Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1966 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1964 - 1965

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 16 Meitheamh, 1966.

Thursday, 16th June, 1966.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. C. J. Byrnes, Mr. J. R. Whitty and Miss Maire Bhreathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 42—TRANSPORT AND POWER.

Dr. T. J. Beere called and examined.

167. Chairman.—Paragraph 61 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.1.—Grant to Córas Iompair Éireann

61. Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1964 provides for the payment to Córas Iompair Éireann of annual grants of £2,000,000 commencing in the financial year 1964-65, the amount of the grant to be reviewed at five-yearly intervals.

Section 7 of the Act provides that a sum of £1,000,000 advanced to Córas Iompair Éireann from the Central Fund under the provisions of Section 13 of the Transport Act, 1963 be treated as a non-repayable grant.”

In regard to the annual grants of £2 million to CIE, do you anticipate this subsidy will cover losses in the five year period?—They have covered them up to this and as you know there are increases in rates and fares designed, along with the economies, to cover them for the next year. Of course I cannot foresee the future but we hope so.

How about the capital requirements of the Company? Are these being met from this annual subvention also?—No, unless the Company have any savings on their subsidies and then they are entitled to use them for capital purposes.

168. Deputy Hogan.—Have there in fact been any savings?—In either the first or second year of this subsidy there were some savings but they have been more or less eaten up in the next year. There is provision under the Transport Act for capital provision for the Company which is separate.

Has there been any diversion of these savings to capital requirements?—I think some money was spent on capital requirements in the first year of the £2 million subsidy. In the following year there was not and the Company would be entitled to reimbursement in respect of approved capital works to the extent that the cost could not be met within the subsidy provided under the Transport Act. There is a £6 million provision for capital purposes for the five year period to 1970.

169. Chairman.—Paragraph 62 of the Report reads:

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

62. Section 15 of the Transport Act, 1958 authorises the payment of grants from voted moneys to Córas Iompair Éireann to meet the cost of compensation paid to employees, including those of the former Great Northern Railway Board, whose services were dispensed with or conditions worsened in the period from 16 July 1958 to 31 March 1964. Including £724,055 charged to this subhead, grants issued under this section amounted to £2,327,598 at 31 March 1965. The grants paid were supported by auditors’ certificates of the amounts expended on compensation.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The compensation only applied now to people whose services were dispenses with or whose conditions were worsened up to March, 1964. The payments will continue for some years yet.

Deputy Kenny.—What form does the compensation payment take?

Dr. Beere.—The compensations are repayable in toto to the Company. They make their estimates on a quarterly basis and they are repaid a quarter in arrear.

But what form does the compensation take?—The men are paid pensions, in general. In some cases they get a lump sum.

Chairman.—If these people are reemployed by the State or by a semi-State body is there any abatement?—Yes, they lose their pension.

What would happen in regard to the lump sum?—I do not think we have had such a case. They are only allowed to commute up to a quarter of the pension and probably any other employment they might get with another State company or with the Government would be of a temporary nature. Most of them would be unlikely to get permanent employment.

Deputy Hogan.—Do many of them take the lump sum?—They have not a choice of taking it; they are only entitled to a lump sum if they have less than five years’ service or if their conditions have been worsened. If they had long service, they get pensions which they may only commute to the value of a quarter.

170. Chairman.—Paragraph 63 of the Report reads:

“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)

63. The grants issued to Bord Fáilte Éireann to 31 March 1965 are as follows:—

(1) For administration, general expenses and interest grants (statutory limit, £5 million)

(2) For resort development (statutory limit, £1 million)

(3) For development of holiday accommodation (statutory limit, £1.5 million)

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—These grants are subject to statutory limits and this paragraph shows the position to March, 1965.

Chairman.—In regard to the operation of Bord Fáilte, the operating costs seem to be climbing. They were £1.1 million in 1962/63, £1.4 million in 1963/64 and £1.9 million in the year under examination. Is this a deliberate policy of expansion?

Dr. Beere.—Yes. The returns from tourism were reckoned in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion to bridge the gap. They are expected to make an extremely large contribution and that of course involves further investment in the activities of Bord Fáilte. It is not just their administration expenses because this head covers rather a wide field. It covers all overseas publicity and advertising as well as part of the expenses of the new regional organisations. It includes interest grants paid, staff training schemes and facilities such as angling and game development and that kind of thing.

Chairman.—Have you reached the end of expansion or is further expansion contemplated?—There will certainly be further expansion if the Programme for Economic Expansion requires tourism to play so very large a part. It is according to the increased returns required of it that money has to be spent.

171. How is the resort development project going?—Those projects are going fairly well. Since this particular year they have been going rather more rapidly. Resort development involves substantial agreement with various local interests, acquisition of land, and so on. It is hard to get started but they have been going on and the details are published in the Company’s report each year which is laid before the House.

172. Deputy Hogan.—May I ask if a decision as to resort development is subject to departmental or ministerial sanction?— No.

They have authority to make a decision as to whether they will spend money for resort development?—No. A certain number of resorts were decided on some years ago. Work is proceeding on these and since then the only one added is development of the inland waterways.

These decisions were taken some years ago? —That decision was taken by the Board. The Minister was aware of that decision. It was an important one and a matter on which he was very keen but it is entirely within the Board’s discretion. I am told that the Minister approved the resorts and I think the position is that the Minister in practice has done so but that there is nothing in the statute requiring his approval.

Chairman.—Could a development organisation on their own carry out projects without sanction from the Department?—You mean, can Bord Fáilte? Small ones, certainly. If there were going to be a very large diversion of funds from other purposes they would certainly have to come to the Minister about it.

Deputy Hogan.—I take it there is no statutory requirement?—The list of regions has not got to be statutorily approved by the Minister but in practice the Minister keeps very closely in touch with the Board and is aware of their decisions and of what they are doing. I presume he could object if he thought there was something unreasonable in what they were doing but he has no statutory function in deciding which areas should or should not be developed.

Mr. Suttle.—The Minister decides the amount of the grant voted each year and if he feels that they are wasting their money he can always curtail the grant.

Dr. Beere.—We certainly would expect questions from the Department of Finance.

173. Deputy Briscoe.—On the question of inland waterways, you mention the development of these in recent years. For how long have Bord Fáilte begun to take an active interest in this matter?—Within the last few years.

How much, roughly, is being spent?— I could not give you the figure. It is not in the account for the year 1964-65. If the Deputy is interested, it will be coming up in future years.

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

“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 £76,841 given in the year under review, the aggregate of guarantees was £2,231,713 at 31 March 1965. 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. 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 £1,750,225 at 31 March 1965.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—There has been no loss to public funds so far in respect of guarantees given under the 1952 Act.

175. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead H.2.—Fuel, Water, Light and Cleaning at Airports

65. Two firms who had tendered in 1962 for a one year contract for cleaning at an airport were invited in 1963 to tender for a term of two or three years and the lower tender, £18,792, for three years, which was submitted by the firm that held the 1962 contract, was accepted. The approval of the Government Contracts Committee was subsequently obtained. It appeared to me that contract cleaning is a service in which competition is increasing and accordingly I inquired why advertising had been dispensed with on this occasion. In reply I was informed that the decision not to advertise in 1963 was due to special circumstances; that inquiries made departmentally and from the Office of Public Works had indicated that no new firm capable of undertaking the work had come into existence since the previous contract had been placed, the service provided by the successful tenderer was entirely satisfactory and the Minister was satisfied that no advantage, financial or otherwise, would have been gained by press advertisement.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Our experience showed that this was a service in which competition was expanding and the firm in question was not the cheapest on the market.

176. Chairman.—Is there any particular reason why it was decided to invite tenders on a three-year basis instead of a one-year basis?

Dr. Beere.—It is rather unsatisfactory to have the contract on a one-year basis because the cleaning of an airport could not be allowed to lapse. You would have to have continuity. You must have somebody skilled and staff must be available and it is important to get a really good job done. It was thought, therefore, that it would be preferable to have it on a three-year basis rather than have this uncertainty from one year to the next. It is also a cheaper proposition if you get tenders for three years instead of one year, which I think is understandable when a lot of skilled staff would be involved.

Deputy Hogan.—That would apply to all sorts of services.

177. Chairman.—That is a comment which the Deputy could offer on Report Stage. I notice in the Report that advertising was dispensed with in this case. Was there any reason why advertising should have been dispensed with?

Dr. Beere.—At that time we had one year’s experience only and we made quite extensive inquiries through the Board of Works and otherwise to find out if there was any other firm big enough and suitable at the time and were advised that there was not. We wanted to change over to a longer period than one year in order to have continuity and this meant revising the contract documents. I am afraid they were not quite ready and that was why. The following year we found there were several new firms on the market and we have since advertised and have now placed the contract with a different firm. The competition is now much more intense for this sort of work than was the case a few years ago.

Chairman.—It would have been renewed since this year?—Yes.

You have had quite a number of tenders this year?—Yes and have advertised and have placed the contract.

Is this for one year?—This would be a three-year period.

178. Deputy Kenny.—How does the cost of direct labour compare with the cost of the contract?—I think on the whole we find that this is the more economic way to do it and certainly the most efficient way to do it, with good equipment, and we find it has been extremely efficient in Cork Airport where there is a very large area of glass. Of course a public place like an Airport is open to constant public criticism and even if it cost a little more I would sooner have a good job at an airport, which is an entry to the country.

179. Deputy Briscoe.—Did you get tenders from England or elsewhere for this job?— I could not say from recollection. Do you mean this new one?

This new one?—One from America.

I imagine it would be given to an Irish firm?—The lowest tender got it. The capacity of the firm to carry out the work is also a consideration. It is no use accepting the lowest tender if it is obvious that the tenderer cannot carry out the contract. Given the capacity, the lowest tender is accepted.

Deputy Healy.—Is it the same firm that is doing all the airports—Shannon, Dublin and Cork?

Chairman.—It is done by direct labour in Shannon.

Deputy Healy.—Did you ever consider doing it by contract at Shannon?—We wanted to see what happened at Cork.

Deputy Healy.—Obviously Cork is doing very well?—Of course, but we have some staff at Shannon and there is always difficulty when you have to make a change like that.

180. Chairman.—Paragraphs 66 and 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General read:

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

66. Grants to the company under section 8 (1) of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited Act, 1959, including £480,000 charged to this subhead, amounted to £1,605,500 at 31 March 1965. Section 3 of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited (Amendment) Act, 1965 provides that the aggregate amount of these grants shall not exceed £3,000,000.

The aggregate amount which the Minister for Finance may issue from the Central Fund to take up shares in the company is limited by section 2 of the 1965 Act to £6,000,000 of which £3,423,000 had been issued by 31 March 1965.

Subhead K.2.—Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited—Housing Subsidies and Grants

67. Section 5 of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited (Amendment) Act, 1963 empowers the Minister to pay grants to the company in respect of houses provided as part of a scheme for the provision of houses and community services for the purposes of the industrial estate at the airport. The charge to the subhead, £78,950, is comprised of £31,000 to subsidise the letting of houses at reduced rents and £47,950 for grants equivalent to those normally payable under the Housing Acts.

Section 4 of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited (Amendment) Act, 1965 limits advances to the company from the Central Fund for housing and community services to £3,000,000 of which £1,878,000 had been advanced by 31 March 1965.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Taking paragraphs 66 and 67 together, the grants are subject to statutory limits.

Chairman.—As I am directly interested in Shannon, can you tell us how the development at Shannon is going along?

Dr. Beere.—I think the development at Shannon is going along pretty well.

Have you many firms operating there now? —That is part of Shannon Free Airport activities for which I am not directly accountable but I can say there has been a fairly steady increase in employment and a steady increase in the number of firms. It is generally satisfactory. The number of employees is now approximately 3,000.

How are they divided between male and female?—I think that there are slightly more men than women. It varies almost from month to month. They try to preserve a balance between the two.

181. Deputy Hogan.—Are the grants given to Shannon Airport more favourable than the grants given by An Foras Tionscal to industrial concerns generally?—That is not one of the matters for which I have to account.

Chairman.—Can you assist, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I think these grants are all calculated on the circumstances of each individual case. There is no standard grant in any particular case and I think the same thing applies in the case of the Shannon Development Company.

Dr. Beere.—Except that the Shannon Development Company generally does the same as An Foras Tionscal in respect of grants for equipment, that is, not exceeding half the cost. Their training grants are also on the same basis.

182. Deputy Kenny.—Are grants for houses administered by this Department or the Department of Local Government?— The Department of Transport and Power deals with that altogether now. In the beginning the Department of Local Government did and in so far as these grants are concerned they are made on the same basis and come out of our Vote.

Chairman.—I take it the reduced rents are agreed by the Department.—Yes.

Deputy Hogan.—Is the economic rent charged for all houses there—at Shannon?— We calculate the economic rent but the rents actually charged are those which the tenants can reasonably be expected to bear. We have agreed on the basis of the calculations and there is a subsidy to that extent.

There is a degree of subsidisation?—Yes.

Deputy Burke.—It is nice to know that Christian charity applies there.

183. Chairman.—Paragraph 68 reads:

“Subhead T.—Appropriations in Aid

68. As from 1 April 1962 a passenger service charge of 7s. 6d. became payable by passengers embarking for abroad at Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports. The charge is collected, mainly by Aer Lingus, the principal operator at the airports, and the net proceeds after deducting the amounts claimed for expenses of collection are paid over to the Department where they are brought to account under this subhead.

Gross receipts and cost of collection in respect of each of the three years ended 31 March 1965 are shown in the following statement:—

Deputy Briscoe.—The cost of collection of this airport tax is fairly considerable. Would it not be cheaper to incorporate that in the cost of the ticket and get the money back from the air company in that way?— That would be an excellent scheme from our Departmental point of view but unfortunately the air company only sells some 40 per cent of all the tickets themselves. Tickets are sold through travel agents all over the world. There is great difficulty there. The 7½ per cent may look fairly large but it is not large when we consider the actual staffing and overhead costs involved. It is, in fact, quite reasonable. In the air companies, not only our own but among all of them, there is strong opposition to the incorporation of the tax in the ticket.

I notice they are being cut out now in some airports in England?—But they have another tax instead on the planes landing, an additional tax to make up for it. No other country has followed the British lead and it is very unpopular all round with the air lines. We cannot see any advantage and the passenger tax has an advantage from the revenue point of view in that it is expanding all the time.

Deputy Hogan.—If it was taken on landing fees, would it eliminate the collection cost? —Yes, but our landing fees are already comparatively high, among the highest in Europe. If we increase the landing fees, we would probably divert planes elsewhere and lose on the double. We would lose the landing fees and the passengers.

184. Chairman.—I notice that the accounts of 1963-64 and 1964-65 have not been agreed with Aer Lingus. Have they been agreed since?—Yes. The figure is £19,155 for 1964-65. That is the final figure.

Could you say what it would be for 1963-64?—I am sorry; I have not got that figure. I know that the Estimate for next year is £19,300.

185. Chairman.—Paragraph 69 reads:

“Stores

69. In reply to my inquiry regarding the carrying out of stocktaking of management and engineering stores at Shannon and Cork Airports I was informed that because of staff shortages no regular stocktaking had been carried out at Shannon since 1961 although stock of a small number of items had been taken in 1963. Since the opening of Cork Airport in 1961 no stocktaking had been carried out. Existing regulations provide for regular stocktaking of stores under the control of the Department and a new programme of inspections at all stores locations is being prepared and will, I am informed, be implemented.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—One of the principal purposes of keeping records of inwards and outwards movements of stores is to strike balances periodically and to compare these with actual stocks. In this way deficiencies or indeed surpluses, are rapidly found and can be investigated. If stock is not taken at regular intervals, the store records are useless.

Deputy Kenny.—That appears to be a long period if stocktaking was not done since 1961.

Dr. Beere.—There had been spot checks and there have been complete checks recently. I agree very fully with the Committee that there should be regular checking. We had rather a series of accidents here. At Cork Airport the first storekeeper left after a very short period and a second was appointed. He then became ill and subsequently died. We then had to get a new storekeeper which was not very easy. We have a new storekeeper there now and he has completed his inventories and we have had a check. At Shannon Airport we realised that stocks were growing with the importance of the airport and we got two consultancy firms to give us a report on storekeeping and maintenance at Shannon. We took one of these and got a fuller report and a number of recommendations which included getting rid of three stores and amalgamating them into one store. We have now built that store and appointed a new storekeeper and I hope there will not be any cause for complaint in the future.

Deputy Briscoe.—How did the spot check at Cork turn out?—We have had no complaints. I do not think there are any great deficiencies. The stocks at Cork are relatively quite small.

186. Deputy Hogan.—Can you give any indication of the average gross value of the stocks in the different places in money terms?—I have to speak from memory as I have not got a note. In Cork it is somewhere between £15,000 and £20,000. I think the figure at Shannon was about £48,000. Most of the stocks at both airports are radio equipment. Of course the position changes if we are having a big job done.

Deputy Burke.—What is the practice in the Department regarding stocktaking? Is it once a year?—Mostly once a year.

Deputy Burke.—It is a good protection for a storekeeper to have a stocktaking.

Deputy Healy.—Could we be told what revenue accrued to the authority by way of facilities allowed to British companies for training purposes?

Chairman.—That will come up later.

187. Paragraph 70 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Operation of State Airports

A statement of expenditure and revenue at Shannon, Dublin and Cork Airports for the year ended 31 March 1965 is appended to the appropriation account. The statement also shows the total capital expenditure on the airports to 31 March 1965.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—It was felt for some time that the annual statements supplied by the Department and published in my Report, showing the cost of operating the State airports were unsatisfactory. As a result of discussions between the Department and my Office a new form which follows normal accounting principles more closely has been devised this year and is shown on pages 128 and 129 of the Appropriation Accounts.

Deputy Hogan.—Does that mean that the term so much criticised by professional accountants, “operating loss” will disappear from our vernacular?

Mr. Suttle.—Not necessarily, no. It has a specific meaning in accountancy.

Deputy Hogan.—This takes into account depreciation?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

188. Deputy Healy.—Have we any report of the revenue accruing to the authority from the facilities offered to other air lines and other countries which use our airports?

Chairman.—In landing fees?

Dr. Beere.—The landing fees or training fees?

Chairman.—The British are using Shannon Airport as a training base.

Dr. Beere.—We have that under landing fees. The amount realised at Shannon was £572,425 in respect of landing fees and a few other small charges, such as hangar and parking charges, and the Deputy wanted to know the training operations included in that. £162,000 is the figure included.

Deputy Healy.—They are not using any other airport—only Shannon—for this purpose?—They use Cork a little bit. Shannon is particularly useful. The facilities are there and they have the big jet runways and the airport is not such a busy one, for instance, as Dublin where there is constant movement It is very suitable and it is a nice source of revenue for us as long as we can retain it.

189. Chairman.—The airports are not self-sufficient at the moment?—From the accounts, you can see here that both Shannon and Dublin make an operating surplus but we have to reckon against that interest which is calculated at 5 per cent on capital and we also have to reckon depreciation and these figures appearing on page 129 are very substantial. We have a deficit on each of the three airports when we take into account depreciation and interest on capital.

Deputy Hogan.—I presume there is very high depreciation on an airport?

Mr. Suttle.—It is according to the type of property involved. Some of the equipment would be depreciated very fast. Buildings and that sort of thing would be depreciated at the normal rate—about 2½ per cent.

Deputy Hogan.—Planes?

Dr. Beere.—They do not come into it.

Mr. Suttle.—Only the airport.

Chairman.—It is much more costly at Shannon. Is there any particular reason for that?

Dr. Beere.—There has been an awful lot of capital spent on the runways at Shannon and the radio service. The headquarters of the radio service is at Shannon.

Chairman.—That would be the cause of that being disproportionately high?—That would be the cause, yes.

190. Deputy F. Crowley.—On subhead E. —Grants for Harbours—what were the three harbours in which the work was not undertaken?—At Arklow there was a grant for a hydraulic model. Investigation and the arrangements for constructing the model were very prolonged. Investigation was proceeding but there was no expenditure at Arklow in this year. At Ballina, River Moy, the work of reconstructing the quays and raising the river retaining walls did not proceed during the year as the contract documents which are the concern of the Harbour Commissioners had not been finalised so as to permit of tenders being invited, and in the case of Sligo no expenditure was incurred during the year on the suction dredging equipment for which a grant had been sanctioned because the Harbour Commissioners failed to obtain satisfactory performance guarantees from potential suppliers and subsequently it was decided that another type of dredger would be preferable. We have now received proposals from them for the purchase of such dredger. These are the three harbours in which none of the money which was to have been expended was spent.

191. In regard to subhead F.3.—Development of Holiday Accommodation (Grant-in-Aid)—what kind of complexities arose in some of these cases?—These are complexities with which Bord Fáilte had to deal and I am not aware of their nature. I know there were applications that caused them more difficulty than others to deal with but it is a matter for them. We pay them the grant. They are hotel grants.

Deputy Crowley.—The reason I ask is that I have had several people on to me about hotel grants and they seem to be normal, straight-forward cases. I was wondering if these complexities could be specified?— I personally am not aware of what they were but I know that was the reason why the money was not quite fully expended. It could be, of course, that Bord Fáilte were not satisfied with the plans from an architectural point of view. I know they are concerned in the proper development of hotels but I do not know the details.

Deputy Hogan.—What is the difference between resort development and development of holiday accommodation?—Holiday accommodation covers hotels and guest houses. Resort development is a different sort of thing, providing jetties and swimming pools and so on.

Deputy Molloy.—Have we provided many swimming pools?—There is one at Arklow that I know of. There may be others.

192. Chairman.—On subhead H.2.—Fuel, Water, Light and Cleaning at Airports—we have a new control tower at Shannon which is now operating, I think?—Yes.

193. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead M.— Expenses in connection with International Organisations—when did we first participate in Eurocontrol?—This was the first year, 1964-65.

Will that cost us an annual sum?—It will. Subsequently we will get reimbursement for providing air traffic control services on an agency basis and so we shall be bringing something into account also.

194. Deputy F. Crowley.—On subhead N. —Technical Assistance—is the fuel efficiency promotional drive promoted in conjunction with oil companies?—There is a fuel efficiency organisation which does this and the grants are given for various kinds of training. For instance, in the Estimate for 1964-65, there was to be a promotional drive conducted by this organisation and at the same time there were to be instructional courses especially for works engineers or boiler operators. They may have different types of courses in different years. Actually the course for the engineers was so successful that it was self-supporting and we did not have to make any contribution to it.

Who conducts these courses?—This National Fuel Efficiency Organisation.

Are they non-profit making?—Yes.

Are they set up in Ireland?—They have an office in Belfast. I think they have some office in Dublin also.

Could you term them consultants?—I do not think so because consultants are profit-making or hope to be. They are sustained by the fuel industry. They are highly skilled. They have saved enormous amounts of money to individual firms throughout the country who sought their advice or who sent out men to their courses. In some firms there have been quite spectacular savings made.

In the proper utilisation of fuel?—Yes, and equipment, lagging and so on. It is really an efficiency job. I think it is good because it has saved money.

195. Deputy Healy.—On subhead Q.— Recoupment to Aer Lingus of certain Costs in connection with Pilot Training—where does the recoupment come from for training pilots?—The Department of Defence train pilots for Aer Lingus but that does not include training on twin engine aircraft as the Department of Defence have not a suitable machine for that purpose. That training is necessary for Aer Lingus pilots and under the present arrangement it is undertaken by Aer Lingus in addition to the Department of Defence course. If Aer Lingus were to send pilots to Scotland where there is a training course, it would include training on twin engine aircraft and that would allow Aer Lingus to have training carried out at lower cost. That is why we undertake to make grants available to them to cover this difference. No expenditure has arisen and it is not clear if they are going to make any claim on us. For 1965-66 we have only put in a token amount but we were anxious that training should be carried out in this country.

196. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead R.— Commissions, Committees and Special Inquiries—what type of commissions or special inquiries were involved?—The two under that heading cost £165. One was a commission of inquiry into public holidays and bank holidays which has already reported and the other was a small working group set up to investigate the possibility of accelerating the movement of goods through the ports. That report has also been published recently. Two cropped up during the year. It is rather hard when forming an estimate to foresee whether or not a commission will be necessary for any particular purpose.

197. Chairman.—On the Appropriations in Aid, in regard to Shannon Airport, are the hostels still operating there?—Yes. We have one hostel with accommodation for some 20 or 22 people maintained still for passengers.

Is it self-supporting or is it operating at a loss?—It is operating at a loss at the moment.

Is it intended to keep it?—For the time being. Those hostels are very old now. We originally had accommodation for 60 to 80 in the hostels. That has now been reduced to a smaller number. It is cheaper than an hotel but there is a very good hotel at the Airport which is highly patronised. We kept on the hostels because it was useful to have the extra and different type of accommodation.

Deputy Briscoe.—When did this hostel open?—About two years ago.

I think they are excellent particularly if you want to get a few hours sleep before catching an early morning plane. For the low cost they are worth while retaining?—Before the advent of the jets passengers often suffered long delays at Shannon. This does not often occur now.

198. Deputy Crowley.—On the Appropriations in Aid, item 17, what was the value of the sale of the crops at the Airport?—£1,000 was the estimate. I think our estimates were pretty close. I have not got the actual figure but that it what we estimated it would be. We realised on the total a bit more, so it is probably in the region of that figure.

The land was sublet to some farmers in the area?—Mostly it is a sale of hay there.

199. Deputy Hogan.—May I ask in reference to item 13—Catering and Sales Service at Shannon Airport, how does that compare with the previous year. Are we improving?— It has gone up. It is up very well this year.

200. Deputy Healy.—In Cork, as I understand it, the catering is let to somebody?— Yes, let to a concessionaire.

And we get a rent?—We get a rent and then we get a percentage as well. I can now give you the figures if you want them for Shannon for the next year. It went up. 1964-65— profit, £50,000—and in the following year it went up to £94,000.

Deputy Molloy.—What is the rent charged for the concession for the catering service in Cork Airport?—I am afraid I have not got that figure here but we would not be very anxious to mention particular figures of this commercial undertaking because we go out to tender and would not want to make public too much information.

201. Deputy Briscoe.—I note that the landing fees are shown in the Appropriations in Aid for Shannon and Cork and are not shown for Dublin?—They are paid to Aer Rianta which manages Dublin Airport on behalf of the Minister. They are shown in the Statement of Expenditure and Revenue for the Airports on page 129 of the Appropriation Accounts.

202. Chairman.—On Extra Remuneration, is there any particular reason for the £913 paid to one individual?—These were allowances—night duty and overtime allowances in the radio service mostly and some in the meteorological service.

Were there any particular circumstances with regard to an individual receiving a sum like £913?—There are usually one or two individuals who get very large sums.

Deputy Molloy.—Could I inquire what position was held by the man who got the £913 extra remuneration?—A technical radio officer.

What is the normal salary for a technical radio officer?—I will have to look that up.

Deputy Molloy.—Would Mr. Suttle know?

Chairman.—The Deputy may find it in the Book of Estimates issued this year.

Deputy Molloy.—There were 367 employees who received various sums. What was the total amount paid to these 367 employees?—I am not sure if these are exactly the figures wanted but on night duty, in all, there was an expenditure for the year of approximately £31,000. These are the regular night-duty allowances because they get extra pay when they work at night. It is really not overtime. It is a night-duty allowance. Most of that went to the radio service—£13,000—and a little less than £10,000 to the meteorological service.

Deputy Molloy.—I understand that the salary of the technical officer mentioned, who got this £913, would be approximately £1,200 a year and I find it very disturbing that these large amounts are being paid out in extra remuneration. We find this on every Vote so far.

Chairman.—In this matter, when we come to considering the report, if the Deputy wishes to make a comment like that he may do so. We could not expect the accounting officer to offer a comment on it. We will have an opportunity of dealing with it when the report is before the Committee.

Deputy Molloy.—I appreciate that.

203. Chairman.—As this is Dr. Beere’s last occasion to appear before the Committee, I should like to take the opportunity, as Chairman of the Committee, of tendering to her our thanks and our very sincere good wishes for her happiness in her retirement. I have had the privilege of being on this Committee for practically ten years, and I have had the very pleasant experience of presiding over the Committee for some years during which Dr. Beere has been coming here and assisting the Committee in its deliberations. I must say that at all stages she has been most co-operative and most helpful and has always been pleasant and unflurried, in a very difficult situation. An accounting officer is called upon to come in here and face a barrage of questions by Deputies fulfilling their obligations to the House by conducting an inquiry in so far as the Dáil is concerned. It is a disconcerting time for any official and I want to place on record my appreciation of the way in which Dr. Beere has at all times given assistance to the Committee. I am sure it is the wish of this Committee that Dr. Beere would take into her retirement the good wishes of this Committee and that we would place on record our appreciation of her services here. Indeed, the House knows of her services to the Department over which she has presided. I feel I am expressing the wish of every member of the Committee for her happiness and contentment and long life in her retirement.

Deputy Burke.—I should like to be associated with the kind remarks of the Chairman. I have had long experience of Dr. Beere on this Committee. By her efficiency and courtesy and outstanding qualities as a public servant she has reached the highest office in her Department. It was a pleasure to listen to her this morning. I hope, Dr. Beere, that you will enjoy your well-deserved retirement and that we will see you now and again. God bless you.

Dr. Beere.—Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you in particular, Mr. Chairman, for over all the years that I have been coming here and you have been in the Chair, you have always done everything possible to make what you call a disconcerting occasion as pleasant as you could.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 44—DEFENCE.

Mr. S. Ó Cearnaigh called and examined.

204. Chairman.—Paragraph 76 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.—Provisions

76. Statements have been furnished to me showing the cost of production of bread at the Curragh bakery and of meat at the Dublin and Curragh abattoirs. The unit costs are as follows:—

The average price of cattle purchased for the Dublin and Curragh areas was £93 and £89 per head, respectively, as compared with £74 per head in each area in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 697 lbs. and 648 lbs., respectively, as compared with 688 lbs. and 655 lbs.”

On this paragraph, is the production of bread and meat common to all armies?—I am afraid I could not answer that. I only know it has been our practice from the beginning to have this means of providing these basic foods, meat and bread. It has been continued through the years without interruption.

You have no information as to whether it is standard practice elsewhere?—I am afraid not.

205. Chairman.—Paragraph 77 of the Report reads:

“Subhead CC.—Compensation

77. The charge to this subhead comprises:—

Deputy Kenny.—Do Army drivers undergo a public driving test like ordinary drivers?—I do not think so.

Do they undergo special training?—Yes, and they are tested in the Army as drivers. They are not permitted to drive until they have the sanction of the appropriate technical officer and are fully competent.

Deputy Molloy.—Did these accidents take place within the State or on foreign service?— All within the State.

Deputy Briscoe.—I notice reference to compensation for property commandeered damaged or hired. I gather nothing was commandeered? This must be something to do with damage or hire?—Yes, during exercises.

206. Chairman.—Paragraph 78 of the Report reads:

“Subhead DD.—Lands

78. The compilation of a register of state properties administered by the Department of Defence was referred to in the reports of my predecessors on the accounts for the years 1936-37, 1951-52 and 1956-57. On these occasions the Committee of Public Accounts expressed its concern at the failure to carry out this important work. A reply to my recent inquiry indicates that of some 300 properties to be registered entries have been made in only 54 cases. As this rate of progress suggests to me that the matter is not being actively pursued I have deemed it desirable to draw attention to it again.

In view of the danger of loss to public funds I have asked that perambulation reports be made available to me.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—A register of properties held is considered essential in cases where, as in the Department of Defence, the number of properties and other rights held, is considerable in extent, variety and value. Its purpose is to give, in readily accessible form, without recourse to original documents the situation, area and nature of each property, whether lands, buildings, rights of way or other rights. It should indicate the date of acquisition of the property and the purchase price paid and show the use to which the property is put, whether self-occupied or let and where let, the terms of the letting and conditions of tenure. It is an index of all documents of title to the property, gives particulars of charges or restrictive covenants to which the property is subject with cross-references to Land Registry entries, etc. The importance of such a register is emphasised by the fact that every local authority is statutorily bound to keep one in respect of all lands acquired or leased by them.

A necessary corollary to such a register is the periodical submission of perambulation reports. These are made by technical officers on the physical verification of the existence of the properties, with reference to the register, and property maps. They indicate that all boundaries, buildings and fences have been examined and report on any variation since previous reports. They are an essential safeguard against unauthorised infringements of title or irregular encroachments. To be effective such reports should be available at least once every year. In reply to the request for perambulation reports the Accounting Officer stated that perambulations had not been made as at November 1965, but that consideration was at present being given to a proposal for the early initiation of a procedure for the compilation of such reports.

207. Chairman.—This has formed the subject of questions on previous occasions prior to Mr. Ó Cearnaigh’s time. The Committee have been disturbed on various occasions because this work has not been done. Is there any particular difficulty preventing it being done, Mr. Ó Cearnaigh?—I am sorry there has not been satisfactory progress on that work but for many years it was somewhat uncertain what Department would be responsible for the administration of those lands and properties. It was thought it should be all done by the Office of Public Works and it was only about 1957 that the decision was given that the Department should administer the lands and properties it occupies. From that time on some action was taken to get the properties registered. It is slow work and it is a question of getting suitable staff for it. We have made limited progress so far and have registered roughly one quarter of the properties to date. We have registered at the moment a total of 57 out of 242 but in addition to the 242 there are some others that we have not yet taken over from the Office of Public Works. They are vested in that office at present and they are in the process of being transferred to us, but it will take some time to complete the necessary formalities.

208. Your main difficulty would probably be in regard to survey. Is the Army Corps of Engineers used at all for this purpose?—The main difficulty as regards those we have not yet taken over from the Office of Public Works is that the deeds have to be examined in detail. Some of them are very complicated and it is slow, tedious work. As regards the perambulation aspect of the work, the Corps of Engineers are helping. They have agreed to undertake this work and they have started to initiate some of the perambulations. I think they are starting next week.

We may look forward to a more satisfactory report next year?—I hope there will be steady progress but it is necessarily rather slow work. We shall try to make sustained progress certainly.

Without in any way referring to you, Mr. Ó Cearnaigh, 30 years is rather a long period to have it still on the stocks?—That is so.

209. In regard to Subhead G.—Civil Defence—I note that plans for the establishment of county and sub-county controls did not reach the expenditure stage. Has anything happened in the meantime in that respect?—The general planning is going ahead but I do not think very much has been done in the line of actual work so far.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is there any particular reason?—It is a question of economy at the present time. Previously it was the difficulty —and I think it is still present—of finding suitable premises for this particular purpose to convert them into control centres.

210. Deputy Molloy.—In regard to Subhead O.2—Helicopters—the explanatory note says that the excess is due to greater use of the helicopters than had been anticipated. Could we get the sum of money that was paid to the Department of Defence for the use of these helicopters by local authorities?—It would be in the Appropriations-in-Aid. I do not think it is shown separately.

Chairman.—It is not shown separately.

Mr. Ó Cearnaigh.—I have some figures. In that particular year we collected £946 for the use of helicopters.

Deputy Molloy.—By local authorities?— Not all was by local authorities. A commercial company hired a helicopter also and for that we got £588.

Was that on one occasion or on how many occasions did the commercial enterprise hire the helicopter?—I think it was only one occasion. I have not the exact number of flights or the exact period.

I was trying to find out how much an hour the commercial company would be charged for the use of the helicopter?—Probably at that time it was £65. The current rate is £67 per hour of flying time.

Is this the same rate charged to local authorities?—The same rate, yes.

You could not give me a breakdown of the receipts in respect of local authorities—on how many occasions the helicopter was needed?—I can give you the amounts for the particular county councils: Sligo County Council, £145; Mayo County Council, £213.

Deputy Molloy.—Are they the only county councils that used the helicopter in that year?—Yes.

211. Deputy Hogan.—Were there any rescue operations at sea carried out in this year?

Mr. Ó Cearnaigh.—No. There is no charge for that type of operation—rescue at sea and mercy missions.

Deputy Hogan.—Were there any rescue operations on land in cases of flooding or anything like that?—Yes. There were not in that year but subsequently at Clonmel there was a rescue operation on land in respect of flooding of the river there.

212. Deputy Molloy.—Could we have explained how the Department of Defence differentiate between a mercy mission and an ambulance service because they charge for the ambulance service and do not charge for the mercy mission?—In the case of the ambulance service the local authority specifically requests the use of the helicopter to convey a patient from wherever he is to a particular hospital in Dublin.

213. Who in the local authority would have the authority to order the helicopter?—I think the matron of a local authority hospital would be empowered to make the request.

Has it ever happened where an ambulance service was provided and a helicopter was ordered by somebody other than a member of the medical staff in the local health service?— I believe there has been a case where the local authority repudiated responsibility on the grounds that it had not requisitioned the helicopter.

What would happen in a case like that? Who would pay the bill?—I am not sure. I think it is undecided at the moment. It is still the subject of correspondence.

Chairman.—This is a matter of administrative procedure at this stage.

Deputy Molloy.—It involves the receipts.

Chairman.—It could. The accounting officer is accounting for these things at the moment and saying how the expenditure was incurred. Questions are being put in regard to administrative procedure which, in the ordinary way, would be more appropriately addressed to the Department. I do not want to curtail the Deputy.

Deputy Molloy.—I will just say that the manner in which the scheme is administered would determine the amount of the receipts, and leave it at that.

Chairman.—We will be dealing with this matter later on and the Committee can save any comments on particular items for that stage. I am anxious at the moment to keep the Committee moving in respect of what is proper to it in order that we may get through the programme before us.

214. I notice from the Notes that the L.E. Cliona was damaged as a result of an outbreak of fire. How did this happen?—An outbreak of fire occurred in the boiler room.

There was no insurance?—No.

I assume precautions have been taken that nothing like this could happen again?—Yes.

Deputy Kenny.—Are those fires and damage covered by insurance?—No. The State does not insure property. It does insure central heating boilers in order to get the benefit of the technical officers’ reports of the insurance companies concerned.

215. Deputy Briscoe—Are we to get a payment from the United Nations for the use of our forces in Cyprus. We heard a lot about this last year. Is there any progress in that direction?—There are no receipts for Cyprus in this particular account but they will be shown in future accounts.

VOTE 45—ARMY PENSIONS.

Mr. Ó Cearnaigh further examined.

216. Deputy Hogan.—On subhead D.— Military Service Pensions—May I ask what is the distinction between military service pensions and Army pensions?—Military service pensions relate to the period up to the Treaty and the Civil War. The other pensions are for Army service.

217. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead J.— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—I see in the note of explanation that the excess is due mainly to the payment of children’s allowances to retired officers. Are these allowances also paid to NCOs on retirement?—These particular children’s allowances are paid to retired officers who were retired on age grounds.

What about NCOs who retire?—They do not get those particular allowances.

If an NCO retires for reasons other than age, do the children’s allowances continue to be paid to him?—No. There is a different code of allowances for NCOs and privates.

Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Ó Cearnaigh.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 19—STATIONERY OFFICE.

Mr. B. Ó Brolcháin called and examined.

218. Chairman.—Paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.—Printing and Binding

25. In reply to an inquiry regarding delay in clearance of claims totalling £3,421 submitted in 1960 and 1961 in respect of printing for the Irish Manuscripts Commission I was informed that the work was not carried out under contract, that claims fell to be settled through negotiation but that due to pressure of work there was delay in dealing with the matter.”

Have you anything to add Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The claims referred to are in respect of three publications ordered over 20 years ago, production of which was delayed, I understand, for long periods by circumstances outside of the printer’s control. The contracts under which the orders were placed had expired long before the work was completed.

219. Chairman.—I know it means going back over 20 years but have you any information, Mr. Ó Brolcháin, as to why these were not carried out under contract?—During the war years, printing in one of these cases was held up; work was suspended. In a more recent case it was intended to print from photostat copies of separate pages of manuscript but this was not found possible; the printer had to work from the original manuscript. There were actually five cases of which three are mentioned, all with the one printer. Procedures at that time were much slower than they are now. In those days the copy went to and fro in bits and scraps and this delayed final production. We have improved on that procedure and it is much better now.

220. I notice the paragraph refers to negotiations. What are these negotiations?— The contracts had expired long before the work was completed and the contract terms could no longer be reasonably applied because wages had gone up and so had overheads, over the years. This was a decisive factor in the claims made by the printer. There were two works in addition to these three, making five in all, and the printer suggested at some stage that he would prefer to settle these three cases when he knew what we would offer on the other two; he suggested that we make a global settlement to cover all five. There was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing and I am glad to say that, subject to Finance agreement, we have reached a figure of accommodation on all five, a lower figure than the figure the printer had in mind.

Chairman.—I hope the Department of Finance will deal with this matter expeditiously.

221. Deputy Molloy.—In regard to subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances— there was expenditure higher than estimated on overtime. Is there any explanation other than that given here?—The higher expenditure was due to the fact that we had quite a number of vacancies in the office and we tried to keep the work as up to date as we could by resorting to overtime.

It is also stated that when filling vacancies new appointments were made at lower salary points. Did you find this satisfactory?— What is in mind here is that these vacancies occurred in posts carrying scale rates and in these cases the appointments were at lower salary points on the scales. There was also a Finance request to substitute clerk typists for clerical officers, wherever possible, under the reorganisation scheme and we were carrying out an experiment on this basis. In the warehouse, unexpected vacancies occurred in the packer and porter grade. Those who retired were on the upper reaches of the scale. Those who were recruited came in on the lower boy-porter scale. We did not recruit at lower salaries than appropriate.

The job was done as efficiently as before?— Quite.

222. In regard to subhead F.—Publications—could I inquire what the receipts from sales of publications would be?

Chairman.—The Deputy will find that on the next page.

223. Deputy Kenny.—In regard to subhead E.—Paper—does each Department act separately in ordering publications to be made or does your office cover all the Departments?—When Departments are ordering publications they send the order to the Stationery Office and the Stationery Office send the order to the publisher and pay the publisher.

Deputy Hogan.—Does your Department recover the cost from the Department concerned?—In the case of publications, in ordinary course, no. There are, of course, exceptions to this—the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, for instance, which is a repaying Department—but in the case of Departments generally it is a service for which we pay the cost.

224. Deputy Molloy.—In regard to the sale of publications, I notice from the Appropriations in Aid that there has been an increase, that the sum realised was greater than estimated. Would there by any possibility that by increasing the price of publications you would increase further the sum realised? How do you fix the price of Government publications? Is it determined by your office?—This is quite a problem; there are quite a number of factors involved. First of all, there is the question as to whether it is desirable to increase the price of publications particularly in the case of some of the publications. There is also the question as to whether an increase in price would lead to reduced purchases or reduction in receipts. There are a number of other factors to be taken into consideration.

You are satisfied that there is no room for an increase in price at the moment?—This is a very big question, this question of price. If we were to disturb prices at all we would consult the Department of Finance. At present, we are not considering a change in price.

225. Deputy Briscoe.—I was going to ask what percentage of the sales of Government publications were to ordinary members of the public who would not normally come into contact, day to day, with various Government publications but who might be interested in a particular one. For example, there might be persons who would buy the booklet, The Second Programme for Economic Expansion, and various things like that. My question is what percentage of Government publications is sold to the ordinary public rather than people directly concerned in Government work?—You mean as distinct from Government Departments?

Yes?—A considerable number of publications. Some publications are of a kind which appeal to the public generally and others appeal to particular classes. I can tell you that our sales in the Sale Office in the Arcade come to about 200 sales in the day. Our sales by post, now handled for convenience at head-quarters, come to about 100 orders a day. That is not 100 publications—100 orders. These are sent to people all over the country and cover publications of many kinds.

226. Is it possible to give the actual sales of Dáil Debates, just as a matter of interest?— Yes, I have some figures. The number of subscribers to Dáil Debates is at the moment 138. I do not think I could give you the figure of sales across the counter but in the last full year, 1965, there were 150 subscribers, to which you add the people who buy over the counter.

Deputy Molloy.—Are semi-State bodies supplied with the Dáil Reports or would they be included as members of the public purchasing them?—The Dáil Debates are supplied free to the Library of the Council of Europe and the Editor of the Irish Law Times and Solicitors Journal. Semi-State bodies would have to purchase. All free supplies are listed in the Appropriation Account.

Chairman.—At least, Deputies will be glad to know that there are 150 people interested in what we say.

Deputy Burke.—I was going to put it the other way—that there was a very small percentage of people interested in what we say.

Deputy Kenny.—Do the local authority libraries purchase the Dáil Debates?—I regret I have not a breakdown of the subscribers.

Deputy Hogan.—How many copies of the Second Programme would be published?—I have some figures. Second Programme—total sales up to 31st May last, 8,258; Part II, about 3,600 and the Digest about 2,300.

Deputy Briscoe.—How many copies of the NIEC Report were sold?—10,360.

Deputy Molloy.—What are the figures in respect of the Report of the Committee on Investment in Education?—Something over 1,000 copies.

227. Chairman.—Members have been supplied with a Trading and Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet for the year ended 31st March 1965 in respect of the Government Publications Sale Office.*

228. Deputy Kenny.—The Notes refer to paper to the value of £8,396 being lost in a fire in Stationery Office storage sheds and being written off. Could you give some details on this? How did the fire happen?— The position is that about 9 p.m. the fire was discovered by somebody outside the walls which adjoin some houses. It was reported to the night watchman. The Fire Brigade was called in and the Board of Works and the Garda were also notified. I attended there myself with members of the staff. We held a full-scale inquiry but were unable to ascertain the reason for the fire. It may have been vandalism. There was a fire only a few days ago which suggests that that may be the correct explanation. Another possibility is that it may have been due to a short in the wiring or may possibly have been caused by a spark from a chimney of an adjoining house. They were old wooden sheds with felt roofs.

Chairman.—Is there anything further that could be done by way of safety precautions?— I reported the whole matter to the Department of Finance and urged them to press on with the alternative accommodation which is on the mat for some time past.

229. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to the receipts from sales of waste paper other than confidential waste paper, is this destruction of confidential paper done by a supervisor of the Department?—Yes; the confidential waste is destroyed. We go out to contract and the contractor collects the waste. One of our warehouse people goes with the waste and stands by while it is being destroyed. It is completely destroyed.

Roughly what weight of confidential paper is destroyed?—I think I have some figures here—286 tons is the year’s figure.

What is the going rate for wastepaper at the moment per ton?—Purchase of confidential waste is subject to tender and we do not disclose actual figures but, if the Committee so wish, I can give them the figure in confidence.

Chairman.—We had a question already this morning with regard to the commercial dealings of the Department. We do not pursue these matters as it may interfere with tender prices.

Deputy Briscoe.—It is a pity that some of this waste is destroyed as it could be used in a corrugated paper plant, where it could be emptied into a big pulper, and witnessed?— These are paper people who tender for this material. A cardboard manufacturer used to hold the contract—not at the moment but formerly. A waste paper merchant holds it now. People in that business buy it for their own purposes.

So that it need not necessarily be burned?— They pay for this paper to pulp it.

And it is used?—Yes.

Deputy Molloy.—Is there any reason why we did not realise as much from waste paper as estimated?—When the estimate was prepared, we took into account the sales of ordinary waste as well as the sales of confidential waste. Subsequently following negotiations with Posts and Telegraphs, it was arranged that they would take the receipts from the ordinary waste so the realised figure refers only to confidential waste. The estimated figure is for both confidential and ordinary waste.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 49—HEALTH.

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

230. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to subhead G.—Grants to Health Authorities—you do not pay any grants to these authorities until their audit is completed?—Oh, yes. In the year in which the expenditure is incurred, we pay 95 per cent of the estimated expenditure in four quarterly instalments. The first instalment is 25 per cent of the estimated expenditure for the year and is paid at the end of June. The next instalment of 25 per cent. is paid at the end of September; the third instalment of 25 per cent. is paid at the end of December; and the fourth instalment of 20 per cent is paid at the end of March. In the following year, we bring that 95 per cent of estimated expenditure which has been paid in the year up to 99½ per cent. of the ascertained but unaudited figure of expenditure for that year and the half per cent is held over for adjustment, following audit of the accounts.

231. Chairman.—What is the position with regard to the audit of local authorities?—It is reasonably satisfactory now—better than it was when I was before the Committee in October last. There are 27 health authorities and the accounts of all 27 have been audited up to and including the year 1962-63. In respect of the year 1963-64, 22 accounts have been audited and two others are with the auditor and in respect of the year 1964-65, ten accounts have been audited and four are with the auditor. There are seven joint mental hospitals. The accounts of the seven have been audited up to and including the year 1962-63; three accounts have been audited in respect of the year 1963-64, with a further account with the auditor; and in respect of the year 1964-65, two of the accounts are with the auditor, and one account in respect of the year 1965-66 is with the auditor.

232. Deputy Hogan.—Is there any coverage given to local authorities for the expenses of home assistance officers in so far as nowadays perhaps 75 per cent of their work deals with health cards and health matters generally? I understand that the Department of Health does not make any contribution to that side of local authority expenditure. It is important nowadays as there is a ceiling to the health charge laid on local rates?—That is the position. Home assistance officers’ salaries are not reckoned for purposes of health grant. That cuts the other way too. For instance, the County Medical Officer does a very considerable amount of work which is not of a health character in relation to sanitary services and allocation of houses. Health Inspectors also do a fair amount of non-health work. The full salaries of these officers are taken into account for the purposes of the health grant.

Deputy Hogan.—That was the position ab initio with health officers but this development has come into prominence largely since the Health Act was instituted?—It was always the position that the home assistance officer assessed the entitlement of a person to general medical services. Admittedly, his work on health matters has increased since the 1953 Health Act came into operation.

233. With regard to subhead H. which refers to contributions to local authorities for the improvement of County Homes, etc. are there any improvement schemes in progress at the moment?—Yes, there is very considerable activity in that respect. The re-construction of Mountmellick county home is nearing completion. The building of a new county home at Castleblayney is very considerably advanced. At Stranorlar the first and second stages of complete re-construction of the home are nearing completion. A re-construction job at Trim is nearing completion. A start has been made with a county home in Ennis, which is a comprehensive scheme. The contract for the replacement of the Athy county home has been placed but I do not think the work has actually started yet. A major scheme is in progress at Clonakilty.

234. Deputy Kenny.—What is the position in regard to Castlebar?—I am not quite sure whether construction work has actually started. A contract has been placed for a new home.

235. Deputy Hogan.—Are these county homes planned on the same basis as the old ones? Are there any new ideas?—New buildings where provided are mainly single storey. It is believed that you get a better atmosphere in such a home as opposed to the multi-storeyed former county homes. When patients are put in the single-storeyed buildings, better provision is made for the easier nursing of the chronic sick. There are facilities which can be used for physiotherapy and for various treatments. The old chronic sick patient is no longer expected to turn his face to the wall and wait to die. Every effort is to keep him active and interested.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—That is very good news in relation to county homes, Mr. Chairman.

236. Deputy Molloy.—Could I inquire about the county home in Loughrea? I know that alternative accommodation is provided in Merlin Park.—There can be no final decision as to what should happen to Loughrea county home while the position in regard to Merlin Park is so fluid. TB accommodation is becoming available for other purposes and a considerable number of the sick from Galway is being put into Merlin Park. Where all this is going to end is not quite clear yet but the position should be clarified within the next year or so. Also, a complication in Galway is that the Department have been pressing the Galway Health Authority to provide an acute psychiatric unit in conjunction with the Regional Hospital, which may mean some further re-adjustment of accommodation as between the Regional Hospital and Merlin Park. Until that is clarified, it is not possible to arrive at what the ultimate accommodation in Loughrea should be.

Is there a delay in Galway with regard to the question of the psychiatric unit?—Galway County Council have turned down the proposal. The Minister is going back to them on it.

237. Chairman.—With reference to subhead K.—Hospitals Trust Fund (Grant-in-Aid)—Deputy Hogan would like to know if there is any possibility that this would be increased?—The cut in this year’s amount to £500,000 was explained by the Minister when taking the Supplementary Estimate in the Dáil. Provision is made in the current year for £1 million.

238. With regard to item No. 4 of the Appropriations in Aid—Recovery of salaries of officers on loan to outside bodies—might I ask who are the officers on loan?—They are on loan to various bodies associated with the work of the Department. In the year in question a higher executive officer was on loan as Secretary of the Mass Radiography Association. The officer has since retired. A higher executive officer was on loan as Secretary of the National Organisation for Rehabilitation. He is still on loan. As assistant principal officer was seconded to the Institute of Public Administration. He has since died. An assistant principal officer was seconded to the Hospitals Commission. He is still with the Hospitals Commission. A higher executive officer was seconded to Telefís Éireann and an engineering inspector was seconded to the World Health Organisation for short periods. In one case it was six weeks. I have not the precise period in the other case but the total amount involved in these two cases was £278.

239. In regard to item No. 7 of the Appropriations in Aid—Searches and certified copies of entries of births, deaths and marriages —does this service pay for itself?—It is very difficult to say. It certainly does not pay the entire cost of the organisation which registers births, deaths and marriages. I think it would about cover the actual cost of preparing the certificates and issuing them.

Would that include salaries for the personnel engaged?—Yes.

240. Would you have information regarding receipts from patients? I have a statement in respect of 1963-64 and 1964-65 which I can hand in.*

241. Thank you very much. We come now to expenditure by health authorities. Members of the Committee have been supplied with this statement.* Something that strikes one is that the net expenditure has increased from £16 million in 1958-59 to almost £28 million in 1964-65. Could the causes of the increase be analysed in any way?—I have not here data which would enable me to make an analysis over so long a period but, taking the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 the increase was £5.368 million. Of that £2.9 million is attributable to the ninth round and status increases in salaries and corresponding increases in superannuation. The expenditure on patients sent out to extern institutions increased by £1.390 million, due in part to a higher capitation charge and in part to a higher number of places in those external institutions, particularly for mentally handicapped. Drugs and medicines account for approximately £350,000. We estimate that increased costs of consumable stores and services, that is provision of clothing, heating and so on would account for approximately £250,000. Increases in the number of disabled persons allowances and in the rates of these allowances and of infectious diseases maintenance allowances account for £260,000. The figures that I have mentioned cover all but about £200,000 of the total increase. The other items are spread over a wide variety of services.

I suppose there is a similar explanation in regard to mental hospitals?—The figures I gave included mental hospitals. In regard to salaries the increases in the mental hospitals were roughly in proportion to the increases in the other institutions. In regard to drugs the same would apply.

242. Looking at expenditure on medicines in institutions other than mental hospitals†, I notice £72,000 for Cork hospitals and £78,000 for Dublin hospitals, while expenditure in general hospitals was £1.4 million and £3 million respectively. Would you have any special reason for that?—The total expenditure under the heading of general hospitals includes not only the local authorities own hospitals but expenditure in respect of patients sent to external hospitals. The figures for medicines relate to expenditure on medicines within the local authorities own hospitals only. The Cork Health Authority maintains three general hospitals, St. Finbarrs in Cork city and the two county hospitals, Bantry and Mallow. These hospitals deal with a high proportion of Health Act patients from the Cork Health Authority area, the remainder being catered for in extern hospitals, mainly the North and South Infirmaries and the Mercy Hospital. In the Dublin Health Authority area, a much smaller proportion of Health Act patients are dealt with in the Authority’s own hospitals, St. Kevins and Loughlinstown, and much greater numbers than in Cork are catered for in the extern hospitals such as the Mater, St. Vincent’s, St. Laurence’s, Sir Patrick Dun’s, the three voluntary maternity hospitals and so on and the cost of medicines in these extern hospitals is not included in the figure quoted for medicines.

VOTE 50—CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL

Mr. P. S. Ó Muireadhaigh called.

No questions.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*Final figures for these years have not yet been agreed with Aer Lingus.”

*See Appendix XXXIII.

*See Appendix XII.

*See Appendix XIII.

†See Appendix XIV.