|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 19 Bealtaine, 1977.Thursday, 19th May, 1977.The Committee met at 11.30 a.m.
DEPUTY de VALERA in the chair. Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.VOTE 26—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.Miss A. Tormey called and examined.95. Chairman.—Miss Tormey, you are very welcome on your first appearance before this Committee. —Thank you. Deputy C. Murphy.—Does the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office act as an agency? Is that its function? —No. The Commissioners derive their authority under the Charities Act, 1961 and they act as trustees of charitable trusts. They superintend investment of capital moneys and the application of the annual income. They are appointed by the Government and give their services voluntarily. The travelling and incidental expenses mentioned would be the expenses of our messenger to the banks, purchase of stationery and supplies. The Commissioners have a dinner, and sometimes two dinners, each year. In regard to legal fees, our solicitor, Mr. Green, has very kindly not requested any fees. Thank you. I was quite ignorant of what this Vote was about but I am now much more enlightened. Mr. Mac Gearailt.—We have nothing to do with the actual funds. They are entirely separate. 96. Chairman.—The Commissioners control charities in a general and very equitable way. The court officers are more cognisant of what they do than the Legislature. —That is correct. Thank you, Miss Tormey. The witness withdrew. VOTE 21—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.Mr. A. Ward called and examined.97. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General has no comment to make which is always a happy situation for the Committee, the Department of Finance, and, no doubt, for the Accounting Officer. Under subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is a note reading: A sum of £39,000 was received from the Vote for Remuneration (No. 51). Expenditure was £37,896 more than granted. That means that you got more from Vote 51 than you really needed? —Yes. That is all it means; is that correct? —Yes, that is correct. The £39,000 was spent. The surplus was covered by the £39,000. Is that not what it means? Mr. Mac Gearailt.—No, the £39,000 is in addition to the charge here. 98. Chairman.—I am sorry, I misread my figures. Under subhead D—Payments to the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for Ireland—I see there is a note reading: No expenditure was incurred on the publication of legal text books and an anticipated need for an increase in the grant did not materialise. I think we discussed this on previous occasions? —That is correct. Does any problem arise in this field that would result, so to speak, in a sudden increased demand for expenditure at some time? —No. Because you are surrendering your surpluses, if any? —It just happens that during the year no proposal was ripe for the publication of a text book. It is unlikely that any large number of proposals would come at any one time. That is the nature of the service. 99. From the administrative point of view are there any difficulties arising that would lead to delays or anything like that through the absence of adequate reference books? —As a Member of the Dáil the Chairman will have seen that an effort is made, in many Bills coming from the Department of Justice, to make them as self-contained as possible and, above all, to make the explanatory memorandum as useful as possible for subsequent use by practitioners. In fact a policy has been adopted in recent years, if a Bill is complex, of bringing the explanatory memorandum up-to-date to reflect any amendments in the Bill, and making it available with the published Act. It then becomes available to practitioners as a little handbook. 100. The Accounting Officer has mentioned a very interesting point there. In other words, instead of aiming at the explanatory memorandum being an ad hoc popular document for Deputies and the public, you are now trying to make it an accurate, useful document that can be referred to by practitioners for at least the official mind of the legislation? —Of course we try to do both. We try to have it in a way that serves the purpose of providing practical assistance for Members of the Oireachtas who have to debate the Bill, but it also has to be accurate and we hope we have achieved both those objectives. It is interesting to know that your Department, in that way, are taking an overall view. I take it your influence extends to all legislation in this regard. I hope so anyway. —I do not think we would claim that. 101. I think your point of view should be made known to other Departments. Subhead E—Commissions and Special Inquiries— carries a note saying that expenditure was incurred for two new committees not previously provided for. Does any Member wish to comment on this matter? Deputy H. Gibbons.—What were the two new committees? —One was the committee on criminal injuries—the tribunal that assesses compensation for injuries criminally inflicted. The other one was the committee on legal aid in criminal cases which is presided over by District Justice Tormey. 102. Chairman.—Subhead F—Legal Aid —carries a note, under F and H saying that it is difficult to estimate expenditure accurately under these subheads. The sums seem large but I suppose inflation is showing in that area also? —There is the double factor of the wider granting of legal aid and the higher fees in individual cases. 103. Deputy H. Gibbons.—In fact, the money was not spent. Is that correct? More applications and higher grants would mean that you should not have had enough money? —What I meant was that these factors explain the size of the figure in absolute terms—the figure in the Estimate to which I understood the Chairman to be referring. The reason for the shortfall in the expenditure as compared with the Estimate is that there was what amounted to a strike during the period. Chairman.—Yes, we remember. 104. Deputy Griffin.—Just for information, on subhead G how many such free legal advice centres are there? —On one view of it one can say two, in the sense that there is one organisation in Dublin and one in Cork, but the Dublin one has a number of branches. I think they have up to ten at present. 105. Deputy H. Gibbons.—It is strange that that money has not been taken up by those bodies; so it is purely voluntary? —This has to be linked with the way in which they operate. This is, of course, the 1975 account. They were given a lump sum, by a Vote of the Dáil, in March, 1974 to get them off the ground. They were unable to use it in the following nine months—which was the financial accounting period—so they had a fairly significant carry-forward from the month of December, 1974. Therefore, they did not need, in 1975, as much assistance as they would normally have needed. In fact, in 1975 they spent more than the figure shown in the Appropriation Account. That figure is the amount they got from our Vote. But, when one takes into account the fact that they drew on what they already had by way of carry-over, one finds that their expenditure was a good deal more than that. It was, I think, approximately £8,500. 106. Chairman.—Under subhead H.— Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted—again the note explains that it is difficult to estimate expenditure accurately. But the amounts were fairly sizeable were they not? To whom was this compensation granted, in general terms, not individuals. What categories were involved? —To the victims of the various bomb blasts, for instance. But, apart from that, any individual who is attacked by somebody in a criminal attack can claim compensation if the injuries can be measured at a figure above £50. It is a reflection on our society that we have to pay £500,000 for such disorder. 107. On Appropriations in Aid—Miscellaneous—can I take it that the appropriations in aid are genuinely miscellaneous, such as travelling expenses and things like that? —Yes. VOTE 22—GARDA SIOCHANA.Mr. A. Ward further examined.108. Chairman.—On subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—are you able to keep up to Establishment? —Yes. The Establishment has had to be increased to permit the extra 500 of which the Chairman knows. 109. On subhead H—Equipment—I take it, it is greater purchases of material that come for payment in the year? —It is more related to the time of delivery. One would know in advance what is on order, but not when delivery would be made. The payment is made on delivery, so there is a certain element of chance? —Yes. 110. On subhead I—Superannuation and other Non-effective Payments—what do “non-effective payments” embrace? —It is mainly a reference to payments in the nature of pensions to people who were in the Local Security Force which was attached to the Garda Síochána during the war. 111. On the Notes—Army helicopters were availed of by Garda personnel during 1975. There is co-operation with the Army. The Army operate the machines for the Garda? —Yes. And presumably carry Garda personnel on occasion? —They do at times. I am not sure how often. VOTE 23—PRISONS.Mr. A. Ward further examined.112. Deputy C. Murphy.—On subhead G —Welfare Services—have these schemes been implemented since? —The second was but the first was not. It seemed like a good idea at the beginning that the Department’s welfare officers should be able to help out occasionally. On examination it was found that it would damage the relationship between the welfare officers and the people they were supervising, or the families of those people, if the welfare officers had the capacity—especially as it could be in a small number of cases only— to hand out small sums. People would expect it on other occasions and others would expect it as well and most of them would be disappointed. 113. With the Chair’s permission, I will refer back to subhead B—Buildings and Equipment—what buildings were under way in 1975? —I would have to check the specific ones, but in general terms— What were the major ones? —Building work is going on virtually continuously. We have the corrective training unit, which is in the vicinity of Mountjoy. Substantial work was done particularly in the year under review in a major conversion work in Arbour Hill, which is being brought up to very modern standards, and in Mountjoy. Work was also done in Cork prison and places like Loughan, but mainly Arbour Hill and Mountjoy. 114. Deputy H. Gibbons.—In relation to the financial assistance and the fact that you do not wish to have the social workers associated with it, would it not be possible to have somebody like the local Garda sergeant involved in it? —I should have made this clear. The problem was that, where people were in need of urgent assistance, they should get it from people who are in a less vulnerable position than our Department’s welfare officers whose whole relationship with the person on probation and his family is different from that of social welfare officers whose function it is to handle applications for financial help—for instance, the assistance officers who are now being phased out, or somebody like that, perhaps in the Department of Social Welfare, but not the Department of Justice welfare officers who are supervising the people concerned or who are trying to assist them in other ways. The view of our welfare service was that the introduction of a financial link would damage their work, so to speak, and that whoever else would do it, and obviously somebody should, it should not be they who would do it. 115. That would be more acceptable to them. If there is need for financial assistance on occasion, it is a pity somebody is not in a position to decide? —When the welfare officers attached to the Department of Justice find a situation like that, they put them in touch with an appropriate agency. There are agencies. That is satisfactory. 116. Deputy Griffin.—Could the witness tell us briefly what those agencies are? —It would depend on the circumstances. It might be a housing problem or it might be a health problem or one calling for immediate short-term financial assistance. It could be the local assistance officer who, I think, still survives, although there is new legislation. It could even be a charitable organisation. What this present provision was intended for was to pay small sums of money, for instance, to enable a parent to visit somebody in prison. We are talking all the time about very small sums which would be payable only occasionally and only in a minority of cases. This is one of the factors that caused the difficulty about its operation. People would be expecting more, and more people would be expecting assistance than the welfare officers would be in a position to handle. They have not got the facilities to do means checks and make all the other checks which are necessary in dealing with State funds. 117. Chairman.—Might I also suggest that possibly a lot of visits would be wished for, for reasons other than compassionate grounds? —That is a major factor. I should imagine so. Deputy C. Murphy.—Very nicely put. Chairman.—We are assured by the Comptroller and Auditor General that everything is in order. We will now pass on to the next Vote. VOTE 24—COURTS.Mr. A. Ward further examined.118. Chairman.—On subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is a note: a sum of £44,000 was received from the Vote for Remuneration (No. 51). Expenditure on salaries and wages in the District Court was less than anticipated. Could the Accounting Officer say why? It looks a fairly substantial sum. What happened in the case of the District Courts? —A combination of two things. One was that some vacancies had to remain unfilled for a time. Also there is a re-organisation of the District Courts which aims at providing fewer District Court officers over a period. There was a productivity agreement with the staff association. The object is to end up with fewer District Court clerks with greater output. It was a combination of the two things. Without specific reference to this Vote or the other Votes for which the Accounting Officer is responsible or, indeed, without specific reference to anybody, as a member of the Committee I should like to make the observation that productivity schemes of this nature seem to be inimical to the expansion of employment opportunities. This is hardly a matter to be taken up with one particular Accounting Officer and I do not propose to do it now, but I take this opportunity to make that comment. It concerns the Committee because our aspect of it can be administrative. If this procedure is adopted, then there is greater remuneration for a fewer number but, at a later stage, the numbers will multiply. That will involve further expenditure of public moneys. To that extent it comes within our province. That is a general comment. It requires no answer from the Accounting Officer and it is not really directed at him. It is a gratuitous comment by a member of the Committee. 119. Deputy C. Murphy.—On the general situation of the Courts, something which comes up regularly at county council meetings is who is responsible for the maintenance of courthouses, and so on. There is no provision anywhere in the Estimate to meet these costs and to reimburse local authorities? —No. That derives from the law. Except in the case of the Four Courts in Dublin, legal liability is on the local authorities. 120. I suppose the next question would also relate to the law. In the case of the Circuit Courts, their venues also are determined by statute? Is that outside your scope? —I do not think they are fixed by statute in the sense of being fixed directly by a statute. They are fixed by order, I think, which is made under a statute and can be varied, if the need arises. The other provision, about courthouses, is a statutory provision. I do not suggest that it would need a statutory change to do what the Deputy mentioned—that is, to reimburse local authorities—if that were decided as a matter of policy but it has not been decided. It is a hardy annual with local authorities. VOTE 25—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.Mr. A. Ward further examined.121. Deputy Griffin.—All Deputies receive complaints from time to time about the alleged delay in the Land Registry. Is the Accounting Officer satisfied that he has sufficient staff to deal with the volume of work? —It is quite a complex position. There have been several substantial changes in the organisation of the Land Registry over the past six or seven years and they have been very beneficial. In fact, a further change has been put into effect during the past week. The intake of work in the Land Registry has been expanding dramatically and has almost doubled in five or six years. It is very difficult to keep up with that increase. There is no point in denying that there are substantial arrears, especially in certain areas. The delay can be over a year. In Land Commission cases there is no particular urgency and in those cases there are arrears even longer than a year. A good deal of work is constantly being done to change that position. It involves such problems as the physical state of old maps on which they are operating. Deputy H. Gibbons.—It is only fair to say that they are most helpful. Chairman.—The Committee greatly appreciate being facilitated. —Thank you. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
