Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1970 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1967 - 1968

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin 4 Meitheamh, 1970.

Thursday, 4th June, 1970.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY HOGAN in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An t-Ard Reachtaire Cuntais agus Ciste), and Mr. J. R. Whitty (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.

Mr. K. M. Fowler called and examined.

1705. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Have you a full staff now?

Mr. Suttle.—No. We never have had and I am afraid we never will have a full staff.

Mr. Fowler.—There is great difficulty in filling vacancies.

Chairman.—We understand that this is the last occasion on which Mr. Fowler will come before us. We wish him the very best in his retirement.

Mr. Fowler.—Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

VOTE 27—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Mr. Mac Gearailt called and examined.

1706. Chairman.—Paragraph 33 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“33. In paragraph 30 of my previous report I referred to the introduction of a free post-primary education scheme including free tuition, free transport services and free school books and accessories for necessitous pupils. The scheme continued in 1968-69 on a similar basis, the principal costs being as follows:—

The abolition of fees in the case of students at vocational schools following wholetime day courses in continuation or technical education up to and including Leaving Certificate level is reflected in increased grants to Vocational Education Committees (Vote 30 —Subhead A).

The organisation of the school transport service has been entrusted mainly to Córas Iompair Éireann. Arrangements regarding financial control and procedures had not been finalised by 31 March 1969 and the payments made were, therefore, provisional.”

1707. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph deals with the cost in the year under review of the free education scheme.

1708. Deputy FitzGerald.—In regard to free school books, how is the money allocated?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—By and large, we leave it to the discretion of the managers and the principal teachers. The money is allocated to the schools on the basis of assessed needs, as determined through consultation with the headmasters, managers, et cetera.

1709. Low income as such would not qualify unless the pupils fell into the particular category?

—General hardship, large families with inadequate means are taken into account as well as the income of the parents. The criterion is genuine hardship existing because of such things as the size of the family, parent’s illness, insufficient means. In fact, if the parent had only one child and the principal decides that his circumstances merit free books, he will get them.

1710. Under which heading?

—This is a general guideline to the principals and the managers of schools and in exercising this the principal teacher has discretion.

1711. That does not answer my question. There are many other categories which you have not mentioned?

—This is only a general guideline.

1712. On the basis of this guideline, the manager of the school then decides how many children are necessitous and requests a certain sum from you which you then provide?

—It varies from area to area.

1713. Of course, but the sum he requests you provide? He is not cut back on that in any case?

—Normally, we are satisfied that we are providing a sufficient sum to enable him to cater for the categories in question.

1714. That was not my question. You ask him to assess how many children need these books. He then states how many need them and what sum of money is required. Does he then get that sum of money?

—He does not, in fact, normally give a definite number. He gives us a general idea as to what percentage of his pupils will qualify and on that basis we make an allocation.

1715. When he says that the number of pupils is so many, do you multiply that number of pupils by the cost of books that you have determined and give him that sum?

—We have definite rates laid down. It is £8 for the first year and £4 every year thereafter for an Intermediate Certificate pupil and £10 and £5 for a Leaving Certificate pupil.

1716. He will automatically get the sum of money which is arrived at by multiplying the number of children whom he says are necessitous by that number of books? There is no question of cutting back that amount?

—There is a question of cutting back in relation to the number of claims that he may have.

1717. You mean you may not accept his statement?

—It is not a question of accepting his statement but a question of having regard to the general circumstances of the area. If somebody from an area in which it is well known that the income of the parents is above average were to look for the average, which is about 25 per cent of the total we would make a reassessment of the requirements of that area.

1718. In consultation with him?

—Through our inspector or in direct consultation with him. We try to agree as to the appropriate figure.

1719. In how many schools has the amount requested been cut back in this way?

—In practice it does not arise to any extent.

1720. You mean the schools request a sum which you regard as reasonable and they get the full sum normally?

—We give them the sum we regard as reasonable in relation to the area.

1721. If they submit a figure do you normally regard that as reasonable and give them the full amount?

—Normally, yes.

1722. In how many cases, say, in the year in question was the full amount not given?

—I have not got the figures but I can let the Deputy have them.*

1723. To understand how the scheme works it is necessary to know that. If it were in very few cases one would accept that there has been a few people who claimed more than they should but if there was a significant number of cases where the claim was rejected—

—I can assure the Deputy that the number of cases in which we have an appeal against a decision on the question of the adequacy of the sums made available is very small.

1724. In how many cases do you give the sum requested? There may be many cases where you do not give the sum requested and people are so cowed they do not appeal.

—I can let the Deputy have that information.*

1725. Deputy MacSharry.—Is it not true that the sum the principal requests is always cut because everybody wants free books?

—The principal is very often faced with the position that virtually everybody is looking for free books.

Deputy MacSharry.—You could not have enough money for the scheme. They all want them.

Deputy FitzGerald.—I appreciate that.

Deputy MacSharry.—Then you appreciate the difficulty of your question.

Deputy FitzGerald.—No, headmasters are asked to list the number of people who fall into the category, people of low income, and the question arises in how many cases, when they have done that, do they not get what they request, which rules out many people who would like to have books.

1726. Chairman.—Are you satisfied with the operation of the free school transport scheme? Have some of the difficulties been ironed out?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Most of the difficulties have been ironed out. There were difficulties in regard to an insufficiency of buses when the scheme first came into operation and many buses had to do what we call “double tripping” which means a bus took a certain number of pupils to school, say, 20 minutes before the school opened and came back and took another group in time for school opening. Because of the scheme of building of new buses in which CIE has engaged that “double tripping” is to quite an extent being avoided and will be avoided when the programme of bus building has been completed.

1727. Have you leaflets in your Department setting out how the scheme operates? We are often asked awkward questions which we cannot answer about this.

—Yes, we have. The conditions are simple. In the case of primary schools, children under ten years who live more than two miles from the nearest national school qualify for transport and those over ten who live more than three miles qualify. In relation to the post primary sector the position is that three miles is the limit.

1728. Deputy Barry.—This information is contained in a booklet published by the Department?

—It is, yes, but those are the conditions.

1729. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Is there any hope that the age might be raised? I am thinking of the child who, up to ten years, is carried and then, on reaching ten years, he or she loses this right to transport?

—We do not think it is asking too much of those over ten years of age to travel up to three miles to school.

1730. But this rigidity causes a good deal of frustration and confusion even. The bus picks up a younger member of the family and the older member has to walk and there is obvious accommodation on the bus for the older child?

—But if you start making exceptions where do you stop?

1731. Is it the situation that transport is not yet available for those over ten? Is the number so great that transport cannot be provided for them? Where transport is available it should be given to them.

Deputy FitzGerald.—What plans are there to make it available?

—There are no plans because, from the point of view of availability of finance and so on, we think it is not unreasonable to ask pupils between ten and 12 years of age to make their own way to school if they live within three miles of the school.

1732. Even if there is space in the bus?

—If you start including even one, then why not two, three, four? Where do you stop? That is the difficulty.

Deputy FitzGerald.—This is a matter for decision locally. It seems quite inappropriate to centralise bureaucratic control. People cannot understand why there are empty spaces in one bus just because somewhere else another bus is full.

1733. Chairman.—Is there not a provision enabling some to travel by paying fares?

—That is so.

1734. Take the case of child A who pays, child B who travels free and child C who is not allowed to travel at all?

—You have to look at it from the point of view of the general public finance. We operate through CIE at local level. Unless we lay down certain criteria for CIE in the matter of school transport they simply could not operate on a purely ad hoc basis—on the basis that they will do one thing in one area and something else in another area.

Deputy FitzGerald.—Does this not raise the whole question as to whether this is an appropriate exercise for CIE at all? It has to be adapted to very specialised local needs.

1735. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—We seem now to be involved in something in which I do not want to be involved. If there is space in buses for every child over ten years then he/she should be carried. Nothing should exclude children over ten years of age. If there are X pupils over ten and only Y places available, then I accept that situation and agree the regulation must continue. The object of my question was to find out what the relationship is between the number of pupils between ten and 12 and the number of spaces that would be available. We have all had experience of representations from parents on this matter: a child is carried on a bus until he or she reaches ten years of age and then he or she must walk. The bus picks up a younger brother or sister but will not take the child of ten although there is room on the bus for the child. No extra cost to the State is involved. It is not a question of providing extra buses or a bus having to make a detour up a side road. This is something we just cannot explain to the satisfaction of parents. Possibly the explanation may be that in areas like Roscommon, which is sparsely populated, there are plenty of seats available in the buses while on the east coast, which is densely populated, there are no available seats. The Department, therefore, decide they cannot rescind this rule. If that is the situation I am afraid we will just have to accept it.

Deputy FitzGerald.—Question?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Surely that raises the question that if fortuitously there happens to be a few vacant seats in a bus in certain areas in Roscommon and these are given to pupils over ten years of age who reside less than three miles from the nearest national school you create a situation in which once you allow that, you produce a national clamour that everybody who is two miles, or over two miles, from a school should be provided with school transport?

1736. Deputy MacSharry.—There are certain safeguards there. People accept fully the fact that, unless there are amalgamations, they do not qualify for transport. When a child is carried up to ten years of age I think that child should continue to be carried. One thing to which I strongly object is the fact that CIE is in control and can throw children off or take children on as they please?

—Surely it is not suggested that school transport which caters for all the localities throughout the country could be administered at central level.

1737. No, but you have a local CEO in every area who should be able to administer this and have the final say, not a CEO running around in a car telling children they cannot be carried?

—CIE have a local organisation which enables them to do this work and CIE work in collaboration with the local CEO.

Deputy MacSharry.—But he takes their advice. They run the show.

1738. Deputy Barry.—How are they paid? Are they paid per pupil carried or per bus run?

—They are paid on the number of buses and the number of miles.

1739. Therefore, whether a bus is full or empty, you are still paying for it?

—That is true in theory.

1740. Deputy FitzGerald.—They have no incentive to fill it?

—That is true but it does not arise in practice.

Deputy Tunney.—What happens in the case of a bus in which all the seats are filled and six students, having reached ten years of age, are no longer entitled to free transport? You may have some new students who will occupy some of the vacant seats. Supposing the bus is full and there are six new students, what do you do?

Deputy FitzGerald.—If there are no seats available people will accept that. But if there are vacant spaces they will not accept that they cannot travel.

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Up to ten years of age everybody is carried. This means transport is available. I believe there should be no change when they reach ten. There should be no need to change the route taken by the bus. Indeed, the route could be changed to the dissatisfaction of those affected. It could be changed to their disadvantage because, as it were, you have another mile left to play with, from two miles to three miles. I cannot see that making this facility available would impose on the transport system. It is not a case of unknowingly carrying these extra children. It is only a question of making a decision that if places are available the other children should be carried.

Deputy FitzGerald.—The first principle should be that you provide transport for those under the existing rules. Then, if there is space available, the others should be taken. The third principle, which would ultimately incur more expense, would be that those over ten would be carried. There are three different principles.

Deputy Tunney.—Each Deputy will cite the circumstances best known to himself. I would hope that here Deputy FitzGerald would share the concern I feel in respect of students being carried to schools, being collected and delivered. Most of those students qualify for the free book scheme and you will find a situation where some must represent marginal cases which do not qualify for free transport. Such pupils get to school on their own and some of them do not qualify for free books. I know of students who have little option but to buy secondhand books from students who have qualified for free transport and free books. There are certain injustices in the operation of this. Rather than seeking an extension of the free book scheme, I should be keen on exercising more caution. A student attending a post-primary school this year would get £8 worth of free books. He knows he has a young brother who will also qualify for free books in a later year but instead of keeping the books for his brother he sells them to an unfortunate who has not qualified but who is contributing to the general pool out of which the money for the free book scheme is coming. That unfortunate student must be content with secondhand books.

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—It is a question of whether we have a means test for transport and give allowances rather than free books. The most we can do is to make sure that the transport scheme is used fully and that there are no empty seats.

1741. Chairman.—How does the scheme operate as between primary and secondary schools?

—The position is, as I have explained, in the case of primary schools anybody who is more than two miles from the school and is less than ten years of age is entitled to transport and anybody who is more than three miles from the school, without age qualification, is entitled to free transport. In the case of post-primary schools, there is a three miles limit for everybody. If I might interject in relation to that, in the case of the proposed relaxation of some rule, there would be no limit to it because there are all kinds of pressures that the three mile limit in respect of post-primary education be reduced and that all those on the bus route be picked up and taken to school. We have got to remember that the cost of school transport is running at £3 million a year at the moment. In the matter of priorities, the question arises as to whether an extension of that rather than of something else is warranted.

1742. Is there any overlapping as between the service for primary and secondary schools?

—No. The bus can carry both and it does carry both.

1743. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am not clear about the method of payment. On what basis are CIE paid?

—The position is that CIE operate their own services where that is possible. They operate through subcontractors in other places. CIE present separate accounts in relation to school transport services. The accounts are audited by a firm of auditors acceptable to the Minister for Education, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, if he so wishes, may carry out any audit he thinks necessary.

1744. How is the charge determined and on which basis is it made? I am sure CIE do not charge for people they have not carried.

—The position is that a charge is largely determined by the number of miles the bus has got to cover.

1745. Is it a mileage charge? What is the basis? Do you get a bill to the effect that so many have travelled so many miles?

—Usually it does not work out that way at all. What happens is that a man contracts with CIE for the carriage of pupils over the year. CIE add about 10 per cent on top of that for administrative costs.

1746. In the case of their buses, how are they charged for?

—They are charged at what CIE regard as the economic rate for running the buses.

1747. What CIE regard, not what you regard?

—No. The charge is subject to audit.

1748. Deputy MacSharry.—I understand that basically, apart from the cost of free transport, the main reason for the introduction of a three mile limit for post-primary schools was to preserve existing schools in their catchment areas—if you were in a certain catchment area you had to go to an existing school. How is it that in certain areas CIE can put on a public service vehicle, an ordinary run-of-the-mill bus, for a school and then take it off? I would give an example. There is a school in Coola and there is a vocational school in Sligo. A bus is run between Ballintogher and Dromahair and Sligo, a 14 mile trip. Coola is in the catchment area. They run the bus for the school term and take it off when the school closes at a time when Coola school is dying for pupils. Why allow CIE to put on a public service vehicle in that instance?

—We adhere to the criterion of being more than three miles from the nearest suitable post-primary school. There is also the factor that when the scheme was introduced in 1967 a number of students were going to schools other than those within three miles of their home and they were allowed to continue in those schools and were provided with transport to them. We felt it would be unsound educationally if, having begun their courses in these schools, they were not allowed to continue there.

1749. They had started at that school. They cannot make up their minds now to start?

—No.

1750. That is why I say you preserve the catchment areas but CIE are flouting this by those PSV runs?

—If the Deputy will let me have particulars I will investigate it.

1751. Deputy FitzGerald.—This suggests to me that there is an attempt here to undermine the Constitutional right of the parents established in the 1942 Act to choose the school. It is bad enough that the effect of the free education scheme should be that somebody else chooses what school the children are to go to when they get free transport to go to it but it could be argued that they still have the right to pay to send their children somewhere else but now the suggestion is that you actually take off a public service to prevent them exercising their Constitutional right. This seems to be a very dubious proposal and I am disturbed to hear the witness agreeing to look into the matter.

—I do not want to get involved in Constitutional matters but our advice is that nobody can claim a Constitutional right to a choice of school.

1752. But that was established in 1942?

—Not a Constitutional right to choice of school. The onus is on the State to provide primary education but the onus is not on the State to provide primary education for a given pupil at a given school.

Deputy FitzGerald.—The State has no right to tell parents they must send their children to a particular school. Is that not what was established in 1942? The suggestion now is that they should attempt, in an underhand way, to remove that right by taking off a public service to prevent children going to another school. I am registering a protest against this suggestion and your agreeing to look into it.

Deputy MacSharry.—You can register a protest but if you want to carry your policy to its logical conclusion you must close down six schools in my area and let all the children into Sligo, which is stupid.

Deputy FitzGerald.—If the parents want to send their children to Sligo it is up to them.

Deputy Barrett.—The State is not obliged to provide free transport.

Chairman.—We are straying into policy and even into the Constitution.

Deputy FitzGerald.—I was merely registering a protest against an unconstitutional proposal.

Deputy MacSharry.—You cannot have free transport for everybody everywhere.

1753. Deputy FitzGerald.—That is a proposition with which we can all agree, but to remove a public service to prevent children going to the school of their parents’ choice is a different matter?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—When we speak about removing a public service there is no question of removing a public service as such; the question is our paying for the pupils on that public service. That is the issue.

Deputy MacSharry.—Yes, and also the fact that CIE inaugurated that service for their own financial gain.

Deputy FitzGerald.—To enable the parents to exercise their Constitutional right.

Deputy Barry.—No, it could be a public service.

1754. Deputy FitzGerald.—I am reckoning what CIE charge. They decide what is an economic matter. This is a most disturbing principle to see introduced into public accounts.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—You must have regard to all the factors. It may be far more expensive for CIE to run buses in a mountainous area than it is in some other area and the idea of laying down some rigid mileage rate does not enter into it. What enters into it is that CIE undertake to charge us no more than what it costs them, with the addition of about ten per cent for the administrative and other costs involved.

1755. The question arises whether that is the most economic way to run the service. Did you seek contracts in any area other than CIE to do this work?

—In many areas contracts are sought but they are sought by CIE.

1756. Who charge ten per cent on top of that. I am asking whether you asked anybody else to contract to do this work other than CIE whose overheads are high and who are necessarily, because of their size, in an inflexible position relatively?

—Our feeling is that in relation to a national transport service organised on a national basis no group or individuals have the organisation necessary to run it other than CIE.

Deputy FitzGerald.—But if they were given the opportunity that organisation might be created and developed?

Deputy MacSharry.—That is an impossibility.

Chairman.—This is policy. This was handed over to CIE. That was a policy decision made by the Minister at the time and I feel it is hardly fair to cross-examine the witness so completely on what was a policy decision.

Deputy MacSharry.—I should like you to look into another aspect of CIE involvement in this. I feel a little bit too much control has been given to the CIE inspector in relation to what child travels and what child does not. I fully accept CIE’s involvement otherwise.

1757. Deputy FitzGerald.—Can you tell me me what check there is on the CIE costings? The methods of costing transport services vary. CIE, for instance, in relation to Aer Lingus charged at one period for buses to the airport on the basis of wear and tear on tyres and fuel, everything else being charged to their overheads. In other cases they have put it all into the mileage rates. These methods can give different results. What steps have been taken to examine the costing system and to satisfy yourselves that the cost is as economic as possible?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The steps we have taken are to have a firm of auditors appointed of whom the Minister for Education approves to examine these accounts in detail, and to ensure that we are not being charged any more than we should be charged. It is open to the Comptroller and Auditor General, if he so wishes to carry out a further audit of these accounts.

1758. Do the auditors’ terms of reference include the question of whether the method of providing the service is the most economic possible or only whether the service as provided is being properly charged?

—I am not aware of the auditors’ exact terms of reference but I presume he ensures that the State is getting full value for money and that the charge being made by CIE is not in any instance an unreasonable one.

Deputy FitzGerald.—There are two different ways of approaching the question of auditing— one would be simply to see that the accounts charged cover the costs involved and the other would go deeper and see whether the whole thing could be done more efficiently.

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Deputy FitzGerald has stated his case. Could we leave it at that and let the auditor and the accountant go into it this year? We will not solve it today.

1759. Deputy FitzGerald.—I asked which way the accounts were audited.

Mr. Suttle.—The position is that I do not think there is a firm agreement with CIE yet.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—There is, yes.

1760. Deputy FitzGerald.—Could we and the Comptroller and Auditor General have the agreement?

Mr. Whitty (An Roinn Airgeadais).—When this scheme was under consideration their auditors drew up an elaborate scheme covering the expenses of the contractors, those carried on CIE scheduled services of school buses, and the idea of the scheme was to isolate those expenses which CIE was undertaking in respect of this service and add on a charge for overheads and a small percentage profit and make deductions for fuel and all the rest of it. This scheme was submitted to the auditor’s office.

Mr. Suttle.—My information is that the financial arrangement with CIE has not yet been finalised, though progress has been made on some outstanding points, viz., CIE’s profit has by agreement been reduced from six per cent to four per cent, a discount of eight per cent has been secured in the charge for schoolchildren using scheduled services, and a discount of ten per cent has also been secured from indirect and administration costs. An agreed formula has yet to be arrived at to cover the allowance in respect of child absenteeism. That is the latest information I have.

Mr. Whitty.—I am not sure of the last point.

Mr. Suttle.—The agreement has not yet been finalised.

1761. Deputy FitzGerald.—After three years?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—I have here the system of accounting in relation to this. It sets out the elements involved in the charge to the Department: direct costs, indirect costs, administration costs, special costs and profit. It goes into detail as to how the direct costs are made up: crew costs, driver’s services, etc., running cost of buses, fuel, lubrication and so on. Indirect and administration costs are under a heading. School transport accounts are subject to a comprehensive annual audit by a firm of professional accountants accepted by the Minister for Education. A final certificate furnished by the auditors is in a form approved by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Comptroller and Auditor General reserves the right to examine the books—

1762. Deputy FitzGerald.—But how can there be a certificate when there is no agreement?

Mr. Suttle.—That is the thing, you see. We agreed to a form of certificate to be obtained from these particular auditors on the basis that it would ensure that the auditing being carried out was effective and we have to certify certain things from our point of view. We agreed that certificate but this was preliminary to a final agreement with the company and, as I just told you, these changes occurred during the year and the question of absenteeism has not yet been decided.

1763. So no agreement has yet been signed.

Mr. Suttle.—As far as I know, no.

1764. Have demands been paid?

Mr. Suttle.—Oh, yes. I have accepted these payments on account pending finalisation of the scheme.

1765. When is it expected the agreement will be signed?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—As far as the Department of Education is concerned, there is as has been stated by my colleague from the Department of Finance an agreement which has already been approved. Quite frankly, I was under the impression, until it was mentioned here, that it has been fully approved by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

1766. Has it been signed?

—It has been approved.

Mr. Whitty (An Roinn Airgeadais).—As far as my Department is concerned, it conveyed approval for the matters mentioned.

1767. To the Department of Education?

Mr. Whitty.—Yes.

1768. Has the Department signed an agreement?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—It has entered into an agreement.

1769. In pursuance of the approval given by the Department of Finance?

—As far as the Department of Education is concerned, what arises is rather an agreed modus operandi rather than the signing of a formal agreement.

1770. But you could not certify anything until the formal agreement was signed?

Mr. Suttle.—That was our view of the matter. Those were only payments on account pending finalisation of the agreement. My information is that no agreement has yet been signed.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—It was news to me to learn now that these arrangements had not, in fact, been finalised.

1771. Deputy FitzGerald.—But who would have signed the agreement?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—In the matter of an agreement there would not be a formal signing of an agreement as such. There would be a communication to CIE saying those are the conditions under which we are operating in regard to school transport.

1772. An exchange of letters?

—Yes.

1773. And has there been an exchange of letters finalising the agreement?

—There has been an exchange of letters under which this modus operandi has been accepted by CIE.

1774. And by you?

—Yes, and approved by the Department of Finance.

1775. Approved by the Department of Finance, you to send a letter agreeing to the scheme: have you done so?

—We have written to CIE in connection with this saying that these are what we are willing to accept as legitimate charges in relation to transport.

1776. There is an important legal point here. Either there is or there is not a contract. A contract can only be made by a signed agreement or a formal exchange of letters. Is there a contract between the Department and CIE? If not, when will there be?

—In relation to an exchange of letters, as far as we are concerned there is a contract. The Comptroller and Auditor General has pointed out that it is not final in so far as there is an item which has not been disposed of yet.

1777. Then it cannot be a contract? Either it is a contract and final or it is not.

Mr. Suttle.—Financial control and procedures had not been finalised up to 31st March, 1969, and the terms made were, therefore, provisional.

Deputy FitzGerald.—But it is now June, 1970, and we still cannot find out if there is an agreement.

1778. Deputy MacSharry.—When was your letter to CIE?

—That is a matter I can provide by way of note. I do not have the correspondence with me.

1779. Deputy FitzGerald—Have we any means of finding out whether or not there is a contract?

Mr. Suttle—I will let the Committee know what the position is.*

1780. To come back to the terms of the agreement: I understand you to say there is a ten per cent charge for administration. Is the charge for profit on top of that or is it included in that figure?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The four per cent profit is an additional item.

1781. What steps are taken by the auditors to investigate whether CIE have, in fact, incurred £300,000, which is what ten per cent would be, additional costs or whether, in fact, this £300,000 includes an additional profit element which has not been incurred? Is this investigated? Have CIE produced evidence to show they incurred additional administration costs? Otherwise there would be a hidden four per cent. I take it that is investigated?

—We operate on the basis that the figure of about ten per cent is a reasonable figure taking all the matters involved into consideration.

1782. Prima facie, it seems to me that such a scheme could cost an extra £300,000. To the extent that it does not, as any economist, not just I, would see, the difference constitutes profit. What we want to know is what is the full profit of CIE, apart from the administration costs?

—When I mention ten per cent you will appreciate that ten per cent is the figure roughly representing the cost to CIE including special types of indirect costs from the point of view of staff, et cetera.

1783. Allocation of costs confuses the whole issue. Anybody can allocate costs arbitrarily. The question is did CIE incur new costs?

—Apart from anything else, there is the one big item of costing drivers’ wages.

1784. That is included in the direct costs. CIE then charge for indirect costs in respect of depreciation of buses, interest on buses and so on. On top of that, however, they charge £300,000 for administration. The question I am asking is about the amount of the additional cost to CIE in general administration to cope with these services. Would that reach £300,000?

—The people involved in the negotiations with CIE have taken into account all that was involved and they were satisfied by and large that a figure of about ten per cent is reasonable.

Deputy FitzGerald.—That does not answer my question. It is an important question. What we need to know is the additional profit CIE will achieve.

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—That is a question that should be referred back for the purpose of getting the information. We will not solve it in this way here.

Deputy FitzGerald.—I should like to have a note on it.

1785. Chairman.—How do CIE present that cost? Do they send in an itemised list?

Deputy FitzGerald.—How was ten per cent arrived at in the first place?

Deputy Barry.—Was this ten per cent agreed on at the initial stage? Was it CIE’s figure or was it your figure?

—It was arrived at after negotiation with CIE. We endeavoured to arrive at a reasonable figure having regard to everything involved, with reference to additional administration, et cetera.

Deputy FitzGerald.—So you had some evidence of what the administration cost would be.

1786. Chairman.—Paragraph 34 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:

“Subhead A.2.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses

34. The charge to the subhead includes an amount of £2,500 paid to the Royal Irish Academy towards the cost of participating in an International Biological Programme under the auspices of the International Council of Scientific Unions. The programme is a continuing one and provision has been made in 1969-70 to increase the Academy’s grant-in-aid from the vote (subhead H.3) by £15,000 to meet its programme costs arising in that year.”

1787. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The paragraph draws attention to the fact that expenditure of a type being met in 1969-70 and subsequently by an increase in the Royal Irish Academy’s grant-in-aid was, in the year under review, charged to the “Incidentals” provision of the Vote.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The Royal Irish Academy get an annual grant-in-aid. They were directed to take an interest in this union of the biological sciences. The grant-in-aid could have been given by way of a Supplementary Estimate to cover this additional amount. In this first year, however, the Department decided to charge this amount of £2,500 to incidentals. In the following year the grant-in-aid was increased to cover this position.

1788. Deputy FitzGerald.—That may be a reasonable way of doing it but anybody reading the footnote on page 68 of the Appropriation Account could have known that it was done. I hope I am not anticipating. The statement to the effect that the expenditure was greater than anticipated does not indicate that this procedure was adopted.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—That is correct. We found that this item involved the employment of other people—

1789. What strikes us is that at times quite small sums, like £582, are mentioned in the footnotes but a sum like this gets no mention whatever. Quite often there are sums like £7 mentioned but a sum of £2,500 is left out. Is there any criterion in respect of the mentioning and the explaining of such sums?

Mr. Suttle.—If you have a subhead involving £3 million, a sum of a couple of thousand pounds will not make all that difference but where there is a subhead involving only £5,000 a small sum will make a difference. This question of the adequacy of notes was raised some time ago and the committee commented on it. During the years I have been personally urging accounting officers to give more information in their explanations.

1790. Where this procedure is adopted it should be separately identified.

Mr. Suttle.—I agree it should have been identified from the notes.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—By way of explanation in relation to what was involved, this was a programme initiated in 1961 to deal with such things as the increase in world population and the provision of food. Sixty countries were taking part and we agreed to participate.

1791. We accept that but should this item not have been identified separately in the footnote?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—I agree it might have been in the footnote.

Deputy FitzGerald.—It seems inconsistent that a sum like this should not have been identified, whereas an explanation is given in another Vote about a sum of £5 in respect of a sow scheme.

1792. Chairman.—Paragraph 35 reads:

“Subhead F.4—Special Exhibitions (Grant-in-Aid)

35. In paragraph 36 of my previous report I referred to the expenditure of £5,849 in connection with the Rose Exhibition in the National Museum. In the year under review £6,000 was provided by way of grant-in-aid towards the remaining costs of the exhibition.”

1793. Paragraph 36 reads:

“Subhead H.11.—Voluntary Youth Organisations (Grants-in-Aid)

“36. The charge to the subhead comprises £3,000 paid to the National Youth Council and £2,000 paid to the National Federation of Boys’ Clubs. The grants were paid towards the administrative and organisational expenses of these bodies.”

1794. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The two organisations which get grants under the subhead perform work of an advisory and co-ordinating character in relation to their affiliated bodies.

1795. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is there any change in that now that we have got a separate Parliamentary Secretary and a £100,000 Vote to deal with it?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Voluntary youth organisations are involved here and there is a difference between giving a grant to a council rather than to an organisation. Of that grant of £5,000, £3,000 is given to the National Youth Council for administrative and organisational expenses. The Council is a co-ordinating body in relation to 21 affiliated youth organisations, whereas in the other cases mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General it is a question of making a specific grant for a specific purpose, say, Macra na Tuaithe and its activities. What is involved in relation to that £3,000 is that it is given to a co-ordinating body which co-ordinates the activities of 21 youth organisations.

1796. You mentioned that one of these bodies gets a grant under the Vocational Education Vote.

Mr. Suttle.—Both of them, Comhairle le Leas Óige under subhead A and Macra na Tuaithe gets a grant under subhead E of the Vocational Education Vote.

1797. But the first is not identified at all.

Mr. Suttle.—Is it not identified in the Estimate?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—It is not because while it is given to Comhairle le Leas Óige the vast portion of the money is spent on ordinary activities of an educational nature—running classes and providing teachers.

1798. Subhead A of Vote 30—Vocational Education reads “Annual Grants to Vocational Education Committees.” There could not be a grant to anybody but a Vocational Education Committee under that subhead unless they give the grant?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The grant is given to the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee who turn it over to Comhairle le Leas Óige.

1799. So there is no means of tracing others through the accounts?

Mr. Suttle.—In 1968-69 £36,000 was provided for Comhairle le Leas Óige and in 1969-70 £53,000.

1800. But there is no means by which Parliament can know that in any of these accounts?

Mr. Suttle.—No.

1801. Surely there is a weakness in the whole system then? Nobody is objecting to the money being provided but we are told that money is being provided under one heading and then in another Vote money is provided indirectly and we do not know about it. We should have the full picture.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—If one were to identify all the various elements in that grant it would take four or five pages of the Book of Estimates.

Deputy MacSharry.—The Sligo Vocational Education Committee gives a grant towards the rehabilitation scheme and it does not appear in any accounts but the committee know about it.

1802. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is it not appropriate that Parliament should know how much of the money goes to particular projects?

Mr. Suttle.—Comhairle le Leas Óige get some of this money and dispose of it to youth clubs and on that basis it is a part of vocational education.

1803. Deputy MacSharry.—Is it intended to rationalise this type of activity in view of the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Suttle.—I feel it should be all together and not under different headings so that we would know exactly what money was being spent on each organisation, whether for an educational purpose linked with recreation or anything else.

1804. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is there any way that Parliament can get this?

Mr. Suttle.—On the whole, no. Generally, grants to organisations of this sort are clearly identified in the Estimates. This is an exception.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Comhairle le Leas Oige is a subsidiary body of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee. The vast bulk of this money is spent on providing classes and educational facilities which, if they were not provided in these clubs, would be provided in vocational schools.

1805. Deputy FitzGerald.—Nobody is criticising the provision of this money. It is unnecessary to defend it.

—I am saying that their activities are very much germane to subhead A of the Vote.

1806. Nobody suggested that the Vocational Education Committee has no right to get this money; they have a perfect right but we should know about it. The system seems to have broken down.

Mr. Suttle.—I am not objecting to this. It is a question of giving as much information to the Dáil as possible.

1807. Deputy FitzGerald.—This money should be brought together under one heading and these things should be identified.

Mr. Suttle.—I can understand the Accounting Officer’s point of view—that Comhairle le Leas Oige is closely connected with and, in fact, is organised through the Dublin Vocational Education Committee. It is part of their work and on that basis the grant to the committee covers all aspects of their work.

Deputy FitzGerald.—It is quite legitimate.

Mr. Suttle.—It is quite legitimate but, at the same time, I feel it would be better if they were all together.

1808. Deputy FitzGerald.—Could you suggest any general principle that could be enunciated to ensure that we could get this information?

Mr. Suttle.—This happens from time to time throughout the service. The service is so big that there are various parts of Departments dealing with different things like grants going out through An Foras Tionscal and through the Department of Finance for small industries. The Dáil will not know exactly how much is going out to industry whether small or big. This happens from time to time. I think it is, if you like, part of streamlining and reorganisation to bring all this sort of thing into one big group.

1809. Would it be possible, where any body to which moneys are voted itself passes on the grant-in-aid to other bodies, to identify these subordinate grants-in-aid? Would that cover your point? The first point is to identify it so that we know the money is paid and the second point is to co-ordinate?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

1810. Deputy Tunney.—Comhairle le Leas Óige is a particular aspect of education in Dublin city handled by the Vocational Education Committee. It is consolidated into the system and you are providing a service which normally cannot be provided under the prescribed regulations we have for vocational education and if we called this anything other than Comhairle le Leas Óige it would not be questioned at all. We are looking at Comhairle le Leas Óige as being different from the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee.

Deputy FitzGerald.—Is it?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—It is really a sub-committee of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee. If I may raise a question in connection with this: certain of these grants to youth organisations will be appropriate to the Office of the Minister because there may not be any element of formal teaching, as such, involved; but, if you were to take an item out of the Vote for Vocational Education and put it into the Office of the Minister when, in fact, virtually all the main activities in connection therewith are related to vocational education you would, I think, be giving really rather a false picture of what is involved.

Mr. Suttle.—Is there a possibility of overlapping?

1811. Deputy Tunney.—There would be no danger of overlapping between Macra na Tuaithe and Comhairle le Leas Óige. The latter is essentially Dublin city. My concern would be that we are not, perhaps, spending enough money and I certainly would not like anything that would inhibit Comhairle le Leas Óige from getting more money.

Mr. Suttle.—There is a provision of £100,000 in the next year and it is passed on to 40 or 50 organisations.

1812. Deputy FitzGerald.—Does that mean Comhairle le Leas Óige keep getting money from the Minister’s Office and the Vocational Education Committee?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—There is no question of that. There is no question of any organisation as far as youth clubs are concerned, getting money from two official sources.

1813. We have just been told they do?

—Not from two official sources.

1814. I thought the whole question was that they got money under the Vote for the Office of the Minister and also—

Deputy MacSharry.—Youth organisations: it is the same money.

Mr. Suttle.—There is no question of two grants.

1815. Deputy FitzGerald.—The youth organisation could get money from Comhairle le Leas Óige and the National Federation of Boys’ Clubs. Is that right? Have I misunderstood?

Mr. Suttle.—I think you must have misunderstood. My view is that youth organisations should be collected together in one financial sum. Whether the question of overlapping is a possibility, I do not know, but you have got a certain number of youths and whether they come in under Comhairle le Leas Óige or under this provision here for youth clubs generally—the National Federation or whatever it is—I do not know.

1816. And do these two bodies also do so?

Mr. Suttle.—Macra na Tuaithe deals with clubs in the country.

1817. The National Youth Council and the National Federation of Boys Clubs—

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The National Youth Council simply gets £3,000 for its own administration and organisational expenses— that is, the expenses of the organisation itself. It does not give grants to any of these bodies that are affiliated to it. It co-ordinates the activities of these and it is in relation to the co-ordination that it gets the grant. But there is no question of any of the various organisations involved gaining from that grant and there is no question of any youth organisation getting money from two official sources.

1818. This £100,000 Vote, will it be under vocational education?

—It is under the Office of the Minister.

1819. So that a youth club will get money from that fund?

—In fact, there was a full list published of how that money was disbursed.

1820. But some of it goes to youth clubs?

—Very little of it. The greater portion of it went to sporting organisations.

1821. But some of it goes to youth clubs?

—Only in two instances. I am speaking from recollection.

1822. And some of the money goes to youth clubs?

—Not on an overlap. No youth club that benefits from Comhairle le Leas Óige gets any money from the other sources.

1823. Deputy Barry.—I think the £100,000 was voted for sporting organisations?

—It is mainly, but not exclusively.

1824. Deputy FitzGerald.—I understood it was for youth clubs and they would get a substantial portion of it.

—No.

1825. No provision then except through the Vocational Education Committee?

—And through such bodies as Macra na Tuaithe.

Mr. Suttle.—There is provision for sporting and recreational facilities for young people.

Deputy MacSharry.—It depends on the terms of reference of the particular youth club. It might be solely sporting.

1826. Deputy FitzGerald.—It would be hard to find a youth club that did not provide recreational facilities. One final point: Comhairle le Leas Óige is merely a sub-committee of the Vocational Education Committee and has no separate identity. The Vocational Education Committee is spending this money through it and we give a grant-in-aid to this body?

—The position is that each year the Dublin Vocational Education Committee does include, as a separate item, a sum for Comhairle le Leas Óige.

1827. But is Comhairle le Leas Oige a sub-committee?

—It is.

Appointed by the Vocational Education Committee?

—Yes, and operating under the aegis of the Vocational Education Committee through various teachers and headmasters.

1828. It seems to me it is not necessary to distinguish in these circumstances so long as there is no money paid by way of grants-in-aid either to it or to youth clubs through it. Is that the case? I understood there was money paid to youth clubs through it?

—I should not like to be taken up wrongly. It does, in fact, through teaching and otherwise and certain activities such as table tennis, and so on and so forth, provide facilities in the youth clubs for bringing boys together in these clubs, but its main activity in relation to these is teaching.

1829. Chairman.—The Accounting Officer might send us a note on this matter.* Now we come to paragraphs 37 and 38 which read as follows:

“37. I referred in paragraph 33 of my report for the year 1966-67 to a scheme of building grants for secondary schools whereby schools which could not meet from their own resources the cost of new buildings or major extensions could be paid annual grants not exceeding 70 per cent of the repayment charges on loans obtained by them towards such cost. Payments totalling £324,772 were made under this scheme in 1968-69 and were charged to subhead J.1.

38. As stated in paragraph 39 of my report for the year 1967-68 the scheme was extended to enable the Department of Education issue the necessary funds for building or extending secondary schools in certain cases. 70 per cent of the amount issued in each case was to be a free grant and the remainder a loan repayable over 15 years at the rate of interest applicable to issues from the Local Loans Fund. Grants, £2,248,177 and loans, £257,436, were issued in the year and were charged to subhead J.2. No loan repayments fell due in the year under review.”

1830. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—On paragraph 37, the charge to subhead J.1. represents recoupment to 17 school authorities in respect of 70 per cent loan charges incurred by them. Paragraph 38 is given for information in relation to the total amount of grants made available for secondary school building during the year. It also records the first issue of loans from the Vote for the 30 per cent element in building costs which is not being met by outright grants.

1831. Deputy FitzGerald.—These loans are repayable by the schools? If the school is running free education and it has no income except what it gets in school grants—

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The school gets 70 per cent of the building costs.

1832. The school’s income is from grants and if it has to repay these loans is it not a kind of circular activity?

—You have to take into account that a number of schools which were already built must get their share for extension and so forth. They may have had loans already which are not repaid yet. The loans would have been raised before the introduction of the free education scheme. They are schools which are being extended, and there is also the matter of new buildings. They are paying for those loans on the same basis out of the same sources of revenue.

1833. They are past cases but a school now being built or being extended will get a 70 per cent grant and a 30 per cent loan. It is a very complicated system. In order to repay the loan would not a school in such circumstances be forced to make voluntary levies on parents. Unless it does that, where is its income to repay the loans? Why not give a 100 per cent grant to begin with.

Chairman.—The Deputy is going into policy at this stage.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—It is all decided on the basis of the scheme. My job is to ensure that the scheme is administered on the basis laid down.

Deputy MacSharry.—Is Deputy FitzGerald making the point that additional facilities to be provided now will give 100 per cent free grant?

1834. Deputy FitzGerald.—The effect of this is that unless there is a voluntary levy on parents, which is a diminishing thing, 30 per cent of the capital cost of the school is transferred to a grant account and the school repays it out of the payment by the Exchequer to the school.

—This is by way of explanation. The schools which are in the free scheme will get, apart from other minor grants, two main grants. The first is £25 in lieu of fees and the other is the capitation grant which runs now at £24 for a senior pupil and £19 for a junior pupil. It has already been stated in relation to those capitation grants that they contain two main elements—a sum to enable the schools to meet teachers salaries and the other to enable them to engage in capital work.

1835. Is it not the position that you give them grants which they give back to you by way of loan repayments?

—It would be very hard to start differentiating as between the schools that, first of all, undertake some work out of their own resources and, secondly, the schools that have got grants from us. If the schools so desired. we could deduct the repayment from the amount of capitation grant being paid at the end of a financial year, if we were authorised by the schools to do it.

1836. It seems to be a circular transaction which involves extra administration difficulties.

Mr. Suttle.—There is not all that much administration in it. There is one section of the Department dealing with capitation grants.

1837. Deputy FitzGerald.—And another section taking them back again.

Mr. Suttle.—It is easier to deal with on units. The collection is very small because there are only a small number of schools involved at the moment.

1838. I thought the majority of schools got grants. What proportion of the schools have been awarded grants?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The number of payments in 1967-68 represented 104 projects and in 1968-69 166 projects.

1839. What will it be in 1970-71?

—It will be between 170 and 180 projects.

1840. Therefore, it has not gone up very much in two years—there has been no increase in the number of schools getting grants?

—These are building projects we are talking about.

1841. Out of the total number, how many schools have received grants up to this point and how many will be making repayments in the current year?

—There are two elements involved in this. The first is where schools have to get the money and where we would become responsible for 70 per cent of their loan repayments. The second is where we advanced them 100 per cent and they repay us 30 per cent.

1842. The number of cases in 1968-69 would be 166 and it will not be much more in the present year.

—It does not vary very much and it is expected to continue at that level.

1843. There will be a number of projects in each year which will involve more schools making more payments.

—In 1968-69, direct grants totalled £2,240,000 relating to 166 schools.

1844. In each year there are about 160 new projects. This year, how many schools have got grants and how many are repaying loans? Of course, it is not the same schools each year?

—The number is increasing.

1845. Would not the majority of secondary schools have received grants for extensions and would not the majority be making repayments?

—In the year under review the figure related to 166 projects. Many of these would run into the following year and there may be a position at the end of March where there might be as many as 300 schools involved.

1846. How many are involved at the moment? If during a continuous period of four years the number average 160 surely it is not the same projects going on all the time?

—I can give you a note on it.* I have not got the figure here and I could only hazard a guess at the moment. This activity started in 1964-65. The number is possibly 200 schools.

Out of how many altogether?

—Six hundred.

Mr. Suttle.—Quite a number of schools do not need extension or anything and they will be there for ten or twenty years.

1847. Chairman.—Paragraph 39 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead K.2.—Comprehensive Schools— Capital Costs

39. I referred in previous reports to the erection of comprehensive schools at Coote hill, Carraroe, Shannon Airport and Glenties. Expenditure on the building of the four schools to 31 March 1969 totalled £1,083,930 including £113,010 for professional fees. £28,362 has been spent on furniture and equipment. The running costs of the schools, including salaries and wages, are charged to subhead K.1 of the vote.

During the year site costs of £2,600 and professional fees of £3,615 were incurred in respect of a school to be built at Raphoe while preliminary architectural fees of £8,250 were paid in connection with further schools planned for Ballymun, Dublin.”

1848. Deputy FitzGerald.—Are there figures available now on the running costs of these schools?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The cost is running at roughly £120 a pupil.

1849. That is about the upper level of the secondary school rate. They are, therefore, relatively expensive?

—The running cost for vocational schools is about £137 per pupil.

1850. What are the running costs for secondary schools, including incremental salaries and everything?

—The most recent figure we have for secondary schools is £104 and for vocational schools £137 per pupil. The Deputy will appreciate that comprehensive schools have only been a very short time in operation. We have worked out an estimated figure of about £120.

1851. Are the accounts of the comprehensive schools available? Are we getting them?

—The running costs are down as a separate item.

1852. But each school must have an account setting out the cost of running it?

—We never publish accounts in relation to individual schools.

Deputy FitzGerald.—I can see why you would not publish them in relation to private schools but we now have, for the first time, semi-State schools and you should have accounts of those.

Deputy Tunney: I would hope we would not have them. I hope the Deputy would not try to make the point that one assesses education in one place as against another on £sd because in doing that one would be doing a very definite injustice to a certain type of student and would not be doing what we hope to do which is to provide equal opportunity. There is in what might be called the State schools, because of certain attitudes that exist, a snob approach to one as against another and a situation exists in which it could be said that the quality of the student entering one is not that of the student entering the other. If the opportunity that is being offered is to be equated it would not be fair to say that in secondary school A, where there are 20 students who come from homes where there is a definite educational motivation as against 20 students who are in a State school where there is not a similar motivation and where, because of the attitudes existing, there might not, as yet, be the same material, that school A is providing a better service than school B.

Deputy FitzGerald.—The Deputy is assuming an arrogance on my part that is not there. The comprehensive schools provide us for the first time with a picture of the full cost of providing education. In the secondary school we had not seen this cost because of the hidden subsidy. I feel it is important for us to see what these schools cost both from the public accounts point of view and from the policy point of view. We would learn something about the ways in which educational finances may be needed for other schools and what the full cost of education is.

1853. Chairman.—Have such figures been worked out?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—I have given the Deputy figures—£137 for vocational schools; £104 for secondary schools and the most up to date estimate in connection with the comprehensive schools which is £120.

1854. Deputy FitzGerald.—For the same year?

—Yes. As we are making comparisons it should be pointed out that in vocational schools where they provide a large measure of practical education involving quite an amount of equipment, naturally the cost per student will be higher.

1855. It is precisely the different elements in cost—equipment costs, staff costs and so on that I would like to see. You may not have complete costings for secondary schools; you may not even have them for vocational schools but you must have them for the comprehensive schools which you run yourselves. Is there any reason why we should not have them?

—If we start on the basis of itemising everything in the comprehensive school and at the same time being unable to do so for other schools I feel it will lead to a rather invidious situation.

1856. But surely we are entitled to have the accounts of these State schools as we are entitled to have the accounts of any State activity?

—We do not regard them as State schools in that sense. They are administered by a local committee comprised of the chief executive officer of the Vocational Education Committee, a nominee of the local bishop and a nominee of the Minister for Education.

1857. Administered on behalf of the State and the State pays all the costs, it does not give a grant in aid?

—It pays the costs.

1858. In these circumstances I feel we are entitled to see the figures.

Mr. Suttle.—To a certain extent this might come within what is considered trading or business carried on by a Department and on that basis I think you could possibly be required by law to produce accounts. The Exchequer and Audit Departments Act of 1921 laid down that all Departments which carry on business or trade must produce separate accounts in respect of such work.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—With respect, I think it is a new slant to regard schools as a trade or business.

Mr. Suttle.—There are schools run on a commerical basis in the country.

1859. Deputy FitzGerald.—And you are competing with them.

Mr. Suttle.—You ran the preparatory colleges before.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—We never at any stage gave or were asked to give an itemised account of every activity in a preparatory college.

Mr. Suttle.—But there were accounts produced in the Department.

Mr. MacGearailt.—There were accounts.

1860. Deputy FitzGerald.—Surely if there are accounts in the Department of activity carried on by the Department completely financed by the State we must see those accounts?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—From the point of view of a breakdown of elements—so much for teachers’ salaries and so much for equipment and so on in relation to these schools.

1861. Each individual school?

—Yes. That does not produce a difficulty as far as the Department is concerned. The question we have to ask ourselves in relation to overall operations is whether, in fact, it would really be a good thing to single out one school, or group of schools, because it happens, or they happen, to be in a separate category and publish every activity and create an invidious position.

1862. Why is it invidious?

—It is invidious in so far as other schools operating, some of them, side by side with them, because they happen to be in the private sector would not have their activities published.

1863. This is true throughout the State sector. All State companies have to publish accounts although private companies, with which they compete, do not have to publish accounts. Nobody thinks the ESB should not publish accounts because it is competing with other firms selling electrical equipment and so on?

—This is a new theory. We have acted on the basis that these schools are operated by a board of management, as I pointed out, and that they carry on the normal day-to-day activities of the school.

1864. Like a State company, except under much closer control?

—In relation to the day-to-day activities of these schools, I quite properly see these people asking in their capacity—enjoying a certain degree of autonomy, which they do—why their activities should be highlighted.

Deputy FitzGerald.—Nobody who is running an activity for the State has a right to a degree of autonomy that makes it unaccountable. That is a thesis that can never be accepted.

Chairman.—If the Deputy wants this information in the report I am sure it will be furnished.

Deputy MacSharry.—If, for some reason, it is not usual and has not been done before—

Deputy FitzGerald.—Comprehensive schools are not usual.

Deputy MacSharry.—A comparison was made with public schools and it is not done in that case. Would it not also follow, to take an instance in my own town, that we could demand this be done also in the case of Summer-hill College?

Deputy Tunney.—I do not follow Deputy FitzGerald’s reasoning entirely. If you make the point that, where the State is completely involved, they are required to produce certain figures, then you must, I think, develop that to where they are partially responsible too and you must require the same evolution. In so far as you make the case that we should require the presentation of all the facts in the matter of comprehensive schools, do we indulge in the same exercise in the matter of universities and secondary schools which get partial grants as well?

1865. Deputy FitzGerald.—University accounts used to be published by the Central Statistics Office. They have been out of date for some years.

Mr. Suttle.—Up to June, 1968, I think was the last.

Deputy FitzGerald.—That has always been the practice.

Deputy Tunney.—And secondary schools as well?

Deputy FitzGerald.—I do not object, but you are in a different area because you are talking of a private institution in receipt of a grant-in-aid. Anything the State runs itself, the State is fully accountable. If a grant-in-aid is given we just see it is in conformity with the Act. When the State runs something itself we are entitled to the accounts. I think that is the position. I would be prepared to extend it to State bodies and secondary schools. What we extend it to is one thing. What we are entitled to is another.

Chairman.—Would you agree to leave it over to the report stage?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—I might mention the Comptroller and Auditor General has access to these accounts.

1866. Chairman.—Paragraph 40 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead I.1.—Regional Technical Colleges—Running Costs

Subhead I.2.—Regional Technical Colleges—Capital Costs

40. £9,764 paid to six Vocational Education Committees in recoupment of loan charges and other expenses incurred in providing sites for Regional Technical Colleges has, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, been charged to subhead I.1.”

1867. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I felt myself this was really a capital charge and should have a capital subhead. There were no running costs incurred, in fact, during the year at all. Site cost is always a capital charge.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The only comment I would make is that we thought at the time that, in relation to the purchase of sites, and in agreement with the Department of Finance, because of the small amount involved we might properly charge it to subhead I.1. of the Vote. I can see the validity of the point made by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but the amount involved was so small that the opening of a separate subhead was not deemed necessary.

1868. Administrative convenience.

—Yes.

1869. Deputy MacSharry.—It will be opened next year anyhow.

—Capital appears as a separate sum.

1870. Chairman.—Paragraph 41 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“41. In paragraph 42 of my previous report I referred to the building of Regional Technical Colleges at Waterford, Sligo, Galway and Dundalk and to the appointment of a consortium of architects, engineers and quantity surveyors at a specially negotiated fee to provide the services normally rendered by these professions. The consortium has since been appointed to act on the same terms for a college to be built at Letterkenny and are also acting as consultants in the case of three other colleges at Cork, Carlow and Athlone where architects had already been appointed by the Vocational Education Committees.

Contracts to a total value of £2,960,634 have been placed for the colleges at Waterford, Sligo, Dundalk, Letterkenny, Carlow and Athlone and payments to contractors during the year amounting to £299,031 were charged to subhead 1.2. The remainder of the charge to the subhead is made up of professional fees, £169,638, and expenses, £21,330.”

1871. Deputy FitzGerald.—I notice a consortium has since been appointed to act for Letterkenny College and for other colleges. In the case of Letterkenny was it put out to tender? Was there bidding?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—There is no question of bidding. The consortium does not build at all. It is simply a body of architects and consulting engineers and so on. They draw up the plans.

1872. They get a fee?

—They get a fee.

1873. Is anybody else given an opportunity of bidding?

—In relation to the appointment of this consortium—as the question has been raised, I might mention this—the cost was estimated by reference to figures provided by individual architects and we considered in the Department, seeing at the time there were nine of these colleges contemplated, that it would be far better to appoint one consortium, including in that consortium what we felt were some of the best brains in the architectural and structural engineering fields, and so on, and get them to get down to overall planning in relation to all the colleges and the result of the exercise was that we saved £2 million to the State on the original estimates of cost for these colleges.

Deputy MacSharry.—By doing it in this manner?

—Yes.

1874. Deputy FitzGerald.—You say they were appointed for all the colleges, but it says here they were appointed for four and subsequently you appointed them for Letterkenny?

—At the time the original colleges were planned Letterkenny was not included as one of the centres. It was included subsequently and, if it had been in the original list, it would, in fact, have been one of the colleges by reference to which the consortium would have acted.

Mr. Suttle.—This is the first time when there has been a negotiated fee with those professions. It is at a reduced rate.

1875. Deputy MacSharry.—It is generally accepted it was a much cheaper way of doing it.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Normally the fees would be much higher.

1876. Deputy FitzGerald.—Apart from the fees being lower—

—The building was, to a certain extent, competitive. Normally, you would have four, five or six different groups of architects all doing the same work.

1877. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—What would be the function of those technical regional colleges?

—The regional technical colleges would have three main functions. They provide a technically orientated Leaving Certificate. They recruit certain students after the intermediate stage and would prepare them for a Leaving Certificate which is technically orientated. They would carry on apprentice training and then they would give post-Leaving Certificate instruction at technician or higher technician level. They would do technological work which would not be provided elsewhere. For instance, in Carlow they would do food technology work in relation to the Sugar Company.

1878. Deputy MacSharry.—Will any of the work be recognised as third level?

—All post-Leaving Certificate work will be third level.

1879. Yes, but will it be recognised as third level?

—It has been announced that a National Council of awards will be set up and in those colleges the post-Leaving Certificate work will operate by reference to the National Council and there will be appropriate certificates and diplomas.

Chairman.—We come now to the Vote itself.

1880. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—What does subhead B.5—Language Research—refer to?

—First of all, the expenses of the Language Institute. It originally started functioning at Gormanston and produced Buntús Gaeilge and Buntús Cainte. It deals also with research related to Irish language teaching where we applied in relation to teaching in general the results of the research carried on in the Language Institute.

1881. What is the significance of subhead C.1—University Scholarships? Is it a question of grants?

—What is involved there is the payment to the county councils in respect of the carry-over scholarships before the scheme of free grants came into operation.

1882. It is not used to supplement the grants?

—The county councils are now simply obliged to contribute amounts equal to those they contributed before the passing of the 1968 Act.

1883. I do not know if this is the appropriate place to refer to the means of parents in reference to university grants. Let us say that last year a set of parents were assessed £X for the purpose of qualification for university grants. They have six children. I am told that next year they would not qualify. Next year they may have another child ready for university entrance but they will not qualify for a grant because the assessment of means will be exactly the same. Is there any sliding scale which takes into account the fact that a parent who would be excluded in one year when he had two or three children would, in future years, have his means reassessed?

—The scale of means is a sliding one by reference to the number of children in the family and the means of the parents.

1884. Is there any sliding scale that takes into account the fact that parents have more children going to the university in following years although their means excluded them from university grants earlier? They may have six children and two would be going to the university in a later year but their means would exclude them from qualifying.

—The qualification is the number of children and the income of the family.

1885. The system seems to be unjust. A family, in certain circumstances, would be able to pay for one child going to the university. I know one family in which four children qualified to go to the university. The means did not change during the years. Obviously, however, it is not as easy to get £1,200 to send four children to the university as it is to get £300 to send one. I do not know if I am getting my point across.

Deputy Tunney.—I see the Deputy’s point and I disagree. Having regard to the fact that the older children are getting something from the State—

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—My point was that in the case of the larger number of children there is obvious difficulty for parents in trying to raise an extra £900.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The means test has been framed on the basis that a man with a certain income should be able to provide for the education he would normally give his children.

1886. For all his family. I should like to make it clear that you could have a family able to get £300 to send one child to university but that they would find it difficult to get the second or third £300. It may be difficult for them to get a second £300. I have been told that the first estimation of means takes into account that the second, third and fourth child will also be going to the university and you have presumed that they will be able to send them without university grants?

—It takes into account the father’s income starting from a basic point of £1,200 and proceeding in relation to the number of children he has. A man whose total income exceeds the amount arrived at does not qualify for the scheme and is expected to provide education for his children.

For all his children?

—Yes.

1887. On Subhead D.1—Publications in Irish—does this include the Irish/English dictionary and what is the position about it?

—It does. It is fairly well advanced. We have set ourselves a target of two years and it should be published within two years?

1888. Deputy MacSharry.—On Subhead H.9 —Overseas Club—what is this?

—There is a club in Harcourt Street in Dublin which provides recreation and other facilities for Afro-Asian students attending the colleges and universities here. It is run under the aegis of the Legion of Mary and we give them a grant in aid.

1889. Deputy Barry.—How do we pick these out? Do they apply and then each case is assessed?

—Yes.

1890. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—On Extra Remuneration does the sum of £206 refer to manuals you published and things like that?

—These would be ordinary works of literature published by the Publications Branch. An officer with the necessary degree of competency took on that task outside of office hours for that period.

1891. Deputy Tunney.—I appreciate that there are publications available but has the Department ever considered having an annual programme on television to communicate with parents on the different types of education that are available? People are inclined to be guided more by what they hear rather than by what they read.

—In connection with programmes generally, the initiative usually comes from the television authorities. If they were to engage in that kind of programme we would co-operate with them to the fullest.

1892. Deputy MacSharry.—Could you not initiate it?

—We would not presume to tell the television authorities what type of programme they should put on.

I agree with Deputy Tunney on this. I have raised it at our education meetings at home.

—I will take a note of the Deputies’ suggestion.

Mr. Suttle.—It is a matter that could be raised in the House.

Deputy Tunney.—It might not be necessary then to produce so many publications so there could be a saving on it.

1893. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—With reference to the list of securities shown on page 71, how did they arise? Where did they come from?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The majority of them would be held by reference to bequests of one kind or another. In the matter of investment, or re-investment, we are guided by the advice we get from the Department of Finance.

1894. Deputy MacSharry.—These would come from what sources?

—Quite a number of them from private individuals. Over the page there is a list of them.

1895. Did we get any last year?

—No.

Mr. Suttle.—There have been none for quite a number of years.

1896. Deputy Barry.—Why is there such large investment in 3½ per cent Exchequer Bonds?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—At the particular time they were regarded as a good investment in relation to the money involved and the position is—the Comptroller and Auditor General would know more about this than I do—it would, I think, be very foolish to redeem them before they mature.

1897. I was wondering if you had been buying them because of their low market value at the moment?

—They were bought at a time when they were regarded as a good investment in relation to the funds available.

1898. When they were issued?

—I am subject to correction in this, but some, in fact, were bought at the time of issue and some subsequently.

1899. The return on the money invested is the same anyway?

—Yes.

Mr. Suttle.—I think you obtain the advice of the Department of Finance?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—We get that advice.

1900. Chairman.—Does it remain a static portfolio?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—They must be in trustee securities. You cannot go out and buy anything else. Quite often we realise them if it would be more profitable to reinvest.

VOTE 28—PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mr. S. Mac Gearailt further examined.

1901. Deputy MacSharry.—Under subhead tA.1—Training Colleges—there was a special grant of £40,000. Which training college got his grant?

—Carysfort Training College. While we have capitation rates in the case of these Colleges, it very often happens that additional expenditure over and above is involved and, with the authority of the Department of Finance, we make allowance for that.

1902. Under subhead C.3—Transport Services—we accept that applications for new transport services and extensions to existing ones were greater than anticipated. How does the percentage increase today compare with the year under review?

—The demand for these services is greater now. The cost is running now at about £3 million as against £1.9 million. In this particular year the transport services were only getting into their stride really. During the year there was quite considerable amalgamation of primary schools and in every instance transport services were provided. You will appreciate that this is a recurring item and there is a greatly increased service. We have now reached the stage at which transport costs are running at £3 million a year and we are carrying to school every day 40,000 primary school children and 71,000 post-primary pupils.

1903. Have you dealt with the backlog? Are you up to date with the applications?

—I think it would be fair to say we never will be.

But it is not as bad as it was?

—No.

1904. Chairman.—A great number of primary school children will be coming on later on and that will increase it more?

—Yes, and we had to provide transport in relation to 724 small schools which were closed.

1905. Mr. Barry.—How was the figure of £269,000 arrived at? Is it an estimation of what you thought would happen?

—This is the excess.

No—the original figure of £269,000?

—The original was what we thought would happen during the year but, in fact, the developments, particularly in connection with school closures, exceeded all our anticipations. That is what happened. There is also the fact the CIE developed the services more quickly than we anticipated they would have been able to do.

1906. How are you doing in 1969-70?

—We are, in the current year, providing £3 million for transport services.

1907. New applications? The Department was nearly 100 per cent wrong in its estimation; is the same true of the following year?

—No, the picture has evolved in such a way that we can now make a pretty exact estimate of our requirements.

Deputy Tunney.—Under subhead C.5—Free Grants of School Requisites—is there any need for the word free?

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—It is tautological.

1908. Deputy Tunney.—Is there some system whereby you give partial grants?

—There is, yes. It would be total grants in this case. Actually, by way of information only, this resulted from an original title which said “Free Stock Grant” and the “stock” was knocked out and the words “free grant” left in.

VOTE 29—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. Mac Gearailt further examined.

1909. Deputy MacSharry.—In Subhead A.2. —Supplemetal Grants to Secondary Schools in lieu of Tuition Fees—it is to be noticed that fewer schools qualify. Could we have an explanation?

—There was a drop in the extent to which subjects were being taught through Irish.

1910. Has it been corrected or has there been an effort to correct it?

—The question of correction does not arise. A new category has been introduced. There was a category of school A.1 in which all subjects were taught through Irish. Now we have introduced a category A.2 in which one complete stream is taught through Irish.

1911. Is this being made easier or harder? Is this why they are not qualifying for grants?

—There is no question of placing any restrictions other than the normal conditions and these continue to apply.

Deputy MacSharry.—Nevertheless, it is still dropping. It is sad.

1912. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Does subhead D.—Scholarships and Prizes—apply to post-primary?

—They are continuing payments to county councils in relation to scholarships which were held before the introduction of the free post-primary scheme.

1913. Deputy MacSharry.—What is the reason for work on the erection of comprehensive schools being slower than anticipated?

—The main buildings involved are Raphoe Comprehensive and Ballymun. The planning has taken longer than anticipated.

1914. It is a pity that there are such holds-up when the money has been provided.

—There is no question of the expenditure not being undertaken because the amount will be carried forward.

Deputy MacSharry.—Yes, but when you plan something for somebody for this year they do not want to have to wait until next year or the following year.

1915. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—What is the position about grants for Protestant schools? There was some discussion about it. Has it been fixed up?

—Under the secondary scheme we have given them increased sums. The average now works out at about £40 a pupil.

1916. Is there more satisfaction with the scheme?

—The only thing I can say is that we have not had any large degree of dissatisfaction expressed.

1917. Deputy MacSharry.—If a school opts out of the free scheme do children who should qualify have some State aid given to them?

—The position in regard to the scheme is that it operates in relation to schools. They are either in or out.

1918. If they are out? I know one family with nine children attending a school which has opted out. Those parents are not in a position to pay. Is there any provision for that?

—We operate on the basis that free post-primary education is available to every student. If those children are attending a school which does not provide that type of education, the only thing we can do is to arrange to have it provided for them elsewhere.

1919. The scheme is not operated on the basis of Catholic or Protestant schools?

—The scheme is operated by reference to schools.

Chairman.—This is a question of policy.

Deputy MacSharry.—I was not questioning the scheme. It is just for my information.

1920. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—There is a reference to the Registration Council on page 78. What are the functions of that body?

—It was established in connection with the registration of secondary teachers.

VOTE 30—VOCATIONAL EDUCATION.

Mr. S. Mac Gearailt further examined.

1921. Deputy MacSharry.—Under subhead A—Annual Grants to Vocational Education Committees—is there an explanation of why £32,000 less than granted was expended?

Mr. Suttle.—Of course, it is a small figure in relation to the total grant of more than £4¾ million.

1922. Yet we sometimes have explanations for £5. Under Subhead D.1.—Grants under Section 109 of the Vocational Education Act, 1930—one school was closed. Where is that school?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—It is St. Mary’s school at Moate.

1923. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—What kind of body is the Church Temporalities Fund referred to in the Appropriations-in-Aid?

—When the Church of Ireland were disestablished in 1869 certain of its funds were turned over to the Church Temporalities Commissioners and were made available for various purposes afterwards. This is one of the services which benefited.

Mr. Suttle.—Originally, the fund was set up to meet the liabilities which had been met by the churches out of tithes. When the tithes were abolished this fund was established. As the liabilities became fewer the money was transferred to educational purposes. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries gets some of it and the Department of Education and the universities also get a share. The fund is now 100 years old. I think it was decided by statute that these moneys should be transferred out of the fund. The balance in the fund, after these fixed charges of £30,000 for agriculture and so much for education are met, goes into the Land Commission.

1924. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Where is the fund invested?

Mr. Suttle.—It is operated by the Land Commission and it is held in State securities in the ordinary way. An account is published each year and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

VOTE 31—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. S. Mac Gearailt further examined.

1925. Deputy MacSharry.—On subhead D— Conveyance Expenses—why has the amount increased? Everything else is down.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—A pupil may be committed to an industrial school for non-attendance at school. He must be conveyed to the industrial school. The same thing operates in relation to the house of detention. It may happen that a group of boys are sent there for some misdemeanour and the necessary transport must be provided.

1926. Deputy Tunney.—Are there any female members on the staffs of industrial schools for boys?

—Yes.

1927. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—On subhead E.— Parental Moneys—Collection Expenses—what does that mean?

—The court, in regard to a boy or girl committed to industrial school, may decide that the parents are in a position to make a contribution towards the upkeep of the child in the industrial school. That is the money involved there.

1928. Deputy MacSharry.—Does the court lay down that they must pay?

—Yes, the court may lay down that the parents should make a contribution of, say, 12/- a week, towards the upkeep of a child.

1929. Chairman.—In the Notes it says: “The average number under detention during the year 1968-69 at St. Anne’s Reformatory for Girls, Kilmacud, was eight but payment was made on a notional number of 40 offenders.” Could we have an explanation of that?

—That is a way of expressing that they had insufficient funds to run the institution. They have overheads and they must employ staff whether the number runs at eight, nine, ten or eleven. It has been fixed by reference to the notional figure of 40 and they are paid a capitation rate.

Deputy MacSharry.—Whether it is eight or 40 they still get it?

—Yes.

VOTE 32—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES.

Mr. Mac Gearailt further examined.

1930. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—On subhead K.

—Grants under Section 16 (5) and 25 (1) of the Institute for Advanced Studies Act, 1940— do the College of Surgeons and such places also get a grant from the Department of Health?

Mr. Suttle.—No. A teaching school attached to a hospital would get a grant.

1931. Chairman.—What about research?

Mr. Suttle.—They are providing a medical service.

1932. Deputy MacSharry.—Could we ask if it could be changed or could you say whether this is or is not the case?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—In relation to teaching hospitals there is no mention of any money from any source other than the Department of Education.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix 46.

*See Appendix 47.

*See Appendix 48.

*See Appendix 49.