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, 30 Meitheamh, 1966.

Thursday, 30th 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 and Mr. P. S. MacGuill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 41—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy called and examined.

287. Chairman.—Paragraph 52 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead H.—Córas Tráchtála (Grant-in-Aid)

52. Grants to Córas Tráchtála, which under the provisions of section 16 of the Export Promotion Act, 1959, as amended by section 2 of the Export Promotion (Amendment) Act, 1963, may not exceed £2,500,000, amounted to £1,594,885 at 31 March 1965, including £435,000 issued in the year under review.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee. The Accounts of Córas Tráchtála are audited by me and are presented to the Oireachtas. Of the Grant-in-Aid of £435,000, £340,525 was used for the general expenses of the Board and £72,896 as a grant to Kilkenny Design Workshops Ltd. Kilkenny Design Workshops Ltd. is a whollyowned subsidiary of Córas Tráchtála. Its accounts for the year 1964/65 were audited by me and are published as an Appendix to the Córas Tráchtála Accounts.

288. Chairman.—What functions do Kilkenny Design Workshops Ltd. perform?

Mr. J. C. B.MacCarthy.—This problem of industrial design is really a joint Education and Industry and Commerce one. The function of Education, which you have not asked me about, is to look after the academic or background side of things; in other words, to develop a consciousness of the importance of design, to develop concepts of design in the minds of young people and, as a result of that of course, in the minds of people who may go into industry. Córas Tráchtála, on the other hand, have an immediate problem because, unless the design of our goods is good, we are not going to be able to sell them. Therefore, they have got to get cracking in a businesslike way with the improvement of design pari passu with the educational effort. The way it is done in practice is that they have these workshops at the old Ormonde Stables at Kilkenny and they have a number of workshops within the overall framework. They have a shop dealing with silver; others with wood carving, textile weaving, candle making and they intend to have a furniture shop. They have poplin weaving, quite a number of other things, and they have experts employed who really are research people. The idea is that Kilkenny will become almost like a university city in due course. All these different designers eat together in a common canteen; they have a library and restroom to which they resort. It is the hope that the ideas will rub off from one to the other and that you will get a sort of harmony between, say, weaving designs and the furniture designs, and the silver will be in harmony also. One cannot say it will work out but, in principle, it may work out that, through having these people living together in this way, they are really developing a sort of homogeneous design. There is urgency about it because we have got to get moving. Initially, they are concentrating on producing attractive designs, particularly in the fields of silver and household articles. But there is long term work going on there and, just as in any Research Institution, there are people working who may not come up with anything positive for quite some time. To that extent, you cannot really translate the expenditure into positive results immediately. They are, however, commercial to a limited extent because their silver workshop is being used to quite an extent by jewellers and others, who commission special articles. For instance, if there is a presentation of a cup or a shield, they may be asked to produce this for the sponsors of the presentation.

289. Chairman.—It is not a training organisation?—No, it is not training. It may be, in due course, that it will be. One aspect of it which I forgot to mention is that some firms or industrial associations act as sponsors and may endow the workshops with some piece of equipment or something of that sort.

Deputy Healy.—When Mr. MacCarthy speaks about works being commissioned for shields, cups and so on, that does not mean that these workshops are in competition with ordinary private traders?—No, not in the slightest. These commissions come, in fact, from the trade. You may get an established jewellery firm which want something rather special and they go to the workshops.

Do I take it the designs are both modern and ancient? Are they particularly leaning towards old Irish celtic design or are they modern?—Unfortunately, you are asking the worst possible person, because I am in no way artistic, but what I understand is that they are hoping to derive suitable designs from the past. Indeed the past comes very much into one of their activities. They have discovered that age old bog oak, which is dug up during Bord na Móna operations can be dried out by a special process and the wood is then extraordinarly suitable for working. Using that wood they are able to produce very beautiful objects which could not hitherto be produced because the wood was never dried in that way. I do not think there is any question of their continuing the Tara brooch or that sort of tradition. It will be new, but something which will be derived from tradition.

290. Deputy Hogan.—Does industry make any contribution to the monetary side?—Not perhaps monetary in the direct sense, but they can, through sponsorship, provide items of equipment or they can undertake to bear the cost of a particular research. I have not got it with me but I could send you, if you are interested, a note which I could get from Córas Tráchtála of the extent to which this has taken place in practice up to now.*

291. Is there an annual report issued?— I do not think the Kilkenny Workshops issue an annual report, but Córas Tráchtála’s annual report will cover the activities of the Kilkenny Workshops, which is a separate subsidiary company.

Mr. Suttle.—I have a note here which says:

Industry is being asked, where appropriate and feasible, to make available the funds for equipping the Workshops with the necessary plant and machinery. The Company will be responsible for the renovation of the premises and for the payment of salaries, the purchases of raw materials and other expenditure. In addition to the monies received from Córas Tráchtála the Company will receive revenue from the sales of its own production and royalties from industry.

292. Chairman.—As far as your Department is concerned, have you any estimate of the annual subsidy this company would require?—Mr. MacCarthy.—We have not. The main expenditure at the moment has been involved in reconstructing the premises, because the stables, as they are called, were infected with dry rot and there was very substantial expenditure there. I do not think there should be a very large subsidy, if any subsidy at all, in due course, for the operation of the Workshops, because they should tend to be self-supporting.

293. Deputy Hogan.—What is the expenditure up to date on the renovations?—The total estimated cost of the renovations was £80,000 but I have not got the figure for the total expenditure.

Mr. Suttle.—The premises were £62,000. I think £80,000 was the total expenditure.

294. Chairman.—Paragraph 53 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“Subhead J.—Grant to An Foras Tionscal (Grant-in-Aid)

53. The aggregate amount of grants which may be made to An Foras Tionscal to enable it to carry out its functions was increased by section 1 of the Industrial Grants (Amendment) Act, 1964, from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000. The total issues, including £3,253,142 in the year under review, amounted at 31 March 1965 to £11,959,309.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The accounts of An Foras Tionscal are audited by me and are presented to the Oireachtas. As stated in my report, grants of almost £12 million had been issued to An Foras and, as their report shows that grants approved but unpaid at 31st March, 1965, amounted to over £10 million, it was necessary to raise the statutory limit beyond £20 million.

Chairman.—There were two fresh ones mentioned during the year, Waterford and Galway. Have you incurred any expenditure on these?—Mr. MacCarthy.—I do not think we have incurred any expenditure. We are still at the planning stage.

Deputy Hogan.—Expenditure up to 31st March, 1965 has been given as £12 million. Could you give us an indication of the expenditure up to 31st March, 1966?—Yes. The total expenditure from this subhead in 1965/ 66 amounted £3,999,662, say £4 million.

That would be approximately £16 million? —Exactly.

295. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“Subhead L.1.—Technical Assistance Subhead L.2.—Irish National Productivity Committee (Grant-in-Aid)

54. The provision in subhead L.1. enables assistance to be given towards the cost of industrial consultancy schemes designed to increase productive efficiency, courses of training in Ireland or abroad and visits abroad to study aspects of industrial organisation. Similar assistance for agricultural industries is provided in the vote for Agriculture and for the improvement of fuel efficiency in the Vote for Transport and Power. In addition An Foras Tionscal and the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Limited, assist financially in the training of workers and Córas Tráchtála makes grants available for export marketing research and consultancy projects. The principal object of the Irish National Productivity Committee is the raising of the general standard of productivity; its expenses are met from the grant-in-aid under subhead L.2.

In view of the various ways in which industries can obtain assistance in improving productivity I have given consideration to the question of possible duplication and overlapping of effort. The accounts of the Irish National Productivity Committee are not audited by me but in those cases which came under my review I am satisfied that assistance was not rendered by more than one agency in respect of the same scheme.”

Deputy Hogan.—With reference to this paragraph, this seems to be an omnibus effort, there are so many bodies mentioned here, Córas Tráchtála, Foras Tionscal, Shannon Development Company, and the question of duplication is mentioned. Is there a possibility of duplication with so many bodies participating in the issuing of grants?—The Comptroller and Auditor General has referred to that in the second part of paragraph 54. We have given a great deal of thought to this subject. I do not think there is any probability of duplication where the ordinary consultancy grant is concerned. There is a possibility—I would not say probability—that there might be overlapping between the INPC and the ordinary consultancy scheme. I do not think there is any danger of overlapping or duplication with the Irish Management Institute. The Irish Management Institute should be concerned with productivity at the management level, though there is a kind of grey area which you could assign either as part of management or as part of the operative structure. We felt at one stage there was a danger that the Irish National Productivity Committee in seminars, might be overlapping with the Irish Management Institute. However, certain lines have been set which, if followed, should avoid any such risk. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has referred to consultancy grants. It is conceivable that a firm might apply for and get a grant towards the employment of industrial consultants. The firm would have to pay 50 per cent of the cost and we would pay the other 50 per cent. If the same firm wanted a second opinion, they might go to the Irish National Productivity Committee and ask them to send out their people. Their people might go along and do the same job. There was no contribution required at one stage from the beneficiaries though now, I believe, fees are charged. That could only happen if the Irish National Productivity Committee’s officers exceed their function. They are supposed to be diagnosticians. It is called a diagnostic service, and they are supposed to go only to small and medium firms who normally would not employ industrial consultants. They look at the business and they are supposed to stop at the point of telling the owner: “What is wrong with your organisation is your bookkeeping section” or “What is wrong with your organisation is your costs control,” or something like that. They are supposed to say: “You should employ a firm of consultants.” If so, there cannot be overlapping, but if they went further and did the investigation themselves, there could be. All we can say there is that the firm would have paid 50 per cent of the cost of the first scheme. This is some assurance that they would want to get value for their money. In the light of the auditor’s comment here we will again enjoin on the director of the Irish National Productivity Committee the great need for instructing their people not to go further than diagnosis. There has, in fact, been a complaint from the Chartered Accountants’ Institute that the diagnosticians did actually give advice in particular cases.

296. Deputy Hogan.—Is there a possibility of overlapping in the field of tourist development between, for example, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, who, I understand, have got promotional development staff and Bórd Fáilte?—I could not speak on that because that is under the Department of Transport and Power.

The Shannon Free Airport Development Company are mentioned here?—They are only concerned with training of workers.

Mr. Suttle.—The position is that the Chairman of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Mr. Brendan O’Regan, is also Chairman of Bórd Fáilte. A certain amount of work in regard to tourism is done by the Shannon Free Airport Development Company. Bórd Fáilte are doing the same thing.

297. Deputy Crowley.—I would like to ask the number of staff on the Irish National Productivity Committee, the make-up of the staff from the director down?—It is set out in the annual report. Broadly speaking, they have a staff of about 40. We can send this information to you.*

298. It seems to be tremendously difficult to get consultants from the Irish National Productivity Committee to come down to firms because of demands on the staff or lack of personnel. Is there any easing of the position?—You have used the word consultants, which is what we do not want to have them called. There is a danger of overlapping if they go down as consultants. They go down as diagnosticians. There is a staff of about 18 immediately involved in that. There should be no difficulty in getting them. I did not think the demand was such that any firm had to wait. We will look into that.

I know of one firm who told me they had to wait six months?—That should not be so. I will look into it.

299. You mentioned there was no fee or payment attached to the people coming down?—In practice, at the start, they had not been collecting any. It is the intention that there should be a contribution. The Minister for Finance insists on that but it was agreed, while the scheme was getting off the ground, they could dispense with the contributions because those were merely small firms.

300. I cannot see any difference in essence between the Irish Management Institue and the Irish National Productivity Committee except in their terms of reference?—The ideal thing would be to have them all brought into one but it is a question of conflicting interests. Labour is represented in the Irish National Productivity Committee. It is a tripartite committee. You have employers, labour and educational people in it. The Irish Management Institute, on the other hand, is strictly employers and nobody else is in it. That is the main reason. The value of the INPC, in the first place, was propaganda. It took quite a long time to get a statement of policy and to encourage a sort of receptive atmosphere for productivity among the workers. Having established the Committee and having regard to the stage of its development we feel that it would be a pity to dispense with it now, though this question did arise a year ago when there was a suggestion that there was overlapping with the Management Institute and the Federation of Irish Industries. I am afraid we shall probably have to live with the two separate bodies. There is an over-all committee presided over by the Industrial Re-organisation Branch of our Department which meets every so often at which all those people, the INPC and the Management Institute, attend. Its purpose is to see there is no over-lapping and to make sure all are working on the same lines. The emphasis is on increasing competitiveness and the aim is to make sure that all are working on that instead of disbursing their energies over the whole field.

You said they were not looked on as consultants but actually before they joined the Irish National Productivity Committee they must have been consultants?—Yes, they were.

301. Deputy Briscoe.—Is there any way of letting us know how many firms have availed of the services?—There should be no trouble at all. I will send the number to you.*

Deputy Andrews.—Is there any limitation to the size of the firms?—That might only arise in the case of the medium firms. There is no problem as regards the small firms but I imagine there would be as regards the medium firms.

What would you consider small firms and medium firms?—We do not, departmentally, come directly into that. I would say that a small firm would be a firm with a turnover of £10,000 to £20,000 a year. It does not have to be a manufacturing firm for this purpose. It can be any kind of firm.

Deputy Briscoe.—What proportion of those firms in Ireland would be at that level?—A very high proportion. I cannot be sure of my figures. I believe it is of the order of 60 to 65 per cent. There has been a little investigation into that. The Central Statistics Office know and they could furnish the exact figure.

302. Deputy Andrews.—Would our entry into the EEC mean that we should cut down the number of firms?—The test is really not so much the number of firms in proportion to the total number of firms which fall into that category as the proportion of the total production which is taken into the group. It is quite true to say that a very high proportion, in fact the major proportion, are small and medium size firms. We do, of course, favour amalgamation of these small manufacturing firms or cooperation between them in marketing research or even production.

303. Deputy Crowley.—With regard to the sanction of 50 per cent grants towards the use of consultants, do your Department envisage expanding these to firms in, say, the car business?—We do. At the moment we are creeping gradually in that direction. At first it was absolutely confined to manufacturing firms. We are moving now in the sphere of distribution. We do not provide exactly the same services for distribution as for manufacture because there are far too many distributors involved but we do pay the same grant for the odd small distributor and so on as if they were manufacturers. In the case of consultancy, because of the size of the thing, we cannot undertake to pay consultants’ fees in the case of individual firms but we have told them that if they put up a co-operative effort of, say, 10 or 20 firms collectively we will pay the consultancy fee there. Services provide a difficulty for us because of ministerial responsibility. We, in Industry and Commerce, are responsbile for only a relatively small number of services, for example insurance. We certainly do visualise that, at some stage, we shall extend the scheme to insurance. We have given grants, in fact, under the Technical Assistance Scheme to CIE, not for transport, but for the workshops at Inchicore. We feel, where the other services are concerned, it would not really be proper for us. Banking for example, is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance and car-hire activities would come under the heading of transport which would be the responsibility of the Minister for Transport and Power. But on the face of it, as services they should qualify for any grants that may be made available when the scheme is extended to cover services.

They are the invisible exports?—Yes.

304. Deputy P. Byrne.—You mentioned in regard to the National Productivity Committee that the Institute of Chartered Accountants had raised a certain objection. Could you elaborate on that for us, please?—I can tell you broadly. We had representations from Doctor Robinson, who is or was the President, and a number of the Members of the Council who came to see me and, I think, Doctor Dempsey of Aer Lingus was also one of those concerned. They said that cases had been brought to thier notice by individual auditors of intervention by the Irish National Productivity Committee between the firm and its auditor and that the officials of the INPC had given advice of a highly accountancy character to individual firms—I am not too clear in my recollection of whether or not this advice was at variance with the advice of their own auditor, or was the type of advice which should have been sought from their auditor. The INPC is an autonomous body, so all we could do was arrange that the Chairman of the INPC would meet Doctor Robinson and his colleagues. They did meet and I received letters from Doctor Robinson and Mr. Tonge, Chairman of the INPC, saying that they had reached a mutually satisfactory understanding. I do not know what it was but I gather from Mr. Tonge that the situation was not quite what the Chartered Accountants had thought it was. I mention that case only to show that there is the danger of these field officers, perhaps, going a little bit beyond their functions and leading to the type of overlapping which the Comptroller and Auditor General had in mind.

Deputy Crowley.—Does that come exactly under your aegis or responsibility, because if these consultants went to a firm they could give advice which the auditor has not been told about. I do not see that has anything to do with the auditors, as such?

305. Chairman.—At this stage we are starting to move into something with which we should not be dealing here; we are starting to move into policy decisions which would not be appropriate to the Committee, as such, so, if Deputy Crowley does not mind, we shall leave it there. The accounts of the Irish National Productivity Committee are audited at present by a firm of auditors but detailed accounts are not available, I understand, to the Comptroller and Auditor General?—I did not know; that is a new one on me. I did not know that the Comptroller and Auditor General had asked us for any information.

Mr. Suttle.—Our point of view on the matter was that we visualised the possibility of duplicate grants or duplicate assistance and that sort of thing, and we carried out an investigation this year, as I reported in my Report here. We are quite satisfied that in all these bodies we mentioned there was no duplication. But, in the case of the Irish National Productivity Committee, we had no information. We are not its auditors, even though it is fully State money. Therefore, we could not say, in the case of the Irish National Productivity Committee, whether or not there was duplication.

Deputy P. Byrne.—Who are the auditors?—

Mr. Suttle.—A commercial firm of auditors.

Mr. MacCarthy.—It is a Grant-in-Aid. My functions normally end when I get a receipt from the beneficiary of the Grant-in-Aid but we certainly will look into the point of the Comptroller and Auditor General to see if there could not be some arrangement. These bodies are always jealous of their independence.

306. Deputy P. Byrne.—I thought we had made the point last year that all these bodies in receipt of Grants-in-Aid should be subject to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Chairman.—That is one of the things mentioned in our last Report and one of the things in regard to which we are interested in seeing the Minute of the Minister for Finance on that Report. If Finance were represented here now, I would be drawing their attention to the fact that they cannot expect the Committee to work without knowing what their Department is saying on these things. If some representative turns up from Finance, we will be expecting him to give us a firm undertaking in this matter, so that the Committee will have a chance of knowing what Finance have to say.

307. Paragraph 55 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead P.—Shipbuilding Subsidy

55. Reference was made in paragraph 70 of the previous report to the payment of £650,000 subsidy in respect of the first two ships built by Verolme Cork Dockyard, Ltd. £60,000 charged to the subhead in the year under review represents a payment on account of subsidy on the third ship constructed by the company. The payment was made on the recommendation of a special committee appointed by the Minister to examine the company’s subsidy claims.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing further to add.

308. Deputy Hogan.—I understand five ships were subsidised. I wonder could Mr. MacCarthy give us a breakdown?—I can give figures in respect of the first five— actually there are eight ships altogether. Of the first five, the total payment for the first and second vessels was £650,000. For the third, fourth and fifth vessels, the total payments, so far, amounted to £235,000 but the commitment in respect of these three would be for £570,000. You see, the commitment is not automatically honoured. There is a committee—as I mentioned last year— consisting of representatives of the Industrial Credit Company, the Industrial Development Authority and An Foras Tionscal. This Committee makes a recommendation as to the ceiling which should obtain in respect of subsidy on these vessels. The actual amount paid, of course, will depend upon the loss being as high as the committee had anticipated and also on the exclusion from subsidy claims of things like depreciation charges and on the understanding that nobody else siphons anything off. For instance, the shipbuilding firm has to agree to abandon interest claims, and the Industrial Credit Company abandons interest claims, so that the subsidy is really a contribution towards the actual loss. The expenditure to date—that is up to now—on the third, fourth and fifth ships is £235,000 but the total could be as high as £570,000. For the sixth, seventh and eighth ships, of course, nothing has yet been spent and the commitment against these three ships is £360,000. It is progressively reducing, as one would expect. It is intended to cover the inefficiency of green labour and this should be a reducing factor: for example, it was 25 per cent for the first, 13 per cent for the second, down to ten per cent for the fifth and to eight per cent for the remainder.

309. Deputy Briscoe.—We can take it that on future ships there will be no subsidy?—It would be a bit dangerous for me to make a statement on that, but one would hope that would be correct, that there would be no need for subsidy after these ones.

How many are employed there?—About 900.

Deputy Crowley.—Deputy Briscoe was asking if the position might arise—and Mr. McCarthy was hopeful it might—when no further subsidy would be needed, but this has not happened in any other country?—That is the point. Until conditions return to normal we cannot predict. The only thing is that if we can get down as low as 8 per cent, it suggests there cannot be too much wrong. If with the Verolme Dockyards we can get away with an 8 per cent subsidy, even in conditions of international subsidies, we are not doing too badly.

As the Deputy representing that area, I hope you will continue to put further money into it.

310. Chairman.—Paragraph 56 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead Q.—Repayment of Advances under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts

56. Tailteann Sports Products, Limited failed to meet its obligations for a loan of £5,000 guaranteed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and a receiver was appointed in July 1961, the company having closed down. £5,106, which included accrued interest, was issued from the Exchequer in 1961-62. The amount realised by the receiver was £4,915 of which £1,176 was required for his expenses including £420 for fees and £82 for travelling and miscellaneous expenses leaving a balance of £3,739. The net loss to the Exchequer was, therefore, £1,367.”

Deputy Hogan.—The £5,000 loan and the amount the receiver got, £4,915, almost balance out. How does that arise?—There is a great deal of past history to this. May I briefly describe the case to you? It has, of course, come before the Dáil and the money has been voted, so that, so far as the policy is concerned, that has been determined by the Dáil. This was a firm in Killorglin in County Kerry which was making fishing tackle. They got a grant of £7,500, and the Minister then guaranteed under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts a loan of £5,000. The first repayment of the principal was postponed for six months. At the end of six months, they could not pay up nor could they pay the interest. The National Bank, who were their bankers, refused to increase the overdraft. The losses mounted up to about £5,500 in three years but by the time 1960 came, the losses were up to £13,000. In order to protect the Minister’s interests, the bank was asked to put in a receiver. That was done in 1961 by which time the losses were over £13,000. The Minister had to pay the bank £5,106 in September, 1961, which discharged the Minister’s liability. The receiver realised £5,915 from the sale of the assets. His expenses were £1,176. The balance left was £3,739, and subtracting that from what the Minister paid, up you arrive at the loss to the Exchequer which was £1,367.

Chairman.—It looks from a realisation of £4,915 that £1,176 for expenses is rather high?—The actual fees and expenses of the receiver, that is, personal fees and personal expenses, were £502. The balance was for keeping the business ticking over while he was disposing of it.

Deputy Andrews.—It is certainly a dismal venture, but could we have more details as to why it failed?—I regret I cannot do that. However, once the Dáil decides to vote money to implement a guarantee, they may be said to have been satisfied on that.

Chairman.—The Deputy will get the information in the Dáil Report.

311. Paragraph 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“57. The aggregate amount of trade loans guaranteed by the Minister under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts, 1939 to 1954 was £2,416,350 at March 1965. Guarantees amounting to £1,181,000 were also given under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts, 1924 to 1934. Sums totalling £834,927 were issued out of the Central Fund on foot of guarantees and £221,348 was repaid. The Minister’s contingent liability in respect of guarantees still in operation at 31 March, 1965 was £728,405.”

312. Paragraph 58 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead R.—St. Patrick’s Copper Mines Ltd.—Provision for Care and Maintenance, Expenses

58. Reference was made in paragraph 64 of the report for the year 1962-63 to payments to the receiver who had been appointed to manage the affairs of St. Patrick’s Copper Mines, Ltd. The receiver was appointed in July 1962 by the Minister for Finance following the failure of the company to meet its obligations under a mortgage which had been the subject of guarantees under the State Guarantees Act, 1954. It had been intended to keep the company’s mine at Avoca in production pending its disposal as a going concern but it was decided in September, 1962 that production should cease and that the mine should be put on care and maintenance pending a decision as to its future.

£30,000 was issued to the receiver in the year under review and I have asked for full details of his receipts and expenses since the date of his appointment together with supporting vouchers.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Accounts submitted by the receiver have been made available, but the Department had made no specific check on them. The Accounting Officer informed me that all the records and supporting vouchers were available for my inspection at the Company’s headquarters at Avoca. In a brief visit my officers found that test checks of the transactions of the receiver were virtually impossible as a detailed statement of affairs at 20th July, 1963, the date of his appointment, had not been prepared. The inspection at Avoca showed that when the receiver went in to run the mine on 20th July, 1962, he took on the Company’s existing accounts and technical staff and worked the mine until September, 1962, when it was closed. No line was drawn in the Company’s books at 20th July, 1962. Otherwise the records, from the brief inspection, seemed satisfactory.

Deputy Briscoe.—With the increase in the price of copper is there any chance the mine could be re-opened on an economic basis?—I am in a slight difficulty in answering that question, because I think it would be more correct for the Minister to make an announcement in the Dáil. However, I can perhaps go as far as to say that we have not been unmindful of the possibility and that I think there might be an announcement fairly shortly.

313. Chairman.—I notice the amount received by the receiver in the year under review, 1964-65, and in the year, 1962-63. The question strikes me as to how the receiver financed the operations prior to this?—There was certain equipment which was sold, equipment which could be sold because there was no charge on it from any other source. That provided him with a certain amount of money which apparently enabled him to carry on up to the point at which we had to issue money for the care and maintenance operation, which is largely pumping and keeping the mine dry.

Are these care and maintenance charges still being borne by the State?—Yes, we are continuing to do that. I think it works out at £20,000 a year.

314. Paragraph 59 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead T.1.—Temporary Assistance for Industry

59. Following the imposition by the British authorities in October 1964 of a temporary charge on imports into Britain it was decided to make available to Irish exporters grants of up to fifty per cent. of the burden which they had to bear attributable to the temporary charge. Payments to 31 March 1965 amounted to £183,006.”

We presume this will end?—We would certainly hope so. We started rather slowly on it. The first year expenditure was only £183,000, but it was over £2 million in the second year and it is running at the rate of £2 million in the current year. If the thing ends in November as has been announced, I suppose the total cost will be about £4 million. That is a rather rough estimate.

Deputy Crowley.—Does it mean that if this ends in November you immediately stop paying?—No we would be committed to certain exporters and on the production of the receipt for the Levy, shall have to discharge our commitments.

This could go on for another 12 months? —It could go on for quite a time.

Deputy Andrews.—The figure of £183,000 in the first year seems very low?—This is due to the fact that the system became operative in October, 1964, but the amount was not collected by the British Government for some time. We promised everybody that, provided he produced the British customs receipt for the levy, we would re-imburse him, but that was a rather slow procedure, and a great deal of the expenditure after 1st April, 1965, would have been in respect of the previous year’s transactions.

315. Deputy Briscoe.—Would you clarify one point for me? You mentioned those grants would be given after the surcharge had finished in November because of business contracted but if there is no ten per cent. on future deliveries into England after that date how is this reconciled?—It is a question of the extent of the commitment. Once the levy is paid and the proper receipt obtained from the British Customs we are bound, in honour, to make payment on production of that receipt to us, unless, of course, there are some unusual features in the claim. The basis on which these grants were introduced was that the burden of the levy had to be shared between the exporter, the Irish government and, insofar as that could be arranged, the British importer. So long as a payment has to be made to the British government the Irish government remains committed by its undertaking to share that burden with the exporter.

In other words, the Department would give the full ten per cent charge?—Yes, provided he was clearly entitled to it.

Deputy Hogan.—I understood 50 per cent of the charge was paid in many cases?—The average was not really 50 per cent. The original intention was that we would give 50 per cent but the Irish exporters felt it would be an impossible thing to do this so it varies from case to case. We had a discussion with all the exporters who settled for 40 per cent of the actual levy. Where exports form a very high percentage of the firm’s turnover we might go up to 50 per cent. When we ran into our balance of payments difficulties the Government, in order to encourage further exports said that where a firm had increased its exports in the period from July to December, 1965, by ten per cent over the corresponding period in 1964 the contribution would be raised to 55 per cent of the import surcharge and where a firm showed an increase of more than ten per cent they could go up as high as 65 per cent. Therefore, some firms have been getting 65 per cent, others 55 per cent and so on. In all, 600 exporters are now receiving grants.

316. Deputy Byrne.—What is the normal time lag between the making of an application to you for a refund of the British levy and the payment?—I am afraid there is not a normal one because it depends entirely on how anxious the firms are to get their money and how quickly they get after the British for their documents. We cannot pay until we get the documents. When we get them at the moment we certainly pay within a week. It is frightfully difficult because some small firms have an objection to looking for the British documents. I am afraid the auditor would not be happy if we had not some evidence to show that the surcharge was paid.

Deputy Hogan.—Have you got the figure of exporters?—Córas Tráchtála would have those figures. I would say the figure is between 700 and 800. That is my own estimate and I cannot say if it is their estimate.

317. Chairman.—Paragraph 60 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“Subhead T.2.—Promotion of Buy Irish Campaign

60. A special committee was formed in November, 1964, from interested organisations to initiate and direct a campaign to encourage the greatest possible support in the home market for Irish manufactured goods. The charge to the subhead, £18,482, represents expenditure, mainly on advertising, by the Department to 31 March, 1965.”

Will this be a permanent body?—I would not say so. The whole future of the body will need to be reviewed in the light of experience to date. I do not think there is any suggestion that the body, as at present constituted, would necessarily be permanent.

Deputy Andrews.—What has the experience been to date?—I cannot say whether it was a complete success. It is hard to point the finger at what has happened or where the trouble is. It is much the same as Córas Tráchtála. It is very hard to say how much exports we would have got without it. It is hard to say if the Buy Irish campaign has achieved its object. There is no easy answer to this until the shops can be induced to offer Irish goods to the people.

I mentioned that in the Dáil.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—That is what happened with Scotch whisky in the U.S.A.

318. Chairman.—In regard to subhead C. —Advertising and Publicity—and item 4 of the Appropriations-in-Aid, which relates to fees under the Minerals Development Act, 1940, and the Petroleum and other Minerals Development Act, 1960, how do you reconcile those two items? Do the applicants pay for their advertising?—I do not think you ever could reconcile those two items because in very many cases we may advertise an intention of issuing a licence but it may never be issued. It is a very ponderous procedure. We have often thought of getting it changed but we met with the most violent resistance from the National Farmers’ Association and all farming interests. It is a very great interference with a man’s rights to license somebody to go over his farm and start digging here and there. We have to issue a notice in which every single townland is covered. It is a very expensive advertising process but successive Ministers have taken the view that it is an extra safeguard for the landowners and should not be interfered with. It is frightfully costly. We advertise quite a dramatic and important thing in a half inch advertisement but in regard to this matter we take up a whole column or two columns.

It is to safeguard the rights of the individual?—Yes.

319. In regard to subhead G.—Expenses in connection with International Organisations, Special Services, Enquiries, etc.—I notice the expenditure was greater than you anticipated. Is there any special reason for this?—It is because the subscription is payable in American dollars and there is always bound to be a slight variation. In this particular case there was also a contribution towards the cost of a special industrial relations scheme which was established by the I.L.O. I think the contribution was approximately £2,000.

Deputy Andrews.—Did we send anybody across to this?—We sent one trade union official.

320. Deputy P. Byrne.—On subhead J.— Grant to An Foras Tionscal (Grant-in-Aid) —in connection with grants made by An Foras Tionscal for industrial development, can you tell us if those grants are ever repayable under any circumstances—in the event of the industry not coming to fruition, for example, or going into liquidation?— There was always an understanding about this. About twelve months ago they introduced a new form of contract between An Foras Tionscal and the grantee which provides for either the reversion—I am not too clear about this; I should like in fact to send you a note about it because I might give you wrong information unintentionally. It either provides for the reversion in a factory—that would be a factory built with the aid of the grant—in certain contingencies or for the repayment of the grant in certain contingencies such as if the industry did not go on, as the Deputy mentioned.

It might be helpful if your note would include details of any sums received by way of refund?—Yes.*

321. Deputy P. Hogan.—In regard to subhead L.1.—Technical Assistance—I should like to know how this substantial sum is apportioned. Is it apportioned as between industry and agriculture or for, say, fuel economy work?—I might say, first of all, that agriculture does not come into it at all because anything under that heading would be under the Vote for Agriculture. The coal fields come into it just because we deal with minerals and it was felt that it would be an undue refinement to start separating coal from the other minerals. The Department of Transport and Power actually administer any grants for the marketing of coal. Of the total of £350,000, £10,000 was for private mineral exploration—that was mineral exploration by private firms; of the balance, £283,000 was provided for the ordinary Industrial Consultancy Scheme; £22,000 was a grant to the Irish Management Institute; and £25,000 went to Adaptation Councils— these are the bodies set up by industries to adapt themselves to conditions of freer trade —we contribute towards the salaries of the Chairmen and secretarial expenses. Then we had a Science and Technology Survey for which we provided £10,000. The big saving, as always, was on the Consultancy Scheme because, out of the £283,000, we paid only £163,000; the saving being almost £120,000. There are several reasons for that saving. The first reason is that the bills do not always come in in time. Sometimes the schemes are not started until coming towards the end of the year. In any case, we do not pay until we get a copy of the consultant’s report. Sometimes the firms are a bit slow about paying; nor, of course, do we pay until the firm has itself paid, so if the firm is being slow about paying the consultant, we shall be slow also.

322. Deputy Crowley.—On the sum of £283,000 put aside, if you like, for the payment of consultants, how many firms would be involved in that?—I do not think I could give you the number of firms. I will send you a note on that.* It would be a fairly substantial number, certainly.

You say you wait until the firm pays the consultant’s fees. Is it not normal practice that the consultants are paid weekly?—It is but we do not issue anything weekly; we wait to get the final receipt from the consultant.

323. Deputy Hogan.—As regards the Adaptation Councils, there was a time lag in activities paid for here. Has the position improved?—It is improving; it is a bit difficult. If I might express my own view on it—which is purely a view—I think the whole fault has lain with the Chairmen of these Councils. There has been a tendency, because of the rivalries between firms, to act on a basic principle that the Chairman would not be a person employed in that particular industry. The result is that they have looked outside and have taken on a lot of retired officials and people like that who really were not the dynamic types wanted for this kind of thing. There has been a recognition of that now and there have been changes of chairmanship. Also, the Industrial Re-Organisation Branch are under instructions to keep breathing down the necks of these bodies all the time. It is improving but it is still by no means as good as we would wish.

324. Deputy Crowley.—What amount is allocated for Adaptation Grants?—The adaptation grants amount to about £2 million. I can give you the actual figure for 1965/66—£1,858,000 for 1965/66.

325. Deputy Andrews.—In regard to subhead N—New York World’s Fair, 1964/65 —have you got any indication as to what sums of money were made out of promotion at the World’s Fair?—I do not think we would ever get that. It was not really a trade fair, as you know. It was rather more a prestige business. We obviously would get far better results out of an ordinary commercial trade fair promotion in the United States.

326. Chairman.—In regard to the explanation of subhead O.—Commissions, Committees and Special Inquiries—is it unusual for the Department to pay actuarial expenses, in this case in relation to the Committee on C.I.E. Pensions and Sickness Benefit Payments? Will they be ultimately recovered? —We become responsible once a committee or a commission of inquiry is established for all their expenses and, if they find it necessary to employ an actuary—they would have to get agreement in advance—we would be responsible for that also as part of the costs.

Deputy Crowley.—Was the excess the amount that was paid to the actuary?— No. In fact, the excess is less than the amount paid to the actuary. The actuary received about £1,050, so there must have been countervailing savings under some other head which reduced the total excess to £600.

How long did this committee sit?—The committee sat from the 11th June, 1963, until the 3rd March, 1964—about nine months. The actuary was employed during the period from the 5th November, 1963, to the 24th February, 1964.

327. Deputy P. J. Burke.—With regard to subhead T.2—Promotion of Buy Irish campaign—I should like to know a little more about the way in which this campaign was carried out?

Their method of operation is this. They have power, in consultation with the Minister, to co-opt representatives from organisations which are not already on the Committee. The chairman and four or five other members form an executive committee which is really the body that does the day-to-day work. Behind them there is a rather larger council. The chairman gets a fee of £500 a year—or has been getting it, as he recently indicated he would prefer not to be paid any fee but to act on a voluntary basis.

Deputy Andrews.—Have any others indicated their willingness to forego the fee?— No, the chairman is the only person so far.

I should like my appreciation of the chairman’s gesture to go on record.—The chairman has authority to appoint a chief executive at a salary range of £1,500 to £1,700. They had one, but at the present moment they are in the process of changing horses. This arrangement was designed to cover a three-year period so as to give them some feeling of continuity, and the annual contribution from the State towards their expenses was £20,000.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—It is only in this country they operate that?—Yes, only in this country.

Do you think you will get a good man for the salary you mention?—I do not think you will get a really good man for that, but it was their idea. We did not prompt the figure. This is the figure they suggested to us.

Deputy Andrews.—Have you any idea as to what the grant to the Buy Irish campaign has been up to 31st March, 1966?—About £45,000.

328. Deputy P. Hogan.—I think we got a list previously of the firms to whom adaptation grants were paid, and the grants paid from An Foras Tionscal?—They will appear in the annual report of An Foras Tionscal.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 48—SOCIAL WELFARE

Mr. W. A. Honohan called and examined.

329. Chairman.—Before commencing on this Vote, I should like to say, as we have a representative here from the Department of Finance, that the Committee have been referring to the fact that we have not had the minute of the Department of Finance in regard to the previous report of the Committee. As next Tuesday’s is the final meeting of the Committee for this session, the members would appreciate very much having the minute in their hands as early as possible before the Committee meets on Tuesday.

330. Paragraph 80 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

80. Payments from this subhead to the Social Insurance Fund in the year under review amounted to £9,564,000. These payments are subject to adjustment when the audited accounts of the Fund are available.”

331. Paragraph 81 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“81. Sums recovered in respect of overpayments of social assistance charged in prior years’ accounts were:—£28,876 in cash credited to Appropriations in Aid and £4,606 withheld from current entitlements. Overpayments amounting to £7,082 were treated as irrecoverable. The total amount of overpayments not disposed of at 31 March, 1965 was £56,425 as compared with £62,171 at 31 March, 1964. During the year 17 individuals were prosecuted for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain social assistance and convictions were secured in 16 cases.”

I notice that during the year there were 17 prosecutions. Is that unduly low? Was there any change in procedure?—There was no change in procedure, but it is considerably below the normal.

What type of prosecutions were made?— They were all in respect of unemployment assistance—fraudulent claims.

I take it the amount of money involved was not very large?—About £200 in all.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is there any way of estimating roughly how much is paid out in regard to cases going undetected?—We would hope this is all.

332. Deputy Andrews.—In regard to overpayments amounting to £7,082 written off as irrecoverable, could you state the reasons?— £5,936 was in respect of old age pensions; £97, children’s allowances, £438 for unemployment assistance; and £611, widows’ and orphans’ pensions.

Why were they treated as irrecoverable?— People get these benefits and we find they should not have got them; perhaps they leave the country permanently and in the course of time, we regard the money as irrecoverable and get authority from the Department of Finance to write it off.

If they do not leave the country?—Perhaps a person dies and there is no money available.

Deputy Andrews.—Do you prosecute in some cases?—We do where it is necessary.

Deputy Healy.—Some people, widows and old age pensioners, would be overpaid by mistake and they would be in no position to pay back afterwards.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—When the pension is cut off, they would have no money to pay.

Deputy Briscoe.—Are the figures, with regard to losses, roughly the same from year to year?—They vary but are roughly the same one year with another.

How are those matters discovered? Do you have people going around investigating the claims?—Yes. There are all sorts of ways. For instance, when a person dies his affairs come up for scrutiny. There is the Estate Duty Office.

Chairman.—There are quite a lot of sources available to the Department?—You could have a case where a person has been drawing pension for some time and he should not have got it. Investigation is a normal process for the Department.

Deputy Briscoe.—Have you officers in the Department whose job is to investigate cases here and there and make a spot check?— We have social welfare officers on the outdoor staff. That is one of their functions. It is not their sole function, of course.

333. Chairman.—In regard to subhead K.—Miscellaneous Grants—I notice there has been a considerable saving there in regard to the Fuel and Footwear Schemes. Could we take it that people are becoming too prosperous at the present time for those schemes? —I suppose one could make presumptions to that effect. All I can say is that the claims have been less than we thought, to judge by the previous years.

Could you give me any breakdown under the subhead in regard to fuel and footwear?— Expenditure by way of grants under the Education (Provision of Meals) Acts, was £84,940 as compared with an estimate of £80,000. There was an excess there. Under the School Meals (Gaeltacht) Acts the expenditure was £5,980, as compared with an estimate of £10,000. Under the Fuel Scheme the expenditure was £120,119 as compared with £147,000 estimated. Under the Footwear Scheme the expenditure was £23,387, as compared with an estimate of £30,000. Under the Welfare of the Blind Scheme the expenditure was £24,914, as compared with an estimate of £22,500. Those all appear in the Estimate itself.

Deputy Healy.—Can I take it that the requests of the local authorities have been met in full with regard to fuel and footwear?— Yes. They have been met in full at least to the extent we are permitted, which is 50 per cent. in the case of footwear.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—There is no change in the administration of it?—No.

Chairman.—The scheme is administered by the local authorities and they make their demands on the Department.

Deputy Hogan.—Are those schemes of universal application or are they confined to some areas?—The Gaeltacht grants naturally are confined to the Gaeltacht. The fuel Scheme is one which has continued since the time of the Emergency. It applied to non-turf areas and it has not been extended since.

Deputy Byrne.—How much was the grant for the Dublin County Borough in regard to the Fuel Scheme?—In the year 1964/65 the amount we paid to Dublin in respect of the fuel scheme was £56,500.

334. Has the Minister or the Department any objection to the principle of delivering this fuel? It is a major problem in respect of old people.

Chariman.—This would be a policy matter and the Accounting Officer would not be responsible for that.

Deputy Byrne.—Is it laid down by the Department that the fuel must not be delivered?

Chairman.—This is something which would concern policy. The Accounting Officer could not be asked to express an opinion on such a matter. It is something which could form the subject of a question in the House with the appropriate Minister.

335. Chairman.—In regard to item No. 1 of the Appropriations in Aid, I note that the administration costs recovered from the Social Insurance Fund were £1,434,000. Can you give us any idea of the make-up of this amount?—This represents the estimated cost of administering Social Insurance. I have not got anything in the nature of a breakdown of this figure. It is, in fact, an estimated figure from the total expenditure of the Department in respect of the administration of the different services.

Some of these would be applicable to what might be regarded as “free” services and some to what might be regarded as “contributory services”, such as travelling, renting premises and so on?—This sum of £1,434,000 is all related to the administration of the contributory services of Social Insurance.

There is no question of the apportionment of the expenditure as between what is free and what is contributory?—It is all in respect of contributory services. Subheads A, B, C and D of the Vote cover the cost of administration of the whole Department, Insurance and Assistance. This sum in the Appropriations in Aid is in respect of the insurance part of those services; it would include salaries of officers engaged solely on insurance work and part of the salary of officers who are engaged sometimes on one and sometimes on the other, such as myself, I presume. Travelling expenses would be split up in the same way, so that this sum of £1,434,000 is all in respect of contributory services, although it includes not only travelling but other incidental expenses.

You could not break this up as to how much is contributory and how much is free in the total administering section?—I could get a figure for you but I can give you now an approximation—about 57 per cent of the total costs of administration would be in respect of contributory services.

Members will have received the Accounts of the Social Insurance Fund.* As there are no questions on that, we are very much obliged, Mr. Honohan.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 29—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called and examined.

336. Mr. P. Byrne.—On subhead A.4— Expenses in connection with the Commission on Higher Education—I am wondering when we might expect the Report of the Commission?—We have been informed by the Commission that they will report as soon as possible this year.

337. Chairman.—In regard to subhead B.1 —Expenses in connection with Membership of UNESCO—how much of this expenditure represents Ireland’s contribution to UNESCO?—£8,738.

338. Subhead B.2—Expenses in connection with OECD Survey. This survey has been completed?—Yes.

Can you tell us what was the total cost of the survey and how much did the OECD contribute to it?—The total cost of the project was £35,000, excluding printing costs, which were £7,000. Contributions totalling £10,670 were received from OECD.

339. Deputy Briscoe.—In regard to subhead C.1—Purchase of Specimens (Grant-in-Aid)—is this a grant which is given every year to the National Museum of this amount? —It is a Grant-in-Aid and you will find a statement on page 69 of the Appropriation Accounts. The amount unexpended is carried forward every year, so that there is an accumulated fund.

It is at the disposal of the Director of the National Museum to purchase anything he wants?—Yes—in case anything came up suddenly for purchase—so that we do not have to go to Dáil Éireann again unless expenditure arises that goes beyond what is in the Fund. In this particular case, we had to have a Supplementary Estimate because there was a large sum involved which would have exceeded the Fund.

What was the large item purchased?—It was a large silver porringer which was considered to be a unique piece of Irish craftsmanship.

We had to go to England for it?—Yes; that is right.

340. Chairman.—With regard to subhead F.6—Grant to Gael Linn towards cost of Short Films in Irish—how many films did Gael Linn produce?—It is a weekly affair. The amount is given towards the cost of supplying cinemas with a regular news film, I think, every week or fortnight.

Deputy Byrne.—Do the cinemas pay anything for it?—I understand they do.

341. With regard to subhead F.7— Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge (Grant-in-Aid)—this is an item on which we raised a point on our report last year in which we expressed the view that the accounts of bodies in receipt of grants-in-aid which constitute a substantial or a major part of their income ought to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Could you tell us if that point has been considered, and with what result?—We have, and we actually receive audited accounts from Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge—at least we received them up to the year concerned. That Vote has now gone from us to Roinn na Gaeltachta. We feel that the whole point of a Grant-in-Aid is that it should leave a fairly wide latitude to the recipient. The idea is so that it will not be controlled too closely by a Civil Service Department.

342. Chairman.—The question of the receipt of the minute of the Minister for Finance on the Committee’s last report has arisen already this morning. We have been trying to impress on the Finance representatives that the Committee are most anxious to have from the Minister for Finance his minute on the observations of the Committee in the previous report. The Committee meets on Tuesday for its final meeting and the members are most anxious that the reply of the Minister for Finance should be available to them ahead of that date so that they can study what Finance has had to say on their observations. Could Mr. Whitty tell us what the position is?

Mr. Whitty.—I understand that the minute is almost completed and I will certainly convey to the proper quarter the Committee’s desire to have it before their last meeting.

Chairman.—Several members have expressed the view that they would like to have it in time to study it, and they meet finally on Tuesday next. They wish to have a look at what Finance have to say in their observations on the Committee’s report.

Mr. Whitty.—Very good, Mr. Chairman.

343. Deputy Crowley.—On subhead G.3— The National Film Institute of Ireland— Purchase of Educational Films (Grant-in-Aid)—do you envisage greater expenditure on this type of educational film as from now on? A sum of £4,700 seems very little?—I could not say.

Chairman.—This is a contribution to the National Film Institute. If the Department should undertake film work on their own, they will carry it on some other subhead. This is just a Grant-in-Aid to this Institute.

344. With regard to subhead G.4—Adult Education Courses (Grant-in-Aid)—to whom is this Grant-in-Aid paid?—It is paid to the Catholic Workers College.

345. Deputy Burke.—Subhead G.5—Royal Zoological Society of Ireland (Grant-in-Aid)— is this automatic?—They ask for this grant each year. It is a grant towards the working expenses of the Society. For many years it was £1,000 and some years ago, before this year under review, we raised it to £2,000, at which sum it now stands.

It is given to them?—Yes, automatically.

They do not ask for any more?—Oh, indeed, they do.

Chairman.—The Dáil does not vote them any more.

Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—They do ask for more sometimes.

Deputy Burke.—It is a fine national institution.

Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—We feel that about it, that it is a highly educational institution. That is why we doubled the grant.

346. Deputy Burke.—On subhead G.6— Irish Committee of Historical Sciences (Grant-in-Aid)—I would like to know a little more about this Committee. The amount of the grant is £200. What do they actually do?—They give a subscription to the International Committee for Historical Sciences. The grant also covers the expenses of one or two delegates attending meetings of International Committee. The Irish Committee is a rather interesting one because it is a joint Committee of North and South. It has representatives from the Irish Historical Society and from the Ulster Society for Irish Historical Studies who produce a joint Journal—Irish Historical Studies, but this particular grant is strictly for the purpose of subscribing to the international body and attending meetings of the international body.

347. Subhead G.7—Overseas Club (Grant-in-Aid)—could you tell us a little more about this?—This grant was made initially in 1963, to help to meet the deficit in the accounts of the Overseas Club for Afro-Asian students organised under the auspices of the Legion of Mary. Their expenses come to £4,500 or thereabouts, and there was a deficit. This £3,000 clears that deficit for them.

348. Deputy Byrne.—On subhead G.10— Expenses in connection with European Schools Day—what is this?—It is a day organised in all the European countries by the Council of Europe. They organise essay competitions for junior and senior pupils on subjects in connection with the unity of Europe. Each country has its national committee which awards six or seven prizes and then the best national essay is sent from each country to Strasbourg. There are 18 countries in all, and last year one of our students won first prize in Europe with an essay in connection with this European Schools Day.

349. Deputy Byrne.—On subhead G.12— Language Research (Grant-in-Aid)—to whom is this Grant paid?—The research which is going on is organised by Father Colman Ó hUallacháin in Gormanstown, in the Language Laboratory there, and the Grant is paid to the organiser, who expends it on the various purposes of this scheme, for example on finding lists of frequencies in words and phrases in Irish, and in English, too, and for the purpose of basing courses and readers on those in relation to teaching.

Deputy Crowley.—The work was done by computer?—Some 200,000 words and phrases were put through the computer. Recently a book was produced.

Chairman.—Buntús Gaeilge?—Actually there is fifty times as much information available. Buntús Gaeilge is just one product of the Language Laboratory in Gormanstown.

It is hoped that from this type of production we will be able to introduce fully into the school reading the living Irish of the Gaeltacht?—That is the point, that the words and phrases are from the living language. The computer gave us this. The French experimented in this way before in order to teach French very quickly to Algerians. They did it through an enormous number of individuals without a computer a good while ago, but the computer does the work much faster.

Deputy Byrne.—The results were good?— Yes. Over many years the French have been very advanced in this but the unique thing about our work is that we dealt with two languages at the same time, Irish and English. Heretofore it was tackled only in regard to one language. We took the Gaeltacht for Irish and the rest of the country for English, to find out the frequencies.

Presumably an tAthair Ó hUallacháin has a staff of assistants. This is for their salaries? —He has collectors all over the country, teachers and such people. He has also typing assistance. Then the computer processing had to be done; punch cards had to be operated; and he had miscellaneous other assistance.

Whose computer was used, the IBM one?— I cannot say.

Deputy Crowley.—He utilises the Service Bureau of the IBM?—Probably. I would not know that.

350. Chairman.—With regard to subhead G.13—Muintir na Tíre (Grant-in-Aid)—this is a new grant?—Yes.

For what purpose is this used?—The general purpose of Muintir na Tíre, for community development in Ireland, especially rural Ireland.

351. With regard to subhead H—Appropriations-in-Aid—item 4 refers to sales of photographic reproductions. Are these museum exhibits?—No, they concern the National Library. They would be photostat copies of manuscript material or microfilm in the National Library. It is very hard to forecast exactly what the return might be in a particular year.

352. Deputy Byrne.—With regard to item 3 in the Appropriations-in-Aid—Sales of Publications in Irish—which Vote does that appropriation relate to? Does it relate to subhead F.1—Yes, Subhead F.1.

VOTE 30—PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

353. Chairman.—With regard to subhead A.1.—Training Colleges—there was a grant of £50,000 towards increased accommodation. Would it be right to assume that of that only £9,000 was spent?—No. That particular sum was not utilised as the work in that year had not reached the stage at which it was required. The saving was reduced, though, because of an increase in the rate of capitation granted to the colleges as from October, 1963.

354. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead A.4— Special Courses for Teachers of Physically and Mentally Handicapped Children—where does this training take place?—In St. Patrick’s Training College. It is a six months course, for trained teachers mostly. The teachers are given a special bonus afterwards when they qualify in this course.

How many teachers are put through this course yearly?—About 15 teachers a year. In this particular year it was to be 16 but only 14 did the course. That accounts for the small saving there.

Deputy Byrne.—When the teachers are trained, how are they disposed around the country?—They are teachers selected from a large number of applicants to the Training College authorities. They generally attend the courses with a view to going back as members of the staffs of schools for handicapped children started in their area.

355. With regard to subhead C.6—Grants towards the Cost of Heating, Cleaning and Painting of Schools—I note that the reason for the under-expenditure is that there were fewer grants than anticipated. Has the response of school managers to this scheme of grants not been satisfactory? Would you care to comment on that in general terms?— I could not say that, Mr. Chairman. It is simply that the scheme began in 1962. The amount submitted to Dáil Éireann had to be a surmise and it looks as if our surmise was pitched too high. The fact that the claims were less than we had anticipated does not necessarily imply anything except that we over-estimated.

Deputy Burke.—I know the manager is in charge of the school, but can the inspector make a comment to the Department if the school is not properly cleaned and painted?— Yes, he is expected to make a comment. He is expected to report to the Department, and the Department will bring it to the attention of the manager.

Deputy Hogan.—Is the grant a 100 per cent grant?—No. The manager is supposed to contribute reasonably. The grant is at the rate of £18 per room for external painting and £30 to £36 for internal painting. It is part of the duty of the manager to have the school well maintained and he is expected to make his contribution to that. The grant is not supposed to cover exhaustively the cost of painting the school.

What percentage contribution is he expected to make?—It depends on the nature of his resources, as in building schools. There might be a very poor parish, and we could not expect the manager to contribute very much there, but there are well-off parishes which would contribute a lot.

Deputy Burke.—Approximately how many schools have availed of this grant?—I have not got that information.

Deputy Byrne.—Perhaps you could let us know?—We could send you a note for this particular year.*

356. I am a little confused about these grants. Is the percentage grant 50 per cent of the cost of the job or 25 per cent, or is it on some other basis? Is each case considered separately on its merits?—No; we have regulations laid down. It is based on the number of classrooms, £18 per classroom, for external painting, £30 for internal painting, a total of £48, but that could go higher, to £36, to £60, and so on. I could leave these regulations with the Committee if they wish to see them.†

357. Deputy Hogan.—On subhead C.7— Grants towards the Cost of Free School Books for Necessitous Children—are there many claims rejected?

Chairman.—Again I think, subject to what Dr. Ó Raifeartaigh may say, the position is that it depends on the number of pupils on the rolls. The manager and the principal teacher in the school determine who are necessitous. It is not a free-for-all? —That is so.

Does that answer Deputy Hogan’s question?

Deputy Hogan.—In a sense. I am surprised it is not availed of.

Deputy Byrne.—It seems anomalous when the cost of books is going up that the appropriation should be diminishing.

Chairman.—I think I am right in saying that some schools do not apply for it at all because the parents of children do not like to ask for it?—The grant was increased to 2/- per pupil as from 1st July, 1965, but there is no great demand for it. There is a delicate point as to determining a necessitous child. I do not think we ever turn down any claims in the matter.

Chairman.—Would you say from your experience that a large number of schools do not apply for it?—Most schools do not apply for it.

Deputy Byrne.—How much of this relates to the County Borough of Dublin?—I cannot tell you here and now, but I could let you know.*

That would be helpful.

358. Chairman.—On subhead E.—Appropriations in Aid—we are realising more from the training college entrance fees. Does that mean more people are entering the teaching profession?—There is a great deal more accommodation. St. Patrick’s Training College now accommodates 290 students.

VOTE 31—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

359. Deputy Hogan.—On subhead A.2— Laboratory Grants—is this a 100 per cent grant or is it on a percentage basis?—They are not on a percentage basis. They are in three parts. There is a grant for science classes, which is just for current expenditure, wastage, and so on, on materials; the second part is a grant for furnishing and equipping science laboratories, and there is a third part which we call a teaching grant, which the school receives in relation to the number of qualified science teachers it employs. The first part therefore, depends on the number of science classes in a particular school. It is a set affair and has nothing to do with the general grant to the school. I can give you the number of schools and classes in recent years in this matter. It is interesting just to look at the number of science schools and classes in recent years. In 1963/64 there were 479 schools with 4,041 classes, and in 1964/65 there were 522 schools with 4,258 classes.

There is quite an increase from year to year.

360. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead H.— Educational Television Service—is this for educational films?—No. This is for television classes in science. The classes are actually given by Telefís Éireann. They are not films.

They are given live?—Yes, by Telefís Éireann.

Is this cheaper than having a film made? —Yes. We started with physics. Then we had science, chemistry and mathematics for leaving certificate pupils. The teachers are from the secondary schools and the university —there is one from each—and they are very familiar with the courses and the work.

Chairman.—How much of the £26,954 represents the cost of the programmes?— We estimated £19,200 for the purpose of recoupment to Telefís Éireann. Actually it proved to be somewhat less than that. There was £10,000 for the provision of grants to the schools for equipment.

361. Deputy Hogan.—On subhead H.1— Equipment for Modern Language Teaching —I would like to know what is the nature of the equipment? Is there any explanation of the apparent lack of interest as far as the expenditure is concerned?—The equipment is a twin type tape recorder with loud-speaker or trolley with record player and loudspeaker and a set of tapes with language records approved by the Department. The grant is up to 50 per cent of the cost and is subject to a maximum of £100 per school. In order that a school may qualify for this grant it must employ a teacher who has been through a summer course at Gormanstown on how best to use this language equipment. It is really doing well. There is quite a demand for it. The trouble is that we can only handle about 80 teachers per summer.

Chairman.—Is there some provision being made in regard to magnetic blackboards, particularly for younger children’s classes. Figures are attached to those blackboards. You could call it visual aids?—They have visual aids but in regard to that particular matter I would not be familiar enough with the actual classroom now to know about it.

It is something I heard about recently in regard to infant schools. The magnetic blackboard was spoken of as being very useful. I was wondering if your Department could persuade the Department of Finance to give a grant for this?—I do not know.

362. Deputy Hogan.—I would like to know if the provision of this grant affected the number of people taking Latin?—I do not think so. The number of people taking Latin has been steadily increasing by reason of the fact that more girls now are going to the University, which requires Latin on entrance. The number taking Latin in our secondary schools is really governed by the university demand for Latin for entry to most faculties, even if it is not essential in the faculty which the student finally selects. A student is never quite sure in the beginning to which faculty he is going and so he will take Latin just in case. The number of pupils taking modern languages, at least French, and to a lesser extent, other Continental languages, has increased very much in the last three or four years in boys’ schools as well as girls. The boys were very far behind in this.

VOTE 32—VOCATIONAL EDUCATION.

Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

363. Chairman.—Paragraph 28 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead A.—Annual Grants to Vocational Education Committees

28. The Vocational Education (Grants for Annual Schemes of Committees) Regulations, 1964 (S.I. No. 228 of 1964) authorised the payment of a supplemental grant in respect of the year 1964-65 not exceeding £18,930 towards expenditure incurred by the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee in establishing and maintaining or encouraging or assisting the provision and maintenance of youth training centres. I observed that a supplemental grant of £19,111 was paid and I have asked for an explanation.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that the overpayment of £181 was made through error and that steps have been taken to obtain a refund of the amount overpaid.

364. Chairman.—In regard to subhead D.2—Miscellaneous Vocational Education Services—is this a new one?—Yes.

I take it that it is somewhat for the same purpose as Muintir na Tíre?—Yes. Its specified purpose is for junior rural groups. It is for training, leadership courses and that kind of thing for Macra na Tuaithe.

VOTE 33—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called.

No question.

VOTE 34—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES.

Dr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

365. Chairman.—In regard to subhead B. —University College, Dublin—could you tell us how much of this sum is in respect of the new science building at Belfield?—I have not got the figure but can supply it.*

366. Thank you. In regard to subhead H. —Dublin Dental Hospital—this is a substantial grant. Is its purpose for teaching? Is this a new hospital?—Actually, there is not a new hospital yet. This is to improve greatly the equipment in the old dental hospital pending provision of a new hospital. It is also towards improving the staffing so as to have it up to a standard which would be acceptable internationally as well as in Ireland.

367. On subhead I—College of Pharmacy —is this a new one?—Yes.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XVII.

* See Appendix XVIII.

* See Appendix XVIII.

* See Appendices XIX and XIXa.

* See Appendix XX.

* See Appendix XXI.

* See Appendix XXII.

† See Appendix XXIII.

* See Appendix XXIV.

* See Appendix XXV.