Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1963 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1961 - 1962

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 14 Márta, 1963.

Thursday, 14th March, 1963.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Mr. C. J. Byrnes and Miss M. A. Keily (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 45—TRANSPORT AND POWER.

Miss T. J. Beere called and examined

438. Chairman.—Paragraphs 68 to 75, inclusive, of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deal with this Vote. Paragraph 68 reads:

“Córas Iompair Éireann Subhead D.2.—Redundancy Compensation

68. Section 15 of the Transport Act, 1958 authorised the payments of grants from voted moneys to the Board of Córas Iompair Éireann to meet the cost of compensation paid by the Board to employees, including those of the former Great Northern Railway Board, whose services are dispensed with or conditions worsened under certain circumstances in the five-year period from 16 July, 1958. Including £273,523 charged to the subhead the grants issued to the Board under this section amounted to £663,752 at 31 March, 1962. Certificates furnished by the auditors of the Board’s accounts of the amount expended on compensation to that date have been made available to me.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No. This paragraph is for information.

439. Chairman.—Paragraph 69 reads:

“Airports

Subhead F.2.—Constructional Works including Furnishing of Buildings— Shannon Airport

Subhead F.3.—Constructional Works including Furnishing of Buildings— Dublin Airport

Subhead F.4.—Constructional Works including Furnishing of Buildings— Cork Airport

69. Expenditure during the year on constructional works, including furnishing of buildings at Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports amounted to £198,864, £323,404 and £605,995, respectively. The total expenditure to 31 March, 1962, excluding the cost of acquisition of land, amounted to £3,855,875 for Shannon Airport, £2,267,116 for Dublin Airport and £964,634 for Cork Airport. In addition to the sums expended from public moneys at Dublin Airport, Aer Rianta Teoranta incurred further expenditure amounting to £52,003 on the construction of the hangar for jet aircraft mentioned in paragraph 75 of the previous report bringing its total expenditure to £317,227 at 31 March, 1962.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No.

440. Chairman.—Paragraph 70 reads:

“Operation of Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports

70. I have been furnished with statements giving particulars of the cost of operating Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports. Shannon and Cork Airports are managed directly by the Department and Dublin Airport is managed by Aer Rianta, Teoranta, on behalf of the Department.

The expenses and receipts under their main heads are as follows (the figures for the previous year being shown in brackets):—

441. Deputy Booth.—On the question of the receipts from landing fees at Shannon Airport, these show an increase for the first time. The receipts were previously falling, were they not?

Mr. Suttle.—There is an explanation of that increase in the information regarding Appropriations in Aid in the Vote. It was mainly due to landings arising from the training of aircrews.

Deputy Booth.—Rather than actual normal passenger flights?

Mr. Suttle.—Miss Beere could explain that.

Miss Beere.—There was an increase in the weight of the jet planes. Each plane coming in is paying considerably more. The companies are using the larger planes. It is on a weight basis. That accounts for the increase, as well as the training programmes.

Deputy Booth.—This, then, does not necessarily represent an increase in the number of actual landings?—No; there was actually a decrease in the number of landings but they pay on the weight and the companies are using the larger planes, so we are getting more money.

442. Chairman.—In regard to the airport management and landing fees, the management costs at Shannon Airport and Dublin Airport amounts were, respectively, £343,517 and £289,429 and the landing fees came to £586,458 and £266,606. How would the management costs of the two Airports compare in the light of the volume of traffic handled in each case?—Of course, there are heavier planes going into Shannon but it is very difficult to compare the management costs on the basis of plane landings because there are different types of business and functions of management which arise in the case of the two airports. Actually, you might have to maintain much the same management even if there was a large increase or decrease in the traffic. You would have the overhead expenses and the around the clock staffing. There was actually an operating surplus at Shannon. If you leave out the charges for pension liability, interest and depreciation at Shannon Airport, the receipts exceeded the expenditure by over £200,000. Dublin Airport broke about even, with a very small operating deficit.

443. Chairman—Paragraph 71 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead G.4.—Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited (Grant-in-Aid)

71. Grants under section 8 (1) of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited Act, 1959, to the company, including £247,000 charged to the subhead amounted to £614,500 at 31 March, 1962. Section 3 of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited (Amendment) Act, 1961, increased the aggregate amount of grants which may be made to the company from £500,000 to £1,250,000.

The aggregate amount which the Minister for Finance may subscribe for shares was increased by section 2 of the 1961 Act from one and a half to three million pounds. £1,578,000 including £410,000 in the year under review, was advanced from the Central Fund to enable the Minister to take up shares in the company.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No. This paragraph, and also paragraph 72, is for the information of the committee on the operations of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited.

444. Chairman.—Paragraph 72 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“72. Section 4 (1) of the 1961 Act provides that the Minister for Finance may make advances to the company towards the cost of providing dwellings for workers employed on the industrial estate to an aggregate amount of £400,000. Sums amounting to £310,000 were advanced from the Central Fund in the year under review. By direction of the Minister for Finance these advances are subject to interest at the Exchequer lending rates operative on the several dates of issue and the advances made in any financial year will be funded on 1 April following and be repayable by means of an annuity over a period of 35 years.”

445. Chairman.—Next we have paragraphs 73, 74 and 75 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which read:

“Tourism

Subhead M.M.1.—Grant under Section 2 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1961 (Grant-in-Aid)

Subhead M.M.2.—Development of Holiday Accommodation (Grant-in-Aid)

73. The functions vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce by or under the Tourist Traffic (Development) Act, 1931, and the Tourist Traffic Acts, 1939 to 1961, were transferred to the Minister for Transport and Power by the Transport, Fuel and Power (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) (No. 2) Order, 1961, on 31 October, 1961. The amounts provided under these subheads are in addition to the amounts provided for Tourism in subheads H.1., H.2. and H.3. of the Vote for Industry and Commerce (No. 44). Grants paid to Bord Fáilte Éireann under the Tourist Traffic Acts of 1959 and 1961, were as follows:—

Grants under section 2 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1959 Act may not be paid after the expiration of ten years commencing on the date of the passing of the Act, 6 August, 1959.

Subhead N.—Appropriations in Aid

74. As explained in paragraph 78 of the previous report a grant of £35,000 was allocated from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account towards the cost of establishing a development and research unit by Córas Iompair Éireann. £25,216, the balance of the grant, was issued during the year, charged to subhead K, and recouped from the Special Account.

75. As stated in paragraph 70 Dublin Airport is managed by Aer Rianta Teoranta on behalf of the Department. The company undertakes catering at the Airport, the collection of landing fees, rents, etc., and meets the cost of maintenance and other services not provided for in the vote. The management account of the company for the year ended 31 March, 1961, showed a surplus of £128,837. The deficit on the company’s other operations amounted to £37,462 including £31,384 for interest payable to British European Airways. Provision has been made in the estimate to set off this deficit against the surplus on the management account leaving £91,375 available for surrender to the Department.”

With regard to the interest which is paid to British European Airways, there is no provision for a set off in the current Estimate?—It is finished now. The capital has all been repaid.

446. Deputy P. J. Burke.—In connection with subhead D.2.—Redundancy Compensation—are the members of the staff in question of long standing?—The ages of the redundant persons would be a matter for Córas Iompair Éireann. They decide on the redundancy.

Deputy Treacy.—I should like, if it is in order, to ascertain the kind of redundancy payment that may be made, not so much in each case, but the average amount?—I can tell the Deputy that the number affected by redundancy up to 31st January, 1963 was 1,147. I am afraid you cannot take an average because these people can commute a certain proportion of their redundancy compensation and then it would appear in the amounts that were paid during the year. There is a certain portion they can commute. So, you cannot divide and get an average cost for each man. The amount each person gets is based on the years of service but some of the redundancy compensation is a lump sum if he has less than a certain period of service.

A certain amount of money is specified per year?—Yes. There is a certain proportion for each year of service if the man is permanent with more than five years’ service. He does not get compensation if he has less than three years’ service. If he has between three and five years’ service he is entitled to a lump sum and after that it is something like the way a pension is calculated, based on number of years’ service, subject to a certain maximum.

Chairman.—I take it that something like 25 per cent can be commuted?—I think it is 25 per cent.

447. Deputy P. J. Burke.—In regard to subhead E.—Grants for Harbours —what harbours would receive these grants?—During the year there was a very small balance paid to Ballina, over from a previous grant; Cork, expenditure £129,000—that was on the transatlantic liner tenders; Drogheda—there was an expenditure there on trial dredging; Dundalk, a small expenditure; Galway, a small expenditure; Limerick, an expenditure on the balance of the payment for a new dredger. These were all. There were a few minor items totalling £129. There was a small amount taken to credit.

Deputy Clinton.—The explanatory note says that work at one harbour proceeded more slowly than was anticipated resulting in a saving of £59,000?—That was at Drogheda. There was trial dredging going on to see what the effect of it would be. They had to work through the different seasons of the year.

448. Deputy Treacy.—In regard to subhead F.2—Constructional Works including Furnishing of Buildings—Shannon Airport—the explanatory note says that the provision included £130,000 in respect of works which it was not found possible to undertake in 1961-62. Why was it not found possible to undertake the works and what were the works involved?— There were various reasons. First of all, in some cases there was more work than the staff could manage because of the pressure to complete Cork Airport which had been held up owing to the bad weather. There were some delays owing to the weather. There were some delays due to pressures on the staff and there were a few technical delays and there was delay due to the cement strike.

Do I take it that these works are in fact being proceeded with?—Some work is being done on all of them at present except the second jet runway. That has not begun yet.

Chairman.—Is any of the cost of the second jet runway for the acquisition of land?—No, I do not think any part of that is for the acquisition of land. We have the land.

449. Deputy Booth.—Could you tell us anything about how this £20,000 in excess of the provisions for other works was spent, as referred to in the note?—The excesses were really payments which should have fallen due in the previous year and were not cleared in time for payment and came into this year. That explains practically all the excess, which is not very large.

No. It was not work which had not been anticipated but simply that the estimates did not make provision for the £20,000 because you thought it was going to be paid in the previous year?—The excess was for payments that should have fallen for payment at the end of the previous year and did not fall due until this year.

450. Deputy Treacy.—In regard to subhead F.3.—Construction Works including Furnishing of Buildings—Dublin Airport —could we have an explanation as to how it was that the works in respect of which there was a provision of £123,000 could not be undertaken in that year?—There are various explanations for the different items. Partly, we could not get around to all the work which we had planned and there were some delays and there was also the question of the concentration on Cork Airport, to get it opened.

Deputy Booth.—The explanation of the variation between expenditure and grant in respect of subhead F.3. is the same as in respect of subhead F.2. Is that a carry over payment as well?—No, not altogether in that case.

The note says the savings were offset by expenditure of £63,000 on certain works in excess of the provision and £113,000 on works of an urgent nature?— The savings of £243,000 were offset by expenditure of approximately £63,000 in excess of that anticipated on certain works and by expenditure of about £113,000 on works not provided for in the estimate. The principal work not provided for in the estimate was the pier building in Dublin Airport which was necessitated in a hurry by the very large increase in the passenger traffic.

451. Chairman.—In regard to subhead G.1. — Maintenance Works including Supplies, Renewal of Furniture and Fittings—Shannon Airport, etc.—how much of this relates to maintenance at the airport and what was the amount of maintenance at Dublin Airport in the same period?—At Shannon, architectural maintenance accounted for £10,500 and engineering maintenance for £57,850.

Have you the comparable figure for Dublin Airport in the same period?— No. We would not have that because Dublin Airport is managed by Aer Rianta, Teoranta.

452. Deputy Booth.—What does architectural maintenance cover? Is there any constructional work involved in it?— Small items of general construction and decoration of the building. In this particular case, the £10,000 was due to the fact that we had to do decoration and maintenance work at Ballygireen and Urlanmore, the out stations at Shannon.

453. Chairman.—You have not any figure by which to compare these maintenance charges against the respective capital costs and the volume of traffic handled at the two airports?—I am afraid we have not. If you wish to have the Dublin figure, we have it here, although it does not come into the figures for which I have responsibility. The figure is: maintenance of buildings and grounds at Dublin Airport, £104,560.

454. Deputy Treacy.—In regard to subhead G.4.—Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited (Grant-in-Aid)—the expenditure was less than the amount granted by £33,000. The explanatory note says “Grants towards industrial and trading enterprises were less than had been anticipated”. Could we have a little elaboration of that?—It is difficult, of course, for the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited. They have to give us an estimate. It is very difficult to know what firms are going to come in a year hence when they are preparing their estimate. Although they may be negotiating with the firm they may not know what grant will be required. For instance, there are grants for the training of workers. Training schemes might be more than you would anticipate. It is rather difficult. After your estimate is made, some firms might come in which you had not heard of before and with which you had not then been in negotiation.

455. Deputy Booth.—On subhead H.2. —Protective Equipment for Irish Ships —is this protective equipment being fitted on new ships as they are built or are we still just equipping ships which have been afloat for some time?—This was equipment for ships afloat for some time. In the case of new ships the equipment is put in when the ships are being built and does not come into this Vote. The committee will be glad to know that this provision will be disappearing. We are finished at present. This was just the end. We have spent a few very small sums this year, I think about £25.

456. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On subhead I.—Pensions and Allowances to Seamen or their Dependants and Medical Expenses of Seamen—how many pensioners and dependants would you have at the moment?—Really, I do not remember the number. I can tell you the pension rates and the pensions we give but I have not got the numbers

457. Chairman.—In regard to the Appropriations in Aid, could you say in respect of the landing fees at Shannon Airport how much of this was for jet training operations?—Yes. For training operations in 1961-62 we got £76,500; other landings, £510,000. There were 7,406 landings as compared with 7,720 in the previous year.

There was a decline in the number of landings, then?—Yes.

Deputy Booth.—How many companies were engaged in jet training? Was there more than one?—Yes; there were several companies. BOAC is the big company in it. There was some other British company and, of course, our own air companies were down there.

458. Chairman.—In regard to item 13 of the Appropriations in Aid—Passenger hostels—the note says that receipts depend on the demand for accommodation. The amount estimated was £10,000; the amount realised was £1,950. Does this indicate a severe drop in the number of passengers using the hostels?—It does. Passengers when they came on the old piston-engined aircraft were very often delayed and spent a night in Shannon and, of course, that is occurring less frequently. There is less demand. When the airport was built there was very little hotel accommodation close to Shannon. Now there is quite a lot of hotel accommodation. So that, if people want to stay for a night or two they may go to one of the hotels instead of staying in the passenger hostels.

Deputy Booth.—Does this mean that there is passenger hostel accommodation lying idle for a considerable period?— We have reduced the number and some of the passenger hostels are now being used for other purposes, for instance, catering and State staff. Of course, that does not pay us quite as well because you can get 25/- a night from passengers but not from the others.

The property is being used as far as possible?—The property is being used pretty fully.

459. Chairman.—In regard to item No. 15—Concession fees—I take it the explanation there is something the same as for No. 11, that jet training operations were more extensive?—Yes, but the increase is practically altogether due to the through-put of aviation fuel. We had only estimated for £9,500 and it was over £14,000 for that item. That is the difference.

460. Deputy Booth.—On item No. 17 —Catering and Sales Service—the note refers to an increase of £20,000 in receipts. Is there any particular explanation for that, in view of the fact that there seems to have been slightly less actual landings? Are people eating more?—Well, of course, there were training flights and training crews eating in the diningrooms there and the receipts in the catering service cover a lot of different things. There is a mail order business and the shops and various other items.

Is there any increase in the receipts from the ordinary public, from people just calling out to the airport?—I think it is fairly steady. Of course, the £43,000 is divided up between the improvement in the catering receipts and the fact that some payments were made that should have gone into the previous year.

Chairman.—I think it would be due to the fact that Shannon is developing a very respectable type of trade in regard to receptions and so on?—Yes, so I believe.

It is becoming very popular for wedding receptions and that type of business. In regard to item No. 5 of the notes, could we have some further details in regard to the writing off of this amount, £187, as irrecoverable?—That was the air company that went bankrupt—the General Airways of Portland, Oregon. They owed us £170 for air-ground en route communications. The company went bankrupt and were unable to make the payment. We secured the approval of the Department of Finance ultimately to write it off.

461. Deputy Clinton.—I take it that the stores referred to at item No. 7 of the notes were material that was outdated?—It was material used in connection with the removal of the victims of aircraft crashes.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 44—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy called and examined.

462. Chairman.—Paragraphs 63 to 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deal with this Vote. Paragraph 63 reads:

“Córas Tráchtála

Subhead I.1.—Córas Tráchtála (Grant-in-Aid)

Subhead I.2.—Promotion of Whiskey Exports (Grant-in-Aid)

63. Grants to Córas Tráchtála, which under the provisions of section 16 of the Export Promotion Act, 1959, may not exceed one million pounds in the aggregate, amounted to £604,885 at 31 March, 1962, including £241,885 issued in the year under review.”

The explanatory note in connection with the subhead I.2., referred to in this paragraph, indicates that the scheme for which the grant-in-aid was provided was abandoned during the year. Was there any particular reason for that?—The reason was purely one of policy. There were no financial considerations involved in it.

What was the total amount issued under that scheme?—The amount issued in 1961-62 was £16,885. The total expenditure up to and including 1961-62 was £223,000—£46,000 in 1958-59; £42,000 in 1959-60; a further £38,000 in 1959-60; £80,000 in 1960-61 and £17,000 in 1961-62. Of course, you understand, this money was matched by a £ for £ contribution by the distillers. If I might give you the answer to the first question— although it is really a policy consideration—it was felt that the target had been struck in this matter and that if anything more was to be done it would have to be in a rather different kind of way and the Irish Distillers’ Association was not prepared to co-operate in the different scheme.

463. Chairman.—Paragraph 64 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“An Foras Tionscal

Subhead K.1.—Grant under Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952 (Grant-in-Aid)

Subhead K.2.—Grant under Industrial Grants Act, 1959 (Grant-in-Aid)

64. As explained in previous reports, the Industrial Grants Act, 1959 extended the functions of An Foras Tionscal to enable it by means of grants and guarantees to aid industrial development outside the undeveloped areas. The aggregate amount that may be issued including grants issued prior to the passing of the 1959 Act, has been increased by section 3 of the Industrial Grants (Amendment) Act, 1961 from ten to fifteen million pounds. Grants issued to 31 March 1962 were as follows:—

The total amount issued up to 31st March, 1962 was £4,090,740. The 1961 Act increased the aggregate amount of grants which could be issued to £15 million. Does this mean you anticipate an early and considerable increase in the amount of requirements for An Foras Tionscal? —We do and, of course, there is the very recent legislation which has just gone through both Houses which raises the limit still further and, not only raises it for the ordinary promotional type of grant, but provides also for adaptation grants for the purposes of converting industries to conditions of freer competition.

All those will be administered through An Foras Tionscal?—Yes; and if I may raise a point here—we feel that in the new circumstances, to have each of these a separate subhead, therefore between which—since they are grants in aid— no movement is possible, is not a very good idea. We intend to seek the approval of the Committee of Public Accounts to amalgamate these subheads in future Estimates so as to give the greatest degree of fluidity between them. The Estimate does seem on the face of it at the moment to create a slightly false impression.

464. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:

“Subhead R.—Repayment of Advances under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts

65. This subhead provides for the repayment to the Central Fund, in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act, 1939, of the amounts which remained outstanding after the expiration of two years from the date on which advances were made from the Fund on foot of guarantees given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The charge to the subhead is in respect of the following undertakings:—

The amounts advanced from the Central Fund were £1,780, £17,853 and £15,305, respectively. The Hollypark Mining Co. Ltd. receivership is not completed.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—These guarantees are given to companies by the Minister, generally against bank loans, and the total guaranteed up to 31st March, 1962 was £2,416,000.

465. Chairman.—May I enquire if any amounts have been recovered in these cases? Has the Central Fund been reimbursed?—Yes. There have been some receipts which in fact appear in the Appropriations in Aid. As regards the particular cases involved—Badges Ltd., Monaghan Leather Co. Ltd., Hollypark Mining Co. Ltd.—which are mentioned in the note, there is no likelihood of our getting anything further out of Badges Ltd. In the case of the Monaghan Leather Co. Ltd., it appears that the net loss to public funds will work out at £11,200. In the case of the Hollypark Mining Co. Ltd., it is likely to be £13,586. These are the best estimates we can make now. In other cases, of course—there are still other cases— West Park Estate Limited; Sessions Marine Limited—some receipts are coming in from West Park Estates Limited. The receipts in 1961-62, which were remitted by the Receiver, amounted to £750 and in 1962-63 we got a further £663. In the case of Sessions Marine Limited we are unlikely to get back very much. In West Park Estates Limited the position is that there is still a lot of property there, the Receiver is in control and we are not without hope that the outcome there might be reasonably satisfactory.

Chairman.—The explanation which Mr. MacCarthy has just given would be in relation to paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is as follows:

“66. Miscellaneous appropriations in aid include receipts of £750 from the Receiver for the West Park Estates Limited and £117 from the Receiver for Sessions Marine Limited. Reference was made to these cases in paragraph 99 of the report on the accounts for 1959-60.”

466. Chairman.—Paragraph 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead S.—Appropriations in Aid

67. The amount allocated and the recoupments from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account of expenditure incurred up to 31 March 1962 on agreed projects sponsored by the Department of Industry and Commerce are shown in the following statement:—

467. Deputy Booth.—In regard to subhead G.—Expenses in connection with International Organisations, Special Services, Enquiries, etc.—the explanation given for the variation between expenditure and grant is that the excess was mainly due to the payment of a contribution of £5,350 to the Endowment Fund of the International Institute for Labour Studies. This is not one of the organisations listed in the Estimate itself. Was there any specific authorisation for this contribution?—I think our note there might perhaps have been differently worded. The contribution really is a contribution to the International Labour Organisation for the purposes of a special fund which it established for the endowment of the International Institute for Labour Studies. In other words, it is not necessary for us to seek any special extension of the subhead in order to enable such a payment to be made. Those members who were agreeable voluntarily to have their contributions enlarged not by a compulsory proportion but by a voluntary proportion for the purpose of endowing this institute, were invited to do so. The Government agreed and this contribution was made. It is a contribution which is payable as an extension of our contribution to the International Labour Organisation.

468. Deputy P. J. Burke.—In relation to subhead H.2.—Resort Development (Grant-in-Aid)—the note says that proposals for the development of major tourist resorts did not progress as rapidly as anticipated. What was the explanation there? Is it that local authorities had fallen down on their job, or what?—I can answer the question only up to 31st October, 1961, because from that date the function went over to the Department of Transport and Power but certainly the experience up to that date was that local authorities were rather slow in getting on with the schemes.

469. In relation to subhead K.2.— Grants under Industrial Grants Act, 1959 (Grant-in-Aid)—it may be an unorthodox question—what is the percentage of refusals for grants of this kind?—The Annual Report may, in fact, enable me to answer the question for you. Perhaps one would need to go over a period because they carry in a number at the beginning and then go out with a number of cases outstanding. The information is on page 8, appendix 3, of the Statutory Report and Accounts of the Board of An Foras Tionscal.

470. Deputy Treacy.—In regard to subhead M.—Dundalk Engineering Works, Ltd.—Staff Redundancies—has the redundancy problem there been resolved completely now?—The scheme is completely finished.

471. Chairman.—In regard to subhead R.R.1.—Repayable Advances to Nítrigin Éireann Teóranta (Grant-in-Aid)—is interest being charged on the advances under this subhead?—That is arranged under the Act. This was merely a payment we made in anticipation of the enactment of the legislation and further advances are to be directly from the Exchequer. I gather from Mr. Byrnes that these advances will be subject to the same terms as any other advances. Whether that means that interest will be paid or not, I cannot say. It depends on what happens as regards the earlier advances.

Deputy Clinton.—When is the repayment period arranged?—There is nothing arranged yet. I think the simplest way to put it is that the £24,000 in this case will be substituted by the general advances which will be made.

Chairman.—I was going to ask what were the arrangements made in regard to repayment of the advances?—I gather from Mr. Byrnes they will all be on exactly the same terms. The advance from the Vote will simlpy be deemed to have been an advance under the Act.

472. In regard to item No. 2 of the Appropriations in Aid—Repayment on account of salaries of officers on loan to outside bodies—the repayments here exceeded the estimate. How many officers were covered by this repayment of £5,588? —Dr. Brady, the Chairman of the Industrial Credit Company—we got a refund of £1,500 in respect of part of his salary. We received approximately £2,000 from the Electricity Supply Board in respect of the salary of Mr. T. Murray and £2,000 from the Industrial Development Authority in respect of Mr. T. S. O’Neill who was appointed a full-time member. I think the reason for the excess is that Mr. O’Neill was appointed, which had not been anticipated when this event took place and there was a delay in the enactment of the legislation which would have confirmed Mr. T. Murray’s appointment as Chairman of the Electricity Supply Board. Both of these people being seconded from us, we collected approximately £4,000 which we had not budgeted for.

473. In regard to No. 8—Miscellaneous receipts—I notice that one of the items, £927, was in respect of the subletting of Frankfurt Pavilion. How does this subletting arise?—It is done during periods when a fair is not actually in progress. There are the Spring Fair and the Autumn Fair. During the rest of the year the fair ground is used for various purposes. We have an arrangement with the Director of the Fair that if anybody is interested in accommodation we would be very glad to let the pavilion for that purpose. So we get this type of subletting from time to time. As you know, it has been decided to dispose of the pavilion now. So, it is something that will not arise in future.

The witness withdrew.

The committee adjourned.