|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 23 Feabhra, 1978.Thursday, 23rd February, 1978.The Committee met at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY O’TOOLE in the chair. Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin called and examined.294. Chairman.—I should like to welcome Mr. Ó Súilleabháin, the Accounting Officer for this Vote. As there is no special comment in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General we can go straight to the subheads. Deputy N. Andrews.—On subhead B —Travelling and Incidental Expenses—is there no refund from the EEC for these payments and incidental expenses for travelling to the EEC? Other Departments receive refunds for travelling expenses on EEC business. —We certainly do not. The travelling here would normally be travelling of the Taoiseach, to European Council meetings, and the expenses of the civil servants who go with him. 295. On subhead D—Information and Public Relations Services—what was the outcome of the negotiations with the publicity agency? —The reason for the lack of expenditure was because we had terminated the contract with a public relations agency and we were trying to agree on a settlement of outstanding expenses and that kind of thing. It took about a year to do that. We did not spend any money in that year. Was it carried forward to the following year? —It was carried forward to the following year and we settled it the following year. VOTE 12—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON.Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin called.No question. The witness withdrew. VOTE 16—LAW CHARGES.Mr. D. Quigley called and examined.296. Chairman.—We welcome Mr. Quigley, who is the Accounting Officer for this Vote. There is no specific reference in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report so I propose that we move directly on to the Vote. Deputy N. Andrews.—On subhead D— Fees to Counsel—how many in fact were paid fees under this heading? —Sixty-seven senior counsel and about 125 junior counsel. 297. Deputy V. de Valera.—Therefore, the load is very generally distributed over the profession. Is that the policy? —Yes. 298.Deputy C. Murphy.—On subhead F —Defence of Public Servants—there was no expenditure at all under this heading? —That is correct for that year. 299. Are there usually two headings in it, both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings? Are they two subheads within this section? —There is no criminal heading. This is not to defend public servants in the criminal sense but for some breach of civil law. They are both entirely different? —Yes. Chairman.—They are to be shown not to have been abandoned? —Yes. There was no expenditure from it in 1975. I think it was in 1977 that we ran into heavy expenditure from it. 300. Deputy C. Murphy.—What types of allegations and civil proceedings would be defended? —They could be of many different types, varying from a Garda who was charged with civil assault and whom it was thought proper to have defended, to the county registrars in election petitions such as happened last year. We had not anticipated that costs and expenses would be as high as they were in the High Court action in 1977. So, the subhead can fluctuate very much. 301. Chairman.—In actual fact this is just a token Vote? —Yes. The witness withdrew. VOTE 50—OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.Mr. S. O’Leary called and examined.302. Chairman.—This is a new service and Mr. O’Leary, the Accounting Officer, is very welcome. The Vote is made up of an Additional Estimate of £10. The expenditure for 1975 was accounted for under Law Charges. This is normal procedure in relation to a new Vote. We will have a substantive Vote to deal with from now on. 303. Deputy C. Murphy.—May I just ask about the duties of the office, although that might not be exactly pertinent to expenditure? Chairman.—We must not tread into the area of policy. When there is a substantive Vote before us we will be able to deal with specific areas of administration, but at the moment it is a very vague area so far as we are concerned. Deputy C. Murphy.—Has the Accounting Officer any comment to make? —I have no comment to make. The witness withdrew. VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.Mr. T. P. Linehan called and examined.304. Chairman.—I would like to welcome Mr. Linehan, the Accounting Officer for this Vote. Deputy N. Andrews.—Under subhead A —Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is £80,501 less than granted. The main reason for that has been given as the delay in filling posts due to the failure in the provision of accommodation. It strikes me as an extraordinary proposition that there should be this under-expenditure because accommodation was not available to appoint people to work there. What is the reason for that? Could you explain that in more detail? —Yes. The total size of the Statistics Office has been increasing and we have been for some time trying to get some additional accommodation. At that time, 1975, we had some “outside” accommodation in Griffith Barracks where the Census of Population Division was operating. We wanted to take them from that accommodation, which was not entirely suitable, so we looked for sufficient accommodation in one place which would take the Census Division and the additional expansion as foreseen at that time in the Office. We had to strike a balance of putting some additional inquiries into operation and holding back until we actually got a suitable place. There was not a crisis at that point but we deliberately held back a certain amount of expansion in order to secure the particular premises we had our eye on. This we did. 305. Has the question been resolved now? —Yes. We have the accommodation we sought. 306. Deputy C. Murphy.—On the general staff numbers, there was an increase between 1974-75 of 59. What is the staff number now? —The staff at the moment would be about 460. 307. Have you reached the full complement yet? —In so far as the permanent activities of the Office are concerned, yes, but operations like the Census of Population add a fluctuating additional amount. 308. Deputy V. Brady.—On subhead D— Collection of Statistics—in view of the fact that a Census was not taken in 1976, would the Accounting Officer consider that the saving mentioned here was reasonably accurate? —This is a saving in 1975. Preliminary activities would have been necessary in 1975 though the Census was to have taken place in 1976. This is not related to the total cost of the Census, only to the advance waves hitting us in the preceding year. 309. Deputy V. de Valera.—This saving is really the difference between an estimate and actual expenditure. These savings and surpluses are really of that nature. It is an estimate of what you would have spent and the saving is determined by subtracting the actual expenditure. Is that not correct? —For the total findings, yes. And in other cases too? —In this particular one, £50,000 was the amount we had estimated before 1975 for this particular item, and it did not materialise. Therefore we still have the original estimate as being the extent of the saving involved. It comes back to the same thing in the end? —Yes. 310. Deputy C. Murphy.—Could I have a breakdown of the Post Office services, between post office and telephone, postal service and telephone and telegrams? There is a general note here which says that the excess was due to the greater use of telephone services and to increased charges. —The actual expenditure on telephone accounts was approximately £10,000. The original provision for that had been fixed. 311. Would this have been because of increased charges or mainly for contact with Europe? —It would be basically because of increased charges. There has also been a continuing increase in the level of usage. Even in the European context, telephone calls to Brussels and Luxembourg are now routine, whereas some years ago they would have been considered unusual. The witness withdrew. VOTE 27—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.Mr. G. A. Meagher called and examined.312. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead E.1.—Housing Subsidy The Housing Services accounts of the local authorities are subject to examination by Local Government auditors whose reports are made available to me. In the course of my audit I noted that these reports were somewhat in arrear and I sought the observations of the Accounting Officer regarding the position. He informed me that in July 1976 the position was as follows:— Audits Completed
He explained that a major factor contributing to the build-up of arrears had been staff shortages, aggravated by difficulties in filling vacancies over a number of years despite repeated competitions. He stated that an overall review of staffing and of the auditors’ work programme is in hands but that the position has been further aggravated by the change in the basis of housing subsidy introduced in 1973-74 which made the preparation of housing subsidy claims more complicated and delayed their submission. He added that it was anticipated that housing subsidy audits, where claims have been submitted, would be undertaken in line with local authority audits generally or such special arrangements made as might be deemed necessary.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to the fact that the audit of the housing services’ accounts of the local authorities had fallen somewhat into arrear and gives the observations of the Accounting Officer on the position in July 1976. Since the correctness of the amounts of housing subsidy paid from this Vote cannot be finally established until these accounts have been audited, it is important that the audits should be completed as promptly as possible. Further information supplied by the Accounting Officer in May last year showed that the position had improved to some extent. 313. Chairman.—There is what I would regard as a serious build-up of arrears in relation to housing subsidy audits in this case. When can the Committee expect this unsatisfactory situation might be remedied? —Since the Comptroller and Auditor General reported there has been quite an improvment in the auditing of the housing subsidy accounts. At 20 February this year all the housing accounts for 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974 have been completed in the case of the county councils and the county boroughs. These, of course, are the big audits. For 1975 all the county councils housing subsidy accounts have been audited with the exception of eight, and in the case of county boroughs all the accounts have been audited with the exception of one. Of the boroughs and the urban district councils, in February 1978, 11 of the accounts for 1973-74, 11 of the accounts for 1974 and 32 of the accounts for 1975 are awaiting audit. In the case of town commissioners there are still substantial numbers awaiting audits as at 20 February 1978. 314. Is there a time factor involved beyond which they are in breach of the Act? —I think not in relation to the finalisation of the audit. The auditor is not, so far as I am aware, bound by any time limit in regard to the completion of the audit. 315. Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “The Government decided in 1973-74 that the Exchequer would progressively assume full reponsibility for the deficits of local authorities arising from the provision of local authority houses for letting. The change was to be made over a four-year period during which rates contributions towards the cost of such activities would be phased out. Payments made from this subhead in 1973-74 and 1974 represented, subject to certain minor adjustments, the deficits as estimated by the local authorities to be payable by the Exchequer under the new arrangement and were subject to adjustment on the receipt of final claims showing the actual deficits. In the course of audit it was noted that final claims for 1973-74 and 1974, which had been received by 30 November 1975 from 88 and 90 local authorities, respectively, appeared to disclose that in 1973-74 overissues of subsidy totalling £734,618 had been made in 58 cases and in 1974 overissues totalling £680,847 had been made in 56 cases. It was further noted that subsidy payments for 1975 also appeared to represent the deficits as estimated by local authorities and that the final instalments for that year were issued in December when the Department was already aware that there had been overissues in the earlier years. On 21 April 1976 I sought the observations of the Accounting Officer and I inquired regarding the procedures envisaged for the recovery of the subsidy overissued and whether, in the light of the overissues, it was proposed to alter the basis of payment. The Accounting Officer informed me that, in general, when the final instalments of 1975 subsidy were being issued in December 1975 cognisance was not taken of the data in the final claims then on hands for the earlier years because these claims had not been audited by the Local Government auditors at that stage and because it was clear that the amounts charged in such claims by some local authoritises for management expenses were insufficient. The adjustment of these undercharges would result in increased deficits thereby reducing or eliminating the apparent overissues. He stated that a substantial number of final claims for 1973-74 and 1974 had not been received when the amounts of subsidy for 1975, payable in December 1975, were being considered in the Department. Before making these payments the Department reduced the aggregate estimates submitted by local authorities for 1973-74, 1974 and 1975 by £2.183 million. He added that the final claims for 1973-74 and 1974, received by December 1975, exceeded the estimated claims in the case of 47 local authorities. In regard to the recovery of overissues that may have arisen the Accounting Officer stated that it was necessary to establish the precise amount of the overissue in each instance. Following discussions with Local Government auditors priority is being given to the certification of the final claims from 27 local authorities in advance of the general audit for these areas, where necessary, and the remaining final claims will be certified as soon as practicable. County and City managers were requested on 8 April 1976 to furnish the outstanding final claims without delay and where it is established that there has been an overissue or an underissue of subsidy in respect of 1973-74 or 1974, the appropriate adjustment will be made in the next subsidy payment due to be made to the local authority concerned. In regard to the question of altering the basis of payment the Accounting Officer stated that strong representations had been made in 1973 by County and City Managers to have subsidy payments equal to the full amount of the estimated deficits made to local authorities. Moreover, during 1973-74 and 1974 the estimates furnished by some local authorities were excessive due to the difficulty of estimating the effect of the introduction of the National Differential Rent Scheme and the National Sales Scheme in 1973. In the light of the experience of the change in the subsidy system, the Department proposes to inform local authorities that with effect from 1 January 1977 subsidy payments on account will generally be based on 90 per cent. of estimated claims pending certification of final claims.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to what appeared to be substantial overissues of housing subsidy for 1973-74 and 1974 following a decision to phase out progressively the rates contribution in respect of local authority housing. I am concerned that any such overissues of voted moneys should be recovered at the earliest possible opportunity, if not by refund at least by adjustment of subsequent subsidies payable to the local authorities concerned. As the subsidies paid for 1975 did not appear to take account of the sums over-issued in the earlier years, I sought the observation of the Accounting Officer. These are summarised in the paragraph. 316. Chairman.—Is this new procedure coping satisfactorily with the problem of overissues and underissues of housing subsidies to local authorities? —It is, in as much as in the course of 1977 virtually the complete sum of the overissues had been recovered. As from 1 January 1977 the basis on which a housing subsidy is payable was changed fundamentally. The arrangement now is that the Exchequer carries the total of the relevant loan charges payable by the local authorities on local authority housing. The local authorities themselves are responsible for maintenance and management, but towards those expenses they can put the proceeds of rents and a proportion of the proceeds of the sales of local authority dwellings. As from 1 January 1977 the arrangements for subsidies are more clear-cut and capable of more accurate estimation. 317. Deputy N. Andrews.—Has the precise amount of the overissue been established? —Yes. The Comptroller and Auditor General referred to 58 cases of overissue in 1973-74. Forty-eight of those cases have been audited and the overissues have come to a net sum of £665,000. In 1974, where the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to 56 cases of overissues, 48 have been audited and the total overissue comes out at £675,000. As I said, virtually all the established overissues have been recovered by deduction from the on-going subsidy payments. Chairman.—You mentioned established overissues—— —Yes, deliberately. Where the housing subsidy accounts have not been audited, one can never be certain about overissues or underissues. There have been underissues. 318. Paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead E.2.—Private Housing Grants I referred in previous reports to a scheme of grants for the adaptation of houses to meet the needs of physically disabled persons and to the raising of the maximum house reconstruction grant which were approved on condition that statutory authority would be sought in the next appropriate housing bill. At the date of this report such authority has not been obtained.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph refers to one of the cases dealt with in previous reports of the Public Accounts Committee in which amending legislation is required to validate the payments of grants in excess of the statutory limits. In his Minute of 6 December last the Minister for Finance has stated that his Department were taking the matter up with the Department of Local Government. I understand that a draft amending Bill which will, inter alia, validate retrospectively the grants paid is being prepared. 319. Chairman.—In their report on the 1974 Appropriation Accounts, the Committee adamantly held the view that the Appropriation Act does not provide statutory cover for payment in excess of the limit laid down in particular statutes. This Committee concur with that view. We have also raised the matter with other Accounting Officers. There is a Housing Bill on the Dáil Order Paper. Does it purport to deal with this issue? —It does. The principal purpose of the Bill is to validate the changes which occurred in the financing of housing. The Bill, as you say, has been introduced in the Dáil and is at present being prepared for circulation. 320. Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead O.—Recoupment of Expenditure on foot of certain Malicious Injuries Reference was made in paragraph 28 of my previous report to a scheme introduced in May 1974 under which refunds are made from the Exchequer to local authorities in respect of compensation for malicious damage to property caused by explosives and attributable to disturbances in Northern Ireland. The charge to the subhead in the year under review includes £1,324,097 refunded to six local authorities under this scheme. The charge to the subhead also includes payments on account totalling £337,993 made to a county council in accordance with a Government decision of October 1974 which provides that, where the cost of malicious injuries compensation to any local authority in a year exceeds the product of a rate of 20p in the pound, the excess should be refunded from the Exchequer. Provision for such payments was made by way of supplementary estimate.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. I have no further comment to make on it. 321. Chairman.—Paragraph 27 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Motor Vehicle Duties A test examination of the revenue from motor vehicle duties, etc., was carried out with satisfactory results. The gross proceeds for the year 1975 and the period ended 31 December 1974 were:—
£27,863,283 was paid into the Exchequer and £4,315 was refunded during the year leaving a balance of £395,343 compared with £180,587 at the end of the previous financial period. The motor tax transactions of local authorities are subject to examination by Local Government auditors whose reports are made available to me. In the course of my audit I noted that these reports were somewhat in arrear and I sought the observations of the Accounting Officer. He has informed me that the position in regard to the completion of the audits of the accounts of the 30 licensing authorities is as follows:—
He explained that the relatively large number of audits outstanding for 1973-74 and 1974 was due to staff shortages aggravated by difficulties in filling vacancies over a number of years despite repeated competitions. He stated that an overall review of staffing and of the auditors’ work programme is in hands at present. The Accounting Officer added that, as a result of the arrears position of audits generally, it had been possible to undertake motor tax audits only when the general local authority audit was being done but that it was hoped that the audits would be brought up to date as soon as possible having regard to the pressure of work generally.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph lists the proceeds of the motor vehicle duties under the various heads in 1975 with the corresponding figures for the nine-month period ended 31 December 1974. The paragraph also draws attention to the fact that the audit of the motor tax accounts of the local authorities had fallen into arrear and it gives the observations of the Accounting Officer on this matter. I rely on the reports of the local government auditors when verifying the accuracy of the amounts of the motor vehicle duties brought to credit of the Exchequer and I am concerned that these reports are falling into arrear. 322. Chairman.—Has the Accounting Officer encountered difficulties in recruiting auditors? Is that part of the problem? How can you overcome these difficulties? —Yes, indeed. There is a long history of recruitment difficulty in relation to the grade of auditor. Up to fairly recently the number of qualified candidates coming forward from the open competitions was quite small. At the present time we have three candidates awaiting final clearance by the Civil Service Commission from a competition held in April 1977. That competition produced a bigger field of candidates than any of the competitions held since June 1973. The reason, we think, is that authority was obtained for enabling successful candidates to enter above the minimum of the salary scale. We have also introduced a new grade of trainee assistant auditor. A competition for those posts will be held in the near future by the Civil Service Commission. Pending the holding of the competition we have assigned four executive officers from the Department to audit duties so that there would be an improvement in the clearance of arrears of audit. The auditor’s grade was not apparently very attractive to qualified accountants, partly because of the attractions of private practice and apparently also because the auditor grade is required to serve in areas outside of Dublin and Cork. 323. You mentioned the recruitment of three additional officers, from a competition held in April 1977. A year possibly will have elapsed before they are in harness. Is that the normal delay in recruitment? —No. That would not be the normal delay. I cannot, offhand, say why the delay has currently happened. 324. How many vacancies are there? You say you are recruiting three. —Three candidates are awaiting final clearance by the Commission. There is a fourth candidate who, up to this date, has not given his final decision to the Department on the offer of appointment that has been made to him. 325. Will four satisfy your current demands? —This is the total of the additional authorised posts of auditors that we have at the moment. 326. Are there no official vacancies at the moment? Are you filling all vacancies sanctioned for you? —We have 27 posts of auditor authorised and we have 23 serving, that is four vacancies there. Of the six trainee assistant auditor posts, the six are vacant pending recruitment through a competition. As I said, in the interim we have assigned four executive officers to this work. We have also engaged retired people from the audit service to carry out audit on the accounts. That is contract work? —My note indicates the position here. One has been retained beyond the age limit on a temporary basis and the other is employed on a fee basis. 327. Deputy N. Andrews.—Are you suggesting that when the extra four have taken up duty this will not be sufficient to meet your needs? Is that the case? —As of now I think it would be true to say that we could do with more auditors for the quicker clearance of arrears, but I think we must wait and see what the new establishment of auditors will achieve before committing ourselves any further. 328. Deputy Kerrigan.—Will the recent change in car taxation help to minimise some of the work carried out by local government auditors? Will it make it easier for them? —That would affect the volume of work on the motor taxation accounts. Some work will remain of course because, firstly, a residue of private cars and all commercial vehicles are still subject to the normal licensing duty and, secondly, licensing and registration fees of £5 and £1 respectively are payable on the 16 horsepower cars and under and on motor cycles. 329. Chairman.—I do not want to belabour the point, but is the Accounting Officer prepared to say that in his opinion the level of recruitment into the audit section is not sufficient to carry out the work to a satisfactory degree of administrative efficiency? If that is so this Committee on that basis could at least suggest that the matter be looked into with a view to improving the situation. —No. I would prefer to say that one should wait until the posts now authorised have been filled because there are four posts of auditor to be filled and there are six posts of trainee assistant auditor posts to be filled and, in addition, we have appointed three extra principal auditors. I would prefer to wait. Other factors enter into this such, as Deputy Kerrigan has said, the change in the motor licensing arrangements. The change in the housing subsidy arrangements may also have a bearing on this. One would have to look at the whole picture in the light of the working of the complete authorised establishment. 330. Deputy Kerrigan.—Is it the intention to have this audit separate from local authority audits or are you going to continue and wait until the local authority audits are completed to do this audit on car taxation? —Some advance auditing has been done in the case of housing accounts. In the case of the motor taxation accounts my recollection is that the audits have in general been done in conjunction with the main audits. 331. Would it not improve the position if it was a separate audit? —It is important that the overall arrears be cleared as quickly as possible. If auditors are diverted on to, say, the motor taxation accounts, it does not help the overall arrears. We prefer to see the major audits completed as quickly as possible, that is, the county councils and the county borough councils. 332. Deputy V. Brady.—On subhead A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—in relation to fees to consultants—£50,000 in 1975 as against £7,000 the previous year—would you like to make a comment on that? —Subject to correction, the increase is accounted for in the first instance by the fact that 1974 was a nine-month year and, secondly, I think these fees include payments to planning consultants for the servicing of planning appeals and some increase must have occurred there. I will send the Committee a note.* 333. Deputy N. Andrews.—On subhead G—Grants in respect of Amenity Works, Derelict Sites and Dangerous Places—there is an under-expenditure of £29,213. What is the reason for that? —The decision had been taken in 1974 to terminate the grants for amenity works and the provision of £75,000 was an estimate of the cost of completing payments in respect of works which had been authorised before the cut-off. In point of fact, the estimate proved excessive as the payments demanded were substantially below the estimate. 334. Have those grants been brought back again? —They have to the extent that an announcement was recently made of a decision by the Government to introduce a scheme of environmental works grants during 1978. The works covered will be substantially similar to those which were covered by this subhead. 335. What steps does the Accounting Officer take in his Department to make the availability of these grants known? —The grants are administered by the local authorities. Chairman.—This is a matter of policy— it is a matter for the Government. Deputy N. Andrews.—On a point of order, there is money available for publicity. They advertise and that in itself is expenditure. Chairman.—It is for the Government to decide what moneys are made available for dissemination of information with regard to a particular scheme, such as the amenity grants scheme. The question of making known the existence of schemes is hardly a matter for the Accounting Officer to decide. If you ask a question from the administrative aspect it will be allowed. Deputy N. Andrews.—It seems that many of these small grant schemes and so on are not known. When I saw this item under expended—this was before I got the explanation of the Accounting Officer—I felt it only proved the point that these grants are made available but nobody knows about them, and that is particularly relevant to urban areas. It surprises me that they are not given wider publicity and that there is not money available in the Department—— Chairman.—The availability of money in the Department is purely and solely a policy matter. Deputy N. Andrews.—I accept that. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
