Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1968 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Reports of the Committee - Appropriation Accounts 1966 - 1967

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Deardaoin 29 Feabhra 1968.

Thursday 29th February 1968.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An t-Ard Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), and Mr. J. Whelan and Mr. P. S. Mac Guill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 41—TRANSPORT AND POWER.

Mr. D. Ó Riordáin called and examined.

811. Chairman.—Paragraph 62 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.2.—Córas Iompair Éireann Redendancy Compensation

62. Section 15 of the Transport Act, 1958, authorises the payment of grants from voted moneys to Córas Iompair Éireann to meet the cost of compensation paid to employees, including those of the former Great Northern Railway Board, whose services were dispensed with or conditions worsened in the period from 16 July 1958 to 31 March 1964. Including £395,519 charged to this subhead, grants issued amounted to £3,160,478. The grants paid were supported by auditors’ certificates of the amounts expended on compensation.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Paragraph 62 is for the information of the Committee. I have nothing to add.

812. Deputy Healy.—When employees of CIE were pensioned off prior to 1959 they got pensions. Did they get any lump sum compensation in addition to the weekly allowance or pension?

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—When pensioned off on reaching retirement age, they got the pension to which they were entitled under the company’s pension scheme and would not be entitled to redundancy compensation which only arises when they are dismissed on redundancy before reaching retirement age.

813. Deputy Healy.—Were there no special arrangements whereby they got special allowances in addition to the pensions to which they were entitled?—Not if retired at normal retiring age. They got nothing except the pension to which they were entitled.

Mr. Suttle.—They could commute some of the pension into a lump sum, if they wished.

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—That would be the redundancy compensation pension—they could commute one-fourth—but in the ordinary pension, I do not think there is any question of commutation.

814. Chairman.—Paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:—

“Tourism

Subhead F.1.—Grant under section 2 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1961 (Grant-in-Aid)

Subhead F.2.—Resort Development (Grant-in-Aid)

Subhead F.3.—Development of Holiday Accommodation (Grant-in-Aid)

63. Grants issued to Bord Fáilte Éireann to 31 March 1967 are shown in the following statements:—

Subhead G.2.—Constructional Works at Airports including furnishing of Buildings

64. A tender amounting to £199,710 was accepted in June 1961 for the erection of the Technical Administration and Staff Catering building at Dublin Airport.

On scrutinising the bill of quantities prepared by a firm of quantity surveyors I observed that it included provisional and P.C. sums totalling £77,000 and an item of £43,000 to cover sub-contracts for mechanical, etc., services so that in the event it transpired that only work to a value of £80,000 was specified in detail. The postponement of detailed planning and the inclusion of provisional or P.C. sums in respect of specialist or sub-contracted items to this extent appears to me unsatisfactory, it encourages variations and has the disadvantage of leaving exact costs unknown until such items are adjusted; moreover, the responsibility of the main contractor is lessened because he does not select all the sub-contractors and this is likely to increase costs.

From my examination of the final statement of costs in this case I noted that variations on contract and adjustment of provisional and P.C. sums amounted to £136,396 (omissions) and £145,276 (additions), 86 per cent. and 92 per cent., respectively, of the entire contract, excluding the mechanical services. I have inquired why such substantial provisional sums were permitted.”

815. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that the departmental practice is for work appropriate to specialist suppliers to be covered by PC sums; he states that the only alternative would be to abandon competition and specify trade names, manufacturers or subcontractors and that this would not be possible in Government contracts. I have noticed a tendency for the number of specialist items in large building contracts to increase and with the development of modern construction techniques this tendency will certainly continue. The principal PC sums in the case of the TASC (Technical Administration and Staff Catering) building were for metal windows, partitions and floor and wall finishes; these alone amounted to £57,500. I understand that the modern practice in other countries is to specify the proposed structure in full detail at the outset and to invite tenders on that basis. The successful contractor is responsible for the whole job including the quality and cost of subcontractors’ work. This method has, I understand, led to a saving in both time and money. I might mention that in Britain fully measured fixed price contracts without provisional items are standard policy with the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works, and I would like to quote from evidence given by the Permanent Secretary of that Ministry to the Public Accounts Committee in 1965. “I hold, and my Ministry hold, as a matter of doctrine, that it is bad practice to let a large or, indeed, any construction contract until the whole thing has been thought out in detail, properly drawn, properly estimated, properly specified and with proper bills of quantities. We also hold that it is worth what may appear to an impatient client to be quite considerable delay in starting a job in order to achieve the end which I have just described, the reason for that being that you are then in a position to let a firm contract without provisional items. You are, or you ought to be, in a much better position to know exactly what you want and not change your mind in the course of the contract, and the contract ought to run much more smoothly because everybody knows what he is doing and what he is supposed to do.

Deputy Healy.—I certainly subscribe to that. I think the planning should be finalised and that the contractor should be held responsible for the whole building. It does not take much experience of local government to realise that it is like giving a blank cheque.

816. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Is it not the only practical way?—Mr. O’Riordáin.—I have not heard the quotation before and I should not like to comment in detail on what was said in Britain without having some opportunity of studying it. Offhand I would say it would not apply in our case. Taking the particular case of the metal windows, they are a factory produced product. There are a number of different makes. It would be contrary to normal practice to specify in the contract which manufacturer’s goods we wanted. That would be entirely contrary to Government contract practice. It It would deprive us of an opportunity of getting the best tenders. What happens in fact in our case is that this work is measured and sums are put in as prime costs. We have the benefit of separate sub-contracts. The architect can be assured he is getting exactly what he wants. I would be very slow to consider departing from the present system unless it were shown conclusively that it would be more economical and more efficient. It would strike me that to approach the problem in the other way would mean having a very much larger architectural staff. It would not be easy to do.

817. Chairman.—This was planned by your own architect?—It is our own architect.

818. It was started in 1958. There was no urgency about it?—The Department was set up in 1959. We took over the airport architectural branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce as part of the new Department. We have our own architectural branch since 1940.

Mr. Suttle.—This particular building was planned away back in 1958-59 so quite a lot of time was available before you placed the contract to know what you were aiming at.

819. Chairman.—Mr. Ó Ríordáin?

Mr. Ó Ríordáin.—The architect would have to decide about the type of metal window. It is a kind of metal wall cladding. A number of manufacturers make satisfactory types. He would bring this in as a sub-contract item so you would have competition in the sub-contract stage to get the metal wall cladding at the lowest price. If this were left entirely to the main contractor, it would be necessary for the architect either to specify the name of the manufacturer or to accept the choice of the main contractor which might not be satisfactory to him.

820. Chairman.—Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—My feeling is that taking the specific case of the windows the architect should have decided when he was planning the building what windows he wanted at that stage before making the main contract. He would then put it out to tender instead of working on the basis of planning the building and when it is in course of construction deciding what type of windows to get. You still have competition and you know what windows you will use before placing the main contract.

821. Chairman.—Mr. O’Riordáin?

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—I do not think that would be possible. He could not go out for the sub-contract before the main contract because the building is going to be a unified job. The main contractor must be brought in. The sub-contracts for the building cannot be determined beforehand. They have got to be dovetailed with the main contract. The same result is got by the quantity surveyor and the architect measuring the prime costs. They must have discussions with the manufacturers to determine what variations of wall cladding are available and what the costs are so that when the time for the sub-contract comes you have in fact a new contracting procedure.

822. Chairman.—Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I feel that the details of the building should be known before you go to tender at all. You have the architect and the engineers to design the building beforehand. If it is designed down to the smallest detail of the windows and every single item, the main contractor knows what he is to do, what types of window he should fit and he can provide for that in the tender. If every detail were known beforehand you would have no variation. I see that there were variations in the reinforced concrete structure. Obviously very little planning was done beforehand. My feeling about the matter is that, even though there was time, there was not sufficient planning.

23. Chairman.—Mr. Ó Riordáin?

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—I would not agree and neither, I think, would the architect agree. The variation you mention is a different matter. It arose out of conditions on the site and could not be foreseen. That is a different kind of thing entirely. To come back to the question of the metal windows. If one were building a house, the architect would have to retain some freedom if there is to be a tenant ultimately, about bathroom furniture and kitchen fittings and so on. These are put in as prime costs. You must have some reservation about the final choice of the bathroom and kitchen fittings. It does not add to the costs to retain a choice up to the last moment.

824. Chairman.—Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—There was no question of a client involved, you were the client. My experience is that if you plan even the smallest item you have a cleaner and a neater job and cheaper eventually.

825. Chairman.—Mr. Ó Riordáin.

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—In the normal type of building if you tell him you want to put in wooden windows or if you nominate a particular type of manufactured metal windows, he puts them in and you pay the costs. In this case the Government Department do not nominate the products of a particular manufacturer beforehand. You have to go through the contract procedure. It is more efficient to do it at the sub-contract stage.

826. Chairman.—Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—In my opinion you should know exactly what type of windows you are going to use. You should know exactly what you are planning for.

Deputy Molloy.—I am very glad the Comptroller and Auditor General has brought this matter up. I have noticed a tendency in public contracts to include this PC item and Mr. O’Riordan has said it is up to the architect. We know that, but it is leaving the architect too much freedom and I have had several complaints from building contractors who are involved with architects on public buildings that this PC business was becoming a racket, that they are not being tied down to a specific cost for the total completed job at the time of signing the contract, that there was this tremendous variation because this item for PC is included. I agree with what Mr. Suttle has said that every detail should be gone into before the contract is signed and that anyone who is tendering for these contracts should tender for the completed job. We should not have these large items of PC in where we know from experience what happens: a contract is given and when the building is in course of construction, the architect is free to purchase the most expensive items he can find on the market under this PC clause. Consequently the total cost of the building is far in excess of what it was at the beginning and at the time sanction was given for the building. Our experience in these matters, and indeed my experience on local authorities, is that the final figure always grossly exceeds the contract price. I feel this is something that should be looked into and I recommend that we make specific mention of this in our report. I am not referring specifically to this case; I am discussing what is happening in my experience of public contracts. This does not seem to happen where a private individual is building, enlarging his store or something else. He wants to know exactly how much it is going to cost him and he will not allow anything to be put in that will increase that cost.

Deputy Healy.—The private builder has only a certain amount of money to spend and there is a ceiling on what he intends to spend. In a Department of State there is no ceiling. They may try to get the job done as cheaply and efficiently as possible but there is no ceiling and that is a way out.

827. Deputy P. J. Burke.—They have the added protection in Transport and Power in that they have their own architects?—

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—The nett variation here is only £8,000 approximately, less that five per cent. This is because the whole cost, including PC, was estimated pretty accurately.

828. Chairman.—Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Even in the case of the windows that were mentioned, you had provision for a sum of £40,000 and you actually spent only £29,000 but it was a complete change of window from aluminium to steel. You could not call that a saving because steel windows are much costlier to maintain than aluminium.

829. Chairman.—Mr. Ó Riordáin?

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—This was a result of postponing sub-contracting for metal windows, and in consultation with the main contractor and the sub contractor the specifications for the window cladding was finalised. We made quite a marked saving on it.

830. Deputy Molloy.—Before leaving that subject, where building works like this are going on, have your Department any policy regarding experience in relation to PC items? I understand tenders are invited in most cases for the PC items, but say in the case of a job being done down the country—leave out Dublin; this particular case refers to Dublin— perhaps in Cork or Limerick, is it the policy of your Department to invite tenders from local traders who would be in a position to supply the goods required, to give local people an opportunity of tendering?—Mr. Ó Riordáin.— For the kind of services that would normally be provided locally, yes. That does not mean that in the construction of substantial buildings, we would confine ourselves to local tenders. But when it comes to operating on food or minor services.

831. No, I am talking about materials for construction. Where tenders can be invited for the supply of these goods, there are in most large towns builders’ providers who can supply these goods but in my experience sometimes they are not invited to tender for these items at all. The local trader has been overlooked. I want to know if the Department has any policy on this? I think they should have and should invite local people to tender?—That would generally be our policy but where you have a main contractor who pas put in a successful tender, I do not think you can force him to go to local traders if he does not consider it tha most economic way of performing his contract.

832. I am sorry to be dealing with this at such length—I am not dealing with your case specifically—

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—It does not arise very much with us.

Deputy Molloy.—But my experience is that a contractor does not have to say who is invited to tender for these items; it is the architect?— Where it is PC items, the architect will have a say in the subcontract. But where it is material required for the main contract which is being executed to the specifications of the architect, I imagine they would have to leave the main contractor full freedom. I do not think we are in a position to impose any restriction.

833. My experience is that the architects invite tenders and in some Government jobs they have overlooked inviting local builder’s providers to submit tenders?—The Department itself is very much at pains to invite local tenders but I could not answer for main contractors on large contracts.

834. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“65. The same firm of quantity surveyors was employed to measure variations and prepare the final account. The scale of professional charges provides for a reduced over-all fee where the quantity surveyor is, before the project commences, employed to prepare the bill of quantities and to settle the final account but in this case the quantity syrveyor was not engaged to measure the variations and settle the final account until three months after the contract had been placed and the benefit of the reduced rate of fee was not obtained. I have communicated with the Accounting Officer.”

835. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that it is not possible to decide in advance whether the inclusive scale will prove cheaper in the case of any individual project. If the variations are appreciable, the inclusive scale could cost more. The use of the inclusive scale in the case of the Tasc building would have saved £482.

836. Chairman.—What rates are charged by quantity surveyors?

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—There is an alternative scale of fees. In the first scale you can hire the quantity surveyor for 3½ per cent. of your total amount. Alternatively, you can have him at the basic scale of 2 per cent. of the estimated cost for the preparation of building quantities and at 3 per cent. for the measurement of variations. This works out so that if there is a large number of variations it is cheaper one way; if there is a small number of variations it is cheaper the other way. In the Pier No. 2 building at Dublin we paid him on the basic scale and this resulted in a saving of £678. It is difficult in advance to see which is going to be the cheaper way. This new scale was introduced in 1958 and Government Departments in particular were very chary about it for a long time. The tendency was to stick to the old scale. We are changing somewhat and we start off with a prejudice in favour of the 3½ per cent. but we do not attempt to come to a definite decision until we try to make some estimate of how the alternative would work out. We cannot always be right.

837. Chairman.—Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“Subhead K.1.—Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited (Grant-in-Aid)

66. Grants to the company for its general purposes under the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited Acts, 1959 to 1965, including £320,000 charged to this subhead, amounted to £2,355,500 at 31st March 1967. The amount of these grants may not exceed £3,000,000.

The amount which the Minister for Finance may issue from the Central Fund to take up shares in the company is limited to £6,000,000. £330,000 issued during the year brought the total issues to £4,472,000 by 31st March 1967.

Subhead K.2.—Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited—Housing Subsidies and Grants

67. Section 5 of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited (Amendment) Act, 1963, empowers the Minister to pay grants to the company in respect of houses provided as part of a scheme for the provision of houses and community services for the purposes of the industrial estate at the airport. Subsidies are paid annually to enable the company to let houses at reduced rents; the amount paid in the year was, as shown in the account, £41,500. No new houses were completed during the year, accordingly no grants equivalent to those normally payable under the Housing Acts were paid.

Section 4 of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited (Amendment) Act, 1965, limits advances to the company from the Central Fund for housing and community services to £3,000,000. £520,000 advanced during the year brought the total advances to £2,529,000 by 31st March, 1967.”

Deputy P. J. Burke.—You are satisfied, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

838. Chairman.—How many people are employed on the estate now?—Mr. Ó Riordáin. —3,800.

839. How many of these reside in the company’s houses?—There are 700 families housed now by the company.

840. Chairman.—Can you give us any indication as to how the airport has benefited from the development? There was a notion at one time that there would be a great deal of benefit from air freightage?—It has benefited considerably. Of course, there has been this increase in freight because of the factories and, as well as that, there is a considerable amount of tourist promotion directed to attracting traffic to the Shannon region.

841. Deputy P. J. Burke.—The policy of the Department is to have a free airport and to have an industrial estate at Shannon. You are discouraging it in Dublin county very much. I do not want you to answer that question now but that question was asked last night at a planning meeting at which I was present. That would be a question for another day.

Mr. Ó Riordáin.—And for another man.

Chairman.—We cannot expect the Accounting Officer to go into that.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—It was just an observation. I was at a planning meeting last night at which this matter was raised.

842. Chairman.—In regard to the houses provided by the company, the Accounting Officer says there are 700 families. How many of these, at this stage, are paying the economic rent of the houses?—In the case of the executive type houses the economic rent is paid. It is the worker type houses that are subsidised—the smaller houses.

843. What is the number paying the economic rent?—Ten per cent pay the economic rent.

Chairman.—We can now turn to the Vote itself.

844. Deputy Healy.—In regard to subhead B.1.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses— could we get an explanation of the £12,000 referred to in the explanatory note which states that incidental expenses are variable and accurate estimation is not possible. What is meant?—In the year in question we had more classes and courses, increased training. We sent a lot of staff to the Institute of Public Administration and there are technical courses elsewhere for technical people. There were uniform costs. The Post Office brought their accounts up to date. An extra sum became payable in that year. We had freight for various things. There was advertising, newspapers, Stationery Office accounts; radio sonde awards, that is, awards to people who find meterological balloons; medical and other examination fees. They were up because we had transferred medical examinations from the Army to the Aer Lingus doctor and we pay Aer Lingus. We have miscellaneous staff at Shannon and Cork Airports. We have expenses in connection with the part of O’Connell Bridge House that we occupy, and other minor miscellaneous expenses. It is a kind of rag-bag item.

845. Deputy Healy.—In regard to subhead E.—Grants for Harbours—how is the work on harbours going at the present time? It has been delayed up to this. Has it come anywhere near what had been hoped for?—The sum provided is the total payments in grants that we estimate ahead for the year. It is a very difficult subhead to estimate. It usually involves a number of harbours and the rate of expenditure is within their hands. We also have to put in provisional estimates to cover possible grants that might be approved but have not yet been. It is difficult to estimate accurately. We tend to underspend. You must make provision but the Harbour Commissioners may not spend the money.

846. Chairman.—What proportion is borne by the Department and the harbour authorities?—It varies very much. It depends on the economic criteria. The policy is that we do not give a grant unless it is shown to be both essential and likely to give an economic return.

847. In respect of this year what harbours were given grants?—There was work at Arklow, on a hydraulic model; Ballina, pier reconstruction; Drogheda—hydraulic model investigation. One of the difficulties that arose in Drogheda was that although a grant of £175,000 was approved some years ago they have been unable to spend this because of the difficulties they found in formulating a satisfactory plan. They have had to get a hydraulic model of the harbour to discover what works would be successful in remedying the problems there. That is not completed yet.

848. Deputy Molloy.—Where did they get the model done?—I think the model in the case of Drogheda is a Dutch one. There are two places—Delft in Holland and Wallingford in England—where there are specialist institutes that do this kind of thing. We also had grants paid at Foynes, Galway, New Ross, Sligo and Wicklow in that year.

849. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Small harbours do not come under your Department?—Not the fishery harbours. They are dealt with by another Department.

850. Chairman.—Does subhead K.2— Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited—Housing Subsidies and Grants— cover both housing and community services?—

No. K.2 is just Housing Subsidies and Grants.

851. Chairman.—Could you give us a breakdown in respect of the housing up to the end of the financial year? How much has been given by way of repayable advances and subsidy?— The subsidy paid was £41,000, and the provision for housing grants was a token of £10. No grant fell to be paid in that year.

852.—I was trying to find out how much had been given, up to date, in the form of subsidy and in the form of grant for housing?—We could send a note on that.

Paragraph 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states £2,529,000 was advanced up to 31st March, 1967; that is the total advance. Some of these advances are repayable and some are not?—I have not got the figures. We will send a note on that.*

853. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On the explanation note on subhead A, do you find it hard to get professional and technical staff?—Yes, we do. There are difficulties.

We find it very hard in the County of Dublin to get technical staff?—We have had difficulties, both in getting posts approved and in recruiting suitable men.

854. Deputy Healy.—On the Statement of Expenditure and Revenue in respect of State Airports, how do the days of closure owing to bad weather compare at the three airports?— Fortunately, bad weather does not usually coincide at the different airports. I do not think I have detailed particulars of the average weather or the incidence of particular types of weather at the airports.

I should like to get if I could, the average number of days that Shannon Airport has been closed down in the last five years, and the average number of days for Dublin and Cork in the same period?—I understand that at Cork the percentage closure is 3 per cent; and at Shannon and Dublin, a little under 2 per cent is the average over the year.

855. Is it true that Cork is lacking in some instrumentation that other airports have and that could be used in doubtful weather?—No, not really.

It is just as well equipped?—It is, yes. They deal with different types of aircraft. It is a very complicated, technical question you get into on this. There was a Parliamentary reply on this question some months ago in relation to one particular radar item; there had been some misunderstanding about the position.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. S. Réamonn called and examined.

856. Chairman.—Paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Revenue Account

10. A test examination of the Revenue Account yielded satisfactory results, with the exception of the matters mentioned later in this report.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Matters arising out of my examination of the Revenue Account are referred to in paragraphs 15 to 18 of my Report.

857. Chairman.—Paragraph 11 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“11. The net yield of revenue for the years 1966-67 and 1965-66, under its main heads, is shown in the following statement:—

£221,552,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £114,783 as compared with £79,935 at the end of the previous financial year.”

858. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph gives the net yield of revenue under its main heads for the year 1966-67, together with the comparative figures for 1965-66. Wholesale tax appears as one of the heads of revenue for the first time in 1966-67, and I refer to the introduction of this tax in paragraph 20.

859. Chairman.—Paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“12. I have been furnished with the following analysis of amounts of income tax, sur-tax and corporation profits tax outstanding:—

Comparative totals for the previous year are—Income tax, £6,254,202; Sur-tax, £1,355,432; Corporation Profits tax, £1,133,435.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add.

860. Chairman.—I notice that the income tax due for collection is much higher than it was in the previous years?—The trend of the figures is something I should like to refer to briefly, that is to say, the trend over the past six or seven years of income tax arrears. As at 1st June, 1960, the total was £10.268 million for the years up to and including 1958-59. In the following year according to the balance struck as at 1st June and covering the years 1959-60 and prior years, the total income tax arrears were £9.429 million. Then, especially having regard to the introduction of PAYE, we brought down the figure until the balance struck as at 1st June, 1964, was £4.466 million covering the years up to and including 1962-63. Then there was an increase, as you have said, Mr. Chairman, and at 1st June, 1966, we had a total figure of £6.254 million for the years up to and including 1964-65. The figure now before you is £8.166 million as at 1st June, 1967, for the years up to and including 1965-66. What happened was that prior to the introduction of PAYE a great drive was made to decrease the arrears so as to leave a clean field, as it were, for the new system of deducting tax from remuneration. The new system of deducting income tax from remuneration had a tendency to decrease, in fact almost to terminate, any question of arrears in the income tax domain. You will recall that on the Appropriation Accounts for 1961-62, this Committee drew attention to the risk of an erroneous impression being created by this global figure and suggested we should get in touch with the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the possibility of improving the form of the statement. The result is the form now in front of you. The tax due for collection is £811,881. I might remark in passing that the figure of £597,158 is not more than one per cent of the charge. Before coming to the precise point you have raised, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that between 1st June, 1967, and 31st December, 1967, we collected £.981 million. In fact, by 31st December, 1967, including income tax, sur tax and corporation profits tax, of the amount due for collection we had collected £1.749 million. There are two reasons for the apparent increase in arrears. First of all, there was the introduction of the system of one taxpayer one charge which was brought in in 1963-64 for ten pilot districts in the country and which was extended to the entire country in 1964-65. This innovation entailed the precaution of ensuring that the new system would work properly. One result was a slowing down in the issue of notices of assessment. In consequence the hearing of appeals in many cases was deferred and in consequence once again, the arrears increased for the time being until such time as those appeals were heard and determined because it is not possible to collect tax which is under appeal. There is another reason and it is this. The charge has been increasing with increases in remuneration, buoyancy of trade profits and so on. If the charge increases the arrears will increase. The charge for 1963-64 was about 15 per cent higher than the charge for the previous year, 1962-63. So far as corporation profits tax is concerned, we cannot examine the position without referring to section 37 of the Finance Act, 1963, which as regards companies with profits of more than £2,500 raised the rate from ten per cent to 15 per cent. Where profits up to £2,500 were concerned with no liability previously, that section imposed a charge of 5 per cent. These charges had effect from 1st January, 1962, and consequently would have an effect on the arrears.

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

“Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and other Duties

13. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties, £17,117, Excise duties, £20,587, Turnover tax £19 and Stamp duties, £545 were made during the year.”

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee.

862. Chairman.—Paragraph 14 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Remissions and Amounts Irrecoverable

14. 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 31st March 1967.

The total amount of the items included in the schedules, £36,132, is made up as follows:—

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

I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results.”

Mr. Suttle.—Again, this paragraph is for the information of the Committee.

863. Chairman.—Paragraphs 15 to 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:

“Income Tax (Pay as you earn)

15. I found as a result of my examination that the records of defaulting employers in tax deduction card cases were incomplete and I asked for an explanation. I was informed that existing machine resources were such that it would have been difficult to note against each case the progressive action taken but when employer records are transferred to the new computer installation a comprehensive record could be maintained. I was also informed that there were 600 cases of underpayments in train for recovery action and 1,000 cases of employers who had failed to send in monthly returns. All these cases were, I was informed, under continuous review but the Revenue Commissioners were reluctant to operate the normal procedure of pursuing them through the Audit Branch or the Arrears Branch since these branches were already overburdened with cases having a much higher revenue content.

16. In reply to my inquiry as to why final action had not been taken against any defaulting employer in stamp book cases, I was informed that here again the bulk of initial investigation would ordinarily fall to the audit staff who had to be diverted to work relating to turnover and wholesale taxes. It was considered that the follow-up of the defaulters was less urgent because the amount of tax involved was small but the question of recovery measures would be reviewed.

Turnover Tax

17. I mentioned in paragraph 13 of my report on the accounts for 1964-65 that returns of taxable turnover were being compared with annual accounts furnished for income tax purposes. In the course of examination of the results I observed that no check had been made of returns in the Dublin districts and that the comparisons which had been made covered only about one-third of all registered persons. As this comparison is the principal check on returns for turnover tax I communicated with the Accounting Officer. I was informed that new and unforeseeable work in connection with dance and wholesale taxes had delayed the production of turnover tax summaries. The Revenue Commissioners hoped that the introduction of a new computer would solve these difficulties.

18. Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1966 increased, with effect from 1st May 1966, the rate of turnover tax on dances to 10 per cent. I observed that the procedures introduced to prevent evasion and to ensure the accuracy of the returns made by accounttable persons were not being fully implemented. In reply to my inquiry I was informed that because of staffing difficulties, trained personnel were diverted to work in connection with the new wholesale tax which was estimated to yield £5,000,000 in a full year as against £200,000 from the turnover tax on dances.

19. My conclusion is that the arrangements by the Revenue Commissioners were inadequate to effectively safeguard the revenue and that while the Commissioners believed that they had their priorities right it is unsatisfactory that a choice had to be made which involved the deferment of full enforcement procedures in the cases that I have referred to in paragraphs 15 to 18 above.”

864. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Here my comment is general on paragraphs 15 to 19. My examination of the revenue account is carried out with a view to ensuring that adequate procedures are in operation to secure an effective check on the assessment and collection of revenue. In the case of income tax under the PAYE scheme and of turnover tax I found that full enforcement procedures had been relaxed because of staff problems. That is why I have mentioned the matter.

865. Deputy P. J. Burke.—You have a staff problem Mr. Réamonn?—We have a considerable number of vacancies. On 1st February, 1968, we had 137 vacancies. But would you like me to speak about paragraphs 15—19?

866. Chairman.—Yes?—I thought it might help as regards the tax deduction cards and the cognate Form P.35 and also the stamp book procedure if I brought with me some specimen forms to pass round to members so that they would know what I am talking about. I am referring now to paragraph 15. As you will see a tax deduction card is a card used under the cumulative form of PAYE on which the employer makes the necessary entries to enable him to compute the tax to be deducted, or refunded, on each pay day. The employer is required to return the tax deduction cards to the inspector of taxes after the end of the tax year. Together with that he sends in Form P.35 of which you have a specimen. This is a covering certificate covering the tax deduction cards but it is also a declaration of the total tax deducted during the year.

867. It is our function to attempt to reconcile the total tax deductions as shown on form P.35 and the tax deduction cards. It has not hitherto been possible in the case of what we call a defaulting employer, an employer who fails to remit the tax he has deducted from his employees, to co-ordinate his monthly defaults. According to the latest figures, there is a total of more than 70 PAYE default cases with the Arrears Branch at present and also many hundreds of cases on hands in the course of transmission to the Arrears Branch covering all years up to 1965-66. The procedure we have adopted is that the registered numbers of the various employers are run each month through the electronic computer. If in this process no payment is noted to be against a particular employer, this throws the case up as one of a defaulting employer. If he has remitted a payment but it is in reality an insufficient payment this fact is not shown; indeed, it would be impracticable to show this since the number of employees on the payroll of a given employer might fluctuate substantially from month to month. The big defect in the mechanical process is that it is not progressive in the sense that if the employer had not remitted a payment in a given month and had not remitted any in the previous month, this progressive default would not be made apparent from the machine records. The basic defect under the present system is that it is not possible to follow up the history of action taken on a particular default without reference to a number of sources.

868. If the machine process were on a progressive basis so that the experience of previous months as well as that of the month actually under review could be shown, then the general record of the employer would be apparent. If there were substantial fluctuations in the amounts remitted from month to month this would be apparent and would indicate that something was wrong. It would also be apparent at a glance if some months were in default and if so what action had been taken in regard to each month. When the Honeywell 1,200 configuration is in full operation there will be a progressive record month by month. The ledger sheet will display the employer’s payment month by month from the beginning of the year to the month under review and for months in default will indicate the action taken to date. The Collector-General in O’Connell Street who is in general charge of collecting the direct taxes throughout the country will be made aware at a glance of the payment record. So far as these tax deduction card cases are concerned I think we shall then be able to overcome our difficulties.

869. As regards stamp book procedure, I think this was in use in Finland and we adopted it to eliminate from the tax deduction card system, which covers the bulk of employers, those small employers who are most likely to find difficulty in the operation of PAYE on account of the absence of book-keeping systems or accountancy systems and have a small number of employees on regular pay. The design was to eliminate them from the tax deduction card system and have a simpler system for them. You will see from the forms that have been sent around that it is a very simple system. It is covered at pages 10 and 11 of the Employee’s Guide issued in connection with PAYE. In 1966-67 the PAYE tax remitted by employers was £27.2 million but the amount collected by means of stamps was only £.7 million so that it is a very small percentage of the total. The trouble here was that the audit staff had to be diverted to more urgent and important work concerning the operation of the turnover and wholesale taxes. A number of default cases has been sent to inspectors for local action and a small number also to the Arrears Branch.

870. I should say—and this refers not merely to the tax deduction card cases but also to stamp book cases—that we have had quite serious difficulty in the legislative field and if, as we are confident, these difficulties are removed by legislation it will enable the collection to proceed much more smoothly than heretofore and the cases will be disposed of far more rapidly in future.

871. As regards the turnover tax which is mentioned in Paragraph 17, turnover tax returns have now been compared with annual accounts submitted for income tax purposes in 14 of the 15 districts outside Dublin. Discrepancies have been or are being investigated. Thirteen of these districts have been visited by the auditors who make on the spot comparison between the trader’s returns and his accounting records. Within the next three months the other districts outside Dublin will be visited by the auditors and a start will then be made in Dublin. The Comptroller and Auditor General says that no checks have been made in the Dublin district. We hope to remedy that situation soon in the Dublin area. In the year 1966-67 we found undercharges or irregularities in a total of 320 cases in the areas then under investigation and we took proceedings in 27 cases. As Deputy Burke pointed out, we had some difficulties about staff in this regard. At the beginning of 1966-67 we had four auditors full-time but one died in August, 1966, and was not replaced during that year. We now have the audit staff at full strength which is six and available for this class of work.

872. I might mention also that the staff engaged on turnover tax and wholesale tax duties in the tax districts was strengthened during 1966-67 by the appointment of two inspectors of taxes and six additional higher tax officers. As from 1st November, 1966, there is one inspector or higher tax officer engaged full time in each district on turnover tax and wholesale tax work. I might mention that one of the checks we apply is, of course, that we compare PAYE registrations with the turnover tax registrations. One checks with the other, although they are not fully comparable, nevertheless it is a very important check. The turnover tax returns are made month by month. The income tax return is for an accounting period of 12 months. The inspector has been depending on the Collector-General’s electronic apparatus to set up summaries of the turnover tax returns so that he might compare them with the income tax returns but the Collector-General so far has not been in a position to supply to districts full and up-to-date information in this matter but expects to do so when the Honeywell 1200 configuration is in full swing. I do not think I have anything more to say about turnover tax but perhaps a few words about dances.

873. Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1966, increased the rate of turnover tax on dances to 10 per cent. I am describing the effect of the section broadly. We in Revenue made statutory regulations (S.I. No. 77 of 1966). Also we issued a cyclostyled leaflet for the guidance of promoters and proprietors. The procedure for checking is that the promoter of a dance must notify the Collector-General on Form T.17. The Collector-General acknowledges receipt by sending Form T.18 to the promoter and he proceeds to send duplicate Form T.19 to the proprietor. The Collector-General also sends a remittance form to the promoter who is required to pay the tax within seven days after the date of the dance. It is an offence punishable by law for the proprietor to allow a dance to be held unless he has received Form T.19. The Collector-General advises the local inspector of taxes who has local knowledge and who can see local newspaper advertisements and posters, and it is his function to compare the advices he gets from the Collector-General with what he knows of his own local knowledge. If there is a dance which has not been advised to him by the Collector-General but which he knows is about to take place, he informs the Collector-General. In 1966-67 the yield from the 10 per cent. tax on dances was just £.25 million. That is a relatively small sum. I might say that we received notifications of approximately 30,000 dances.

874. In 1967 the staff was occupied very busily with the introduction and operation of the wholesale tax which came into force on 1st October, 1966, and the estimate for a full year from the wholesale tax was £5 million. The cost of administration of the turnover tax and wholesale tax is .6 per cent. It usually is possible for us to check the liability of functions held in a hotel by examining the arrangements between proprietor and promoter but in other cases full enforcement could be achieved only by having an official present for the full duration of the function and that would not always be economic. If we did give an increase of official time to the turnover tax on dances we feel that it would not produce any worthwhile results and would reduce the time available for controlling the turnover tax and wholesale tax. When the problems that I have referred to already with regard to the production of up-to-date summaries of wholesale tax and turnover tax have been resolved— in other words when, under this 1200 configuration, we get an ample flow of information, we shall be in a better position to police the turnover tax on dances.

875. Deputy Healy.—Could I take it from the remarks that have been passed that the electronic computer is not working 100 per cent yet?—The position is that we have recently surrendered the 1301 ICT computer. The 1200 computer has arrived and is in operation for current tasks but some structural alterations will be necessary before going into full operation and that will not take place, we believe, for another few months. This is a very powerful apparatus that we have installed now and I might mention, as an interesting thing, that what is called the character access time, which is jargon and means the time taken for information to be located in storage devices in a machine, is 1.5 millionth of a second, which represents great power. I should like to mention, as it might be of interest, that we have had under consideration the use in customs and excise of the electronic apparatus which so far has been used in connection with direct taxes, if I may so describe income tax, sur-tax, corporation profits tax and the turnover taxes. We have had under consideration questions of the future development of systems and processes concerning customs and excise revenue accounting and the production of trade statistics. We have had a preliminary examination of this question carried out with particular reference to the possibilities inherent in the application of modern techniques of electronic data processing. It is only at an early stage. We have come to the conclusion that it is essential to take steps forthwith to improve the systems of data processing used for customs and excise revenue accounting and the production of trade statistics and it seems clear to us that the only way to achieve significant improvement is to process the data by computer. I cannot say any more about the subject at this stage because it is still in process of examination.

876. Chairman.—Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Wholesale Tax

20. The Finance (No 2) Act, 1966, provided for the introduction with effect as from 1 October 1966, of a wholesale tax at the rate of five per cent of taxable turnover payable monthly. I have not yet had an opportunity of testing the procedures and accounting arrangements which have been put into operation.”

877. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The procedures adopted to check the accuracy of returns differ from those for turnover tax insofar as the monthly declarations are photocopied and sent to inspectors for the appropriate district. At the time of the audit the whoesale tax had not been in operation sufficiently long to permit the effectiveness of the procedures to be tested fully.

878. Chairman.—We can now turn to the Vote itself. In regard to subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—a sum of £5,050 is shown in the Book of Estimates as staff expenses in a conjoint office in the United Kingdom?—Yes. We have with the United Kingdom a double taxation relief arrangement which goes back to the year 1926. I think, it is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, double income tax relief arrangements in the world and it is based on what we sometimes, in a shorthand way, describe as the reciprocal exemption of the non-resident. In other words, if a person is resident in Ireland for a particular year, then he will not be liable to United Kingdom income tax on his United Kingdom income for that year; and if he suffers United Kingdom income tax by deduction he is entitled to get repayment. We charge him the gross amount and then, of course, conversely. A person could be resident in both countries for a particular year. He could be resident in Ireland for tax purposes and resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes. What happens in that case is that both countries charge but both countries share their proportion of the double taxation relief, and in the end the man is left bearing the higher of the two taxes. Right from the beginning we had what we call a Conjoint Office, which is in London. It is staffed partly by Irish staff and partly by United Kingdom staff. The reason for its existence is that this double taxation relief for the double resident is rather complicated, and any double resident is entitled to approach the Conjont Office for assistance in working out the computation and determining relief. As I said, we provide half the staff and the United Kingdom the other half up to a certain point, but beyond that point the United Kingdom would provide the staff and we share the cost; in other words, although it is United Kingdom staff we contribute towards the cost of maintaining that staff.

879. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead E.— Motor Vehicles—what were the motor vehicles for?—We have a fleet of motor cars chiefly for Border patrol work. In the year 1966-67 the total number of motor cars in the fleet varied between 23 and 27; and in addition to that we had 14 motor cycles. There is an excess over the provision in this case, and it is due to the fact that we provided for buying only three cars, whereas we bought five, and we paid also for a car which had been delivered in the preceding year, 1965-66 and for which the account came in 1966-67.

880. Were the cars which were purchased replacing other cars?—That is so. What happened was that at the beginning of 1966-67 we had 25 cars, and we got five more; that meant 30. During the year five cars were classified as unfit; and subtracting five from the 30 left us with 25. During the year two of the cars classified as unfit were sold, and at the end of the year five cars were awaiting disposal. I should say that in this matter of motor cars we avail ourselves of the experience, help and service of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

881. If two cars were sold, they must have been sold at an average of £60 apiece. There is an item in the Appropriations in Aid: “Sale of official cars, £120.”?—Yes, I think so.

882. Were they sold at a public auction?— That is done by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I understand it is done by public auction.

883. Somebody got good value. What age would these cars be?—At one time we used to run them for an awfully long time, but in recent years we have been changing them more frequently. I cannot give you a precise answer except that we change them more frequently now than we used to.

884. Deputy Cluskey.—How do you purchase new cars?—That is done through the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I would not know anything about that.

A person would get a lot more on a trade-in.

Mr. Suttle.—The Post Office get various discounts because they are continually buying and selling cars. The number of cars in use by the Revenue Commissioners is comparatively small and they are included in the Post Office transactions.

885. Deputy Molloy.—You are satisfied, Mr. Suttle, that the cars were not sold below their market value?

Mr. Suttle.—I have an idea of how these cars are used on the Border, and they have a very hard life.

Mr. Réamonn.—Even if it is a short life, it is a merry one.

886. Chairman.—On subhead H.—Expenses in connection with International Organisations—the explanation says that the subscription to the International Union for the Publication of Customs Tariffs did not arise?— A convention creating the International Union for the Publication of Customs Tariffs was drawn up and signed at Brussels as long ago as 1890, but coming to our own time a protocol modifying the provisions of the Convention was signed once again at Brussels in 1949 and came into force in 1950. The object of all this is to provide for the publication, as promptly and as accurately as possible, of the customs tariffs of the various countries in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. The work of the translation and publication is financed by subscriptions from the member countries. Ireland is at present the only European country not a member of the Union, but I understand that we will shortly become a member and then the subscription will become due. The reason why there is no expenditure here is that we are not yet a member of the Union.

887. Deputy P. J. Burke.—What is the benefit of membership?—We have to pay, I think, about £2,000 a year, and for that we would be entitled to receive 100 copies of each of the publications of the Bureau of the Union which would include our own tariffs, and they would be available in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish, and at the same time our tariffs would be sent to each of the participating countries. It is really a question of getting authentic and quick information about the tariff systems of the various countries which are members of the Union.

888. Deputy Cluskey.—On Extra Remuneration—there is a reference to rewards for the detection of smuggling. Would these be full-time customs officers?—Yes. There is a scale of rewards for detections.

889. Deputy P. J. Bourke—This is good encouragement?—If you will allow me to say so, the note on extra remuneration is very much condensed because, if it were not, it would undoubtedly be too long, but it suffers from condensation in this respect. It is apt to be misleading. Of the total amount virtually 99 per cent is simply overtime.

890. Deputy Cluskey.—I should like to make it clear that I am not questioning this. I just wanted an explanation of the rewards for detection?—If you would like a little more information, in the year under review, 1966-67, 246 members of the Customs and Excise staff obtained rewards ranging from 4/- to £42. The total was £1,398.

891. Deputy Molloy.—What are the test bets referred to under the appropriations in aid?— We have men policing the betting duties. They go in to see that all the bets are entered in the bookmakers’ sheets. For this purpose they make bets.

A loss is shown here?—I am sorry about that.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—They were down the field.

892. Chairman.—The amount paid in respect of overtime was £252,695?—This is chiefly for Customs and Excise. There was a tendency towards an increase in overtime with the general increase in Civil Service remuneration during the period in question, 1966-67. The increase in the Customs and Excise service overtime was due almost entirely to a revision of the rates of pay of the preventive staff. Approximately £36,000 was paid, including £24,000 arrears, but the increase in overtime was offset to some extent by a decrease in other parts of the Customs and Excise. Overtime is also offset by fees from what we call merchants’ requests where a merchant wants the attendance of an officer outside official hours and pays a fee.

893. Deputy Molloy.—I should like to make a correction. The item relating to test bets appears as a credit balance.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—They did back the right horse.

894. Chairman.—Money is received for the special attendance of officers?—We call them merchants’ requests in our jargon.

895. Deputy Cluskey.—If you find that a merchant is overcharging—if you make a purchase valued at 7/- and he says it is 7/plus 5d. which would be in excess of the proper turnover tax—would you take any action against him?—That is really a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is not a Revenue matter. We cannot interfere. It does not arise here.

You would not take any legal action?—No.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 21—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. P. Berry called.

No questions.

VOTE 22—GÁRDA SIOCHÁNA.

Mr. P. Berry examined.

896. Chairman.—Paragraph 30 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.—Station Services

30. Annual fuel and light allowances for Garda stations are based on the number of public rooms but if the allowances are found to be insufficient the vouched excess cost is also paid. The rates, which have remained unchanged for more than 40 years, sufficed for half of all the stations but the amounts paid in some of the other cases were as much as five times the appropriate allowance. The basic standards, in my opinion, are unrealistic and I invited the observations of the Accounting Officer. He replied that in some stations increased costs had been offset by a reduction in manpower and hours of attendance but that in others increased costs, an extension of the official heating season, increased incidence of night duty and variations in size and condition of stations and strength of station parties had rendered the allowances inadequate. While he admitted that the old rates are no longer realistic he stated that there had been no general revision as they covered costs for up to 50 per cent. of stations.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add to the information in the paragraph.

897. Chairman.—Has the Accounting Officer any comment to make on this paragraph?—I should like to say I have no very strong feelings on this at all. I see no balance of advantage by changing from the existing system and raising the standard rate. At present we have 720 Gárda stations, of which 357 are adequately catered for by the present standard rate, that is, approximately 50 per cent. There have been no complaints from the Force that anyone is suffering any hardship by getting this standard rate. It seems to me that it would be inevitable if we were to raise the standard rate that those who are now satisfied would up their demands. There is no accounting problem. There is not very much staff work involved in adjusting claims. As I say, I have no very strong feelings on this but I see no balance of advantage in a change.

898. Deputy Molloy.—There has been no demand for a change from the Force itself?— None in the world. Of 720 stations, approximately half, 357, have accepted the standard rate. No question has been raised of increasing it or that it is inadequate.

Chairman.—We now turn to the Vote itself on page 47.

899. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On the Statement of Losses, may I ask if any remuneration or appreciation of good citizenship is given to people who go to help gardaí in trouble?— Under the present system we give an ex gratia payment but the Minister has announced that in a forthcoming Bill he expects to introduce this session we will put it on a statutory basis.

900. I think it is long overdue?—Again, we have not had complaints and we give an ex gratia grant whenever this arises.

I do not want to pursue something that we should really discuss in the House but people will come along and say: “If I go to help a garda in trouble and if I am hurt I shall fall to the ground between two stools”.

901. Deputy Molloy.—On Appropriations in Aid, could I have an explanation of the item relating to Payment from the Road Fund?— The position is that pursuant to the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, the Minister for Finance approved of the determination of the expenses incurred by the Garda Commissioner in respect of each of the financial years 1960-61 to 1966-67, inclusive, at a sum equivalent to the amount collected in respect of fines and penalties, including fines-on-the-spot, plus 1½ per cent of the remaining income of the Road Fund from motor taxation, that is after the deduction of fines and penalties. In the financial year 1966-67 the sum received was £358,039. Fines-on-the-spot have been operated from April, 1963, and the amount of receipts under fines and penalties has increased. The following are particulars of road traffic fines and fines-on-the-spot in the years 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 respectively: road traffic fines—£127,057; £172,262 and £165,150; fines-on-the-spot £29,061; £54,296; and £63,682. Initially introduced in the Dublin area the fine-on-the-spot was 10/- but it was increased to £1 in August, 1964. The scheme has since been extended to the cities of Cork, Limerick, Galway and the town of Bray.

902. Last year your total for 1966-67 was £66,000?—No, £63,682.

The figure of £66,000 was given last year to the Committee? You have given different figures now?—I am informed that the explanation is that the figures I have given are for the financial year. The figures given previously were for the calendar year.

903. Chairman.—Is the 1½ per cent deduction from the Road Fund after the deduction of fines and penalties a fixed amount all the time?—It has been fixed but we have been anxious to change it upwards. We have not got the consent of the Minister for Local Government. The amount of time spent by the gardaí on road traffic duties is far more now than it was some years ago and the 1½ per cent does not really recompense us in our view.

904. Deputy Molloy.—Would it not be cheaper to employ traffic wardens rather than gardaí for this work?—Road traffic duties are not confined to those which might be performed by traffic wardens. In the Road Traffic Bill before the House at the moment there is statutory provision for the employment of traffic wardens and it has been announced in the House that it is the intention to employ them in relation to simple duties, such as parking in particular, beginning with Dublin where there will be 60 to 100 when the system is established and extending to Cork, Limerick, Galway and various centres like that. The intention is that the men will be part-time, employed at brief periods, say for four hours a day. Broadly it is intended that they will be retired gardaí or gardaí in a position to retire. It is essential that in the establishment of a service like this we should have persons of trust.

905. This will reduce the cost of gardaí providing this traffic service? This is partly the intention behind the Bill?—Yes, but coterminous with that I should mention that all the time the duties of the gardaí are increasing. Our present strength of 6,560 is not an adequate figure in our view to cope with crime matters today. We shall save in that we shall not have to employ the extra gardaí which both the Commissioner and the Minister for Justice feel at the moment should be employed, on these simple duties.

906. Deputy Cluskey.—On Appropriations in Aid, payments for services rendered by the gardaí, what type of service is this?—I have a note on this. I have actually given it to the Public Accounts Committee previously. Briefly this arises where gardaí are employed in places like Croke Park. Since the inception of the Force it has been the practice to provide members for duty inside the grounds at important sporting and other events at which large crowds assemble, at the request of the promoters of the events, on the understanding that the latter pay the cost of the services. In gensral, the duty consists of keeping race courses and playing pitches free from encroachment and of preventing the public from injuring exhibits, etc. Up to 1952 it was the practice to provide the personnel for non-public duty from among members on duty. Since then such a practice has not always been possible, and the Minister for Finance has sanctioned the provision of members, to the extent to which the number of members available for duty falls short of the strength required, from among those who volunteer to perform the work during leave or while off duty. At first this sanction was confined to the DMD area. In 1960 it was extended to the cities of Cork, Limerick and Waterford, and in 1965 it was extended to Kilkenny in connection with the Kilkenny Beer Festival. On 21st May, 1965, delegated authority was given for an extention of the arrangements to any other centres on condition that the authority would be used sparingly and that for the purpose of policing each event the maximum number of gardaí would be provided from members on duty. Up to July, 1966, the amount charged to requisitioning bodies was based on the average pay of members plus boot, cycle and uniform allowances and a sum for medical expenses, plus an element, 5 per cent, in respect of the cost of administration plus a 25 per cent addition to pay in respect of pension. On this basis the rates chargeable for the period from April to June 1966 were: inspector 14/8d. per hour; sergeant 11/7d. per hour; guard 9/9d. per hour. In July, 1966, it was decided that the rates chargeable should be based on once and a half the average rate of pay plus the usual additions for allowances, et cetera. On this basis the rates now are: inspector £1 1s. 0d. per hour; sergeant 17/7.d per hour; guard 14/7d. per hour. The “volunteer” members whose services are utilised are paid at an hourly rate equal to once and a half their hourly rate of pay, on the basis of an average working week of 48 hours. During 1966-67 the amount recovered for the services of members employed on non-public duty was £6,907 and the amount paid to “volunteer” members was £4,519.

907. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Would the man who volunteers for that off-time duty have that extra money for himself?—That is right. He is paid this when off duty. He is allowed to do this turn of duty, say, in Croke Park.

You do not come into it when he is off duty. Is that the position?—No. We have a very great interest.

908. Is it you who pay him?—We recover from the promoter the full sum. We recover three over two as we have to take into account pensionability. We just pay him the rate.

It is you who really pay him all the time?— Yes.

909. Deputy Cluskey.—There was a function held by some international body in relation to a charity, in Enniskerry, sometime last year or the year before at which a large number of police were employed. Princess Grace had something to do with it?—Of course, that was an ordinary tour of duty. That was direct police duty for which nobody pays.

Although there would be a large influx and extra men needed?—That was ordinary police duty, where a head of State such as Princess Grace or President Kennedy would be involved.

910. It was not ordinary official duty; it was promoted by some international group?—It is ordinary police duty when on the public thoroughfare. That would not be included in this. There would be no charge.

The charity to which I refer was in a private place—Powerscourt?—I do not know the facts in this particular instance.

911. Chairman.—In the Statement of Losses, I notice that in 182 accidents involving Garda Síochána vehicles, the damage amounting to £4,488 was not attributable to Garda personnel. On foot of five of these cases sums totalling £57 were recovered and in 26 other cases £581. It seems a small amount of money to receive if a garda is not responsible?—In matters of this kind we are always in the hands of the Chief State Solicitor. We act according to his advice. Immediately an accident occurs in which there is a possibility of liability the facts are brought to his notice and then it is for the Chief State Solicitor, on our behalf, to do what he can.

912. Deputy Cluskey.—In the Notes, I see that expenditure under subhead F includes £137 for third party insurance in respect of the use of Garda Síochána cars in Northern Ireland. Would that be Border patrol?—Insurance of official cars for travel in the Six Counties was first sanctioned by the Minister for Finance in 1937, following a prosecution of a garda who was involved in an accident in County Armagh the previous year while driving an official car. The garda was fined £1 and 3/- expenses for not being insured against third party risks. It has been the practice since then to insure garda cars which are used for travel in the Six Counties. During 1966-67 the following cars were insured: Garda Síochána cars at Letterkenny, Monaghan, Sligo, Dundalk, Ballyshannon, Buncrana, Carrickmacross, Cavan and Ballinamore: two cars at Dublin Castle and two cars at the Garda Depot. The premium for these cars was £84 10s. 3d. In addition, the premium paid to cover journeys made by Ministers’ cars through Six-County territory was £52 10s. 0d. This brings the total cost of insurance for the year 1966-67 to £137 0d. 3d.

VOTE 23—PRISONS.

No questions.

VOTE 24—COURTS.

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

913. Chairman.—Could the Accounting Officer give an explanation of the Note showing Fees (stamps) received in respect of the various courts.? Could he say what precisely these are?—I have not got the particulars with me but I will send a note.*

VOTE 25—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. P. Berry further examined.

914. Chairman.—On the Note—how are these fees levied? Is it on a valuation basis?— The Exchequer Extra Receipts consist of (1) Land Registry (Stamps); (2) Registry of Deeds Fees (Stamps) and (3) Cash received for searches made on the requisition of the Government of Northern Ireland. The general public pay for requisitions in stamps while the Government of Northern Ireland settle annually with the Department of Finance which transfers the amount to the Exchequer and then notifies the Department of Justice (File 42/5). The last mentioned are small and infrequent. The fees to be charged under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899 are denoted Land Registry Stamps. The Registry of Deeds fees are collected in stamps, those in force having been specified in the Schedules to 2 and 3 Will, IV. C.87, and 11 and 12 Vict., C. 120 Treasury Orders of 1916 and Registry of Deeds (Fees) Order, 1962 (No. 195). According to the Finance Accounts for the financial year 1966-67 the amounts received were: Land Registry Fee Stamps—£233,259 and Registration of Deeds Fee Stamps— £62,582.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—I suppose you will be glad to know, Mr. Berry, that there are very good accounts on this Land Registry department. Some of my constituents are very pleased with the expedition with which registration is done?—I am very glad to hear that.

915. Chairman.—The amount paid for registration is based on the valuation?—Yes.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix 25.

* See Appendix 26.