SELECT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Tuesday, 8 Dec 1998

Vol. 1 No. 10

Estimates for Public Services 1998.

Vote 1 - President’s Establishment (Supplementary).

Vote 15 - Valuation and Ordnance Survey (Supplementary).

Chairman

We will consider the Supplementary Estimates for the year ending 31 December, 1998 in respect of Vote 1 - President's Establishment and Vote 15 - Valuation and Ordnance Survey. We will deal with each Vote in sequence. A departmental briefing note has been circulated. Following consideration of the Supplementary Estimates, the Committee will ask the Clerk to the Committee to convey a message to the Clerk of the Dáil. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, and his officials. I will ask the Minister to make a short introductory statement on Vote 1. That will be followed by a five minute statement from the Opposition spokespersons, followed by a question and answer session of 15 minute maximum. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McCreevy)

I am pleased to come before the committee today to present two Supplementary Estimates which arise on the Finance Group of Votes. These are two Supplementary Estimates, Vote 1 - the President's Establishment and Vote 15 - Valuation and Ordnance Survey.

The first Supplementary Estimate for which approval is sought is for Vote 1 - President's Establishment. The gross excess which has arisen amounts to £139,000. This will be partially offset by savings of £92,000 giving a net requirement for a Supplementary Estimate of £47,000.

The main item in this Supplementary Estimate is the excess of £139,000 which has arisen on Subhead A - Salaries, Wages and Allowances. The main reasons for the excess expenditure which has arisen are (i) additional staff sanctioned by my Department; (ii) additional overtime; (iii) salary increases not provided for in the original Estimate and (iv) a severance payment to the adviser to the former President.

As detailed in the briefing already supplied to the Committee, savings of £92,000, which have arisen on certain other subheads, reduce the Supplementary Estimate required to a net £47,000.

A token supplementary Estimate of £1,000 is required for Vote 15 - Valuation and Ordnance Survey. This Supplementary Estimate is made up of excess expenditure of £400,000 which is offset by additional Appropriations-in-Aid of £350,000 related to the activities of the Valuation Office and the Ordnance Survey and savings of £49,000 arising on certain subheads. The excess expenditure arises from the relocation of the Valuation Office from Ely Place to modern accommodation in the Irish Life Centre and, specifically, the cost of furniture and fittings not provided for in the original Estimate; availing of opportunities to upgrade computer cabling and systems to meet compliance criteria for the Year 2000 while the fitting out was in progress; and unforeseen, and thus unprovided for, legal costs arising from court actions involving the property arbitrators in pursuit of their statutory functions. An additional £330,000 is required under subhead A6 - Office Premises Expenses.

The Valuation Office was relocated from its former premises at 5-7 Ely Place, Dublin 2 to Block 2 of the Irish Life Centre during the first half of 1998. I officially opened the premises on 7 July last. Extensive internal renovations were required before it was suitable for use. While the costs of renovation were borne by the Office of Public Works, certain costs relating to furniture and fittings, including IT related material, were borne by the Valuation Office. The actual cost of furniture and fittings was higher than the original estimate. In addition, opportunities were availed of during the renovation and fitting our of the offices to meet computer systems related requirements and the upgrade of cabling and equipment to meet compliance criteria for the year 2000.

As indicated in the briefing already supplied to the committee, an additional £70,000 is required under subhead C of the Vote mainly to meet legal costs of just under £60,000 incurred by Mr. John Shackleton, property arbitrator, in the 1991 case of Doyle & Another v. Kildare County Council.

The foregoing excesses in the Valuation and Ordnance Survey Office are offset by savings of £49,000 arising elsewhere on the Vote and by additional Appropriations-in-Aid of £350,000 from fee income to the Valuation Office and increased map sales and income from the contract work by the Ordnance Survey.

That completes my brief summary of the two Supplementary Estimates now before the committee. I will do my best to deal with any questions which Members may have.

Mr. Noonan

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today. The amount of work before us will not take long to examine. It seems straightforward. These Supplementary Estimates are minor enough. Certainly I do not want to hold up the activities of the committee.

It gives me an opportunity, however, to say I believe the President is doing an excellent job. I will not wander into politics here, but I think she has settled in well. Both at home and abroad she is doing the country proud. I wish her well for the rest of her period of Office.

I suggest that where there is an under run in the centenarians' bounty of £9,000, he might do something decent in next year's budget. A significant increase in the bounty would be appropriate.

Mr. McCreevy

It was increased.

Mr. Noonan

It is £300, is it not?

Mr. McCreevy

Yes.

Mr. Noonan

If the Minister is still around next year, he will be looking towards the new millennium. It would be nice if for the millennium he took a quantum leap and increased the bounty to £1,000. He should not increase it in line with the CPI. It is such an achievement to live to be 100 that it should be marked in a more significant way. The totality of the amount being spent is small. I will not charge him a penny for the royalties when he announces it next year.

On Vote 15 - Valuation and Ordnance Survey, the Supplementary Estimate does not involve a serious amount of money. Most of the overruns are off-set by savings. Everybody in both the Valuation Office and the Ordnance Survey Office seems to be doing a good job.

I am delighted the relocation of the Valuation Office from Ely Place to the Irish Life Centre has worked out satisfactorily. Most Deputies will recall there were some industrial relations problems with the move. I and others were lobbied and the relocation was a matter of a number of Parliamentary Questions tabled in my name. If the Minister could confirm that on the industrial relations front everybody is happy with their new location and there are no outstanding industrial relations issues, we would all be pleased.

The Valuation Office seems to have done a good job. Unlike other arms of Government, it has not spent a great deal on legal expenses. That is always to be welcomed. Often consultants and legal advisers seem to be the soft end of Estimates but here the amount seems to be prudent.

Other Deputies may have experience of a constituent seeking to re-evaluate a premises. In the local authority, the officials state that it is not a job for them, but for the Valuation Office but that Deputies should remind the constituent that the valuation can increase as well as decrease. Such a reminder tends to discourage people from seeking a revaluation and yet much of the time there is a good reason for seeking one. Recently I came across a premises where the ground floor was used as a licensed premises and when trade was better the upper floor had been used as a lounge but was no longer used for business. That kind of situation should allow for a more straightforward re-evaluation. Would it be possible for the Valuation Office to issue either guidelines or a statement of practice which would indicate the circumstances in which one would be likely to be successful in having a property revalued downward or where there would be a risk that the likely outcome would be an increased valuation. I know the Valuation Office cannot pre-judge an issue but it would be helpful if an applicant could be given guidelines in straightforward prose on the likely outcome. Some people are terrified to look for a revaluation because of the unknown.

Otherwise, I do not have a problem with the Supplementary Estimate. As far as I can see, everything is in order. My party will not push either of these Supplementary Estimates to a vote.

Mr. McCreevy

I concur with Deputy Noonan when he praises the President on her term of office. I also wish her well.

I will take on board his advice on the centenarians' bounty for next year's budget. I understand it is at the discretion of the President but if one reaches the great age of 100, a reasonable amount of money should be awarded. I will give due credit to Deputy Noonan at the appropriate time.

I can confer with the Valuation Office. As far as I am aware, there are no outstanding industrial relations problems. I, too, was lobbied in Opposition and subsequently in Government regarding some difficulties there but as far as I am aware all of those things have worked out. Things are working well in the new location.

Regarding the possibility of issuing guidelines and/or statements of practice to give people a reasonable idea of how they would fare if they applied for a re-evaluation, there is major legislation in preparation in my Department, namely the Valuation Bill. The Minister of State Deputy Cullen has been giving this more than its fair share of time. The long promised Valuation Bill was around during the last Government of which Deputy Noonan was a member, during one before and even during the one before that again. In 1999 the Valuation Bill will be published although I cannot give the committee a date at present. I will forward Deputy Noonan's ideas to the Minister of State Deputy Cullen so that they will be borne in mind in drafting the Bill. I agree with the Deputy. When people receive a letter which reminds them that valuation can increase as well as decrease, 80 per cent of the time they decide not to take the chance of it increasing. Guidelines or statements of practice could be contemplated in drafting the new Bill. It is something on which over the period of my professional life the Revenue Commissioners have changed the way they have done business. The law might state something but the Revenue Commissioners issue statements of practice and guidelines as to how various aspects of it will be interpreted, and that has proved helpful over the years. I think that is what Deputy Noonan has in mind in regard to the Valuation Office.

Chairman

I join Deputy Noonan and the Minister in congratulating the President on her first year in Office and wish her continued success in the future.

Mr. Dennehy

I join in the remarks about the President and what has been achieved; we all subscribe to that.

As a member of a local authority, I am aware the public have two concerns. There is a type of obscure distant body and business people do not know how it operates, what it consists of and so on. Perhaps an explanatory document could be produced, as is being done in other areas. There is also a feeling and a fear - I have tried to have renovation work done on some of the older streets in Cork city - that if one improves the facade of one's business, there will not necessarily be a financial gain, but there will be a revaluation. That is a fair point and I am glad it is being taken up.

Perhaps criteria could be set down on the amount of money which can be spent redecorating a premises and so on. There should be a benchmark which people could use before revaluation can take place.