Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1958

Vol. 166 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 29—Office of the Minister for Justice.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,350 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, including certain other Services administered by that Office.

The Supplementary Estimate is required to meet the necessary expenses of staff salaries and travelling and telephone expenses.

The cause of the expected excess of expenditure over the provision for salaries, sub-head A (1), is that it has not been found possible to carry retrenchment as far as was hoped for when the original Estimate was formulated.

The supplementary amount sought for travelling expenses in sub-head B is accounted for chiefly by an upward revision of the rates of subsistence allowance. There has as well been extra travelling on investigation duty connected with An Bord Uchtála.

The increase in telephone expenses, sub-head D, the estimate for which is necessarily conjectural, arises from a greater use of telephones than had been allowed for in the original Estimate.

The additional sum in relation to the Garda Síochána is required mainly because more Gardaí have retired on pension than anticipated and because of the necessity for increased Garda activity. Besides, it is necessary to include in the Supplementary Estimate provision for paying increases in subsistence allowances to the Garda on the same lines as those which have been granted to the Civil Service. The increases are retrospective to the 1st June, 1956.

Apart from these unexpected expenditures there will be a deficiency in the receipts which are appropriated-in-aid of the Vote. This deficiency arises, in the main, because the contribution from the Road Fund in respect of the expenses of the Garda Síochána in the execution of the Roads Act and the Road Traffic Act was £7,328 less than estimated.

The total additional sum required is £74,835, but savings on other subheads have contributed to reducing the total to a net sum of £26,300.

The Supplementary Estimate for the Circuit Court is required to meet the extra expenditure which has been caused by the grant of revised salary scales to certain officers of the Circuit Court; by the upward revision of rates of subsistence allowance with retrospective effect to 1st June, 1956, and also by a greater volume of telephone calls on official business than had been provided for.

The Supplementary Estimate is further required to make good the deficiency caused by failure to realise the full amount of the Appropriation-in-Aid receipts. This occurred particularly under the heading of sub-head F (5) where provision has been made for the receipt of an additional £7,050 through an increase of sheriffs' fees. The form and content of the requisite Order occasioned difficulties which were not resolved until so late in the year that the yield is unlikely to exceed £500.

Mr. McQuillan

Could the Minister say what is included under incidental expenses in sub-head N?

Mr. Traynor

The main cause for the increased provision is the purchase of wireless equipment and the cost of employing a firm of management consultants to inquire into the organisation of the Garda Síochána.

Mr. Sweetman

I am glad to hear that the arrangements which were provisionally made for the employment of consultants, or efficiency experts, have now been put into effect. I should like the Minister to give us the figure over each of these three Votes, or the total for the three, represented by the increases that had to be given in subsistence allowances as from 1st June last. I shall be quite frank and say that one of the reasons I want that information is as part of a computation to show the losses sustained by the Minister for Finance in relation to these three Votes as a result of his Budget.

I am rather at a loss to understand the Minister's explanation in relation to travelling expenses, particularly in relation to the Circuit Court. On a percentage basis, the increase appears to be extremely heavy though, as a sum, it is not so very large.

Some people take the view that an increase in connection with telephone expenses is a bad thing. I do not subscribe to that because it invariably means the cutting out of some of the red tape; unnecessary letters and minutes are not written because a more modern method of communication is utilised. A great deal of unnecessary writing is done in relation to Civil Service minutes. If there was a little more verbal discussion, by telephone if necessary, a great deal of expense might be saved. The cost of a telephone call will always be considerably less than the cost of writing a minute. A telephone does away with the necessity for writing a minute, passing it from the bottom stratum right up to the top for signature and passing it down again to the bottom for issue. If that can be obviated by a more frequent use of the telephone, even if the Minister has to come back for a supplementary for telephones, it will be a good thing because it will have the effect of cutting total expense.

Mr. McQuillan

Should that not help to reduce the number of civil servants?

Mr. Sweetman

I was about to suggest that the Minister should be able to show something in his Estimate for the coming year by way of a reduction in personnel. I would hardly be in order on this supplementary if I were to attempt to discuss next year's Estimate so I shall have to forgo that pleasure for the moment. The additional costs of incidental expenses, for which Deputy McQuillan asked, somewhat surprises me because I thought that most of the expenses needed in relation to those items had already been met. If, in fact, their acquisition means greater efficiency by the Garda Síochána, we certainly will offer no objection.

Mr. McQuillan

I merely want to point out to the Government at this stage their promises when they came into office. One of the reasons the last Government got the order of the boot was that the people believed the cost of Government was too high and that no real attempt was being made to reduce it. The present Government, through the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement last year, made it quite clear that they were going to use the are ruthlessly to trim the Civil Service and Government expenditure.

We have here in a small way proof of how far from reality the Minister for Finance was last year. Here we have the Minister for Justice having the audacity to produce here three Supplementary Estimates in which the House is being asked to vote extra money to the headquarters of the Minister's own Department in order to pay increased expenses for the salaries of the staff. Surely the work of the Department of Justice has not increased to such an extent over the last 12 months that the Minister can renege on the promises given by his colleague, the Minister for Finance, that he would reduce the cost of Government?

It has to be brought home fully to the public that no matter what promises have been made here about cutting expenditure on the Civil Service or the cost of administration, there is no difference in the world between any Government in power over the last 20 years. The different Governments have proved themselves to be in the hands of the Civil Service in regard to expenditure and that they only count in so far as their names make legal the further expenditure by signing on the dotted line.

In regard to these Supplementary Estimates, Deputy Sweetman has suggested it is a desirable trend that the telephone should be used now rather than the minute passed up from the lower ranks to the top. I am in full agreement if that procedure will help to speed decisions and cut read tape. But is it not too much to suggest, if we are to cut red tape and gain efficiency through the use of the telephone, that we could have a decrease in the Civil Service in that particular Department? If the use of the telephone means that two hours of a civil servant's time is spared in writing and reporting some little matter to other sections, can we not logically deduct from that, if there are 1,000 calls in a week, we can reduce the man-hours in regard to that work? If there is to be an increase in the amount made available for telephone calls, there should be a corresponding reduction on the other side in regard to the expenditure on the number employed in that Department.

Having agreed so far with Deputy Sweetman on that, I want to criticise the Minister at this stage for not being able, or for not being efficient enough, to realise, when his original Estimate was before the House, that a more realistic appraisal should have been made of the amount of money likely to be spent on telephone calls over the 12 months. Here we have a Supplementary Estimate totalling £5,990 for telephone calls, almost £6,000 additional expenditure in the Department of Justice on telephone calls alone. Was there correct estimation on the part of the Minister and his advisers in regard to expenditure?

On the Supplementary Estimate, Vote 30, I asked the Minister to break down the details under sub-head N. I understand that portion of the £15,867 being asked for here is due to the cost of having the Department inspected by efficiency experts to see if it was possible to reduce the costs of the Department. The main Estimate will give a better opportunity of dealing with that, but I want to refer to other items, namely the sum of over £8,000 for wireless equipment. How did it come to be necessary to purchase extra wireless equipment to the tune of £8,000? How was it not realised in time for the main Estimate? Are we to take it that this supplementary sum has been spent on the purchase of walkie-talkie wireless sets used at the present moment along the Border? I should like the Minister to clarify that position for us.

These three Supplementary Estimates show quite clearly what is likely to come over the next 12 months. When the people get the full bill of all these supplementaries on top of the main Estimates, whatever they thought of the last crowd in office, if they can lay their hands on the present bunch over the next 12 months, it is just God help them.

Mr. Coogan

I rise to question the tabular statement on the number of Gardaí we have in Galway City. I see that in 1935 we had a certain figure in Galway City and it was just recently increased in 1958 by three men. I think, Sir, that our Garda force has been turned into a semi-Civil Service or clerical force. We feel, in Galway, that there are not enough men on police duties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter would be more relevant on the main Estimate.

Mr. Coogan

It arises out of this Vote and I would like to draw the Minister's attention to it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not draw attention to it if it is not relevant.

Mr. Coogan

Then there is also the matter of censorship.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate about censorship. These matters may not be raised on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Coogan

Then I hope to get some information on the principal Estimate.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor)

The statement I made in opening gave, fairly reasonably, the reasons for coming into this House and seeking these extra sums. They could not be avoided and they have been brought about by various causes. In the case of the Garda Síochána, the additional sum required is mainly because more Gardaí have retired on pension than was anticipated. Naturally we have to meet that extra cost. There is no means by which we could avoid it. As well as that it was necessary to include a provision for paying increases in subsistence allowance. Not only had we to do that but we had to pay them retrospectively.

As far as the bringing in of the efficiency experts was concerned I understand that the cost of their services has already been met out of savings. Deputies will be glad to know that that position has been attained.

In regard to the purchase of wireless sets—these sets were purchased for the purpose of dealing effectively with the situation that exists along the Border. If that situation did not exist it might not have been necessary to buy as many sets as have had to be purchased. With any police force, or any other force used for the maintenance of law and order, we must at least secure the best possible equipment to deal with situations that may arise in the course of the duties of that force. I am happy to be able to say that, since we have got our forces along the Border properly and effectively equipped, that force has achieved considerable success in preserving that area from use by illegal forces.

As I have said, these Estimates are brought about by reason of the fact that we have had to meet increased costs. Increased transport costs have, to some extent, been brought about by reason of the activities along the Border to which I have referred—continuous patrolling and so on. I do not know that we are doing anything wrong in taking that line of action. We must provide the Garda Síochána with the most effective possible machine to deal with that situation.

One Deputy referred to the fact that I should have had more foresight in dealing with these matters when I was bringing in the main Estimate. He forgets that I was not responsible for that Estimate. It was the Government which we succeeded that was responsible for preparing that main Estimate. As far as we were concerned we had to accept that the main Estimates were examined as effectively as we believe they were. If circumstances arise in which increases of the type to which I have referred occur we cannot ignore them. We must meet the extra charges. There was also the failure of the Appropriations-in-Aid to reach the anticipated amount. That is something over which we had no control. It may possibly be enlarged upon in the main Estimate when it comes along.

Vote put and agreed to.