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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 23 Meitheamh, 1966

Thursday, 23rd 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. J. R. Whitty (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 46—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. H. J. McCann called and examined.

243. Chairman.—With regard to subhead B—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—can you give us any idea of the break-up of the travelling expenses?—Headquarters travel was £4,189 and travel by officers abroad was £38,453. The former applies to journeys abroad by the Minister and by officers attached to Headquarters in connection with the ordinary business of the Department as distinct from journeys abroad in connection with the United Nations, the Council of Europe and OECD. The latter covers the transfer of officers to and from posts abroad and the travelling expenses of officers stationed abroad on authorised home visits and local travel by those officers.

How many officers serve abroad?—I would have to look at the current Estimate to get the figure.

There were some transfers during the year? —There is continual movement. Even the figure in the Estimate might not at any given time represent the exact number abroad.

Some of it would be due to travel by officers?—Yes, to the local movements of officers.

244. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead F.— Information Services—can you tell us how that money was spent on information services?—The major items would be films and publications. The Yeats film, for example, and the film Rhapsody of a River were two large single items. There are publications, booklets, our weekly bulletin or fortnightly bulletin— it changes from time to time. There is the cost of production of, as well as the postage on, information material from Headquarters and our offices abroad. That would be the biggest item. There would also be photographs, gramophone records and various materials used in our efforts to create a proper image abroad.

245. Deputy Briscoe.—In regard to the Yeats film, will you get an income from it?— That is incidental. The main purpose of our informational activities is to compile the right material and get the maximum coverage. If we can, we arrange commercial showings and in the case of the Yeats film, we secured festival prizes also.

I know you are not in the film business and that you are not turning yourselves into Hollywood over there. This was a particularly good film and I was wondering about the income?—The question of income would not be an impediment to making it available. Income is not the prime consideration.

Are you likely to recover any money from that film?—We have already got a monetary prize as well as some other awards and certificates.

That is excellent. I was wondering will you get your whole investment back from that one film?—We get our investment back in the projection of a cultural image. We might get one-third of our investment back in money. I cannot say at the moment because we are in the process of distributing the film. We are distributing it to the university circuits in the United States and elsewhere and to various cultural groups. The main consideration is the cultural image.

246. Chairman.—On item 2 of the Appropriations-in-Aid, there is a note which says: “An anticipated increase in consular fees under this heading was not realised.” Was the shortfall due to the non-realisation of consular fees?—Strictly speaking, it was really due to an incorrect description in one of the receipts. At the time we were preparing the Supplementary Estimate it was not realised that this was an incorrect description.

247. There is a reference in the Notes to fee stamps. Do you also get fees in cash?— Passport fees are paid to us. We buy consular stamps from the Revenue Commissioners. This note appears in our accounts although the receipt goes to the Finance Accounts under the heading, miscellaneous revenue. When we give passport or other services we get cash and we put a stamp on the document which indicates payment.

VOTE 47—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.

Mr. H. J. McCann further examined.

248. Chairman.—Paragraph 79 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Overseas Trainee Fund.

As stated in paragraph 91 of the previous report this fund was established to provide for the training in administration management and technical skills of persons from developing countries. £34,930 was advanced to the Institute of Public Administration in connection with a scheme which commenced in October, 1963 for training administrators for Zambia (formerly Northern Rhodesia). £20,400 was contributed by the Zambian Government towards the cost of this scheme. £4,000 was also advanced to the Institute in connection with a second Zambian scheme. I have inquired if the final cost of the first scheme has been determined and also if any further contribution towards its cost is anticipated. An account of the fund is appended to the appropriation account.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The final cost of the first scheme has been determined at £40,726. No further contribution towards the cost of this scheme is expected.

Chairman.—Do you wish to add anything to that, Mr. McCann?—Mr. McCann.—I might perhaps say that this figure of £40,726 which was given to the auditor has been modified since to the extent of £8 because on checking the question of whether one gave the management fee on an item of £300 odd, we decided, on consultation with the Department of Finance, not to allow that amount. The figure given has been reduced by this £8.

249. Deputy Hogan.—In regard to subhead C.2—Travelling and Incidental Expenses— could we have an explanation as to the reason for the difference between the sum of £11,800 granted and the expenditure of £3,665?— That was the year the United Nations got into a wrangle over Article XIX that is, about whether they would deprive nations, who were in arrears, of their vote. In fact, it was largely an abortive session of the General Assembly. There was only a limited amount of business done and that on the basis of a “consensus”. Because of that we sent out a very small delegation.

How would the size of the delegation determine the amount spent?—If you find out that there is not likely to be much business done or that there are not many committees which have to be serviced individually, you do not send out people. In the ordinary course there are six main committees and one special committee and you have to service each of those. If from the advance information from New York, it seems likely that any of these is unlikely to function, we naturally withhold sending out staff until we feel fairly certain they will be needed.

Does it often happen that staff are sent out and there is no need for them?—

Chairman.—Mr. McCann has mentioned that because of the abortive nature of this particular session, because of doubts whether people would be allowed to take part in this session because of non-payment of their fees, officers were not sent out?—We sent out a Minister and one officer for approximately three weeks instead of a much larger delegation for a much longer period. This only happened on this occasion. It also happened that we had the expenditure of officers attending the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva which had not taken place previously.

Deputy Hogan.—I want to know does it happen that we incur expense by sending people out to New York and they are not needed afterwards?—This very case is evidence of the fact that we do not do so. As a matter of fact, we have a great problem in servicing the United Nations because we are extraordinarily thin on the ground as compared with other countries. We normally try to service each committee with one person. The very fact that this expenditure was not incurred in this particular year shows the value of the advance intelligence which we received.

250. Deputy Burke.—With regard to subhead C.3.—Contribution to United Nations Children’s Fund—I would like to know a little more about that Fund?—It carries out a programme of long-term assistance in economically under-developed countries. The proceeds have been devoted to various nutritional and health projects in co-operation with WHO and FAO. They naturally try to give as much attention as they can to the health of children and to their preparation for constructive and productive lives. Apart from the Government’s contribution to the Fund, there is an Irish committee of UNICEF, which was founded in Dublin in 1950. It has raised over £65,000 by public subscription. This was given as a voluntary contribution to the United Nations Children’s Fund as well as the sum from Government sources.

Deputy Burke.—It is a most charitable purpose.

251. Chairman.—In regard to subhead C.4.—Contribution towards Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance—what countries do we assist?—We do not assist countries directly. We make the contribution towards the programme and then it loses its identity in the overall programme.

252. Deputy Briscoe.—In regard to subhead C.8.—Contributions to the United Nations Special Fund—what is this Special Fund for?—There are three U.N. technical assistance programmes. First of all, there is the technical assistance programme which is financed from the regular budget, then there is the expanded technical assistance programme and thirdly, the Special Fund. This Special Fund does not make funds available to finance capital investment. It is really limited to the financing of certain basic projects in the field of pre-investment activity. Its object is to provide systematic and sustained assistance in fields essential to the integrated, technical, social and economic development of the less developed countries. There has been a recent decision to merge the Expanded Programme for Technical Assistance and the Special Fund into a new fund but this did not apply to this particular year under review. They have been merged into one fund since.

253. Do we have a representative on a committee similar to this one to decide how the expenditure is used in the United Nations? —This expenditure is used under the general authority of the Economic and Social Council, of which we are not members. We are on various other bodies and organisations concerned with this matter but we do not actually sit in judgement on the individual project as it comes up. That is essentially a function of the Board and Secretariat administering the scheme. One has an opportunity of criticising the activities and expressing views at the appropriate Committee of the United Nations when it sits during the General Assembly or in the specialised agencies if the matter comes up.

254. Chairman.—In regard to subhead C.9. —Organisation des Nations Unies au Congo— Is this the final payment in regard to this?— Yes, as far as we know.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. S. Reamonn called and examined.

255. Chairman.—Paragraph 8 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Revenue Account.

A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out with satisfactory results.”

256. Chairman.—Paragraph 9 reads:

“The net yield of revenue for the years 1964-65 and 1963-64, under its main heads, is shown in the following statement:—

£176,609,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £64,890 as compared with £49,597 at the end of the previous financial year.”

Mr. Suttle.—This is the annual statement of revenue realised, for the information of the Committee.

257. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to estate duty, there is a difference of almost £1 million?—Mr. Réamonn. The increase of £910,000 in the yield from death duties in the year under review above the amount that came in during the previous year is accounted for partly by a greater number of large cases and partly by the higher average yield. It is not accounted for by any changes in the legislation in the relevant period.

258. Chairman.—How do these figures compare with the Budget figures which were prepared? To what extent was the buoyancy of revenue realised?—Are you speaking purely from the point of view of death duties?

No. I am referring to the general, overall picture?—First of all, we must look at the legislation in the Finance Act, 1964, which we would expect to have an effect on revenue. On the inland revenue side, there was not much change to be expected as far as the revenue generally was concerned. In the field of income tax, there was the extension of the age allowance which the Minister estimated would cost him in a full year £120,000. That was provided for by section 2 of the Finance Act, 1964. Section 3 related to small incomes relief, and the Minister thought that in a full year that would mean a surrender of revenue to the tune of £90,000, which gives you a full cost of £210,000. In the field of corporation profits tax, there were some changes which were expected to cost £40,000, so that on the inland revenue side as far as legislation purely was concerned, we looked forward to a total cost in a full year of £250,000.

On the customs and excise side, the position was not the same because there was an increase following the Budget and Finance Act, 1964, of a penny per pint on beer, estimated to yield £1.1 million in the year then current. The duty on tobacco was increased by the equivalent of threepence on the 20 packet of standard-size cigarettes and that was estimated to bring in an extra £2 million. In the domain of hydrocarbon oils, the duty on petrol and diesel road fuel was increased by two and eleven-twelfths of a penny per gallon, estimated to bring in an additional £1.5 million in the year. Finally, in so far as imported spirits were concerned, the duty was increased by approximately fourpence per glass, estimated to bring in an extra £0.4 million.

If you look at income tax and surtax, there is an increase of £8.4 million. That is a considerable increase, relatively, and of it almost £8 million was in respect of income tax. Of this £8 million, £6.3 million was attributable to the higher yield of Schedule E—£5.7 million of this was under PAYE. The increase of the yield of Schedule E has been a very notable feature of inland revenue receipts in recent years. In the year 1961-62, the estimated net produce of Schedule E was £10.961 million, or 38.7 per cent of the entire income tax, and in the year under review, the Schedule E yield was approximately £22.5 million, or 49.7 per cent of the total yield. In the year 1965-66, the estimated fruit of Schedule E was £26.9 million, or approximately 51.4 per cent of the entire proceeds from income tax, so that there is a very remarkable trend.

To get back to the £8 million upsurge in the income tax yield, £6.3 million of this was attributable to an increased Schedule E yield of which £5.7 million came from PAYE and the remaining £1.7 million was chiefly due to an increased yield under Schedule D by reason of the buoyancy of trade profits. There is left, then, an increase of £0.4 million in surtax, and that was due to an increase in the number of assessments. There was a 25 per cent increase in 1964-65. Corporation profits tax is always linked with income tax and surtax, and in spite of minor modifications in the scope of the corporation profits tax, the yield from this tax showed an increase of almost £1 million as compared with the figure for the previous year. There was, of course, in the Finance Act of 1963 an increase in the corporation profits tax rate on profits arising after 1st January, 1962. On profits of £2,500 and more, the rate was increased from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. On profits below that figure, formerly not liable to tax, a rate of 5 per cent was applied.

259. Deputy Andrews.—On the question of estate duty, what would the total administrative costs be?

For the year 1964-65 the net receipts were £4.442 million. The cost of administration was approximately £118,000, so the cost of administration of death duties for the year 1964-65 expressed as a percentage of this yield would be 2.656 per cent.

260. Chairman.—If I may come back for a moment to the table, there was an estimate for these various headings. How did the estimate compare with the outfall under each heading?—What I have here is, if you like, the Budget estimate of the amounts receivable by the Exchequer, which I think perhaps should help.

For instance, could you tell us what was estimated under customs? You realised £55¾ million?—I am terribly sorry. While I have Budget estimates of the amounts to be paid into the Exchequer, the estimates I have of net receipts do not cover all the revenue heads. I will have to send you a note on that.*

261. Chairman.—Paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“10. I have been furnished with the following analysis of amounts of Income Tax, Sur-tax and Corporation Profits Tax outstanding:—

Comparative totals for the previous year are—Income Tax, £4,465,551; Sur-tax £949,612; Corporation Profits Tax, £603,046.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add to that. It is an informative paragraph.

262. Deputy Briscoe.—I see here you have a heading in respect of tax under appeal or under inquiry. I was wondering what percentage of that would be realised?

Mr. Suttle.—It is very hard to put a finger on that.

Chairman.—There was a decrease each year in the amount outstanding. In this particular year there was a slight trend the other way.

Mr. Réamonn.—I may be able to help in an indirect way. If you add those totals of £4,963,270 for income tax and £1,082,311 for sur tax and £1,013,000 for corporation profits tax, you get £7,058,581. By 31st December, 1965 out of that entire sum we had collected £.940 million. Of this £.940 million, £.515 million related to income tax, £.240 million related to sur-tax and £.185 million related to corporation profits tax. We really cannot say at this stage—it is too soon—under which of those three headings in the table the tax collected fell, but we would tend to believe the bulk of it fell under the third heading, which is tax due for collection. If you add up £311,827, £101,930 and £87,319, you get £501,076 as the total due for collection. In fact, during the period to 31st December 1965, we collected £.940 million. That was greater than the total shown here as due for collection, so some of it must have come from tax under appeal or tax not in dispute but collection held up. At this stage we do not know which heading it came under but we would hazard the view that the bulk of it came from tax due for collection. It is interesting to note that the total arrears of income tax as at 1st June 1961 were £9.429 million while at 1st June, 1965, they were £4.963 million. So there is a big reduction there. There was, as the Committee know, a big drive, particularly to clear up Schedule E arrears in preparation for the coming of the PAYE system. That explains the fairly dramatic way in which the total amount of arrears has been reduced. At the top of page ix, they give comparative figures for the previous year. There is a slight increase in the arrears as compared with the previous year. The explanation is quite clear. It is relevant to what the Deputy has just said. In 1963-64 we were bringing in for the first time in ten pilot districts, ten important areas, the system of “one taxpayer, one charge,” by virtue of which for the first time the taxpayer gets a unified demand note and a unified notice of assessment, all of which was made possible only by the use of electronic processes. We had to be very careful in bringing in this rather revolutionary change because, if we made mistakes at the beginning, it might be terribly difficult altogether to correct them later. Therefore, the notices of assessment in 1963-64 in those pilot districts were sent out a little bit later than usual because there was more caution exercised. Since the notices of assessment went out later than usual, the appeals in cases in which there were appeals were rather later than usual too. That is a big factor explaining the increase in the arrears. I should say it is a purely temporary factor. There is also the fact that the income tax charge for 1963-64 was about 15 per cent higher than the charge for 1962-63. I should add that as regards corporation profits tax we had the provisions of section 37 of the Finance Act, 1963, which increased the rates. Of course, when there is an increased charge you can expect a certain increase in the amount of arrears.

263. Chairman.—Paragraph 11 of the Report of the Controller and Auditor General reads:

“Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and Excise Duties.

11. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties, £10,090, and Excise duties, £9,524, were made during the year.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add.

264. Chairman.—Paragraph 12 of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Remissions and Amounts Irrecoverable.

12. I have been furnished with schedules of the cases involving a loss of £50 or upwards in which claims for duty under the Revenue Acts were remitted without statutory authority or passed as irrecoverable during the year ended 31 March, 1965.

The total amount of the items included in the schedules, £191,739, is made up as follows:—

The distribution according to the grounds of remission or write-off is:—

I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—These are the usual remissions that have been going on for years now.

265. Chairman.—Paragraph 13 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Turnover Tax.

13. The monthly returns of taxable turnover received from registered persons in respect of appropriate accounting periods ended on or after 31 October, 1964 have been aggregated and are in process of comparison with the figures shown in annual accounts for Income Tax purposes. This check covering the first full year in each case is expected to be completed shortly and I will then have an opportunity of examining the results.”

Deputy Kenny.—Is the check of the turnover tax completed?—The turnover tax acts as a check on income tax and conversely income tax acts as a check on the turnover tax. The turnover tax returns come in for monthly periods whereas what is relevant in the income tax of the traders is an accounting period of 12 months normally. The Collector-General waits until he gets 12 monthly turnover tax returns and then he sends the returns to the appropriate Inspector of Taxes. These returns are printed on a computer and give the monthly figures and also give the total for the 12 months. For example in May, 1965, the Collector-General had receipts from a particular tax district in the West of Ireland and he sent the Inspector of Taxes the turnover tax figures up to March, 1965. Of course this is a continuous process but as regards the beginning of this check to which the Comptroller and Auditor General refers on this page, I should say six country districts have been completed and the results checked by the local Inspector and by the audit branch. It is expected that the remainder of the country districts and some of the Dublin districts will be completed by the end of the current year. I might say that 46 cases have been reported by the auditors for prosecution. In 20 of those cases the proceedings have been completed in the district courts and penalties imposed.

Chairman.—We may take it that revenue is being protected.

Deputy Hogan.—Do I take it that the cross-check of the accounts has not been applied to the bigger centres as yet?—Six country districts have been completed and we expect that by the end of the current year it will have been done for the remainder of the country districts and some of the Dublin districts.

When will it be universal?—I would say probably next year it will be completed. Of course, the process is never really completed because information is always being brought up to date. I would expect that the entire country will have been covered some time next year as regards the initial period of the turnover tax.

Deputy Burke.—When you find something wrong in your check, do you prosecute immediately or do you give people any chance of giving an explanation?—We always give these people a chance of giving an explanation. We are not anxious to prosecute but we are sometimes driven to it. All those cases go to the Commissioners with a full report and they are very carefully considered before we prosecute.

266. Chairman.—On subhead E—Motor Vehicles—at what intervals do you replace the cars?—We replace them rather more frequently now than we used to. I think could answer that question by explaining the changes during the year 1964-65 in the cars which we have for patrols and special inquiry duties. On 1st April, 1964, we had 25 cars and in the course of the year we bought five new cars making a total of 30. During the year six cars were classified as unfit. I should say that in this matter we act entirely on the advice of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. If their mechanical expert says a car is unfit we accept his judgement. This is not a matter which comes before the Revenue Commissioners. Six cars were classified as unfit during the year and if you subtract six from 30 it leaves 24. So, on 31st March, 1965, 24 cars were in use. During the year we sold two cars and there were four awaiting disposal. In other words, of the six classified as unfit for our work we sold two and four were awaiting disposal at the end of the year. In this matter we accept the advice of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and when they sell the cars they remit the proceeds of the sale to our office.

267. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead F— Law Charges, Fees and Rewards—may I have an explanation of the rewards?—These are rewards for members of the Gárda Síochána who render services in the detection of illicit distilling offences. The rewards are paid on an approved scale and the amounts vary with the nature of the services rendered. The lowest reward is £2 for the seizure of a still worm or the seizure of not less than ten gallons of wash. The highest reward is £20 and it is paid on the conviction of a person licensed as a publican or spirit dealer. These rewards are paid quarterly in one sum to the Gárda Síochána authorities on the basis of returns which are received from them. We know nothing about the amount of the rewards given to individual members of the Force. There is also the question of rewards to our own staff in connection with customs seizures. There is a fairly complicated scale of rewards. It may be summed up by saying that if it is a case of serious smuggling, the reward is related to the value of the goods, irrespective of the penalty and irrespective of how the goods are disposed of. In the normal course I think that in all serious cases of smuggling the goods are retained. In the case of petty smuggling in passengers’ baggage, and so on, the reward is related to the revenue received which is a compromise sum made up of the duty plus a compromise penalty. Then, of course, if there is a seizure and it turns out—it rarely happens—that there is no evidence to sustain proceedings and no evidence to establish the offence, there is no reward in that case. It is just the same as if the goods had not been seized.

The customs officers, then, get the rewards for their services?—Yes, that is so. If there is is evidence to establish an offence, then this question of an award under the approved scale arises.

Is this very old?—Yes, it is.

268. Deputy Burke.—In regard to subhead H.—Customs Co-operation Council—may I ask why was the Customs Council set up, and are all countries represented on it?—It was an international Convention which came into force in November, 1952. It was this Convention which established the Customs Co-operation Council. Its headquarters are in Brussels. It is an international body of experts and their functions are to study all questions relating to customs co-operation and to examine the technical aspects of custom systems. The purpose is to propose a practical means of attaining the highest possible degree of harmony and uniformity. There are at present 43 member countries, of which 24 are non-European. Ireland has been a member of the Council from its inception. The Council is assisted in the ordinary way by a permanent technical committee and a general secretariat. It has established two specialised committees, one of which is a valuation committee. As we all know, the valuation of goods is of special importance and that is the special purpose of the valuation committee. It is from the nomenclature committee that the Brussels nomenclature, which we have all heard of, sprang. Its purpose was that, in promoting international trade and international trade treaties it was essential that each side should know precisely what the other was talking about and what they meant by the particular terms, so this, as it were, common nomenclature for customs purposes was drawn up. The tariff came into force on 1st January, 1963. The Government made an Order under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957, bringing this new tariff into force. This included free goods as well as dutiable goods.

269. Deputy Briscoe.—At the moment when members of the public go in to discuss their income tax problems in the Income Tax Office, they have to discuss them with an official in a cubicle. They are, thereby, denied a certain amount of privacy because they never know who is in the next cubicle. Has there been anything done to change that?

Chairman.—When the Committee are considering their report at a later stage, if you raise that point, then we might make a comment on it.

The witness withdrew.

Chairman.—I must apologise to the members of the Committee as I have to leave at this stage. We will want a Chairman to carry on.

Deputy Burke.—I propose that Deputy Hogan do take the Chair.

Deputy Molloy.—I second that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary) took the Chair accordingly.

VOTE 39—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.

Mr. L. Tóibín called and examined.

270. Deputy Andrews.—Mar gheall ar mhír D—Tithe Gaeltachta—cé mhéad díobh atá sa Ghaeltacht?—Ó tugadh na hAchtanna seo isteach sa bhliain 1929 tá suas le 7,000 teach tógtha, sé sin le beagnach 40 bliain anuas. Tá a lán de na tithe feabhsaithe ó shin chomh maith.

Cá bhfuil siad? An bhfuil siad i nGaillimh? —Tá siad sna contaetha Gaeltachta uile— Dún na nGall, Maigh Eo, Gaillimh, Ciarraí, Corcaigh agus Port Láirge agus tá cuid bheag acu i gcontae an Chláir.

271. Deputy Kenny.—Subhead E. includes Scéim na Muc. The amount is very small. It would not account for many sows?— Twenty-five at £15 per head, that is, expenditure on the first instalment of the cost in each case. There are also grants for seeds and fertilisers to provide food for sows but in that year there was no expenditure on those grants. While the number of sows that year was rather low, in the following year it was as high as 44. Since the scheme was introduced, 541 sows have been subsidised in this way in the Gaeltacht.

272. Chairman.—On this subhead, I understand there was £24,000 spent on roads out of an estimate of £45,000?—It is difficult to estimate accurately for a particular year. The outlay in the following year was as high as £73,000. The expenditure is inclined to fluctuate. We depend on other agencies to do the work.

273. Deputy Kenny.—On this question, is there any connection between your Department and the Special Employment Schemes Office?—Up to the present in most counties that office prepares the estimates and provides supervision of the work. In Donegal the supervision is done by the county council. Whether in the future we shall have to rely on county councils to a greater extent I am not sure.

Chairman.—County councils do it in some counties? Yes.

274. Deputy Molloy.—In regard to glass-houses, for which this subhead provides, has anything been decided yet about those not functioning—those damaged by storm? You told us last year it might not be worth salvaging them?—That is what we were afraid of. We have asked the Office of Public Works to invite tenders in one or two cases and we hope to see what the prospects would be at that stage.

Can we take it that none of the damaged glasshouses has been sold? Are they still standing where they were damaged?—That is so. Of course that is not satisfactory and we shall do our best to dispose of them in the current financial year.

275. Chairman.—There is big expenditure on agriculture under this subhead. Could you tell us something more about it?—There is a variety of items under the heading of agriculture. The biggest is the Farm Buildings Scheme. Under that Scheme we give supplementary grants of up to 50 per cent of the grants provided by the Department of Agriculture. In that accounting year there were 1,100 cases and the supplementary expenditure was almost £19,000. The next big item under that heading is the Grassland Improvement Scheme under which lime and fertilisers are supplied at half cost; we had 1,200 cases and spent about £10,000. Another substantial item is the Land Project. We pay the difference between three-quarters and two-thirds—two-thirds of the cost, subject to a maximum, being the ordinary grant— and in the Gaeltacht we also pay up to £8 per acre, for lime and fertilisers; we had over 1,100 cases and spent more than £8,000. That, I think, accounts for most of the expenditure.

276. Deputy Molloy.—Last year it was stated here that the Department hoped to publish a booklet drawing attention to the range of grants. I do not think this has yet come to hand?—I regret to say it has not. The main reason is that we have been trying to improve some of our schemes and introduce others. In particular we were held up awaiting clearance of a scheme which has just appeared. However, I hope the booklet will be published before we meet here again.

277. Deputy Burke.—On the question of secondary education, are you tied to the figure of £4,960?—That represents grants paid for the erection, or improvement of secondary schools in Gaeltacht areas. These are capital grants to the schools with, perhaps, small operating grants in the early years.

You do not give special grants to enable children to go to other areas?—We shall come to that under subhead G. under which we subsidise transport to secondary and vocational schools.

278. You have an item of £1,950 for entertainment halls. You could not do a lot with that amount?—It just happened that the expenditure was low in that year.

Deputy Molloy.—Could we have a breakdown?—There was only one hall. The payment was an instalment of the expenditure on the hall in Inishere in the Aran Islands.

Deputy Burke.—Is it the position that you will help any Gaeltacht area where the people want a new hall?—That is it.

279. Chairman.—There was an estimate of £20,000 for marine works. Less than half of it was spent?—The comment I made on roads would also apply here. While the expenditure was less than £10,000 in that year, in the following year it rose to more than £30,000. Again, we are at the mercy of various agencies.

The Board of Works?—Largely the Board of Works. Sometimes a project does not mature as quickly as expected or, for one reason or another, they cannot get on with the work.

Deputy Molloy.—Have you contributed to the planning of improvements to the harbour at Kilronan in Aran?—No work has been done there so far. We are not responsible for the planning.

Do the Board of Works carry the expenses of planning and design?—They provide the technical advice; the expense is met from their own Vote. If a boring survey were necessary we would meet the cost out of our Vote.

280. Could we have a breakdown of how the £9,840 was spent?—The biggest single item was £3,500 at Gort na Saghad in Donegal. The next was £2,600 at Eanach Mheán. A sum of £1,400 was spent at Oileán Gabhla. Staid, Truiscín, Leitir Móir, accounted for £1,050. There was a sum of £850 for Staca Mór in Arranmore in Donegal. Ard Thiar in Galway accounted for £120 and there were various smaller amounts. These payments represent the portions of the expenditure recouped within the year.

281. Could we have a breakdown of the expenditure under subhead F.—Seirbhísí Cultúrtha?—The main item is prizes at feiseanna in the form of scholarships to the Gaeltacht. This accounts for more than £1,000 of the expenditure. The next item, amounting to about £300, represents various grants to festivals, feiseanna, dámhscoileanna and so on. The final item is a grant of £100 towards the purchase of musical instruments by a band in County Donegal.

Deputy Molloy.—Do you feel there is any significance in the fact that the amount spent was less than granted? Do you feel there is a falling off in this type of activity in the Gaeltacht?—There is a fairly steady expenditure about that level most years. The main item is Gaeltacht scholarships presented as prizes at feiseanna.

282. On subhead M.—Taispeántais Drámaíochta Gaeilge (Deontais i gCabhair)—could I have a breakdown of expenditure?—There are three items. Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe, £4,000; Amharclann Ghaoth Dobhair, £1,500 and the balance of £672 was paid to various dramatic groups in the Gaeltacht.

That £4,000 to the Taibhdhearc is an increase?—The normal figure previously was £2,500 and an additional £1,500 was given that year to install seats and do some general repairs to the building. That was an exceptional increase.

That will not be recurring?—Not entirely. For the following year, 1965-66, we maintained the figure at £3,500.

Are you satisfied with the way the money is being spent and the progress being made?— I think I could say we are not completely satisfied. At the moment we are trying to arrange for a reorganisation of the operations of the Taibhdhearc.

It is difficult to run this Irish theatre on such a small sum?—That may be.

Deputy Molloy.—It might be better to scrap it altogether or give them something decent.

Deputy Briscoe.—What kind of receipts do they get? Are the performances well attended?—In that particular year, while their normal grant was £2,500, their income from other receipts was only about £300. Those two items constituted their entire income.

Deputy Burke.—That is not very encouraging?—It is not. Whether it was due to some lack of attraction in the programmes presented, I do not know.

Deputy Molloy.—How did that compare with the receipts in the previous year?— They would be roughly about the same. I have not the figures before me. As a matter of interest, the receipts in Amharclann Ghaoth Dobhair were very much higher, about £1,100 that year with a grant of £1,500 from the Department.

Deputy Briscoe.—What population is serviced by this theatre in Galway?—It could service the whole of Galway.

People would not travel from all over Galway?—No, judging by the receipts of £300.

Deputy Andrews.—The situation of the theatre is rather unfortunate. It is down a back street. That might have something to do with it.

Deputy Molloy.—Middle Street is not a back street. I am situated in it myself. Would you be of the opinion that the management of the theatre would be the reason for such a small attendance, that the board of directors might not be very original in their productions?

Chairman.—I think that might be outside our scope.

Mr. Tóibín.—At the moment a reorganisation of the board of directors is going on. I would prefer to leave it at that.

283. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead O.— Deontais chun cabhrú le Daltaí Gaeltachta atá ar Chúrsaí Oiliúna áirithe (Deontais i-gCabhair)—what are the training courses mentioned?—Apprenticeship schemes for different trades. In the case of apprentices from the Gaeltacht who have to live away from home to do their apprenticeship and whose income would not be sufficient to maintain them, we give a grant for the first two years. The apprentices are mainly doing carpentry. We have very small numbers for other trades. Another scheme is that for Gaeltacht Islands where we contribute up to £50 per pupil or not more than half the cost to enable pupils to attend vocational schools. For example, pupils from the other Aran Islands attend the vocational school in Kilronan on Inishmore and qualify for these grants.

Does the apprenticeship grant apply to pupils attending technical schools outside the Gaeltacht?—Yes, provided the applicant is from the Gaeltacht and otherwise eligible. Quite frequently the apprenticeship is served outside the Gaeltacht.

Deputy Burke.—By what method are they recruited? I suppose you carry on the usual propaganda that these grants are available for bright pupils to avail of certain technical training?—The scheme is mainly operated through the vocational education committees and the vocational schools.

It is a pity they have not availed themselves of the full amount granted. This is the kind of thing you would imagine you would have more applications for than money to spend on it?—In fact, we are improving this scheme at the moment also.

It seems a very small amount for a big area?—It does. It is not very encouraging from our point of view. Having been disappointed in the scheme from the outset, we are now seeking to improve it. Independently of our scheme, Gaeltarra Éireann have apprenticeship schemes also.

284. Deputy Molloy.—It is rather disappointing, as Deputy Burke has said, that the money granted is not being fully utilised. Before we leave this Vote, last year Mr. Tóibín very kindly supplied to the Committee at a later date a breakdown of the figures of the income of tomato growers. It was very interesting. I wonder could he do the same in respect of 1964-65?—I can, but the figures are somewhat worse.* The trend is downward, unfortunately.

In the figures for glasshouses with which we have been supplied, there is a figure for the number of houses planted but it does not give the actual number of houses?—There could be houses which are described as heated but which were not actually heated as the heating installations were not used. There would scarcely have been any house that was not planted; there might have been one or two which were not planted for some exceptional reason.

The figure would not be considerable?—No.

285. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to the last Note to the Appropriation Account, can Mr. Tóibín tell us what happened in relation to this explosion?—Explosions happen occasionally with bottled gas. I should explain that this is a Departmental boat held on charter by the skipper. For his own convenience, he had a gas cooker installed and, as sometimes happens in one way or another, gas escaped and, when someone went to light the cooker, there was an explosion which caused a lot of damage. It was not any fault of the Department’s. An attempt was made to recover the cost of the repairs from the insurers for the suppliers of the bottled gas but it was not successful. I suppose, strictly speaking, the charterer could be held liable but the Department did not feel justified in attempting to recover the money from him apart from a contribution of £5.

286. Deputy Briscoe.—The Account shows an extra receipt from the sale of a teacher’s residence of £150. I did not think you could buy a house for £150 today?—This is the last time you will see that note because all these houses have been disposed of. They were built in isolated places about 30 or 40 years ago.

Are they tendered? How are they disposed of?—Generally speaking, they are disposed of to the people residing in them. No loss was incurred. As a matter of fact, comparing the original cost and the expenses over the period with the rent and the sale price received, one could say there was a modest profit.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XV.

* See Appendix XVI.