Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1980 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1978

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 8 Bealtaine 1980

Thursday, 8th May 1980

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.

MINUTE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE ON THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT(Paragraphs 16, 49 and 53) ON THE APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS 1977

Mr. S. Mac Gamhna called and examined.

425. Chairman.—The Finance Minute on paragraph 16 of the Committee’s previous Report refers to superannuation and retired allowances and the drafting of statutory schemes to cover the payment of contributory and ex-gratia pensions to the widows and children of certain public servants. Could you tell us what is the up-to-date position in respect of this scheme? It says, “As already indicated, the Committee will be informed when the schemes have been signed by the Ministers concerned.”

—The Superannuation and Pensions Act which was enacted in July 1976 gave power to make these schemes. Ten schemes have already been made, including contributory and ex-gratia pension schemes for widows of civil servants and holders of certain miscellaneous offices and schemes amending these schemes in order to provide pensions for step-children. A scheme providing for the purchase of service is at an advanced stage of drafting. A preliminary draft of the consolidation scheme has been prepared. Steady progress has been made in producing all of these schemes.

Ten schemes have been finalised?

—That is correct.

How many are outstanding?

—Two, I believe. The one I mentioned about the purchase of service and the consolidation scheme.

426. The Minister’s Minute on paragraph 49 of the Committee’s previous Report refers to the computerised payments system and to the fact that the Department in question are responsible for the operation and control of the system once it has been provided. This has been applied across the board and the Accounting Officers have been informed of this, I presume?

—Yes, indeed. They have been informed of this. They are aware of it and have accepted it.

427. Have you any input thereafter once you have set up the system? When the system is operational within a Department are you finished with it? Can you tell us of any circumstances where you might be involved subsequently?

—If they wanted expert advice and guidance we are certainly available at all times. We feel they have to manage and operate their own schemes and controls as managers and they accept this responsibility but if there was any technical help or specialist advice which they needed on these controls, our experts would always be available. We are there to give advice and assistance.

428. The reason I asked is that in dealing with Accounting Officers, we have come across the complaint consistently that there are teething problems in the computer end of their operations, some more serious than others. Generally speaking, they are having them rectified as time goes on, but there is an overall problem here. I presume it is the new technology?

—The changing technology. It is very true, and it applies not merely in the public service but in the private sector as well. With constant changing and upgrading of machines and systems in the initial stages there will be problems and difficulties. These are gradually sorted out. At all times the responsibility rests on local management to see that the proper controls and checks are exercised.

429. How does the turnover in personnel in these particular sections in the respective Departments compare with the turnover in other sections? Do you have greater movement of people in and out?

—I would not think that would necessarily be so. In our Department we have a big specialist computer staff. We call it the Central Data Processing Services. We lose people from time to time to private industry because of their specialist knowledge, but we always have a steady inflow of trainees in the knowledge that they are not all going to remain in the Civil Service and by and large we are able to manage. I think the same would hold true of the other big Departments which have separate computers like Revenue and the Post Office.

430. Finally, there is reference in the Minister’s Minute on paragraph 53 of the Committee’s previous Report to a special inter-Departmental examination of the shortage of technical staff. What is the current situation in respect of this examination?

—That is largely for my colleague in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I could not offhand give you the answer to that.

VOTE 18—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. S. Mac Gamhna further examined.

431. Deputy Morley.—On subhead E—Institute of Public Administration (Grant-in-Aid)—there is £370,000 as grant-in-aid to the Institute of Public Administration. Are any special steps taken to ensure the proper administration of that grant?

—The Institute of Public Administration are a private limited company and therefore exercise a certain measure of autonomy in regulating their affairs. Obviously, because quite a bit of their funds come from the Exchequer, and specifically from the Vote of this Department, we interest ourselves in how the Institute look after their affairs. We work in close liaison with the Institute in the field of training and so on. It is obviously necessary to avoid an overlap between what the Institute do and what is being done within the civil service. We exercise control over the salary of the chief executive of the Institute because of Government policy relating to the putting into effect of the Devlin recommendations regarding heads of State-sponsored bodies. The Institute of Public Administration always maintain that they are not really a State-sponsored body. Nonetheless, we have with the approval of the Government applied the Devlin principles in that area. These are the kind of interests we have in seeing what the Institute do, how they do it and what people they need to do it.

432. I presume the Department would get a copy of the audited accounts of the Institute?

—The Institute produce a very fine report every year and, as is appropriate in the case of a private limited company, this report is laid before the members at their annual general meeting. All the accounts are set out in that annual report and, of course, copies are available to our Department. They are also available to anybody who wants to buy them.

433. Is payment of the grant made in one instalment or is it made on a phased basis?

—This is an accounting question, but it comes in instalments throughout the year at appropriate intervals.

434. Deputy Filgate.—On subhead G— Civil Service Arbitration Board—there is a grant of £9,000 and an expenditure of £5,260. Is the £9,000 grant based on previous experience in this field? If so, how was it that it was underspent at a time when inflation and costs were increasing?

—I did not quite get the question. Will the Deputy repeat the question?

A grant of £9,000 for the Civil Service Arbitration Board was underspent by £3,740. Is the £9,000 grant based upon the expenditure up to that date in previous years plus an increase for inflation or devaluation or increase in cost? How is it that the figure was underspent by £3,740?

—It does not work quite that way. It is very difficult to estimate, because it depends on a couple of things which are quite outside the control of the Department. It depends on how many claims will be made by the Civil Service Staff Associations during the year for which we are estimating. We have no way of knowing this in advance. Secondly, it depends on how many of these claims it will be possible to settle across the conciliation table. It is only the residue that have to go to arbitration for resolution. There is a third factor over which we have no control. That is how many days it would be necessary for the arbitration board to sit to hear the claims. Some of the staff associations can go to great lengths in presenting their case and it could take several days before the arbitrator would have heard all the mass of evidence which they would produce. Others are more brisk and can produce their case in one day. We have no control over all these factors. It is easy to miss the mark on this.

435. Deputy O’Hanlon.—In relation to the Extra Remuneration, 196 persons received extra remuneration exceeding £200. Is this because there was a shortage of staff? Is there difficulty in retaining personnel in the computer division? Are a lot of them leaving and going to private industry?

—There is not a shortage of staff but in so far as overtime is concerned, it is mostly of a nature where it would not be practicable to deal with the extra work by taking on more staff. Some of the bigger amounts arise because of security reasons. For example, messengers have to be in the building at a very early hour and cannot leave the building until everybody has departed as they have to ensure that all the lights are out and that everything is locked. This goes on for very long hours throughout the year. Another ingredient in the overtime is the copying room where messengers and paperkeepers have to work very frequently late into the evening reproducing documents on the offset machine which is in full use during the day so that these bigger jobs have to wait until the evening to be done. The overtime does not arise because there is any difficulty in getting staff. It arises because this is the most efficient way of doing the extra work which has to be performed. The answer to the question about the difficulty in getting and retaining computer staff broadly speaking, is that there is not undue difficulty. We have been able to train our own people within the civil service. We have a special procedure in selecting them in the first instance which involves special aptitude tests. Only people with a certain facility would be suitable. We give them special training and they can measure up to any expert one would find in similar companies in the private sector. We lose some of them, this is inevitable, but we have budgeted for this: we ensure that there will be a steady inflow of new trainees.

436. Chairman.—On subhead H— Review Body on Remuneration in the Upper Ranges in the Public Sector—there is a note which says the expected necessity for expenditure on specialist assistance did not arise. Could you define or explain what “specialist assistance” in this case would mean?

—For the first time, when the Review Body were working in 1972-73 dealing with the big general reference which covered all the top pay in the public sector, the job of really finding out and assessing what were the comparable levels of pay in the private sector was one which had to be done in a short period of time and which could better be done by a management consultancy firm which specialised in personnel administration, and in particular in salary levels for executives in business. The Devlin group found it more convenient to engage a consultancy firm who had assembled a great deal of data and information about levels of salary for top executives in private business. This consultancy firm produced a lot of information to the Review Body. Of course this is all in the confidential archives of the Review Body. Later, the Review Body decided that they had themselves built up quite a good data bank of information and that they would not require to engage specialist consultants.

437. In the Appropriations-in-Aid, there are receipts from computer services rendered by the Central Data Processing Services amounting to £796,341. There is obviously extra capacity available in your data processing section. There is a list of Departments for whom you have provided a service. You find that in some of these Departments they had to go elsewhere for services. Could you not provide the full range for them, or what is involved in the Central Data Processing Services?

—The Central Data Processing Services give a wide range of services to Government agencies and Departments. For reasons of accountancy and practicality the CDPS do not actually recoup money from Government Departments in respect of the computer time which was taken up with jobs. This has been the practice all along and it is just to avoid taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. The figures are produced so that the Departments are aware of the value of the services which are being given to them. The Appropriations-in-Aid come from a different source. It is work which is mainly done for the Health Boards and the Department of Social Welfare services which are financed from the Social Insurance Fund. As regards Departments going outside for computer services, this is very rarely necessary now because within the civil service, apart from the Department of the Public Service computer, there are two other large installations, one in Revenue and one in the Post Office. There are a few smaller installations in other Departments. So, generally it has not been necessary, to any significant extent, to go outside for actual computer processing. Of course one needs to go outside at times for specialist advice on developing new systems, but that is a different matter.

438. Deputy Morley.—I presume it would be the objective of the CDPS to provide comprehensive facilities for all Government Departments in regard to computer processing?

—Broadly speaking, that is so.

439. Would it be the intention, if they had reached that stage and there were still facilities available, to provide facilities for private concerns?

—The growth in demand is quite considerable and keeps on accelerating. I am not sure whether it would be looked on with favour by commercial firms in the private sector if the State were to enter into competition with them for business outside.

VOTE 19—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Mr. S. Mac Gamhna further examined.

440. Chairman.—On subhead B.2—Office Machinery and other Office Supplies—there is reference to expenditure incurred on data preparation for computer purposes in connection with written examinations being less than anticipated. How did this come about?

—Equipment which the Commission had intended to purchase was not in fact purchased. They had to make a more detailed examination of the effects of its introduction in regard to staffing needs. Obviously they had to rethink their plans and they decided that it would be better at least to postpone this purchase.

VOTE 20—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES

Mr. S. Mac Gamhna further examined.

441. Chairman.—On subhead G—Injury Grants and Medical Fees—there is a note that says improved terms were agreed in October 1978 for persons benefiting under the warrants made under the Superannuation Act, 1887. Perhaps you could elaborate on this explanation?

—This was originally designed for people who were above the old limit for workmen’s compensation if they suffered an injury on duty. These days I suppose one thinks of an air accident while on official travel. Obviously the question of compensation arises. The 1887 Act enables an instrument to be made by the Minister for the Public Service indicating the nature and amount of the compensation payable in respect of death and injury. The injuries are specified—loss of one eye, loss of one limb and so on. This is the background and the 1978 amendments improved the widows’ and childrens’ benefits.

442. Deputy Belton.—On subhead H—Pensions to Resigned and Dismissed Royal Irish Constabulary, including Widows—the number involved would not be great?

—The number of pensioners, including widows, is falling. There were 53 at the beginning of 1979 as against 78 the previous year.

It has been decreasing every year?

—Yes.

443. Deputy O’Hanlon.—On Appropriations-in-Aid, item No. 2, the note states that some payments from local authorities were not received by the end of the year. Have these been received since and have arrangements been made to ensure that payments would be received?

—These are recoupments from local authorities in respect of pensions of civil servants, part of whose service was given under local authorities. I am not able to give a definitive answer to the question as my brief does not cover it. I can make inquiries and produce a note* for the Committee. I would suppose that the arrangements are being reviewed but I could not say that from my brief.

444. Deputy Filgate.—On subhead E— Compensation Allowances under Article 10 of the Treaty of 6th December, 1921—I presume they are pensions or some other compensations. In the Appropriations-in-Aid you have No. 1—Repayment by the British Government of sums paid on its behalf under the Agreement dated 27 June 1929: this presumably is supplementary to Article 10 of the Treaty of 6 December 1921. What exactly are these payments in relation to?

—The payments under Article 10 were, of course, in the form of pensions. The repayments by the British Government are in respect of pension increases and the pensions paid to the widows of civil servants who elected to retire on the terms of Article 10 of the Treaty. The British accept liability for all post-retirement increases and increases, including the provision of widows’ pensions, in such cases.

VOTE 52—REMUNERATION

Mr. S. Mac Gamhna called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

MINUTE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE ON THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT (Paragraphs 34, 35 and 47) ON THE APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS 1977

Mr. C. Collins called and examined.

445. Chairman.—In the Minister’s Minute on paragraph 34 of the Committee’s previous Report there is reference to control procedures and it appears from the Minute that improved control procedures are now in operation. Are you happy at the moment that everything is in order in so far as is humanly possible to apply the prescribed controls in this area?

—Yes, I am quite satisfied now.

446. In relation to the Minister’s Minute on paragraph 35 of the Committee’s previous Report, what is the current position in relation to the proposals that were to be finalised in this particular case?

—I am afraid that this matter has not yet been finalised. Our organisation unit carried out a detailed examination of the implications of treating the children’s allowance orders, and the pension orders which are in the same position, in the same way as cash. Over 1,250,000 books per year are involved with 26 orders in some and 12 in the children’s allowances. Some years this figure would be substantially increased where we have to have supplementary book issues. The checks normally used in the handling of cash would require at every stage at which cash passes from one officer to another that the cash is counted and a receipt given. If we were to apply a check of this magnitude to children’s allowance orders, there would be serious problems. First of all, the requirements in staff would run into several hundreds for two periods of about two months in the year, also accommodation costs would be involved, and, equally serious, we would be building delays into the system. We are rather worried about these problems and we have initiated a computer feasibility study in the entire area of book issue which should yield dividends both from the security point of view and in speed of book issue. The implementation of computerised procedures will obviously take some years and in the meantime we are examining urgently other ways of satisfying the Committee’s requirements on security without the serious disadvantages I have mentioned. We have not finalised that yet but we are working on it and we hope to be able to bring that to a conclusion very shortly.

447. Deputy Filgate.—There has been some confusion in relation to the issue of supplementary books, especially pension books, not specifically children’s allowance books. It has been stated by a number of public representatives that the stick-on label situation was much more efficient where there was a change in the amount payable to any pensioner or any person drawing children’s allowance. What is thought of this system of issuing the sticker for the existing book rather than the issue of a completely new or supplementary book?

—We used those stick-on labels on occasions where increases in rates occured during the currency of an existing book. If the increases are timed to coincide with a new book issue, it would be a cleaner and simpler job to issue the new book. We had some difficulties this year because of the lateness of the Budget—I know that this year’s accounts are not before the Committee. We had many complaints about those stickers in the past. They got wet maybe in being delivered by the postmen and the result was that, instead of a person being able to detach them and affix one to each order remaining in the book, they were all stuck together and people wrote to us for more. As well as that people would naturally put them on a shelf somewhere, affix the first one to the current order and when they looked for the next one find they had disappeared. The post offices also were not very happy about that operation and, having tried it for a number of years, we abandoned it as far as possible in favour of the supplementary book. Indeed we have had to consider it from time to time and I am afraid that our experience was not very satisfactory.

448. Chairman.—In the Minister’s Minute on paragraph 47 of the Committee’s previous Report there is a section underlined in relation to pay-related social insurance contributions. We are talking about the failure of employers to pay over the contributions unless such failure is with the consent or connivance of the employees concerned or due to any negligence on their part. The question arises as to how you can detect connivance or collusion between the employee and the employer in such cases? How can you detect that between the two parties?

—It may be that the employee when approached initially denies that he worked for a particular person but we find later that there was, in fact, employment. In a case like that it would be pretty obvious that the employee was guilty as well as the employer of failure to stamp.

449. Deputy O’Hanlon.—In relation to investigating cases where a number of people lose their contributions because, perhaps, a factory might go out of business, it appears that the officer investigates them individually when they apply for benefit. Would it be possible for him to investigate all employees together? I am thinking of factories that go into liquidation with about 20 employees who should have had full contributions paid. If they were investigated together and it was recorded on their cards in the Department it might speed up the process of paying the benefit when they claimed it rather than investigating them individually when they claim it. It may not be an appropriate question for this Committee.

—Normally that would be done if we are aware that a firm is going into liquidation and it has not been inspected for some time. Our outdoor officer would take particulars of all employees but he would have to check the employment record of each individual. The Deputy’s point is met in that it is all done as part of one job. In other cases the first we might hear of something like this is when an individual claims benefit but we find that he has not an adequate record. When he is asked about this he may tell us that he was employed full-time. As a result we will investigate his case first but in the normal way if we have any reason to think that this could have applied in more than one case we would do a full inspection of that firm.

VOTE 50—SOCIAL WELFARE

Mr. C. Collins further examined.

450. Chairman.—Paragraph 64 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952

The charge to the subhead represents the amount paid towards meeting the shortfall in the income of the Social Insurance Fund which bears the expenditure on Social Welfare benefits. It was noted in the course of audit that certain pensioners whose pensions were awarded on the basis of an aggregation of their Irish insurance contributions and their contributions in other EEC member states had supplementary amounts added to their pensions under the terms of EEC Regulation 1408/71. It was later established that these supplements had been awarded in error due to a misunderstanding of the terms of the Regulation. Rather than effect an immediate correction of the rates of pension it was decided that the pensions (including supplements) of those concerned should be paid on a “marktime” basis until such time as normal pension increases would absorb the amount of the supplement in each individual case. I have inquired as to the number of pensioners who received supplements in error since 1973, the total amount overpaid as at 31 December 1978 and whether the sanction of the Department of Finance was accorded for the “mark-time” arrangement.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph deals with overpayments to certain Social Welfare pensioners through the award to them of pension supplements following a misinterpretation of EEC Regulation 1408/71. The paragraph indicates the method adopted by the Department of Social Welfare to deal with the sums overpaid.

The Accounting Officer has informed me that the number of pensioners to whom supplements were awarded in error is 344, comprising 58 in receipt of old age (contributory) pensions, 46 in receipt of widows (contributory) pensions and 240 in receipt of retirement pensions. The total amount paid as supplements to these pensioners was £132,000, approximately.

The Accounting Officer also informed me that the arrangement made by his Department to deal with these overpayments has since been sanctioned by the Department of Finance.

451. Chairman.—In what way was the EEC Directive misinterpreted in this instance?

—Article 50 of the EEC Regulation quoted provides for supplements to pensions where the total of pensions from any contributions in the different states did not reach the minimum pension in the country in which the pensioner was residing. Ireland, and a number of other countries, have not got a statutory minimum pension as such and we interpreted this Regulation as meaning that if the total of the pension the person was getting did not reach our lowest rate of pension that was the minimum for the purposes of this Regulation. We operated on that interpretation. In March 1977 we became aware that the interpretation was being raised with the European Court in a specific case. We did not award any further pensions until we got the court’s ruling. In November 1977 the court made it clear that we were not required to award a supplement in cases of that nature. We took the view that the supplements up to then had been awarded on what to us seemed a valid interpretation, and that it would be unfair to deprive the pensioners of these amounts. With the sanction of the Department of Finance we are working them off on a marktime basis until ordinary pension increases bring the pensioners up to that level.

You did not seek recoupment, in other words?

—No.

452. Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“I have been informed that overpayments of benefits from the Social Insurance Fund outstanding at 31 December 1978 were of the order of £1,517,000 as compared with £1,171,000 at 31 December 1977. Fifty-three individuals were prosecuted for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain benefits. Convictions were secured in 48 cases.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. It gives the total sum outstanding at 31 December 1978 in respect of overpayments of benefit made from the Social Insurance Fund and the number of persons prosecuted in 1978 for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain benefit of one kind or another from the fund.

453. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“I have been informed that 111 employers were prosecuted for failure to comply with the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts and convictions were secured in 108 cases. Civil proceedings for recovery of arrears were completed during the year in 53 cases. Decrees in favour of the Minister for Social Welfare were obtained in 39 cases, the total amount being £12,409.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. It deals with prosecutions of employers for failure to comply with the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts and with civil proceedings taken for recovery of arrears.

454. Deputy Belton.—Does that mean that 39 cases out of 108 were successful?

—No. One hundred and eleven were brought to court and convictions were secured in 108 cases.

Was it 39 out of 53?

—Yes. I should explain, that while it is recorded in that paragraph that 53 civil cases were completed in the year the actual number we sent to the Chief State Solicitor for institution of civil proceedings was 425. There is quite a delay in getting the cases to the courts. An interesting figure on that is that while the amount recovered was only £12,000 we did actually recover £4.9 million in that year without court proceedings as a result of our outdoor staff’s efforts. We normally get most recoveries without having recourse to proceedings.

455. Chairman.—Is the noncompliance confined to non-stamping only?

—Yes, that is what is at issue here, failure to pay contributions.

456. Deputy Belton.—Do I understand that 425 cases were sent to the Chief State Solicitor for institution of civil proceedings and only 53 were proceeded with?

—That is so. There is a build-up all the time. The Chief State Solicitor has to send them to the different State solicitors around the country and there is always an arrear. There is also the question of the amount. If the amounts are above a particular figure they have to go to the Circuit Court which may delay the matter still further.

457. If there were arrears over a number of years would this result in a backlog?

—The amounts involved very often in those cases are not great. We get the bigger amount, as I have explained, without recourse to proceedings.

458. Deputy O’Hanlon.—In those 39 cases where you were successful you received £12,409. Was that the total amount that you were due or were you due more than that?

—That would be the amount that was due. The decree is given for the full amount.

459. Chairman.—Paragraph 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Overpayments of Social Assistance

I have been furnished with the following information regarding overpayments of Social Assistance:—

Nine individuals were prosecuted for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain assistance. Convictions were secured in all cases.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. It indicates that the overpayments of social assistance not disposed of at 31 December 1978 amounted to £1,215,524 as compared with £825,376 at 31 December 1977.

460. Deputy Filgate.—Are we referring there to overpayments not disposed of on 1 January 1978?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Yes.

Overpayments through no fault of the recipient, I presume, or fault of the Department or whose fault is it for the overpayment?

—It can be both actually. There can be what we regard as fraud overpayments regarding concealment of means or it can be overpayment due to departmental error —issuing payments at the wrong rate or paying after a person has ceased to be eligible.

461. Chairman.—The two figures involved represent an increase of nearly 50 per cent. Could you comment on the scale of the increase in this particular year?

—The largest items in the outstanding balance are unemployment assistance and old age pensions and the bulk of these relate to cases of concealment of means. In the case both of unemployment assistance and old age pensions we were for some years rather short-staffed in the outdoor branch of the Department and at a time when pension age was being reduced and various other changes made the implementation of that type of change would normally take precedence over investigation of older claims. In the case of unemployment assistance we found that since 1975 in particular because of increases in the multiplier and freezing of rates of assistance there had been many cases where smallholders applied for factual assessments of means. This was done and we found in quite a number of cases that there had been concealment of means originally, that is other than farm means. That is responsible for the rather high level of overpayments. When we got the staff up to full strength in those years—for example, in 1978 we did 31,000 reinvestigations, and naturally they throw up quite a good deal.

I am not complaining. It shows the improved degree of efficiency with which the investigation has taken place, the fact that the sum of overpayments has gone up.

462. Paragraph 68 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Suspense Account

Up to April 1979 contributions from persons insured for the purposes of the Health Acts were collected by the Department of Social Welfare on behalf of the Department of Health through the Social Welfare stamp system. Refunds of such contributions claimed by employers and made by the Department of Social Welfare in 1977 and 1978 amounted to £644,430 and £832,369 respectively. It was noted in the course of audit that these claims were paid without verification from the insurance contribution records of the employees in respect of whom the refunds were claimed and I have asked for information as to the means by which the validity of the claims was established.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph refers to refunds made to employers in 1977 and 1978 of health contributions collected through the social insurance system in respect of insured employees who, because of their levels of remuneration, would not be liable for the contributions. As the claims for refunds were being paid without verification by reference to the insurance contribution records of the employees concerned it appeared to me that there was a danger that fraudulent claims might be received and met.

The Accounting Officer has informed me that it was arranged in conjunction with the Department of Health and the Federated Union of Employers that employers would apply for refund of health contributions in the case of persons who were not entitled to health benefits. It was envisaged that such applications would be made by reputable employers in respect of highly paid nonmanual workers and there would be little prospect of fraudulent claims being made.

The Accounting Officer also stated that applications for refunds were checked to ensure arithmetical accuracy and to avoid duplicate refunds. Employees’ contribution records are not available until after the end of the contribution year and could not therefore be used to check current claims.

A check of the insurance records of 975 contributors in respect of whom refunds were made has since been carried out by the Department and I was recently furnished with the details. Of these 975 employees, 675 were employed in semi-State bodies, banks, schools, colleges etc, creameries, hospitals, insurance companies, Esso Teo. and Arthur Guinness & Co. Ltd. The remaining 300 contributors were in the “other employer” category.

Of the 975 contributors, contribution records were not immediately available in 73 cases. Of the 902 records available the Accounting Officer states that only 31 showed any error and only a total of 175 excess contributions were refunded representing .38 per cent of the contributions paid in respect of the 902 contributors.

463. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned that of the 975 employees 675 were in the area of semi-State bodies and others which I assume would come under the heading of reputable employers like Esso and Guinness, who are all old-established, reputable employers. There are 300 in the other category which I assume would be the less well known employers. Would you not think that the investigation of the other category employers would be more appropriate in this particular case and that the semi-State and reputable people were less likely to make fraudulent claims?

—The semi-State group would probably represent a much higher proportion of the people involved. It was only in the case of non-manual employees earning over a particular figure that the question of refund arose at all. The concentration of employees in that category would be greater in the group that you have mentioned than in the case of the smaller employer.

464. I would agree in regard to the concentration of that type of person but the concentration of fraudulent claims may well be in the other category. Is that not a logical conclusion?

—Proportionately it might be, but in the overall it would have to be very much less because you would not have the number of employees in those employments.

465. On the question of non-availability of records at the particular time, could you not have this matter cleared by retrospective investigation when the records became available or do you do that?

—It normally takes about five months to post the insurance cards to the record. It could have been done but it would have meant going back to the individual employer because, while the posting of the cards would give us the number of contributions paid for a particular employee, we would have no indication of whether he was under or over the limit without going back to check the employers’ record. It would be a rather difficult job to do retrospectively. Also we would not be aware if he were manual or non-manual. If a check had to be done retrospectively it would mean that it would have to be done by going back to the individual employers’ records. We could do only part of the check from our own record.

466. So you have no idea of what might be involved here due to your difficulty with retrospective investigation?

—No, except on the basis that the number of claims for refund we received was less than our estimate of what might arise on this. When this arrangement was made it was hoped that it would last only for a few years, but it lasted up to April 1979 until this differentiation was abolished.

467. Deputy Filgate.—This may not be a really relevant question but it is on a point of information rather than anything else. Will the fact that PRSI payments will now be made direct augur for more efficiency rather than the old system of waiting for the cards to be surrendered?

—It should, because we have had to computerise our records so that we can take the information on PRSI contributions paid from the Revenue computer. Of course it depends on the efficiency of the revenue collection. I can say that it should make for improved turnover.

468. Deputy Morley.—On subhead A.1—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—I see that there is an under-expenditure of £156,000. I know that is a very small percentage of the total amount involved but I would like to ask if the Accounting Officer is satisfied that there is a full complement of staff. Are you understaffed in any department?

—We are not understaffed but from time to time—and this happens regularly—if pressures build up in particular sections naturally we examine the position and we may have to look for additional staff. We have the staff we need except for the normal delays in a big Department in getting replacement staff from examinations. There is a big turnover where the staff is about 3,200. There are promotions and retirements occuring all the time. It is not always easy to get replacements as quickly as one would like. Examinations for new entrants are held at particular times and replacements are not always available.

469. On subhead A.2—Consultancy Services—I would like to know what would be the nature of consultancy services employed recently?

—It relates mainly to the engaging of consultants on proposals for computerising further aspects of the Department’s work. We had hoped in that year to have consultancy projects done on computerisation of employment exchanges. We did not get it done in that year. That became apparent at the time of taking the Supplementary Estimate and we reduced the provision by £40,000 at that time but, in fact, that particular consultancy project has since been carried out.

470. Chairman.—On the question of computer consultancy, we had here today the Accounting Officer for the Department of the Public Service and from the Finance Minute it was established that each Department wants to have a computerised system and be responsible for the operation of that section within their own Department. He also mentioned the fact that his Department were available in an advisory capacity and I assume in a consultancy capacity also at a later stage if problems arose. You mentioned what I presume to be outside consultants being brought in to advise you on some problems. Could you tell the Committee if you could not seek that advice from the Department of the Public Service in this particular instance? Have they got that level of consultants?

—In particular cases they may not have that level of expertise, particularly in relation to new developments in computerisation. Any question of engaging a consultant for work in Social Welfare is agreed between ourselves and the Department of the Public Service. Both must be agreed on it because we must have the sanction of that Department before we can engage the consultants. It is only where we both agree that we need some expertise that we have not got within the public service that we would engage outside consultants.

471. Deputy Filgate.—On subhead B.1—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there was underspending of £35,500. This, I see from the note on the subhead, is due to a late compensation claim settlement for an accident involving an official car. It was expected, I presume, that that claim would be finalised when the Estimate was being prepared.

—That is the position exactly.

472. On subhead D—Insured Persons’ Medical Certificates. What does that expenditure of £702,000 involve?

—An insured person who attends a doctor who is on the Department’s panel gets a certificate from the doctor as a prerequisite for claiming disability benefit. He does not have to pay the doctor. We pay the doctors on a capitation basis. A rather complicated method of calculation is applied. That is what this subhead provides.

473. Chairman.—On subhead F—Investment Return—could you tell the Committee what is involved there just briefly?

—When the old National Health Insurance Fund was used to build and equip Aras Mhic Dhiarmada, the headquarters of the Department, the fund moneys were used pursuant to a provision in an Act of 1950. In the normal way, the accommodation for our Department would be provided by the Office of Public Works, but part of the funds of the society—which now form part of the social insurance fund—were used to build and equip that office. As a result, the fund is owed that money and the way it is recouped is that the interest rate on the investments of our existing fund is applied to the capital cost, £1.3 million approximately, which was spent on Aras Mhic Dhiarmada, so that the fund has not lost by that rather unique way of financing the acquisition of the building.

474. Deputy O’Hanlon.—On subhead K—Miscellaneous Grants—would the Accounting Officer explain the grants involved?

—Quite a lot of grants are involved in that. School meals, free travel, free electricity, free television licences, telephone rentals, bottled gas and schemes of that nature. Specific schemes that were introduced are all included under that one subhead.

475. The scheme I am anxious about is the supplementary welfare allowance. Is there any undue delay in recouping the Health Boards where they pay out the supplementary welfare allowance on an agency basis? Obviously there must be some delay?

—In the normal course there should not be any great delay, but, certainly, in 1979 during the postal dispute, when the community welfare officers paid out far more than was customary we were not in a position very often to know how much was due to a claimant from our Department because we had not got the claims in. I would hazard a guess that there was a delay then but, in the normal way, there should not be because the statutory position is that the Health Board will be recouped for any arrears of social welfare payments.

476. Deputy Filgate.—You mentioned free television licences. I presume, therefore, that in the matter of accounting there are inter-departmental payments from one Department to another for the television licences?

—That is so.

477. On subhead H—Children’s A1lowances—have we any experience of people not actually accepting children’s allowance payments?

—Just refusing?

Yes, because they feel their position in life would not lend itself to the acceptance of children’s allowances?

—I have never come across a case. If the person just simply does not claim, we do not know he exists. So I cannot say it has not happened. All I can say is that I have never heard of such a case.

The witness withdrew.

MINUTE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE ON THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT (Paragraph 50) ON THE APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS 1977

Mr. A. Ward called and examined.

478. Chairman.—The Minister’s Minute on paragraph 50 of the Committee’s previous Report deals with on-the-spot fines. Could you give us any idea of the progress in relation to this item?

—What is said there, as you will see, is that the situation referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General in last year’s report had been brought under control. The words “under control” were used because there will always be some cases which cannot be followed up. What were at issue previously were cases, principally in Dublin and to a lesser extent in Cork, which were not followed up because the administrative machine, so to speak, within the Garda Siochána was not able to provide the support services. When I refer to the machine “not being able” I do not mean that the Garda Siochána were at fault. There was, for instance, industrial action by Dublin Corporation workers which affected the situation and there was also a conscious decision, and though it is not for me to say, I assume a necessary decision, by the Garda authorities that certain other matters had to be given priority. That was in the past and has been resolved. In recent times, the number of cases not being followed up is at a very much lower level. However, there has been a temporary problem though at a much lower level, in Cork but a series of remedial actions have been taken, including the temporary employment of more staff by Cork Corporation and the assignment of some additional Garda personnel in Cork. So although we had this other problem in Cork, it too has been brought under control. Furthermore, by the end of this year, both in Dublin and Cork, which are the places in which this kind of problem has arisen, a great deal more computerisation should be completed and so the problem should not recur except for reasons which would be quite outside our control such as occurred in the case of the postal strike. In broad general terms, therefore, one can say that the problem is now settled.

VOTE 23—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE

Mr. A. Ward further examined.

479. Chairman.—Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Payable Orders outstanding at 31 December 1978

In the case of the above Vote and Votes 24 to 27 the balances of payable orders outstanding as shown by the departmental records were not in agreement with the totals shown on the lists of outstanding orders furnished by the Paymaster General’s Office. As stated in paragraph 5 it is necessary in such circumstances to reconcile the two figures for each Vote in order to establish the accuracy of the surplus to be surrendered as shown in the relevant Appropriation Account. Such reconciliations had not been carried out by the Department of Justice and I was therefore unable to satisfy myself as to the accuracy of the balances to be surrendered on these Votes.

The Accounting Officer informed me that the discrepancies, which go back to 1969, had arisen as a consequence of the computerisation in the Office of the Paymaster General and had been aggravated by the bank strike of 1970. Following my query, discrepancies which arose in 1977 had been reconciled and reconciliations are being carried out on a monthly basis since then.

With regard to the discrepancies which originated prior to 1977 the Accounting Officer stated that, because of the costs involved, because there was no guarantee that a complete reconciliation could be effected and because staff would have to be diverted from other essential accounts work, he did not feel that any further attempt to reconcile these discrepancies would be justified. Accordingly, the unreconciled balance on each Vote had been transferred to a suspense account and a direction sought from the Department of Finance in the matter.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to discrepancies between the figures for outstanding payable orders for the Department of Justice group of Votes, as shown in the Department’s records and the corresponding figures as furnished by the Paymaster General’s office.

The Committee will recall that this matter, which is dealt with generally in paragraph 5 of this report, was discussed recently when the Accounting Officer for the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance was being examined.

In the present case, as the paragraph states, the post-1976 discrepancies have been reconciled and a direction was sought from the Department of Finance in regard to the outstanding discrepancies relating to the earlier period.

Since the date of my report the Minister for Finance has agreed that further efforts to reconcile the pre-1977 outstanding discrepancies need not be pursued and has directed that the relevant entries in the Department of Justice records should be suitably adjusted on the basis of the figures furnished by the Paymaster General’s Office.

I understand that the necessary adjustments have been made.

480. Chairman.—Is there any likelihood that this position might recur?

—No, the discrepancy arose in circumstances related to and arising from computerisation in the Paymaster General’s Office, a situation where that computerisation was not geared to the system operating in some other offices. To take pay orders, for example, we issue a minimum of 80,000 per month. Inescapably, certain serial numbers are repeated after a time. If a serial number is repeated too quickly, the Paymaster General’s computer rejects the second one as being a dud and that happened in a number of instances in the early days before the two systems were meshed in properly. So the answer to your question is that it is highly unlikely ever to recur and certainly not for the reasons it occurred the last time. There is a continuing reconciliation being done now so that if anything were to go wrong it would be picked up virtually immediately.

481. On subhead A.2.—Consultancy Services—you did not avail of your consultancy grant of £38,000.

—That was provided mainly on a provisional basis. Notice of a supplementary claim from the consultants had been received. It was thought at first sight that there might be a good case for it. In the event it was not, in fact, conceded. That was how that arose.

482. There is a note regarding ex gratia payments of £3,045 and £472 respectively which were made in respect of fees of counsel who were assigned outside the scope of the Free Legal Aid Regulations. In what circumstances did these payments arise outside the scope of the scheme?

—There are legal aid regulations—they are statutory regulations—and they provide for the employment of not more than two counsel. We are talking about State-aided cases for the defence. In exceptional cases the court, which in practice means a court such as the Central Criminal Court or the Special Criminal Court, directs the provision of a third counsel in what the court regards as an exceptionally difficult case for the defence. The legal advice is that, as a matter of constitutional law, they are entitled to the additional counsel where the court so directs. The Department of Finance have given a decision that the appropriate way to charge it is under this subhead, provided it is noted as it is noted there.

It is just a matter of curiosity more than of questioning the validity of it.

VOTE 24—GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

Mr. A. Ward further examined.

483. Chairman.—Paragraph 27 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Suspense Accounts

Advances to members of the Garda Síochána in respect of travelling allowances and witnesses expenses are made by way of imprests charged to suspense accounts which are cleared on the submission of approved claims. Reference was made in paragraph 31 of my report for 1972-73 to advances made in the period 1968 to 1972 which had not been cleared at 31 March 1973. The Public Accounts Committee during its examination of that report was assured that a new system being introduced as from 1 April 1974 would prevent failure to clear new advances and that in addition a special task force had been set up to deal with the advances outstanding at that time.

In the course of audit it was noted that some of these old advances and a number of advances made in the period up to December 1977 were still uncleared at 31 December 1978 and I communicated with the Accounting Officer. He informed me that the delay in clearing outstanding imprests had arisen mainly because of staffing difficulties and a big increase in the volume of advances being made. Furthermore, from 1968 up to March 1974 the system of recording advances was cumbersome, inadequate and not geared to handling the increased volume of transactions and, while the new systems of control introduced in April 1974 and October 1976 had effected a considerable improvement, the position was still not satisfactory. A number of new procedures had however been agreed with the Garda Authorities in May 1979 and it was expected that their operation would help to clear the advances outstanding. It was also intended to assign some of the additional staff authorised in March 1979 to the clearance of the arrears of outstanding advances as soon as this staff was recruited. The Accounting Officer also stated that, with the introduction of these new procedures and strict adherence to existing procedures, he believed that the control system in operation would be adequate and that, with the increased allocation of staff and the more active involvement of Garda Headquarters, he expected the arrears position to be brought under control within a reasonable time, but that if the new system did not yield sufficient results it would be reviewed early in 1980.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is concerned with delays in clearing advances made to members of the Garda Síochána in respect of travelling allowances and witnesses’ expenses. Some of these outstanding advances were made up to ten years ago and, as the paragraph indicates, the Committee when considering my report 1972-73 received assurances in regard to their early clearances.

The paragraph includes the Accounting Officer’s explanation of the circumstances in which it was not found possible to clear these outstanding advances and of the further steps being taken to bring the arrears position under control within a reasonable time.

484. Chairman.—What is the present position?

—It is not fully satisfactory yet. It is greatly improved as regards the older cases up to 1977. We reduced those older cases by nearly 70 per cent in 1979 through intensive action. I cannot honestly say that the position is satisfactory as regards current cases. The phraseology quoted there in the Report was that if the new system does not yield sufficient results it will be reviewed early in 1980. We have, in fact, reviewed it. We find it extremely difficult to get returns from the Garda Síochána. Various efforts have been made and various directions have gone out from the Garda authorities that people are to send in claims, but when they are transferred to Border areas they are operating in difficult conditions and there is a natural reluctance to be critical or to put pressure on them. In 1978 there was a typical delay of about five months between the giving of an imprest and the submission of the claim to clear it. The claim, of course, might be a little less or a little more than the advance and the amount at issue may be very small, but the principle is there and we accept that the account should be cleared. As I have said, in 1978 there was an average delay of five months. In 1979, despite our efforts to secure quicker response, the average delay actually increased to six months. We are, therefore, not satisfied with the present position. We are very effectively working towards reducing the older accounts. I say “reducing” rather than “eliminating” as total elimination would be very difficult because they include not just advances to members of the Garda Síochána for travelling or subsistence but advances for the payment of witnesses’ expenses which would have been disbursed in practice maybe five, six or seven years ago. It is going to be very difficult to get them tidied up fully but we are doing our very best. This has been going on since 1968. Similarly, in the Garda Síochána an account may be outstanding for years and the person may have died or left the Force. So we cannot see the possibility of total elimination of this problem by the ordinary process. We may reach a stage where we will have to put it to the appropriate authorities—the Department of Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor General—to agree to something in the nature of a certificate that the money was expended, and try to close it that way. We are doing what we can to try to eliminate it first by normal processes before going to that stage. In current cases, the Commissioner has issued several sets of instructions and he is now doing so again, with a view to getting the current claims sent in more quickly.

485. On subhead H—Equipment—there is an under-expenditure of £131,000, 11 per cent or 12 per cent. We are all aware that any time the Garda Síochána get the chance to publicise their position they complain about the lack of adequate equipment and so on to meet current demands in crime prevention and detection. Could you explain the reason for the under-expenditure in this subhead.

—May I begin with a negative statement? It was not a question of money not being made available to the Garda authorities. Putting it positively, a variety of items go to make up this figure. One of them is radio, which accounts for a saving of approximately £50,000. This is a recurring thing with radio. One may have a significant over-expenditure or a significant under-expenditure. The fundamental reason for it is that the type of radio required by the Garda Síochána is such that manufacturers or suppliers do not have it in stock. There is a certain amount of design work in it, and certainly there is special manufacture. There is a time lag between ordering and delivery. The delivery may come earlier than one would estimate, or it may be later and, as a consequence, one can have an excess on the Vote in one year and an under-expenditure in another year. It was not a question of money not being available to the Garda Síochána; it was a question of the equipment ordered not being delivered and paid for during the year. While it is not directly relevant, I think that in the context in which the question is asked, it may be of interest to mention that, independently of the supply of this kind of equipment, a group of technical advisers from the universities, the ESB and so on, are well advanced in a project for the setting up of a national radio network of the most modern kind. This has been going on for well over a year and a great deal of progress has been made on it. It is going to cost a good deal of money, but it means the Garda Síochána will have a very modern and efficient radio communication network in a matter of years. Coming back to the savings, there were savings on some other items also, for example, the Technical Bureau. One figure which is significant in the total is £15,000 which was for a particular kind of printing machine. That was provided for in the Estimate because people in the Technical Bureau had examined it and thought it would be a useful addition but when it was considered in the Garda Síochána at more senior level, they found the machine would not suit their needs and they did not go ahead with the order amounting to £15,000.

Another significant item is that under the heading of protective equipment there was provision for £23,000 in respect of crash barriers for the Garda Síochána; that is in the area of crowd control and the like. They could not find a suitable contractor during the year, so they could not get the equipment. These are examples of what happens but in no single instance, I can assure the Committee, was there a question of the money being withheld on the basis that the money was not available.

I did not say or even imply that the money was not available. What I was saying was that they did not spend even what was made available.

486. Deputy Filgate.—On subhead C— Post Offices Services—what does this include? Is it ordinary post and telephone services?

—Mainly. It includes post, telephones, teleprinter services and also handling of stores which is a significant part of the total but one on which there is neither a saving nor an excess because it is a figure given to us by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as a reasonable figure. I should explain that they handle stores on behalf of the Garda Síochána. The figure for handling stores is about £170,000. The other two, post and telephones are approximately equal, something of the order of £600,000 in each case.

487. Under subhead D—Clothing and Accessories—there is shown a saving in expenditure of nearly four hundred thousand pounds. The note says that the saving was due mainly to some clothing which was ordered not being delivered and to some over-estimation. If we take half of each, it is a sizable sum for clothing which was ordered and had not been delivered. I should like to ask a question in relation to that: this comes at a time when there was grave upheaval in this industry in the country, when in fact some industries had closed down; when to my knowledge some of these people had been scrambling to get this work. It seems strange that this clothing which was ordered, possibly ordered on contract, was not delivered?

—I am not sure that it goes to the point in which the Deputy is interested but I can state factually that, in one case, there was a contracting company which did not supply what we describe as unmade or cut uniforms. Naturally this delay also resulted in there being no finishing costs for those uniforms. Taken together these two items amounted to nearly £200,000. I could not say why the particular contractors did not supply during the year, because for one thing we do not deal directly with them; clothing is dealt with through the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. If I had known about the point which has been made, about its being a time when other firms were looking for work, I could have found out but it did not occur to me to ask. I can only say factually that the particular contractors to whom this job was given did not supply all the goods in time. They were supplied in the following year, though not early in the following year. It was about July the following year when all the outstanding uniforms came in.

VOTE 25—PRISONS

Mr. A. Ward further examined.

488. Chairman.—On subhead D— Buildings and Equipment—the note says that the excess was due mainly to expenditure on the purchase of sites being greater than anticipated. Does the Office of Public Works provide sites for Garda stations?

—Yes.

And you provide the sites for prisons?

—Yes.

Is there any reason why the Office of Public Works would not provide the same facility for prisons as they do for Garda stations?

—I am afraid I cannot answer offhand on what I might call the technical accounting level as to why one should be charged in one way and another in another way. But, in practice, the Office of Public Works are very actively involved; in fact they provide all the professional advice in regard to assessment of a site for a prison. From a practical point of view it makes no difference at all. But there is this to be said in favour of the present arrangement: the nature of the prison service is such that the selection of a site and what is involved in the planning of a prison requires not only the normal kind of engineering, architectural and other professional expertise but also a great deal of specialised knowledge of security requirements. There has to be a major contribution by people from our Department to the planning, at all stages, and to a much greater extent than would be the case in relation to say, a Garda station.

I appreciate that.

489. Deputy Filgate.—Under subhead G—Welfare Services—the note says that the saving was due mainly to the fact that grants for the provision and maintenance of hostels for offenders were not availed of to the extent anticipated. Was this a reduction in activity on these lines by the authorities or what does the statement mean?

—Again, to begin with a negative answer, it was not due to any decision of the authorities to cut down on anything. These are hostels which are basically under the care of voluntary organisations though at times with some official participation, and, as will be seen, with financial and other support. In some cases provision has to be made, in advance, where there is a strong expectation that the hostel will get going during the year. Sometimes it is found that the hostel does not. That, in turn, tends to be because of local objection. No doubt the Deputy will be aware of the type of problem that can arise at local level. There was a capital provision, for instance, of £12,000 for a hostel in Galway. There were provisions for a hostel in Waterford. The hostel in Waterford did open but not until quite late in the year. In other cases—for instance, Sarsfield House—the numbers that were there were lower than had been expected. These things are not under the control of the Department. All one can do is make a good estimate of what will be likely to be needed to provide assistance for these various groups. To an extent at least it is out of the control of the Department.

VOTE 26—COURTS

Mr. A. Ward further examined.

490. Chairman.—Paragraph 28 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General Reads:

“District Court Offices—Dublin

The Criminal Procedures Act, 1967 provides for the conditional release from custody of a defendant or accused person on his entering into a recognisance with or without sureties. Section 26 of the Act provides for the acceptance in certain cases of a deposit (bail money) in lieu of a surety or sureties. The procedure for the estreatment of a recognisance in the event of a breach of its condition is set out in the District Court Rules.

In the course of local audits at the Dublin Metropolitan District Court Office and the Dublin County District Court Office it was noted that considerable amounts of bail money had accumulated in respect of defendants or accused persons who had failed to meet the conditions of their recognisances and I inquired from the Accounting Officer regarding the disposal of these moneys.

He informed me that all bail money received in these Offices is lodged to the credit of the general cash accounts of the District Court Offices. In the case of non-performance of the conditions of a recognisance the Gardaí initiate proceedings for the estreatment of bail in accordance with the District Court Rules. If bail money is estreated by the Court the amount is then transferred from the general cash account to the Department of Justice Fines Account.

The Accounting Officer at my request furnished the following figures regarding the number of cases in which recognisance conditions were certified to have been breached in the last three years and the number of cases in which estreatment proceedings had been instituted:

He stated that these figures related to remands in the Dublin Metropolitan and the Dublin County District Courts only and that information in relation to cases sent forward for trial or on appeal was not readily available.

The Accounting Officer stated that while it is the policy of the Garda to seek estreatment proceedings in all cases of breach of the conditions of a recognisance this policy has not been assiduously followed in the Dublin Districts in recent years but that the Garda Authorities say that measures have recently been taken to rectify this situation.

The Accounting Officer added that, because of the postal strike, information as to the position regarding estreatment proceedings in District Courts other than in Dublin was not readily available to the Department but that the Chief Examiner felt that a position in which bail money has remained undisposed of over a number of years does not exist outside Dublin. However, the District Court Examiners would be instructed to check on the position and to bring to notice any such situation which might exist.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to the accumulation in Dublin District Court Offices of considerable sums of bail money in respect of defendants or accused persons who had failed to meet the conditions of their recognisances.

The paragraph contains the observation of the Accounting Officer on the matter.

491. Chairman.—The figures set out in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report indicate that, over the last three years, there were large numbers of cases where recognisance conditions were breached. I presume the large numbers do not represent a large sum of money, as might be interpreted from the figures given?

—Could I have permission to make a brief statement which I hope would clarify the situation without going into excessive detail? I think it is necessary to make two preliminary points. The first is that what is referred to here relates in the main to matters within the area of activity of the Garda Síochána. The second point arises directly from that and it is that people in our Accounts Branch and elsewhere in the Department are, perhaps, two or three stages removed from the action on the ground, so to speak and therefore do not have, and could not be expected to have, a comprehensive knowledge of local Garda practices. If they had, they would have been in a position to give a fuller background picture to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office than in fact was given. What was given to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office was a set of factual answers to factual questions. Without a fuller background knowledge of the situation, there was probably some degree of misunderstanding as to what was involved. In case what I have said gives an impression that I am critical of anybody, I do not mean it in that sense. In point of fact, the figures mentioned in the middle of that page—the figures headed “number of cases of conditions breached” —do not really relate to the same items as those referred to in the opening paragraphs. They include them, but the items referred to in the opening paragraph, namely money lodgments, would represent typically only about 100 to 150 cases a year, not 1,500 or 1,600 cases a year. The 1,500 or 1,600 cases are for the most part cases where there is no money involved, only bonds. In very many cases it is the person’s own bond and in many of those cases, in turn, you cannot reasonably or in any serious sense talk about estreatment of bail of the person’s own bond because, by definition, he is somebody who has gone. If we had had at the time a full picture, we probably would have avoided the somewhat confusing picture here—we would have explained it, at all events, to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office. As regards the specific matter raised in the opening paragraphs—bail money—unfortunately that goes back a minimum of 21 years—maybe 23, certainly 21. Basically, the reason that the money is there is that the people concerned have no address in the State, or certainly no known address in the State. Generally speaking, people with a fixed address in the State do not lodge money in court and then not turn up. They could, if necessary, be forced to turn up. This money, in very large measure, relates to people who put down bail money, then disappear and almost by definition are uncontactable. Many of them, in fact, are people who were not living in the State at all, let alone having a fixed abode in the State. This is not as surprising as might appear, because we are not speaking of a cross-section of defendants. This represents the people who did not turn up—the people who lodged money and who did turn up do not appear here. We accept that there is an accounting problem in the sense that there is an account there which goes back 21 years and the account is lying there and until recently nobody knew about it. The people in the court office inherited it and apparently it did not strike them as odd or unusual. About a year ago an auditor picked it up and asked what about this. Everybody began to take notice and the Garda Síochána appointed a special inspector to try to unravel the situation. He spent a few months at it, with the co-operation of court staff, and it is fair to say that he discovered it was a morass. He could see no prospect of getting anywhere. We are talking here about a sum of money of the order of £30,000. The Comptroller and Auditor General mentioned £40,000 but, of course, the most recent sums that go into the composition of that would be virtually current money. One can take off, perhaps, about £10,000 for that, so we are talking about a sum of the order of £30,000. Any effort to go back 21 of 23 years would certainly cost much more than that. At the end of the day, the State would certainly not get the benefit of this money if the ordinary machinery were gone through. Since the Garda inspector found that he was not getting anywhere because of the complexity of the situation, some other approach had to be sought. Within the last couple of weeks, people have found what appears to be a good approach whereby it can be gradually cleared by application to a court. Applications are going to be made to the Court, first and foremost in respect of the oldest part—up to the end of 1976. They hope the Court will be willing to make disposal orders. They have power; whether they would exercise it is another matter, but they hope that in all the circumstances, in many of these cases, the Court will be willing to exercise the power to declare this money forfeit to the State. Perhaps a year later a similar application will be made for the year 1977. That would bring us up to near the current date. Finally, to complete the picture, the Garda authorities have very firmly undertaken that this situation will not recur. Very firm instructions have gone out from the Commissioner and not only that but they have arranged that notices are to be sent out after each court indicating who did not turn up, so that the prosecuting garda will immediately look after the question of the bail. If, of course, it is the person’s own bail and he is gone, that is a different problem. I am sorry for the confusing picture.

We appreciate the explanation is very complicated and the fact that steps will be taken to ensure that it will not recur, which is all you can do at this particular point.

492. Paragraph 29 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Department of Justice Fines Account

Fines received in District Court Offices are paid into the general cash accounts of the District Courts from which they are transferred to the Department of Justice Fines Account maintained at a commercial bank. On the basis of instructions from the Chief Examiner’s Office, to which details as to the amount and nature of the fines are required to be furnished quarterly by District Court Clerks, transfers are made from the Fines Account to the appropriate departmental accounts, i.e. Motor Tax Account, the Courts Vote Account, the Revenue Commissioners Account and the Account of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.

In the course of audit it was noted that regular reconciliations were not being effected between the amounts shown as having been transferred into the Fines Account by District Court Clerks, the amounts transferred out of that account to the various departmental accounts and the cash balance remaining at the bank. The Accounting Officer informed me in February 1979 that because of serious staff shortages in the District Court Offices over the past number of years delays arose in supplying the quarterly returns to the Chief Examiner’s Office and, as a result, that Office did not receive the information necessary to enable payments to be made out of the Fines Account promptly at the end of each quarter. He added that a reconciliation between receipts into and payments out of the Fines Account would be carried out for 1978 and that regular monthly reconciliations would be carried out in future. I understand that at the date of this Report such a reconciliation has not been completed.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph refers to the failure to carry out regular reconciliations to ensure that fines received in District Court Offices are duly accounted for without unnecessary delay. The Accounting Officer’s explanation of the circumstances in which the delays arose is included in the paragraph.

I understand that the reconciliation in respect of 1978 has now been completed and that regular monthly reconciliations are being carried out.

493. Chairman.—Are you quite happy with the current position?

—Yes. We have increased staff in the relevant section now. We have some extra examiners and, in effect, these examiners exercise an auditing function. The officers who were involved in this work discovered that the reconciliation which was asked for here would not, because of the peculiar relationships between the local district office and the headquarters office, cover every possible deficiency. With the agreement of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office they have undertaken to do it in a different way, and in a more satisfactory way than was first envisaged, and I am assured that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office are very happy with the situation. It is an agreed measure.

VOTE 27—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS

Mr. A. Ward called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix 12.