Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1988 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1984

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of public Accounts)

Dé Céadaoin, 14 Eanáir, 1987

Wednesday, 14 January, 1987

The Committee met at 10.30 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY D. FOLEY in the chair

Mr. P. L. McDonnell (an t-Ard Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 47 — HEALTH (1984) (resumed)

MR. P. W. FLANAGAN called and examined.

866. Chairman.—This is a resumed meeting. Paragraph 67 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead G.5. — Payments to Health Agencies in respect of balances of grants for years prior to 1984

As stated in paragraph 65 final balances of grants in respect of expenditure in prior years are paid to Health Agencies from this subhead on the basis of audited accounts for those years. It was noted in the course of audit that audited accounts for 1981 and 1982 in respect of the Midland Health Board were received in the Department of Health on 7 November 1984 and those for the years 1979 to 1982 in respect of the North Eastern Health Board on 11 December 1984.

The balances due to the Boards for those years, £134,573 in the case of the Midland Health Board and £409,420 in the case of the North Eastern Health Board, were not, however, paid within the year. It was also noted that a payment of £31,339 made to Crumlin Hospital, Dublin, in February 1985 in respect of the balance of its net expenditure for 1983 was based on a claim that had been cleared for payment in the Department in November 1984.

As it appeared that these balances represented mature liabilities arising in the year ended 31 December 1984 I ask the Accounting Officer why payment was deferred until 1985.

Mr. McDonnell.—This paragraph refers to the postponement of the payment of balances of grants to two health boards and to a voluntary hospital in 1984. As amounts which had matured for payment should be paid within the year I asked the accounting officer why this had not been done. Moreover if you look at the account on page 174 and the note on page 175 you will see that the moneys which were provided to pay these grants were used to meet other departmental expenditure.

The Accounting Officer told me after the date of my report that final balances of grant are paid on the basis of audited accounts after examination in the Department. The Department had sought funds for the full clearance of all old balances each year at estimate time but budgetary difficulties in recent years have resulted in a shortfall in the grant provided and a total of £14.5 million of old balances relating to earlier years remained unpaid at 31 December 1984. This included the ones referred to in my report. I only had seen two cases of that. They were in fact a total of £14½ million and in regard to these the accounting officer said that after a final issue of £516,000 to the Midland Health Board in 1984 no further grant was available for issue to either of the boards mentioned and amounts due had to wait until the following years grant was provided.

The Accounting Officer went on to say that the funding of all health agencies is viewed as a continuous process involving payment of current grant out of subheads G1 to G4 and payment of old balances according as funds are made available under subhead G5. He said that he would of course favour an adequate provision under subhead G5 every year for the clearance of all matured liabilities as they arise. This had not been done.

867. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I would like to point out that I am a member of the committee of management of Our Lady’s Hospital in Crumlin so that the committee are aware of that.

868. Deputy Lyons.—At the end of paragraph 67 the Comptroller and Auditor General asked the Accounting Officer why payment was deferred. First of all, did he get a reason and was the reason acceptable to him?

Mr. P. L. McDonnell.—As I said, the Accounting Officer’s explanation was that it was simply a question of budgetary difficulties in providing adequate funds for subhead G.5. The question of whether the reason is acceptable or not does not arise. The fact of the matter is that the rules of Government accounting require that all matured liabilities should be paid within the year. In fact, they require that this be done even if it causes an excess Vote and in such circumstances a Department should go back to the Dáil for sanction before the end of the year or come before this committee to have the matter dealt with when the Vote comes up if there had been an excess Vote. It is a breach of rules and whether or not the explanation is there on a factual basis; I cannot say it is satisfactory in that sense because a breach is a breach.

869. Deputy Lyons.—Am I to take it that the allocation for the Crumlin Hospital was insufficient, to the amount of £31,339 and that that expenditure overrun was agreed to be due from the Department and cleared for payment by the Department? Why then was it deferred for a further year until 1985? This was for dealing with one specific item. When one considers the extent of all the health boards throughout the country, if this indiscretion, or whatever you might like to describe it, was repeated a number of times the finances of the health boards, the hospitals and the Departments would be in utter chaos if they are not already in chaos when you see this sort of thing happening. We take a serious view of that matter, not the fact that the money was due and approved but the system which operated. Could I ask as well while this money was due to the hospital is it possible that the hospital were working on an overdraft and paying interest on that money which was due to them? In my experience, certainly in voluntary hospitals we have this sort of situation. I am a member of the board of management of two of them and chairman of one and I find that the approved moneys from the Department are not paid and we have to go and operate on an overdraft. I think it is ridiculous accounting and operation of finances that you are actually paying interest to commercial banks while this money is due from the Department and if it were paid the extra expenditure on interest created for boards of management would not arise. This gives us the opportunity to reflect on the system and the behaviour in the Department of Health. It is time to grasp the nettle and endeavour to put a stop to this unnecessary — and I call it unnecessary — extra burden of payment particularly on voluntary hospitals. I am sure it arises in places like Crumlin Hospital as well. That sort of inefficiency and extra expense is something we have to prevent occurring in future and, if necessary, create a better system on the Department to avoid that sort of accounting. I certainly condemn that situation.

870. Chairman.—Could I make a point on the audited accounts for 1981-82 of the Midland Health Board which were not received in your Department until November 1984? The audited accounts for 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 were not received until December 1984. Was there a reason for the delay Mr. Flanagan?

Mr. Flanagan.—We are working with the Department of the Environment and the Department of the Public Service to improve the system. There were delays on audits due to pressure upon the auditors. That point was touched on the last day. In relation to Deputy Lyons’ point I will just make the statement that it is a policy matter. The Department of Health and the Department of Finance recognise what balances are due approximately on the basis of a funding system which operates in the case of health boards to 95 per cent of the allocation due to them until the accounts are audited and in the case of the voluntary organisation and voluntary hospitals to 85 per cent on the basis of the preparation of the estimates and the particular subhead provision which you are considering. It is an accepted sum which is due which is entered for the various years in that subhead in the claim that we all make. It is a Government and policy decision as to what amount is made available to us to pay balances due. As comment has been made and at the insistence of both Departments and particularly the Department of Finance the balances provision has been increased progressively in recent years. I cannot obviously say what it is going to be this year but the intent so far as the Departments are concerned, and I think so far as the Government are concerned, is to meet as far as possible all the balances due. Nonetheless I have to repeat what I said in reply to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Funding of the agencies has to be looked at on the basis that it does not stop at year end. It is on a continuous basis. Overdrafts tend to peak in the natural course of events towards the end of the year but they are very quickly brought back to a level situation when the following year’s money is made available. As Deputy Lyons says, money is due and we would like to pay it as quickly as possible when recognised by us as approved allocations. Despite what he says in the period in question the hospital did not per se suffer financial difficulties because of that.

871. Deputy Lyons.—With regard to the North Infirmary we were called in by the banks and it was indicated to us that unless money was paid our overdraft accommodation would be discontinued. The North Infirmary and the South Infirmary are applying year in year out to the Department for the moneys committed by the Department and it takes so long to get even part of that which is due that overdraft and the facility is costing the voluntary hospitals unnecessary expense. If it is a matter of policy — we cannot dictate policy — it should be put on notice to the policy makers that that situation should not continue. We should put it to the policy makers, if the committee is empowered to do so, that unpaid approved expenditure from the Department of Health to voluntary hospitals is causing extra fund raising to be carried out, more cars to be raffled, more tickets to be sold, more dances to be run while the Department hesitates. Now the Accounting Officer says that by the end of the year they come level. I would like to make the Accounting Officer aware that the accounts of both hospitals of which I am a board member have never come level in the past seven or eight years. We always have a residue of a deficit at the end of the year going on to the next year. That must not be allowed to continue.

872. Chairman.—If the North-Eastern Health Board, which is four years behind with audited accounts, and, the Midland Health Baord, which is two years behind, were private concerns they would now be out of business. What is the position of audited accounts with regard to the two health boards?

Mr. Flanagan.—The North Eastern Health Board accounts up to 1985 are available for audit. The audits for 1983 and 1984 are expected to be completed by the auditor by about now. The 1985 audit will commence on 1 February 1987.

873. Chairman.—What about the Midland Health Board.

Mr. Flanagan.—The position in relation to audited accounts available for audit is the same as for the North Eastern Health Board. Accounts up to 1985 are available for audit. They have been audited and submitted to the Oireachtas up to and including 1982. At present I understand the accounts for 1983 and 1984 are available to the Department for presentation to the Oireachtas. It is expected that the 1985 audit will be completed by 30 June 1987.

874. Chairman.—Are you satisfied with the assessments for audit purposes since you have not got the 1983 and 1984 audits for the North-Eastern Health Board?

Mr. Flanagan.—No. I am not.

875. Deputy Lyons.—Perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General would comment on the points I have made about the funding, the procedures adopted and the way voluntary hospitals are funded by the Department?

Mr. McDonnell.—I am a little surprised at the Accounting Officer’s reference to policy in this context. One has to distinguish between the making of the policy and the implementing of it. Matters in regard to the making of policy are outside the remit of this committee but the expenditure of the funds in the implementation of policy comes within its remit. I am a little surprised at the reference to policy in regard to the payment of balances in respect of matured liabilities. I understood the policy in this regard to be to pay the net deficits of the health boards, of voluntary hospitals but what the Accounting Officer seems to be saying is that the making available of funds to implement the policy is part of the policy. That seems a strange kind of argument. If that is so I wonder where it leaves the rules of Government accounting. I would be interested to hear the observation of the Department of Finance of that because they produced the booklet, “An Outline of Irish Financial Procedure” in which it clearly states that all matured liabilities must be paid before the end of the year. Such payments should not be postponed even at the risk of an excess vote. Conversely liabilities which have not matured must not be put in course of payment to reduce an expected saving on a vote. If you argue that the deferring of payments which would be relevant to the implementing of a policy is part of the policy then this rule means nothing.

Mr. Flanagan.—I did not say that the payment of balances was a matter of policy once made available. What I did say was that the provision of the amount in subhead G.5 is by way of policy decision made by the Government. I made it quite clear that with the Department of Finance and ourselves we sought what we saw as the balances which were necessary to fund the expenditure in previous years in which we recouped only 95 per cent of the health board expenditure and 85 per cent of the voluntary agencies expenditure. Therefore, when provision was made which was short of the total we had to manage that money as part of the activity of management. I have to make the point also that without necessarily any argumentative basis in relation to Deputy Lyons’s point there is often confusion in the minds of single agencies like voluntary hospitals as to what is owed by the Department of Health on foot of approved expenditure as distinct from what is owed in respect of expenditure which we would broadly class as over-runs on approved expenditure.

876. Deputy Lyons.—I would like to pursue this matter a little further. I take exception to anybody making a suggestion, hidden or otherwise, that we in the management boards of voluntary hospitals do not understand figures and facts as they are presented to us. I have no doubt, and I am sure the Accounting Officer could confirm the position as outlined by me with regard to the two hospitals I have mentioned, where we have been left short year after year. The amount of money agreed, committed and acknowledged by the Department, using a snowball effect, has been accumulating. We have not got a clean sheet in the past seven or eight years. It is ridiculous that the money is owed but that we have to borrow from the banks, work on overdrafts and cut our budget to the extent that the staffs in these hospitals defer, in the interest of the hospitals, taking their monthly salary from the beginning of the month to the end of the month. These are the sort of things that are happening while the Department owe the hospital money. I ask the Accounting Officer to confirm or otherwise the position as outlined by me with regard to voluntary hospitals.

Mr. Flanagan.—There are difficulties for the voluntary hospitals in the present situation and that has extended over a year or so. Obviously the services they would require to provide cannot be provided. The basis of the financing of voluntary hospitals is that we approve an allocation for each individual hospital, fund them to 85 per cent of that allocation and meet the balances as fast as we can give the provision is made for balances in each year under Subhead G. 5. There will be delays until accounts are audited and at the same time there will be arguments between the management of the voluntary hospitals and ourselves as to what is approved and committed expenditure. But we do pay as soon as possible subject to delays associated with audit time and subject to the finance made available to us in Subhead G.5.

Deputy Lyons.—Can this matter be brought before this committee again so that I can introduce documented evidence to support what I have been saying? In the meantime, I am sure the Accounting Officer and his officers will have an opportunity to study what I have said about the North Infirmary and, in particular, the South Infirmary. I am using those two hospitals as an indication of what might be happening elsewhere. I am not satisfied that we have given this matter the due recognition and discussion it requires. I accept that we are talking without having facts and figures before us and I ask the Chairman to afford me the opportunity to raise this matter again when we have the necessary documentation to back up what I am saying.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Will we be doing it this side of the election?

Mr. Flanagan.—It does not matter to me when we do it.

877. Chairman.—Under the breakdown of grants the total payments to health agencies was £65 million and expenditure was £63.396 million giving a surplus of £1.6 million. The same excess in subhead G.2 was used to meet the double payment allowance at Christmas. It that right?

Mr. Flanagan.—That is correct.

878. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Should that not have been a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Flanagan.—That has to be a Government decision.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—The saving from the agencies utilised in order to pay out the double week at Christmas?

Mr. Flanagan.—That is correct.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—That policy?

Mr. Flanagan.—A Government decision.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Is it unusual that no Supplementary Estimate was brought in for the double weeks allowance at Christmas?

Mr. Flanagan.—Probably so.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—In fact you did not have a surplus because overall you had a surplus of only something like £22,000.

Mr. Flanagan.—Yes.

879. Chairman.—Paragraph 68 of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead K.—Building, Equipping and Furnishing of Hospitals and other Health facilities.

Procedures to be observed by the Department of Health when incurring capital expenditure on health facilities were laid down by the Department of Finance in February 1982. These procedures require, inter alia, that where a planned project does not proceed and constructive losses of over £100,000 are incurred on professional fees, such losses should be noted in the Appropriation Account.

It was noted that a proposal for the construction of a staff residence at the new Beaumount Hospital site for which plans were drawn up in 1979 was abandoned at tender stage in 1981. Revised plans were drawn up in 1982 and approved by the Department in 1983. Planning work had reached an advanced stage by December 1984 when it was decided that the project should not be proceeded with.

I have asked for information as to the total amount of the professional fees and expenses paid in respect of the original and revised schemes up to 31 December 1984. I have also asked for information regarding the fees and expenses paid in similar circumstances in respect of other hospitals or health agencies subsequent to 16 February 1982.

Mr. McDonnell.—Paragraph 68 refers to professional fees and expenses paid for plans prepared for the construction of a staff residence at the new Beaumont Hospital. In the event the residence was not built. The Accounting Officer told me it was estimated that professional fees paid to January 1986 in relation to the whole Beaumont Hospital project included about £338,000 plus VAT of £56,000 for the planning of the staff residence. He said that payments made up to then were payments on account, that the final figure for the fees and expenses would be established when the final account for the whole project was received and that then they would be noted in the appropriations account in accordance with the normal rules. He said that a similar situation regarding the payment of fees in this kind of project had not arisen in any other hospital.

880. Chairman.—What was the overall cost there in connection with the residence at Beaumont Hospital which was not built? We have a figure here of £394,000 which includes £338,000 plus VAT at £56,000 giving a total of £394,000.

Mr. Flanagan.—We have not got the final account position reached with that hospital yet so that it our best estimate.

881. Chairman.—At present approximately £400,000 has been incurred with no return.

Mr. Flanagan.—With no return.

882. Deputy G. Mitchell.—With regard to this £394,000 which was spent on the design stage for the residence, is it possible that that expenditure could be justified if the building were built at some time in the future?

Mr. Flanagan.—Deputy Mitchell’s question has some validity. There have been arguments with the nursing profession about the need for a residence, particularly in the first six months of training of a nurse. The practices in various training schools vary in relation to this. In the Department’s view the provision of such accommodation is no longer warranted having regard to the level of remuneration paid to student nurses and the availability of accommodation in the locality. On a broadly argumentative point, it is felt that within these large hospitals a hospital mentality can develop only and that perhaps by residing in, the community student and other nurses would get a greater appreciation of the non-exclusiveness of the hospitals. That is disputed by various groups in the nursing profession. As Deputy Mitchell suggests, there is no absolute finality about this. The Department have funded research undertaken by An Bord Altranais and which commenced about nine months ago to test the validity of the arguments on various sides. In a sense it remains in abeyance.

883. Deputy G. Mitchell.—In the event of the research showing that a residence there would be justified could the money spent then be justified because the building programme could be picked up from there?

Mr. Flanagan.—Yes, if a Minister decided on the basis of the additional information available to us that it was his view that it would be proper to provide such accommodation.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—We may, after all, get a staff residence in Beaumont.

Mr. Flanagan.—Yes, the accounting device of noting it as a constructive loss arguably should occur when the final accounts for the entire work are issued.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—When will Beaumont Hospital be fully in operation?

Chairman.—Before the election.

Mr. Flanagan.—The consultative process has started. Our aim is to start opening the hospital towards the end of this month and to have it fully open by the autumn of this year.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—The commencement of the opening will be towards the end of this month and it should be fully open by the autumn of this year.

Mr. Flanagan.—Yes, if we meet the targets.

884. Chairman.—I take it Deputy G. Mitchell is in order in making an official announcement on that now. Coming back to the £394,000, it is obvious that approximately £400,000 of taxpayers’ money has gone into limbo.

Mr. Flanagan.—Various decisions have been taken from time to time. As you will appreciate Mr. Chairman, better than most people, the planning of a hospital and its building is a long-term effort. For example, within the hospital there was what we call oncall staffing provision made. In the course of the development of that hospital, the numbers required by the hospital varied between 24 and 34. Ultimately we agreed on 34 staff places. It is a variable thing. Equally it is reasonable to examine very carefully the requirements of living accommodation for nurses.

885. Deputy Lyons.—I note in the paragraph that there is an indication given of the tender stage of the revised plans in 1982, approved by the Department in 1983. Then, by December 1984 it was decided that the project should not be proceeded with. By then we had spent an enormous amount of money — £394,000. Would I be correct in saying that if the project does not go ahead after all this expenditure and all this work, we would have spent £394,000 unnecessarily. If there are people in this country who can take that sort of decision, is it any wonder that we, the taxpayers, are almost in revolt? Is it any wonder that the institutions I mentioned earlier were unable to get figures as low as £165,000 to keep the banks off their back? This committee has a responsibility on the accountability of activity. That sort of scenario is to put it very mildly, unacceptable. If this was done in a private commercial activity, the person or persons who would be responsible for expenditure of that magnitude would justifiably be sent to the Labour Exchange. This sort of behaviour is something that I hope this committee will condemn without reservation.

Chairman.—Are there any further questions on paragraph 68?

886. Deputy Lyons.—Could I ask the Accounting Officer to confirm or otherwise that this money will be totally and absolutely lost if this building does not go ahead?

Mr. Flanagan.—I have already indicated when and if it will be a constructive loss. But there are balancing factors also in any decision of that nature: for instance, it is a factor in the mind of student nurses who are seeking employment and who do not want to be in such a residence, and, in practice, that has been a growing dimension. If the Department were to proceed to build it, there would be increased revenue costs associated with the residence. If it were not to be used, there would be maintenance costs. There are balancing decisions to be made. They will be made in the context of the research which we have commissioned. Until it is finally noted as a constructive loss it remains a question as Deputy G. Mitchell has said.

887. Deputy Lyons.—For that sort of exercise and commitment, it is extraordinary — having committed that sort of expenditure — that we now introduce reasons for its not going ahead. Would it not be a more practical, simple activity, to fully research the proposal before decisions are taken and then changed again? In the meantime we are all paying for that sort of indecisiveness. Why not do the research properly, adequately and sufficiently before we commit the Department and the country to that sort of expenditure? We can profit by mistakes, from these types of errors of judgment, lack of research or whatever which caused this stop/go operation. Perhaps we will learn from it and avoid that kind of type of activity in the future. That is the best lesson we could glean from that type of activity.

888. Chairman.—We will take paragraph 69. Paragraph 69 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead O.—Appropriations in Aid Searches and certified copies of Birth, Deaths and Marriages

The General Register Office provides services to the public in connection with the registration of births, deaths and marriages, including search facilities and the supply of certified copies of the entries in the various registers. Charges are made for these services and the appropriate fees charageable may be remitted by post or paid in cash at the Office.

An examination carried out by my staff at the General Register Office disclosed serious deficiencies in basic internal control procedures; there was no prescribed procedure for the reconciliation of certificates issued with cash received; segregation of duties was inadequate in that, contrary to the written procedures laid down for dealing with counter applications, officers who operated the cash register also acted on a number of occasions as supervisors with responsibility for checking the cash; blank books of birth certificates were freely available in the general office and the seal for authenticating certificates was available for use by the staff without supervision. I have sought the observations of the Accounting Officer on these deficiencies.

Mr. McDonnell.—Paragraph 69 deals with the General Register Office, Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages. It draws attention to deficiencies in internal control and the handling of cash there. The significant ones are listed in the paragraph. Since my report, the Accounting Officer has told me that the procedures have been reviewed, that corrective action was in fact being implemented and that the revised procedures would be kept under review. He did explain that, because of staff shortages, it was often difficult to cope with the volume of business in the public office. Often in the interests of minimising the delay to the public this led to the rearrangements of duties in such a way that the supervisor would take over the cashier’s duties as well as carrying out his own duty of checking the cash. We were concerned with the division of responsibilities, the segregation of duties. He also said that all staff have been instructed to adhere strictly to the prescribed procedures which are designed to ensure the security of blank books of certificates, which is something else we were concerned about. He also assured us there is proper security over the custody and use of the seal which is used for authenticating the certificates. I understand now that there are daily reconciliations between certificates which have been issued and cash received in the office.

889. Deputy M. Ahern.—The Comptroller and Auditor General said he understands that there are now controls and daily reconciliations. The paragraph in the report sets out a sorry state of affairs in that office. Could Mr. Flanagan confirm that since that date the necessary action has been taken to have proper controls, that they have been looked at over the period and that they are actually working. In line with a lot of other things that we have been hearing about, if this is an example of what is happening in the Department of Health is it any wonder there is a shortage of money to voluntary hospitals, not alone the two Deputy Lyons mentioned but another also, in Cork. It would appear that it would have been possible to give them the requisite money to keep them in a happy state. Perhaps Mr. Flanagan could tell us whether proper controls are in operation and seen to be operating as they should?

Mr. Flanagan.—The arrangements for reconciling cash receipts at counter, with certificates each day is in place and is fully operational at present. It is under the constant supervision of a professional accountant employed in the Department. One officer has been assigned responsibility for effecting reconciliations on a daily basis. Descriptively, the new arrangement is that the officer attending on the customer takes the cash and gets the required blank certificate from the cashier, who notes the certificate number on the application form. The counter officer dealing with the individual concerned then completes the copying process and hands or posts the certificate to the client. The cash register is now programmed to show how many certificates of different types are issued in any one day. Essentially this is the core of the reconciliation process. We have taken on board the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am now satisfied that the requirements he wished to have in place for supervision of the cash and seal are working. I might just make the point, which I think the Comptroller will be aware of, that the Office of the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages was in the basement of the Custom House close to the time of the audit. We purchased and have developed a purpose built office which links the registration system with that operated by the Eastern Health Board. I would think that from the public’s and from the accounting point of view the situation is a good deal more satisfactory at present.

890. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Could I ask the Mr. Flanagan how many professional accountants are engaged by his Department?

Mr. Flanagan.—One. We have sought and got approval from the Department of the Public Service for the addition of two more and they are in the process of being recruited.

891. Deputy G. Mitchell.—You have three accountants for the expenditure of £1.1 billion. That is three more than the Department of Social Welfare have for twice their income.

Mr. Flanagan.—Yes.

892. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I just want to say that I am appalled by the lack of accountants in the Public Service, particularly in Departments like Social Welfare which spend almost twice what you are spending, something like £2.2 billion gross. I am amazed that they continue the use of some of terms such as Appropriations-in-aid. How much was the cash coming into that office?

Mr. Flanagan.—To the Registrar’s office, in 1984, the net receipts were £101,841; in 1985 it went to £140,498 and the estimated return in 1986 would be of the order of £141,000 or £142,000.

893. Deputy G. Mitchell.—It was a great deal of money to have coming in and not to have adequate checks and balances. You really did depend on the honesty of your staff. A dishonest person could very easily have written himself or herself literally any amount of income. Does that situation no longer pertain?

Mr. Flanagan.—It no longer pertains.

894. Chairman.—A note has been circulated with regard to staff; it relates to the question Deputy Crotty asked the last day. Is that in order?

895. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Could we deal with the Vote when the Deputy is reading the note and maybe come back to that?

Chairman.—We will deal with the Vote and we will come back to that.

896. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Is the Accounting Officer satisfied that, under the Vote for his Department of £1.1 billion gross, there is sufficient flexibility within the health board spending to ensure that in blizzard weather the old, the sick and the feeble are sufficiently cared for?

Mr. Flanagan.—This is an issue we have raised with the health boards. We are satisfied that the health boards are very flexible in catering for need. It is a basis of annoyance to them that they do have to pick up all kinds of shortfalls at very short notice, but in the case of the Eastern Health Board in 1982, in the last blizzard, they responded very efficiently to what was a very difficult situation. I am satisfied that they are so responding.

897. Deputy G. Mitchell.—You are the Secretary of the second biggest spending Department of State and you have an enormous member of health boards and hospitals under you control. It is a very onerous task. Could we be assured in this voted expenditure, particularly under the headings of G.1, that in weather like this morning generally a liberal and generous view would be taken by the health boards of those in need — the aged, the feeble, single persons living alone on an income of £35 per week — with regard to heating assistance and food in some cases? May I take it that is a generous view would be taken in circumstances such as those we are experiencing now?

Mr. Flanagan.—In a phrase, yes. There may be individual dissatisfaction, but the thrust of the community care programme, with the officers working in it, is helpful and there is no reason I am aware of that a helpful approach cannot be taken to people who are in difficulties arising from this weather.

898. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Would you be satisfied in weather like this morning that, for instance, the health board and the community nurses would be making increased calls, in other words that they would not be so much caught up in their administrative jobs at the health centres but that they would be out and about in so far as they can, calling on old people who are living alone and that, in general, your Department and the health boards are on the ball and out there helping those in need in weather like this?

899.—Chairman.—It is possible that the home help scheme can be improved on?

Mr. Flanagan.—The home help scheme can be improved upon. It is a scheme which, when resources are short, tends to suffer. The emphasis in all of our communications with the health boards and by direction is to preserve, in so far as is possible, services which are essential to the safety and wellbeing of the people.

900. Chairman.—In capital allocation, is it a block grant that is given to the health boards and it is up to each health board to apportion out the grant-in-aid towards the home help scheme? Is that right? Do you have an input into the allocation to each?

Mr. Flanagan.—In terms of deciding what would be spent by the individual health boards, that is primarily a matter for the health boards, once the allocation is made.

901. Chairman.—Has it to be approved by the Department?

Mr. Flanagan.—No, not specifically.

Chairman.—Would I be putting you to too much trouble now if I were to ask you what was the allocation for home help in each of the health boards?

Mr. Flanagan.—I will communicate with you.

Chairman.—I accept that.

902. Deputy Lyons.—On the point raised by my colleague across the table, about district nurses being available at this time, surely the Accounting Officer is aware that there are insufficient number of district nurses in the health board areas, particularly given that there is a huge extra requirement for them now to pay attention to people in these arctic conditions. Would he indicate if the health boards are in a position to increase the numbers or second people into that system to make up for the shortfall in numbers that already exists without the extra demand of the weather conditions we are now experiencing? Have the health boards freedom and finance to do that and does it have to be approved by the Department?

Mr. Flanagan.—The allocations to the individual health boards have within them enough flexibility, in my view, to meet a situation like this. As to pursuing the argument as to whether there are enough public health nurses, district nurses, to cope with needs, there are arguments about that and steps have been taken from year to year to improve the situation, depending on the use of the allocation that individual health boards make. In the situation of semi-emergencies or emergency for individuals which this is, the programme managers of community care would respond, would mobilise their forces and they are not hidebound by departmental parameters which would restrict them from using imagination or diverting, perhaps, resources from hospitals under their command, to assist the old and the elderly.

903. Deputy Lyons.—I have another question on this Vote on G.2, I see here that in 1984 the grants to health boards in respect of expenditure or cash allowances and cash grants was exceeded by £1 million in 1984. I want to put this point to the Accounting Officer and relate it to the present day. Have we learned a lesson from that happening, when we were short over £1 million in what was allocated? In view of that fact there is a greater demand now for these cash payments and allowances particularly by people who have not received their social welfare benefit cheques and are directed to the Southern Health Board for supplementary welfare benefit. Is it like going to the goat’s house for wool? Have the Department ensured that in 1986-87 the lesson of 1984, when we underestimated that sum by £1 million will have been learned. I am sure that if we have not taken account of it the sums now required for supplementary welfare benefit will far exceed the shortfall we had in 1984? Because of the tremendous extra demands — 13,000 new recipients in one month, demands on the Department of Social Welfare and so on — there is an increasing demand on the health boards for supplementary welfare. I may be out of order but could I be assured that sufficient funds are available in the health boards — I doubt it but I can be told otherwise — to meet the demand that has arisen by virtue of the numbers who are unemployed and seeking financial assistance from health boards?

Mr. Flanagan.—Deputy Lyons has run a number of things together. In this instance the subhead he is talking about is the subhead which related specifically to cash allowances, DPMA and so on. The decision to pay a double week’s payment was taken by the Government, as is usual, hence the excess. In relation to his more immediate point, the supplementary welfare system is funded from a different source, namely, the health boards. We met with the chief executive officers yesterday and I am not aware of any concern on their part about an immediate shortage but it is something I can pursue with them. I would not in any sense be equipped to give the global assurances in the terms the Deputy seeks today, but I am not aware that there is an immediate difficulty for the health boards in meeting real need derived from any unfortunate circumstances which would deprive an individual of resources necessary to survive.

904. Deputy Lyons.—Is it not true that each health board in the country were left short by varying amount of money on their estimated expenditure during the past years? This is how the health boards describe it — shortfalls, millions of pounds less than what they budgeted for. If they are being left short, where do they think the health boards are going to get the money that is required to pay supplementary welfare benefit when such arises? If the experience of 1984 when we underestimated by over £1 million is an indication to go by, can we be certain that health boards will be in a position to accommodate the people who are seeking supplementary welfare benefit from them at this time?

905. Deputy Crotty.—In relation to subhead A.2. — Consultancy Services — the amount was less than granted. What constituted consultancy services and what services were not availed of that year?

Mr. Flanagan.—The funding for the supplementary welfare allowances scheme is not provided for in the Health Vote, it is provided by the Exchequer for the Department of Social Welfare, but that does not detract from the fact that the health boards are paying out as demand arises and recouping costs.

906. Deputy Crotty.—Under subhead A.2, what constitutes consultancy services and what services were not used in that year?

Mr. Flanagan.—I can give the Deputy a description of the services that were provided out of that subhead provision in 1984. In broad terms they were services which were required by, for example, the Eastern Health Baord for the implementation of a general ledger and stores system and for carrying out a supplies study. The firm employed in that instance were Coopers & Lybrand. The North-Eastern Health Board required a consultancy service for the preparation of procedures manuals and assistance in the implementation of financial systems. The National Rehabilitation Board required a consultancy service in relation to consultancy work on rehabilitation services. Arthur Anderson provided assistance to the NorthWestern Health Board in relation to the development of a community care information system. Messrs. Praxis Limited provided assistance to the Eastern Health Board for the implementation of a general ledger, accounts payable and stores systems. Similar assistance was provided for the North-Eastern Health Board and the South-Eastern Health Board in the implementation of a general ledger system and in Our Lady’s Hospital, Crumlin in relation to general ledger, accounts payable and stores systems. Stokes Kennedy Crowley provided assistance to the Southern Health Board to bring in systems in the Cork Regional Hospital. Assistance was also provided to carry out a pharmacy design study and study on a national drug information centre in St. James’s Hospital. Is that a sufficient indication of the scope of it? In all, there are something of the order of 24 projects in total provided by 14 different firms. With regard to the second part of the Deputy’s question as to the balance unexpended, it was a question of it not being possible to proceed at any faster a pace given the commitment of health board staff, voluntary hospital board staff and departmental staff to engage in more work.

907. Deputy Crotty.—You explained that a number of these services were for particular health boards of hospital authorities. Would these systems have been in operation in other health boards prior to this? When a consultancy is made available to a particular health board is it availed of by of by other health boards?

Mr. Flanagan.—Broadly speaking, yes. The health boards work in a fairly co-operative way. They are in touch with each other and there is a system group who work with them although there would be individual design factors involved for the requirements of individual boards. For example, the community information systems designed for the north-west is being installed in the Eastern Health Board area. The work on the development of financial systems in the north-east and elsewhere, crudely, blazes a trail for the implementation of the systems in other health board areas.

908. Deputy Crotty.—How are these consultants retained? What system is used for employing them?

Mr. Flanagan.—It is a tendering interview process. For example, advice is got from the experts in the DPS as to what consultancy firms are geared to provide what is broadly thought to be required. The individual firms concerned are then asked to tender and are interviewed as to their capacity to do a particular job.

For the smaller contracts, their ability would be known and the firms would be asked to tender. The spread is right across the bulk of the firms operating in the area.

909. Deputy Crotty.—Are any estimates sought? Is there any control on the expenditure in these situations?

Mr. Flanagan.—Yes. The normal procedure of tendering, estimate and control. A package is sought, the rough costing is approved and the firms would not have an unlimited scope to expend money.

910. Deputy Crotty.—Under subhead B.1 — Travelling and Incidential Expenses — there was an under-expenditure. Could we get an explanation for that? There is usually an over-expenditure here.

Mr. Flanagan.—We provided a small amount more than we thought was needed. It was an occurrence which was somewhat exceptional. We do not spend it merely for the sake of spending it, if there is not a reason for a journey we would not do it.

911. Deputy Crotty.—The note says that the savings were due mainly to a rigorous approach to official entertainment during the year. Could we have an explanation of that?

Mr. Flanagan.—There has been with an increasing demand for economy and value for money a tightening up of all entertainment undertaken by Departments, including the Department of Health, and the condition under which entertainment would be sanctioned are very rigorously applied. The justification for entertainment is very seriously considered and that has been a feature for a number of years of the approach to what has come to be regarded as official entertainment.

912. Deputy Crotty.—What sort of entertainment is provided by the Department of Health, or for whom?

Mr. Flanagan.—For example, if an international congress is held here it is the practice to provide a reception in one of the State building, for example, Dublin Castle, Iveagh House or in an hotel. That is a feature of international congresses. Ministers entertain other Ministers from abroad and are entertained when they go abroad, along with parties accompanying them. It is at that level that entertainment is provided.

913. Deputy Crotty.—Under subhead B.3 there is an under-expenditure on post offices services. The note says that the saving is due to the introduction by An Post of more specified arrangements for determining payments due by the Department. Does that infer the Department were paying over the odds to An Post over the years?

Mr. Flanagan.—It would be impossible to say we were paying over the odds. We are paying now on the basis of actual postage charges incurred. Hitherto, it was on an estimated basis. There may well have been variations in the amount of user we had. Under the revised arrangements which An Post introduced, we have this saving.

914. Deputy Crotty.—Was that a normal procedural arrangement between the Department and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs?

Mr. Flanagan.—It was broadly on an apportioned estimated basis of what they would anticipate user of the service to have been.

Deputy Crotty.—That was an accepted procedure?

Mr. Flanagan.—It was a feature of the State management of postal services at the time.

915. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Under subhead J — Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children — is Mr. Flanagan aware of reports of increased sexual abuse of children, is the attempt to combat it met under this heading, or are the Department geared, through an Assistant Secretary or such officer, to deal with the incidence of child sexual abuse? What is the current situation? Is it on the increase? When will we see a decrease? What plans are the Department implementing under this or other headings to combat this dreadful problems.

Mr. Flanagan.—The subhead would be of value and of use in the grant paid to the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It would reflect services provided which would contribute to preventing the abuse of children. As Deputy Mitchell will probably be aware, the whole feature of sexual assault and abuse in all shapes and sizes got an impetus with the taking on board by the Minister for Health of the need to provide specifically for the treatment of rape assault victims in the Rotunda in a special unit which was opened and funded by the Department of Health with the co-operation of the Rotunda Hospital, the Rape Crisis Centre and the Garda authorities. From the opening and functioning of that unit, there emerged a growing number of child victims of such assaults and abuses. The Department are looking, in co-operation with all the interested people, at the preparation of a report to measure the precise situation. The impetus of the assault unit focused more and more attention upon that and the work of the Rape Crisis Centre. The Department are studying the effect and contemplating the development of special services as a matter of priority for the care of child assault victims of all kinds. To specifally answer the question related to the administrative structure of the Department, there is an Assistant Secretary and the support staff necessary including social workers especially assigned to the work of all aspects of child care.

916. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I was aware there was an Assistant Secretary but I wanted to get it on the record because it did arise before the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism.

Mr. Flanagan.—May I interrupt you very briefly? Because of the emerging need to focus on that area, in a restructuring of the Department which will come into effect other aspects of that Assistant Secretary’s work are being taken from him to enable a concentration upon that area.

917. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I am delighted to hear that. You are saying that because of what emerged from the Rape Crisis Centre, the Department are preparing a report of measurement of the precise situation?

Mr. Flanagan.—We are working to define what needs to be done for child care in this situation. Even the professions engaged in dealing with victims of child assault, including those named by the Deputy, were taken by surprise at what emerged. They and others were forced to think of the need for providing especially for child victims. It is very actively being considered.

918. Deputy G. Mitchell.—The Department are removing from the Assistant Secretary certain other aspects of his work to allow him to concentrate more on this area?

Mr. Flanagan.—On the entire area of child protection legislation and the child services.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—And the question of special services development is a matter of priority?

Mr. Flanagan.—Absolutely, yes.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—From what you do know — you want to get a measure of the problem because it is only emerging in statistical form now — is child sex abuse on the increase?

Mr. Flanagan.—It would seem so. The more work overtly done in all of this violent area the more it seems to attract. I would say that probably there is more evidence of child abuse emerging. There is another feature of what emerges which is perhaps giving the impression that it is very very widespread: people who have suffered abuse in the past, who are now adults, emerge into the scene as the victims of past abuses. They are tending to create a lot of work for agencies working in this field.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—And your Department are gearing themselves to deal with that?

Mr. Flanagan.—Yes, indeed.

919. Deputy Naughten.—With regard to subhead G.1 — Grants to Health Boards — over the last two years we have heard a lot of criticism about the level of service being provided by health boards. Statements have been made by medical people and members of particular health boards that patients would die. Those statements were made and are on public record in 1985 and again in 1986. Are you satisfied that the level of finance available to health boards is sufficient to provide an adequate standard of service?

Mr. Flanagan.—The amount of money made available to the Department of Health and, through the Department of Health, to the health agencies is by way of Government decision. I am satisfied that the health boards and agencies have money sufficient to provide essential health service. There will always be argument as to what is or is not an essential service. The short answer to the question is that we seek money; we are apportioned money; we distribute that money in as equitable a way as possible. We seek to administer it and have it administered as efficiently as possible within the priorities which present themselves. Beyond that I cannot say.

920. Deputy Naughten.—Are you satisfied that the money is distributed equally between the health boards. For example, having regard to the geographic location and the difficult circumstances in which some health boards have to operate vis-à-vis others that they get a fair allocation of the finance available?

Mr. Flanagan.—The equity of the availability of health services is a matter of concern to us as the Deputy will have seen from the consultative document published. In the sense that we distribute the money as fairly and with regard to what seems to present itself, to my knowledge, I am satisfied that we do reasonably what is in equity necessary to do. The perspectives of individual health boards are capable of being the subject of argument as to what is equitable in one instance as compared with another — there are various parameters — but we are studying them. Given that the resource remains reasonable by way of allocation to us by the Government we will seek to work steadily towards the removal of what-ever reasonable arguments there are about equity.

921. Deputy Naughten.—Under subhead K would the Accounting Officer say how many hospitals or institutions built in recent years are at present lying idle? Has much equipment been bought which is lying idle also?

Mr. Flanagan.—I will communicate with the Deputy in detail as to the current state of facilities which are left idle or equipment unused. At present we are seeking the opening of Beamont Hospital. There is argument in relation to the speed at which we can open the remaining facilities in Cheeverstown. There is argument about the CAT Scanner in Galway Regional Hospital. They all require looking at in the perspective of what occurred in relation to them. For example, the Department would argue that there could have been greater progress made toward making available to the public some of the facilities I have talked about. But, in the specificity in which the Deputy wants the information, I will communicate it to the committee.

922. Deputy Naughten.—Could the Accounting Officer tell us, for example, how long have Cheeverstown and Beaumont been completed? Why are they still lying idle? Did the necessary negotiation take place between the interested bodies involved, or was it a question that the Department of Health ploughed ahead and built facilities that people had certain reservations about and are extremely reluctant to move into. Indeed, it is questionable whether, in some cases, they will be occupied.

Mr. Flanagan.—Just taking the two specific instances: Cheeverstown is not lying idle. Moneys have been provided of the order of £1.5 million to £1.7 million to open the facilities there in a progressive way. We would argue in the Department that a greater rate of progress toward the full opening of that institution could have been made. Equally we have consulted, met with and discussed with the organisation running Cheeverstown to endeavour to assist them to the greatest extent possible to open as much of those much needed facilities as can be made available. In so far as the opening of Beaumont Hospital is concerned I do not think anybody could argue that the facility is not needed. It is very necessary. The very age and the fabric of the two hospitals which will move to Beaumont require that they are replaced by a modern facility. I would contend that the decision to provide that facility and to replace the hospitals in the context of a movement towards six major hospitals catering for the Dublin conurbation was entirely justified. The reasons that Beaumont Hospital is not opened are a matter of public record as to the arguments about the provision of a private hospital on the site. The opening of Beaumont is being proceeded with in negotiation with all of the interests concerned. It is being processed as fast as the Department can, with that obstacle about the private hospital out of the way.

923.—Deputy Naughten.—My point is that one would imagine that the question of the private hospital and all of these things should have been discussed and ironed out before the hospital construction was commenced. We are now left with a major hospital costing a vast sum of money lying idle.

Mr. Flanagan.—The Deputy will be aware that the criticism he made is, in a sense, unfounded, that policy decisions which change, decisions in relation to the private hospital were made.

924. Deputy Naughten.—With regard to the Swinford Centre, that has now been completed for some time and is also lying vacant. What plans have the Department to fund the opening of that centre?

Mr. Flanagan.—As the Deputy will be aware, the Swinford development has received a considerable attention from the Department. Suggestions were made to the Western Health Board as to how it could have been processed to a phased opening. In the event that has not happened. But I am aware that the health board, the Department and the other agencies, including the Brothers of Charity in Western Care, are co-ordinating their approach to the management of the facility. I believe it will be possible to provide the resource for the opening of the facility, on a phased basis, this year with the co-operation of the health board and integrating the facility into the totality of the overall services for the mentally handicapped provided in the Western Health Board area.

925. Deputy Naughten.—Is the Accounting Officer aware that people who would deem themselves to be experts in the field of dealing with the mentally handicapped have grave reservations about the Swinford Centre and, in fact, would go so far as to say that the Swinford Centre is little better than a white elephant?

Mr. Flanagan.—I am aware of the views expressed. Those views do not take account of the more advanced thinking in relation to the way in which you use a facility such as Swinford. The use of such a facility — the Deputy will be aware of it — an institutional complex of that nature, has been pioneered to an enormous extent by the Brothers of Charity in Kilcornan. Such a model — say to use the centre as support for a move out to the community, support in crises, support during holiday times - would suggest the ideal way in which Swinford should be used and can be used effectively to provide very good services that area.

926. Deputy Naughten.—Is the accounting Officer aware that the Western Care Association, who would see themselves as having a very important role to play in providing services for the mentally handicapped, suggested that only approximately half the Swinford Centre should be used and that the concentration of many mentally handicapped people in the one area was a bad idea? They suggested that part of the complex should be changed over into shopping units. That cost approximately £12 million.

Mr. Flanagan.—I am aware of the Western Care argument but I do not accept it in the context of the possibility of using the facility. The Deputy will also be aware that we are surveying nationally the requirements of the mental handicap services and I think that, with the success of the services which have been provided for the mentally handicapped and with the fact that people with that condition are living longer, we may be in some senses glad that the provision has been made. The parents of the mentally handicapped will not live forever and the resource centres which the institutions represent may be a valuable asset in the future. I don’t have a monopoly of the wisdom in this area; we are proceeding on it on a trial study and error basis perhaps, but we have taken decisions in relation to Loughlinstown and we are looking afresh at provisions which are being made or were planned to be made elsewhere. Opinions have been expressed from time to time. There are those concerned with the mental handicap services who say that they should not have an institutional resource I wish I had the fore-sight to be able to make such a clear decision. I have not.

927.—Deputy Naughten.—I think we all appreciate that. Neither have I, but you will agree that it is rather stunning to hear people of the calibre of the people involved in Western Care stating that only half that complex should be used. It is disturbing. Just one final question with regard to the CAT Scanner in Galway Regional Hospital which is lying idle there for about five years. First of all, what puzzles me a little is why for example, approval would be given for the purchase of equipment of this nature which is lying there on a case and maintenance basis costing a considerable amount of money to keep it maintained. I believe its life is quite short and it would appear that the health board were able to get along without it. Was there a need for it in the first place? Why was approval given for the purchase of it without approving staffing for it?

Mr. Flanagan.—Specific Government decisions were made in relation to the purchase of the CAT Scanner. The decisions did not associate with the resource necessary in revenue terms to provide the service. The health board pressed for the purchase of the apparatus, despite our best arguments and endeavours with them to redeploy the resource necessary to provide the service. The extent of that resource coupled with the cost of transporting patients who necessarily need the services of a CAT Sanner would, we would argue in the Department, have permitted the provision of the facility. The Western Health Board take a different view. I do not accept their view in relation to that. The evolution of acute medicine and its dependence on high technology has grown year by year and whereas say, eight or nine years ago it would have been argued by those in the radiology field that the country could survive with one or two CAT Scanners in the intervening years they have agreed that more CAT Scanners were necessary. As a layman just looking at the scene I think that the consultants now would argue that in an increasing number of cases the facility of a CAT Scanner is necessary. Obviously as they are sending such cases out of the Western Health Board area in very large numbers for scanning on the facility, it is so regarded by them.

928. Deputy Naughten.—You stated that the health board were pressing for the purchase of it at the time. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am of the opinion it was not top priority equipment that the health board needed at that time; it was not their no. 1 priority.

Mr. Flanagan.—I am unable to comment with accuracy as to its no. 1 priority, but it is very difficult to get any health board who serve a number of disparate county areas to determine finally their no. 1 priority at any given time. Health boards are under pressure from the professionals involved to get them the best equipment available. I distinctly recall that the CAT Scanner was sought earnestly for the regional hospital complex in Galway and was the subject of a specific Government decision.

929. Deputy Naughten.—With regard to staffing matters and control of the Department of Health over staff working in public voluntary hospitals, where, for example, a member of the consultant staff in one of those hospitals refuses to give medical records to patients who, for example, may be waiting to bring a case before the courts, what control has he or his Department over ensuring that those records are provided by the consultants involved?

Mr. Flanagan.—The consultants are employed on contract by the hospitals concerned and the issue as is any employment issue, is a matter between the employing authority who would be the particular hospital and the individual consultant and the contract he would have with the hospital as to his obligation to provide the information sought by the patient. I imagine that the issue you raise is a ticklish one. If you would like to give me specificity I will have it brought to the attention of the voluntary hospital concerned but it is primarily a matter for the employing hospital.

930. Deputy Naughten.—As regards bringing the matter to your attention I am not sure whether you have dealt with it personally but it has been brought to the attention of your office. On a few occasions I tried to contact you personally about it but I know you were tied up in other ways. Basically what you are saying to this committee is that you pay out vast sums of money from the Department, taxpayers’ money, and these people can basically tell you to get lost, that you have no control over them good, bad or indifferent?

Mr. Flanagan.—I cannot accept that we pay out vast sums of money directly to consultants. We pay it out through the hospitals who provide services for health boards.

931. Deputy Naughten.—Sorry, the taxpayer pays in the final analysis. Is that not correct? The money comes through the Department of Health to the voluntary hospitals. Eventually the taxpayer pays through the Department of Health.

Mr. Flanagan.—Yes, but to take the point of the case you mention, generally I am not] aware that consultants will refuse to give medical information of that nature to patients. I am not aware of the specific case but in the light of what the Deputy says I will have a look at it. To argue from the particular case to the generality of the approach of consultants to what they provide to patients may be a bit sweeping. The control we have for the money the consultants are paid is a different issue. It is paid on the basis of negotiated common contract.

932. Deputy Naughten.—Yes; but where consultants refuse to co-operate with the people involved what function, if any, have your Department with regard to those people?

Mr. Flanagan.—I am at a slight loss to answer the generality of the question. The boards of voluntary hospitals and their managements provide services for people who are eligible for health services. In the main they exercise a very strong control over the money which we pay them to provide those services including the payment of the contract. If the Deputy is asking me if we would wish to be in a position to monitor more closely the value we get for that money, I would say yes of course and I have said so to the Committee on Public Expenditure, but the nature of the common contract is such that such monitoring in the sense that we would be required to do it by bodies such as the Committee of Public Accounts and the Committee on Public Expenditure is not possible in the situation. In relation to the specific case all I can say is that I will look at it to see what the circumstances are.

Chairman.—Does Deputy Crotty wish to raise any issue there?

933. Deputy Crotty.—Before I get onto the other issue, let me refer to Appropriations-in-aid No. 2 — Recovery of cost of Health Service provided under regulations of the European Economic Community. What are the health services that are required by the European Economic Community?

Mr. Flanagan.—The EC regulations provide broadly that the Member State in which a person is insured for social security purposes will bear financial responsibility for benefits including health benefits provided for him in another Member State. By an exchange of letters on 9 July 1975 the United Kingdom and Ireland agreed that the balance of costs arising between the two States would be settled by the payment of an annual lump sum by the State holding the greater liability. Because of the large number of United Kingdom eligible persons who visit or reside in this country and use health services, the net liability in that situation rests with the United Kingdom. The arrangement operated retrospectively for three years from 19 April 1976. Thereafter, it continues on a year to year basis unless terminated in writing by either party on the giving of six months notice. The UK discharges its liability to this country by annual payments normally in two amounts. Such payments are payments on account in the first instance, a finalisation taking place later after discussions between officers representing the administrations of both Departments.

934. Deputy Crotty.—Last week the very unsatisfactory situation of the auditing of health board accounts was raised here at the committee. We are dealing with the 1984 accounts and it would apppear that some of the health boards were audited up to 1980 at that stage, some of them up to 1981 and 1982. This is very unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory from an accounting point of view because it is very difficult to account for expenditures and controls.

Mr. Flanagan.—I am not sure that Deputy Crotty is aware of the information I gave in response to your question earlier about the current state of audit. I do not know if he was here at the time but I can read it again.

—The present position of the audited accounts.

934. Deputy Crotty.—I am asking about the situation that arose at that time. It is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of people trying to account for expenditure and controls four years old. It is also unsatisfactory from the point of view of abuses that could arise and would not raise their head until the audit took place, in this case four years hence. Last week we asked for an explanation from the Department of the Public Service as to why the personnel for this audit were not made available or an explanation for the general situation given.

Mr. Gallagher (Dept of the Public Service).—The Government introduced restrictions on the filling of vacancies in the Civil Service in 1981 and in 1982. Those restrictions continued to apply in the form of an embargo until the beginning of 1986. In the course of that period, we had requests for the filling of vacant posts from the local authority audit service. We were aware that there were posts vacant in the service at various levels. What the audit service pressed for was not, so far as we are aware, the filling of the vacant posts at all levels. The pressure from the audit service came for the filling of two promotion posts in the service. It seemed to us that if delays were being caused in the audit, it was rather strange that the solution should be to select two of the highest level posts in the service and say they were the ones that should be filled. There was considerable correspondence at ministerial level and it was agreed that one of the posts which was vacant which dealt with the audit of the Eastern Health Board should be filled by way of putting somebody on the duties and giving that person an allowance.

It was also agreed that the other vacant posts at principal auditor level, which was an operational post, should be filled by deployment from within the audit service. They had one principal auditor tied up on general issues not dealing with operational audit and it was decided that he should be moved out into a audit service. Simultaneously a number of the people who had been taken on as trainee auditors qualified and were promoted to the assistant auditor grade so that there was an improvement in the position at assistant auditor grade. In view of the various comments that have been made over the years about delays in the local audit service, my Department were concerned that the audit service which has existed since the last century and was brought into existence in the conditions of the last century might require a look at with a view to doing a number of things. There is considerable concentration on the health board audits which are probably the largest area of expenditure inspected by the local authority audit service who also deal with a very mixed bag of other audits, some of which are quite small. An interdepartmental committee have been established to look at the future of the audit service and to consider various questions some of which were raised by this committee. First, the question of whether it would be more economical to take away some of the audits from direct audit by the local authority audit service and hand them over to private audit. Second since a large proportion of the expenditure of the bodies audited by the local authority audit service comes from central funds whether it might be more logical to move in a direction, which again was suggested to this committee two years ago, of setting up a comprehensive State audit commission and integrate the operations of the local authority audit service into that commission. That review group held their first meeting last July and they have representatives from the various Departments concerned. They also held a meeting last August and I understand that another meeting is to be held shortly.

935. Deputy Crotty.—I am rather gratified to hear that something is on foot to provide a more up-to-date and comprehensive audit service but what we are dealing with here today is the audit which did not take place. Were the Department aware of the backlogs, which was four years in this case, in quite a number of the boards?

Mr. Gallagher.—Yes. We were aware and the Government were made aware by the Department of Health specifically of the position in relation to the Eastern Health Board whose audits at various stages emerged as the ones which presented the greatest problems. That is why steps were taken eventually, after ministerial negotiation, to fill those. We do have a problem over the entire Civil Service and did have it thoughout that period. There was an embargo in force. There was considerable resistance at various levels in the Civil Service, both from management and unions, to the application of the embargo. There are 30,000 plus civil servants all of whom conceded that the embargo was a very good thing provided it did not apply to their particular neck of the woods. We were very worried that the message would get out to people working in particular areas that, if they managed to stall things in areas which were sensitive such as driving tests and audits which are the sort of things that would put pressure on politicians and cause a public scandal they would have the embargo lifted from them. We could in that event, expect the number of delays and the number of problems in particular areas to increase drastically. We have to approach, unfortunately, demands for staff in areas where there are acute problems with a possibly unhealthy degree of scepticism. It took a certain amount of time to resolve the problems in the local audit service and to resolve the problems regarding the principal auditors but the crucial thing from our point of view was that people were pushing for promotion posts and not for the basic infantry who might be more important in doing the job.

936. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Can the officials from the Department of the Public Service tell us what the staff levels in the Department of the Public Service were in 1980 and what they were in 1984?

Mr. Gallagher (Dept of the Public Service).—I have not got them to hand, Deputy, but they have gone down.

937. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Would it be fair to say that the Department have quadrupled in recent years and that they have become a bit of a joint in the public service?

Mr. Gallagher.—They have not quadrupled in recent years. The numbers have declined since 1981. The Department were not in existence until 1973. You could apply this criterion to almost any Department. You have got Departments which jumped like merry hell from 1973 to 1981. Then, when the squeeze came and they started losing numbers, their concept of what the natural staffing for any Department was what they had in 1981.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—But your Department were run by a Parliamentary Secretary. Is it not a question of poacher turned gamekeeper?

Mr. Gallagher.—I do not think that is a fair question. You are very definitely into a policy area.

938. Deputy Crotty.—You have mentioned that there were demands for promotion in the local government auditor section rather than for extra personnel. Who in that section is accountable for this situation? Was the auditing of accounts at local government and health board level a low priority? What is the explanation?

Mr. Gallagher.—We have been trying to find out. An audit is dealt with by an audit team and the audit service are broken up into regions with each regional group covering a range of audits, including those of local authorities, health board authorities, burial boards and various other areas of audit. In the case of two regions, people retired who in the normal course of events would not have been replaced. We made a number of offers to the Departments involved. We first suggested that, if they wanted to fill promotion posts in those areas and if they wanted to fill the particular posts, we were prepared to trade them off for posts elsewhere. Between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health there were roughly 100 posts at that level. The attitude taken by my Minister at the time was that if they regarded those posts as absolutely vital, they had 98 other posts from which they could have picked one out to hatchet to compensate for it, but the actual audits are done by a range of staff covering all the grades involved.

939. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Are you saying that the Department of Health felt that auditing was of a very low priority and they were not prepared to provide staff?

Mr. Gallagher.—The Department of Health drew the attention of the Government to the fact that there were delays in the audit of the Eastern Health board and possibly in another health board area but they emphasised the Eastern Health Board.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—There was also a delay in the South Eastern Health Board in 1980 and in quite a few others in 1981.

Mr. Gallagher.—The one I recall is the Eastern Health Board because they were very large spenders and they were brought to attention in that particular context. The Department of Health pressed very strongly at that stage for particular promotion posts in the Department of the Environment, which dealt with that area, to be filled.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—The Department of Health pressed for posts in the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Gallagher.—The audit service are attached to the Department of the Environment for historical reasons. The Department of Health up to the fifties were part of one Department. The audit service remained in the Department of the Environment and provide a service not just for the Department of the Environment and their agencies but also for the Department of Health, health agencies, the vocational education committees and various other bodies. In this situation other Ministers, apart from the Minister for the Environment, have a very strong interest in what happens in the audit service and the Department of Health applied the maximum pressure.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Therefore, it was the Department of the Environment who resisted providing the service? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Gallagher.—What I am saying is that there was a number of options open. One option was to give them the staff they were looking for as a bonus. This meant bursting the embargo which the Government were not prepared to wear at that particular time in a number of sensitive areas as the committee realise. The other alternative was for one or other of the Departments which were benefiting from the services of the local government auditors to offer to swop something they had to allow a post in the audit service to be filled. The Departments having assessed their priorities obviously took the view that another solution had to be found.

940. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Can Mr. Flanagan explain why staff were not provided for the very essential service of audit? Was it because it did not matter and it was of a very low priority?

Mr. Flanagan.—It is quite clear from the DPS explanation that we were pressing for it. I regret that the appointment of staff for the audit function is a function of the Department of the Environment. The route of pressure which we applied was through that Department in the first instance. We expected that Department to seek these services which we thought were essential. That Department did and we took the pressure. It would not be the application of the embargo as it applied in our Department.

As you saw from the figures we gave you, taking additional services, we have had a net reduction in staff. It would never have occurred to me that it would be a matter for the Department of Health to trade staff so that the audit function could be carried out by the audit section of the Department of the Environment. It is a novel concept to me. It would not have been possible. The arguments essentially lay between the Department of the Public Service and the Department of the Environment as to the application of the embargo to the staffing numbers employed in the Department of the Environment.

Chairman.—We have the Department of the Environment next. Could we bring them in now?

941. Deputy Naughten.—I just want to raise the question of staffing. With regard to a question I asked last week, I want to thank the Accounting Officer for supplying the numbers of employed by the health boards and the percentage of staff which were administrative. There is a huge variation between the health boards in the amount of administrative staff they have. Could the Accounting Officer explain to the committee why?

Mr. Flanagan.—The size of the areas the health boards serve will provide an explanation for the variation in numbers. The situation to which I would like to draw specific attention is that the category which we describe in the census method which we are employing as clerical and administrative includes such grades as house parents, community welfare officers, receptionists in community care, keepers of medical records, health education officers and assistant pharmaceutical officers. If the Deputy gets an opportunity to study the movement of such staff as between the two years 1984 and 1986 where we were relying on computer censi, he will notice particularly that the clerical administrative grades are very heavy in the homes for the mentally handicapped and are developing in that particular area significantly because of the number of house parents and so on employed. We control the numbers that are submitted for approval to us by the health boards. They are all showing a reduction.

942. Deputy Naughten.—Mr. Flanagan has not answered my question. There is a huge variation between the amount of clerical/administrative employed by the different health boards. Would you not accept that we are, to a degree, over staffed with clerical and administrative staffs and if, for example, there is a reduction of staff anywhere it is usually nursing posts that are left vacant rather than clerical ones?

Mr. Flanagan.—It is not so. Nursing numbers have increased. We have not given you the breakdown. We will give you that later. If you look at the returns you will notice that as between the years the medical, dental and paramedical numbers have grown. I would not agree that the medical administration numbers are inordinately heavy in any area. There is a factor of the nature of the services that are provided from area to area. On my last appearance before this committee. I made the point that there has been an increasing emphasis, in the organisation of acute hospital services, on the use of ward clerks to take loading off very heavily pressed nursing, medical and paramedical staff and they figure in the numbers. But, in spite of the fact that there is a growing dimension there, the numbers of clerical staff over all have dropped in accordance with the application of the numbers embargo.

Deputy Naughten.—We had to or three CEOs with us over the last 12 months. I asked one of them a question as to the amount of administrative staff employed by his health board. According to the figures here there is a vast difference between what he informed the committee and what we have here. I will ask Mr. Donlon to check this out. If my memory serves me correctly, the answer I was given was 5 per cent, whereas, from the figures I have here it would appear that the figure is closer to 12 per cent and I would ask that that be checked out and that the committee be informed.

Mr. Troy, Department of the Environment called and examined.

943. Chairman.—Thank you Mr. Troy for coming in there. We will go back now to the question regarding auditing which arose before you came in. I would ask Deputy Crotty to take up that point.

944. Deputy Crotty.—We have been discussing the availability of personnel to carry out an audit in the health boards before the Accounting Officer for the Department of the Environment came here. It would appear that the responsibility for the lack of auditors to provide an audit at the health board level has been shifted on to the Department of the Environment. I would like to hear from the Accounting Officer from the Department of the Environment his views on the availability of staff to carry out this audit. Did he feel that it was a proper service to have audits carried out four years after they were due? What is the general feeling about the importance of auditing figures at all levels which would be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Troy.—We accept that a very high priority must be given to the audit service. In the mid-seventies, with the consent of the DPS, we began a process of building up the audit service. Eventually we had sanction to a fairly extensive organisation. But, just as we were ready to go ahead with it in 1981 the embargo came in, in July 1981. We were in the process of filling seven posts which had reached the stages where the process had to stop under the general terms of the Government’s embargo. In the following year we lost a principal auditor, and another after a further year through the operation of the one-in-three system. In all we lost 14 posts out of 50, which is a high percentage, higher than was happening elsewhere in the Department or elsewhere in the public service. It just happened that way because we could only fill one post in three. As soon as the Government policy became a bit more flexible we took it up again with the Department of the Public Service and, with their agreement, we have set up a review committee consisting of representatives of Finance, the Department of the Public Service, ourselves and the Department of Health with the Comptroller and Auditor General having an observer present. The committee will look into all aspects of the audit service, the scope and purpose of the audit, how it would be organised, the possibility for privatisation and other aspects. We expect to complete that this year and staffing will definitely be one of the matters dealt with by this committee.

Mr. Gallagher recalled.

945. Deputy Crotty.—It would appear from the Accounting Officer for the Department of the Environment that staff was a problem. Could I hear a comment from the Department of the Public Service on this? We seem to be getting conflicting views here. The bottom line is that there was no audit carried out for four years. As far as this committee are concerned it is not acceptable nor would it be acceptable at any level in any organisation, particularly private or commercial organisations. I do not think the Revenue Commissioners would accept it from any firm, even one with only one employee. In two major organisations, the Departments of Health and the Environment we have a situation where no audits were carried out for four years. It warrants a better explanation than we have received so far.

Mr. Gallagher.—The Government decided that posts were to be left vacant on a particular basis. Once the Government had taken that decision the only options open were to operate with reduced staff or get the staff from somewhere else by trading in other posts. The pressure from the audit service was not for posts down the bottom of the line. The pressure coming from the audit service was very much for filling promotion posts, for filling the two posts at the second level from the top in the service. Eventually we dealt with that problem and in terms of the long-term solution the Department of the Environment agreed to establish a committee to look into it. Unfortunately 1980 had passed, and we could not give them the staff retrospectively, so that the 1980 audit could be done in time. The Government had taken a line on staffing and that line had to be held. It bit quite heavily in other parts of the Department of the Environment as well.

Mr. Troy recalled.

946. Deputy Crotty.—The officials from the Department of the Public Service say that the pressure was not for personnel, it was for a couple of promotional posts which obviously would not provide the personnel for this audit. Secondly, the Accounting Officer mentioned that unfortunately the shortages arrived in the audit section more so than in other sections of the Department of the Environment. Are we to take it from that then that the auditing of accounts has a lower priority, or why were personnel not shifted into the audit department so that proper audits could be carried out?

Mr. Troy.—The position under the old strict embargo was that only one post in three could be filled and each one was taken as it happened. Each Department had to keep a list date by date to make sure there was no rearranging of posts to suit local conveniences. It is the case of a blunt instrument being very effective. Irrespective of level, only a third post could be filled and the other two could not. That is why it has been so effective, although there were consequential disadvantages. Within the audit service what is unfortunate was that prior to the embargo proper there was the earlier embargo in mid-1981 which decreed that all vacant posts should be left vacant as of that date and all recruitment stopped unless it passed beyond a certain point. We lost seven posts in the audit service under that Government decision which applied to the whole Civil Service. We were held in that sort of a grip. On the point about the principal auditors, it is true that the union pressed mainly for the two principal level posts and in deference to the union we took that up as special priority with the DPS and we were able to get one post about a year ago. We have pressed for the others, but that is being taken up in the context of the committee because there are other options. There is the option, for example, of some of the audits not being dealt with by the local government audit service.

It has been suggested that there be an amnesty for outstanding audits prior to a certain date. I am not saying that we would take this very seriously. The question of using a commercial service was also raised. We could not rush into anything. This is the first really comprehensive examination of the audit service on the local authority since the State was set up. We have had the assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor General on this, but not his formal participation since there is a wider question at issue here.

947. Deputy Crotty.—There appears to be a grey area here between the public service and the Department of the Environment. We are informed by the public service that the pressure was for two senior people — and this has been borne out by the Accounting Officer — due to the pressure of unions. Did this pressure take priority over carrying out a proper service, a proper auditing? Why was there not the similiar pressure to have people provided to carry out a proper audit? Certainly I am not getting the sort of explanation I would expect from very responsible people here.

Mr. Troy.—There was a pressure from the union and that would entail matters like morale throughout the audit service as a whole and its effect on work programmes. In addition to that the principal auditor has a key role; he is in charge of a region and he assigns work to the auditors within the region. There was some suggestion by the union of a blacking arrangement if the posts were left unfilled. It could have brought the whole service to a stop.

948. Deputy Crotty.—It might as well have been brought to a stop if you were not getting accounts done for four years.

Mr. Troy.—I could accept that.

949. Deputy Crotty.—I am in private commercial business, and if I told the Revenue Commissioners I had not accounts available for four years they would laugh at me. They would shut me down and rightly so. Here we have a Government Department without accounts being audited for four years and we have an explanation about unions, pressures and morale.

Mr. Troy.—I cannot accept that.

950. Deputy Crotty.—I cannot accept that explanation that is being handed out here this morning either by the Department of the Public Service or the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Troy.—We are not explaining in terms of unions. That is just one side of the explanation. The issue is that the Government decided what personnel policy should be and what posts should be filled. We carried out those policies of each Government since 1981. This has happened throughout the service. People must face that. If we have to keep reducing civil servant numbers we must face either termination of some services or the reduction in some standards. I am not saying we are accepting this in the case of the audit. The audit is there. We kept it going with a depleted staff. The staff were loyal, they did their best and I have nothing but praise for them, but the facts are that we are a few years behind but we would have been even further behind if we had not moved on the principal auditor post.

951. Deputy Crotty.—The Department of the Public Service said this morning there were posts available that could have been moved into the audit section and they were not moved into the audit section. They could have been moved from the Department of Health and the Environment.

Mr. Troy.—I am not aware of it.

Mr. C. Gallagher recalled

Mr. Gallagher.—May I elaborate on that? Where an embargo applies we have made it clear that if a Department found that some service was more vital than anything else they had and they wanted something done on that service, we were always in the business of doing a trade-off. The question of shifting people directly from somewhere else in the Department of the Environment into the audit service did not arise because the people elsewhere in the Department did not have the qualifications, and the same applied in terms of a trade-off in the Department of Health. But if either Department had found it possible to do so, we would have taken a post from either Department at principal level which is the same level as principal auditor, we would have left it unfilled and made an appointment to the audit service on that basis.

Deputy Crotty.—I am not going to pursue this any further. It is most unsatisfactory. I would like to get a note on the up-to-date position in relation to the audit at local government level.

Chairman.—Thank you very much, Mr. Flanagan.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 28—ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Troy further examined.

Motor Vehicle Duties

A test examination of revenue from motor vehicle duties, etc., was carried out with satisfactory results. The gross proceeds for 1984 and 1983 were:

£110,827,395 was paid in to the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £1,020,950 compared with £1,553,493 at the end of the previous year. Driving test fees are appropriated in aid of the Vote (subhead V).

The motor tax transactions of the 29 licensing authorities are subject to examination by Local Government Auditors whose reports are made available to me.

Mr. McDonnell.—There is only one paragraph on the Environment Vote and it gives the usual details in regard to motor vehicle duties and so on received in 1984 under the various headings and the amount paid into the Exchequer. As noted in the paragraph, the transactions of the licensing authorities are also examined by the local government auditors, and the reports are made available to me. It is another of their functions but it is an informatory paragraph as far as the committee are concerned.

953. Deputy G. Mitchell.—With regard to motor tax renewal, would Mr. Troy accept that revenue is lost due to the fact that drivers are not notified of the date of motor tax renewal and many who pay their tax annually quite often do not realise for two or three weeks, that their tax has expired? Does Mr. Troy have any plans to ensure, by way of either a renewal notice, or by way of having a tax certificate printed on both sides, which would be self adhesive on one side, which would indicate to the driver from the inside of the car that his tax had expired that any loss of revenue by not renewing on the renewal date is eliminated?

Mr. Troy.—We have plans to issue to everybody from the computer facility in Shannon a reminder in a form that can be used for renewal of the tax.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—So in future everybody will be reminded?

Mr. Troy.—Yes.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—From when?

Mr. Troy.—Most counties are covered already. April is the target date for countrywide application of the reminder system.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—When I raised this with Dublin Corporation, they informed me that there was a pilot scheme in Clare. Now, I can take it that in future from 1 April all motorists will receive renewal notice of the due date of renewal for car tax?

Mr. Troy.—Yes.

954. Chairman.—Kerry County Council have been most efficient in that matter with regard to licensing because they have been sending out renewal notices for a considerable period.

Mr. Troy.—It is the key to it. We have noticed that the counties that have sent out renewal notices immediately got a higher return in tax.

955. Deputy Crotty.—If a motorist does not retax his vehicle in time, when he goes to renew the licence does he not have to pay the back tax or provide a certificate from the Garda authorities that it was off the road? Do you not make up for it in that way?

Mr. Troy.—It is difficult to know. The suggestion is that these certificates are given fairly easily.

956. Chairman.—On the breakdown given by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Department of Justice in 1984 collected fines amounting to £5.1 million and approximately £4 million was collected in 1983. Is there any indication of what would be outstanding there?

Mr. Troy.—No. We have only a gross figure.

957. Chairman.—Have you any idea what percentage of the outstanding sum is due?

Mr. Troy.—I am afraid not.

Chairman.—You are satisfied with the £5 million collected in 1984.

Mr. Troy.—Yes.

958. Deputy Crotty.—I understand there was a delay in auditing local authorities over the years. Could I get any account of this? What was the situation over the last five or six years and what is the position now?

Mr. Troy.—I have a note which I can forward to the committee afterwards but I can give the main features of it. At present as regards the four county boroughs, all have their 1982 accounts audited and in the case of three of the county boroughs the 1983 accounts are audited but I am afraid none of the 1984 or 1985 accounts.

Deputy Crotty.—That is how it is at present?

Mr. Troy.—Yes. In the case of county councils of the 27 all of the accounts for 1982 are audited; 22 of the accounts for 1983; 12 of the accounts for 1984; and only one of the accounts for 1985. I can give you this later.

959. Deputy Crotty.—So what we are saying then is that the situation has not improved since the 1984 accounts. We are still four years behind in some cases. That just bears out my point that this certainly has been given a low priority. It is unacceptable and it will have to be referred to in the report of this committee.

Chairman.—Any further questions?

960. Deputy Naughten.—Under Schedule E.1. — Local Authority Housing subsidy — why was the subsidy not requested by the local authorities? Was it that building of local authority housing was not as active as it should be or what?

Mr. Troy.—There were a number of concurrent reasons. There are a number of variables. One is the rate of interest which was reduced after we made the estimate. Secondly, we had not taken full account of the extent of unsubsidisable expenditure which full checking showed to have been included in the amount. The local authorities spent less capital than had been allocated to them and drew it down towards the end of the year which affected the interest payable during the year because of the position with regard to gale days. I am not saying this was deliberate. It just happened that way. The two main reasons for it were the rate of interest reduction and the unsubsidisable items. On this kind of Subhead dealing with loan charges, there is a tendency to leave it as it is, because if a saving emerges the Department of Finance, understandably, are not too eager to sanction a transfer of that saving somewhere else because on the other side of the ledger there would be a reduction in non-tax revenue coming in balancing that. So it is not a real saving.

961. Deputy Naughten.—On subhead E.3. — Grants for Improvements to Houses — in 1984 the expenditure was £6.6 million. What is the estimated expenditure for 1986 and 1987?

Mr. Troy.—It was £27.5 million for 1986. We might know later in the week about 1987.

962. Deputy G. Mitchell.—On Subhead H. — Recoupment of Expenditure in respect of Register of Electors — in view of the fact that this is an election year is the secretary of the Department satisfied that the standard of the register of electors is acceptable? Would he accept that there is a constant and regular difficulty certainly with the register in Dublin where people who have been on the register for years come along on election day to find they are not on the register? I understand that the Department have carried out a particularly strong campaign this year, but would he not accept that some procedure, for instance, a superintendent or somebody of some standing who can say that person has resided there for a number of years. Should there not be some procedure whereby people could be allowed to exercise their vote when they have been left off the register by accident or by error by the local authority?

Mr. Troy.—This is included in a submission made by the Minister to the Government among a list of proposals for various improvements. There are many forms of inaccuracy. The person who has been on the register assumes he will be left on and it his name suddenly disappears he should have some kind of last minute appeal.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—That is under consideration?

Mr. Troy.—Very much so.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Would it be considered before. . .?

Chairman.—Are you concerned, Deputy?

963. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I am very concerned at this moment. Under subhead T — Fire and Emergency Services — could I ask the Accounting Officer given the extreme cold weather and the recent gas leaks we have had, if he is satisfied that the fire services are adequately equipped to deal with gas leaks, particularly major gas leaks which I understand cold weather can give rise to because of contracting pipes. Leaving aside their fire-fighting ability, is he satisfied that the fire services nationally are well equipped to deal with new leaks of gas?

Mr. Troy.—We are looking into various aspects of that recent tragedy and this is one of the matters we have to consider. We have no reason to think at present that Dublin Fire Brigade are not fully equipped but we will have to check that out.

964. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Is the Accounting Officer aware that there are widespread reports, particularly in the Dublin region, of smells of gas which people presume to indicate gas leaks? Could you say when your Department’s examination of this facility for the fire service will be completed?

Mr. Troy.—We have to be careful as to who does what. I am not sure that the fire brigade can take on total responsibility for anything that happens by way of gas explosions.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Your Minister is responsible for emergency plans?

Mr. Troy.—For fire and emergency plans, yes.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Can we be satisfied that there is an emergency plan to deal with major gas leaks?

Mr. Troy.—There is and it worked well on the day, as it happened. Ongoing routine checking of gas leaks cannot be for the fire brigade.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Where a major leak occurs, is there sufficient training in the handling of gas emergencies within the fire service?

Mr. Troy.—I cannot say, but it is something we will have to look into, among other things.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Have you started to look into it?

Mr. Troy.—We have set up a group.

965. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Under subhead R — the Rehabilitation of Travelling People — given the sort of weather we have this morning, in weather conditions such as this is there any emergency service provided through your Department or through the local authorities, assisted by your Department, to assist itinerants, homeless people or people who have to live outdoors in these sort of conditions?

Mr. Troy.—I know of no specific emergency service tailored to travellers. I assume health boards around the country are available with supplementary aid where it is required.

966. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Is there provision in the Bill dealing with the homeless which is at the moment before the House to deal with emergencies?

Mr. Troy.—It contains a legal provision to enable accommodation to be made.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Your Department would see it as a matter for the health boards rather than the local authorities?

Mr. Troy.—The health boards would deal with urgent matters in the winter to help old people.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m. sine die.