Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1965 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1963 - 1964

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 13 Deireadh Fómhair, 1965.

Wednesday, 13th October, 1965.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Miss Máire Breathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

182. Deputy Healy.—The Chairman has been unavoidably delayed. I move that Deputy Cunningham take the Chair until the Chairman arrives.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Deputy Cunningham took the Chair, accordingly.

VOTE 28—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.

183. Chairman.—I feel I should ask about the Donegal flooding under the heading Charitable Donations and Bequests?—I do not think Donegal is entirely overlooked. For the past year I have had quite a considerable amount of official business with various charities in the county, for example, the Shiel Hospital and the Donegal Fair Green.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 52—HEALTH.

Mr. P. S. Ó Muireadhaigh called and examined.

184. Chairman.—On subhead D.— Expenses in connection with International Congresses, etc.—what conferences are these? —The main item of expenditure under the subhead is our contribution to the budget of the World Health Organisation which amounted to £14,320. Two delegates attended the annual assembly of the World Health Organisation. The travelling expenses of one were paid for by the World Health Organisation but his subsistence allowance and the travelling and subsistence expenses of the second delegate had to be paid from the Vote and cost £383. One delegate attended the European Regional Meeting of the World Health Organisation, which that year was held in Oslo. The cost was £96. We have joined the International Union Against Venereal Disease and our subscription to that was £36. We subscribe to the World Federation for Mental Health, £2; and £150 was paid, with the approval of the Department of Finance, towards the expenses of a plastic surgeon who was going to an international congress on plastic surgery in Washington.

185. Deputy Byrne.—Before we leave that, might I inquire if this is the first year in which we are a member of the World Health Organisation?—No; we have been a member since it was founded nearly 20 years ago.

186. Do we derive much advantage from our membership?—We get each year grants to send medical and other health personnel on visits abroad to learn new techniques. We also get technical reports which are often very useful. These are direct advantages we get from it; but we are not in it primarily to help ourselves. The World Health Organisation has done an enormous amount for the development of medical services in the developing countries.

187. Deputy Healy.—It is through this organisation that the medical officers of the various health authorities get their daily reports as to where there are infectious diseases?—Yes. They are supplied with a weekly bulletin showing where there are outbreaks of smallpox, cholera, and certain other infectious diseases.

188. Deputy Healy.—This is one of the greatest services for the prevention of disease. On subhead F.—Expenses in connection with Advisory and Consultative Bodies—why this discrepancy between the grant of £8,600 and the expenditure of only £2,387?—There is an explanation attached to the account—no meeting of certain councils was held.

189. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead G.— Grants to Health Authorities—I understand that the Department recoups 50 per cent. of the expenditure to the health authority. Is that right?—Fifty per cent. of the net approved expenditure is recouped to the health authority from the subhead.

190. Deputy Kenny.—The total expenditure shown on the document “Expenditure by Health Authorities”* with which we have been supplied is over £22 million and the grants in the Vote are roughly £11 million. Why is there this difference?—In the year in which expenditure is incurred 95 per cent. of the estimated expenditure is recouped to the health authority and 5 per cent. is held back. In the following year a further payment is made sufficient to cover, with the payments made the previous year, all but 0.5 per cent. of the ascertained but unaudited figure. The balance is held back until the accounts are audited.

191. Chairman.—I think it is customary that we get the expenditure on medicines as well?—I have a statement† which I can hand in to the Committee.

192. Deputy Treacy.—Can we have some indication as to what the “Other Services” referred to in this document are?—There is a wide variety included in that—all health services that do not come under any of the other headings. They would include salaries of county medical officers; dental services, ophthalmic and aural services; superannuation which cannot be thrown back on to other headings, salaries of health inspectors and the cost of specialist services which are not provided through officers of health authorities.

Chairman.—Could we have a note on that?

—Certainly.§

Deputy Treacy.—I think the expenditure there merits a special note.

193. Deputy Byrne.—On subhead I— Grants to Voluntary Agencies—what are these agencies?—The voluntary boarding-out agencies and certain institutions which provide care for unmarried mothers and their children. The boarding-out agencies are two: The Catholic Protection and Rescue Society and the Nursery Rescue and Protestant Children’s Aid Society. The two of these get £2,319 between them, the Catholic Protection and Rescue Society getting the lion’s share of it. Five bodies get payments under the heading of Institutions: The Magdalen Home, Donnybrook; St. Patrick’s Infant Hospital, Blackrock; the Cottage Home, Dun Laoghaire; the Bethany Home, Rathgar; and the Liberty Creche in Meath Street, Dublin. I can give the Committee the individual figures if they would like them.

Deputy Byrne.—That is hardly necessary.

194. Chairman.—On subhead J.—Grant to An Bord Altranais—there was a nil expenditure. What happened here?—An Bord Altranais did not get around to conducting an intended refresher course for nurses. This is not the only refresher course held for nurses. The Irish Nurses Organisation hold courses each year, a general nurses course and a midwives’ course, to which local authorities send their nurses. The course contemplated here has not yet been held but arrangements have been made for a commencement in the very near future.

195. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead L— Vaccine Lymph Supply—there is an expenditure of £1,500 on vaccine lymph supply and then in item 5 of the Appropriations in Aid there is reference to the recovery from the health authorities of £12,000 in respect of such supplies. Could that be clarified?—The recovery in any year is the cost of the service provided in the preceding year. In the year preceding the year we are dealing with now, the expenditure on vaccine lymph was very heavy because of the outbreaks of smallpox in Britain which necessitated our buying very considerable stocks of vaccine lymph outside the country. The £1,500 which was expended in this year was under the contract which we had with the vaccine institute in Sandymount which normally supplies all our requirements. When the explosive demand for vaccination occurred as a result of the outbreak in Britain, we had to buy abroad and very extensively.

VOTE 53—CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL.

Mr. P. S. O Muireadhaigh further examined.

Chairman.—I understand that Mr. Ó Muireadhaigh has just been appointed Accounting Officer for this Vote.

196. Deputy Jones.—On subhead E— Farm and Garden—I notice a reference to sheep-dipping facilities at a cost of £88. How many sheep are out there?—Something of the order of 20 sheep are carried. This is not being conducted as a commercial operation, as Deputies can appreciate, because the area involved is not very large. The land cannot be kept under tillage all the time and we were advised that the keeping of a number of sheep was desirable in order to help with the rotation of crops.

I take it that this is the first year for sheep?

—No, they have been kept for the last six years or so.

Deputy Byrne.—One would imagine there would be a considerable demand in that area for grazing for local butchers?—This is a security institution, so access by outside people must be kept as limited as possible.

The witness withdrew.

Deputy Jones took the Chair.

VOTE 43—TRANSPORT AND POWER.

Dr. T. Beere called and examined.

197. Chairman.—Paragraphs 73 to 80 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deal with this Vote. Paragraph 73 reads:

“Subhead D.2.—Redundancy Compensation.

73. Section 15 of the Transport Act, 1958 authorised the payment 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 were dispensed with or conditions worsened in the five year period from 16 July 1958. This period was extended to 31 March 1964 by sections 19 and 20 of the Transport Act, 1963. Including £701,481 charged to the subhead, grants issued to the Board under this section amounted to £1,603,543 at 31 March 1964. The grants paid were supported by certificates by the Board’s auditors of the amounts expended on compensation.”

Have you anything to add to this, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This is information regarding the total of compensation paid. It is a continuing process. We build up the total from year to year of the amounts paid. You will see that the total is £1,603,543.

198. Chairman.—Dr. Beere, could you break up this figure as between pensions and lump sums?—The total figure or just for the year? I can say that the lump sums—

That is for this year only?—Yes, for this year the lump sums and other payments at £701,000 are much higher than the grant, which is £400,000. Of the increase £240,000 was due to commutations which were not expected. I do not know the total of the commutations but it was more than CIE had expected it to be. That is not answering the question exactly.

Would it be possible to get these figures?— CIE provide the figures and we can ask them if they can get them taken out for you.*

Deputy Byrne.—It was a very considerable under-estimation?—It was. They commute a portion of the money and more people commuted than were expected. Another thing was that the redundancy provisions in the Act were coming to an end and there was rather a rush to avail of them. An Order was made during the year bringing in the redundant bus drivers and the Order had not been made by the Minister when CIE were preparing their estimate.

199. Chairman.—Could you say in what circumstances and to what extent pensions can be commuted?—The extent I think is one-quarter. Of course in the long run the commutation does not make any difference. It simply means that moneys are being paid out sooner. In the long run the total bill to the State is not increased.

200. Chairman.—Paragraph 74 of the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“Tourism

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

Subhead F.2.—Resort Development (Grant-in-Aid)

Subhead F.3.—Development of Holiday Accommodation (Grant-in-Aid)

74. Grants to Bord Fáilte Éireann for administration, general expenses and interest grants under section 2 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1961 and for resort development under subsection 2 (1) (a) of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1959 may not exceed in the aggregate £5,000,000 and £1,000,000, respectively; the aggregate amount of grants which may be issued to the Board for development of holiday accommodation under subsection 2 (1) (b) of the 1959 Act was increased from £500,000 to £1,500,000 by section 1 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1963. Grants under section 2 (1) 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. Grants issued to 31 March, 1964 are shown in the following statement:—

Including grants, £23,300* and £9,000† issued prior to the passing of the 1959 Act.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No; this again is the figure of the total grants paid. It gives the limits under the legislation and the amount paid to date.

201. Chairman.—Paragraph 75 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“75. Section 17 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1952 enables the Minister for Transport and Power, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to guarantee loans for various purposes in relation to the tourist industry. A statement presented to the Oireachtas in pursuance of section 24 (1) of the Act shows that, including guarantees amounting to £33,355 given in the year under review, the aggregate of guarantees was £2,154,872 at 31 March 1964. The aggregate amount of loans that may be guaranteed is limited to £5,000,000 and the Minister may not guarantee a loan after the expiration of fifteen years from the passing of the Act. An account presented to the Oireachtas indicates that no advances have been made from the Central Fund for the fulfilment of guarantees. The Minister’s contingent liability for principal of guaranteed loans outstanding was £1,796,889 at 31 March 1964.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No; again this is purely statistical information regarding the loans guaranteed by the Minister for Transport and Power.

202. Chairman.—Are grants issued by Bord Fáilte in addition to the guarantees referred to here, Dr. Beere?—Yes, both guarantees and grants.

Could you say what is the total of the grants in regard to the £1,796,889 that was guaranteed?—The guaranteed loans are quite a separate item. I would not know which hotels or enterprises also got grants.

Deputy Crowley.—Was it mainly for the erection of hotels that these loans were guaranteed?—Yes. There is a statement presented to the Oireachtas each year about the guaranteed loans. I can give you the figures for this year. There was one to Breaffy House Hotel and another to Bray Enterprises Ltd., who were providing various kinds of entertainments—resort development work in Bray. Those were the only loans given in 1963/64, although there were several undertakings to give them in the future to hotels but they did not mature in that year.

203. Deputy Kenny.—Could you tell us what did the Breaffy House get?—It got £28,855. I do not know how much it may have got by way of grants. The grants are administered by Bord Fáilte.

204. Chairman.—Would it be possible to supply the Committee with the figures for the year, against the guarantees?—You mean the grants that were given as well as the guarantees?

Yes?—No. It is part of the Bord Fáilte organisation for which I do not have to account.

It would be possible for your Department to get these for the Committee?—I suggest the Deputy might put it down by way of Parliamentary Question.

205. Of course, this is not a question of policy. I take it that the various percentages are available to the Department so that they can base the grants issued on them?—Yes. There is a brochure which is issued which shows the amounts of the grants for hotel rooms and additional facilities. The list of different types of grants which are available run to five or six pages.

That would not show the individual grants? It would not break down the grants? —No.

206. Deputy Crowley.—We would like to get a breakdown of the guarantees and the loans?—It is not a matter about which I can give any undertaking because it does not come under my responsibilities to the Committee.

Deputy Byrne.—Are we to take it that a detailed list of these grants and loans is not submitted to the Department by Bord Fáilte?—That is so. Of the guaranteed loans yes, because they are guaranteed by the Minister.

But not of the grants?—He has not got a direct function with regard to the grants.

Even as a matter of courtesy as between the Department and Bord Fáilte, it is true to say that the Board does not submit these details to the Department?—That is a fact, yes.

207. I see. Am I right in saying that Bord Fáilte submit audited accounts to the Department?—A report from Bord Fáilte is presented to the Oireachtas.

Is it subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General?—Yes.

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

208. Deputy Healy.—I just want to know is the information the Committee require available from any source?

Mr. Suttle.—I do not think it is available in any published information.

Deputy Healy.—Can we have access to it in any way? I think we should get whatever information is necessary.

Deputy Crowley.—It is very important to know who exactly was guarantor for these grants and who got the grants.

Chairman.—The Committee can consider this again. In the meantime Dr. Beere disclaims responsibility for accounting for this. The Committee can consider the matter and see whether the information which the Committee require can be made available to them.

209. Paragraph 76 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

“Subhead G.2.—Constructional Works at Airports including Furnishing of Buildings

76. Expenditure by the Department during the year on constructional works, including furnishing of buildings, at Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports amounted to £154,876, £247,220 and £58,700, respectively. The total expenditure to 31 March 1964, excluding the cost of acquisition of land, amounted to £4,298,759 for Shannon Airport, £2,958,758 for Dublin Airport and £1,141,214 for Cork Airport.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—No. Again, this is purely statistical information regarding the total cost of constructional work at the airports, Shannon, Cork and Dublin.

210. Chairman.—Can we have details of expenditure incurred during the year on the airports at Shannon, Cork and Dublin?

Dr. Beere.—Yes. In the year 1963-64 expenditure under these particular subheads was in the case of Shannon, £154,876, Dublin £247,200 and Cork £58,700.

Can we have details of the works that were involved in these expenditures?—Those will come up under subhead G. I can give you a list if you want them.

211. There is a sum of nearly £3 million for Dublin Airport. Are any other building works being carried out besides those under this subhead?—The air companies are providing a general office block for themselves, and also a hanger.

212. Deputy Kenny.—How does the cost of land acquired for airport purposes compare with the cost of agricultural land?—I could not say. The Valuation Office are our advisers on that. I know we have to pay quite a lot for land and we do not acquire any more than we can help because it is very expensive. In any case of acquisition we get the advice of the Valuation Office. I suppose they take those considerations into account.

I am sure it must be more expensive than ordinary agricultural land?—I do not know. The cost of acquiring land has gone up a great deal so far as we are concerned. Of course we have compulsory purchase powers for land for airports but we do not like invoking them.

213. Chairman.—The airport is erecting buildings on land owned by the Department? —Yes, but they pay rent for that.

Who will own the buildings?—The air company will own the buildings.

Will they pay rent to the Department for these lands?—Yes.

Deputy Byrne.—The rent is again assessed by the Valuation Office?—Well, we have a formula for the basis of estimating these rents but we have consulted the Valuation Office in the preparation of them.

It is a commercial rent?—A commercial rent, yes. In fact the air company think it is too high.

214. Chairman.—Paragraph 77 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

“Operation of Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports

77. 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):—

215. Regarding the receipts at Shannon Airport, I notice that while passenger service charges are in or about the same, landing fees are down. It strikes me there is an explanation for this.—There were fewer planes landing at Shannon during that year; that is the reason. I may say they were larger planes and included more jets. I think the receipts have improved since then. This was about our trough period. Receipts have gone up again. I know that for the last year they were very near the £600,000 again. I have not got the exact figure but it is very close to that.

Larger planes, of course, pay heavier fees? —They do, yes, graduated fees.

216. There is a very welcome and large increase in the catering fees at Dublin Airport?—Yes, Dublin did well that year, better than they had expected to do.

Is there any reason why receipts vary so much from year to year? Is it a question of the popularity of the restaurants?—I think at one time they went down a bit because there was rather keen competition. They have gone up again. In this case the company had rather underestimated receipts because the season continued later and was more favourable than expected. The last months of the year were better than anticipated.

217. They have a catering service in Cork now but did not have it earlier?—CIE had it first. Now there is another caterer. It is rented on a concession basis.

Deputy Byrne.—Is that concession at Cork put up for public tender?—Yes, always.

218. Chairman.—Paragraph 78 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

“Subhead L.1.—Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited (Grant-in-Aid)

78. Grants to the company under section 8 (1) of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited Act, 1959, including £250,000 charged to this subhead, amounted to £1,125,500 at 31 March 1964. Section 3 of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited (Amendment) Act, 1963 increased the aggregate amount of grants which may be made from £1,250,000 to £2,000,000.

The aggregate amount which the Minister for Finance may subscribe for shares under section 2 of the 1959 Act was increased by section 2 of the 1963 Act from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000, £3,000,000 including £524,000 in the year under review, has been 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; again it is purely a matter of information.

219. Deputy Kenny.—Regarding grants for houses, does the Department of Local Government act in any supervisory capacity in regard to the building of houses at Shannon Airport?—No, not now. We pay a grant towards the cost of housing. Those grants are paid with the agreement of the Department of Local Government and subject to their approval.

How does the grant compare with the Local Government grant?—It is the same.

Chairman.—Do they get Local Government grants also?—No, but they get the equivalent of the Local Government grants.

220. Is the subsidy calculated on the basis of earnings of occupants?—No. There are no differential rents. It is the difference between the rent that is reasonable for the worker to pay and the economic rent. If different tenants get equivalent accommodation they pay the same rents. They are not differential rents.

221. Would you have any information as to how the costs of these houses at Shannon compare with the local authority houses?— I am afraid I am not an authority. They are a bit more expensive at Shannon because the development costs of housing there are higher. The various services have to be developed and that makes the houses more expensive. Possibly, building costs may also be a little on the high side because of transport.

222. Deputy Healy.—What would be the average weekly rent of a three-bedroomed house in the Shannon area?—I do not think I have that information with me. I can send it to the Committee.

I should also like information on the weekly rent of four-bedroomed houses at Shannon?— I shall send that also to the Committee.*

223. Chairman.—We shall now turn to Paragraph 80 which reads:

“Subhead T.—Appropriations in Aid

80. I have asked for information regarding the recovery of sums due to the Department for landing fees, en-route communication charges, etc., at Shannon Airport, which have been outstanding for considerable periods.”

Has Mr. Suttle anything to add?

Mr. Suttle.—Two queries were issued in relation to the outstanding sums mentioned in the paragraph. The first relates to two American airlines which owe sums of £6,037 and £1,231 incurred in the periods June to November, 1959 and July to September, 1961, respectively, for landing fees, en route and class B air traffic communications et cetera. I have been informed that one company is bankrupt and that while a claim has been filed there is little likelihood of a dividend owing to outstanding tax claims. The other company which is also in financial difficulties, has not yet filed as a bankrupt.

The second matter relates to outstanding accounts for en route communication charges only. Forty-six cases amounting to £4,076 were queried. The reply shows that five amounts totalling £333 had been paid in the intervening period and that a small amount of 10s. 5d. was being considered for clearance on a basis of receipt of the same amount from an associated company. Nineteen cases amounting to £515 are listed for write-off. It is stated that practically the whole of the charge of more than £90,000 per annum is collected from the larger air companies who avail of it regularly and little or no difficulty is experienced in recovering the full amount of the charges in their case. Difficulties arise, however, in the case of minor or sporadic users. The general practice is to issue reminders three months after initial accounts and at monthly intervals thereafter.

The cost involved in pursuing some of these cases is disproportionate but efforts to collect even small sums are essential, having regard to the position of other users of the service and the necessity to avoid giving any impression that these charges can be disregarded. The percentage of bad debts is very small. It is not possible to withdraw the service from those in arrear with payments in view of the safety aspect. Department of External Affairs assistance, consisting of contacts through local interests, liquidators and so on, is sought where it appears it can produce tangible results and authority to write off is sought where it is clear further action would no longer be of value. I am satisfied the explanation is reasonable.

Dr. Beere.—They do not even land in this country. Sometimes we only have their telephone number or some address that is very difficult to understand and follow up.

Chairman.—Not get-atable?—They are not. It is very hard to identify them in the middle of a communication—whether they have paid their bills or not.

Deputy Treacy.—What retaliatory measures are adopted?

Mr. Suttle.—In view of the anxiety about safety it is not possible to adopt retaliatory measures. As Dr. Beere has told you, you cannot stop in the middle of a communication with these people to find out whether they have paid up their previous bill.

Dr. Beere.—It is really like not answering a telephone until you find out whether the other fellow has paid his telephone bill.

224. Chairman.—We shall now turn to the Vote. On subhead C.—Equipment, Stores and Maintenance—there is a note that it was not found possible during the year to complete the purchase of meteorological equipment for Cork Airport estimated at £10,000?—The equipment has since been secured but it was not at the time of accounting.

Deputy Healy.—Did the delay mean that the cost was more than £10,000?—We order our meteorological equipment through the British. They place larger orders and ordering our equipment as part of their orders means we succeed in getting cheaper rates than if we ordered in small lots on our own. There is no increase in the amount.

Deputy Byrne.—Through what British agency do we order? Is it the British Ministry?—Yes. Our orders are very small in the context of theirs.

225. Deputy Byrne.—I should like to make a point on subhead D.1.—Grant to Córas Iompair Éireann.—This is a very vexed question. We are all familiar with the annual accounts which CIE publish and circulate to all Members of the House. They are necessarily abridged. Might I inquire if elaborated accounts are made available to the Department?—We get any additional information we require for departmental purposes from CIE because they are in receipt of a subsidy. Occasionally we ask for accounts for a particular purpose, but we do not get any separate set of accounts beyond the published accounts. If we ask for a breakdown of any account, under the Act we are entitled to get additional information.

226. Deputy Byrne.—I have in mind, of course, the Road Passenger operating result announced by CIE. It is just one figure in the account. From time to time Members of the House have expressed interest in such matters as the operating profit in the Dublin area or in the Cork area as distinct from the global picture. Specific Parliamentary Questions have been put down in relation to Cork city operations and Dublin city operations and we have been denied the information sought. It would appear that if that information is not already in the Minister’s hands, it is most certainly available to him, and it may be a matter for this Committee to consider subsequently whether we should take this up with the Minister as a question of fundamental principle.

Chairman.—I think at this stage the position is that Dr. Beere says they can get information on specific points if they require it. Deputy Byrne wants to be able to obtain more detailed information in regard to any particular service or portion of a service.

Deputy Byrne.—I do not necessarily mean in any particular area. CIE inevitably have, I presume, figures for the Dublin area and the Cork area. They undoubtedly show an operating profit in Dublin City and Cork City. These figures have never been made available to us.

Chairman.—This Committee cannot be used to obtain information which cannot be got in the Dáil. We are required to deal with the accounts, and if information cannot be got in the Dáil by way of reply to a Parliamentary Question, then this Committee itself cannot be used to obtain the information that is not available.

Deputy Byrne.—I appreciate that. There are aspects of the matter I might like to bring before the Committee when we are preparing our report.

Chairman.—It can be referred to at that stage.

227. Deputy Treacy.—With regard to subhead D.2.—Redundancy Compensation—we have adverted to this matter earlier in the discussion. I am concerned at the size of the redundancy problem and that it should have been so grossly underestimated. I would very much welcome a detailed report as to the various categories of employees involved. The estimate is nearly half the amount required. I wonder why there should be such an underestimation of a very human problem of this kind. Could we have a more detailed explanation of it?—I can give some information on that. It is a matter for each individual person to decide whether he is going to take portion of his compensation in a lump sum. The company do not know how much is going to be claimed in commutation sums until a person is redundant and decides how much he wants to be paid by way of lump sum. During this particular year and after the estimates had been prepared the redundancy compensation provisions were extended by Ministerial order to several groups of workers, including bus workers involved in the one-man bus services. There were a number of orders made at different times. For instance, in the year 1963/64 which we are dealing with, the period of validity of the compensation proposed was extended by legislation to 31st March, 1964. The compensation provisions were extended to the Secretary’s Office of CIE by an Order made on the 28th February, 1963, and to one-man bus operation on scheduled services on the 28th May, 1963. Therefore, at the time the estimates were prepared the company did not know the number of orders that might be made and the classes of workers who might become eligible.

228. Have you any figures as regards the categories involved?

I would have estimates in the Department of the numbers in each category likely to be involved but I have not got the actual number in each case. The claims would go to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I do not have them. The amounts are paid under the statutory provisions.

Could we secure the information?

Mr. Suttle.—In support of these charges, we get a certificate from the auditors of CIE as to the amount paid. The auditors certify that the amount is paid and that it is in accordance with legislation. We do not go back behind that. We do not get detailed information as to the numbers involved. We accept it once we get the auditor’s certificate that the money was paid and that it is in accordance with legislation.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— Have we no information as to the number declared redundant in the course of a number of years?

Mr. Suttle.—No.

229. Deputy Treacy.—I should like to know the number who are redundant as against those who opted for retirement?—This will not arise again. Under the last Act any compensation payable is now paid direct from CIE funds to any people who are newly redundant. Payments will, however, continue to be made from State funds to people who were already entitled to redundancy compensation under the Acts. We will not be dealing with the people who become eligible for compensation from CIE under the 1964 Act.

230. Might I ask if Dr. Beere would agree that the expenditure under this heading was in the main very largely due to the operation of the one-man buses?—No, because £240,000 out of £300,000 is due to commutation.

Deputy Treacy.—I would be very grateful if further information could be obtained in regard to this.

Chairman.—When we come to consideration of the matter perhaps the Deputy would refer to it again.

231. Deputy Molloy.—In regard to subhead E.—Grants for Harbours—I would like to inquire why only 25 per cent. of the total grant was expended on harbours? The report for 1962/63 says:

During the year, payments were made in respect of eight different harbours but there were considerable savings, the principal one being Galway where the work had not commenced. There was a saving of £58,000 there. Of course the expenditure will arise the following year.

I assume this is the following year. The total expenditure is only £36,121. It is stated in the explanation that works at three harbours did not commence during the year while progress on works at three other harbours was slower than anticipated?—That is the same thing that has occurred this year. We do not do the work directly in the Department. The work is done by the harbour authorities which are separate public authorities. They employ, in all cases, consultant engineers. When we come to prepare the Harbour Vote we get estimates from these harbour authorities as to how far they expect to get with the work in that particular year. Harbour works are continuously subject to difficulties. For instance, in that year we had expected expenditure of £7,000 for Arklow which they did not incur in that particular year because they found they had to get a model plan made of the harbour. That is slow and you do not get any results for some time. Therefore, the expenditure did not arise. In the case of Drogheda they found that additional technical information and tests were required. We only spent in Drogheda about half of what the estimate was. We rely on the estimates we get from the harbour authorities and from their engineers. Galway also proceeded more slowly but I believe it will be finished this year. They had to revise their contract documents on the River Moy. I believe there was some fault in the levels there, so that, while we had expected to pay out £15,000, we did not get any claim from them. In Sligo they got tenders which were not acceptable so we also had a saving there. In Wicklow the expenditure was less than we expected but I believe the work will also be completed this year. Most of these works take about three years or sometimes longer to complete and it is just a case of how quickly the authority gets ahead with them.

232. Deputy Molloy.—Can we have the amount expended on Galway Harbour in that year?—£4,800.

233. Deputy Treacy.—What other harbours are likely to benefit under these grants?— In 1963-64 there was expenditure on Cork, Drogheda, Galway, Wicklow and then there were minor items coming to less than £1,000 at other harbours in that particular year.

234. Chairman.—I notice in the explanation of subhead F.1.—Grant Under Section 2 of the Tourist Traffic Act, 1961 (Grant-in-Aid)—that hotel interest grant payments by Bórd Fáilte were lower than expected. I take it that is the case and they did not seek the grants?—That is right.

235. Deputy Molloy.—Under subhead F.2. —Resort Development (Grant-in-Aid)—could I have an explanation of the expenditure of this money?—The Resort Development Fund is also administered by Bórd Fáilte. We do not deal with the different payments but, in response to representations made to the Minister by Deputies some years ago, there is now an attachment at the back of the Bórd Fáilte Report with the details of the amounts expended on different resort developments.

236. Deputy Byrne.—I do not quite understand the distinction between subhead F.2.—Resort Development (Grant-in-Aid)— and subhead F.3.—Development of Holiday Accommodation (Grant-in-Aid). Could that be explained to us?—Subhead F.2 is resort development such as the work done in Salthill, the provision of shelters, swimming pools and so on. Subhead F.3.—Development of Holiday Accommodation—comprises grants of 20 per cent, of the cost of new hotel bedrooms, subject to certain maxima and grants to cover the cost of installation of bathrooms, toilets and so on; grants of 20 per cent. of the cost of providing staff accommodation in hotels; grants of 20 per cent. of the cost of providing general purpose rooms, putting greens and so on. At the beginning of 1964 there were extensions of these grant schemes to other categories not previously eligible, such as guesthouses but they did not come into the financial figures for 1963-64.

237. Deputy Healy.—Under subhead G.1. —Acquisition of Land, Buildings, etc.—I was wondering has the land at Cork Airport been acquired?—The land in Cork has since been acquired.

238. Deputy Treacy.—Under subhead G.2. —Constructional Works at Airports including Furnishing of Buildings—could we have some statement as to why the grant in question was not expended and why so much is left over, i.e., £219,204?—In that year we could not undertake all the projected works partly because of staffing difficulties and partly due to certain problems which arose in the coordination of the accommodation requirements of the very large number of interests which are concerned in work at the airports. Some work which was in hand did not progress as rapidly as we had hoped because we had certain difficulties with the contractors in getting work finished, the contractors claiming they had difficulty in getting the labour force they required. In some cases there were delays awaiting supplies of necessary materials. We are trying to improve the position of the staff recruitment. In that particular year, for instance, in the Grade 2 Engineers category where there were four posts we had only three; in the Grade 3 Engineers category where there were 11 posts we had only eight. In the assistant architects category where there were nine posts we had six, and in relation to architects’ assistants where there were eight posts we had only five filled.

Deputy Treacy.—Can Dr. Beere say if the position has improved?—In some of the grades there is an improvement but I do not think the difficulty has been confined to the Civil Service in endeavouring to get engineers and architects.

Chairman.—Am I right in saying that these problems affect three airports, Dr. Beere?— Yes, we may have to divert staff from one airport to another if very heavy traffic renders certain works particularly urgent.

Did these problems affect the effectiveness of the airports in any way?—The amenities would have been better, had we been able to get the work finished because, at certain times, there is congestion.

239. Deputy Byrne.—Do you employ outside consulting architects in addition to your own staff?—No. There is a tremendous amount of coordination to be done between each of the different services in an airport.

Have there been cases where outside consultants have been employed?—Consulting engineers have been employed.

How are their fees scaled in such circumstances?—The Institute scale. We would always consult the Board of Works on any question of doubt in that respect.

Is all the work put out to public tender?— Practically all the work.

240. Chairman.—In the explanation of subhead H.2.—Fuel, Water, Light and Cleaning at Airports—I notice that Cork, with its usual efficiency, has introduced a more economic cleaning arrangement at Cork Airport than elsewhere?—That is really due to the fact that previously we had a yearly contract and now, having a five-year contract, we get a better rate.

241. In the explanation of subhead J.— Catering and Sales Service Shannon Airport— Provision of Working Capital (Grant-in Aid)—is interest paid on the working capital provided?—Yes. Working capital was provided on one previous occasion and additional working capital was not required this year.

242. Deputy Byrne.—Subhead M.1. concerns Wreck and Salvage, Relief of Distressed Seamen, etc. Does the Royal National Lifeboat Institution receive any assistance from the Department under any heading?—No. We do not give them any assistance. We have arrangements about the use of telephones with them. That is all, I think.

243. Chairman.—Subhead N. refers to Expenses in connection with International Organisations. Of the sum expended, £72,430, how much would be for travelling and how much would be say, for subsistence allowances and contributions to organisations?—The travelling expenditure under subhead N was £10,407. The subscriptions totalled £62,000.

244. Subhead T. concerns Appropriations in Aid. Do you intend to continue in service the passenger hostels at Shannon referred to at item 9?—We are having a report prepared and a special examination made. We have reduced the accommodation available very considerably. The passenger hostels have, I think, practically outlived their usefulness. They are very old now. We are seeing if there is any purpose to which they can be put.

245. We now come to the Notes to this Account. Note No. 3 relates to the writing off of a loan and interest charges issued to the Lisdoonvarna and Rooska Spa Wells Trust. What was the amount of the loan and what circumstances led to this accumulation of interest?—It was originally a loan of £6,700. It was made to the Lisdoonvarna and Rooska Spa Wells Trust between 1944 and 1947 by the old Irish Tourist Association. It was made from moneys advanced to the Association by the Minister for Finance. None of the principal of the loan was ever repaid and there was only one payment of interest. The sum outstanding at the time of this write-off was £13,000. Various proposals were made from time to time but there appeared to be no prospect of securing any part of the repayment of the debt. Bórd Fáilte were very anxious that Lisdoonvarna, which was doing reasonably well as a resort, should attract more traffic to the Spa. But energetic people would not be attracted to work up the Spa when it was burdened with such a load of debt. So, as there was no prospect of getting anything of this mounting debt paid, it was considered that these sums should, with the consent of the Department of Finance, be written off, and that no interest charges should accrue for some years to allow time for the resort to develop.

That would be the probable position in 1973, I suppose?—Yes, 1st January, 1973.

We cannot expect much more to happen until 1973?—We hope Lisdoonvarna will be well on the map by then.

246. Note No. 4 refers to the waiving of fees and rent in respect of a former concessionaire of the car park at Shannon Airport. Have you anything further to say, Dr. Beere?—That was a case of bankruptcy. A receiver was put in and we had to advertise the concession again, a rather difficult business. There were questions of ownership of property, etc. Really as an obligement to the Department, the Receiver continued operations until the new concessionaire was appointed. He was doing it at a bad time, during the winter months.

247. Deputy Byrne.—Has the fee referred to at item 20 of the Appropriations in Aid yet been received?—No, it has not. It is still in abeyance. So far, the hotel concerned has not proceeded.

In fact, they have not got the guaranteed loan?—No. They have not made the application for it.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix X

† See Appendix XI

§ See Appendix XII

* See Appendix XIII

* See Appendix XIII.