Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1983 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1978 - 1979

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 26 Márta 1981.

Thursday, 26th March 1981.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY TIMMINS in the chair.

Mr. S. MacGearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 13—OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.

Mr. S. O’Leary called and examined.

151. Chairman.—I welcome Mr. O’Leary and I would like to apologise for being a bit late. On subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—I would like to know if the staffing position is satisfactory and if there is any backlog of work at the moment.

—At the moment the staffing position is satisfactory and there is no abnormal backlog of work.

152. On subhead D.—Fees to Counsel—the Appropriation Account states that the saving was due to delay in receipt of the nomination forms for fees due for payment in respect of the Michaelmas term. Could you tell us the reason for the delay?

—The delay would be attributed to the time it took for the State solicitors to forward the results of the cases incorporating the necessary details on which the fees to be paid would be based.

Thank you.

The witness withdrew.

MINUTE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE ON THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT (Paragraph 47) ON THE APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS 1978

Mr. D. Quigley called and examined.

153. Chairman.—I welcome Mr. Quigley. First we take the minute of the Minister for Finance, paragraph 47. The Public Accounts Committee recommended that moneys voted for the Law Reform Commission should be provided by way of a Grant-in-Aid. It appears from the Minister’s minute that the Attorney General does not agree. In view of the functions and duties conferred on him by the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, could you give us some idea of what these duties are and why they make a Grant-in-Aid an unsuitable method of financing the Commission?

—The chief duties he would have had in mind would have been that under section 10 of the 1975 Act. That gives the Attorney General duties with regard to the staffing and salaries paid by the Commission. He has to be consulted and in certain cases has to give his consent, together with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service. The Attorney General is of the view that these are financial-type controls and that a Grant-in-Aid is appropriate where the Oireachtas wants to give a grant without any form of control. Any kind of control by some constitutional or statutory officer makes the Grant-in-Aid unsuitable. The duties set out in section 10 are the most obvious financial control. For example, the Commission in consultation with the Attorney General may appoint such and so many persons to be officers and servants and may engage a person in a part-time capacity who may be remunerated by the payment of fees of such amounts as the Commission may, with the approval of the Attorney General, given with the consent of the Minister of the Public Service, from time to time determine. Also, there shall be paid to officers of the Commission, other than officers who are members of the clerical staff, such remuneration and allowances as the Commission determine, again subject to the approval of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may also designate certain offices of the Commission and once he designates an office the Commission, on taking steps to fill an office to which designation relates, must consult the Attorney General as regards the making of the appointment to that office. They cannot do it without consultation with him and that consultation covers remuneration, fees and so on. He is of the view that these controls conferred on him by the Oireachtas make a Grant-in-Aid unsuitable.

154. Deputy Kenneally.—So we take it that the Attorney General feels inhibited in his efforts. Is that what you mean by that?

—No. He feels that the Oireachtas gave him functions with regard to the control of some of this grant in so far as it is used for the payment of the staff. Because he has been given these controls the all-out Grant-in-Aid would not be an appropriate form of grant to meet these requirements. He feels that the form of grant should be something other than a Grant-in-Aid because these controls are imposed on the use of that grant.

155. Mr. MacGearailt.—The problem is that the Attorney General’s Office have been more or less dealing with this grant, in so far as this Committee are concerned, as a Grant-in-Aid. In other words moneys that are paid over to the Commission have been charged in the account even though they may not have been expended by the Commission. I have no doubt that at the end of the year the Commission would have money on hands. Strictly speaking, under the present system that money should be surrendered with the ordinary surrender. The Committee’s attitude, when they reported on this first, was that the present arrangement put the Accounting Officer in a rather invidious position because, while he paid over money to the Commission, he was still responsible personally to the Dáil for the money, even though the money had gone out of his bailiwick. That is the reason why the Committee recommended a Grant-in-Aid. If the present system is retained, then the Accounting Officer could be held responsible for the expenditure of the money, not just for the payment over of the grant to the Commission but for the actual expenditure. The balance at the end of the year would have to be surrendered and nothing that has not been expended by the Commission may be charged in the account. I visualise that that could create difficulties for the Accounting Officer, but if he does not see any difficulty then I am sure the Committee would go along with the present system.

—I fully appreciate what has been said. It does create difficulties for the Accounting Officer. As Accounting Officer I would be delighted if it were a Grant-in-Aid because it is difficult in the circumstances to be accountable for this particular grant. As I see it now I must live with that and do the best I can. Every time they want money the Law Reform Commission submit a demand for a particular amount and they itemise what this is for. We examine that with the assistance of the Department of Finance before paying it. We have not had a surplus as yet. I agree that it would be much easier on the Accounting Officer if he did not have to account for this particular grant.

156. Chairman.—As Accounting Officer you are responsible for the issue as well as the expenditure of the money. I am wondering if you would take the matter up again with the Attorney General. Would there be any point in approaching it from that angle in view of what the Committee feel about it?

—I certainly will take it up with him but he is very firmly of this view.

We can leave it at that for the moment and the Committee can consider it further at a later time.

VOTE 12—OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. D. Quigley further examined

157. On subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—was there a particular reason for the Supplementary Estimate of £180,000?

—The reason for that was that there was an unexpected success in the recruitment of solicitors to the Chief State Solicitor’s office. I have been asked about this on previous occasions by this Committee. We had for some years been over-estimating because we had vacancies which we hoped to fill and a certain amount of concern was expressed by the Committee at this overestimation. We had, for example, in one year three different competitions and as a result of the three competitions we succeeded in getting one applicant who could be considered suitable for about seven vacancies. In 1979 and 1980 we have had a flood of applicants for these positions and every vacancy in the Chief State Solicitor’s office, except one, is filled and occupied. The recruit for this post has been selected. It was this success in recruitment that caused that and we had not anticipated 1979 would be so much better than 1978 and 1977.

158. On subhead D.—Fees to Counsel—what kind of cases are included here?

—All types of cases in which we have to employ counsel either before the courts or in an advisory capacity. Here you will see that there was an original Estimate of £107,000 and a Supplementary Estimate of £145,000. It is impossible to anticipate that particular subhead because of things that happened. On 9 January the Bantry disaster took place and our Vote was put totally out of gear. This year we will have to cope with the Artane disaster.

159. Deputy O’Hanlon.—On subhead E.— General Law Expenses—there was a saving due to non-payment of the balance of costs to a solicitor. Has there been agreement on that since?

—No. The position is that there have been discussions between our costs expert and the solicitor and the ball is in his court, so to speak. We think that another solicitor, who was appearing for a different party, is having his costs taxed and it may well be that the Tribunal’s solicitor is waiting to see what the result of that taxation is. He has not re-submitted his final account to us yet.

160. Chairman.—On subhead F.—Defence of Public Servants—does this item cover all public servants?

—It covers all public servants whom it is considered proper to defend.

161. Does it cover local authority officials?

—No.

Could you tell us how local authority officials are covered?

—I am not aware.

Thank you.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 48—FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr. A. O’Rourke called and examined.

162. Chairman.—On subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—and subhead B1.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there is a saving which is due to a change in the recording of expenditure on missions abroad. Could you tell us what change was made?

—We decided rather late in the year, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to change the accounting year for our missions abroad from the calendar year to the year October-September. This was to facilitate the early preparation of the Appropriation Accounts. We also went for a Supplementary Estimate. The Supplementary Estimate was approved before we received approval for the change in the accounting system. This would explain the fact that we spent less than was approved on this subhead.

163. On subhead B.1—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—what is covered under that particular subhead?

—Travel by members of the Department both at home and abroad, postage, telegrams and telephones abroad and also newspapers and publications. There is a miscellaneous heading also for items like bank charges, expenditure on laundry, messengers’ uniforms, purchase of wreaths, and gratituties abroad.

164. Who does the travelling abroad?

—The Minister and officials of the Department. In our Department there is necessarily a great deal of travel to international conferences, to meetings in Brussels, to the United Nations and so on.

165. Deputy O’Hanlon.—On subhead H.—Cross Border Studies—could you elaborate a bit on the note?

—These studies were agreed at a meeting which took place between the Minister and the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Mason, in 1978. The most substantive study by consultants was on the aspects of tourism and drainage in the Erne catchment area. The study was set up in order to assess and report on the development potential of the Erne catchment area with reference to the development of tourist amenities and requirements. It was hoped at the time that the study would be dealt with in 1978 but there was some delay in working out arrangements with the Northern Ireland authorities and also with the European Commission which was financing half of this operation. The study was carried out in 1979. The work was awarded to a joint North-South consortium. The name of the firm was Brady, Chapman and Martin of Dublin and also P.A. Management in Belfast. Most of the cost was incurred in 1979. Total expenses for the study were just over £21,000.

166. Deputy Belton.—On subhead D.—Repatriation and Maintenance of Destitute Irish Persons abroad—what type of people would be covered in this?

—We repatriate people from Britain and the continent of Europe. They are people who become temporarily embarrassed financially. Many of them are young people. There is a problem sometimes with young girls or unmarried mothers whom we repatriate from Britain. In that case we act very discreetly and we do not, in fact, seek to recover the expenditure. Other wise, we are very careful to try to recover funds given out to people being repatriated. We try to get a deposit from their relatives in Ireland before an embassy or a consulate will advance any money. There is no right to funds from the State for this purpose. It is a service which we operate in favour of people who genuinely do sometimes get into difficulties—who have their passports taken and money stolen. We recover a very large proportion of the funds we issue —about 90 per cent.

Deputy Kenneally.—In what way is this money paid? Do you do it through the embassies abroad or through some associations?

—We do both. We pay it through the embassies in many cases. In Britain, in particular, we have quite a lot of cases where a welfare centre or an Irish centre approaches the embassy. They tell us of a person whom they want to repatriate and we co-operate and work with them.

Chairman.—There is an increase under that heading. Is there any particular reason for the increase?

—No. It is extremely difficult to estimate the numbers in a particular year applying for assistance abroad. There is an excess there of about one-sixth. It is difficult to estimate.

167. On subhead F.—Information Services—there was an excess of £35,946. Could you tell us the reason for that, or is any one particular item responsible for the increase?

—Part of this subhead deals with the publication of books by the Department mainly for use abroad although we sell them in Ireland also. This excess was due to the completion ahead of schedule in 1979 of two publication projects. One was a publication dealing with sport in Ireland, the other was translations into a num of different foreign languages of the publication Ireland in Brief which is used by embassies abroad as a handout.

168. Deputy Kenneally.—On subhead G.— Contributions to Bodies in Ireland for the furtherance of International Relations (Grants-inAid)—£3,000 was spent. What kind of associations are they?

—They are very small grants. There are two bodies—the Irish Council of the European Movement and the Irish United Nations Association. The first got £3,000 and the second was to get £1,000 but it was not paid in that year.

169. Deputy O’Hanlon.—On subhead D. the repayment of Repatriation and Maintenance Advances was £49,748. Does that mean that you took in more than you spent?

—It could happen in a particular year. Yes, our advances in 1979 amounted to £41,187 and the amount recovered in that year was £49,748, so that at the end of the year we had a lower balance outstanding than when we began the year.

Would it refer to the previous year?

—The year started with a balance of £14,000 and some of the amount recovered would be in respect of advances in the previous year.

170. Chairman.—On the Appropriations-in-Aid, there is reference to An Bórd Scoláireachtaí Cómalairte. This is a fund which awards exchange scholarships. Who provides the services?

—The Department of Foreign Affairs provide the secretarial services and accommodation. The amounts are recovered in respect of these services.

Chairman.—Who is selected for scholarships?

—The board selects Irish students or academics for scholarships to be held in the United States and select also American scholarship holders who wish to study in Ireland.

171. Deputy Kenneally.—Why did the sale of books go up from £2,000 to £14,652? Is there some special reason for this?

—We published an up-dated version of Facts about Ireland in that year, and sales were better than we expected. Indeed, they were very successful.

VOTE 49—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION

Mr. A. O’Rourke further examined.

172. Chairman.—On subhead A.—Contributions to International Organisations—and subhead B.—Contributions to United Nations Voluntary Agencies—how are these assessed?

—There are a number of international organisations involved here. The assessment of Ireland’s contribution is calculated on a slightly different basis in the case of different organisations. For instance, in the case of the Council of Europe our assessment is based on gross national product and population. In the case of the OECD it is based purely on gross national product. Again, in the case of the United Nations it is based on gross national product, but in that case the United States pay a fixed proportion of 25 per cent. So generally assessments are made on GNP and population but sometimes there are special ad hoc arrangements in the case of a particular organisation.

173. On subhead C.—Contributions to Agency for Personal Services Overseas—could you tell us how this is assessed?

—This is a Grant-in-Aid out of the Vote to the Agency for Personal Services Overseas. In that particular year it was £600,000. In other years the amount, of course, can be different; it can be greater or lesser.

Deputy Kenneally.—Are there any special criteria applied when you are handing this money over to them or do you just hand it to them and let them decide?

—The Minister has to approve APSO’s annual budget and the Department monitor the activities of the agency to ensure that they conform to the budget and to the terms of reference attaching to the Grant-in-Aid. In addition, the accounts of the agency are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

174. Chairman.—On subhead D.—Disaster Relief—has the Department a breakdown of the items under this heading?

—I have a breakdown here in my notes. In that particular year a considerable proportion of the disaster relief was devoted to the problem of the Indo-Chinese refugees in South-East Asia. There was almost £193,000 given to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Concern was given £25,000 to provide an expert team for refugee camps in South-East Asia. There was also payment of £21,000 for air fares for resettlement of the Indo-Chinese refugees who came to Ireland. Furthermore, there was £50,000 for earthquake relief in Yugoslavia and £60,000 for post-war relief assistance in Uganda. I am picking out the larger amounts.

175. Who decides the spending of that money?

—The Minister takes the decision. We receive numerous requests for assistance but the Minister takes the decision on the allocation of the funds.

176. On subhead E.—Payment to Grant-in-Aid Fund for Bilateral and Other Aid Contributions for Developing Countries—and subhead F.—Payments for the Benefit of Developing Countries arising from Membership of the European Economic Community—who decides on the payments under these subheads?

—Subhead E is the bilateral aid programme of the Department. The Minister authorises and approves of the manner in which the funds are allocated to different projects in the aid programme. Payments under Subhead F are assessed annually by the Commission of the EEC in Brussels.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 19—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. D. C. Ó Briain called and examined.

177. Chairman.—I welcome Mr. Ó Briain. On subhead A.2—Examiners, etc.—do local authority officials and civil servants get fees for acting as examiners?

—If they are doing the work during official hours they do not. When local authority officials come on interview boards they are paid only travelling and subsistence. A civil servant who prepares a paper for a written examination only gets paid for that if it is done outside official working hours.

Have you any difficulty in getting examiners?

—Sometimes we do because they think that the fees are too low and by the time income tax has been taken out they feel they are working for nothing.

178. With whom do you agree these fees?

—We have to go to the Department of the Public Service for approval and they usually link them in with the fees they approve for the Department of Education.

179. Deputy O’Hanlon.—A number of candidates did not turn up for the medical examination. Is there any particular reason for this?

—No. 1979 was a bad year on account of the postal strike and it was only towards the end of the year that we got going. As a result of that we had to squeeze an enormous volume of work into the last three or four months of the year. It is possible that we over-estimated the number of candidates for medical examination. A fairly large number of candidates do not turn up. That is a common occurrence in recent times. They are advised by their parents and by their teachers to apply for every job that is going and when we offer a job they have already got something else which they prefer. They may be going to university or for teacher training. In the case of some of our examinations, 60 per cent of the people offered jobs would not take them. In other cases it would be much smaller, maybe 25 per cent.

180. Deputy Kenneally.—On subhead B.2.—Office Machinery and other Office Supplies—are you computerised?

—The big written examinations are on the computer. They are computerised from the application stage onwards to the issue of the results. We are looking into becoming more mechanised because there is a lot of new equipment on the market for data and document processing which might be useful to us but we have not as yet enough information on it.

181. Chairman.—On Appropriations-in-Aid, you appear to recover half of your expenditure.

—Yes. The local authorities have to pay the full costs of the Local Appointments Commissioner and the Post Office work on a commercial basis. They charge us for all the letters they carry for us and we charge them for recruiting staff for them. The Post Office is nearly half of the civil service so a substantial proportion of the work we do is for the Post Office.

182. Deputy Kenneally.—Could we have an elaboration on that? If a county borough advertises for staff through you, do they have to pay?

—They have to pay their share of the full cost to the Local Appointments Commission. We make out the cost of each year at the end of the year and we send the figure to the Department of the Environment who then apportion it out among all the local authorities and the health boards, telling them how much each one has to pay. During the year that money comes in and is credited to our account.

Chairman.—Thank you for your help.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 16—VALUATION AND ORDNANCE SURVEY

Mr. D. Ryan called and examined.

183. Chairman.—I welcome Mr. Ryan. On subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—is the present staffing situation satisfactory and also did the vacancies to which you refer cause any problems in the provision of your services to the public?

—The present professional staffing is 73 people. We are within two of our authorised staffing of valuers which is not satisfactory in the Valuation Office. As far as the Ordnance Survey is concerned our present staffing is 423. A Commission in 1964 advised a mapping programme for the country and the bringing up to date of our maps. All of our 25-inch maps are of the period before 1914 and are of an average age of 70 years. We hope to increase staffing in the Ordnance Survey by 70 per annum, up to a total of about 650, to get this programme completed by the end of this century. If we did not get this extra staff it would take us 100 years to complete the programme. In 1978 we got 57 extra people. We are authorised for another 80 people. At the moment we are behind schedule with staffing for the Ordnance Survey programme. When our staffing was down in 1979 it did, of course, affect us, in the Valuation Office in particular. There is a very good reason for that. Our staff had become dispirited, demoralised and depleted because they felt there was a big question mark over the future of the Valuation Office with the abolition of domestic rates which were a large portion of our work. Our professional staff thought that their careers might be in jeopardy and many of them resigned and went into private practice. That is what happened to us. It just went like that suddenly; they thought they might as well get out and go into the private sector. As you can see we were short 20 professional people in the Valuation office at the time of the Vote. Three people resigned prematurely, one died in service and many other people, including senior people with years of experience, retired to go into private practice to work with valuation consultants, estate agents and so on.

184. Deputy Kenneally.—Are the professional people the problem or is it across the whole spectrum of staff?

—Mainly professional and technical people. We need professional people both in the Valuation Office and in Ordnance Survey, but not quite so many professional people there. In the Ordnance Survey we need a lot of technical people like cartographers who are highly trained technical people. As far as the administrative staff is concerned, there is a problem. In the Valuation Office we get young girls, mainly clerical assistants or clerical officers, and naturally they are out to further their careers. They become very competent in a year-and-a-half and then they are gone. They get married or look for transfers to other Departments or they go elsewhere. This happens to us all the time, but our main problem is professional staff. It was great for us all to get the domestic rates abolished; as a ratepayer I was delighted but as Commissioner of Valuation it was rather sad from the point of view of staff and careers.

185. Chairman.—I presume you brought your difficulties to the attention of the Department of the Public Service. Did they give you any advice?

—I have brought my difficulties to the attention of more than one Minister. Top people in the Department of Finance, the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and so on were informed and I got advice. I give a lot of advice myself to people which I hope is of help in the course of running the Valuation Office.

186. On subhead B.2.—Office Machinery and other Office Supplies—There was a saving here due to the curtailment of computer activity. Why was it curtailed?

—The reason for this was that we had the Counties of Kerry, Kilkenny, Roscommon and the County Borough of Cork on computer files as part of computerising our valuation lists. Many local authorities have their rates lists computerised. At present in the Valuation Office we have four systems going for our valuation lists. We have the traditional manuscript system, the mechanised system and the schedule system but in the present time computerisation is the thing. Again, we provided £15,500—we happened to have this money available—to expand our computer filing into other counties to see if we could computerise the whole lot. Domestic rates account for about one million domestic valuations on the valuation lists, that is houses, private houses of all kinds, accommodation in flats and in business premises and so on. The abolition of domestic rates was validated by the Finance Provisions (Local Government) Act, 1978 and there was further legislation to amend the valuation code for the abolition of domestic valuations. That meant that the one million items would disappear and a lot of money spent in putting these on a computer file would be money thrown away. We have sought the advice of the DPS and we intend to ask them to do a feasibility study on it. Would any member of the Committee advise us to spend the money in these circumstances?

187. Have you an accommodation problem?

—We could do with more accommodation. We got extra accommodation but the problem will arise again. When Ely Court was built it was, I think, 22,000 square feet; it has four floors and we got three-quarters of it. All the accommodation in the Valuation Office is used. In view of further expansion in market value work and so on we will not have enough room for more staff. We do need extra staff. Of course we have a management survey team going on in the Valuation Office at the moment and this should indicate our needs. As of now, we are just about right but we could have a problem in 12 months time.

188. On the Appropriations-in-Aid, what do these consist of?

—The main thing is the sale of maps. Also, there are contributions by rating authorities under an Act of 1874 which gives a fixed figure of £6,295 paid annually by all the local authorities. It is divided out, each pays its own share and that is supposed to pay half the cost of the annual revision of valuations. If you increased the figure from £6,295 to about perhaps £400,000 or £500,000 it would be a realistic figure. That figure is an 1874 figure. We get that sum from the local authorities each year; so much is divided between the various local authorities. Then we get fees for extracts from the valuation lists and we get fees for certificates when people apply for betting and liquor licences. The main item is the sale of maps.

189. Could you tell why the fees you mentioned have not been updated?

—The only fees that were not updated are represented by the £6,295. The other fees have been updated recently but they are still very low. This is a service to the public. It is only small money. I would love to see the 1874 Act updated. The valuation code needs to be updated. We are working an 1852 Act. We were the same as the British up to 1925. Since 1936 they have had three revaluations in the Six Counties but we have had nothing, with the exception of the revaluation in Dublin County Borough in 1916 and Waterford County Borough in 1927.

190. Deputy O’Hanlon—Among how many rating authorities is that £6,295 divided?

—There are 78 local authorities, including county councils, urban councils, boroughs, four county boroughs and urban districts but only the 27 county councils and the four county boroughs contribute.

191. Deputy Kenneally.—Town commissioners do not come into that?

—No. You have town commissioners in places like Bandon, Bantry and Castlerea.

192. Deputy O’Hanlon.—If that was not updated, is there not a case to be made for abolishing it altogether because it possibly costs as much to administer it?

—It costs us nothing. The local authorities are glad to get off so lightly.

There might be a case for abolishing it. It is so small in the context of the total sums.

—I feel there would be a case for increasing it to a realistic figure of £300,000 or £400,000. That is the way I would feel about it. We could come in and try to make a bit of money selling maps. We could make a bit of money from the service we provide to the local authorities. We have to take all the odium in the Valuation Office. We are the bad people.

193. Is it divided equally among the local authorities or proportionate to their size?

—It is proportionate to the size.

194. Deputy Kenneally.—The expenditure on stores is over £66,000.

—It is paper for printing, for maps. You must consider that it would take 30,000 maps to cover the rural areas of the 26 counties, and 5,000 of 1 to 1,000-scale maps for the urban areas, that is areas with over 1,000 population. There are 7,500 of 1 to 10,000 scale maps which are the metric equivalent of the six-inch scale. Then we have all the small-scale maps. We sell from 60,000 to 70,000 large-scale maps and 300,000 small-scale maps in the year. We have to have a certain number of maps available. We have two million maps in store.

It must take up a lot of space in your accommodation.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. D. Ryan further examined.

195. Chairman.—On subhead A.—Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc.—how do you monitor the amounts payable to local authorities in respect of State properties in their areas?

—We keep reference to all the properties occupied by the State. Properties which are occupied by the State are ipso facto entitled to distinguishment as being exempt from rates. Local authorities do not come into it. There is a grant in lieu for the exempt property. We have no problem in administering this. We have all these State properties on our own files in the Valuation Office. We pay directly.

196. Deputy Kenneally.—To the local authority involved? Is it at the rate the local authority strike or is it a set figure?

—It is at the rate they strike.

197. There is a Government office in Waterford. Do you pay the rate the Corporation strike?

—Yes.

198. How long is it since those premises were revalued?

—We deal with them according as they come up. It is like every other property valuation. If you have a business premises and you draw the attention of the local authority on you, then your property is listed for revision. It just could happen that your premises may not have been listed for revision for 50 to 100 years if the attention of the local authority was not drawn to it or if it was overlooked for some reason. If you apply for planning permission you are caught automatically and you are listed for revision of valuation. Likewise if a Government Department acquire property we are notified usually by the Office of Public Works. We go out and inspect and value it and unless something happens with that property—if it is extended, burned, vacated or is divided up between different Government Departments—unless we are told there is some change, we will not go near it again.

199. Is there some regulation or are there some criteria laid down on floor value on which you value premises?

—The Valuation Acts of 1838, 1852 and 1854 and other Acts are the bible for the Valuation Office. A relevant section states that the rateable valuation of any premises shall be made on an estimate of the net annual value, that is to say, the rent which a premises might reasonably be expected to yield taking one year with another, the tenant paying rates, repairs, insurance and so on. In other words the rent and the valuation should be the same and that worked fine in 1852. In fact, it worked quite well until just before the First World War. We had very little inflation between 1852 and 1914 but since then the thing has gone crazy. Our Acts are so completely out of date. What do we do? We have various methods of arriving at a valuation. There is the comparative method. Once you establish something it becomes accepted. At a certain time the rent levels were correct but that is not the situation now. This is a problem for myself and for the Commissioners of Valuation who preceded me since the foundation of the State. So to keep our valuations right we use a comparative method. We value houses of a certain type and a certain locality. We have a different level of valuation for houses in Foxrock and in say Ballyfermot. That does not mean the people of Ballyfermot are not better than the people in Foxrock who are being charged a higher rate of valuation. We compare the rates of valuation. There would be appeals to the Circuit Court and the level would be fixed. We try to keep them in tune, bearing in mind always that the law is there and the law says that the rent is the criterion.

Another method is called the contractor’s method. We work out what it would cost to build a premises, add a percentage on to that and work out a rent from that. There are various methods by which we work out valuations. We also work on the profits method—we use that in big organisations like gas works, fisheries and so on. You get all the receipts and all the expenses; you would get the gross amount and then you would allow the landlord’s and tenant’s share and all the other items. Eventually you arrive at what a tenant would pay as a reasonable rent. Those are the three general methods but the basic method is the letting value.

200. For local authority purposes we should contemplate going into the Valuation Office to revalue all the exempted offices within our constituencies and get a few more pounds.

201. Deputy Belton.—You mentioned property not being revalued unless it came under notice of the local authority. Is it not a fact that when people have applied for permission to the local authority to carry out extensions and repairs the premises have been revalued without any inspection and indeed in some cases where they did not even carry out any extensions or other works.

—I have no knowledge of this having happened.

Well, actually, I know of if happening. It is many years ago now.

—Well, where is last year’s snow, Deputy?

202. I knew of another case where property was revalued because they put in larger windows.

—That is right.

And in the same area property was revalued because somebody put in smaller windows.

—That is not correct.

That actually happened.

—For a while we revalued when people put in these double glazed windows but I stopped that.

203. This was long before the advent of double glazing. I am talking about ordinary windows.

—It must have been a special case. We would not increase the valuation for putting in smaller windows. The person could always have appealed to me.

204. Chairman.—There is the right of appeal. How many appeals do you get, as a percentage?

—There are about 1,700,000 items in the valuation list. We deal on average with about 75,000 revision cases every year and of those about 10 per cent appeal to me as Commissioner.

Is there a right of appeal to anyone else?

—There is. You can appeal to the Circuit Court against the decision of the Commissioner. There can be a further appeal to the High Court on a point of law, either by the ratepayer or the Commissioner.

205. Deputy Belton—Is it a fact that an excess valuation is put on premises even where no extension or any other work has been carried out, just because planning permission had been applied for? If there is an appeal against that, will the person have to pay the rates on the valuation that has been assessed on them and wait a further year to try to get it back?

—No. That is not correct. First of all if they were listed for revision because they had applied for planning permission and the work had not been done, I would prefer that there would be no revision of valuation. It would be most unlikely that a revision of valuation would be made. I will give an illustration of what happens in the event of an appeal. If the valuations were raised in 1980, the lists would be published on 1 December 1980. Last year’s revision of valuation of 70,000 cases came into effect as from the 1 January 1981. A person has 29 days to appeal once the valuation is issued and he is notified by the local authorities about what has happened to his valuation. He appeals in the first instance to the Secretary of the County Council or the City Manager as the case may be. The matter is then sent to the Valuation Office and it is appealed to the Commissioner. There are about 6,000 or 7,000 appeals but the valuation would be backdated to 1 January 1981 even though it might be four or five months afterwards. However, if the person concerned did not avail of the 29 days he would lose out for a year.

206. I understand that subhead B.—Contributions towards rates on premises occupied by Representatives of External Governments—represents the non beneficial part of rates on property occupied by foreign governments. Can you give us some idea of the distinction here?

—The beneficial part of the rate would be things like water, sewerage, roads and that kind of thing. The non-beneficial would be things like social welfare or unemployment assistance. When programme budgeting was introduced about three or four years ago we had discussions with the Department of the Environment and the local authorities. The fire service, roads, water, sewerage and all this kind of thing are beneficial.

207. On Appropriations-in-Aid, why are receipts 1, 2, 3 and 4 picked out for special mention?

—It is the form of the Estimate. It has always appeared like this.

208. Could you tell us why are you recovering money from these particular activities or areas and not from other areas?

—For instance, the Post Office Savings Bank is supposed to be a commercial concern, to finance itself and pay its own way. The Post Office is the same. Payment by the local authorities is connected with combined purchasing and this kind of thing. There is a specific good reason for doing this.

Thank you very much for your help and assistance.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.