|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 22 Iúil, 1965.Thursday, 22nd July, 1965.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY JONES in the chair. Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. J. R. Whitty (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 29—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.Mr. J. Garvin called and examined.110. Chairman.—Paragraph 34 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead E.2.—Grants under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1962 and the Housing (Loans and Grants) Act, 1962 34. £2,750,000 was provided for grants for the purchase, erection, reconstruction and improvement of dwelling houses and, as shown in the account, payments during the year amounted to this sum. In the course of audit I observed that grants totalling £13,849 which were authorised for payment on 23 March 1964 were not paid until 1 April 1964; and as these grants appeared to have been fully matured liabilities for the year 1963-64, I have asked for an explanation.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—The paragraphs are to bring to notice the breach of the rule which has been already referred to at the previous meeting of the Committee that payment of fully matured liabilities should not be postponed even for the purpose of avoiding an excess Vote. In the cases under review the accounting officer has acknowledged that the payments should have been made on due date and he will ensure that payments will not be postponed in future. Deputy Healy.—Is this the first time this has occurred?—It has occurred on and off— once in ten years. Was it the same person?—Oh, no. This is the first time in this connection?— Yes, That covers both paragraph 34 and 35. 111. Chairman.—Paragraph 35 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead F.—Acquisition of Land (Allotments) (Amendment) Act, 1934 35. It was noted in the course of audit that £367 payable to an Urban District Council in respect of the provision of allotments for unemployed persons was authorised for payment during the year. Of this amount only £315 was paid and payment of the balance was postponed to 1964-65. I have asked the Accounting Officer for an explanation.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—The same explanation as applied in paragraph 34. 112. Chairman.—Paragraph 36 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead G.—Payments towards the Cost of Public Sanitary Service Works and Private Water Supply and Sewerage Facilities 36. As from 1 July 1963 the scheme operated by the Department of Agriculture for the provision of domestic water supplies in farm dwellings was taken over by the Department of Local Government. The Department of Agriculture continues to operate the scheme of grants towards the cost of providing water supplies to farmyards and farms. (See paragraph 52).” What is the position there? I assume that, for convenience, the scheme operated by the Department of Agriculture was taken over by the Department of Local Government? Mr. Garvin.—Yes. There was a tendency for the two schemes to overlap. The Department of Agriculture was giving grants for the provision of water supplies to farmsteads, and naturally there would be a tendency to supply both the domestic interior requirements and the dairy outdoor requirements. In so far as their scheme related to the provision of domestic water supplies it has been taken over by the Department of Local Government, which had already been operating schemes of private group water supplies and individual water supplies to houses. 113. Are there two sets of inspectors? Do the Department of Local Government and the Department of Agriculture maintain their own inspectors?—Yes. The Department of Agriculture continue to provide water for dairy and cattle requirements and the general water requirements of a farm. They have their own inspectors for that purpose. I presume the cases they deal with are entirely different from those for which the Department of Local Government give grants. When the amalgamation was under consideration, we suggested we would take over their technical staff, but we were assured by the Department of Agriculture that they would still require the use of their staff. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).—There could be a reason for that. Supply to outhouses might be a specialised thing under agricultural development. 114. Chairman.—What is the position in regard to a common supply? I am thinking of the person who sinks a well to supply the farm buildings and then a branch is taken off for a domestic supply. Do your inspectors concern themselves with the source of supply? —In regard to the domestic supply, they would be concerned with the source and the purity and potability of the water and the local authorities are advised to assist in relation to bacteriological and other tests. 115. Paragraph 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead J.—Grant to the Road Fund 37. The Road Fund (Grants) (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1962, as amended by the Finance Act, 1963, provides for the making of grants not exceeding £900,000 to the Road Fund during the period of five years beginning on 1 April 1961. Including the amount of £150,000 charged to the subhead the total paid to 31 March 1964 was £500,000.” I take it these special grants are nonrecurring?—They were for that particular purpose. They will not recur. 116. Paragraph 38 of the Report reads: “Motor Vehicle Duties, etc. 38. A test examination of the revenue from motor vehicle duties, etc., was carried out with satisfactory results. The reports of the Local Government auditors who examine the motor tax transactions of local authorities are made available to me. The gross proceeds in 1963-64 amounted to £8,187,059 compared with £7,407,520 in the previous year. They include fines amounting to £93,482 collected by the Department of Justice and £8,200 in respect of fees received under the Road Traffic Act (Parts VI and VII) (Fees) Regulations, 1937 and the Road Traffic Act, 1961, Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations, 1963. Included also are £63,502 received from Government Departments in respect of State owned vehicles. £8,238,000 was paid into the Exchequer and £22,830 directly into the Road Fund. £18,354 was refunded, leaving a balance of £48,816 as compared with £140,941 at the end of the previous financial year.” 117. I notice towards the end of that paragraph that £22,830 was paid directly into the Road Fund. Is that a usual thing?—It occurs occasionally. Is there any particular reason why it should be done in that fashion?—No. There are certain payments in lieu of tax received from Government Departments and Offices, in respect of State-owned vehicles and lodged to the Central Motor Tax Account. The £22,830 should have been paid to this Account. 118. Deputy Healy.—£18,000 was refunded. By whom? Is it by the Exchequer? —Yes. It is in recoupment of the refunds of licence duty made out of the Road Fund in 1962/63. Mr. Suttle.—When the tax licence is surrendered, if the car is completely wrecked, you can get a refund of portion of the tax and those figures are the refunds. 119. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— On subhead J.—Grant to the Road Fund— I notice the expenditure was £400,000 less than granted. How did that come about?— That was based upon an announcement by the Minister for Finance in connection with his Budget for the year in question. Chairman.—We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Garvin. The witness withdrew. VOTE 49—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE.Mr. W. A. Honohan called and examined.120. Chairman.—On subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—have you got many vacancies still, and do you intend to fill these vacancies?—You mean in the year of account? Yes.—There were 56 unfilled vacancies at the end of the year of account, mostly clerical officer posts, as recruitment to that grade had ceased. Are you able to carry on without them?— We are doing the best we can. Has there been any diminution of the service in any way by reason of the vacancies not being filled?—I should say not. VOTE 50—SOCIAL INSURANCE.Mr. W. A. Honohan further examined.121. Chairman.—Paragraph 92 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead A.—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952 92. Payments from this subhead to the Social Insurance Fund in the year under review amounted to £8,861,666. These payments are subject to adjustment when the audited accounts of the Fund are available.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle? Deputies have a copy of the Accounts of the Social Insurance Fund.* Mr. Suttle.—As will be seen from the accounts of the Social Insurance Fund, the statutory contribution to the Fund in respect of the year 1963-64 was £8,858,107. This sum represents approximately 39 per cent. of the Fund expenditure for the year. 122. Are contributions from employers and insured persons producing a steady proportion of the total requirements of the Fund? Mr. Honohan.—Yes. That appears in the Fund Account. 123. How does the proportion which the Exchequer has to pay compare with previous years?—The amount paid by the Exchequer is nearly £9 million out of a total expenditure of about £23 million. It is something like 40 per cent. Has it remained about the same compared with previous years?—I think so. There is a tendency now for it to go down. 124. The Exchequer amount is going down? —Yes. Would that be to any considerable extent? —Yes, it is of the order of one per cent. or two per cent. I can give you figures if you like. In the year of account with which we are concerned, to March, 1964, the percentage was 38-96, or 39 per cent. In the following year it was 37-3 per cent. and in the current year it is estimated at 37-4. Deputy Healy.—Do I understand the second figure was 37.3 and the last one was 37-4?—The last figure is an estimated figure for the current year, that is, 37.3 per cent. to 31st March, 1965 and the estimated figure for the current year, to 31st March, 1966 is 37-4, but that excludes the provisions going through the Oireachtas at the moment. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).—Does that take into consideration the higher charges coming into operation on 1st January? —No, the figure of 37.4 per cent. does not, but we estimate that when the new arrangements come into effect the percentage which the Exchequer will bear to the total annual expenditure on social insurance will be of the order of 35-3 per cent. 125. Chairman.—Paragraph 93 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “93. I observed that the internal audit of disability benefit payments carried out by the Department of Social Welfare had been discontinued as from May 1963. As my examination of sums disbursed is governed by the character and extent of the internal audits, reports of which are available to me, I communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter. I was informed that staff engaged on audit duties had been loaned to another section which was under considerable pressure due to the extension of the scope of the Children’s Allowances Scheme and that the audit has now been resumed.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add to the information in the paragraph. Deputy P. Byrne.—Are your requirements being met? Mr. Suttle.—Yes. VOTE 51—SOCIAL ASSISTANCE.Mr. W. A. Honohan further examined.126. Chairman.—Paragraph 94 of the Report reads: “94. Sums received in respect of over-payments charged in prior years’ accounts were:—£24,776 in cash credited to Appropriations in Aid and £7,074 withheld from current entitlements. Overpayments amounting to £3,955 were treated as irrecoverable. The total amount of over-payments not disposed of at 31 March 1964 was £62,171 as compared with £65,114 at 31 March 1963. During the year 40 individuals were prosecuted for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain social assistance and convictions were secured in 37 cases.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—This is the usual statistical information I give each year regarding over-payments of assistance. 127. Deputy P. Byrne.—How many cases of over-payments were there?—I have not got the total number of cases. There was a small number of prosecutions but the numbers of overpayments would be very considerable. Would you have them, Mr. Honohan? Mr. Honohan.—There would be very considerable numbers, mostly for small amounts. I do not know whether we have the figure, but I should think not. Deputy P. Byrne.—They involve trifling amounts?—Sometimes, yes. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).—How many prosecutions were there?—There were 40. 128. Deputy Molloy.—In regard to subhead F.—Grants under the School Meals (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1930 and 1933—there was a grant of £10,000 and £8,137 of it was spent. The note says that expenditure by certain local authorities was less than anticipated. May I ask the names of the local authorities which spent less than was anticipated?—This is a Gaeltacht scheme. There are only five local authorities concerned in all and of these Cork West, Donegal, Galway and Kerry spent less than anticipated. The fifth was Mayo which spent slightly more. Is there a certain figure estimated for each of these areas?—Yes. 129. What was estimated for Galway?— The sum of £10,000 is divided between the different local authorities on the basis of estimated attendances at schools. In that way these four local authorities did not spend the amount estimated. Can you give me a figure?—I can tell you that the total cost of the Galway meals was £3,278 in respect of a daily attendance of 3,993 at 86 schools. The number of meals served was 428,857. You have not given me a complete answer? —I am afraid I have not got the figure the Deputy requires.* I can say that there was one school fewer than in the previous year. The cost of meals varies. It may be lower than we had anticipated. The figure for Galway is nearly one-third of the total expenditure?—Yes. They still did not use up the full amount they could have had?—No. 130. Deputy P. Byrne.—Are the children provided with hot meals?—Generally, the meals consist of hot cocoa with milk and sugar, buns and bread and butter or jam. 131. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Under subhead G.—Welfare of the Blind—there is a sum of £1,275 less than granted. This is my special concern, and I should like to know why the full grant was not spent. Is it that there were not applications for it?—It was estimated there would be an increase in the number of inmates in the institutions and this did not occur to the extent anticipated. 132. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— In regard to subhead H.—Grants towards the Supply of Fuel for Necessitous Families —are these the grants paid to old people in certain places? There is a winter fuel grant given in certain towns and not in others?— It is not just in certain towns; it is a general scheme. Deputy Healy.—It is all over the country. Chairman.—Is it confined to urban areas? Deputy P. J. Burke.—In County Dublin it is confined to urban areas. Balbriggan has it but other towns have not got it. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).—It is given to certain towns and not to others?—Yes. Deputy Healy.—It is; they do not give it to all towns, anyway. Chairman.—Deputy Hogan got a list in reply to a Parliamentary Question and certain places were mentioned and certain places did not get it?—I am sorry; I said it was a general scheme, but it really applied in what were non-turf areas during the emergency. It is in such towns that the scheme applies. 133. Chairman.—On subhead I.—Grants towards the supply of Footwear for Necessitous Children—in regard to the supply of footwear, have the regulations varied in any way in regard to the persons who qualify?— Not in the year of account, and not since, I think. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— Is this scheme in operation throughout the entire country?—Yes. The witness withdrew. VOTE 30—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called and examined.134. Chairman.—Paragraph 39 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead F.2.—University Scholarships Local authorities providing university and post-primary scholarships are entitled under section 4 of the Local Authorities (Education Scholarships) (Amendment) Act, 1961, to grants from voted moneys. The grants paid in the year under review in respect of both classes of scholarships amounted to £59,054 of which one-third is charged to this subhead in respect of university scholarships and the balance to subhead D of Vote 32—Secondary Education.” Has the Comptroller and Auditor General any additional remarks to make? Mr. Suttle.—This is the first time the State has subsidised expenditure by local authorities on secondary and university scholarships. Payments in the year under review were limited to the equivalent of a penny in the £ on local rates. The limit in the second year is increased to twopence in the £, to 3½d. in the third year and thereafter to a maximum of 5d. in the £. Deputy Healy.—Do the local authorities pay pound for pound?—It is on a scholarship basis. Mr. Suttle.—The rules for the calculation of the grants by the local authorities are laid down in the Act. Do I take it the amount of the grant depends on the contribution from the local authority?—In some of these cases the local authority could pay more than pound for pound. 135. Chairman.—Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh, Deputy Healy wants to know whether the expenditure on scholarships by the Department is matched pound for pound with the contributions made by the local authorities? Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—It is matched up to 2d. in the pound. After that the local authority give 3d. and we give 3½d. When the local authority gives 4d. we give 5d. There is nothing, however, to prevent a local authority giving more if it feels like it. Deputy Healy.—I am sure the local authority are not likely to offer more. 136. Deputy Crowley.—I do not see any explanation why the expenditure on subhead A.1.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—was less than that granted?—That was due to the occurrence of some unavoidable delays in filling vacancies. A number of those were technical vacancies. These sometimes take a very long time, six months or more, to fill. Deputy Briscoe.—How many vacancies exist at the moment and what is the situation? Is it affecting efficiency?—It is reasonably up-to-date at the moment. I cannot say exactly how many vacancies there are but we have it fairly up-to-date. 137. Deputy Briscoe.—I notice in the notes to subhead A.2.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—that expenditure in connection with foreign travel and incidental expenses was greater than anticipated. By whom was this foreign travel undertaken?—The foreign travel was undertaken mainly by officers of the Department but also by some such representatives as teachers, university professors and so on. 138. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— On subhead A.3—Expenses in connection with the Commission on Higher Education— has this Commission continued its investigations? Has it kept its work up-to-date?—We understand it has. We expect and hope that they will report in the autumn. 139. Deputy P. Byrne.—On subhead A.4. —Expenses in connection with the Council of Education—is the Council still in existence? —It exists, technically speaking, but no meetings were held during the year under review. 140. On subhead B.2.—Expenses in connection with OECD Survey—when may we expect this Survey?—Very shortly. It is completed, and we probably would have had it out this month but for the printers’ strike. It will be out very shortly after the strike is over. 141. Deputy Crowley.—On subhead F.2.— University Scholarships—how many scholarships were not renewed?—In all, 23. When we made the Estimate, we allowed for only six scholarships not being renewed. What type of scholarships mainly were not renewed?—Twenty open and three Gaeltacht scholarships. Is there any particular reason for this?— Of the 23 non-renewals, three Gaeltacht and five open failed to fulfil the conditions for renewal, and 15 of the open scholarships did not seek renewal. Deputy Healy.—What universities did not take up scholarships or what schools did not take up university scholarships? Chairman.—It was individuals who failed or did not wish to continue. 142. Deputy Molloy.—Do the Gaeltacht scholarships apply only to University College, Galway?—Mainly so, but some of them could go to other Colleges. The Fíor-Ghaeltacht scholarship holders may attend a Faculty in another College if there is not any provision for such through Irish in Galway. For example, they may go to another College for a medical course. 143. Deputy P. Byrne.—On subhead F.3. —Grants to Colleges providing Courses in Irish—does this relate to summer courses entirely?—Yes, 33 colleges. Is it on a capitation basis?—Yes. What is the rate?—I cannot say at the moment but I can let the Committee have the figure.* I should be obliged if you would?—The number of students increased from 9,364 in the previous year to 10,700 in 1963. 144. Deputy Crowley.—On subhead F.4.— Grants to Periodicals published in Irish and Newspapers publishing current News in Irish—can you say what were the newspapers concerned?—The list is: Inniu, Comhar, Feasta, An t Ultach, Ar Aghaidh, Tir na n-Óg, Galvia, Timire an Chroi Naofa, Amárach, and certain newspapers circulating in the Gaeltacht. Chairman.—The same question was asked last year and the Deputy will be able to find the list on page 185 of last year’s Report of the Committee. Does that meet the Deputy’s point? Deputy Crowley.—It does indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 145. Deputy P. J. Burke.—What is the general basis of the grants? With what yardstick do you measure the grants?—Generally we try to base the grant on whether the people concerned are making a good effort. That is how the thing started. We tried to encourage them. Most of these grants began quite a while ago, and they have been increasing as they needed more staff or more advertising, or as their other expenses have been climbing upwards. Deputy P. Byrne.—Do you take account of circulation?—We do, yes. 146. Deputy P. Byrne.—On subhead F.7. —Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge (Grantin-Aid)—what was the purpose of the Supplementary Grant?—The Supplementary Grant was to meet commitments for salary increases and increases in administrative expenses. There was also some extension in the aid given to voluntary bodies concerned with Irish. It was syphoned through the other voluntary bodies. Could we have information about the other voluntary bodies?—I have not that information. I think they give aid to Comhairle Dramaíochta na Scol—school drama—trade union classes and activities of that sort. The aid they give is small, what they can spare where they see there is a chance of encouraging some voluntary activity or some other group. 147. Did Comhdháil Náisiúnta bear any part of the costs of the referendum, the census of opinion, taken last year?—I would not know that. It is a Grant-in-Aid and so I cannot tell the Deputy whether they did or not. 148. Are the accounts of Comhdháil Náisiúnta submitted to you?—They submit their proposed activities in a general way and they show us their expenses for the previous year’s work, under various headings. Assistance towards such a thing as the referendum, if it occurred, would probably appear under the heading of incidentals or something of that sort. In other words they do not submit detailed audited accounts to you?—This is a Grant-in-Aid and they would submit such accounts to us when seeking a grant for the following year, but the accounts do not necessarily tell us every detail. Some things would be under the heading of Miscellaneous or Incidentals. We know the larger sums. We could tell the cost of salaries but we would not know the smaller activities. They would give you a break-down if you required it?—They would, indeed. This is an annual item? Chairman.—Yes, it is a co-ordinating body for a number of bodies dealing with various aspects?—Yes. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).—I think what Deputy Byrne is anxious to know is, do you get properly audited accounts?—They have their accounts fully audited each year but they do not have to submit them to us, it being a Grant-in-Aid. In fact, however, they show us the audit sheet every year because they would be seeking the same grant, or more, in the following year. The procedure is that we ask them what they did in the previous year, how they spent the money. 149. Deputy P. Byrne.—Have they any other source of revenue apart from the grant?—I do not know. I do not think so. 150. If, in fact, the State is their main source of revenue, it would appear to be appropriate that their accounts should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General as is the practice with other bodies similarly financed. Chairman.—That would not be within the province of this Committee. Our function as a Committee is to inquire into the expenditure for which the accounting officer is responsible. In regard to a Grant-in-Aid, which might be policy, we would have to pursue that in the House when the appropriate Vote would come up. It is not within the province of the Committee to express an opinion on these matters. The accounting officer is here to account for expenditure. Deputy P. Byrne.—I appreciate that. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— Do they occupy a special position? Chairman.—The accounting officer hands out a sum as a Grant-in-Aid to the body. He discharges his responsibility when he passes out the Grant-in-Aid. He passes it on to the body set up to receive it. Mr. Suttle.—It is up to the Dáil in voting the Grants-in-Aid to lay down any conditions they like. The only condition here is that they carry out their functions. Deputy P. Byrne.—The matter becomes one of greater moment as the grant increases. 151. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead F.8.— Dramatic Productions in Irish (Grants-in-Aid)—I am trying to find out exactly where this money is spent. Perhaps Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh could explain?—£3,550 of it goes to An Comhair Drámaíochta, that is, the Abbey Theatre, for producing the Christmas Pantomime in Irish and a number of one-act plays and £2,000 goes to Cumann Drámaíochta na Scol, that is, the Primary Schools Drama League. I have seen that in the explanation of the Estimate. The reason I query it is to find out whether there is a grant given to Taidhbheare na Gaillimhe. We have pantomimes there and plays all the year round?—Grants are also given to Taidhbhearc na Gaillimhe but that matter has now passed from our Department. 152. Deputy P. Byrne.—On subhead G.2. —Royal Irish Academy of Music (Grant-in-Aid)—purely as a matter of interest and for the information of the Committee, I understand the account of the Royal Irish Academy of Music is, in fact, audited by the Local Government Auditor? Mr. Suttle.—That is possible. It is a very old body and frequently bodies like that are audited by the Local Government Auditors because, when they were set up, there were no other official auditors available. That applies also in the case of the accounts of the funds of Charitable Donations and Bequests which are also audited by the Local Government Auditors. It is an old tradition more than anything else. It is of interest to note with regard to the Royal Irish Academy of Music that a public or official audit is carried out, whereas the same policy is not applied to the body we were considering under subhead F.7.—Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge?—Again, it is a question of tradition. The Comhdháil Náisiúnta probably had auditors before they ever got a State grant. 153. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On subhead G.4.—Catholic Workers’ College (Grant-in-Aid)—I should like to know how this body which is doing such good work is administered. Why is it a sum of £2,000 is paid and is it the same every year? How do you give it out to the number of pupils in St. Patrick’s College? Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—We base it on the estimated deficit in the College account for the year concerned. 154. On subhead G.5.—Royal Zoological Society of Ireland (Grant-in-Aid)—I should like to know a little more about why this grant is given, and how it is given. Is there a special demand for it or is it a statutory matter that we have decided to give them £2,000 each year? For what purpose is it given?—For many years they got a grant of £1,000 and then some years ago they found that they were incurring a deficit. They came to the Department and made a case for an increase and we found they needed, in relation to expenses, another £1,000. There is an educational element in their activities, we feel, and we are glad to be able to pay them this amount. Deputy P. J. Burke.—It is a very worthy cause, and I just wanted to know how this was being done. 155. Deputy Briscoe.—In relation to subhead G.7.—Overseas Club (Grant-in-Aid)— I should like to know where exactly is the Overseas Club. Is it here in Ireland and is it for the benefit of overseas people; what exactly is it?—It is a club which was originally organised by the Legion of Mary to assist the Afro-Asian students in Ireland. They had an annual deficit, and we felt it our duty, as they were students here, to come to their aid. We make up the deficit for them. 156. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On subhead G.8.—Scientific Research Grants to Students —I should like to know how this money is given out. Is it given to the colleges or to the students themselves?—There is a committee, under the Chairmanship of the Chief Inspector of the Department of Education, which consists of representatives of the various University Colleges. They decide on the amount to be awarded, based on the results of the students’ degree examinations. The amount is awarded direct to the student but he will be working in a post-graduate course in one of the Colleges. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— Does it apply only to university students?—Yes. 157. Deputy P. Byrne.—On subhead G.9. —Student Exchange Scholarships—are these exchange scholarships for the benefit of Irish students going abroad, or vice versa?—On our side, it is for foreign students coming here, but in exchange for that the Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian and Swiss Governments and the Council of Europe give scholarships to Irish university students who go to their countries. Financially at least, we gain more than we lose on this scheme. VOTE 31—PRIMARY EDUCATION.Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.158. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Subhead A.4. refers to Special Courses for Teachers of Physically and Mentally Handicapped Children. Have you a big demand for such courses?—There is a keen demand. We hold a course every year for these teachers. They are nearly always national teachers who feel they have a vocation for that particular kind of work and apply. The course is held in St. Patrick’s Training College. In the particular year under review, 14 teachers attended. Then we also had provision for four teachers attending a six-months’ course for deaf children in University College, Dublin. There is keen interest in that course too, and many more teachers applied than we were able to cater for Deputy P. J. Burke.—May I say that this is now a very big problem and people are more alive to the necessity to help children who are retarded. 159. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— Subhead C.3. refers to Transport Services. Could I have some information on that? How are funds issued for transport services to primary schools, and under what conditions?—First of all, I should say that the saving here arose in respect of a supplementary arrangement for the provision of transport facilities for Protestant children in isolated areas at an estimated cost of £4,200 which did not fully come into operation during the year. There was, in addition, a saving of £800 on the special bus services operating from Ballyfermot and Finglas because in the meantime new schools had been completed in those areas. The conditions are that children between five and ten years residing at least two miles from the school or children over ten years residing at least three miles from the school become eligible for this transport service provided there are ten such children in all. In the case of Protestant children, we relax it a little and say 2½ miles for the under 10’s and for the over 10’s, 3½ miles. Is the transport scheme in operation all over the country?—Yes. They contribute so much of the cost? Chairman.—Yes. This is a matter, I think, for arrangement with the Manager of the school concerned. He is subsidised. Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—The grant is based on tenders received by the Manager and he is expected to obtain a local contribution towards the cost of the service. 160. Deputy P. J. Burke.—What is the percentage of the local contribution, or is there any definite rule?—It depends on the circumstances of the area. Deputy Crowley.—What is the normal percentage?—I doubt if there is a normal percentage because this occurs in outlying districts, some of which might be well off districts and others very poor areas. I do not think there is anything at all that you can call average in this. You can go up to 100 per cent., then, towards the cost of this transport?—It is conceivable, yes. Deputy P. J. Burke.—My view is that it is always better to leave it to the discretion of the Department because you could not have a hard and fast rule and each area differs so much. 161. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— Does it apply to secondary schools?—No. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Or vocational schools?—Some vocational schools, where there is a catchment area, including outlying districts, have what they call a travel scholarship scheme but that is a kind of competitive scholarship. That would apply in Donegal, Wicklow, Kerry, and such mountainy areas, but not to a great extent. 162. Deputy Molloy.—You mentioned that, for children of a certain age, there is a minimum distance of two miles and three miles for children over 10 years of age. Is there any maximum distance which can be covered?—No. They can go as far as is necessary?—Yes, as far as is necessary. You would very likely come across another national school if you went very far. 163. It is really a matter for the Manager to arrange, then?—The onus of the operation of this scheme is on the Manager of the national school. Deputy P. Byrne.—If the Manager fails to take the initiative to apply for the grant, I think parents are not in a position to do so. Is that correct?—They should apply to the Manager. For them to fail there would be a hypothetical case. In the case of the Protestant transport scheme, there is a special detailed financial arrangement. The scheme provides for payment for £14 per annum per eligible child conveyed or half the total cost, whichever is the lesser. Deputy Molloy.—There is absolutely no come-back on the Manager, if he says he will not hire a vehicle? Suppose the vehicle is going three miles every day and there are parents who want it to go four miles and he says “No”? Chairman.—I think, at this stage, I shall have to hold up the Deputy. This is a matter the Deputy will have to pursue in the Dáil. Deputy Molloy.—Anyway, the onus is completely on the Manager? Deputy P. J. Burke.—And the local Deputy. Chairman.—Deputy P. J. Burke will help Deputy Molloy out in that. 164. Deputy P. Byrne.—Subhead C.6. refers to Grants towards the Cost of Heating, Cleaning and Painting of Schools. Has the rate of grant recently been increased?—Yes. Is the rate adequate? Chairman.—Again, in these cases it is a contribution made by the Department towards the cost of the service on vouched expenditure by the Manager. There is also a question of per capita—the different sizes of the schools. There are different claims for different types of heating—thermal storage, oil and solid fuel. 165. Deputy P. Byrne.—What is the standard of heating? Is it possible to stipulate a minimum standard?—Yes, it is. I have here the regulations for it, but they are rather long to read. They are on page 113 of the new Rules for National Schools recently published. They provide for low pressure hot water, electric thermal storage and other matters. There is nothing in them technically as to the particular standard or the degree of heat. I suppose the teachers and the children would very soon know. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Is the grant given direct to the Manager?—Yes. Deputy P. Byrne.—It is a matter on which we hear complaint from parents and teachers, even in the Dublin area, I am sorry to say?— We have one regulation that, where heating and cleaning services are not satisfactory, the Minister may make a reduction from or withhold altogether the grant that would otherwise be payable. Deputy Healy.—In these cases the dissatisfied parents should make a report to their local Deputy and get the Department on to the school if the heating is not adequate. Chairman.—The first approach in all these cases is to the Manager. Deputy Healy.—But if the Manager is not doing what he should do, you have some redress. Chairman.—At that stage you can get in touch with the Department. 166. Deputy P. Byrne.—Are steps taken to ensure that grants provided for heating are spent on heating and not used for more general purposes?—The Department receive vouchers for the expenditure on heating, cleaning and painting. Without those vouchers we would not pay the grant. 167. Deputy P. J. Burke.—The grants are given to schools of all denominations?—Yes. Take a private primary school?—We do not pay anything to private primary schools. They do not come under our wing at all. Notwithstanding that the teachers may be qualified according to our standards?—The teacher may be qualified, but to be a national school the school must fulfil the general regulations for national schools. Private primary schools would not. Secondary schools are, of course, in a different position. 168. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).— Is there a local contribution payable also? Chairman.—I can say from my own knowledge that there is. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary)—What percentage is the local contribution compared with the State contribution? Chairman.—I think it is half. Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—We have maximum grants for each type of school—a two, three, four, or five teacher school—in the case of heating grants. The same applies in respect of cleaning grants up to 8, 9, 10 and 11 teachers. Deputy P. Byrne.—What is the maximum grant for a six teacher school?—For a six teacher primary school the grant for heating purposes is £53 per year. Deputy P. Byrne.—It is grossly inadequate. Chairman.—The Dáil will have to deal with that. Deputy P. Byrne.—May I irrelevantly comment that it is a mode of financing primary education we will have to get away from very quickly? Chairman.—We will all be able to contribute to that in the House. When you come to the Book of Estimates on the next occasion and when you reach this heading, look at it carefully. VOTE 32—SECONDARY EDUCATION.Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.169. Chairman.—Before dealing with the Vote proper I would refer to the minute of the Minister for Finance, at item 20 on the first page, on the Report dated 11th July 1963, in reference to Secondary Education, which is as follows:— “20. Advances to publishers of certain text books. An agreement has been made with the publishers for repayment of the arrears over a period ending 30 June, 1969. The first instalment has been paid.” Could you tell us what is the present position in regard to that matter? Have they been paid regularly?—The next instalment was due on the 30th of last month. It has not yet been received. 170. Deputy P. Byrne.—On subhead A.2. —Laboratory Grants — was the under-expenditure there due to lack of applications for grants?—No. A number of applications which had been sanctioned had not reached the grant stage. Vouched expenses are submitted and the time for payment is within the year. Certainly, it was not due to lack of applications. In 1962/63 the expenditure was £17,188. In 1963/64 it was £19,430. For your information, in 1964/65 it had jumped to £36,226. Accordingly, the schools are taking advantage of it, although the beginning was rather slow. It is a percentage grant, I presume?—It is, with a ceiling of £1,250. Does it cover equipment as well as buildings?—It does not cover buildings. It covers furniture and equipment only. The building itself would come under a new scheme that we have introduced for grants for actual building of secondary schools. Chairman.—The figures under subhead A.2. are: Granted, £138,000; expended, £103,881. Deputy Hogan (South Tipperary).—The witness mentioned different figures. Deputy Crowley.—The witness mentioned £36,000 in 1965. Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—£36,236. I should explain. There are two headings here. One is a grant for science classes. That is a scheme whereby we pay so much per head, and it covers the use of materials for the teaching of physics, chemistry, and so on, matters in which there is an annual “wastage.” The second heading is the grant for the actual furnishing and equipment of laboratories. That is what was in question, I think. Deputy P. Byrne.—Both are included in subhead A.2? Mr. Suttle.—The classes grant was estimated at £88,000 and the equipment grant at £50,000. Chairman.—It is in the Estimate. Deputy P. Byrne.—The grant for classes is of a recurring nature? Mr. Suttle.—It is a capitation grant. Chairman.—You will find in the Estimate, on page 136, under A.2., (i) that grants ranging from £10 to £45 per class were payable and (ii) that grants were made towards the cost of furnishing and equipping laboratories. Does that meet your requirements, Deputy Byrne? Deputy Byrne.—Yes, thank you. VOTE 33—VOCATIONAL EDUCATION.Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.171. Chairman.—Paragraph 40 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General deals with this Vote and is as follows: “Subhead D.2.—Miscellaneous Vocational Education Services 40. The XII International Apprentice Competition held in Dublin during July 1963 was organised by a committee appointed by the Minister for Education as being representative of institutions having an interest in vocational training. £30,000 was provided in the estimate for expenses in connection with the holding of the competition and expenditure incurred to 31 March 1964 charged to this subhead amounted to £39,507. The committee also received financial assistance from other sources but there did not appear to me to be a clear definition of responsibility for expenditure. I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on this and other matters arising from an examination of the vouchers made available to me. I have also inquired regarding the disposal of equipment, tools, etc., purchased.” Have you anything to add to the information contained in that paragraph, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—The competition is an annual event in which Irish apprentices have competed in the past six years. Ireland acted as host for the 1963 competition which attracted two hundred and twenty-six competitors from thirteen countries. The Organising Committee had the task of making all the necessary arrangements on behalf of the International Committee, that is, preparing test papers, material and equipment for the competitions. They also had the duty, under the rules governing these competitions, of providing accommodation, meals and travel facilities for competitors, group leaders and visiting officials. They were also obliged by custom to provide hospitality and entertainment for the visitors. In addition to the financial assistance provided by the State and the advice and co-operation of the Technical Instruction Branch of the Department of Education the Committee received assistance from individuals, organisations, firms and public bodies, by way of entertainment of guests, free transport, and cash contributions. As stated in the Report there did not appear to be a clear definition of responsibility for expenditure. The Accounting Officer has since informed me that there was no specific or formal agreement between the Department and the National Organising Committee regarding the division of responsibility for expenditure, but that it was accepted that expenditure falling on the host country in accordance with the rules of the International Committee governing the competitions would be met from State funds. I have also been informed that the considerable quantities of equipment, machinery and tools purchased for the competitions are held in the College of Technology, Bolton Street and that arrangements have been made for the disposal of this equipment to the National College of Art, the Office of Public Works and other suitable bodies. I was informed in January, 1965 that the delay in furnishing accounts was attributed to the absence on sick leave from August to December, 1964 of the Accountant of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee who had acted as Honorary Treasurer of the Committee. The Accounting Officer states that every effort will be made to finalise matters still outstanding. I am not yet aware whether the accounts are available. 172. Chairman.—Were Government Departments represented on this Committee?— Oh, yes. The Department of Education was strongly represented on the Committee. 173. Deputy Healy.—I should like to know whether or not the fact that this equipment was being disposed of was circularised throughout the country. I presume that it is not just institutions in Dublin that are notified they can have it or purchase it?— Some of this is specialised equipment. Some of it was silversmiths’ equipment. There would be very little demand for that. The Board of Works took over all sorts of bunting, flags, and things like that. There is other equipment. Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—The great burden of this work, I should say, fell on Dublin City Vocational Education Committee. They provided the rooms for the competitions and the experts to supervise them and they really worked very hard. Not only the Committee itself, but the teachers and headmasters in the schools worked very hard on this. I think we feel that the great part of this equipment should go to the schools which bore the greater part—not all—but the greater part of the burden and heat of the competitions. 174. Chairman.—What is the position in regard to the final accounts?—I think everything has been settled except this matter of disposal of equipment and tools. That has not yet been settled but we hope to bring it to finality as soon as possible. Have the financial accounts been finished? —The financial accounts are finished but cannot be presented until we dispose of this matter of the equipment. 175. Deputy Healy.—I presume the intention is to realise something for the equipment, and that it is not being given away. Chairman.—I think Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh more or less implied that the persons who bore the heat of the day in organising the competitions should, in fairness, get the equipment. Deputy Healy.—I certainly would have no objection if it was a case of giving it away, of giving the lion’s share to the persons mentioned, but if it is a case of the highest bidder and there is any money in it for State funds, all the places should be allowed to compete for it, and let the highest bidder get it. Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—It is not a question of giving it away. It is to offset it against actual expenditure incurred by Dublin City Vocational Education Committee. They had to employ special staff, labourers and others, that otherwise they would not have employed. They were actually out of pocket in this matter. 176. Chairman.—Deputy Hogan wants to know whether any other committee made any contribution to this, in money or in kind?—All the committees in the country, in this sense, that the apprentices who competed for Ireland were selected from all over the country. We did get special help from Cork City Vocational Education Committee and others. I do not like to be invidious about it, but we did undoubtedly get very good help from Cork, and some of the visiting apprentices who went down there were very taken with the vocational education technical work going on in Cork. Just for your interest, the Irish team got second that year in the international competition. They were beaten only by the Japanese. Chairman.—They did extremely well. It was a great tribute to the standard of education that they have been receiving. 177. On subhead A.—Scholarships—the Note says: “A proposal to replace the existing scheme of allowances by a scheme of repayable advances of fees to certain students was not proceeded with.” Has that proposal been shelved completely?—We had been proposing to replace this scholarship allowance by a system of repayable advances of the training college fee or a portion of it, but for the present, at any rate, we have gone back to the scheme that was hitherto in vogue. VOTE 34—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.178. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On subhead A.—Reformatory Schools—what is the grant per head there?—In reformatory schools the total grant is £3 10s. 6d. per head, that is, divided equally or nearly equally between the State and the local authority. It is slightly less in industrial schools. The total grant there is £3 7s. 6d. per head per week divided equally between the State and the local authority. 179. Chairman.—In regard to that subhead and subhead B.—Industrial Schools— I notice that the number of committals was fewer than expected, and that the amount collected from the parents was greater than expected. Was your collection system better?—There are a great many children whose parents do not have to pay anything. It depends on whether the court decides the parents should pay. As well as that, the contribution from parents was raised a little for that year. VOTE 35—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES.Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.180. Chairman.—Paragraph 41 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead B.—University College, Dublin (Grant-in-Aid) 41. It was decided in 1961 that the cost of new science buildings at Stillorgan, Co. Dublin, should be met from voted moneys. Contracts amounting to approximately £2,000,000 for the erection of the buildings and for the mechanical and electrical services were placed in 1962 by the authorities of University College, Dublin. The grants paid are based on architects’ certificates, approved by the Office of Public Works, and the total amount issued in respect of this undertaking, including £900,000 charged to this subhead in the year under review, amounted at 31 March 1964 to £1,354,000.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—This is the first major step in the transfer of University College, Dublin to a site purchased for the purpose in 1953. The buildings comprise five laboratory departments, three lecture halls and a library. Before approval of the architect’s certificates the Office of Public Works satisfies itself with regard to the condition imposed by the Government that all reasonable economies in material and finish should be secured. 181. —Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary). —In regard to university grants, are they based upon the number of students? Chairman.—Are they on a capitation basis or is there some other basis?—There is no rigid basis. We try to meet the needs as best we can in accordance with the case they make. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
