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 12 Feabhra 1970

Thursday 12th February 1970

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

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

VOTE 40—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

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

180. Chairman.—Paragraph 64 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

64. The total amount of grants which may be made to Córas Tráchtála was raised to £9,000,000 by the Export Promotion (Amendment) Act, 1969. The aggregate amount of grants to 31 March 1969 was £4,647,885, including £1,260,000 issued in the year under review.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. The accounts of Coras Tráchtála and its subsidiaries, which are audited by me, are presented to the Oireachtas.

182. Chairman.—There was a substantial Supplementary Estimate in respect of this subhead. Why was that necessary?

Mr. MacCarthy.—I think the expenses generally were up. The main headings were, of course, external promotion. There were wage or salary increases which added to their overhead costs and some of the schemes, of course, are not easily controlled as to expenditure in the sense if they offer, say, a subsidy of X per cent for publicity they just have to deal with all the cases which come forward. It is not always easy to be close in the estimation.

183. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

65. The total amount of grants which may be made to An Foras Tionscal to enable it to carry out its functions is limited to £50,000,000. The charge to the subhead includes payments of £963,675 in relation to the establishment and management of industrial estates at Galway and Waterford. The aggregate amount of grants made to 31 March 1969 was £37,845,851 of which £2,060,030 related to the estates.”

184. Have you anything to add, Mr Suttle?

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

185. Perhaps, Mr. MacCarthy, you could give us some indication of what progress has been made on these industrial estates?

—I can just give you a rather broad idea. I could let you have a note if what I have to tell you is not quite informative enough. The two main estates are at Galway and at Waterford. Up to 31st March, 1969. 477,500 square feet of factory space had been completed. During the year ended 31st March, 1969, 252,000 square feet were completed, of which 103,000 square feet were at Galway and 149,000 square feet at Waterford. At 31st March, 1969, work was in progress on the construction of a further 193,000 square feet, of which 44,000 square feet would be at Galway and 149,000 square feet at Waterford. The Waterford figures include a special purpose factory of 110,000 square feet. Because of the demand for factories at both centres it was decided to facilitate the erection of further buildings by completing site development in each of the estates. On 31st March last this work was in progress at Galway and was nearing completion at Waterford. The total expenditure up to 31st March, 1969, on these estates was £2.028 million and of this £1.032 million related to Galway and £996,000 to the Waterford estates. As regards the space provided, the total area actually occupied by factories at 31st March, 1969, was 375,000 square feet which was made up of 206,000 square feet at Galway and 168,000 square feet at Waterford. Of the remaining space 74,000 square feet had already been reserved at Galway and 200,000 square feet at Waterford. In addition, although it is not strictly relevant, the training body, An Chomhairle Oiliúna, has set up courses on the Waterford estate in the industrial training centre and they are equipping a similar centre at Galway which was well advanced at the end of the year.

186. You are setting up regional boards for all areas?

—Yes.

187. One is to be established shortly at Waterford. What liaison machinery will exist between these boards and your Department?

—The Industrial Development Authority will be the body strictly concerned. They will be organised with regional offices. The liaison initially will be with their own headquarters and through their headquarters with the Department. Speaking on a broader basis, at regional level there will be liaison between the various development bodies in the area.

188. Deputy P. Lenihan.—Do you see a conflict between the economic side of Finance and the IDA since much of the development work occurs in the same area?

—I find it a bit hard to answer that because I do not know sufficient about local conditions. In principle, there should not be a conflict. The only danger of a conflict, perhaps, would be if each side started working on its own without the kind of liaison to which the chairman referred. The functions of the IDA are very clearly defined. It may be that there is less close definition of the functions in the case of other bodies which could, perhaps, give rise to this sort of thing but in that event I do not think it could embarrass the IDA since that is a body with pretty clearly defined functions.

189. We came across this when the Accounting Officer of the Department of Finance was giving evidence of Finance making payments to industries which normally would get grants from An Foras Tionscal. That occurred in a previous year. Will it be continued in the present year?

—That, I think, is most likely to arise in relation to the small industries programme. Again, in theory under that programme this could arise but in practice it should not because the co-ordinating committee for the small industries programme actually includes a representative of the Department of Finance as well as of the Industrial Credit Company, An Foras Tionscal and so on. It should not arise unless there is a great lack of liaison.

190. Have you any comment on that, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I had a case the other day of a grant from the Department of Finance, development section, to a company and I also remembered that An Foras Tionscal had given grants to the same company. We got the papers in both cases and there was a complete exchange of information between the two sections. The position was that An Foras Tionscal had gone as far as they could and were still in need of assistance at that stage and the Department of Finance provided the assistance. If you like, Finance grants are grants of last resort.

Deputy P. Lenihan.—That is where Potez came in.

Chairman.—He was a borrower of last resort.

191. Deputy P. Lenihan.—In the industrial estates, what is the total square footage?

Mr. MacCarthy.—My figure at 31st March, 1969, for work done was 238,000 square feet at Galway and 239,500 square feet at Waterford. This is work actually completed. Still under construction at these two places at that date were 44,000 square feet in Galway and 149,000 square feet in Waterford.

192. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead M.2.—National Productivity Year (Grant-in-Aid)

66. It was decided to launch a National Productivity Year commencing in November 1968 and a grant of £28,000 towards promotional costs was paid to the Irish National Productivity Committee which is involved in running the project. The expenditure will be audited by me.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—A further grant-in-aid has been provided for this project in the 1969-70 Vote and, by agreement, a single account will be prepared to cover expenditure on the project by the Irish National Productivity Committee for the two financial years 1968-69 and 1969-70. The account is to be submitted to me for audit before 30th June 1970.

Deputy P. Lenihan.—This is moving then?

Mr. Suttle.—That is correct.

194. Chairman.—Paragraph 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead P.—Shipbuilding Subsidy.

67. I referred in previous reports to payments of subsidy in respect of ships built by Verolme Cork Dockyard, Ltd. The charge to the subhead, £117,654, represents a payment on account in respect of the eighth ship and final payments in respect of the fourth and fifth ships built by the company. The payments were made on the recommendation of a special committee appointed by the Minister to examine the company’s claims.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—The paragraph is for information. Subsidies totalling £1,293,654 have been paid in the period 1963 to 31-3-1969 towards losses.

196. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. MacCarthy would tell us the number of ships that have been built and what the position is as regards orders now. Speaking from memory, I understood our subsidisation was on a scaled basis and that actually it was falling. Has it been terminated? Is Verolme Dockyard in sight of being a more viable concern?

—The total number of ships completed with the aid of subsidies is nine. The tenth should be practically completed, if not quite, because the delivery date was scheduled as January, 1970. The orders for vessels which will attract subsidy amount to four more, the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth. The eleventh and twelfth are almost one ship or one order because it is an order for the repair of vessels. The subsidy has been declining over the years. It started at 25 per cent and went down to 15, 12½, 10, 10, eight and has remained at eight. In fact, the forecast up to the fourteenth vessel is at eight per cent or, of course, a certain percentage of the actual loss whichever is the less. So far as I know there is nothing to indicate that the subsidy will fall below eight per cent. It may well do so but I cannot predict it because it is a recognised thing all over the world to provide a shipbuilding subsidy and even the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development in Paris have given their blessing to shipping subsidies, whereas they normally oppose any kind of industrial subsidy. It depends very much on the market. One can only assume that prices being realised for ships now are to some extent uneconomic because of the fierce competition for orders. I cannot say how much of the eight per cent subsidy should be attributed to that consideration or to the greenness of labour. Labour cannot be very green now because the yard has been in production for a long time. I do not know what element of the eight per cent could be related to inefficiency of operation as distinct from other factors.

197. Deputy P. Lenihan.—Has the parent company not had some difficulty?

—That is a matter arising with the Dutch Government. So far as we know it will not have any bearing on the Cork yard. The proposals for re-organisation in Holland contemplate Mr. Verolme having a seat on the board of the new company.

198. Chairman.—What is the employment content there?

—I think it is about 900 at the moment.

199. Chairman.—Paragraph 68 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead R.—Temporary Assistance for Industry

68. Reference was made in earlier reports to the temporary charge on imports into Britain imposed by the British authorities during the period October 1964 to November 1966 and to the scheme of grants which the Department administered to offset the burden on Irish exporters. It has been necessary to make further payments under the scheme during the year because some exporters experienced delays in obtaining the necessary documentation to support their applications. The total grant payments by the Department from the beginning of the scheme to 31 March 1969 including £80,014 paid in the year, amounted to £4,850,451. An Foras Tionscal was empowered also to make supplemental grants in cases of exceptional difficulty and £6,300 was paid in the year bringing its total expenditure to £140,659 by 31 March 1969. No further payments under the scheme are anticipated.”

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

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing to add. The paragraph summarises the final out-turn of the scheme. This is the British levy scheme.

201. Chairman.—Could Mr. MacCarthy give some indication of what it has cost us up to date?

Mr. MacCarthy.—Yes. The total expenditure in 1964-65 was approximately £0.2 million, in 1965-66 it was approximately £2 million, £2.2 million in the following year, £281,000 in 1967-68 and £80,000 in 1968-69, giving a total of about £4.8 million.

202. Chairman.—Paragraph 69 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead T.—Castlecomer Collieries, Ltd.

Reference was made in previous reports to the provision of financial assistance for Castlecomer Collieries, Ltd. A further £80,000 was paid to the company in the year under review bringing the total financial assistance from public funds to £260,480. The Government has decided that further assistance should not be provided as the mine is considered not economically viable.”

203. Has this colliery closed?

—Yes.

204. Chairman.—Subhead B.2. — Post Offices Services—this represents the commercial methods of the Post Office?

—That is so.

Deputy P. Lenihan.—That is an apportionment?

—That is so.

205. Deputy Keating.—Subhead B.3.— Geological Survey—Equipment, Stores and Maintenance—is a little odd because there is a supplementary estimate and no expenditure at all. What is the situation there?

—The situation there was that it took so long to get the supplementary estimate it was not possible to place the orders in time to ensure delivery before the end of the financial year.

206. Deputy P. Lenihan.—Is this for testing?

—The equipment—it does not mean a great deal to me because I am not technically or mechanicallly minded—consisted of a polarising microscope, rock cutting machinery, atomic absorption spectrophotometer, ing machine, drawing office equipment. glassware balances, magnetometers calculat-These are for the field geologist. Then mobile laboratories, three landrovers, two caravans, laboratory gear, etc. As I say, we could not place the order until we had the supplementary estimate and then it was too late to get delivery before the end of the year.

207. All the mining companies up and down the country have all that sort of geological equipment?

—Yes.

208. Ireland is covered with geological surveys?

—Yes.

209. Subhead H.—Córas Tráchtála (Grant-in-Aid)—are the Kilkenny Design Work-shops under CTT?

—They are a subsidiary of CTT.

They are included in this Grant-in-Aid?

—They are.

Mr. Suttle.—They get a grant from CTT of £145,000.

210. Deputy P. Lenihan.—Subhead L.— Technical Assistance—what exactly is that? Is it mainly industrial consultancy?

—Yes.

211. Subhead M.1.—Irish National Productivity Committee (Grant-in-Aid). Is it still in existence?

Mr. Suttle.—It is still in existence. It will carry on up to the end of this year, I think, and then it reverts. It was only a temporary liaison.

212. Deputy P. Lenihan.—There are two Grants-in-Aid here—M.1 and M.2?

Mr. MacCarthy.—M.1 is the normal pro vision and M.2 is a special one.

213. Deputy Keating.—Subhead P.—Ship-building Subsidy—is all this Verolme? Is there anybody else?

—No. Verolme is the only one.

214. Deputy P. Lenihan.—On subhead R. —Temporary Assistance for Industry—the note says the scheme ended on 31st March, 1969?

—That is the British surcharge.

215. Deputy Keating.—Am I right in thinking the British continued their surcharge rather to people’s surprise?

—No; they introduced a deposit. This subhead related to payments we made to meet the British import surcharge. The later development is the British import deposit. There is no provision in our Vote for that. That provision appears in the Finance Vote. They pay the interest on the deposit.

216. Chairman.—Is this business completed now?

—Completely finished, yes.

Mr. Suttle.—It started in 1966.

Mr. MacCarthy.—I gave you the figures when we were considering paragraph 68. It is the figure of £4½ million.

Mr. Suttle.—It started in November, 1966, and finished in March, 1969. These payments were just the tailend of the whole scheme.

Mr. MacCarthy.—These payments arose in most cases because of difficulties in getting the necessary documentation from the British Customs. Some exporters experienced extraordinary delay and that is why we had this backlog of applications here.

217. Deputy Tunney.—Subhead T.— Castlecomer Collieries, Ltd.—was that for the purpose of subsidising labour in the colliery?

Mr. Suttle.—It is a contribution towards losses sustained by the company. Really it was a contribution towards keeping the mine going to see if the mine was a viable project and eventually research showed it was no longer a viable project.

218. There would not have been any equipment bought which would be saleable now?

Mr. Suttle.—The mine is still owned by the original owner. These subsidies were mainly for the purpose of keeping the mine in operation.

Mr. MacCarthy.—If there were anything I am sure the receiver would take that into account and bring it into credit. Whether or not anything would come to the State I do not know.

219. Deputy Keating.—This will not be recurring if the company is wound up?

—It is out of production now.

Deputy Nolan.—It has been wound up for almost a year now.

220. Chairman.—The Government came to the aid of the mine some years before they finally closed in a last desperate effort to keep them viable?

—Yes.

221. Item No. 4 of the Appropriations in Aid—Fees under the Minerals Development Act, 1940 and the Petroleum and other Minerals Development Act, 1960— from whom do we get these?

—They come in a variety of ways. They come from applicants for prospecting licences. They come in in the form of dead rents or royalties where leases are given. I think that is about the sum total. The royalties are sometimes levied by way of percentage on profits as distinct from the royalty per ton on material raised. In fact, the percentage of profit is the system which applies in the case of all big undertakings.

222. In the case of a successful mine here the State gets a percentage of profits?

—Yes.

Deputy P. Lenihan.—Of course, the mine does not pay any income tax because the production is generally exported.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—LABOUR.

Mr. T. Ó Cearbhaill called and examined.

223. Deputy Keating.—On subhead G.— Research—I should like to have some information on the nature of the research the Department are undertaking?

Mr. Ó Cearbhaill.—We have had manpower surveys in Waterford and Galway. The report on the Waterford survey will be published today and that on the Galway survey in a matter of weeks from now. The total cost of the two surveys in the year of account was just over £17,000. We had a report from the Institute of Public Administration on the placement and guidance services which has been published. It cost £2,300 in that year. A manpower survey of Dundalk was undertaken by the local Junior Chamber of Commerce to which the Department made a contribution of £880. Finally, we commissioned the Economic and Social Research Institute to do a survey on attitudes to pay increases and differentials and a payment of £3,500 has been made in the year for that. That report has not yet been received.

224. In the case of the two manpower surveys, to whom was the actual payment made? Was it to the body carrying it out?

—These surveys were done by the Department itself. Mr. Tomás Rosengrave was the director in the case of Waterford.

225. The reason I am asking the question is that those two big surveys were undertaken directly by the Department so why does it show up under research and not under wages, salaries and allowances?

—Those are not Civil Service staff. They are people taken on by the director. They are mostly social study graduates from the universities. I should say the total cost of those two surveys is much greater than the figures I have mentioned but all the expenditure did not arise in the same financial year.

226. Deputy P. Lenihan.—Those manpower surveys have a tendency to get out of date. Have you any plans for keeping them up to date?

—The Minister has explained on the Estimate in the Dáil that, when the Department of Labour was set up, one of the first tasks given to it was to carry out manpower surveys. Two comprehensive surveys in Waterford and Galway were then undertaken. The Minister has already come to the conclusion that this type of survey is too comprehensive, too costly and takes too long. His intention now is to build up the National Manpower Service which will keep, on a continuing day to day basis, information which will not be in as great detail as in those surveys but which will nevertheless be sufficient for industrialists and others requiring it.

227. Deputy Keating.—The point I was interested in is the decision that this sort of work would be done under the direction of the Department of Labour and not as it were farmed out, perhaps, to a university department. In the light of the experience with regard to Waterford and Galway will it be a continuing policy even if the survey is done in less detail to carry it on directly by the Department?

—The policy will be to develop the National Manpower Service which will have up-to-date manpower information for industrialists, mainly industrial promoters. Until that service is developed the policy will be to give assistance to local groups who may be undertaking limited surveys themselves. We do not think this will be necessary when the manpower service is working but we would not rule it out then either. It is not intended that the Department should continue with comprehensive surveys like these carried out in Galway and Waterford.

228. Chairman.—You have not sufficient staff or, perhaps, even expertise in your Department for conducting these services on your own?

—No. The Director had to recruit these people especially. We saw an advantage in this in giving employment and experience to the graduates of the universities. We thought it worth while to give them field experience in this work. We do not have the permanent staff in the Department for it.

229. Have you any machinery in the Department for keeping the matter under continuous review? Have you the machinery to keep the survey already made up-to-date?

—We have already the nucleus of the National Manpower Service and further staff will be recruited for that service. We have sufficient people in the service already to keep material which we have already collected up-to-date.

230. Deputy P. Lenihan.—This staff would be located in the various employment exchanges all over the country?

—When the manpower service is operative placement and guidance officers will be located throughout the country but not necessarily in the exchanges. It is intended to separate the benefit—paying services from the placement and guidance services.

231. Deputy Keating.—I would like to express the hope that the close cooperation in this sort of sociological investigation will continue between the universities and your Department. I think it is a valuable thing. It is nice to see it.

Deputy P. Lenihan.—Plus voluntary local effort.

232. Chairman.—On subhead H.—Resettlement Allowances—may I ask the Accounting Officer for his comments on this? There has been very little expenditure here. Are the public not sufficiently aware of these allowances and their availability?

—This scheme has been in operation since January, 1968. It has been advertised by the Department and mentioned in the Dáil by the Minister on a number of occasions. The Minister has also referred to it in speeches outside the Dáil. Notices about it are in all employment exchanges. The fact is that the allowances have only been used to a very minor extent.

233. The Irish worker is not mobile?

—We believe the Irish workers are reluctant to move about.

The leaflets are in the local exchanges?

—Yes, and quite a number of grants have been paid out.

234. Deputy Briscoe.—Do the exchanges in the country areas notify a person who has applied for work that jobs are available in a neighbouring county? Do they have a list of jobs available throughout the country?

—Yes. The system of information is being improved all the time. There is no lack of information about jobs but the service under this subhead is not being used to the extent to which we thought it would.

235. Chairman.—The local labour exchanges are becoming increasingly employment exchanges and not just unemployment exchanges?

—Yes. We have had experience of people becoming unemployed in particular towns and being made aware of vacancies in towns not too far away, but still they were not prepared to move.

236. Deputy Barry.—What does subhead I.—Career Information—refer to?

Chairman.—The Department produce career leaflets and they are very excellent productions.

—There is a programme to produce 360 leaflets covering all the main careers. These are distributed freely to schools, employment exchanges, and public libraries and are being sent to many people on mailing lists. They are available free on request and are printed in Irish and English. Almost 200 have already been produced. The Department takes stands at career exhibitions and other exhibitions where they publicise these leaflets.

237. Deputy Barry.—There is a follow-up to these leaflets? Is there somebody available to speak to the students?

—This subhead deals with information as distinct from guidance. The purpose of the leaflets is to give information.

238. On subhead J.—An Chomhairle Oiliúna (Grants-in-Aid)—does this include the setting up of industrial training centres at Galway and Dublin?

—Yes, and at Shannon.

239. Plus staff?

—No. This is a grant-in-aid. Subhead A. does not include the salaries of An Chomhairle Oiliúna employees. This grant to An Chomhairle Oiliúna covers payment of its own staff. There are a few Departmental officers on loan to AnCO. The bulk of the staff of AnCO are, however, paid out of the grant-in-aid.

240. Deputy Keating.—Has AnCO other significant sources of income apart from the grant?

—It has not yet become fully operational. The purpose is to organise industrial training on a national scale. When it is operational industries will be levied and grants will be paid out to industries or firms which undertake training.

241. Is it projected that, in fact, industry will pay for the service it gets without significant State subvention once the system is running? Is it intended that something of this sort of order will be paid?

—We do not expect that in the future grants of a very substantial order will be paid. The training centres are, however, a charge on the Exchequer. The cost of services provided by AnCO will be paid for by industry. The theory is that industry will be responsible financially for its own training. However, a certain amount of overheads and central services will be paid by the State.

242. Deputy Tunney.—During the year there was criticism in the Galway area where somebody brought up the point that people attending at Galway were not able to do their business through the medium of the Irish language. I do not know whether they were genuinely interested or just being contrary. I understand this is being looked into in the Department. I understand that Irish would be used in that service in the Gaeltacht area?

—The overall policy is to have staff in the Gaeltacht areas who are competent to do business in Irish. I shall pursue this particular criticism.

243. Deputy P. Lenihan.—Regarding the Explanations on subhead A. that the saving is due to delay in filling vacancies at headquarters and in the Employment Service, are you fully staffed now in the Department of Labour?

—We are better staffed than we were in the year of the account but we are not 100 per cent staffed yet.

244. In item 1 of the Appropriations in Aid—Receipt from the Social Insurance Fund under Section 40 (2) of the Social Welfare Act. 1952—could I have an explanation?

—The section provides for defraying the cost of administration from the Social Insurance Fund itself. There is a split between the Department of Labour and the Department of Social Welfare on this. Initially the staff is paid out of subhead A. of the Department’s Vote and the Appropriation-in-Aid is a sum paid back from the Fund to the credit of the Vote.

245. Deputy P. Lenihan.—What is the position about subhead A?

—Subhead A. represents money for salaries of officers and subhead B. covers travelling expenses.

246. That would include Mr. Con Murphy

—Yes, but where he was supported by staff from the Department the salary for the officers in question, for the proportion of the time involved, would be paid under subhead A. and likewise travelling expenses under subhead B.

247. Deputy Briscoe.—Subhead K.— National Industrial Safety Organisation (Grant-in-Aid) — concerns the prevention of accidents, I assume, in factories. There has been less interest than was anticipated, I understand, in this problem by industrialists and factory workers themselves. Is the Department doing anything in this respect?

—Yes. In fact, the provision for the grant for this organisation was increased in the year following this account from £2,000 to £10,000. The Department has a responsibility through the factory inspectorate to enforce factory safety laws but we have found from experience that it is not sufficient to have enforcement provisions. One must have propaganda of a very high order and this propaganda is most effective if supported by employers and trade unions and other independent safety organisations. The National Industrial Safety Organisation is a voluntary body and in the year to which this account relates they collected money by way of subscriptions from industrialists and from trade unions, and the Government matched this £ for £. All this money was spent on posters, lectures, seminars, demonstrations and a few conferences, a number of them down the country. The factory inspectorate co-operated in this effort and gave lectures at various meetings. The whole purpose of this is to produce an awareness of safety and to overcome the attitude, that has been mentioned, of some workers not being sufficiently interested in it.

248. Deputy Barry.—Did the Department not recruit extra factory inspectors last year?

—Yes.

249. Did they get the people they wanted?

—The factory inspectorate should be up to full strength soon. The number is being increased from about 28 to 46 over a period of 18 months. It has been difficult to get factory inspectors.

250. Is that because the standard required is rather high for the safety offered?

—We have had competitions where we got, perhaps, only one or two people and this is one of the explanations offered. A new scale of pay was settled over a year ago and the higher rates now operate.

251. Are the posts being re-advertised?

—A new competition was set up with new terms and new pay and the result was a good response.

252. Deputy P. Lenihan.—Do you encourage factory safety committees?

—There is provision in the Factories Act, 1955 for safety committees in industry.

Does the Department give any encouragement to these committees?

—Yes, in that we supply them with information, leaflets and material of all kinds. The number of such committees is disappointingly low, only about 100.

253. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you plan to advertise on television?

—Yes, we do. We have already done a little of this.

254. Deputy Keating.—Is there not what you might call a demarcation dispute between the functions of the voluntary organisations and the functions of the Department of Health? Presumably the Department of Health would have a role in this as well as the Department of Labour?

—There is not a demarcation dispute here. There is cooperation. Measures to promote industrial health and to prevent industrial disease are organised in cooperation with the Department of Health.

Chairman.—That is all. Thank you, Mr. Ó Cearbhaill.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 12.10 p.m.