts.” I have never noticed these uniforms. Are they of a special type?—When we speak of uniforms for Ministers’ drivers, we are not speaking of regulation uniforms but of a particular type of suit. It was decided for prestige reasons that Ministers’ drivers should all be dressed alike and that they should be dressed in “civvies”. When Ministers are going through the country, this preserves their anonymity. Drivers in uniform would attract undesirable attention. We provide each driver with suits of uniform cut and quality. 258. Deputy Healy.—I should like a breakdown of this, if possible. How much is for uniforms and how much for Scotchlite belts?—The cost of the Scotchlite belts was approximately £3,000 and uniforms for Ministers’ drivers cost on average between £16 and £18 each. The Post Office Stores do all the purchasing for us. They purchase the cloths. They fix the price. 259. Deputy Kenny.—Is the cloth given to the driver and does he get it made up or does he make his own arrangements?—No. The cloth for the uniform is purchased and he is sent to a particular place. When he retires from the job, he is allowed to keep the suit, provided he pays an equivalent value. He pays £6 or £8 if the suit is one or two years old. 260. Deputy Briscoe.—A figure of £3,000 was mentioned for Scotchlite belts. How many belts would that comprise?—I cannot give that figure, Deputy, but you may take it that we have only got belts that are in actual use or in reserve. They are sought by tender?—That is right. All purchases of any substantial nature are made through the Post Office Stores. Chairman.—Would I be right in thinking these items are not included in the Estimate? —That is right. Were you aware that you would get a Supplementary Estimate at that time?— We would have been at that time. 261. The explanation on subhead D.— Station Services—reads: “Excess due mainly to provision of furniture, etc., for Garda Training Centre at Templemore.” Was provision made in the Estimate for furniture for Templemore?—We intended to move the bulk of the furniture from the recruiting Depot in the Phoenix Park but we were advised by the Office of Public Works that it was so defective that it should be replaced in full. In addition, the Depot in the Phoenix Park had accommodation for about 120 and we had to more than double the number of beds in Templemore, with a consequent doubling of furniture, bedding and all that. 262. The furniture in Dublin is still there? What happened to it?—Some of it has been sold by public auction but the bulk, of little value, may have to be scrapped. Scrapped? Written off?—Yes. It is not suitable for use. 263. Deputy Healy.—Surely it could be sent somewhere for something?—I will put it this way: we were advised by the Office of Public Works that it was mostly of poor quality and should not be re-used. Any of it that could be sold, I presume was sold. That is what we always do. It would have been a small amount. I can quite understand the Office of Public Works advising you it was not suitable to move the furniture from Dublin to Templemore, that it was more economic to buy new furniture, but if there was no question of transporting it to Templemore, it might have lasted for another ten or 20 years in the Depot. I do not know why it should be written off completely?—I should like to make a comment on that. In recent years there has been, to use a much abused word, a new image of the Garda Síochana force. They would not be content today with either premises or furniture that had been there for years. There has been a change in that direction, so, irrespective of the move to Templemore, we would have been buying furniture. 264. Deputy Crowley.—Am I right in assuming the accommodation provided in Templemore is for 240 men?—Let me put it this way. The training period is 18 weeks, plus a refresher of eight weeks. We use the accommodation to the maximum. We put in a batch for 18 weeks and take them out; put in a batch for 18 weeks and take them out. There may not be full occupancy by 240 recruits because of the men on the refresher course coming back. 265. Deputy Briscoe.—How much did the furniture for the Garda Training Centre at Templemore come to?—Nearly £20,000. 266. Deputy Kenny.—How was the furniture supplied?—We purchased it through the Office of Public Works. We always purchase through the Post Office Stores or the Office of Public Works. We never buy direct. It is done through a contracts committee. 267. Deputy Healy.—On subhead E.— Transport and Carriage—does not this figure of saving of £8,839 seem large? There is a saving due to less expenditure than anticipated on maintenance of vehicles. Chairman.—I am merely commenting on what this is about. It is about eight per cent. of what was estimated. Do you still wish to put the question to Mr. Berry, Deputy Healy? Deputy Healy.—No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not think it concerns Mr. Berry. I am merely surprised at the figure for Transport and Carriage. Mr. Suttle.—The Estimate shows only £110,000 for maintenance and running expenses on page 89 of the Book of Estimates. Chairman.—We can come back to that, Deputy Healy, if you wish to make reference to it later. 268. In regard to this subhead there is a note under the Appropriations in Aid, if I might refer to it at this stage, Mr. Berry, which refers to proceeds of sales of old stores and cast uniforms and forfeited and unclaimed property.—Could you tell us how many of these sales took place during the year to make up the figure of £11,922?—Two sales. 269. The explanation on subhead G.— Pensions, Gratuities, etc.—says that a sum of £33,500 was received from Vote for Increases in Pensions (No. 54), and that the saving was mainly due to the number of retirements being less than had been estimated for. There was a Supplementary Grant of £102,000 voted and you have a saving of £87,000. Were you aware of the trend in regard to retirements at that stage?— No, Mr. Chairman. This is something we cannot forecast with any accuracy. The Garda Pension code provides that a guard who has 30 years’ service and has reached 50 years of age can then retire at any time within the next 13 years; he can go to 63 in the normal way. This was a device we brought in a few years ago to prevent all gardaí retiring at the same time. We were trying to establish a ladder arrangement whereby the gardaí could retire at different stages, with a result that we can never foretell whether or not gardaí will exercise their retirement rights. Whenever there is unrest with regard to pay, etc., we find guards who might retire normally do not do so. That is the explanation here. Thirty guards whom we had expected to retire did not retire. 270. On subhead H.—Appropriations in Aid—No. 1 relates to Repayments of advances under Subhead E (3) and the relevant note states that the surplus from repayments was due to increase in the numbers who availed of advances for the purchase of cars. Would you not think, Mr. Berry, that that should have been reflected in subhead E also?— I can give you a fairly detailed explanation of the total advances for the payment of cars, if the Committee would wish me to do so. It is not so much the system I am querying as how that surplus is due to the increase in the number of people who sought advances to buy cars. Should this not have been reflected in subhead E also or can you tell us how the total advances for the year compared with, say, the Estimate?—Yes, Mr. Chairman; my advisers say it should have been reflected in subhead E also. Perhaps you would send a note on that to the Committee at your convenience, Mr. Berry?—Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman.* 271. Deputy Crowley.—When you were before the Committee last year, Mr. Berry, I see you said that £450 was the allowance for a new car repayable over four years. Does that amount still stand?—That amount still stands. We have had applications to have the amount increased and the period reduced but the Department of Finance were not in favour. 272. I notice in the Statement of Losses (Stores, etc.) that in 134 accidents involving Garda Síochána vehicles, the damage amounting to £1,899 was not attributable to Garda personnel. On foot of nine of these cases, sums totalling £108 were recovered under halving agreements and in twelve other cases, sums amounting to £157 were received in settlement. The sums were received in 21 cases only. Would it not be reasonable to expect that sums would have been received for all?— In all these cases we are guided by the advice of the Chief State Solicitor. The facts are always presented to him and we do the very best we can. Deputy Healy.—On that, Mr. Chairman, it seems strange to me that if the gardaí were not liable, they did not receive more. If it were a private individual, he would expect to recover losses. If I were not liable and were involved in an accident, I am certain I would seek to recover something. Chairman.—Mr. Berry explains that this was the advice they received from their legal advisers?—The Chief State Solicitor advises that it falls to be fixed on a knock-for-knock basis. Deputy Healy.—Even on a knock-for-knock basis, would you not get the best part of your damages?—You would get nothing; you would stand your own. 273. Under the Appropriations in Aid, miscellaneous items included Payments for services rendered by the Garda Síochána. What kind of services did the Garda Síochána render?—Miscellaneous services. For instance, at Croke Park Guards act as stewards and that kind of thing. We charge a fee based on a scale which goes up according as the pay of the Gardaí is raised and, in turn, the Gardaí are then paid a certain amount. The practice has gone on since the inception of the Force to provide Gardaí for duty at sporting grounds, racecourses, protection of exhibits and so on. For an inspector, we charge 14/8d. an hour, or a minimum charge of £2 18s. 8d.; for a sergeant, we charge 11/7d. an hour, with a minimum charge of £2 6s. 4d., and for a guard, we charge 9/9d. an hour, with a minimum charge of £1 19s. The amount recovered during 1963-64 for services of Gardaí throughout the State was £3,876, of which £3,207 was proper to Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. Payments made to Gardaí who volunteered for duty at these various fixtures amounted to £3,375. The members are paid time and a half in respect of the duties and the amounts claimed from the organisers are based on the average pay of all guards, plus boot, cycle, uniform allowance and a sum for medical expenses. Chairman.—The Committee last year referred to this matter also. We heard that the rates charged go up automatically with increase in pay and you look for more for the services provided. 274. Deputy Crowley.—With regard to the profits from sales of stores included in the Appropriations in Aid, would ordinary stores include the type of furniture Deputy Healy was talking about earlier?—It would. These are always sold at public auctions. Deputy Healy.—I presume they are always in Dublin?—The quantities are in Dublin. It would not pay us to take the goods from Dublin to Cork because of transport charges. You would get better prices from Cork people?—There is between one-third and one-fourth of the Force stationed in Dublin alone. VOTE 25—PRISONS.Mr. P. Berry further examined.275. Deputy Healy.—The note on subhead A.—Pay and Allowances of Officers, including Uniform—mentions that the saving is due mainly to staff changes and to non-filling of vacancies. Is it deliberate policy not to fill the vacancies, would lesser staff do or is it, perhaps, that the people are unsuitable?— It is not lessening of staff but it is due to difficulties in filling staff posts. We experience very great difficulty in recruiting artisan warders such as plumbers and other tradesmen. 276. Chairman.—The explanation on subhead B.—Prison Services, Maintenance, etc.— says there was less progress than was anticipated in building. Is there any particular reason for this?—This is a hardy annual. We have provided during the years for an expenditure of £20,000 for a new boiler for Portlaoise Prison. This job is being done by the Office of Public Works because it is too big for our normal resources within the prison service. With regard to less progress than was anticipated, the planning went on but we have not spent the money. Actually only £45 out of the amount provided for the work in the year 1963-64 was expended. A figure of £17,000 has now been spent on the job and it is expected that by the end of this financial year the job will be completed. 277. That was not the only variation in the Estimate. I notice from the Estimate that you estimate £42 odd per prisoner. You had 50 more prisoners than you estimated. That would account for some of the money but are there any other variations in the subhead?— No; apart from our inability in the building of the boiler flue at Portlaoise, we had the question of officers’ quarters at Limerick Prison and we also had in mind the erection of a new hostel at Mountjoy for our corrective training system. I think it is common knowledge that the penal system has changed in recent years. Now there is more focus on rehabilitation than on punishment. New quarters were required, better supervision, psychiatric training and so on. 278. With regard to subhead C.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—could we have some details of the variations there?—One cannot estimate precisely the number of journeys into and out of courts and the distances to courts and back again. Prisoners might be remanded once, twice, three, four or five times to courts. This necessitates bringing them long journeys, perhaps from Dublin to Donegal. Mountjoy Prison is the only prison which serves the upper half of the country. Deputy Briscoe.—Is there no way of keeping them up there while they are on remand?—The law does not permit it. 279. Chairman.—In the breakdown of the Estimate in the Book of Estimates, provision is made for expenditure of £11,000 for escort and conveyance of prisoners so there must be some other variation in the Estimate?— This is because of the greater number of prisoners in custody throughout the country. We budgeted in our Estimate for 520 but there was a daily average in custody of 570. This is due to increased committals from the court owing to the increased crime rate. I should like to pass a remark which, indeed, is scarcely relevant to the 1963-64 Vote, that is that the committals peak has passed. For the first six months of this year the average is back to 560. 280. Deputy Crowley.—With regard to subhead D.—Manufacturing Department and Farm—do I take it that the excess is due to greater productivity from the prisoners than was anticipated or is it because there were more prisoners?—More prisoners do not mean greater productivity. As I said, our daily average of prisoners lies between 520 and 570. That might not necessarily mean we had more prisoners. It might mean that prisoners were getting longer sentences. The courts’ tendency in recent years has been to give one year instead of six months or three months. 281. Is the excess due to the purchase of material for mail bag manufacture mentioned in the Explanation a result of greater productivity by the prisoners?—No. We got a late contract towards the end of the year. We had to purchase materials and we were informed we could not carry over into the next year. The Post Office Stores insisted that we should pay there and then. Deputy Healy.—I presume there is a gain against that when the mail bags are sold. The mail bags are paid for by somebody? Mr. Suttle.—The Post Office pay for them. We have receipts in the following year. Deputy Healy.—I presume we are making an economic profit on the transaction. 282. Deputy Kenny.—Do the prisoners get any form of payment for their increased productivity?—Yes. Up to a comparatively recent time we gave them Id. a day. We increased that in 1962 to 6d. per day, that is, per working day, so they had 3/- a week, plus a bonus of 6d. for good conduct, making 3/6 a week. That is what a prisoner can earn. 283. In what form is the payment made?— It is put to his credit and he can spend up to half on the purchase of cigarettes or sweets. He can allocate it to his family, which some of them do. Long term prisoners, prisoners on penal servitude, may accumulate a few pounds. When they are going out on discharge, we give them the balance. If the balance is over £5, we hold it for them and send it to them after a little while. The whole idea is that a prisoner should not go on the spree. 284. Deputy Briscoe.—Are these increases passed on to the Post Office in the price for mail bags?—No. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it. One cannot evaluate the work of one prisoner against the work of another. For example, cleaning toilets cannot be evaluated and that is ugly work. 285. Chairman.—I had the impression that the manufacture of mail bags was on the decline. I thought the idea now was rehabilitation work which would be more advantageous to the prisoner when he left. Are we reverting to the old system?—The position is that we have great difficulty indeed in finding work which the prisoner can carry on when he is outside. We have had conferences with the Federation of Industries and with trade union leaders and we are still almost where we were. The basic industries are shoemaking, mail bag making, gardening, work in the bakeries. We are finding it very difficult indeed. The number of prisoners is so small, comparatively speaking, that we cannot train them. To train a man in a trade you have to have him for six or 12 months and he may not have the aptitude, the skill or the education, with the result that some of our schemes, like the cabinet-making scheme, fell through. When we have men for long terms, we cannot train them because they have not the education to assimilate the training. They do not understand the difference between a half inch and one-eighth of an inch, so we are frustrated. Rehabilitation is being frustrated a bit?— Very much so. Our great difficulty is suitable employment and the procurement of employment after discharge. Deputy Treacy.—Would it not also be due to the fact that you are experiencing difficulty in finding wardens with particular skills?— We are finding great difficulty in recruiting tradesmen, plumbers, carpenters and tailors in particular. 286. I was wondering about occupational therapy for the purpose of rehabilitation. Is there any occupational therapy on the farms? —In Mountjoy prison the daily average is 250 to 270 which is about half of our whole prison population, even including St. Patrick’s Institution. We have occupational therapy there. We have corrective training there. A system was devised within the past three years whereby the prisoners are carefully screened as to aptitudes. Their past history is taken into account and their demeanour is observed for a month or two. We move them then, say, from A Wing to D Wing and in D Wing they are given occupational therapy like basket-making and carpentry. Carpentry is most valuable and it is the most sought after. We have adopted a system of finding jobs for them. They live in, and work out, and for this purpose we have built the hostel I already mentioned in order that they will be gradually assimilated into the normal home conditions outside. Instead of going to a cell, the prisoner goes to the hostel where he can have a light meal and watch television. There is a suitable library. The Minister has more than once invited all members of the House and members of the judiciary to see the scheme in operation. It is most valuable. 287. I was wondering if it might be possible to get a breakdown of the kind of occupational therapy that is carried out by the prisoners on farm work and gardening?—I think we can readily do that but I should mention that farm work is confined to Portlaoise alone. That is the only farm we have. In fact, it is our mainstay. We have a 30 acre farm there which is intensively tilled. The profits work out at about £1,400 a year. We produce all our own victuals for the prisoners and any that are left over we sell at market prices to officers’ families and in the town of Portlaoise. VOTE 26—COURTS OF JUSTICE.Mr. P. Berry further examined.288. Chairman.—Paragraph 33 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Exchequer Extra Receipts 33. Under the District Court (Fees) Order, 1956 a fee of £1 is payable on the issue of a licence to keep petroleum or other substances of a like nature. I have asked the Accounting Officer whether Departmental regulations exist and are being enforced so as to ensure that all petroleum dealers are duly licensed and that licences are renewed where appropriate.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—In reply to a query regarding regulations, the Accounting Officer informed me that the Department responsible for legislation dealing with petroleum is the Department of Industry and Commerce. The only concern of the Department of Justice is to see that a court fee is prescribed and collected in respect of all licences issued by District Justices. Our difficulty in the matter arose from the lack of information in the district court offices as to whether licences were or were not renewable. In two areas licences were generally renewed each year, while in another area it would appear that licences were not renewed and that they were not issued at all in some cases. Chairman.—Have you anything you would care to add to that, Mr. Berry?—I should like to elaborate on what the Comptroller and Auditor General has said. Under the Petroleum Acts, it is the local authority that has the function of issuing licences but the local authority is severally defined as the borough council in some cases, town commissioners in others, harbour commissioners in others and justices of the peace in petty sessions assembled—which correspond today to the District Justice—and there is additional provision for the issue of licences by the Lord Lieutenant. Now, on whom the Lord Lieutenant’s duties devolve I do not know but it certainly was not on the Minister for Justice. The Petroleum Acts provide that licences may be issued for unlimited or restricted periods and in practice generally they are issued without restriction with the result that a licence once given does not need renewal. Again, that is not the practice in some district courts; licences may be renewed annually but when the justice grants licences he does so without qualification and if the person concerned does not come forward for a renewal of his licence there is no legal authority to force him to do so. I should repeat that neither the Department of Justice nor the Minister has any function in connection with the licensing system. We came into this in 1956 in this way: when we were examining the various certificates and orders issued in the district courts we found that fees which had been there for a very long time and fixed at a very low level many years ago should be increased. We then charged £1 for this service of issuing a licence under the Petroleum Acts. Apart from charging the £1 for the service of issuing a licence, we have no other function or responsibility here. I think it is the Department of Industry and Commerce which accepts responsibility but, of that, I am not even sure. Chairman.—This is a matter to which the Committee can return at a later stage. VOTE 27—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.Mr. P. Berry called.No question. The witness withdrew. VOTE 10—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.Mr. M. Hawe called and examined.289. Chairman.—Mr. Hawe has come here to assist us. This is his first appearance before the Committee and I take a great pleasure in welcoming him and hope he will stay with this Committee for a long time to come. As we did not get an opportunity, I should like also to express the Committee’s appreciation of his services and to convey their best wishes to your predecessor, Mr. Ó hEigeartuigh, on his retirement. We saw him here for a number of years and he was always very meticulous in his explanations before the Committee. We hope he will enjoy his retirement for many years to come.—Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I shall be very glad to help the Committee as much as I can and also I know that Mr. Ó hEigeartuigh will be most appreciative of the Committee’s kind wishes in his retirement. I will convey the Committee’s message to him. 290. Paragraph 28 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “28. Provision was made under subhead C (Urban Employment Schemes) and subhead D (Rural Employment Schemes) for grants towards expenditure by local authorities on road and amenity schemes, etc., to provide employment. The grants, amounting in all to £215,389, were paid in instalments, during the progress of the various works, by the Department of Local Government, acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The accounts of the expenditure on the schemes are examined by Local Government auditors whose reports are available to me.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—No, Mr. Chairman. These paragraphs are merely for the information of the Committee and there is no change in them from year to year; in fact we are thinking of dropping them altogether, as they give very little information. 291. Chairman.—Paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read: “29. Expenditure charged to subhead E (Minor Employment Schemes) and subhead F (Development Works in Bogs used by Landholders and other Private Producers), amounting to £303,617, relates to schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office. In certain counties these schemes were carried out by the county engineers acting as agents for the Office. 30. The scheme for which provision was made under subhead G (Rural Improvements Scheme) was also administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office either directly or through the agency of county engineers. The works carried out included the improvement and construction of accommodation roads to houses, farms and bogs, small drainage works, the erection or reconstruction of small bridges, etc. Only works which are estimated to cost not less than £40 are approved and the grants may vary from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. of their cost. The gross expenditure amounted to £232,816, and contributions by beneficiaries, which are appropriated in aid of the Vote, totalled £36,304. 31. The amount charged to subhead H (Miscellaneous Schemes) comprises expenditure on archaeological works and improvement works on small harbours, piers and landing places. Contributions from local authorities amounting to £1,970 were appropriated in aid of the Vote.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—No, Mr. Chairman. 292. Chairman.—We will turn then to the Vote. The note to subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—and subhead B.— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—states that the savings were due mainly to vacancies in the inspectorate. Is there any improvement in that situation? Mr. Hawe.—We have still two vacancies in our strength and at the moment we have expectation of getting one candidate from a recent interview. That would leave us with one vacancy in our authorised establishment. However, having regard to the experience of Departments generally, we do not regard ourselves as being in any great difficulty in that respect just now. 293. Deputy Treacy.—On subhead C.— Urban Employment Schemes—and subhead D.—Rural Improvement Schemes—I wonder is it prudent to ask for the names of the local authorities responsible for not submitting suitable schemes to absorb the money available to them? Chairman.—What the Deputy would like to know, Mr. Hawe, is can you give the names of the local authorities who failed to supply schemes suitable for the use of this money?— It was not a question of our not getting schemes but some schemes came in rather late in the year and that had the effect of showing a saving in the expenditure for the year. We do not like spot-lighting particular councils or authorities in that respect because, in some cases, schemes are submitted which do not turn out to be suitable. They are first vetted in the Department of Local Government as to their utility, suitability and so on and when a scheme is rejected, the local authority has to produce another one. Dublin county borough, which gets quite a big allocation, received £90,000 in the year, while in the last quarter, that is, the March quarter of 1964, we got in schemes to the value of £63,136 State grant. In other words in that year in Dublin, a lot of the schemes came in in the last quarter. There again one would not like to suggest that Dublin is always behind. For instance, this year, we have already got quite a lot of Dublin schemes in. We very rarely have occasions where the local authorities do not take up the grants. 294. Deputy Treacy.—May we take it that the local authorities which were late in submitting proposals were in the main from the cities rather than the provincial local authorities? Chairman.—Subhead C deals mainly with the cities and subhead D deals with rural areas?—Subhead C would include 55 urban areas. Generally, we find schemes come in in time. The grants are usually small and mainly for one or two schemes. During the March quarter 1964 we got a scheme from Waterford County Borough for £3,690 State grant against their total allocation of £8,000. Cork had schemes during the same period amounting to £7,906 State grant out of a total allocation of £17,500. Dungarvan sent in a scheme for £1,550 State grant in January 1964 and Galway a scheme for £1,500 State grant in February 1964. Wexford and Sligo also sent in some small schemes in February and March 1964. Chairman.—As Deputies are aware, these works provide employment during the winter. It would be a help if we could get local authorities to send in their schemes earlier. Deputy Treacy referred to this last year and had a long reply. 295. Deputy Healy.—I think it is fair to say that very often when local authorities send up schemes, it is found that they are not suitable. It takes time when they are sent back, having been rejected, and new schemes have to be sent up.—That has happened. Sometimes schemes have to be sent back because they do not comply with regulations. Chairman.—Subhead D is somewhat the same?—The amount is small. These rural employment schemes are for schemes in towns. 296. With regard to Appropriations-in-Aid, what is included in Miscellaneous Receipts?—I have some particulars of those. Miscellaneous Receipts are a very varied list. They amounted to £946 17s. 7d. in that year. Bank interest was an item. The county engineers who carry out schemes hold bank accounts and some banks allow interest on the balances. There was refund for loss of services of an officer injured in an accident. I think that related to one of our headquarters staff who was knocked down by a motor car. A claim was made against the insurance company for loss of services. There were expenses due to a foreign archaeologist who left the country in 1961. The figure there was £3 19s. 2d. There were expenses in a court case, £2 1s. 1d., fees for the deduction of insurance premiums, £1 18s. 3d. and unpaid wages due to a deceased workman whose next of kin could not be traced, £1 1s. 4d. Those are the sort of things included in this item. The witness withdrew. VOTE 47—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.Mr. H. J. McCann called and examined.297. Chairman.—With regard to subhead E.—Information Services—the saving is substantial. What projects had not advanced?— They were mainly two films which have come on the market this year. There was a Yeats film and a Gael Linn film in relation to the Cork area. They had been commenced in the previous year, and it was hoped that substantial sums would have come for payment in the year under review. It so happened that various aspects of the contract negotiations, and analysing and revising the “treatments” took longer than expected. Deputy Healy.—Would it be in order to ask if there are any more such films envisaged? —It is a continuing programme. We have some in the embryonic stage at the moment. 298. Chairman.—In the notes to the Account it is stated that there was a deficiency of £1,755 arising out of the forgery of a cheque. Could we have some information on that?—This deficiency occurred in the Embassy in Bonn where a locally recruited unestablished messenger actually forged a cheque on the official account on which the bank paid out. On the advice of the Attorney-General and the Chief State Solicitor, we have taken proceedings against the bank to secure a reinstatement in our account of the sum which in our view they unlawfully paid out. The individual in question has been apprehended by the police and criminal proceedings are pending against him. Chairman.—How did he succeed in getting at the cheque book?—The cheque book is normally kept in the safe and we do not know how he succeeded in getting at it. We do not know whether he succeeded in laying hands on the key of the safe for a second and making an impression of it or how he got at it. It may come out when his own case comes before the courts. I might mention, incidentally, that this person seems to have been a fairly skilled criminal because the Ambassador and the Secretary had cheques forged on their personal accounts and lost substantial sums in the same way. 299. On repatriation advances, were there many cases outstanding at 31st March, 1964, which would include opening balances?—I only have the figure for sums outstanding which is £736. This is the first time we have given this information, at your request. The year came in with £695 and the advances during the year amounted to £1,971, making a total of £2,666. During the year we recovered £1,705 and we wrote off £225, making the balance outstanding at the end of March, 1964, £736. Can you give any information as to how many cases are included in the opening balances?—I have not that information readily available. I think the average case must be of the order of about £10. It depends on where the person is coming from. If he were coming from Belgium, it would be cheaper than if he were coming from Vienna which is further afield. I think on average it runs to about £10 per case. In some cases it is difficult or impossible to trace the individual after he comes home or there may be cases of extreme poverty where it is a waste of time going on with our efforts to recover. Are these old cases or current cases?— There would be some old cases. In our annual review we try to determine what should be written off. We would not carry over indefinitely old cases unless we had some hope of recovery. We would only carry them over if we had not abandoned hope. 300. Deputy Briscoe.—After what period do you write them off?—There is no fixed period. Each year we review what is outstanding, what efforts we have made, what the possibilities are and in cases which in our judgement to pursue matters would seem to be almost a waste of further official time and money, we write them off. Other cases in which there still seems to be hope we keep in. I think the time lag would be about two years in the generality of cases. VOTE 48—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.Mr. McCann further examined.301. Chairman.—Paragraph 91 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead F.—Overseas Trainee Fund 91. £50,000 was provided by supplementary estimate to establish a fund from which grants and repayable advances may be made in connection with the training in Ireland of persons from developing countries in administration, management and technical skills. The general administration and supervision of the initial scheme of training of prospective administrators for Northern Rhodesia, has been entrusted to the Institute of Public Administration. The first group of trainees arrived in Ireland in October 1963. No issues were made from the fund during the year. The account of the fund is appended to the appropriation account.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add to the information in the paragraph. The issues to the Institute of Public Administration in respect of the scheme referred to were paid in the following year. 302. Chairman.—On subhead E.—Appropriations in Aid—Recovery of Expenditure on OECD Projects—how much of the expenditure on these projects is recoverable? —In these projects there is certain expenditure, like expenditure on interpreters, which arises. It is charged to us in the first instance and then we recover it from the Department who sponsored the project. Chairman.—It is purely departmental?— We come into it marginally as we are the Department responsible for relations with the OECD. It is charged to us by the international organisation and we recover it from the Department or body concerned. The witness withdrew. VOTE 36—NATIONAL GALLERY.Mr. J. White called and examined.303. Chairman.—On subhead B.—Purchase and Repair of Pictures (Grant-in-Aid)— in previous years this money was spent on the repair of pictures. Were you able to spare any for the purchase of pictures in 1963-64?— We were able to spend £500 on the purchase of a portrait of the Earl of Charlemont by an artist called M. F. Quadal. He was the founder and the first president of the Irish Volunteers. We purchased a few other items to supplement our portrait collection. The balance of the money was spent on repairs to pictures. 304. Deputy Healy.—Might I ask on the explanation of subhead A.—Salaries and Wages—which reads: “Saving due to vacancies remaining unfilled, offset by increases in remuneration and appointment of a consultant on a fee basis”, whether that indicates that vacancies may be filled if suitable candidates are found?—The main amount of saving there is due to the fact that the National Gallery Governors took a long time to fill the post of Director and it remained vacant until I was appointed on 1st June, 1964, as a result of which part of the salary was not used up. I think that accounts, to a great extent, for the saving. So there is no vacancy as of now?—There is a vacancy as of now. The Assistant Director of the Gallery who was in office when I took up duty was appointed Curator of the Municipal Gallery and her post has not been filled. 305. Chairman.—Under subhead C.— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—when the Committee of Public Accounts discussed the catalogue of all the works, your predecessor informed us that it was with the Stationery Office at that time for printing. Has it been published yet?—Yes; what is now called the concise catalogue of oil paintings was published last year. This is a list of the pictures, the majority of the paintings but does not include drawings, water colours and other objects in the collection but the catalogue to which my predecessor referred has been published. 306. Are there complete registers of all the Gallery’s works of art?—No; I am afraid the general condition of registration is not what it ought to be. When I took over the Gallery, I found that certain catalogues had been issued in past times but these referred almost entirely to pictures on exhibition. There were registers kept of certain works but these were mainly concerned with paintings and drawings. A great deal of the various other objects like furniture, silver, sculptures and engravings had not been properly registered. In fact the general position of this was unsatisfactory so I have set up an organisation, using a new system, and have now employed a man for the purpose of improving matters and we are making a complete inventory of the works. At the moment this inventory is not quite complete but we hope to have it completed very shortly, and, on the basis of this, we will then issue a complete inventory of each and every single object in the Gallery which will be available to the public. Chairman.—That is very satisfactory. 307. Chairman.—In regard to your extension, Mr. White, how is that going?— It is progressing very satisfactorily; the basement floor is being roofed and they are beginning work on the first floor. We hope to open it to the public in about two years time. We did lose a certain amount of time however, owing to the building strike The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
