Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1967 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1965 - 1966

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 23 Feabhra, 1967.

Thursday, 23rd February, 1967.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

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

VOTE 40—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

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

225. Chairman.—Paragraph 51 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

51. Grants to Córas Tráchtála which, under the provisions of section 16 of the Export Promotions Act, 1959 as amended by section 2 of the Export Promotion (Amendment) Act, 1963, may not exceed £2,500,000, amounted to £2,080,885 at 31 March 1966, including £486,000 issued in the year under review.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—That is for the information of the Committee. The accounts are audited by me.

Chairman.—Córas Tráchtála is the moving spirit behind Ireland House?—Yes, that is so.

226. How is the project being financed?

Mr. MacCarthy.—My understanding is that Córas Tráchtála have formed a subsidiary company which operates the Ireland House and that company has, I gather, by virtue of the amending of the Act recently, been enabled to borrow from a bank for working capital. I think the premises, in fact, are leased so I do not think there would have been any capital expenditure as such other than what arose on partitioning or renovations. Then, of course, there are sublettings to Bord Fáilte, to Aer Lingus, to CIE, I think, and possibly Telefís Éireann have a room there also.

Those are the national agencies involved? —Yes.

227. Are they being charged economic rents for this accommodation?—I cannot answer precisely but I think they are because I have no indication that there is anything uneconomic about the rents. I would presume they are.

228. Are there any profits from the shop? —I think they broke even. I have no real function in regard to their funds once I pay out the grant-in-aid but they are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Suttle.—I have the last account here in front of me. The expenditure on adaptation amounted to £101,000. There was no complete year’s operation in London House since it was set up so it would be only on the accounts for March, 1967, that I can say what the position would be.

Deputy Healy.—We will have a better picture the next time.

Mr. Suttle.—You will. The premises were only being built up during 1965-66 and all I have here is the expenditure on the job which was £101,000. This was purely for adaptation.

229. Chairman.—Could you give us any information about Kilkenny Design Workshops?

Mr. MacCarthy.—Again, there is a subsidiary company with their own board and they occupy the premises in the old Ormonde Stables in Kilkenny which I think are leased and do not cost them very much from a rent point of view. However, they have spent quite a great deal on the adaptation of the premises and that money has been provided out of this subhead. The accounts in this case are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and published as an appendix to the Córas Tráchtála report.

230. Does industry contribute to this?—The idea is that they should endeavour to get sponsorships from industry for particular researches. I have not an exact note of the sponsorships they already have but I am aware that one of the oil companies contributed to some research they are doing on candles. They had some relationship with the Furniture Adaptation Council with a view to a joint enterprise in regard to furniture design. They have also got something with the textile people. I could make inquiries of them and let you have a note.*

Mr. Suttle.—There is nothing in the account to indicate that they got any monetary contributions. The accounts just show the grant-in-aid received from Córas Tráchtála which was £75,000 and rent and rates of £979. There is no other income shown. There is the usual expenditure on salaries, wages and all the usual things.

Mr. MacCarthy.—I think we should inquire about it if you would agree, sir, because there should be some income. I know they have, in fact, produced prototypes at the request of commercial interests, manufacturers and groups of one kind or another. I am quite sure these would have been charged for so there should be something there. Of course that may not come into this particular year but there should be some receipts.

231. Deputy Crowley.—How commercial actually have Kilkenny Design Workshops become?—I do not know they really could be said to be commercial at all. I think they have produced some articles which are on sale in the London showroom but I do not know that they are intended to be commercial in that sense.

232.—Last year you said that jewellers and silversmiths commission special articles? —Yes, well I presume they would charge for this but as to the extent of the operation I do not quite know. I know some orders were received and they had Oisin Kelly, the designer, down there but I think I should like to make inquiries as to the actual extent, particularly as the accounts do not show any receipts.*

Mr. Suttle.—I think that what happens is that these people who are looking for a design provide materials and that sort of thing, instead of providing cash, and the designers would use their materials. I do not think that it is the intention to charge for designs specifically as such originating in the Workshops.

233. Chairman.—Deputy Crowley mentioned the question of some other design. Is there any duplication with any other national design organisation?

Mr. MacCarthy.—I do not think so. There is the National Design Council—I do not know if that is the precise title—of which Dr. ffrench O’Carroll is Chairman and with which there is a very close connection. There is an interlocking membership as between the Kilkenny Workshops and the National Design Council so that there should not be any overlapping.

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

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

52. The aggregate amounts of grants which may be made to An Foras Tionscal to enable it to carry out its functions is limited to £30,000,000. The total issues, including £3,999,662 in the year under review, amounted at 31 March 1966 to £15,958,971.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—Again, this paragraph is for information. The accounts of An Foras Tionscal are presented to the Oireachtas and also audited by me.

Chairman.—This deals with Industrial Estates, Mr. MacCarthy?—That is so.

235. Could you tell us what progress has been made with the Industrial Estates in Waterford and Galway?—They are at the building stage.

Mr. Suttle.—They have spent about £500,000 to date.

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

“Subhead P.—Shipbuilding Subsidy.

53. Reference was made in previous reports to payments of subsidy in respect of ships built by Verolme Cork Dockyard, Ltd. The charge to the subhead, £175,000, represents payments on account in respect of the third, fourth and fifth ships built by the company. The payments were made on the recommendation of a special committee appointed by the Minister to examine the company’s claims.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is also for information. The payment during the year was in respect of the third, fourth and fifth ships.

237. Deputy Crowley.—How many ships are awaiting payment at this stage?

Mr. Suttle.—It has been agreed to pay the subsidy on the sixth, seventh and eighth ships.

Mr. MacCarthy.—There is agreement regarding the ninth ship but it is a bit vague because the contract price has not yet been determined nor have the Government approved of the rate of subsidy. However, the presumption would be that the same rate of subsidy would apply to the ninth ship as applied to the sixth, seventh and eighth ships. That is purely a conjecture on my part.

238. Chairman.—Have the final subsidies been fixed?—They have been fixed but not paid. The payment position is that we are completely clear on the first and second; as regards the third, fourth and fifth, we have paid only part of the subsidy. As regards the sixth, seventh and eighth, while the subsidy limit has been fixed, there has been no payment so far.

239. Deputy P. Hogan.—You have paid £175,000 on account for the third, fourth and fifth ships?—We had. However, that figure has increased in the meantime and the actual amount paid to date on these three is £295,000.

In 1963-64 there was a figure of £650,000 on two ships?—That was for the first and second ships.

240. Am I right in thinking that the subsidy is progressively falling?—Yes, the percentage rate has been progressively reduced.

Is it a substantial reduction?—I can give you the ratios, though I have to make two qualifications here. The first is that there is a percentage and a money figure and the second is that if the loss was actually less that the estimated loss the subidy would be reduced. The percentage for the first two was 25, for the third it was 15, for the fourth it was 12½ and for the fifth it was ten. For the succeeding vessels it was 8 per cent. In each case there is an alternative of a money figure which is not very different from the percentage one and we would pay whichever turned out to be the lower. To make myself quite clear, when we say 12½ per cent it means 12½ per cent of the cost, which was estimated at £1.6 million, or £200,000, whichever was the less.

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

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

54. 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 1966. 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 £222,282 was repaid. The Minister’s contingent liability in respect of guarantees still in operation at 31 March 1966 was £674,570.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—Again, this paragraph is for information.

242. Deputy Crowley.—What is the latest information about Tailteann Sports Products Ltd?

Mr. Suttle.—It was a canning company in the year under review.

Mr. MacCarthy.—It was called Country Canneries Limited.

Mr. Suttle.—It was cleared last year.

Mr. MacCarthy.—I thought so. There is only one other case. We have appointed a receiver in County Cavan and no doubt as soon as the assets have been cleared up, the matter will come before the Dáil.

243. Deputy Crowley.—What amount is involved?—The amount of the Minster’s liability is £4,193. 19. 6. but what the cost will be I do not know because the assets have still to be realised by the receiver.

244. Chairman.—Paragraph 55 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead T.—Temporary Assistance for Industry

55. In the year under review the scheme was continued whereby Irish exporters were assisted by means of grants of up to fifty per cent of the burden which they had to bear following the imposition by the British authorities of a temporary charge on imports into Britain. An export incentive grant scheme was introduced during the year under which firms who increased their exports qualified for grants of up to seventy-five per cent of the temporary charge. Payments in the year of account, including £124,813 under the incentive grant scheme, amounted to £2,095,611. The Industrial Grants (Amendment) Act, 1964 enabled An Foras Tionscal to make supplemental grants in cases of exceptional difficulty. These amounted to £35,407 in the year under review.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee.

245. The amount seems to be relatively small. How many firms qualified, Mr. MacCarthy?—Approximately 600. Going back to the beginning, 600 firms have received these market development grants. The payments in the year to 31st March, 1966 amounted to over £2 million, of which £124,000 represented increased grants paid to 45 firms. We introduced this system of increased percentages according as the exports went up.

246. Deputy Crowley.—What did the total grants for these 600 firms come to?—Up to 31st March, 1966 the total for the 600 came to £2,095,611 but then, of course, we had a provision in 1966-67 and in 1967-68. The Deputy, of course, is referring to the payment up to the present moment?

Exactly?—I may have a figure for these payments. I am afraid I have not got any more recent figure than the £2,095,000 but there certainly were fairly substantial payments in 1966-67. Indeed, we have a carryforward in the Estimates for 1967-68 of something like £150,000. There must have been about £2 million, or more, in fact— about £3,500,000. We can send you a note of that.*

247. Chairman.—The British levy finished in November. Have all outstanding claims been cleared at this stage?—No. We have even had to make provision in the Estimates for the coming year.

248. In the case of grants for difficulties, are these paid by An Foras Tionscal?—Yes, they are paid by An Foras Tionscal. They represent 25 per cent of the British import levy in the particular case. Of course, they are paid only in very exceptional cases. As far as I know, there were two firms only who qualified and received grants, which totalled altogether £35,407. These are charged, of course, against the Foras Tionscal grants.

249. Chairman.—Paragraphs 56 and 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“Subhead U.—Promotion of Buy Irish Campaign

56. As stated in paragraph 60 of the previous report a committee was formed in November 1964 to conduct a campaign to encourage support in the home market for Irish manufactured goods. The committee’s expenses were met from this subhead as follows:

57. I found, as a result of my examination, that the accounting for this expenditure was unsatisfactory. The following points were noted and I have asked for explanations: (1) a fully matured claim for £18,606 was certified for payment on 11 March 1966 but only £15,000 was paid, the balance being postponed to the next financial year; (2) during the first ten months of its existence some of the financial affairs of the committee were transacted through personal bank accounts of the officers who acted as secretaries; (3) duplicate payments were made in a number of cases; (4) supporting vouchers for numerous items were not available, and (5) Social Insurance and P.A.Y.E. deductions from wages of staff employed by the committee could not be reconciled with the value of stamps purchased and payments to the Revenue Commissioners.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has explained that the accounting errors occurred mainly because of the abnormal conditions attending the establishment of the Buy Irish Committee which was set up hurriedly in the light of the situation created by the temporary charge on imports introduced by the British Government in October, 1964. Steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such errors.

250. Chairman.—Has the Committee received any financial support from industry in this matter?

Mr. MacCarthy.—Very little, if any, up to now but, for the future, a new arrangement is contemplated. They are joining with the NAIDA and it will be a joint campaign. How far that implies financial assistance from industry, I am by no means clear. It certainly will give to them the use of the showrooms in St. Stephen’s Green and, no doubt, other facilities but I think there has been practically nothing in the way of financial contribution. Of course, there have been many joint ventures in the sense that stores cooperate, and the stores would have spent some money on the promotions. But, as to contributing towards the funds of the semi-permanent organisation, I do not think there has been anything.

251. Is it intended to continue supporting this from public funds?—We are committed at the moment to a period of three years. Beyond that, I am afraid it would involve policy considerations and I do not really know what is the position.

252. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Have you any favourable reports from the work of the Committee?—It is always terribly difficult to say because the more cynical people will say: “Well, the results would have been achieved anyway in the normal course of time, though possibly what you have done has speeded things up a bit”. But, on the other hand, it must be conceded that in the circumstances which gave rise to the establishment of the Buy Irish Committee— which was, of course, the result of the British import levy—it was clearly necessary at the time—whether it was the Committee or the Government’s financial assistance to exporters through the Vote here, which was responsible for keeping the factories going at full tilt, I would not like to say. I should imagine it was a combination of both.

Deputy Healy.—There is no doubt that the Buy Irish Committee has made an impact on the public mind. They are more Buy Irish conscious now. This is obvious in the sale of Christmas cards, for one thing. They are making headway slowly but surely.

253. Deputy Crowley.—Have you had any review as to the future of the Buy Irish Promotion Campaign or the Committee in the past twelve months?—There was a review, to some extent, when it was decided to plan for a period of three years, and next year is the first of the three years. Therefore, the answer to the Deputy’s question would be “yes.” However, I do not think the review really could be said to have answered the first question—that is— how far was it successful.

You can never judge how successful advertising is.

254. Chairman.—Paragraph 58 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead W.—Castlecomer Collieries Ltd.

58. Provision was made by supplementary estimate for assistance for Castlecomer Collieries, Ltd. who were faced with financial difficulties. The charge to the subhead is made up as follows:—

The Minister for Industry and Commerce had guaranteed the temporary bank loans referred to at (1) above and in reply to my inquiry I was informed that this guarantee had no statutory basis but that general circumstances and the time factor required the extra-statutory action with which the Minister for Finance concurred.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—A fundamental principle is involved here, namely, that a state guarantee of borrowing cannot be given without the authority of the Dáil which can be secured either by specific legislation or by having the borrower scheduled to the State Guarantees Act. The guarantee has now lapsed, the borrowing by Castlecomer Collieries, Ltd., having been repaid out of the moneys provided by Supplementary Estimate.

255. Chairman.—Was there no alternative open to the Minister in this case?

Mr. MacCarthy.—There was just no money, except whatever might be in the Contingency Fund and the Government came to this conclusion—at least the Ministers concerned—the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance —and went to the Dáil at the earliest opportunity and had the matter confirmed by the Dáil, through the Supplementary Estimate. Assuming the Contingency Fund were big enough when the Dáil is not sitting there is no doubt at all that in an emergency the Minister could draw on the Contingency Fund. Therefore, it would have been possible, instead of guaranteeing the bank, to take the money out of the Contingency Fund and have it repaid afterwards. I think the way it was done was because it was not desired to make this very heavy charge on the Contingency Fund and that we could go to the Dáil quite quickly when they came back.

256. Could you tell us what is the present position of the collieries?—There were several surveys, as you know. The latest surveys resulted in the re-opening of the mine in November, 1965 for development work. Some of that was financed, indeed to the extent of £50,000, out of the moneys provided in the Supplementary Estimate. Up to the 31st March, we had given £22,000. The initial exploratory work has been finished and there is general agreement among all parties that there is a very extensive area of new coal. What has yet to be discovered is whether access can be obtained to that new coal on a basis which would enable the deposit to be worked economically. The present position is that they are going into that with their experts. The funds, of course, are repayable if profits are ever made on the transaction.

257. Deputy Healy.—Before we go on to the Vote, am I in order in asking Mr. MacCarthy to give us an overall picture of the success, or otherwise, of mining for minerals in County Cork?

Chairman.—I suppose it would really be a question for the Dáil and the Minister to answer. This is not a question we could ask Mr. MacCarthy at the moment. It would be more appropriate if it were asked in the Dáil.

Deputy Healy.—I was concerned about mining companies in a general way.

Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. MacCarthy you might not have any objection to having a word with Deputy Healy later?—A lot would depend on the question he wanted to ask. I could say in a broad way as regards the country as a whole that the prospects are very rosy but I could not comment on the affairs of any one of the companies. The prospects appear to be extremely good. There is a level of activity which is quite fantastic.

258. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead A. —Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there has been a considerable advance here, from £495,000 in 1964-65 to £693,000 in the year under consideration, 1965-66. The staffing has been practically the same. I take it this was due to the 12 per cent wage increase?— There is a combination of circumstances and not just the status increase. The major factor would, of course, have been the ordinary incremental increases in salaries and also the fact that we took on to this Vote, for the first year, the expenses of the Companies Registration Office. There would have been a consequential saving in the Vote for the Revenue Commissioners though the amount there is not big. I have not got the precise figures for the Companies Registration Office but it would be shown in the printed Estimate.

Mr. Suttle.—I do not think so?—There would also be increases in salaries. As the Deputy said, there was very little change in the number of staff. We had 644 for the first year and 656 in the subsequent year.

259. Deputy P. Hogan.—The increments would be much the same comparing one year with another?—It goes up. Naturally, at the present stage, when so much of the Civil Service is young, it is obvious you will have this kind of phenomenon for some time. In the past you had a higher proportion of people on their maximum who would not have contributed anything to an increased provision in subsequent years.

260. We have practically the same staff but there has been approximately a 50 per cent increase?—One point I might make is that we are perhaps unique among Departments nowadays in having very few Departmental grades. The only one in this is the factory inspectorate so any increases due to the status award will come in under the Vote for Pay. The increase here, as compared with the original estimate, is £80,000. From that amount you must deduct the cost of the Companies Registration Office which was provided for in the Vote for the Revenue Commissioners. It was taken over by us as from 1st April, 1965. We cannot extract that but obviously it would be a fairly sizeable figure. The balance would be whatever is due to increases in salaries.

Mr. Suttle.—There are a few exceptional items. Under An Foras Tionscal the provision for technical assistance was doubled. Is it due to salaries?—That would be extra staff, some travelling staff.

Again, under the Industrial Development Authority you had technical advice increased from £18,000 to £25,000?—Most of this referred to external representatives whose salaries are fairly high. They would account for a great number of the increased increments.

261. Deputy P. Hogan.—I cannot reconcile the figure given by the accounting officer with the figures I have here. For 1963-64 the expenditure under subhead A was——I thought you were concerned with 1964-65.

I am concerned with all those years. In 1963-64 the figure was £469,680. There was a small increase in 1964-65, up to £495,373. Then there was a very substantial increase in the year we are considering now, up to £693,805. I am asking for an explanation of the very considerable difference between 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. It is about £98,000?—Yes, the actual cost to us of the civil service salary increases—this is something that was provided initially not in our Vote but in the special Vote for Increased Remuneration and it really does not arise on this Vote—the increase we carried in consequence of that was £70,000 and anything over and above the £70,000 is attributable to additions to staff which number 12, at least, and also to the transfer of the Companies Registration Office from the Revenue Commissioners Vote to ours. This is all mathematical anyway. There cannot be anything wrong with it.

Deputy P. Hogan.—There is an increase from £495,000 in 1964-65 to £693,0000 for this year?—As I have explained, as Accounting Officer I have no responsibility for the level of salaries of the general service staff. If I have, say, ten executive officers, then so long as they are not paid more than the general service scale of pay, I have no responsibility as an accounting officer.

262. Chairman.—Would it be possible, Mr. MacCarthy, for the information of the Committee, that you could give us a note on this at a later stage?—I would like to know what note you expect from me. My position is a simple one. There is a certain staff. They are now almost exclusively general service staff. So long as no one is paid more than the salary fixed by the Minister for Finance, not by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I have really no function. I have no objection at all to explaining in detail how the increase in the expenditure occurred but it certainly would not be my function to explain why the 1965-66 Estimate was larger than the Estimate for 1964-65. Dáil Éireann voted the increased figure and I have nothing to do with justifying it. My only job is to see that what was voted by the Dáil is spent properly.

263. Deputy Briscoe.—I came in late so I hope I will be forgiven if I ask a few questions. The increase, I gather, is due to extra staff or is it just increased pay?—The largest single factor would be the increase in pay, £70,000. The next significant factor would be the transfer to Industry and Commerce of the Companies Registration Office which had been provided for in the Revenue Vote previously. The third one would be the normal progressions of salary on the incremental scale and the fourth would be that we had a number of extra heads of staff of a rather expensive character.

In other words, it is the extra staff you have had put on to your Department plus the increase which was voted by the Dáil which accounts for the increase?—Yes.

Deputy Crowley.—I cannot see what explanation Mr. MacCarthy can give. After all, the Dáil has voted this money to his Department and he is just responsible for seeing that it is spent in the proper way.

Deputy P. Hogan.—I am inquiring as to why, with practically the same staff, salaries and allowances increased from £495,000 to £693,000.

Deputy Briscoe.—It is not the same staff.

Mr. MacCarthy.—I can give a breakdown of our entire staff.

264. Chairman.—I suggest that perhaps that would help everybody at this stage. Would it be possible for us to have a breakdown as to what was due to increments, increased remuneration, and increased staff?—Certainly.*

265. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead B.1— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—would that include the cost of people visiting factories?—Yes.

This, I would imagine, would continue to rise?—It should. One of the main things, of course, is the extent to which the Industrial Development Authority and staff would be travelling. I have a breakdown of this. The highest element in the cost is headquarters expenses, which represent £14,000 out of the £20,000 which has been spent. So far as our Vote is concerned, it would not necessarily follow that the cost of factory visits will continue to rise because the Department of Labour has been set up in the meantime and some of this expenditure will fall on the Labour Vote. Broadly speaking, however, the trend should be upwards unless something extraordinary happens. The factory inspections will appear in future in the Department of Labour Vote because the factory inspectors have been transferred to that Department.

266. Deputy P. Hogan.—In regard to subhead F.1—Grant under Section 37 (1) of the Industrial Research and Standards Act, 1961 (Grant-in-Aid)—could I have some information on this?—The Institute of Industrial Research and Standards was set up in the 1940s and the grant-in-aid system which was introduced in the 1961 Act provides for the provision of grants-in-aid of their expenses. There is no statutory limit to the annual grant and it comes up each year on the Vote. It is intended to meet all the expenses out of this other than what is mentioned in subhead F.2.—Provision of Additional Laboratories and Equipment. The reason for the separate entry at subhead F.2 is the American Grant Counterpart provision. They also submit an annual report which is laid before the Dáil. Their expenses would cover such things as buildings, laboratories, staff, costs of investigation, scholarships which they give to certain students to pursue courses elsewhere and all that kind of thing.

Mr. Suttle.—They submit accounts which are laid on the Table of the House.

267. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead J.— Grant to An Foras Tionscal (Grant-in-Aid) —I want to inquire with regard to grants under An Foras Tionscal has the pattern of the grants with regard to the geographical distribution of the country altered? Has a higher percentage of the grants been coming to the eastern side of the country in the last year or two as compared with the west?

Mr. MacCarthy.—I can give you information about the trend of these grants but I do not know if it will be geographical in the sense you mean but you might be able to make inferences from the figures. In the early stages this was all in the West. Later on we had the industrial grants legislation which extended the scheme to the whole country. Taking the grants in the underdeveloped areas, the total amount of the grants approved up to March, 1966, which is the latest date for which I have figures, is £10,471,000. I am sorry I have not got the number of firms but in the year ended March, 1966, the year of account, 48 projects were considered under the Undeveloped Areas Acts. I am sorry; I have the cumulative figure now. The total number of cases assisted was 165 so that the £10,471,000 was for 165 undertakings. Of course, private investment also took place. The total investment in the 165 cases was £26,970,000 so you get approximately this kind of situation, that 10/26ths of the total expenditure was provided by the State. On the basis of estimated employment it worked out at about £2,000 per worker of which something over £600 was contributed by the State. The corresponding figures for the rest of the country and over the same period are £14,320,000 for 118 projects and the total capital investment in these 118 projects was £54 million. Therefore you have a ratio for the rest of the country of 14 out of 54 as compared with a ratio for the undeveloped areas of ten out of 26. It seems clear from these figures that broadly speaking, the western areas were treated 50 per cent better than the rest of the country. The cost per worker was £2,500 of which the State would have contributed about the same £600 proportion. The obvious reason for that is that industries in the rest of the country were more capital intensive than in the undeveloped areas.

268. Deputy Molloy.—You have the estimated figures for employment given?—Yes.

And the total investment in the undeveloped areas?—It was £26.97 millions and the estimated employment was 15,130.

And in the rest of the country?—The total investment was £54.54 millions and the estimated employment was 22,910.

269. Chairman.—In regard to subhead L.I. —Technical Assistance—on what basis is this assistance given, Mr. MacCarthy?—It is a very mixed bag, if I might so describe it. In the year of account, we spent in all £264,000, of which a very small sum of £840, or approximately one-third of the estimated cost was spent on a crow coal survey in the coalfields. This was really sponsored by the Department of Transport and Power and we merely put up the money. The provision for the same survey in 1966-67 was £5,000 but actually we have spent just under £2,000. For minerals exploration we give a grant of approximately one-half the cost to any private owner of minerals who wants to explore on the understanding that it will be repaid out of royalties on any production that results from the survey. So far we have spent nothing on that because the only scheme where there is anything active is one where discussions are still going on with the owners about the extent of the grant. Industrial consultancy is the biggest item and we provided £237,000 and spent £205,000. These industrial consultancy projects, as I explained previously, are where individual firms apply to us and we agree to share the cost of employing industrial consultants. At present we contribute 50 per cent; originally it was one-third and probably the rate of contribution may be less in the future. That is a matter which is under consideration. We also pay a grant to the Federation of Irish Industries. The amount paid in this particular year was £6,000. The amount paid in the current year to date was almost £15,000. We pay a grant of almost 50 per cent of the expenses of the Irish Management Institute and the amount which we spent in the year of account was £25,542. The amount spent in the subsequent year—we have spent £15,000 and we are considering a grant of a further £18,000—will total about £33,000. We also pay the expenses of Adaptation Councils under the re-organisation scheme for industry where they have to employ secretaries, or incur travelling expenses or anything of that sort. We pay these amounts on a 50/50 basis. In the particular year we made a contribution of £9,500 towards a science and technological survey which I believe has been published. It was conducted in co-operation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris and was popularly known as the Lynch Inquiry.

270. Deputy Briscoe.—Industrial consultancy seems to be the main item of expenditure here?—Undoubtedly.

From where are these industrial consultants engaged?—They are engaged by the firms who make the application.

And you pay one half the cost?—Yes.

How many firms are engaged in industrial consultancy at the moment in the country?— Something less than a dozen I think. I cannot answer that categorically.

271. You are satisfied in the Department that these people are fully qualified to give advice and to merit the name of industrial consultants?—I should like to be a little careful in answering that question. Our line has always been that we leave the choice to the firm. If the firm produced the name of an industrial consultancy group of which we had never heard, we would make some inquiries, but if we were satisfied that the firm existed, we would be guided by the choice of the industrial undertaking. To my own knowledge, we have had only one embarrassing situation in which the repute of a firm—not an Irish firm—was challenged. It posed some difficulties for us at the time which, fortunately, were solved without our having to do much about it. Broadly speaking, we would not go behind the choice of the business firm. There are obvious exceptions to that. We have had strange kinds of applications, as you always do when you have a Government scheme and free money available. We have to be careful of cases in which one firm might be advising a client to hire another firm and cases in which the first firm might have a financial interest in the second firm. We would disallow anything like that but we can never be sure we would become aware of all of these.

Deputy Briscoe.—It could lend itself to abuse, say, when a man in a company might engage his brother.

272. Deputy P. Hogan.—The Accounting Officer mentioned this as being a mixed bag. There is also a mixed bag as regards giving out various aids. For example, we have Córas Tráchtála, An Foras Tionscal, the Shannon Free Airport Development Co., we have schemes under Agriculture, there is Gaeltarra Éireann, and some under the Vote for Transport and Power, in which different forms of aids and helps can be given to the industrial world. Is there any system of liaison between these various agencies, so as to avoid any possibility of duplication or overlapping, or of any particular concern being paid perhaps twice without it coming to the notice of the authorities?—I can answer only for Industry and Commerce, or other agencies with which Industry and Commerce would have any kind of frequent contact. Some of the bodies which the Deputy mentioned would not really come in contact with us at all. But this is really an evergreen topic; the files are almost constantly on our desks on this subject, because, obviously, there is a grave risk of overlapping; there is also a grave risk of wasteful effort if two bodies are in the same field. Human nature being what it is, each body may want to be on the top and there is a risk of their barging into territories which do not really belong to them; if they are in a particular territory, they may have a reluctance to get out of that territory. We did set up a liaison committee. I myself was chairman of the first of these committees. We met every quarter and all the bodies functioning in any way in connection with the Department of Industry and Commerce sent their top executives to these meetings, when there was an exchange of views as to what they were doing. They were also required to talk about anything they had in mind. We supplemented this by getting the staffs, the people actually on the different jobs in each of these bodies, to make monthly or periodical visits to the other institutions just to check that whatever the different executives might have said on the subject was correct and that there was not any duplication at operating level. After a time it was felt it would be better, and it was the view of this committee, to transfer the function of coordination to the Irish National Productivity Committee and make it the coordinating body for all these things. That has been done. There was some little trouble in the intervening period with adaptation councils and the Federation of Irish Industries, who felt there was an overlapping between productivity committees in industry and adaptation councils. The Minister has given an expression of opinion, which indeed he gave in public— so there is no objection to my mentioning it here—when the Irish Management Institute presented the Report on Education in Management about six or nine months ago—perhaps not quite as long ago as that. The Minister stated that he attached the greatest importance to the coordination of all these activities and he invited all concerned to consider the matter. He has himself written to the Irish Management Institute and to the other bodies for which he has responsibility, asking them to go into discussions on this and also to consult with the Universities. We have the Industrial Research Institute on our Vote: Agriculture have the Agricultural Research Institute. There are the Universities and they too are busy on research, so the Minister felt they should all be brought into contact. It amounts to this—we are very conscious of the importance of this particular point.

273. Mr. Suttle.—Actually, in the course of our audit, we look into this very closely and ensure that between the various bodies there is no over-lapping of direct expenditure. On the question of consultancy and that sort of thing, it would not show up in the accounts but where expenditure is incurred on any sort of project of this nature, we do ensure, by an overall view, that there is no duplication.

274. Deputy Molloy.—I should like to ask about the fees paid to industrial consultants. How are they determined, or in what way does the Department approach the matter when firms submit accounts to them?

Mr. MacCarthy.—At the commencement of the operation, when they apply for sanction, they must estimate the cost, they must indicate the number of days or weeks the consultant expects to spend on the operation, his fees and what provision is made for out-of-pocket expenses, and all that sort of thing. I do not think there is any question of a uniform rate, because a lot would depend, I suppose, on the standing of the consultant and what he was worth in the eyes of the customer. We are largely guided by the fact that the customer is contributing pound for pound with us. We do not cut fees. If somebody says—£50 a week, or £10 a day, or whatever is the period—unless the fee was obviously out of line, I do not think we would enter into it at all.

275. Do you feel the fees demanded by these industrial consultants are reasonable when viewed in the light of the return for the effort?—I did have an analysis of that done a few years ago. It was quite striking, because the additional output gained was really far in advance, almost fantastically so. There was an extraordinary difference. We have done this evaluation before. I did supply the Committee at some earlier meeting with the results of our evaluations; I could do the same again.

276. Deputy Briscoe.—It would be interesting if the Accounting Officer could tell us how many firms availed of this technical consultancy?—I am sorry to say I may not have that figure with me. I can readily let you have a note of it.*

Deputy Molloy.—You sent us that information last year?—Yes, I can do the same again.

277. Would you say there has been any substantial increase in the fees of these consultants since this scheme was introduced?—I should like to look at that question.

There is a general feeling abroad that when the Government brought in this scheme for fifty per cent grants towards these fees the fees went up immediately?— I can easily do that for you but I should like to look into it.* I do not think there has been anything dramatic.

There may not be.

Deputy Briscoe.—My own view is that this would encourage companies to take on better consultants than they would normally be able to afford.

278. Deputy Crowley.—Could you name the firm of consultants which did not act, obviously, in a gentlemanly fashion?—I could not.

I know the firm of consultants referred to. A lot of the employees of that firm have set up on their own as consultants. In fact, the manager of that firm has set up on his own as a consultant. Has your Department approved any grants towards jobs he has been doing?—I could not really answer that because I would not know. Normally we do not maintain any approved list. If as sometimes happens, somebody comes to us and says: “Could you recommend a consultant?” we refer him to the Federation of Irish Industries which maintains a list. I am afraid I could not say whether or not any particular firm got a grant. I do not know.

279. Deputy Molloy.—Could you tell us whether you assisted Gaeltarra Éireann? —Broadly speaking, we do not assist State-sponsored bodies but if a State-sponsored body is conducting an industrial undertaking, which is slightly removed from its main function, we would. For example, we gave a technical assistance grant to CIE in respect of a consultancy scheme for their workshops in Inchicore. We have done the same sort of thing with others but we certainly would not give a grant for a consultancy scheme if the Dáil were separately voting funds for a particular activity. I think Gaeltarra Éireann may be in a special position. I should not like to pontificate on that subject. I think if Gaeltarra Éireann were running a factory, as they do in some places, they might qualify.

The position is that Gaeltarra Éireann are at the moment employing consultants?— I do not know if they have got a grant.

Could we find out?—You could.

280. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead R.— St. Patrick’s Copper Mines, Ltd.—Provision for Care and Maintenance Expenses—I just want to know what is happening up to the present as regard this mine? I find this mine was put on care and maintenance in September, 1962, and there was a token Vote of £10 in that year but nothing was expended in 1963-64. Then there was an expenditure of £30,000 the next year, 1964-65, and in the present year, which we are considering now, there was an expenditure of £43,000. What has been happening there? —There has been no expenditure in the year 1966-67. In the year under review there was an expenditure of £43,000. There was no expenditure in 1966-67 because an option was given to a consortium of Irish, German and Canadian mining interests. The option provides that they will carry out certain further explorations. They were given a time limit in which to complete this and they have accepted responsibility for care and maintenance during the period of option. We shall not have this expenditure again until the option is relinquished. If the exploration is successful and the mine is taken over, we shall not have it but if exploration is not successful, we shall be faced with this question.

Deputy Briscoe.—Are those separate companies who have taken up the option? —No. They have come together as a consortium.

281. Chairman.—On subhead S.— National Building Advisory Council (Grant-in-Aid)—what functions does this Council perform? Is there any conflict between this and the National Building Agency?—No, not with the National Building Agency. I do not suggest that there is any conflict with An Foras Forbartha. I know there is close liaison to avoid overlapping. Their basic function was to promote stability in the building industry. The responsibility for this has been transferred from the Department of Industry and Commerce, with effect from 1st January, 1966, to the Department of Local Government. There should be greater coordination if these two bodies are under one Minister. There were no further issues from the Department of Industry and Commerce Vote because at the point of transfer the Council had enough funds to keep going to the end of that financial year.

282.—Deputy Molloy.—On extra remuneration, I see that there are very substantial sums of money paid to certain officers in addition to their salaries. Seven examiners in the Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office received sums varying from £264 to £433. A sum of £433 seems a lot of money for extra work outside the normal hours of duty?—There has been an extraordinary difficulty in getting those examiners and it has been necessary to take on part-timers. We had to take on people from the Post Office and we also had to take some retired officials. Indeed, we even had some people from England. Then, of course, any people who were available to do overtime have been taken on. This is a completely self-liquidating service because the fees which are charged more than cover the cost of administration. Indeed, our great tragedy is that we are so much behind in this operation.

Chairman.—You are trying to get rid of arrears?—Yes.

283. Deputy Molloy.—I see that £230 was paid in respect of overtime but it does not say to how many people?—There again there is the typing problem. We cannot get typists. It is nearly all typing staff who were on overtime. They are working far more overtime than is really wise.

284. How do you assess the overtime rate?—Unfortunately I cannot tell you that because it is just given to us by the Department of Finance.

Mr. Suttle.—It is time and a quarter for the first 12 hours in a week, time and a half after that and double time for Sunday work. It is a standard regulation?—It is common to all Departments. Only certain classes are taken.

285. Deputy P. Hogan.—I take it that the Committee on Industrial Reorganisation has been wound up?—Yes.

Has the Committee sent on the report?— Yes.

286. Has the Committee on CIE pensions and sickness benefit payments been finished? —I think it has. At the time we finished with it the report had been submitted. Judge Henchy was Chairman of it and the report was submitted.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Mr. MacCarthy, you are a walking encyclopaedia.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 47—SOCIAL WELFARE.

Mr. W. A. Honohan called and examined.

287. Chairman.—Paragraphs 78 to 80 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report deal with this Vote. Paragraph 78 reads:

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

78. Payments from this subhead to the Social Insurance Fund in the year under review amounted to £11,018,000. These payments are subject to adjustment when the audited accounts of the Fund are available.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee.

288. Paragraph 79 reads:

“Subhead G.—Old Age Pensions (Non-Contributory)

79. Section 2 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1965 provided for an increase of 10/- weekly for pensioners whose yearly means did not exceed £26 5s. 0d. and 5/- for those whose means lay between £26 5s. 0d. and £52 10s. 0d. In a test examination of some 180 cases in the latter category it was observed that in ten cases pensions were increased by 10s. In reply to my inquiry the Accounting Officer stated that action was being taken to recover these overpayments which were due to mistakes made by officers of the Department. In view of the proportion of errors revealed in the test examination I have communicated further with the Accounting Officer.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This is for the information of the Committee. I was informed by the Accounting Officer that the amount overpaid in the ten cases was £87 10s. 0d. of which £24 10s. 0d. had been recovered and that a review was in progress of the remaining cases in which the pensioners’ means lay between £26 5s. 0d. and £52 10s. 0d.

289. Could you tell us how these errors occurred, Mr. Honohan?

Mr. Honohan.—Yes. The Act of that year provided for the payment of increased pensions as from 1st August. The Act also provided that where the means of a pensioner were less than £26 5s. 0d. the increase would be 10/- a week and where they were over that, the increase would be 5/- a week. The splitting up of this means group was new in the scheme and the Departmental records did not require to be split up in that way previously. In order to comply with the time requirements of the increases which were that they had to be paid as from 1st August, it was necessary for us to utilise information from cards which were punched previously for statistical purposes. It would not have been possible for us to investigate each case separately in the time that was available between the announcement in the Budget and the date for payment that was fixed. These punched cards were prepared for statistical purposes some time previous to this and it was this information which was faulty as was discovered later. That is how the errors occurred.

Have you completed your investigation of the remaining cases?—They are not completed but they are almost.

290. I notice you are taking steps to recover this. Does this not impose a hardship on pensioners who received this money in good faith?—I suppose it does but under the Act it is a debt due to the State.

291. Is it intended to recover in all these cases where people received this in good faith?—It has always been the practice to effect recoveries in whatever way we can in respect of overpayments where there is not title to benefit.

292. Even if this is an error on the part of the officials? Would you not regard it as being unjust when it is an error on the part of the officials?—This is a moral question. I presume that it could be considered in that way—somewhat unjust. There are always, of course, small errors made from time to time. In the payment of unemployment benefit and assistance, for instance, the recipient may be told: “You got so much in excess last week; is it all right to make the deduction this week?” There is no difficulty in these cases which arise constantly.

What I am concerned with at the moment is whether you agree that it is unfair?—Yes, I would agree it is unfair but I do not know whether you should ask me to express this opinion because this is a debt due to the State and I am under obligation to recover the money in the interest of the Exchequer.

293. In other cases where errors like these occurred, was the Department of Finance approached on the question of a writing off of the amount?—Overpayments arise for a number of different reasons and there may be different principles to apply. If one is to lay down rules about writing off, I think it would be too much to expect the Department of Finance to agree to write off every case of an overpayment.

294. I agree, but in the case of people like these whose payment is so small and where it has not been due to anything over which they have control—it was due to an error on somebody else’s part—is there any basis on which it is determined that the overpayment should not be recovered? Is there any case in which there has been a decision taken to recover or not to recover?— Normally we would effect repayment by a small reduction in the payments of pension to be made subsequently, and would tell the pensioner what is being done.

295. That would be irrespective of the circumstances of the person?—If the person raised the question that it was a hardship we would probably reduce further the amount of the deduction.

Deputy Burke.—As the law stands the Accounting Officer has to administer it but I agree with the point that it is a hardship on people who are in receipt of very small pensions and in cases where they received the money through no fault of their own because a mistake was made. I suppose it would require legislatiton to deal with that.

Deputy Briscoe.—Was there anything left to the discretion of the Secretary of the Department?

296. Chairman.—I previously asked the Accounting Officer whether there was experience of where errors had occurred and where an approach had been made to the Department of Finance to write off. What I am asking now is if there was any attempt made to do that on this occasion?—Not so far. I mentioned that the investigation had not been completed.

Deputy Briscoe.—How many weeks would these people who are being approached have been overpaid?—Probably about a year.

That would be much too much, I think, to expect an old age pensioner to pay back because goodness knows what they might have paid out in the meantime which they owed for a long time.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Perhaps there might be some way of getting over this, in cases where the official is given all the necessary information when he calls but later discovers that he did not get a true statement. It is a very vexed question and is causing a lot of unrest among certain sections of the people.

297. Chairman.—We have got away from the subject. This is a question of an error having been made, a statistical error, and it is not a question of information having been given. Was any disciplinary action taken against the people who made these errors, Mr. Honohan?—No, no action was taken. Again, subject to the point that the investigation has not been completed, the position is that no errors were made by the staff engaged on this task. The errors arose because of mistakes made in the punching of cards a year or two previously. These cards were punched for statistical purposes from original documents by inexperienced clerk-typists and punch card operators, many of whom have now left the service. There is a big turn-over in these people. They were not checked at the time because it was not intended to use them as the basis for making payments. If it had been, they would have been checked. In the short time available for making the payments the only way in which the matter could be dealt with was to use these cards. In 1965 we did not know that the cards were defective. This was only discovered subsequently. Therefore, you will see that it is difficult to pin down the errors in such a way as to justify disciplinary action.

298. An investigation is being carried out?—Yes.

At the same time, recovery is proceeding against these people who have only these slender means. Perhaps if the investigation had been completed you might have gone to the Department of Finance to seek authority to wipe out these.

299. Deputy Briscoe.—What is the total amount outstanding in these cases?—At the moment there are only eight cases outstanding.

You have recovered the money?—In those cases we have virtually recovered it.

300. Deputy Molloy.—There were 180 cases investigated and it is observed that in ten cases pensions had been overpaid. This was only a test carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor General?—Yes.

Deputy Molloy.—And the whole lot have been investigated now?

Deputy Andrews.—In other words, these are not the real figures.

Mr. Suttle.—They are only a sample.

Deputy Andrews.—There could be 100 or 1,000. That is a shocking state of affairs.

Deputy Molloy.—I should like to say that in the only case I came up against where there was overpayment I found the Department to be extremely considerate and the pensioner in question was not put to any great hardship. They are meeting these cases as best they can within the provisions of the law.

Chairman.—There will be deductions in these cases. You could not say when you will have completed your investigation?— In a matter of a few weeks.

301. Deputy Andrews.—What was the largest amount of deduction in one week?— The amount is five shillings. In these cases the pensioners got ten shillings where they should only have got five shillings. The recovery, in most cases, if not in all, has been five shillings a week.

Deputy Briscoe.—So that the person would be down ten shillings a week.

Chairman.—There would be a recovery of five shillings.

Deputy Briscoe.—Less the five shillings, so that they would be down ten shillings.

302. Deputy Andrews.—It is certainly a severe situation for these unfortunate people. There was also the point raised by the Chairman’s question as to the competency of these punch card operators. Who interviews these people for the job?—They are interviewed by departmental officers.

303. What qualifications have these people got? Are they competent and have they trained to become punch card operators or are they just out of school with leaving certificate honours or pass?—They are young people out of school who are appointed as temporary officers.

At 16 years of age?—They could be starting at 16.

304. Deputy Molloy.—This position has since been rectified? You did not expect to have to use these cards for this purpose?— No.

Deputy Andrews.—You are saying that this situation will not arise again, where overpayments will be given to these unfortunate people?

Mr. Suttle.—It could happen at any time. This new category was opened up by the Budget, a category which was not covered previously and this could happen at any time. Where you have not got reliable information maintained for the purpose of accounting these overpayments will occur. Where you have to use some other type of documentation, in this particular case statistical information where it did not matter to any great extent if it contained minor errors, when it came to using it for accounting purposes it did make a difference.

Deputy Briscoe.—When this investigation has been completed it may be found that there were many more cases than the ten discovered. These people will have been in receipt of this extra five shillings for quite a long time and some approach should be made to the Department of Finance to recover the money rather than to get it back from these people who after this length of time will feel the effects much more.

305. Chairman.—Might I ask at this stage, Deputy, would this be something you might prefer to comment on later, when the Report has been written on this?

Deputy Briscoe.—Yes, I would.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Of course, it was a big strain on the Department of Social Welfare to have to go back and deal with the £26 allowance each old age pensioner is supposed to have. It was a very big question and, of course, it was not an anticipated thing either. It was inevitable that it could not be watertight because, possibly, there were no provisions made before that.

Chairman.—Again, the Deputy is not putting a question. When it comes to the Report stage, you could mention it then.

Deputy Briscoe.—I should like to say to the Secretary that mistakes will happen. They happen in the best run places but, from the humanitarian point of view, if it was possible to do something about this, to avoid those people having to pay back this money——

Deputy Andrews.—This is really a question for us; this is really our fault, but it is very revealing nevertheless.

306. Deputy P. J. Burke.—There are a lot of humanitarians in the Department of Social Welfare?—Perhaps our biggest mistake in this case was to use those cards but the alternative was not to fulfil the obligations of the Act, because it would have been quite impossible to do so.

Deputy Andrews.—We shall have an opportunity to speak on it in the Dáil, and here.

307. Deputy Molloy.—I should like to ask one question. When the Government were influenced in making this decision, was information provided by the Department of Socal Welfare to assist them in arriving at this scheme?—Costings and so forth? Of course, whatever information we had was made available to the Government.

At that time you knew you would have to use the punch cards?—Yes, we did use the punch cards without too many qualms because we did not suspect they were faulty.

308. Chairman.—I shall put this question, Mr. Honohan; you need not answer it if you wish. Have you given any consideration to the fact that you might suspend collecting these until you have had another look at it?—We have not considered any interim action at all. We are awaiting completion of the job; then we shall see what we will do with it.

Will you continue to recover these?—The recovery is continuing, yes.

Deputy Briscoe.—It cannot be suspended? —I suppose it could be suspended but we did not consider that aspect of it.

Deputy Andrews.—I put it to you that this problem should be suspended until you have finalised your report. I would suggest again to the Chairman that, possibly, he might get in touch with the Minister. I am sure, in the final analysis, he would be the person to deal with it in the context.

Chairman.—I was just putting that question—if he would consider suspension for the time being.

Deputy Andrews.——until the investigation is completed?—I certainly will consider the matter now myself, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—Thank you.

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

“Social Assistance Overpayments

80. Sums recovered in respect of overpayments of social assistance charged in prior years’ accounts were:—£19,893 in cash credited to appropriations in aid and £6,691 withheld from current entitlements. Overpayments amounting to £3,310 were treated as irrecoverable. The total amount of overpayments not disposed of at 31 March 1966 was £60,086 as compared with £56,425 at 31 March 1965. During the year thirty-one individuals were prosecuted for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain social assistance and convictions were secured in all cases.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—These overpayments represent all types of assistance.

310. Chairman.—These recoveries are in respect of overpayments in prior years, Mr. Honohan. The overpayments at 31st March, 1966, are shown as £60,086. Does this include overpayments which occurred in the year 1965-66, in which 31 prosecutions were taken?

Mr. Honohan.—The £60,086 is the amount outstanding at the end of the year.

At 31st March?—Yes, in respect of all previous years.

Could you say under what headings were the 31 prosecutions undertaken?—They were all in respect of unemployment assistance.

311. Deputy Briscoe.—Would this be where people were temporarily in employment, or in permanent employment?—These were cases of overpayments where the person was not entitled to payment, for instance, where the person was not the holder of a qualification certificate, or where there was a change in the rate of means, or where the person was not capable of work—if the person is ill, he is not entitled to unemployment assistance—all that sort of thing.

312. Deputy P. Hogan.—On a point of information on the Social Insurance Fund Accounts,* the current account shows contributions from employers and insured persons and the amount paid by the State. It works out at about 60 per cent 40 per cent as between employers and insured persons on the one side and the State on the other for 1965-66. Has the Accounting Officer any figure readily available to him to tell us how that compares with the year before, or two years ago? Is the ratio the same between the contributions made by the employers and insured persons on the one side and the State on the other?—It is 40.6 per cent from the State in respect of this year. In respect of the year 1964-65 it was 39.4 per cent.

Chairman.—If there are no further questions on that, we shall turn to the Vote itself.

313. Deputy Andrews.—Under the heading, Extra Remuneration, I see that 22 staff officers, 31 clerical officers and 14 clerk-typists received sums ranging from £51 to £321 in respect of overtime. Could we have the total in future on the Vote—the total amount paid to these people, instead of having to multiply all these figures? Could we have the total of all the amounts paid to them for overtime?

Mr. Suttle.—I think the terms of that note have been changed in the last few years because previous Committees felt they would prefer to know what individuals were paid, as against the total. I think the total could be supplied but, previously, the information was on the basis of the numbers of staff and the total amount paid. The Committee considered they would prefer to know what the individuals were paid.

Deputy Andrews.—You do not know what individuals were getting?

Mr. Suttle.—It varies between £51 and the maximum of £321.

Deputy Andrews.—Why not give the total?

Mr. Suttle.—I think that information could be supplied?

Mr. Honohan.—Yes.

Deputy Andrews.—It would be interesting to have it. I would ask you to consider implementing my suggestion in relation to the total amount paid to those people.

Chairman.—The Deputy means how many people received £51 and so on?

Deputy Andrews.—Just the total paid.

Deputy Briscoe.—I think the Auditor General has said in previous years the Committee wanted to know how this figure was broken down, so if the Committee could have the broken down figure as well as the total figure——

Deputy Andrews.—I was just seeking the total figure.

Chairman.—I am sure the Secretary would be able to supply a note on that?—Yes.

Chairman.—Do you want it on further Votes as well?

Deputy Andrews.—Yes. It would help us to have the total. As for the breakdown I think it would be rather pointless.

Chairman.—Mr. MacGuill, would you be able to arrange that with the various Departments?

Mr. MacGuill (An Roinn Airgeadais).— Yes.*

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 45—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. H. J. McCann called and examined.

314. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—the only comment there is again the question of the increased salaries, wages and allowances from £490,000 in the previous year to £570,000 this year. The staff increased from 303 to 316. I take it that this increase has been entirely due to increased remuneration? —Not entirely. There would be the increased remuneration corresponding to that given to the Civil Service generally. In addition to that, in the case of officers serving abroad, allowances have to be reviewed from time to time in the light of the changing cost of living and other circumstances in the different countries in which there are staff. Therefore, there would be an increase in remuneration and also in allowances.

315. Chairman.—On subhead E.—Cultural Relations with other Countries (Grant-in-Aid)—what exactly are those?—The Department of External Affairs, with the advice and guidance of a cultural relations committee, does what it can to project the Irish cultural image abroad. The projects have to be recommended by the Cultural Relations Committee and approved by the Minister. The Minister does not initiate any on his own. The type of activity covered in the year under review consisted of theatrical representations, summer schools here in Ireland, exhibitions, booklets and book donations to societies and libraries abroad, grants to individuals and groups going abroad for recitals, lecture tours, etc. Included are all forms of contribution in the cultural field which would make the Irish image better known abroad.

316. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead F.— Information Services—could we have a comment as to exactly what it is?—In the year under review the largest items in it would be the production of films, the production of booklets to give better information about Ireland and also the preparation of the weekly, now fortnightly, bulletin of the Department, which reports for the information of people in other countries, some of the main developments at home. The two greatest single items would be films and the production of the booklets.

317. Is this calculated to have some tourist value?—Very much so. We had tourism specifically very much in mind when we produced the Yeats film, “Yeats Country” and also “Ireland on the Go” and “No More Yesterdays”. Those were three films in that year. The Yeats film, in particular, which shows some of the most beautiful scenery in Sligo, would have great tourist influence.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—In other words, the whole service is built up for the betterment of our own country abroad?—It is to give more correct information abroad about our country, to show its attractions from a tourist point of view and also to inform people about the general attitude of the country in the international political field.

318. Deputy P. Hogan.—Is there liaison between the Department and Bord Fáilte? —There is a committee which has representatives of our Department and the Statesponsored bodies who are operating in this publicity field.

319. Deputy Andrews.—You mention a booklet which comes from the Department every fortnight for the information of the people abroad?—It is a bulletin.

Would it be at all possible for Deputies in Dáil Éireann to get this bulletin sent to them as a matter of course?—I do not see why not. It goes to the Library in the ordinary way.

An awful lot of things go to the Library in the ordinary way?—If there were a demand for it, we would be happy to provide it. If any individual Deputy wants it we will make it available to him.

I would certainly like to be put on your mailing list as from now.

Deputy Briscoe.—I would also like to have it.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—It is good for Deputies to see what our foreign service abroad is trying to do on behalf of the nation.

Deputy Andrews.—We can then ask for the information we need when the matter arises in the Dáil.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—If it is no trouble we would like to have copies of the bulletin?—The bulletin is not so much an extract of what the Department is doing. It indicates what the country is doing.

320. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you have contributors over here contributing articles to it?—It very often reproduces something which somebody else has done. It is compiled in the Department. It comes out fortnightly at the moment. It runs to about four or five pages. It does not pretend to give hot news. On the other hand, if there is a great event or occasion, it is given so that our own people abroad will know what is happening. If there has been a good promotional development by Coras Tráchtála, or some national event happens, such as the return of the remains of Roger Casement, we would give that. Right across the board, it gives a brief summarised description of such items which we think might be of value and interest.

321. I know the Swedish people have something like that out from time to time but they also give information, such as firms are looking for, in regard to the export markets. Do we give anything like that in this brochure?—No, not in that form. Ours is more limited in size and scope. Córas Tráchtála arrange on the other hand to indicate in their publication opportunities for trading abroad, not, as far as I know, specifying individual firms but indicating what the possibilities may be in a certain area and we co-operate with them in supplying material for that purpose.

322. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead G. —Official Entertainment—may I ask what these official entertainments are?—Official entertainment takes various forms. It could be an official reception or an official dinner, say, on the arrival of a new Ambassador. These are probably the main categories, either a meal or a reception.

These are functions held here in Ireland? —Yes, these are in Ireland and the subhead covers entertainment by all Departments, not just External Affairs.

Deputy Andrews.—That is a very reasonable figure.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—There is a provision for entertainment in every civilised country.

Mr. McCann.—Entertainment abroad is done by the Ambassadors out of their representation allowances.

Chairman.—For the information of some of the younger Deputies, this was discussed here thoroughly by the previous Committee.

323. Deputy Briscoe.—We were not allowed to ask how much each reception costs?—There was a problem there. The guests, from our point of view vary in importance and even though they may have the same standing in their own eyes, we may treat them differently and it would be counterproductive to what we are trying to do to give details.

It would lead to one-upmanship.

324. Chairman.—On subhead I.—Return of Remains of Roger Casement—this in cludes, I suppose, the interment of Roger Casement?—Yes, it included the interment. It also included the purchase of the space on both sides of the plot in Glasnevin which had been selected by his sister. It included the flying of the remains back from London and the cost of bringing his nearest relatives, the two nieces, from Australia and the making of a film of the funeral and the purchase of some copies of the film for distribution abroad. There was also a press reception for the occasion. Also included was the purchase of the plaque and slabs for the grave.

VOTE 46—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.

Mr. H. J. McCann further examined.

325. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead C.2. —Travelling and Incidental Expenses— there have been separate advances for this.

Chairman.—I think the note explains this.

Mr. McCann.—Yes, that was when the special delegation went out for the visit of His Holiness Pope Paul VI.

326. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead C.8. —Contribution to the United Nations Special Fund—the contribution there has slightly more than doubled?—Yes, our contribution to the United Nations Special Fund was abnormally low in the past and still is low relative to what our proportional share should be.

327. How is it determined?—By what we feel we can afford to give in a particular year. The demand is very great and we are always under pressure. We have to have regard to what others are doing. Truly one could say it is relatively speaking very low but we do what we can having regard to our economic position at a particular time.

Deputy Briscoe.—When you say “relatively low” is this taken population-wise? —One yardstick to apply is what our proportional contribution to the United Nations Budget as a whole is. It is based on population, national income per head and so forth. With that yardstick, it would be reasonable to say that one should give the same proportion of the total requirements of the fund whereas, in fact, ours is a much lower proportion. I have not got precise figures but it is low compared with our proportional share.

328. Deputy P. Hogan.—What are the functions of the Special Fund?—To supplement the other activities of the United Nations in the technical assistance field. It does it by financing certain basic projects in the field of pre-investment activity, that is, by creating conditions in the various countries where it operates which would make new capital investment either feasible or more effective. It covers surveys, research and training, pilot projects, et cetera.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix XVIII.

*See Appendix XVIII.

*See Appendix XIX.

*See Appendix XX.

*See Appendix XXI.

*See Appendix XXII.

*See Appendix XXIII.