|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 10 Nollaig, 1959.Thursday, 10th Dec ember, 1959.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY COSGRAVE in the chair. Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Mr. P. S. Mac Guill and Mr. J. F. MacInerney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 64—HEALTH.Mr. P. Ó Muireadhaigh called and examined.203. Chairman.—On behalf of the Committee, I should like to extend a welcome to Mr. Murray, Secretary to the Department of Health. I think it is his first occasion here since he was appointed to the position. We are glad to welcome him. Mr. Ó Muireadhaigh.—Thank you very much. Deputy Lynch.—I should like to be associated with that for another reason. Mr. Ó Muireadaigh.—Thank you very much. Chairman.—Paragraph 104 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead L.5.—Compensation 104. Under section 10 of the Vital Statistics and Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1952, where a vacancy existed in the office of superintendent registrar in any county at the coming into operation of the section on 1 April 1953 the public assistance authority became the superintendent registrar for the county. The charge to the subhead comprises £1,217 in respect of compensation and £528 in respect of legal costs arising out of claims for loss of fees by two temporary superintendent registrars whose offices had been deemed in error to be vacant. The superintendent registrars were restored to office in 1956.” Mr. Ó Muireadhagh, can you say what was the reason for the time lag in regard to compensation?—In the first place, the claims were not made until a considerable time after the Act came into operation —three years after he left office in one of the cases. They were reinstated in March and April, 1956. Negotiations as to the amount of compensation proceeded from that time until the payments were made in the middle of the year we are now dealing with. Was there some doubt about their entitlement to compensation? Two and a half years seems to be a long time?—Once they had been reinstated, there was no doubt about their entitlement to compensation but the amount was in question. I think it was just that the negotiations dragged out. 204. Is it likely that there will be any other similar cases in the future?—No. There were two others similarly circumstanced who did not seek to be restored to office. They have made no claims. I take it that if they do make a claim they would be entitled?—I think the debt would be statute barred now, if there were any debt. 205. Deputy Sheldon.—I was wondering why, if the offices had been deemed vacant in error, there should be protracted discussions about this? Is that not something that would be readily visible on the face of it?—The legal position was quite doubtful. The doubt arose on a rather abstruse legal point in connection with the adaptation of certain terms in the earlier legislation. There were two Adaptation Orders at different times—in 1923 and 1925. It was held when it was questioned later on, that there was no authority for making the 1925 Adaptation Order when the terms had already been adapted in 1923. I take it that the matter was finalised in court?—Proceedings were instituted in one case but the case did not go to a hearing. The Attorney-General advised that a settlement should be negotiated. That was done. 206. How were the legal costs arrived at?—The costs of the two local authorities and the two gentlemen concerned were taxed. Chairman.—The State had to bear the posts?—Yes, through this Vote. The local authorities were indemnified against their costs. 207. Deputy Booth.—On subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—no amount was received from the Vote for Remuneration?—No. It was not necessary. They were just increases offset by the non-filling of certain posts?—And delay in the filling of vacancies occurring during the year. 208. Deputy Moloney.—On subhead B.—Travelling Expenses—are we entitled to have an explanation for the increase of £179 in travelling expenses? Usually the amount allocated is not spent?—It is felt that an increase of as little as £179 was casual. We have been keeping that subhead very low in recent years. 209. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead E.—Expenses in connection with International Congresses, etc.—I take it that the extra payment here arose as a contingency which was a token amount in the subhead?—The position is that we are committed by our membership of the World Health Organisation to subscribe to the expenses of the Organisation. The Organisation has certain special activities which it pursues as an extra to its normal activities, financed from voluntary contributions from member States. One of those is malaria eradication. In the course of the year it was found that the programme was not being pursued quickly enough, due to lack of funds, and the various member States were asked if they would make a special contribution to speed it up. What was happening was that the mosquitoes which spread malaria were becoming immune to the agents used to eradicate them and unless the programme was carried through more quickly the job would become very much more expensive. Chairman.—This was in addition to the regular contribution to which we are committed?—Yes. In fact, our additional contribution of £1,779, for malaria eradication, is very small compared with what other countries, notably the U.S.A., are ploughing into this programme. The World Health Organisation was anxious that a number of the smaller countries should make a special contribution to encourage the more prosperous countries to make very much larger contributions. A sort of incentive?—Quite. Deputy Booth.—Deputy Sheldon’s point was that that really comes under the heading of the provision for contingencies for which the Estimate was only £10?—That is the position. 210. Deputy Sheldon.—We got a quid pro quo by the appointment of a Chief Medical Officer to the World Health Organisation?—The two items were unconnected. Chairman.—But he was appointed before that?—He was, but there was no connection. 211. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead F.2.—Expenses in connection with Consultative Health Councils, etc.—I was wondering how it is that the estimate is so very exact. It even includes contingencies of £10 which appear to have arisen?—It is fortuitous that the estimate was so accurate. Most of the expenditure—£452—was in respect of travelling expenses and subsistence allowances of the members of the National Health Council; £47 represents travelling expenses and subsistence allowances paid to the members of the Fluorine Consultative Council; £61 was in respect of travelling expenses and subsistence allowances of the members of the Radioactivity Consultative Council. 212. On subhead F.3.—Dissemination of Information and Advice on Health—the expenditure on this subhead has been running at round about the same figure in the two years previous to this. The reason given for savings in the other years—if I still remember correctly—was that it was an economy measure. Now, the Estimate is increased. It is not, in fact, used. The note says: “The necessity for publicity by way of press advertising and window bill display did not arise?”—The additional provision was made in the Estimate for two publicity programmes, £1,000 for press publicity about the connection between lung cancer and smoking and £1,000 for a campaign which it had been contemplated would be carried through in regard to polio vaccination. On further examination, it was felt it would be more effective and cheaper to issue leaflets to particular groups of persons in regard to smoking and lung cancer rather than have an advertising campaign in the Press. I am sure the Deputies will have seen the leaflets that have been issued to senior children in school and to a certain group of adults. In regard to polio immunisation, it was felt that we were doing all right without the need for a publicity campaign. Deputy Moloney.—On this particular subhead there is a saving of £2,287. I want to suggest that something should be done which would put that money to good use. Why could it not all be spent in the year? Chairman.—I am afraid that would be a question of policy. 213. Chairman.—Mr. Ó Muireadhaigh has just given the reason. In regard to subhead H.—Grants to Health Authorities—have you. Mr. Ó Muireadhaigh, any particulars which would show how the costs of the services vary between the different health authorities?—I have not the figures here. Could you get them for us?—Certainly. Are particulars compiled of the relative costs of different local authorities? For example, how much it costs in one local authority for a particular service and the relevant figure for the same service in another local authority?—Under the headings set out in the subhead? Yes. Can you give us any particulars?—General hospitals, T.B. hospitals, mental hospitals, special homes and various field services? Do you want information in relation to them? Exactly. Maybe you could send that information?—Certainly.* 214. Deputy Jones.—On the subhead there is a saving of approximately 1.8 per cent. Is that due entirely to the fact that fewer people are suffering from T.B. or is some of that saving the result of reduced expenditure by local authorities on post-hospital cases?—The decline in the number of T.B. patients in hospital and the fall in the cost of maintenance allowances to T.B. patients while in hospital and after they return home contributed substantially to the saving. The number of pulmonary T.B. patients requiring hospital services has been declining very steadily over the past five years or so. The pattern has been a drop of about 500 persons per year requiring hospital treatment. That drop has been sustained year after year for the five years. New cases are coming forward, of course, but these new cases in general are being caught at an earlier stage of the disease when they do not require such long hospitalisation and the estimates submitted by local authorities, on which the provision made in the subhead was based, did not take sufficient account of these factors. Deputy Jones.—What I wanted to find out was whether or not the local authority assists patients when they return from hospital? 215. Deputy Jones.—Has there been a saving on expenditure on help to these people in the line of applying the means test rather more rigorously to them?—The cost of infectious diseases maintenance allowances is going down fairly consistently, but this is due to the decreased incidence of the disease. The same standards are being applied as were applied previously in regard to means tests. There are representations before the Department from a few local authorities at the moment for a revision of those allowances. That is being gone into. I take it the revision would be upwards?—I have never known a local authority to ask that the revision should be downwards. 216. Deputy Sheldon.—Do I take it, in relation to the note on Subhead J.— Grants to Voluntary Agencies—that the saving is only temporary, that these voluntary agencies will not get less than they have been getting?—The saving is permanent. What has happened is that certain grants which were paid direct from the Vote to District Nursing Associations and in respect of the Lady Dudley Nurses along the western seaboard are now borne directly by the local authorities concerned. The local authorities include the expenditure with their other health expenditure for the purposes of Health Services Grant. Does that affect the amount of recoupment they would have had on these particular services?—Previously, the local authorities did not bear any part of that subvention. Now they bear half of it. So the State is paying to the voluntary agencies only half of what it formerly paid?—The voluntary agency is getting as much as it did before, but it is receiving it from the local authority which gets 50 per cent. recoupment from the Exchequer. Chairman.—Have some of these nurses become redundant as a result of this change?—No. 217. Deputy Moloney.—I am not quite clear as to the real cause of such a substantial saving as £6,981 to these voluntary agencies. Could we have more information?—For the past four or five years we have been inducing local authorities to take over this service which was formerly provided for under the Vote. Two groups of nurses are involved. There are nurses employed by District Nursing Associations where there is a local District Nursing Association and nurses employed by the Lady Dudley scheme who work in local areas under a scheme administered from a headquarters in Dublin. Over the past four or five years, responsibility for most of the District Nursing Associations was taken over by the county councils concerned. There were only two outstanding at the beginning of the year we are discussing, Donegal County Council, where there were 27 District Nursing Associations, and County Meath where there were two or three District Nursing Associations. During the year they agreed to take over responsibility for these. Similarly in regard to the Lady Dudley Nurses. There are 47 Lady Dudley Nurses, mainly along the western seaboard. The local authorities concerned agreed to take over responsibility in respect of those nurses also. That relieves this subhead but the local authorities are recouped 50 per cent. of the expenditure they incur on the service via subhead H. Properly speaking, this service should have been handed over to the local authorities in 1947 as portion of the package deal of the 50 per cent. recoupment provided for in the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947. 218. Deputy Sheldon.—Will the subhead disappear?—No. The nursing services accounted for only about £7,000. In addition, grants are paid to a number of voluntary agencies for the care of unmarried mothers and their children. Grants are paid to two boarding-out agencies, The Catholic Protection and Rescue Society and the Nursing Rescue and Protestant Children Aid Society. Grants are also paid to nine institutions which provide shelter and maintenance for the classes I have mentioned—Temple Hill Home, Blackrock, Cottage Home, Dunlaoghaire, the Magdalen Home, Donnybrook, and six others where smaller amounts are paid. The total amount paid to the boarding-out agencies was £1,760 and the amount paid to the special homes was £10,183. These services are continuing. 219. On subhead K.—Grant to An Bord Altranais—this is the third year running in which the Department have taken a gloomier view of the Board’s finances than the truth turned out to be. Has that been allowed for in future estimation?—The Department must be guided by the estimate furnished by An Bord Altranais which has not been very successful in correct estimation. We have, for some time past, been questioning the figures supplied and we hope the estimates in future will be more realsitic. I notice the estimate for 1959-60 is £2,800, another increase?—It is possible that that is correct. 220. Deputy Desmond.—With regard to subhead L.2.—Travelling Expenses—does this include inspection of local authority dispensaries and, if so, to what extent?—No. It includes only inspection of the Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The inspection of local authority dispensaries is made by officers of the Department of Health proper as distinct from the General Register Office. The cost of that is borne on subhead B. Deputy Moloney.—I take it the explanation is that this is an inspecting officer from the office of the Registrar-General who goes throughout the country to inspect the activities of the County Registrars?—Of the local Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages who will, in practice, be the local dispensary doctors and of the Superintendent Registrars. But it is inspection from headquarters, because a local inspection is carried out? —The local inspection is provided for under subhead L.3.—Superintendent and District Registrars. 221. Deputy Desmond.—Could we know, under subhead B.—Travelling Expenses—the amount allocated for or spent on inspection of local authority dispensaries?—An inspector may inspect 3 district hospitals, 5 dispensaries and a county hospital in the course of a week’s work. He may do other work locally as well and the cost could not be divided between the various purposes. 222. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the first note in relation to the Appropriations in Aid, the Licence Duties Grant appears to be shrinking steadily from year to year. Is there any particular reason for that?—The Department of Health has no function in that regard. The figures for those receipts are supplied to us by the Department of Finance. I am afraid I could not offer any observations on it except to say that, I think, it is hoped to remove this anachronism during the next few years. 223. On paragraph 8 of the Appropriations in Aid is that the first repayment by the Voluntary Health Insurance Board?—That is so. Do I take it from the note that it had been intended to fund the interest?— When the estimate was prepared we had no information as to the amount of the advances which would be made to this body or as to the terms which the Minister for Finance would fix with regard to the repayment. The sum included in the estimate was the minimum which it might reasonably be expected would be repaid within the year. 224. Deputy Moloney.—What was the amount of the original payments advanced?—There were two advances. The total amount was £13,200. There was a statutory authority to advance up to £25,000 but the Board needed only £13,200. If I may say so, that is a very satisfactory performance on the part of the Voluntary Health Insurance Board?—It is operating very successfully. The witness withdrew. VOTE 61—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE.Mr. P. J. Keady called and examined.225. Deputy Moloney.—In subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is a saving of £18,497. I wonder what is the explanation for that? Chairman.—That is due to vacancies remaining unfilled and retrenchment of posts?—Yes. 226. Deputy Booth.—Following on that, a sum of £5,000 was received from the Vote for Remuneration. Would I be right in assuming that the £5,000 was the gross amount of increased salaries under the new scale and the saving was thus purely due to vacancies and retrenchment? It seems a little odd that we should be saving £18,497 under this heading and, at the same time, receiving £5,000 from the Vote for Remuneration. Chairman.—If you turn to page 211, near the bottom of the page, you will see there was a saving on Vote 61. Mr. Keady.—£35,000 was met out of savings on the Departmental Vote. Deputy Booth.—What was the necessity for receiving anything from the Vote for Remuneration when the amount of the actual expenditure was below the estimate? It looks rather as if the Vote for Remuneration is subsidising the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare. It is only a book-keeping entry really. Would it not have been possible just to show an expenditure of, say, £13,497?—We surrendered a nett sum of £4,390 which is less than the £5,000. There was a deficiency in Appropriations in Aid following from the saving on salaries. Deputy Booth.—I see. 227. Deputy Lynch.—The note on subhead B. reads: “Excess mainly due to increased travelling by the outdoor staff and increased motor mileage rates.” Might I ask does that apply to increased motor mileage rates for Deputies? Chairman.—That does not arise. Deputy Moloney.—I should like to have that clarified. By what branch of the Service is this increased travelling expenditure incurred?—First of all, the excess was mainly due to the fact that the mileage rate was increased during the year. The sum is made up of travelling expenses of outdoor staff, Social Welfare officers, inspectors, insured persons coming to be examined by doctors and persons travelling in connection with the hearing of appeals by appeals officers. Chairman.—The mileage was increased, I suppose, because of the increase in the cost of petrol?—It was part of a general increase in travelling and subsistence allowances including possibly an element in respect of the increase in the price of petrol. 228. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead I., there has been a continued drop in the number of medical certificates for blind persons. Apparently fewer certificates are needed from year to year?—All I can say on that is that there were fewer applications for blind pensions. Deputy Sheldon.—I take it the Department is not aware of any particular reason for this trend—that there seem to be fewer blind persons. Deputy Lynch.—We might have better occulists than we had four or five years ago. 229. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead M., it strikes me that 21 seems to be the Department’s unlucky number. The losses in the previous year were £21 and in the year before that £221. Deputy Desmond.—I should like to know where fraud has been proved, if the money is not recovered by the Department, what happens?—I think this sum of £21 was internal losses by paying clerks. If fraud is found in such cases, the man is immediately suspended and the case is reported to Finance and the Chief State Solicitor. But where the case is proceeding and the Department is proved correct?—This is a loss of money by a clerk behind a counter paying benefits. When he makes up his cash at the end of the day, he is short. That type of thing happens in banks. I should like to know whether in a local office in a country area where fraud is proved and where sentence is imposed but there is no mention of the amount involved, the person who has been proved guilty as well as having to pay the penalty imposed by the law has to repay the amount to the Department?—I have never known of a case as small as £2 being taken into court. It is wiped out and this £3 was wiped out because there was no fraud. In the general cases, there is a rather large sum of money involved, perhaps £200 or £300. Sometimes the man offers to refund and that may be accepted without prejudice. 230. Deputy Desmond.—It is true that the case I have in mind is over £3—let us say £10. I should like to know is the Department entitled to that money outside of the penalty imposed in court? Chairman.—I think the Deputy is trying to ascertain is the Department entitled to recover the money as well as the penalty imposed by the court?—I do not think we usually take civil proceedings. I suppose you are entitled to it?—Yes, but very often it is paid by the man before the case is taken. Deputy Lynch.—If it is not, you write it off. Deputy Booth.—I presume in many cases there is some remuneration due to the man which can be withheld?—That is done. VOTE 62—SOCIAL INSURANCE.Mr. P. J. Keady further examined.231. Chairman.—Paragraph 102 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead A.—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952 102. Payments from this subhead to the Social Insurance Fund in the year under review amounted to £4,390,000. As indicated in previous reports these payments are subject to adjustment when audited accounts of the Fund are available.” Can you say what proportion of the expenditure of the fund this Vote contributes?—About £4¼ million. What percentage though?—The income from the contributions is about £6 million. The total expenditure is £10½ million, so that the Vote contributes about 40 per cent. 232. Have the terms of the lease with Coras Iompair Éireann been settled yet?—We have reached agreement on the rent, and there is only one small point outstanding in the lease which we hope to clear up next week, and we hope to send the draft lease to the Department of Finance within the next fortnight. VOTE 63—SOCIAL ASSISTANCE.Mr. P. J. Keady further examined.233. Chairman.—Paragraph 103 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Overpayments 103. As shown in the details of the appropriations in aid recoveries in cash of overpayments of assistance made in prior years amounted to £17,538. £4,734 was recovered by withholding current payments, and unrecovered balances amounting to £11,131 were treated as irrecoverable with the approval of the Department of Finance. The total amount of overpayments outstanding at 31 March 1959 was £31,745. During the year seventy individuals were prosecuted for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain, social assistance and convictions were secured in sixty-three cases.” Deputy Booth.—Arising out of that paragraph, the Comptroller and Auditor General says that the total amount of overpayments outstanding at 31 March, 1959, was £31,745. Would I be correct in assuming that the recovery of this amount is still proceeding or is this amount outstanding as irrecoverable?—Action to recover is still taking place. Is it anticipated that a fair proportion of that amount will, in fact, be recovered?—Yes. Deputy Booth.—There seems to be a very substantial amount recovered already. 234. Chairman.—Was there an increase in the number of prosecutions?—We prosecuted 70 people in that year and we got convictions in 63 cases. Chairman.—A satisfactory percentage. Let us turn to the Vote itself on page 201. 235. Deputy Moloney.—On subhead A.—Old Age Pensions—I know the matter is explained on page 202 where it says. “Estimated as closely as practicable”. Taking it on the whole, the Department’s ability to estimate closely is, I think, unquestioned, but, in this particular case, would I be right in assuming that the real reason for the expenditure being substantially less than estimated was that a number of people lost pensions and had their pensions adjusted during the year? Am I to take it that that is in accordance with the usual procedure?—There is a downward trend in the case of people over 70. The general population over 70 is falling and that is reflected in a smaller number of old age pensioners. 236. Chairman.—Does it follow from that that people are not living as long?—No. It is because the lower population over 70 is the result of emigration in the past in younger age groups. I understand the vital statistics show that people generally are living longer?—Generally, yes. Deputy Lynch.—There are a great number of people emigrating to England who get jobs to qualify them for the bigger pension over there. I have come across that, not just in one or two cases but in many cases. Deputy Sheldon.—Apparently the Department estimates for that. Deputy Lynch.—I think it is a very good estimate that out of a sum of over £10 million they struck within £33,000 for all the people. 237. Deputy Moloney.—On subhead I. —Grants towards the Supply of Footwear for Necessitous Children—there is a drop of £2,134. What is the explanation for that? What change has been made in the footwear scheme? What has happened that the local authorities find that they are not obliged to spend as much as originally anticipated? Chairman.—Has there been any change in the operation of the footwear scheme?—No. Deputy Booth.—Reduced applications. 238. Deputy Desmond.—Arising from that, I should like to know in relation to local authorities who are providing more than they had in the past whether the grant is stationary in relation to the amount allocated?—The grant is fixed at £37,500 and it is allocated, so far as it goes, in accordance with the expenditure by each local authority. I think there is one exception. There is one case where there is overspending—one local authority. So there is no credit given to the local authorities where they overspend?—Not for overspending. Deputy Desmond.—The Department will gain by the local authority underspending. 239. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead J.—Appropriations in Aid—I should like a fuller explanation as to how it was that the earlier closing of the Appropriation Account brought in more money? I understand that the earlier closing would have shrunk the amount of money received? I am wondering whether the earlier closing of the Appropriation Account meant that more money was received at the time?—We got repayments in the year 1958-1959 which, under former procedure would have been credited back to the appropriate subhead for 1957-1958 but could not be so credited because the Appropriation Account now closes on the 31st March. 240. Deputy Booth.—With regard to item No. 7 of the Appropriations in Aid, Miscellaneous, my curiosity is aroused by the realisation of the sum of £343 as against an estimate of £10 under this heading. Are there any particular large amounts under this heading or is it an accumulation of small amounts?—It is only a token sum put into the Estimates. We can never know what is going to happen. In this case we got one large refund amounting to £324. 241. Deputy Moloney.—With regard to item No. 2, Appropriations in Aid, the amount estimated was £5,300 and the sum realised was £15,131. That is a very satisfactory performance. Is it usual for this unusual amount to be realised in one year from old age pensions— recoveries in cash? Is it something above the normal rate of recovery and, if so, what is the explanation? Chairman.—The Deputy wishes to know what is the reason for the substantial sum recovered in respect of No. 2 under the Old Age Pensions?—It was due to a quicker procedure with the Estate Duty Office in getting notifications of the estates of deceased pensioners and thus being able to take action earlier before the estate is distributed. Deputy Moloney.—These were cases where the pensioner, as disclosed by his estate afterwards—was in receipt of a pension to which he was not entitled during part of his lifetime?—Yes. The witness withdrew. VOTE 22—STATIONERY OFFICE.Mr. T. J. Malone called and examined.242. Deputy Booth.—Was there any economy in printing and binding or was it just that the necessity for expenditure did not arise in this particular year? Was there any conscious effort made towards economy?—We are always striving for economy. These jobs go out for tender. I do not think we can do any more about it. More likely this was just as much as was estimated for and was not actually required?—Possibly that is the position. 243. Chairman.—We have copies of the Trading and Profit and Loss Account for the year ending 31st March, 1959, for the Government Publications Sales Office.* Deputy Booth.—My recollection is that the net loss for the previous year was considerably greater. Is that right? This seems to me to be an improvement?—That is right. 244. Chairman.—The Clerk has received a communication from the Department of Finance. It reads as follows:— “I am directed by the Minister for Finance to refer to this Department’s minute of 20 February, 1959 regarding Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the Appropriation Accounts, 1954/55 regarding the contemplated revision of the contractual arrangements for the placing of advertising in Government publications. The Minister desires to inform the Committee that the new form of contract has now been applied to the placing of advertising in all the relevant Government publications.” The witness withdrew. VOTE 37—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called and examined.245. Chairman.—Subhead D. refers to expenses in connection with the Council of Education. Has the Council completed its work? I notice there was no full meeting of the Council during the year?—No. They are at present reporting on the syllabus and curriculum for secondary schools. I understand that they are engaged at the moment in the final drafting of that report, which we hope to have shortly. That is why they have not had so many meetings of the full body during the year. 246. Deputy Moloney.—Subhead C. refers to the preparation of Irish vocabularies. The grant is £10 which is, I take it, a token sum. Why is this merely a token Vote? Why is the expenditure not really required in this matter?—That subhead was concerned with the assembly of technical terms in Irish by the Technical Instruction Branch. The inspectors themselves are doing that, but we always feel they might need to call upon the services of an outside expert, or more than one, perhaps, and we keep that subhead there in case we might have to pay his fee or expenses. VOTE 38—PRIMARY EDUCATION.Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.247. Chairman.—Paragraphs 56, 57 and 58 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General relate to this Vote. They read as follows:— “Subhead A.3.—Preparatory Colleges, etc., including Contributions to Pension Fund 56. I have been furnished with a statement of the receipts and expenditure in respect of the Preparatory Colleges for the school year ended 31 July 1958 which includes expenditure by the Office of Public Works. The average cost per student for maintenance and tuition for that year was £210 and the average fee paid by the students was £30. 57. Accounts in respect of the farms and gardens attached to the Colleges have also been submitted. Five of the accounts show profits varying from £271 to £50 and one a loss of £22. The farms are inspected by technical officers of the Department of Agriculture and their reports are available to me. Subhead C.1.—Salaries, etc., of Teachers in Classification Schools and Grants to Capitation Schools 58. On the advice of the law officers, it was decided with the concurrence of the Department of Finance, not to raise claims for recovery of salaries or allowances of teachers in respect of the loss of their services as a result of disability caused by third parties. I have inquired if consideration has been given to the question of recovery of the contribution towards the payment made to substitutes under Rule 88 (17) of the Rules and Regulations for National Schools in such cases.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—I understand that the question of recovering payments in respect of substitute teachers is not being followed as it was considered that these payments were portion of the emoluments of the teachers and came within the terms of the original advice obtained from the Attorney General on this question. 248. Chairman.—Paragraph 59 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead C.8—Payment to the Leamy Endowment 59. This subhead was opened with the sanction of the Minister for Finance to enable the Minister to comply with the terms of an educational endowment scheme in respect of the Leamy National School, Limerick. The school which was vested in the Minister for Education was built in 1844. A new school was erected in 1957 at a cost of £59,400. The old premises were sold for £3,105 which was paid into the Exchequer. As the provisions of the scheme, which was made in pursuance of the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Act, 1885, require that the net proceeds of sale be paid to the trustees of the endowment, this liability was met by the payment to them of £3,034. The expenses of the sale amounted to £71.” 249. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead C.1.—Salaries, etc., of Teachers in Classification Schools and Grants to Capitation Schools—the note, on page 104, mentions employees’ contributions. Can the witness say how that arose? There does not seem to be provision in the Estimate for such a payment?—It was not included because these were temporary teachers. The national teachers concerned were temporary teachers who came in in the course of the year concerned and so could not have been provided for before that. Do temporary teachers not come in every year?—They do, but it is very hard to judge beforehand how many temporary teachers would be called upon in a particular year. If it is something that happens every year surely some reference should be made to it in the details in the subhead of the Estimate which are, in fact, very full? There is provision for employers’ contributions in the Estimate but nothing for the employees. I have not noticed in any other year a reference to such a payment. Therefore, I thought something unusual had turned up in this year?—It is merely because these temporary teachers are non-pensionable. It is payable only in respect of employees who are non-pensionable. 250. That may be the reason but it does not appear to be an excuse. With regard to subhead C.3.—Transport Services—the Estimate has provided for an increase of £3,221. I am wondering, if there was a saving, whether it was due to the number of transport services being less. Why had the Estimate been increased? Had it been the intention to take on new services during this year?—Yes. There had previously been a certain restriction on new services. It was intended in that year to loosen-up this restriction. We have since extended it very considerably. 251. Chairman.—Details of the Appropriations in Aid are given on page 104. There are particulars in regard to the training of teachers. I notice that the amount realised in relation to the recovery of training college fees advanced to necessitous students was more than was estimated. Are these fees recovered when the students qualify?—Yes. This advance of the fee is repayable in five annual instalments. It is related to the number of years the teacher is required to teach in accordance with the agreement signed by him when he enters training. If he subsequently leaves the service for another post before the fee advanced has been repaid, the amount outstanding is included in the amount of refund of cost of training which is then sought by the Department. 252. Deputy Moloney.—What happens in the case of a lay teacher who joins a religious order and continues teaching with such before the five years? If money is still outstanding, is it liquidated or deducted?—We try to recover it where we can in all cases except, I think, where a woman teacher gets married. I can give the Committee the number of cases in which no claim has been made. In the year concerned there were three cases. If death or illness supervene, sometimes we might let the matter go or where there is an obvious lack of means or in cases where the person has left the country and we are unable to recover the fees. Deputy Moloney.—That is very satisfactory. 253. Deputy Sheldon.—May I raise the general question of the various funds held by the Department not only in this Vote but in others for charities, bequests and so on? I notice, in the Henry P. Mulock Charity, the stock is held by the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests. I presume the other stocks are held by the Department. Does the Department keep under review the type of investment? Were any of the funds of the type which would permit of conversion into the last loan? If they were, was the conversion made?—The investment of these funds is continually under review, in consultation with the Department of Finance and they are invested as profitably as possible. For example, some of the Killury fund was invested in the National Loan. 254. Surely, in the Killury Fund, you have sold practically all the securities?— There was a small balance in the income account. It was met by the yearly dividend of £16 5s. on £500 received in 1958-59. There was also a sum of £2 4s. 3d. This was a dividend from £104 3s. 4d. invested in the 4¼ per cent. National Loan, 1957-80. That was the most profitable investment. That is just an illustration of how these funds are watched and invested in the best way. 255. It looks as if the income had been allowed to accumulate. I cannot quite understand what happens, how it arises that a fund which was for maintenance has been sold and a capital payment made?—There is a new school in course of erection to replace the present school. This operation was within the terms of the Trust?—Certainly. 256. Deputy Moloney.—The balance on 31st March was only £18. I take it the Fund is completely liquidated except for the nominal sum of £18. Will the income be utilised for the maintenance of the new school which replaces the old one? The Fund will apply to the new school? —To the new school in the same way. 257. Deputy Sheldon.—In the Carlisle and Blake Fund there is an expenditure in the Income Account on the payment of prizes. May I take it the prizes are annual premiums?—The premiums are those which are awarded annually to the two most deserving principal teachers in each of the eight divisions in the inspection centres. It is only for convenience that they are referred to in the account as prizes rather than premiums?—I suppose premiums and prizes mean the same thing. The original legal statement probably contained the word “premium”. They were probably more inclined to use Latinisms 100 years ago than now, but in this case premiums mean prizes. 258. Deputy Moloney.—With regard to the Reid Bequest, that I take it, applies to national schools and also to University education. It does not appear to apply to vocational or secondary schools. Am I correct in that? Is the Reid Bequest more or less confined to national schools, training colleges and the universities? Chairman.—Was the scheme set up in the bequest or was it decided on by the Department?—I do not know the details of the original scheme at this moment, but the conditions are in Schedule 5 of the Rules for National Schools, and they are in accordance with the terms of the original bequest. There are three parts in the bequest scheme. Part A concerns national schools only and the award is made to the six best national schools in Kerry. I have here the actual terms of the Reid Bequest. Part B provides for the award of prizes of £20 each to be paid to the five best male candidates from County Kerry competing in the Leaving Certificate Examination who are successful in gaining entrance to one of the Training Colleges. The secondary schools come into it in that way. Deputy Moloney.—If the pupil is going into a training college. If not, the prize is not awarded?—No. Part C of the scheme is where there are Exhibitions tenable at the Universities. When the original bequest was set up there were no vocational schools. That is probably the reason, and I do not suppose the donor had secondary schools in mind either. Apparently, he was really interested in the national education scheme at the time more than anything else and, to him at that time, the two outstanding facets of education would probably have been national and university. Deputy Lynch.—In 1881?—Yes. Deputy Sheldon.—Deputies can correct that when they are making bequests. 259. Deputy Booth.—Is it not a fact that the position is as set out in the note, that the bequest is administered by the Department under an Order made by the Master of the Rolls and amended by an Order of the High Court of Justice, which presumably set out the division of the scheme into three parts: A, B and C. The whole thing was reviewed in 1919 and the will is dated 1881. Are we correct in assuming it is working under an Order of the Court?—In 1934, the High Court of Justice made an Order. That is quite right. They seem to have based it on the original wishes of the testator and it is in keeping with the terms of the bequest. They gave an Order as between the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests and the Provost, Fellows and Scholars of Trinity College, the Senate of the National University of Ireland and the Attorney General for Saorstat Éireann. When they set out this scheme, in three sections, A, B and C they based it on the original bequest. Actually, we find they were thinking, apparently, of national schools, on the one hand, and universities, on the other hand. Secondary education had only just become officially recognised when the Intermediate Education Act was passed in 1878 and so probably the secondary schools did not enter the ken of the testator at all. So far as he was concerned he probably still regarded them as purely private institutions. Chairman.—Would it be possible to get a copy of the scheme for the Committee?—I have a copy here which I shall hand in.* VOTE 39—SECONDARY EDUCATION.Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.260. Chairman.—Paragraph 60 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead E.—Grant towards Publication of Irish Text Books 60. In paragraph 58 of the report on the accounts for 1954-55 reference was made to agreements for the issue of repayable grants to a publishing firm to enable it to publish secondary school text books in Irish. Including grants of £860 paid during the year the total issues amounted to £8,263 at 31 March 1959 in respect of fourteen approved books. Under the agreements the publishers are required to pay to the Department grants made available by Bord na Leabhar Gaeilge towards the cost of the production of these books, and to refund the balance of the repayable grants remaining due by half yearly payments equal to 20 per cent. of the amount realised on the sale of the books. Repayments to 31 March 1959, including £574 in the year under review, amounted to £3,831 comprising £2,884 from grants by Bord na Leabhar Gaeilge and £947 from sales.” What were the 14 approved books?—They were: NuaChúrsa Laidne I, Stair na hEorpa I, Nua Chúrsa Fraincíse I, Pro Lege Manilia, Caesar IV, NuaChúrsa Fraincíse II, Stair na hÉireann 1760-1922, Stair na hEorpa II, Stair na hEorpa 918-1273, Aenéis IX, Corpeolaíocht, La Belle Nivernaise, NuaChúrsa Fraincíse III, and Caesar I. 261. Deputy Booth.—Why were fewer books published than had been anticipated?—I suppose difficulties with editors. Sometimes it is very hard to satisfy them. Scholars like perfection and delays occur in that way. There was a very considerable saving on the subhead?—It is just in the nature of editing books. Even in the best business circles in publishing although they have a big rush for the Christmas market I understand that sometimes even they miss that. Deputy Lynch.—Would there be a Christmas market for Caesar in Irish?—No. I said that even in the best business circles which are purely for commercial profit, they try to reach the Christmas market and sometimes even they fail to do so. There are delays also in regard to printing, of course. It is a very difficult problem. 262. I notice you have £947 from sales. Does that mean that they were sold at reasonable prices or were any of them scrapped or sent to the paper mills?—No. All these were textbooks which will always be in demand. The books which were scrapped at one stage were 2d. and 3d. type books which were not textbooks and which ceased to be in demand. 263. Chairman.—Let us turn to the Vote itself on Page 111. Deputy Lynch.—On subhead A.3.—Grant for Irish and Bilingual Schools— what does that mean?—We have the schools grouped. “A” schools are schools which teach all subjects through the medium of Irish except English and modern Continental languages. Then we have “B.1.” schools which spend half their weekly time teaching subjects through the medium of Irish and we have “B.2” schools which might teach a number of subjects, but not half, through the medium of Irish. We give these additional grants then. 264. To whom are the grants given?— To the manager of the schools. Or the teachers?—No, the manager of the school. The teachers do receive extra emoluments for doing this work but not under this subhead. 265. If there was a school which was bilingual and you had children who could speak English only, Irish only or Irish and English, would it be a matter for the teacher to decide whether he would avail of this or qualify for this?—I suppose that would be a matter for the manager of the school. It would not be a matter for the Department in any case. 266. Deputy Moloney.—On subhead B.2.—Allowances in Aid of Rent—what does that cover?—These are allowances made to married men teachers and widows in aid of rent. They vary according to area. The sum of £42 is the maximum in Dublin and the minimum is £11. It applies to all teachers, secondary, vocational and national. VOTE 40—TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.267. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead C. —Training of Teachers—it is not very clear in the details of the Estimate, Part III, that any salaries are, in fact, paid?—That is in the domestic science training colleges? Yes. There are references to capitation grants. Were they affected by them?— The Department does not pay the salaries of the staff of the training colleges directly. They are paid by the manager of the training college. 268. Deputy Moloney.—On page 117 there is a reference under that subhead C. to a grant of £26,225 and expenditure of £25,877. I take it that is for the training of vocational teachers under special training schemes by the Department?—That is right. It falls into three parts though. One is the domestic science teachers’ training college at Blackrock, Co. Dublin, St. Catherine’s. The second is the smaller domestic science training college at Sligo, St. Angela’s. The third part refers to special courses conducted by the Department for the training of woodwork, metalwork and building construction teachers in this particular year and summer courses in order to give teachers an opportunity of experience in the actual method of teaching. VOTE 41—SCIENCE AND ART.Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.269. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead A.4.—Telegrams, Telephones and Postage—why was there no provision made for postage in the Estimate?—Up to the previous year the expenditure on official letters addressed to people residing outside the State was not paid for by individual Departments. A supply of stamps was obtainable without payment from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for that purpose. It was changed only on 1st April, 1958, and so no provision was made. We had hoped that the subhead would cover the lot in any case. It did not. 270. Chairman.—On subhead A.12.—Irish Manuscripts Commission, Salaries, Wages and Allowances—how is it that the expenditure was so much less than the grant?—The clerical officer concerned, who is also a scholar, and was working for the Manuscripts Commission, had a non-pensionable allowance of £200. He retired on the 1st April, 1958, but no successor was appointed. It is very difficult to replace the particular individual concerned from the point of view of scholarship and so he was reemployed as adviser at a fee of £200 per year. There should have been a resultant saving of £687 but it was reduced to £667 on account of the weekly increase of 7/6d. which became payable to another official under the terms of Department of Finance Circular 7/58 and for which no provision had been made in the Estimate because, when the Estimate was being prepared, we did not know that this weekly increase would come into effect. 271. When was the Commission established?—The Manuscripts Commission, as far as I remember, was established in 1929. Is there any limit to the type of work it covers?—I think that anything concerned with Irish history and the publication of documents on Irish history comes within its ambit. The actual terms of reference of the Commission are:— To report on the nature, extent and importance of existing collections of manuscripts and papers of literary, historical and general interest relating to Ireland, and on the places in which such manuscripts and papers are deposited, and to advise as to the steps which should be taken for the preservation and publication of such manuscripts and papers whether in public collections or in private ownership, and for the collection of any such manuscripts and papers as may be in danger of being lost or obliterated. To prepare after such consultation with University authorities and other learned bodies as the Commission may deem desirable and submit from time to time, for approval, to the Minister for Education, and, subject to such approval, to arrange for, and supervise the execution of, programmes of work to be undertaken in (a) the preparation and publication of calendars and catalogues of such manuscripts and papers, (b) the editing and publication of hitherto unpublished texts in Old Irish, Middle Irish and Modern (other than contemporary) Irish, and of the other hitherto unpublished manuscripts relating to Ireland, due regard being had to their relative linguistic, literary and historical importance, (c) the publication of photographic facsimiles of important codices, in particular of those in the possession of institutions or individuals outside Saorstát Éireann, (d) the revision and republication of important works already published but now out of print or difficult of access. That is a very wide field. They have done an extraordinary amount of work in that way at relatively small cost. A good deal of the work is voluntary work by members of the Commission. 272. Deputy Lynch.—Subhead B.2. relates to dramatic productions in Irish (Grants-in-Aid). Is that for the Taidhbhearc?—There is a saving of £685. Was that the Taidhbhearc?—No. Deputy Sheldon.—It is in the Estimate. Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—No. The Taidhbhearc was transferred in that year to the Department of the Gaeltacht. It is for Irish plays in the Abbey Theatre, for the Schools’ Dramatic League and for the Compántas. The saving was because one of the bodies concerned did not produce any dramas in that year. 273. Deputy Lynch.—How much did the Abbey Theatre get out of it?—£3,250, to the best of my memory. 274. Deputy Jones.—Subhead B.9. refers to the grant towards the cost of short films in Irish. Does some of this money go to Gael Linn for the production of films in Irish?—Yes. This is a new service. The provision there is by way of Supplementary Estimate. It was to enable Gael Linn to produce short films in Irish to be shown, if possible, every fortnight. The Estimate was based on the proposition that something like 13 short films would qualify for grants up to the end of March in the year concerned. Actually, grants in respect of five films only were payable up to that date. The scheme commenced only in December, 1958. Gael Linn had, however, been showing these films monthly from two years before that. Deputy Lynch.—I think it is no harm to say that the money given to the Abbey for the plays in Irish is not as well spent as money given to Gael Linn for the films. That is no business of yours, but it is no harm to say it. Deputy Moloney.—It is a matter of opinion, Mr. Chairman. 275. Chairman.—Subhead B.10. refers to the grant to Dúnlaoi, Teoranta. What are the objects of Dúnlaoi, Teoranta?—They are a kind of club or social centre for Irish speakers in the City of Cork. Their object is to promote cultural activities in Irish in the City. 276. Deputy Jones.—Subhead C.2. refers to the National Film Institute of Ireland (Grant-in-Aid). Is that £1,500 a grant to the National Film Institute? Is any provision being made to increase that amount for the production of films?—They have made representations to the Minister and the question of increasing that grant for them is under very close consideration at the moment. 277. Chairman.—Particulars of the Appropriations in Aid are given on page 123. Deputy Sheldon.—May I ask a question about the Murphy Bequest, page 126. I think this is the second year of this venture of having for sale postcards and publications relating to collections in the National Museum. Is it intended to have a sort of ceiling figure for the amount of stock which will be held? Up to the end of this year, the expenditure was £311 and the income was £66?—We did have a ceiling. We published only 500 copies of each of 24 postcards to see how they would go. If there was a great demand for them we would have to reconsider the question. Has the demand increased since the end of the year under review? Perhaps that is not a fair question?—I would not know for the current year yet. VOTE 42—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.278. Deputy Booth.—With regard to the Note referring to St. Anne’s Reformatory for Girls, Kilmacud, I see the payment was made on the basis of a notional number of 40 offenders whereas the average was only 18. If the amount was payable strictly on a per capita basis it would leave this institution unable to continue. Would it be right to assume that, in order to make sure that this institution is maintained, a figure of 40 is the very least they can work on from a budgetary point of view?—A special school for a particular type of girl is very necessary. There are not many girls concerned nor will there ever be many concerned. The Deputy is right in saying that we base the grant on a notional figure and that anything under 40 would be quite uneconomic. The school could not carry on. We have that system in a few other schools as well. 279. Would it not be better, then, to make it a straight grant rather than have it on a per capita basis? From what the Accounting Officer says, it seems unlikely that there would be even as many as 40 or certainly not more than 40 at any one time. Would it be proper to make the suggestion that in future it should be made on the basis of a cash grant-in-aid rather than on a per capita basis which Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh says there is no possibility of complying with?—It would be very difficult to do that. The grants are flat grants to any reformatory school. That is only an administrative matter, if you like. If you give a block grant like that it would mean in effect raising the per capita grant. But the number of pupils varies from year to year and even from week to week. I do not think it was ever above 21 and it would vary from 10. A school like that has to think in terms of a number of years running so if you give a block grant one year it may not suit the following year. You might have to change the block grant next year. The authorities of the school are satisfied that this is the most convenient way of doing it and we ourselves are satisfied that this present system works very well. So long as the authorities of the institution are satisfied, I have no criticism. I raised the matter in case they would be left in the position of not knowing whether they would have a grant the following year which might be worked on a per capita basis and not on a notional basis?—The authorities of the school are well satisfied. I had personal discussion with them about the matter. All those schools got a large increase of grant about a year ago, I think almost a 50 per cent. increase. They were rather low before that. The authorities of the school concerned are satisfied at the moment that they are able to carry on reasonably well. VOTE 43—DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES.Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called.No question. VOTE 44—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.280. Chairman.—Subhead G. refers to the College of Surgeons (Grant-in-Aid). Is the College of Surgeons the only medical school, other than medical schools in the Universities, in receipt of a grant-in-aid?—Yes, that is all. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
