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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 28 Márta, 1963.

Thursday, 28th March, 1963.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

Líam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit) and Miss M. Bhreathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 49—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. H. J. McCann called and examined.

574. Chairman.—Mr. McCann has come here this morning, his first occasion appearing before the committee. We would like to assure him that he is very welcome.

Mr. McCann.—I am honoured to appear before the committee and thank the Chairman for his words of welcome.

Chairman.—In regard to subhead B.1. —Salaries, Wages and Allowances—have you any difficulty in recruiting suitable officers for the Diplomatic Corps?—I would not say that we have difficulty. Sometimes we have had delays in arranging conditions, and so forth, in the changing circumstances, with our colleagues in the Department of Finance, but I cannot say that we have difficulty in recruitment.

575. Deputy Carter.—In relation to subhead B.3.—Repatriation and Maintenance of destitute Irish Persons abroad —the amount is small but what would be the element for repatriation, roughly, as against maintenance, in that figure?— By and large, it is mainly repatriation in the sense that if an urgent case comes up maintenance arises only for the short period before you can arrange suitable transport home for the individual. It would be, relatively speaking, a matter of days.

Had you many cases during the year? —The procedure about these cases is that they, first of all, are charged to a suspense account and it is only when we do not succeed in recovering the costs that they appear as a charge against the subhead. We put the charge to the subhead off as long as possible because we do not want to abandon hope of recovering the money until we have explored every avenue.

576. Deputy Booth.—That explains the £99 under the heading of expenditure and the £99 written off that is referred to in the Notes—is that right?—Yes.

If things worked out ideally it would be just a nominal amount in the estimate and the expenditure would be nil?—Yes; that is our ambition and for that reason we do not charge to the subhead until we have made every possible effort to recover.

Is there a fair rate of recovery? Can you normally recover most, if not all?— Yes. As you see, for a whole year the total sum written off was £99. The order of the advances last year was about £1,000, as shown in the Minute of the Department of Finance.

Chairman.—Could you tell us how much was outstanding on 31st March, 1962? I notice from the Minute from the Department of Finance that there was £225 outstanding on 31st March, 1961?— We would have to work that figure out for you. It requires a certain amount of research to provide that figure but if you wish I will be happy to endeavour to get it for the committee.*

577. At your convenience, Mr. McCann. Thank you very much. On subhead C.1. —Cultural Relations with other Countries (Grant-in-Aid)—what is the nature of the expenditure under that head?—The major items would be theatre tours abroad, international summer schools, Irish representation at exhibitions abroad and reprinting of cultural booklets by the Cultural Relations Committee. These would be some of the major items. There were also special grants for individuals on specific cultural projects but, individually, they would be small.

578. Deputy Booth.—On subhead C.3. —Official Entertainment—adverse comment was made in the Report of the Committee last year on the question of official entertainment. Unfortunately, I was not present at the meeting of the committee. I was abroad when the Report was being prepared. It was commented last year that there seemed to be some lack of control over official entertainment even though the evidence given to the committee last year did not seem to bear that out. All the same, the amount of expenditure under the Estimates is increasing pretty rapidly. Could you help us in this regard as to whether the standard of official entertainment that we have set up for ourselves compares adversely with that of other countries? My own impression is that our expenditure on entertainment is, comparatively speaking, very small. Other countries are spending an enormous amount on official entertainment, as propaganda. if you like—public relations at international level possibly would be a better way of putting it. Does our standard of official entertainment appear excessive from your experience in other countries, or the reverse?—I would say our standard is, relatively speaking, modest. I am just speaking from my own personal experiences abroad rather than from any particular statistics I have seen because these are not necessarily figures that countries publish in any detail. The reason why our expenditure in this respect has tended to go up in recent years has largely been due to increased Irish participation in international affairs; the increased visits of distinguished personages from abroad; the success of the efforts by various bodies to get Ireland known as a venue for international conventions and conferences and congresses. That has been the main cause of the increase in recent years. It has tended to level off over recent years but this year is one in which there was a substantial increase. In reply to the general question, my own impression is that our expenditure is modest compared with what is done elsewhere.

Deputy Booth.—That is my impression also.

579. Deputy Cunningham.—Would these figures be accounted for mainly by the EEC negotiations and would it be, say, in respect of our Embassy in Brussels?—No. The expenditure in our missions abroad is normally undertaken by the Head of Mission and other officers who have their representation allowances. It is possible that on a specific occasion a Minister going abroad on general diplomatic mission might incur such expenditure which would be chargeable to the subhead. Generally speaking, I would not say that was the cause of the increase. It mainly related to expenditure in Ireland on visitors, including Heads of foreign diplomatic Missions.

The main part of this is in Ireland?— Yes.

580. Deputy Carter.—It is mentioned, in paragraph 10 of the Minute of the Minister for Finance that a certain amount of it arose from Ireland being accepted as a venue for some international conferences and partly also from your co-operation with Bord Fáilte. It looks as if your Department also co-operates with Bord Fáilte here up to a point?— We try to co-operate with all Statesponsored bodies in everything which is in the broad national interest, in which we have a part. Naturally, from the point of view of the tourist industry, the hoteliers and hotel workers, they are anxious to get as many big international conferences as possible, both Governmental type and non-governmental type, to Ireland and it sometimes helps in securing these if the Government make some gesture of recognition of the presence of the convention in, say, our capital city. That is quite normal in other countries and it does help them in their efforts to attract these conventions to the country.

Had we many such conferences during the year?—I would say there were about 12 or so, Round about 10 or 12 during the year, as far as my information goes.

581. Chairman.—I think the comparative figure for entertainment by the British Government would be of the order of £100,000, of which details are given. Would I be correct in saying that? —I could not say. Although I spent five years in London, I never examined that aspect of their activities.

Chairman.—A figure of £100,000 for entertainment in Britain is approximately the figure of which details of the various items are given.

Deputy Booth.—Would not a great deal of the equivalent entertainment in Britain, particularly in London, be carried out by the Royal Family or by the Lord Mayor?—I could say that that is quite true. If there is any visit of a head of State to London, a very substantial portion would be. A big banquet in the Guildhall is a standard part of the procedure and there is a considerable amount of assistance given in that type of entertainment.

582. Analogous entertainment here almost exclusively comes under this subhead of this Vote?—Yes; this subhead covers entertainment by all Government Departments.

Dublin Corporation does not come into it and the Presidential expenditure is not on anything like the same scale?— Yes, that is true. The resources would not be the same, either.

Chairman.—I take it Presidential expenditure here is separate from any expenditure on entertainment under this Vote? Entertainment provided by the President would be a different matter?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

583. Deputy Carter.—On subhead D.— Appropriations in Aid—what sort of staff was seconded to Córas Tráchtála?—First of all, in general, there was one officer, who has been seconded for years, and part-time of a shared receptionist but in the year under review there was an exceptional item of three officers made available to Córas Tráchtála for some months in connection with the preparation of industry studies in Common Market countries, for the Committee on Industrial Organisation. It was largely the receipt from that operation that accounts for the surplus as this was an unexpected item.

584. Chairman.—In regard to item No. 2.—Miscellaneous—the sum realised was £3,435. The explanation says that the amount included a sum of £1,200 for secretarial services recovered from An Bord Scoláireachtai Cómalairte. What is the nature of the other items included?— The other items consist mainly of the fees received for consular services on estate cases where our consulates abroad help beneficiaries in this country; a consular fee is chargeable under the Diplomatic and Consular Fees Regulations. That is the main item there. Also, there is another item of some sums recovered on expenditure charged in a previous year where it was not recouped within the year.

VOTE 50—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.

Mr. H. J. McCann further examined.

585. Deputy Booth.—In regard to subhead B.1.—Contribution towards the Expenses of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation—I can see that the contribution has been considerably reduced owing to the winding up of that organisation. Were we not obliged to make some equivalent contribution towards OECD?—Yes, but it did not come within the particular year— did not fall to be paid in the financial year.

We made a net profit, which is illusory? —It came home to roost later on.

It is illusory, then, to that extent?— Yes.

586. Deputy Cunningham.—In regard to subhead C.1.—Contribution to the United Nations—that does not cover any expenses in connection with the Congo operation?—No, there is a separate subhead for that. This is the general budget of the United Nations and there is just a token vote because the contribution was paid in the previous year in view of the financial position of the United Nations.

587. Deputy Carter.—On subhead C.3. —Contribution to the United Nations Children’s Fund—this contains a contribution towards the poorer areas. It is a fund to finance child health or helps towards the fund. Roughly, what areas would be involved? It is a small amount, admittedly, but it would be interesting to know what areas it was devoted to? —I have not got that information readily available. This, of course, is a contribution to a larger fund and it might not be possible to find the information. In fact we stipulate that the full amount of the contribution should be spent on the purchase of goods in this country.

It goes into a sort of common pool?— Yes, that is right.

Deputy Carter.—That is all right.

588. Deputy Booth.—In regard to subhead C.5.—Contribution towards the United Nations Emergency Force—I think there were questions asked about this the last time. Does this United Nations Emergency Force still exist, quite apart from the Congo operation?—It is a separate operation. It is one in the Middle East.

Has that been largely wound up now or why do we not have to make any contribution to it now? Previously we made a contribution or, at least, there was an estimate of £9,000 in the previous year. Practically all the troops have been withdrawn from that operation now?—That is my impression but I could not answer definitely.

Certainly, there is no call for any contribution?—Not that year.

589. Deputy Carter.—In regard to subhead C.7.—Contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—we can take it that this money also is devoted to a larger common pool, I suppose?— Yes.

Towards the relief of refugees?—Yes.

You would not have any idea of how many refugees there were?—I think there are about one million Arab refugees in Palestine. This is a special fund for the Palestine refugees, not related to the more general one of the United Nations for refugees.

590. Chairman.—In relation to subhead C.8.—Contribution to the United Nations Special Fund—what exactly is this fund? —This is a special fund which came into existence on 1st January, 1959, with a view to enlarging the scope of the United Nations Regular and Expanded programmes of technical assistance in certain basic fields. It is really limited to financing basic projects in the field of preinvestment activity. There is the ordinary activity out of the regular budget of the United Nations. Then there is the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance. This is a more specialised one. It is to create conditions where capital investment would be more feasible in certain undeveloped countries. I suppose it might be described as being to help to create infra-structure for investment. The projects consist of surveys, research and training, demonstrations, etc.

Deputy Cunningham.—Is the proposal to send the F.A.O. some assistance by the Department of Agriculture the type of thing that is covered here?—My impression is that that is not the case but I should not like to be categorical on it. I think that comes from a separate source.

591. In relation to subhead C.9.— Organisation des Nations Unies au Congo —this confirms that fairly substantial sums were allocated. Is this divided proportionately between the payees or does the fact that some nations do not contribute mean that the contributions of other contributors are necessarily higher than they would be otherwise?— In principle one begins with the idea that they are in proportion to the normal scale of assessments but then there have been voluntary contributions by some countries which result in the case of ourselves in an 80 per cent reduction in the assessment because our contribution to the United Nations regular budget puts us in the category of 0.04 per cent to 0.25 per cent. All countries in that category got the benefit of an 80 per cent reduction in what their contribution to O.N.U.C. would otherwise be that is if it were on the strict mathematical basis of normal assessment. That is made possible by voluntary contributions by certain countries over and above what their normal levy would be.

But, eventually, the non-payment by some member countries will be reflected in the contributions generally all round? —Yes; that does aggravate the position but then it may eventually be offset by the excess voluntary contributions made by other countries who are doing more than their proportionate share.

592. Deputy Carter.—In relation to subhead E.—Appropriations in Aid— what is the definition of the European Productivity Agency or what type of productivity do they engage in?—As I understand it, their activity was designed for the purpose of studying possibilities of achieving increased productivity in the particular fields in which the particular groups are working.

It covers the agricultural industry?— I think it would have a very broad field of activity but any particular group, of course, would be active in a narrow field.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 51—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE.

Mr. W. A. Honohan called and examined.

593. Deputy Lalor.—On subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—I notice that the excess has been partly offset by savings arising from the non-filling or delayed filling of vacancies. This seems to me the very same situation as existed last year. I understood from the explanation given last year that the vacancies were being caught up with?— I think it is a normal situation that there must be delays in the filling of vacancies. One cannot have a man ready to fill a vacancy straight away on a death, and so on.

How much is the saving?—The amount of the saving this year for delayed filling, non-filling and filling of vacancies at lower rates was £63,202.

594. Chairman.—I notice in regard to subhead B.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—that the saving was mainly due to expenditure on postal expenses being lower than anticipated. What postal expenses were lower than anticipated?—The postal expenses generally. They are paid by our Department to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on demand. The saving arose in this year particularly because of an adjustment of £22,500 in respect of an overclaim by that Department in the previous year.

595. I notice that under that subhead there is a provision for the maintenance of official cars?—Yes.

What would have been the actual expenditure on that item?—The provision for maintenance of official cars, including compensation in cases of accident—£2,858, was the expenditure.

Did you buy any new cars in that year? —Yes; one car was replaced during the year, as against a provision for two cars.

Do you find it more economical to do this rather than to pay an allowance to officials for using their own private cars? —I suppose the answer to that is yes. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs, of course, look after the purchase of the cars and so on. These cars came to us from the National Health Insurance Society’s fleet of cars and the practice has continued.

596. Deputy Lalor.—Arising out of what was mentioned about an overclaim of £22,500 by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in the previous year, how did an overclaim of that nature arises? As I say, we paid the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on their demand to us. They estimated their requirements and subsequently they found that they overcharged.

There is an estimate.—Yes.

597. Chairman.—In regard to subhead C.—Insured Persons’ Medical Certificates —the estimate and expenditure are very close. Good estimating, I take it?—Yes.

Is a doctor paid for each certificate issued or on what basis is he remunerated? —It is rather complicated. There is a certain sum determined in the first instance as appropriate for this service in the year. It is related to the number of insured persons—so many insured persons at so much per head, the amount being 5/- per head. That sum of money is then available for payment of medical certifiers and the amount each medical certifier gets depends on the volume of his work and, indeed, on the different rates which obtain for borough areas and rural areas.

It does depend on the number of certificates each medical certifier issues? —Yes.

598. Deputy Lalor.—In regard to subhead E.—Commission of Inquiry on Workmen’s Compensation—I presume the Commission terminated its work during that year?—Yes. The report was presented on 19th February, 1962.

Would it be out of order to inquire when it might be published?—It was printed within the last month, I think.

Chairman.—The Deputy may ask that question elsewhere.

599. Mr. P. J. Burke.—In regard to subhead G.—Losses—it is a great tribute to the integrity of the officers under your charge that the amount is so small in regard to cash shortages at local offices not exceeding £2 in any one case.

600. Chairman.—In regard to subhead F.—Appropriations in Aid—what is included in this figure given in respect of item No. 1—Receipt from the Social Insurance Fund in pursuance of Section 40 (2) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and how do you arrive at it?—This, as the note says, is in relation to the amount received from the Social Insurance Fund. It represents the repayment to the Vote by the Fund of the expenses incurred by the Minister for Social Welfare in the administration of the Social Insurance Scheme, that is, the expenses of administration of the Social Insurance Scheme, in effect.

Can you tell us how that figure is arrived at?—It is the sum total of the amounts that are paid out by different Departments of State and our own Department on this scheme.

601. Deputy Booth.—Does this total cover only administration expenses by the Department? They are not actual social insurance payments—is that right?— That is right. It is only administration.

So, it is a matter of finding out how many officials are engaged in administrative duties and totting up their wages, salaries and expenses?—Quite so.

602. Deputy Carter.—What is the nature of the service performed under item No. 2 of the Appropriations in Aid— Repayment in respect of agency services performed on behalf of the British Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance? —We help to administer a scheme for general treatment of British ex-service personnel disabled on war service and resident here. The British Ministry pays a capitation rate of £1 10s. a year for each ex-soldier entitled to treatment under the scheme but this money goes into the Irish Invalided Soldiers, etc., Medical Fund out of which payments are made towards providing treatment in accordance with the scheme. The cost of administering the scheme is claimed by us direct from the British authorities after the end of each financial year.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Just the cost of administering the scheme?—It is only administration, yes—our part of the administration.

Deputy Booth.—At a figure of £1 per head, or is it on a per capita basis?— £1 10s. for each ex-soldier.

£1 10s. is regarded as the administration cost?—That is the treatment cost.

VOTE 52—SOCIAL INSURANCE.

Mr. W. A. Honohan further examined.

603. Chairman.—In respect of this Vote there is paragraph 88 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which reads:

“Subhead A.—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952

88. Payments from this subhead to the Social Insurance Fund in the year under review amounted to £6,310,000. These payments are subject to adjustment when the audited accounts of the Fund are available.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The accounts of the Social Insurance Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1962 have been audited since the Report was published and the amount due to the Fund in respect of the year to 31st March, 1962, was £6,704,900 and this sum represents approximately 38 per cent of the expenditure for this year from the Fund. At 31st March, 1962, the Fund had underdrawn State grant to the extent of £70,985.

Chairman.—Did you state the amount of the State contribution?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes—£6,704,900.

604. Chairman.—What was the cost of the administration of the Fund? I think it was previously given. That was the cost of administration that I asked you about in respect of Vote 51?—Yes, that is it.

Or would that amount be the complete figure or only in respect of the social insurance side of it? There is social insurance and social assistance?—Social insurance. It is the administration of social insurance only, not social assistance, that would come into this.

In other words, the figure of the cost of administration of that Fund is the figure of £1,049,350?—Yes, that is the situation.

605. Would you have the account of the Fund available?—I have the account for 1961-62.

Yes. The £1,393,812—that is the administrative expenses under Section 40 of the Social Welfare Act?—Yes.

The figure realised on Social Welfare, under Vote 51, is £1,039,001. What is the explanation of the difference between the two?—I may have misled the Committee earlier. The explanation is that the figure in the previous Vote for Appropriations in Aid related to the expenses of the Department of Social Welfare only. The Vote for the Office of the Minister for Social Welfare was being recouped that amount, whereas the figure in the Fund Account which is before you now includes expenditure by other Departments as well. There is a difference of £350,000 odd.

What Departments would they be?— The Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the Stationery Office, the Office of Public Works and the Revenue Commissioners.

606. Deputy Lalor.—What does subhead B.—Investment Return—cover?—This is a payment which the Exchequer makes to the Fund to compensate the Fund for having an investment in the form of a building, Áras Mhic Dhiarmada, instead of having it in productive investment— Stock Exchange investment, say.

Chairman.—In other words, this might be regarded as the rent of Áras Mhic Dhiarmada?—Broadly speaking, yes.

Deputy Lalor.—Is that regarded as being worth a certain percentage of the value of Áras Mhic Dhiarmada?—Quite.

What is the value?—It varies from year to year. It is fixed at the same rate as is obtained by the Fund on its other investments.

VOTE 53—SOCIAL ASSISTANCE.

Mr. W. A. Honohan further examined.

607. Chairman.—Paragraph 89 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is in respect of this Vote and reads:

“89. Sums recovered in respect of overpayments charged in prior years’ accounts were:—£23,763 in cash credited to appropriations in aid and £4,086 withheld from current entitlements. Overpayments amounting to £2,606 were treated as irrecoverable. The total amount of overpayments not disposed of at 31 March 1962 was £57,043 as compared with £49,857 at 31 March 1961. During the year 57 individuals were prosecuted for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain social assistance and convictions were secured in 52 cases.

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The gross amount of overpayments recorded during the year was £40,788. The overpayments outstanding at 31st March, 1962, under the heads of assistance were: old age pensions, £31,064; children’s allowances, £1,000; unemployment assistance, £12,119; and widows’ and orphans’ non-contributory pensions, £12,860, a total of £57,043, as noted in the paragraph.

608. Chairman.—I suppose it is quite reasonable to ask what are your prospects of recovery in respect of these amounts? —We do recover a fair amount every year. In this year of account we recovered £25,000 in cash and £4,000 in deductions from benefits or assistance otherwise payable. We wrote off only £2,750 in that year. That may indicate the order of recovery.

609. Deputy Booth.—Is there anything significant about the increase in the amount of overpayments outstanding in the year under review as compared with the previous year or is that purely fortuitous?—I think largely fortuitous. Of course, as the rates of assistance go up the total amount will go up also.

610. Chairman.—Are there any similar irregularities in the case of benefits charged to the Social Insurance Fund? —There are, yes.

What would the statistics be like in those cases?—They appear in the Fund Account. On the payments side of the current account there is an item “Benefit paid in Error”—£7,758 and “Less Amount recovered in respect of Benefit paid in Error”—£5,643, representing a loss of £2,115, which is, in effect, written off.

What would the total amount outstanding be?—In the case of insurance?

Of the insurance?—The figure is £27,511.

611. Deputy Carter.—In the case of the 57 individuals who were prosecuted in court, was the full amount realised in each case or were the full decrees given? —Of the 57 cases where there were legal proceedings, convictions were secured in 52 cases. There were sentences of imprisonment and fines in these cases but the amounts outstanding were presumably not recovered in all cases or in many.

Were there many cases of imprisonment?—It looks as if there were seven cases but I think in most of these, if not all, the sentences were suspended.

Deputy Booth.—I presume it is safe to assume that a decree was given for the recovery of the money but in certain cases it was irrecoverable. Would that be right?—The question of a decree may not arise at all. In some cases we prosecute although the money has been recovered, e.g. where the offence was grave.

So it is purely a criminal prosecution? —Yes.

There is no question of recovery through the courts; you have to use the civil process or just a normal squeeze?—Quite.

612. Chairman.—In regard to subhead A.—Old Age Pensions—of the expenditure of £9,053,728 on old age pensions, how much was paid out of the Social Insurance Fund in respect of contributory old age pensions?—This expenditure here is solely for non-contributory old age pensions.

Could you give us a corresponding figure in respect of contributory pensions? —In the same year the amount spent on old age contributory pensions was £4,636,000.

Deputy Booth.—Does that amount come under this Vote at all?—No, it is not in this Vote at all; it is an expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund.

613. Chairman.—Subhead E.—Grants under the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, 1914 to 1930, as amended—and subhead F.—Grants under the School Meals (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1930 and 1933—both make provision for grants for the provision of school meals. Is there any difference in the standard of the meals supplied under each of these headings?— Between the services in the two subheads?

Is there any difference in the standard of the meal itself provided under subheads E. and F. Both are for the provision of school meals?—Of course the type of meal depends on the local authority but I can say that under subhead E. the meals are broadly of a simple type and, outside Dublin, generally consist of milk or cocoa with buns or bread and butter or jam. In a few areas where facilities are available hot soup or stew with meat and vegetables is given. In the Gaeltacht scheme, the meals served generally consist of hot cocoa with milk and sugar and buns or bread with butter or jam. It is much the same. There are different Acts governing the two schemes, of course.

614. Deputy Booth.—Are these grants made on a proportionate basis of the total cost or is it a standard grant per head regardless of what the local authority may do?—In the case of the Gaeltacht service there is a fixed amount determined by statute—a grant of £10,000—and whatever is paid by the State falls within that and subject to that, payment is made on the basis of one half of the expenditure by the county councils. In the case of the other scheme it is on a basis of 50 per cent but there is no statutory limit.

No top limit?—No.

615. Chairman.—Are these services operated by all local authorities who are entitled to do so?—No, not all. It is, of course, optional to the local authorities. Under subhead E., schemes are at present in operation in the four county boroughs, in 41 urban districts and in 14 towns. In the case of the Gaeltacht the five county councils of Cork, Donegal, Galway, Kerry and Mayo all have schemes, not necessarily applying to all schools that would be eligible for it.

Waterford does not avail of it? That has a Gaeltacht area?—No; it was not in the Act.

Chairman.—Because it was not in the Act? I see.

616. Deputy Carter.—On subhead G.— Welfare of the Blind—how many such agencies work the scheme?—Seven.

Do they all provide a comprehensive programme, some of them more specialist than others?—They are not all the same. In two of the institutions facilities are provided for the training of blind persons in suitable occupations such as basket and mattress making, chair-caning and knitting.

In two out of the seven?—Yes.

617. Chairman.—On what basis do you calculate this grant? Is it per capita?— Yes, per capita, per inmate in the year.

618. You would not have any idea of how many blind persons there are in the country altogether, how many might be benefiting from these schemes?—Benefiting under this particular subhead there are 393 inmates over these seven institutions. What that is in relation to the total number of blind persons in the country, I could not readily say. There are about 7,000 blind pensioners but these are all over the age of 21.

619. Deputy P. J. Burke.—There are seven agencies catering for approximately 400. Are there any other social welfare agencies to look after the remainder except by way of social welfare pensions for the blind? I mean, is there any agency in your Department to look after the remainder of blind persons who are not looked after by these seven agencies? —Not in the Department, but the local authorities have blind welfare schemes. Under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, a number of schemes for the welfare of the blind are adopted by the local authority of every county and county borough.

I know that but it seems strange that we are looking after 400 specially, or giving special treatment to approximately 400 and another 6,600 are not being looked after, according to the statement here, which I know they are. That is a question of policy, I suppose?—I think so. So far as the Department is concerned, these are outside institutions and we are prepared to give the capitation grants on a certain basis.

620. Deputy N. Egan.—Does subhead H. —Grants towards the Supply of Fuel for Necessitous Families—apply only to Dublin?—No, it applies all over—16 cities and towns.

Deputy Lalor.—Call it the 16 biggest towns in the country, really?—Yes. I will give you the names: Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Dun Laoghaire, Balbriggan, Drogheda, Dundalk, Kilkenny, Arklow, Bray, Wicklow, Enniscorthy, New Ross, Wexford, Gorey and Dungarvan. There is a special scheme in Limerick, in addition.

621. Deputy P. J. Burke.—You mentioned Balbriggan. Is that because of the population or is it because we have town commissioners. Perhaps that is policy and I should not have asked that question.

Deputy N. Egan.—What towns qualify?

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Why pick out Balbriggan and leave out Skerries and Swords?—These are the places which have schemes in operation since the war time. They were in “non-turf” areas.

Deputy Booth.—Are these payments restricted to these areas or is it just that applications have been made only from these areas?—This was introduced under an Emergency Powers Order and there has been no decision about extending it. It is in the nature of a residual service and there is no statutory authority, or, indeed, statutory bar, as far as I can see, to having it extended but that would be a matter of policy.

It is at present restricted to these areas?—It is, yes.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—I felt that when a town of the size of Balbriggan had a scheme and other towns adjacent to it had not a scheme, that it was based on population. I wanted to clear up that point.

622. Deputy Lalor.—In the case of the 16 cities and towns where the scheme is in operation, do we take it that the scheme has been in operation for those towns from the same time or were extra towns introduced into the scheme from time to time? For how long has the scheme been in operation?—Since some time during the War—1942.

Have all those 16 cities and towns had the benefit of this scheme since that time or have some of them, say, Kilkenny, New Ross, Gorey or Enniscorthy, been introduced along the line?—All from the beginning.

Deputy N. Egan.—The people in the towns you have mentioned are getting fuel as easily and as cheaply as most other people in the turf areas now?

623. Chairman.—That is something that we can comment on in another place but we could not ask the Accounting Officer to comment on a matter like that. I notice the explanatory note says that the saving arose mainly from a reduction in the number of old age pensioners participating in the scheme. I take it that was because there was a change in the scheme, not because there were fewer pensioners but because of the introduction of another element?—It was because a number of non-contributory old age pensioners, who were entitled to receive fuel under the scheme, became entitled to contributory pensions.

624. Deputy Lalor.—Arising out of subhead I.—Grants towards the Supply of Footwear for Necessitous Children—this seems to be a grant which is consistently reducing. At least the expenditure under the subhead seems to be reducing. I take it that is as a result of the tightening up of the regulations. Is it possible for a local authority that spends more than they had provided for in their estimates to be recouped? I think the grant is 50 per cent is it not?—Yes.

Is it possible for a local authority who have estimated that they would spend £1,000 on this service and who eventually find that they would spent £1,200, to get the additional £100 grant from the Department under that heading?—Yes, providing they are operating a scheme within the regulations that are laid down.

In my county there was a manager’s order where an additional £200 was provided on a footwear scheme out of the home assistance fund. I take it that was not necessary or, if it was necessary, that the Department would provide £100 to meet that?—Yes, I think so.

625. Deputy Booth.—Is the demand for this type of assistance decreasing. I notice the estimate has been the same for the last two years. My recollection is that in a previous year the amount was underspent by about the same amount, or by a considerable amount. Is the demand for the supply of footwear growing less?—There could be an element of that in it. It is administered by the local authorities and we have not any direct knowledge on that point. It looks like it.

The demand appears to be diminishing? —Yes.

Deputy Lalor.—Would that be because the Department are making it far more difficult to qualify?—No, not altogether. There was a reorganisation of the scheme a couple of years ago.

In this particular year?—I think it was the previous year. I remember the point being mentioned last year. But, subject to that, the demands made on us are fewer.

626. Deputy Booth.—Do you have to check the claim in any way or are you satisfied, when the local authority is prepared to pay half the amount, to accept that as sufficient guarantee of good investigation by the local authority itself, or do you make special checks?—The Local Government auditor looks after that end of the matter.

Deputy Booth.—That is only on the matter of a routine check of expenditure. You do not have to undertake any special investigation of the need of the individual applicant?

Deputy Carter.—The local authority do that.

Mr. Honohan.—I suppose we could take special measures if we felt there was anything going wrong.

Deputy Booth.—If you thought it justified?—Yes.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—The county manager and the Local Government auditor see to that.

627. Chairman.—I will quote an answer to a question that was put by a previous Committee. Members may care to hear it. It was on this question of footwear. It bears out the point which Deputy Lalor raised, that is, the payment where the authority spends more than the original estimate. On 7th November, 1960, Mr. Keady was answering questions.

The Chairman asked:

“Can the Accounting Officer say that the money is allocated proportionately over each authority or is there a different basis of allocation as between one local authority and another?”

Mr. Keady replied:

“I think it is true to say that Cork, from our point of view, was overspending and the grant does not apply to the amount by which they overspent.”

In other words, the Department decides if they overspent.

Deputy Booth.—Was that before the reorganisation was carried out to which Mr. Honohan referred earlier?—Possibly.

Chairman.—In the reorganisation, does that practice still apply?—I should say not, subject to the fact that the Dáil has to vote the money and if there is a certain amount voted in the Estimate it is desirable to keep the expenditure within that amount. If more falls to be paid out under the scheme as now organised there would have to be authority from the Department of Finance to exceed the amount provided in the subhead. Subject to that I think it is correct to say that the Department would pay.

628. Would I be correct in saying the local authorities in operating this scheme operate it under rather rigid instructions issued to them governing recipients?—I think the word “rigid” might be a bit unfair. The classes who are entitled to receive this assistance are set out definitely and clearly.

Chairman.—That is what I mean by “rigid”. It is set out for them. They have not any discretion really in this matter. The figure in your estimate for the coming financial year is down to £30,000 and we are still reducing?

Deputy P. J. Burke.—The only conclusion I can come to is that it is hard to avail of this scheme now.

629. Chairman.—On subhead K.— Assistance paid in Error and Irrecoverable—what distinguishes this amount paid in error from the amount, £57,000, mentioned in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General?—These are the amounts written off within the year of account and the other figure represents amounts held in suspense in respect of previous years.

Deputy Booth.—How does that work out with the Notes on page 171 which refer to amounts treated as irrecoverable: old age pensions, £2,341; children’s allowances, £249; unemployment assistance, £2; widows’ and orphans’ non-contributory pensions, £14?—The amount under the subhead is in respect of assistance paid in error and irrecoverable and these other are cases of overpayments which were in suspense in the year of account and which were written off before the close of the Appropriation Accounts. Sanction was obtained from the Department of Finance to write them off.

The other amounts were carried forward?—Yes, quite so.

630. Could I have some information as to how the administrative costs of social assistance are borne? In Social Insurance, we have, as far as the Minister’s Office is concerned, Vote 51. They have a contribution towards administrative expenses from the Social Insurance Fund. Does the administrative cost of social assistance come under Vote 51 altogether?—The answer is yes, with the exception that there is a small contribution from the local authority in respect of unemployment assistance.

But there is no other contribution such as the contribution from the Social Insurance Fund?—No.

631. Chairman.—With regard to item No. 6 of the Appropriations in Aid— Repayments from the Social Insurance Fund of interim payments of social assistance—there was an original estimate of £334,500 and a supplementary of £100,500. What was the reason for the additional £100,000 under the heading of Supplementary?—This arose from the introduction of the old age contributory pension scheme. Naturally, after the introduction of the scheme there was a large number of applications from non-contributory pensioners for contributory pensions and while their claims were being considered they were given assistance and, in due course, when they became entitled to the contributory pension, a refund was made from the Social Insurance Fund to the Assistance Vote in respect of these payments.

632. Deputy Carter.—These would represent cases reaching the qualifying age? These claims would represent cases of persons who were reaching the qualifying age?—No. The persons approaching the qualifying age would not be entitled to any non-contributory pension.

I am referring now to people who would be making their first claim and who would be in doubt as to whether their record would entitle them to a contributory pension or not. I take it that none of these cases were people who are already on the strength, shall we say, as non-contributory old age pensioners?—Oh, yes; it was these cases in particular.

They were already in receipt of non-contributory pension?—Yes, and if they made a claim to a contributory pension they would continue to receive the non-contributory pension and then, if their claim succeeded retrospectively, the Social Insurance Fund, which pays the contributory pensions, would have to bear the charge.

They went on to the strength?—Yes.

And that sum represents the difference for the number of cases who were treated as such?—Yes, unless there was no appreciable interval which called for this adjustment. There may be cases where the matter was dealt with expeditiously.

But this arose where you had a time lag?—Yes.

633. Deputy Lalor.—Did not item No. 2 of the Appropriations in Aid—Recoveries under Section 9 (2) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, etc—cover the repayments in respect of non-contributory pensions in cases where persons qualified for contributory pension and the contributory pension was back-dated and then recovered from a reclaim in respect of the non-contributory pension? What is covered in item No. 2?—Recoveries in cash from the pensioners themselves.

Who have overdrawn?—Who have overdrawn or where there has been an error.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.

Mr. E. F. Suttle called and examined.

634. Deputy Lalor.—The explanation of the surplus in the Appropriations in Aid is that it was due to increased fees. How did they arise?—Audit fees are normally calculated on the basis of the expenses incurred in carrying out the audit. Sometimes it would be necessary to do additional work on an audit. It may be at the request of the body concerned or that we considered some extra work was necessary on the job. We calculate the fee then according to the actual amount of work carried out.

635. Chairman.—In the Note reference is made to an officer on loan, without repayment, to An Coimisiún um Athbheochan na Gaeilge. Is that officer still on loan?—He is, yes.

The Commission are drafting the report?—Yes; I understand it is coming near finality now.

The witness withdrew.

The committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XXXVIII.