Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1967 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Reports of the Committee - Appropriation Accounts 1966 - 1967

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 30 Samhain, 1967.

Thursday, 30th November, 1967.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

3. Deputy Healy.—I propose that Deputy Hogan take the Chair. Deputy Jones has been transferred to a higher position and we are sorry to lose him. We are all aware of his worth but as he is no longer with us here, I do not think we could make a better choice as Chairman than Deputy Hogan.

Deputy Briscoe.—I second that proposal with pleasure.

Question.—“That Deputy Hogan be Chairman of the Committee”—put and agreed to.

DEPUTY HOGAN took the chair.

4. Chairman.—I hope I will be able to carry on as well as Deputy Jones has done as Chairman. I will certainly try, but I hope that the members of the Committee will be indulgent with me.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. J. F. Harman (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

GENERAL REPORT.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called and examined.

11. Chairman.—Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“Outturn of the Year

(Adjusted to the nearest £)

3. The audited accounts are summarised on page xxix. The amount to be surrendered as shown in the summary is £4,984,937 arrived at as follows:—

This represents 1.9 per cent. of the supply grants, the same as in the previous year.

In no case has the provision made by Dáil Éireann been exceeded and no excess vote is, therefore, necessary.

Exchequer Extra Receipts

4. Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer as recorded in the Appropriation Accounts amounted to £2,394,970.

Surrender of Balances on 1965-66 Votes

5. The balances due to be surrendered out of votes for the public service for 1965-66 amounted to £4,414,111. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered. I further certify that the excesses on six votes referred to in paragraph 2 of my report for the year 1964-65, amounting to £123,982, have been made good by votes of the Oireachtas granting sums totalling £118,354 and authorising the application of £5,628 as appropriations in aid.

Stock and Store Accounts

6. The stock and store accounts of the Departments have been examined with generally satisfactory results.”

12. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to paragraph 6, does that mean there are instances where they have not had satisfactory results?

Mr. Suttle.—One or two minor instances which are mentioned subsequently in the Report on the votes concerned.

13. Chairman.—Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Report of the Controller and Auditor General is as follows:

“National Development Fund (Winding up) Account

7. As mentioned in paragraph 6 of the previous report the balance in the Winding up Account at 31st March, 1966, was £368,020. Statements are appended to the accounts of the votes for Lands and Agriculture indicating that net expenditure of £27,090 was incurred on various projects during the year under review. I understand that it has been decided to close the Account and to transfer the balance, £340,930, to the Exchequer.

8. Statement of Receipts into the Central Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1967.

Statement of Issues from the Central Fund for the Year ended 31st March, 1967.

14. On paragraph 8, in regard to Public Debt Services, £47,449,936, would you tell us how much of that is interest, and how much is sinking fund?—The interest amounts to £31.5 million and the sinking fund to £15.9 million—I should say, the sinking fund and other expenses—the sinking fund proper is £15.6 million.

15. Chairman.—Paragraph 9 reads:—

“9. In addition to the issues shown in the previous paragraph an advance of £620,000 was made from the Capital Fund to Bord na Móna.”

16. Deputy Crowley.—On paragraph 9, what was the reason for the advance of £620,000 to Bord na Móna?—The advance from the Capital Fund?

Yes?—This Fund has existed for quite a long time, and an advance was made from it to Bord na Móna. It is used to save the Exchequer making direct advances in so far as the resources of the Fund permit.

17. Obviously Bord na Móna needed this money for something they had not already provided for?—No; one must not assume that. This sort of thing happens every year. We have to find some way of using the money in the Capital Fund so we apply it to save direct Exchequer issues, mostly in the case of Bord na Móna. The Board just happens to be the most convenient recipient.

Mr. Suttle.—You will notice that under the heading: “Statement of Issues from the Central Fund for the year ended 31st March, 1967”, Bord na Móna got £1,800,000 from the Exchequer. This is a similar issue from the Capital Fund.

18. What I am interested in more than anything else is the principle involved in making this sort of issue to Bord na Móna—the wording seems to imply that it is an accounting arrangement of Finance really?

Mr. Whitaker.—Yes. The Capital Fund, you may remember, was established, I think, about 1956 when Special Import Levies were imposed and the Government of the time decided that instead of being used for ordinary revenue, they should be set aside for capital purposes. That was how the Capital Fund came into being. Every year now there is a return to the Fund in the form of interest and repayment of advances of past years. It happens to amount to this kind of figure of £600,000, and it is convenient just to find one particular recipient. But this is all budgetted for: it is not something extra going to Bord na Móna. It is part of the original capital provision.

19. Deputy Healy.—What would be the total amount in the Capital Fund roughly —not tying you down to an exact figure? —It is about £11¾ million.

VOTE 1—PRESIDENTS ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

20. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to subhead E.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances of Officers and Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas—expenditure was £7,861 less than granted. What is the explanation of that?—Provision was made for staff in the new building and in fact this staff was not fully required in the year because of delay in completing the building.

21. Deputy Healy.—With regard to subhead H.—Expenses of the Restaurant (Grant-in-Aid)—this is a subvention to the restaurant: it is subsidised to that amount? —Yes. It is intended to cover the loss incurred in operating the restaurant. In fact, it is slightly more than the losses were last year, 1966-67.

22. We have not had a full year’s working of the present restaurant. So I take it the losses will be considerably bigger in the following years?—There will be increased losses, if only because of additional staff.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

23. Deputy Reynolds.—With regard to the second note: “The Account of the Vote for Lands includes expenditure of £164 in respect of an officer temporarily lent, without repayment, to this Department”, is the officer still on loan to the Department?— No. The loan was in connection with the 1916 Commemoration preparations.

VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

24. Deputy Crowley.—With regard to subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—was the saving because you were not able to recruit the staff necessary for the Department?—Not entirely because of inability to recruit. We had provided for additional assistance which in fact we did not require—assistance on such matters as programming and so on. There is a difficulty in getting staff but it is only one of the factors.

25. Would that make up the major amount of the £12,000?—Yes; it was mainly a provision for additional staff which was not in fact required.

26. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead E.— Institute of Public Administration—Can you tell us something of this Institute? How many people from foreign countries pursued the various courses?—The year we are dealing with is 1966-67. There was a total of 28 full-time students. Four of these were overseas students, seven Irish graduates, three local authority employees and fourteen civil servants.

27. Chairman.—The Institute issues a journal. Is it issued to members of local authorities?—It is certainly issued to all the members of the Institute, including local authority staff. It is also put on general sale.

It is not issued free?—Only to members of the Institute as part of their subscription.

28. Deputy Briscoe.—Do they receive any fees from abroad for foreign students or do we do this as a sort of foreign aid commitment?—There is no charge for tuition but, as the courses are non-residential, students must provide for their own maintenance.

Would the particular emphasis be on the new emerging African states?—Yes. In fact a few years ago about 50 students from Zambia were here for courses of less than a year.

29. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead F.— Comhlacht Comhairleach na Gaeilge—how many people work in the Comhlacht?— Apart from the members who are part-time there are two full-time officers of the Department of Finance on the work.

It says in the note that two resigned and another man died?—These are the members of the Committee.

30. Do they receive remuneration?—No. the members of the committee are giving their services voluntarily.

Why was it mentioned?—We are involved in paying their travelling expenses.

31. Deputy Reynolds.—On subhead J.1— Economic and Social Research Institute (Grant-in-Aid)—the note says that research personnel were not recruited by the Institute as quickly as had been expected. Have they now been recruited and, if so, how many?—Yes, on the social side particularly the staff have been recruited. There is still difficulty in getting the full complement of staff on the economic research side. A new director has been appointed and things are going pretty well.

32. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead K.1— Special Aid to Projects in the West—what type of projects were these?—I can give you one illustration. There is a handcraft co-operative at Strokestown, Co. Roscommon which produces rush work articles, rugs and handknitted things. That was the first project assisted. There are similar sorts of small projects all over the West to which moneys are now committed.

33. Deputy Reynolds.—This may be a question more of policy and I may be out of order, but is there any hope of the county development teams getting a limited amount of money?—Perhaps the answer to that is that a fund of £250,000 was made available this year in order to help projects of the kind we were just talking about, which have been recommended and adopted by the county development teams.

May I follow it a bit further? I was thinking of a limited amount of money being made available for expenditure by the teams, amounts of £100 or £200 per team.

Mr. Suttle.—These teams only make a recommendation. This is for the expenses of the teams themselves. I do not think they have any money for making grants. It is on their recommendation that the grants are issued from the fund.

34. Deputy Reynolds—Very often in the summer we can get a number of voluntary workers to come in if we can provide meals for them. The teams have no means of providing the money?—I think the answer is that while subhead K deals with the administrative expenses of the teams only, subhead K.1 is the fund on which they can draw to help any project however small.

Chairman.—And it has not been fully expended?—It has been added to, as I said, by £250,000 this year.

35. Deputy Crowley.—Arising out of the note on extra remuneration, are there two officers of your Department on the National Building Agency?—No, there was a switch around this year and one was succeeded by another. There is only one.

36. What is the function of the officer of your Department on the Agency? Is it just the general function they normally have on all the other boards or is it more specific?— The Department of Finance is very much involved with what is a very big sphere of expenditure, building and construction. It helps to secure co-ordination of expenditure and programmes of work to have an officer of the Department on this board.

Has he any special qualifications in the building line?—Not in building but he has a good deal of experience on the financial side.

VOTE 10—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

37. Deputy Briscoe.—I have only a general question to put to Mr. Whitaker. This arises from time to time. Goods arriving in this country, particularly by air, are subject to delay because of samples having to be sent to the State Laboratory for analysis. Has there been any progress made in speeding up the service given, particularly for goods shipped by air, which normally are needed in a hurry?—I do not really know what the position at the airport is.

38. I will raise it on another occasion. Would you be able to give us a note as to whether or not preference is given to goods shipped by air in order to have speedy testing? I know from my own experience of goods needed in a hurry being held up because samples had gone off to the State Laboratory for testing.

Chairman.—It is a question you could raise in the House.

VOTE 11—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

No question.

VOTE 12—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

39. Deputy Briscoe.—The expenditure amounts to £40,000 per year. Do the Arts Council have freedom to give grants to, let us say, a cultural society who would apply for them? Exactly the full amount the Arts Council were granted has been used up?

Mr. Suttle.—This is a grant-in-aid handed over to the Arts Council. It is handed over in bulk for the Arts Council to dispose of at their discretion. It is a subvention.

Chairman.—The Accounting Officer just pays it out.

VOTE 13—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 14.—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 15—AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 16—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

40. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances— the note says: “A contingency for which provision was made did not materialise”. What type of contingency was it?

Mr. Whitaker.—It was the contingency of a pay increase of 50 per cent to 29 State Solicitors on the coming into operation of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, which increased their responsibilities. The Act, in fact, did not come into operation until July, 1967. That is outside the terms of this account.

41. Deputy Healy.—In regard to subhead E.—Fees to Counsel—there is an increase. I suppose it is mostly activity rather than higher fees?—There is not only the variation in the amount of business but a tendency for fees to increase as well.

42. Deputy Briscoe.—In regard to subhead G.—Defence of Public Servants—is this where a member of the public takes an action against a particular Department? How does this arise?—It arises if a public servant does something in the course of his duty which he himself thinks is within his rights but which afterwards proves to have been outside them and renders him liable to damages. In appropriate cases—where it is obviously just an excess of duty which is not blameworthy—the State comes to the rescue by defending or paying the costs of the defence of the public servant involved.

43. Deputy Cluskey.—Does this apply in the case of a Garda striking a person? In fact, this was a case where a guard was accused of an assault. Do you know if he won?—I think that the Garda was convicted.

44. Deputy Molloy.—With regard to the note that a sum was charged to the Vote for Remuneration, could we have an explanation of that?—This was the tenth round as applied in the Civil Service and a Vote was taken in relation to the whole cost. Then the allocations were made to the various Departments to cover the cost.

VOTE 17—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

45. Deputy Healy.—In regard to subhead A.—The National Theatre Society Limited (Grants-in-Aid)—is this the Abbey Theatre? —Yes, the Abbey.

46. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to subhead D.—Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Grant-in-Aid)—the note says that the amount issued is determined by reference to the Society’s audited accounts which were not available when the estimate was prepared. Does this mean that they will lose the balance of their grant? How does it arise that they got only some £3,000?— The arrangement with the Society is that the grant is a pound for pound grant—£1 from the State for every £ they collect in excess of £18000 in any one year. This figure has been the traditional standard income of the Society. There is a further limitation to the State grant. It cannot exceed the actual deficit in the accounts. The full grant-in-aid was not paid out in the year under review because, when the accounts appeared, the actual deficit was lower than the amount provided for in the estimate.

47. Deputy Molloy.—Regarding subhead F.—Nelson Pillar Damage Claims—have all the claims arising out of the damage to the Nelson Pillar been dealt with now?—I understand that all the claims have been cleared now.

48. Deputy Briscoe.—What was the largest of these claims?—I have not got particulars. The full total of the claims was £11,216, that is, about £3,000 more than was expended in the year under review. I am sorry I have not got particulars of the claims.

VOTE 51—REMUNERATION.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

Contingency Fund Deposit Account.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

49. Deputy Molloy.—With regard to the Contingency Fund Deposit Account, what was the incident referred to at the residence of the British military attaché?—Somebody threw a petrol bomb into his kitchen and it was burned.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 37—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.

Mr. L. Tóibín called and examined.

50. Chairman.—Paragraph 39 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead H.—Gaeltarra Éireann (Deontas-i-gCabhair)

39. The grant-in-aid of £220,000 for Gaeltarra Éireann in the year ended 31 March 1967 was framed on the basis of £170,000 for current expenses and £50,000 to enable the Board to make grants of a capital nature towards developing minor productive projects. Such grants totalled only £5,145 in the year and, with the sanction of the Department of Finance, the balance, £44,855, was used to increase the amount for current expenses. As 1 consider that control by Dáil Éireann in cases such as this would be strengthened by providing for capital and non-capital expenditure in separate grants-in-aid, I have deemed it desirable to refer to the matter.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add to the statement I have set out. It is a question of principle which I think should be clarified. A grant-in-aid should normally be for only one purpose and issued in bulk for that purpose.

52. Deputy Molloy.—The £50,000 referred to—this is the new scheme under which Gaeltarra Éireann can buy shares in the company to help them develop?—Mr. Tóibín—It covers two new schemes: the minor productive projects for which grants up to £2,000 are given and, secondly, grants to companies in which Gaeltarra Éireann would hold shares. The actual purchase of the shares would be financed from Exchequer advances, not from the Vote.

53. We are not dealing here with the case where a grant is made to a company? —Well, we could be, but no case arose in the year. If there had been any major case of that type, there would not be as much money to transfer from capital to current purposes.

Mr. Suttle.—We feel that there should really be two separate grants-in-aid in this particular case—one for the current expenses of Gaeltarra Éireann and the other to meet the capital grants they are authorised to issue. Linking the two together, if you like, destroys control by the Dáil, in that the surplus from the grants made in this particular case was used to meet further losses of Gaeltarra Éireann which were originally given to the Dáil as being £170,000.

54. Mr. Tóibín.—Perhaps I might comment that this is the first time a capital provision was included in the grant-in-aid: it was completely a current provision previously. Even this time, however, there was only one figure in the Estimate itself. Part of it was identified as capital in the usual note at the front of the Estimates volume, and, as already explained, the part earmarked for capital purposes was not fully required for those purposes but the balance was needed for current purposes, so, with Finance sanction, it was transferred. In the present year, 1967-68, the current and capital portions are shown as separate figures in Part III of the Estimate, but at the same time there is still only one grant-in-aid; the figures are added and described as a single grant-in-aid. Perhaps I might offer the general comment that the distinction between capital and current expenditure in the Estimates is somewhat arbitrary. For instance, in our own case, Subhead D, Housing, is classed as capital, while subhead E, Improvement Schemes, covering works that might be regarded normally as works of a capital nature, is classed as current. The purpose of classification is of course to determine the source of the funds which are to be spent, such as from borrowing or from taxation. But we feel, once the Department of Finance are satisfied having regard to the overall budgetary position, that there could scarcely be any serious objection in principle to a transfer from capital to current or from current to capital. I would be inclined to appeal for the utmost flexibility in these matters. If it would be of any help to the Committee I would be happy to indicate in the appropriation account each year the precise amounts applied for current purposes and for capital purposes.

55. Mr. Suttle.—The only difficulty in this matter is that it has been an accepted principle that the Dáil will limit the amount of the grant-in-aid and no one can increase that grant; Finance or nobody else can increase a grant-in-aid. If you get a grant-in-aid for two separate purposes bulked into one we feel it is destroying the control exercised by the Dáil in that you can use the surplus from one to meet a deficiency in the other. In other words, you are increasing a grant-in-aid and taking away the control exercised by the Dáil over these particular types of grants. It is on that basis I feel that this question of bulking two grants-in-aid under one heading is taking away the control traditionally exercised by the Dáil.

Deputy Briscoe.—The tendency at the moment is to bulk the two?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

Mr. Tóibín.—That happened when a capital provision for Gaeltarra Éireann was made for the first time in that year: there was only one figure in the Estimate.

56. Mr. Suttle.—In the normal course if there had been no capital grant in that particular year Gaeltarra Éireann would have got £170,000 and no more. But as it were the two grants were mixed into one subhead and they were able to get an additional £44,855 without the authority of Dáil Éireann.

57. Mr. Tóibín.—We had a Supplementary Estimate before Dáil Éireann in the month of March. If it had occurred to anybody that it was necessary to explain this point, we would have been happy to explain it to the Dáil because at that time we knew precisely what we were going to do in regard to the two parts of the grant-in-aid.

Mr. Suttle.—That is the thing. We feel you should have explained at that stage and obtained the sanction of the Dáil for the additional grant-in-aid to meet the current expenses of Gaeltarra Éireann.

Mr. Tóibín.—That never occurred to us at the time. I would still be inclined to appeal for flexibility, however. It would be preferable if we had not to go back to the Dáil for this type of transfer.

58. Deputy Crowley.—Obviously, this is a definitely laid down principle that a grant-in-aid cannot be exceeded in any circumstances. Not even the Minister for Finance can grant the additional money.

Deputy Molloy.—Would a new subhead cover this?

Mr. Suttle.—If there were two separate subheads for the grants-in-aid they could not use the surplus from one for another.

Mr. Tóibín.—We accept that if there were two separate subheads we would have no choice in the matter and could only make adjustments by going back to the Dáil. But we feel it should scarcely be necessary to go back. The point I was anxious to make is that the distinction between capital and current in the Estimates is pretty arbitrary in any case. We feel that, if the Department of Finance can be satisfied it is a reasonable thing to make the transfer, it would be a good thing to have the latitude to do so. It is really an internal transfer since there is only one body concerned. We fully accept the principle that we cannot increase the overall grant-in-aid for any one body.

59. Chairman.—Would Mr. Harman of the Department of Finance comment on this?

Mr. Harman.—I should like in the first instance to say that the Department of Finance are chary about any virement in regard to capital and current in the Estimates. It is only the particular circumstances of this case that induced them to do so. But the feeling of the Department is that there should be some measure of flexibility between capital and current items. At the beginning of every financial year the arrangement is made in the Budget as regards what would be met by taxation and what by borrowing. In general that is adhered to. You will appreciate that during the year there may be times and occasions when there should be some element of virement between the two items. Traditionally in the accounts of Departments it has been accepted that there can be virement within items of a particular subhead. We feel that. not alone in this case, a certain degree of flexibility should be retained in this question between capital and current. As I said, it is exercised quite cautiously in fact by the Department.

60. Deputy Crowley.—Do I understand from Mr. Harman’s statement that we should agree to the accounting officer’s request?

Mr. Suttle.—It is a question of deciding this yourselves when you come to deal with your report. If you consider the arguments by Mr. Tóibín and Mr. Harman were stronger than my arguments, you can report on that.

61. Deputy Crowley.—The only thing I can say is that we are deviating from set down principles.

Mr. Suttle.—You are.

Deputy Crowley.—If we grant this concession to one Department there is no reason why it should not be granted to other Departments.

Mr. Tóibín.—I do not suppose there would be many bodies getting a current grant-in-aid and a capital grant-in-aid. There is at least one other case in which this type of transfer happened a few years ago.

Mr. Suttle.—You would have, in a place like the Dental Hospital, a capital grant and a current grant. There are a number of others in a similar position. The principle has been there all the time that the Dáil are the only people who can increase the grant-in-aid.

Mr. Tóibín.—We fully accept that principle. Our contention is that there is in fact only one grant-in-aid and the Estimate bears that out.

Mr. Suttle.—A typical example is the tourist board, where you have quite a number of grants. They are all split into separate subheads. Some are capital and some are revenue, so that you cannot use the surplus on one to meet a deficiency on the other.

62. Deputy Briscoe.—What the Comptroller and Auditor General says is very important. We should not depart from the usual procedure. We have little enough control of finance as it is.

Mr. Suttle.—You can decide that on the Report Stage.

63. Deputy Healy.—I would like to know would it not meet the position if the grant-in-aid was increased to meet the expenditure so that the Minister could come to the Dáil for what he needed for a grant-in-aid. The Dáil would pass that and it would be in keeping with tradition.

Mr. Tóibín.—In fact in that year we went back to the Dáil with a Supplementary Estimate. If we had thought it necessary to mention this we would have mentioned it and cleared it. There is in fact only one grant-in-aid here even though it is broken down into two parts for budgetary purposes.

64. Deputy Crowley.—Would Deputy Healy’s suggestion meet your requirements? —The only point is we would have to go back to the Dáil and, while I would not like to convey any impression that we would have serious objection to that, we still feel it should not be necessary.

Deputy Briscoe.—It should definitely be kept separate, capital and non-capital expenditure. There is much better control in that way.

65. Deputy Molloy.—Would I be correct in saying that the grant-in-aid of £170,000 would be to cover losses in Gaeltarra Éireann?

Mr. Tóibín.—Losses and other expenses, apart from losses, such as development expenditure.

And that this £50,000 was provided purely as a fund from which Gaeltarra Éireann could issue grants for productive purposes? —Yes.

There are two distinct categories?—Yes.

66. Could you tell us how many applications have been received under this new scheme?—I am quite happy to answer that as far as I can although, since it really does not concern me as Accounting Officer. I have not any data before me. However, I can tell you, generally speaking, that, although the actual grants paid were small in total the number of applications would be quite appreciable. That was the first year in which these grants were paid. Various grants had been sanctioned before the end of the year and have since been paid out. A few grants of the larger type which would come out of that provision also have been sanctioned but no payment has been made yet; there may be payments of that type before the end of the current year.

67. Deputy Healy.—With regard to subhead D.—Tithe Gaeltachta—fewer houses were built than was expected. Is the demand as great as was expected.—I would say so. At the present moment we are preparing the estimate for the year ending 31st March. 1969. It is very difficult to be precise in these estimates so far ahead especially when we are not doing any building ourselves by contract or direct labour. We are depending upon hundreds of people to come to their own decisions to proceed. The trend in the expenditure is upwards.

Deputy Molloy.—No shortage of money for housing.

68. Deputy Healy.—I was worried whether there would be fewer people in the Gaeltacht for housing. Can I be satisfied that is not so?—The expenditure is higher than in the previous year. The trend is constantly upwards.

69. Deputy Molloy.—With regard to the Note, has there been any improvement in the glasshouse situation for the crowing of tomatoes?—The return we put before you on the last occasion covered 1966. We have not yet got the details for 1967 from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Will you be able to provide it?—Yes, as soon as it becomes available in a few months’ time.

70. Deputy Briscoe.—I understand that your Department give grants towards the erection of hotels. Have any of these grants been given yet and under what heading would they fall?—Last year was the first year in which the payments arose and they would fall under subhead E. (10)— Miscellaneous facilities. There was one payment of £500 made before the end of that year. In the current year and in future we are showing them as a separate part of subhead E. These grants are supplementary to grants made by Bord Fáilte. We may pay up to 20 per cent of the cost to Irish speakers and up to 10 per cent of the cost to non-Irish speakers who provide or improve facilities for visitors in Gaeltacht areas.

71. Deputy Briscoe.—If somebody wishes to build an hotel in the Gaeltacht, does he get the grant if the manager does not speak the language?—It is a little bit more complicated than that. The conditions are set out at page 32 of our information booklet. Shall I attempt a rough translation? The conditions are that the promoter would enter into a formal guarantee that Irish speakers would be employed to the greatest extent possible, that Irish would be used as extensively as possible in all activities including management and publicity, that the Irish language and Irish music would predominate in entertainment and pastimes provided for visitors and that items made in the Gaeltacht would predominate among the souvenirs, and so on, for sale to the visitors. The promoters would also have to undertake to refund the grant if at any time any of these conditions was not, in our opinion, being observed. Accommodation for visitors interested in the Irish language is the aim of our scheme.

72. Deputy Molloy.—How many grants were paid?—One in that year. Some more have since been paid, small grants for extensions and so on but no very large grants.

73. Deputy Cluskey.—Under subhead F. —Scéimeanna Cultúrtha agus Sóisialacha— there is an expenditure of £199,000; under subhead E there is expenditure on entertainment halls while under subhead F. there is expenditure in regard to the publication of newspapers in Irish and grants to assist in the provision of short films in Irish?—In regard to the expenditure from subhead E. on entertainment halls, that would be a grant for the building.

74. Would it not come under the subhead in relation to Cultural and Social Schemes? —The distinction between subhead E. and subhead F. is interesting in the light of our earlier discussion. Subhead E. is really for capital works even though it is not financed on a capital basis. The other schemes under subhead F. are for more intangible things.

It would only cover the actual building? —Yes, in the case of a grant from subhead E.

75. Deputy Molloy.—What about the grant to Taibhdhearc na Gaillimhe?—It was, as given in the Estimate, £3,500. That was paid out in full. Has it been increased since? —It has since been increased.

76. Are you satisfied with the manner in which the money has been expended?— We feel that there has been a substantial improvement and that the directors are doing their best.

77. Deputy Cluskey.—With regard to the item in the Appropriations in Aid for repayment of loans, what are these?—The loans are for glass-houses. These are theonly loans involved either for the houses themselves or for the installation of heating.

78. Deputy Molloy.—What is the total number of people employed by Gaeltarra Éireann?—Part-time employees would be over 1,000 and whole-time employees over 700. At 31st March 1966—these are the latest published figures—they had 1,544 employees made up of over 800 part-time and 700 whole time. The employment has since increased.

How many of these would be employed at Head Office in Dublin?—Head Office will not be in Dublin much longer.

That is why I want to know?—Head Office Staff is about 40.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1 p.m.