Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1973 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1970 - 1971

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 1 Samhain, 1973

Thursday, 1st November, 1973

The Committee met at 11.15 a.m.

Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 43—DEFENCE.

Mr. S. Ó Cearnaigh called and examined.

493. Chairman.—Paragraph 99 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.—Provisions

Statements have been furnished to me showing the cost of production of bread at the Curragh bakery and of meat at the Dublin and Curragh abattoirs. The unit costs are as follows:—

The average price of cattle purchased for the Dublin and Curragh areas was £116 and £119 per head, respectively, as compared with £105 and £106 in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 685 lbs. and 666 lbs., respectively, as compared with 684 lbs. and 660 lbs.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The figures in this paragraph are based on production accounts supplied by the Department of Defence.

494. Chairman.—May I ask a novice’s question on this? Is there any particular reason why these two items should appear in the way they do?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—It is curious you should ask that question. It has been a long-standing paragraph but my predecessor decided to drop it in regard to the 1971-72 Accounts. In other words, it will not be there any longer, unless the Committee is interested in having it.

495. Chairman.—What does the Accounting Officer think of it?

—It has been included there by tradition. It ensures that the production of bread and meat is carefully and meticulously costed so that the figures will be available for comparison and to keep a watch on the economy of these activities. I can bring the position up to date by saying that the production of bread at the Curragh has been discontinued. We are now supplying bread both to the Curragh and Dublin by contract. That has been the position since last June or so.

496. Deputy Tunney.—Would that indicate that you might also discontinue the butchering operations?

—Not necessarily. The butchering operation necessitates some supply centre for meat, some distribution centre. The Curragh is in effect a military town.

497. Deputy H. Gibbons.—How are those provisions made available to the Curragh and to the other barracks?

—All by contract.

498. Does it work out cheaper?

—It is very hard to make comparison. There can be great variations between one place and another. In the case of bread, you could have a variation of as much as 4p. per 4 lb. loaf and even up to 7p.

499. Deputy Bermingham.—Why would cattle be dearer in the Curragh than in Dublin? It appears to me that it is more costly to produce meat in the Curragh than in Dublin.

—It is possibly one of those odd factors that can occur from time to time.

It is hard to understand how it could average out dearer in the Curragh than in Dublin?

—It is just a casual variation, perhaps. It is small enough to be that. I am afraid I could not pinpoint a specific reason. All the cattle are purchased by the one agent.

500. Deputy Tunney.—It is possible that now with marts and buying centres in country districts comparable with those in Dublin this will change. It seems strange that there is a variation of 5p to 6p per lb.?

—No. This is for beef. As between Dublin and the Curragh the price of cattle varied by rather less than 1p per lb.

501. But there are prices indicated here. It gives the prices per lb. of meat.

—That is for the finished product. I was talking about the difference in cost of the cattle as bought. I think it is merely a casual variation. While in that particular year there was a difference of £3 per head in the cost of cattle it worked out at less than 1p per lb. in the cost of the processed beef. As regards the total cost of the beef as finally processed, the main difference between the Curragh and Dublin is in labour. The cost of labour in Dublin is 4.54p per lb. and in the Curragh it works out at 9.55p per lb.

502. Deputy Bermingham.—Does that mean that wages are higher?—

—No, the processing is different. In Dublin the services of the Corporation abattoir are used. In the Curragh the work is entirely carried out in the military abattoir there so that it necessarily involves more labour. Also the production is much higher in Dublin than in the Curragh with the result that the over-heads per lb. work out considerably less in Dublin.

503. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Is it not strange that the production her head is higher in Dublin? Is this the average number of lbs. of beef per annum that is produced?

—Yes, the relative productions in that year were: Dublin 231,510 lbs. and Curragh 119,884 lbs.

504. Chairman.—Paragraph 100 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead P.—Naval Stores

The charge to the subhead includes £314,000 paid for three naval vessels and £120,000 for allied stores and services. The charge also includes £194,600 being a payment on account for the construction of a fishery protection vessel which is expected to cost in the region of £1 million. Fees paid in the year to consultants employed in connection with the fishery protection vessel amounted to £15,587.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information only. The payments made in the year under review in respect of the fishery protection vessel were only the initial payments. Further payments have been made in subsequent years.

505. Deputy H. Gibbons.—It says: “Fees paid in the year to consultants employed in connection with the fishery protection vessel amounted to £15,587.” What kind of advice would you be seeking from them?—

—From Irish Shipping? All the technical expertise that would be necessary for the construction of a new vessel. The design facilities, testing, the whole range of services including visits of inspection and supervision.

506. Chairman.—Paragraph 101 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead CC.—Compensation

The charge to this subhead comprises:—

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information only. It contains details of the compensation payments made in the year under review under the various heads under which provision was made in the Estimate.

507. Chairman.—Paragraph 102 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead Z.—Appropriations in Aid

The tender of an Irish company for the purchase of the corvettes L. É. Macha and L. É. Cliona, which were regarded as unserviceable, was accepted although higher foreign tenders had been received. This departure from normal departmental contract procedure was authorised by the Government on condition that the corvettes would be broken up in Ireland.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to a contract placed outside the normal departmental contract procedure. The departure from procedure was authorised by the Government on condition that the corvettes would be broken up in Ireland and I understand that the company which was awarded the contract has confirmed that this condition has been complied with.

508. Chairman.—I presume the reason for this is that we did not want to be involved in an arms trade, so to speak?

—I think it was more a question of giving employment locally in the breaking up of the vessels.

509. Chairman.—Paragraph 103 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“A sum of £197,352 received from the United Nations towards the expenses of Irish contingents with United Nations peace-keeping forces has been brought to credit as appropriations in aid.

As the following figures show, the balance of such expenses due to the Department of Defence has increased substantially in the past three years:—

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to the increase between March, 1969, and March, 1971, in the outstanding balance of expenses due to the Department of Defence in respect of Irish contingents with United Nations peace-keeping forces. Of the sum, £468,598, outstanding at 31st March, 1971, £232,617 was received in 1971-72 and £234,900 was received in 1972-73, leaving a sum of £1,081 to be recovered. Further claims have of course been made in respect of the period since 1st April, 1971.

510. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Are we paid up to date practically?

—This balance has been recovered.

511. Chairman.—What would be the average time lag between expense incurred and payments received?

—It would be 12 to 18 months. It can vary quite a lot, but it would probably be of that order. The current figure outstanding is £258,000, so it has rather improved since the position reported in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report.

512. Deputy Tunney.—There is no claim for interest?

—No, I am afraid not.

513. Chairman.—It would be within the 18 months?

—That is the sort of time factor but it is irregular.

514. Deputy Tunney.—You are borrowing £250,000 for a period of a year and a half. You pay interest on it.

Chairman.—That is quite true, but I am relating that to the total budget.

Deputy Bermingham.—At one stage it was reduced to £800.

—It was, but it is an on-going process.

515. Chairman.—In other words, you have £250,000 floating.

—Yes. It varies quite a lot. At the moment it is around the £250,000 mark. Presently we shall be sending on another account which will bring the figure outstanding to well over £300,000. Later on we hope to get in another payment on account, and so the process goes on. The United Nations depend upon voluntary contributions to meet these charges.

516. Chairman.—Paragraph 104 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Stores

It was noted in the course of audit that there had been little movement over a number of years in many items of stores and equipment some of which appeared to be obsolete or surplus to requirements. I have been informed that some of these items can still be used and that it was proposed to bring the remainder before a board of survey with a view to disposal.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph refers to items of equipment which appear to us to be surplus to requirements. I understand that suitable action has been taken in regard to the stores. Some of these stores were transferred to units interested in using them and some have been retained as standby equipment.

517. Chairman.—What kind of stores is involved in this?

—The particular items referred to are a miscellaneous collection such as pipes, bolts and various odds and ends.

They are mainly engineers’ stores?

—Yes, engineers’ stores. Of the 79 items which are listed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, 46 have been disposed of by board of survey or by transfer to other units that could possibly find some use for them. The remaining 33 items will be put before a board of survey presently.

518. I just happen to see such an item as copper. Do you keep any reserves in case they are needed?

—That is part of the reason why these things remain on charge so long; if we disposed of them today they might be needed tomorrow by some other unit. Therefore, before stores are disposed of there is a very careful inquiry and survey made to see if there is any current or prospective use for them.

519. At the present moment there are threatened shortages of various sorts which could leave the Defence Forces, in an emergency, in the same position as arose between 1939 and 1946?

—Precisely.

520. I take it you consider that justification for holding these stores?

—Yes, not to give away anything that could have a current or prospective use.

521. On subhead B.—Permanent Defence Force: Pay—there is a note. This increase then does not represent an increase in strength?

—No. It is primarily due to a restructuring of pay whereby the wife’s allowance and ration allowance were incorporated in a consolidated form of pay. Otherwise this would have gone into a different subhead.

522. On subhead G.—You seem to be spending very little on Civil Defence. Is that correct?

—It is a voluntary service and there is no remuneration paid to the personnel, so it enables the cost to be kept down very much.

523. On subhead H.—Defensive Equipment—there is a substantial saving there.

Deputy MacSharry.—That is noticeable in many subheads.

Chairman.—In the Department, after the general approval is given, there has to be a considerable investigation before the money is expended. Is that so?

—Yes.

524. This has traditionally been interpreted as a matter between the Army and the civilians and the civilians succeed in a delaying action each year. Is that a fair way of putting it?

—With respect, I would not put it that way. The situation is that before the Estimate is prepared discussions take place between the military and the civil sides and eventually with the Department of Finance and a programme is ironed out of the intended purchases for the following financial year. Even at that stage all the problems might not be ironed out. There might be problems of specifications and so on. You may find that you cannot get all your stores delivered and all your accounts paid in the financial year. A payment might miss the financial year by as little as a few days, so the accounts reflect that kind of a position. There could also be fresh thinking on some matters

525. The saving is a very large proportion of the provision in this subhead. The question I am asking is how much that discrepancy would be attributed to administrative action or inaction within the Department and how much to external factors such as delay in supplying, delay in dealing with the outside world. I am trying to separate this into internal and external problems.

—It would be impossible to answer that without a very careful review of all the transactions. Sometimes you can identify a particular item in isolation. Sometimes there is a conglomeration of items. There has to be some form of administration.

526. Obviously we cannot go much further on this year’s accounts. I would ask another question which arises from this: how much delay, having accounted for a delay, is within the Department of Defence? I suppose the whole question of sanction from a Department comes into play?

—It has been modified in recent years and there is a great deal of delegated sanction.

527. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead T— Barrack Services—in the period I spent in the Army we paid one old penny per week for maintenance of barracks. It was stopped out of our 14s. per week.

—It was some local arrangement.

It was a regular penny a week.

—It was probably a local arrangement by the O/C.

528. Each regiment had to give it. We paid it whether we were in Renmore or elsewhere— it was a penny for barrack maintenance and a penny for laundry. I am just wondering whether that exists still?

—The only thing that would resemble it is a deduction for barrack damages—the unit might be held collectively responsible for damage done by an unidentified individual.

529. On subhead W—Expenses of Equitation Teams at Horse Shows—I may not be in order in raising this on these accounts. The Army team competed at the Strokestown Show and a car was presented as the top prize but they would not be allowed to accept it.

—We were advised by the National Equestrian Federation of Ireland—the controlling body—that if a car were accepted the rider might be disqualified from the point of view of amateur status for Olympic Games competition. We acted on the advice of the NEFI.

530. This did not seem to apply to civilian riders?

—The same liability, I am sure, would attach to the civilian rider as regards his amateur status. The Minister for Defence would have a particular concern to preserve the amateur status of the Army riders.

531. Deputy MacSharry.—On Subhead Y.— Post Office Services—expenditure is less than granted. In most other Departments it is more than granted.

—We depend upon the Post Office to guide us as to the proper amounts to be inserted there. They carry out surveys of the postal traffic from different Departments and assess a general charge.

532. You say you depend on the Post Office to advise you. Does that mean that the Post Office decide what to levy on each Department without the agreement of the Department concerned?

—I would not put it as specifically as that. In the final analysis the money is going from one Department of State to another and it would hardly call for a very close scrutiny as to how the amounts were computed. The Comptroller and Auditor General, I am sure, would excercise supervision in that area.

533. Yes, but he is the supervisor of every area. The Post Office send the Department of Defence a bill. That is your share? You have no argument?

—Standards of provision have been established now. This arrangement only came into practice three or four years ago. Formerly there was no specific charge for postage but it is in now as a charge on Departments. Standards have been established and if there was an abnormal increase in the levy I am sure we would question it.

534. But basically the Department of Posts and Telegraphs decides what each Department will be charged?

—Yes, on the basis, I understand, of some survey they carry out of the amount of postal traffic coming from various Departments.

535. Deputy Tunney.—On subhead CC.— Compensation—what would be the nature of the compensation referred to there?

—Details are given in paragraph 101 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

536. Chairman.—The net position in regard to this Vote is that there is a very substantial surplus to be surrendered. Does a situation like that not tend to encourage expenditure during the year? No Department wants to surrender.

—Naturally we strive to get the most benefit from our Estimate but it is not always possible to achieve the complete expenditure within the financial year. Incidentally the surplus on the gross Estimate there was £74,000.

537. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On Item 1 of the Appropriations-in-Aid, what lands were sold that realised £71,000?

—The principal item there is the lands at Tallaght. Forty acres were sold to Dublin Corporation. Smaller lots of land were sold at Fort Davis in County Cork.

538. Deputy Tunney.—Is the Department entitled to sell land and property and retain the money for themselves?

—The money would go into Appropriations-in-Aid and would be dealt with in accordance with that. If the provision for Appropriations-in-Aid is exceeded the money cannot be spent unless a Supplementary Estimate is taken to enable the money to be spent.

539. Suppose your Department decided to sell one or two barracks, would it be a matter for you to re-employ that money or would some other Department take that money from you?

—In theory there would be two separate transactions. The barracks would be sold as one transaction and, depending upon the extent to which provision had been made in the Estimate for the Appropriations-in-Aid, the money would be brought to account in that form as a deduction from the total Vote. Then a separate provision would be made for the building of new barracks.

540. Deputy H. Gibbons.—What is the explanation of “Supplementary £5,000”?

—When a Supplementary Estimate is being prepared the various provisions are looked at to see how we will fare out and any savings are taken into account in arriving at the net Supplementary Estimate. In this case when the Supplementary Estimate was being prepared it was estimated that there would be an additional £5,000 income from the sale of lands and premises.

541. That was included in the original £96,000?

—£96,000 was the original estimate. At that time the estimated income under that provision was £96,000. At a much later time in the year when the supplementary estimate was being prepared it was then estimated that the income under that heading would be £101,000.

I understand. It was a revision of your estimate.

Chairman.—It is an accounting balance between the estimate and the supplementaries?

—That is so—to arrive at the net supplementary estimate.

Chairman.—Would Deputies like me to go through each paragraph of the Appropriations-in-Aid?

542. Deputy H. Gibbons.—In regard to item No. 7—Refunds in respect of treatment and maintenance of patients in military hospitals— who makes the refunds?

—Currently it would be the health board for the area. It used to be the county councils.

543. Deputy Bermingham.—Who would be entitled to free treatment?

—Military patients and the dependants of soldiers were treated in the military hospital in the Curragh. They were regarded as being entitled under the health legislation to free treatment, the same as other people, and the health board is obliged to provide that treatment and, by way of compensation to us, they pay us agreed charges.

544. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I take it they pay you for maintaining patients in St. Bricin’s and in the Curragh?

—Yes, that is right.

Just the same as a private hospital?

—Yes.

545. Deputy MacSharry.—In respect of item No. 10—Show Prizes—the estimate was £1,000 and the sum realised was £5,431. Who eventually determines whether the team will take part in a show or who selects the show in which they will take part? Do they charge a fee for appearing at a show?

—As far as local shows are concerned the Minister for Defence decides what shows the team will attend. As far as international shows are concerned the final authority is the National Equestrian Federation of Ireland. I think Bord na gCapall have taken over some of that function now. In that year it was the National Equestrian Federation of Ireland, in consultation with the various interests in show jumping, such as the Minister for Defence as respects the Army Equitation School, the Show Jumping Association of Ireland as respects various owners of jumpers and perhaps the National Olympic Horse Society.

546. Do they charge for appearing in any place?

—Oh no. We are charged for appearing because we have to pay an entrance fee.

I understand that but you do not get paid for appearing anywhere?

—No.

547. Deputy Tunney.—Is there any serious reason why the same does not apply to the Army Band, why we are prepared to undertake the expenses—I know, perhaps, we are helping to sell horses—in the matter of the horse shows but if another group wants to have the benefit of the Army Band they must pay a fee? Are we less concerned about music and the Arts than we are about horses?

—In modern parlance, it is a different ball game. There are certain free public recitals by the Army Bands, in public parks, in addition to the paid engagements.

548. Chairman.—In regard to the note under the heading Extra Remuneration, might I ask has the figure in respect of the inspection of industrial explosives varied over the years?

—It is paid, I think, by the Department of Justice.

It is a very small figure for the responsibility involved?

—I am sure it has been adjusted from time to time. The industrial explosives inspector is appointed by the Department of Justice. He is usually an officer of the Ordnance Corps. That Department provide the fee for this particular function.

549. Deputy H. Gibbons.—What happens in the case of a loan to county councils of military officers, as mentioned in the Notes?

—That would be a civil defence officer. He would be seconded to the county council but his cost to the county council would be grant-aided to the extent of about 70 per cent. In other words, the Department, while recovering his salary, also pays a grant-in-aid of 70 per cent. In effect, the local authority pays a net sum of 30 per cent of the salary.

550. Deputy Bermingham.—That only happens in Counties Kildare and Louth?

—There are assistant civil defence officers in Dublin as well to whom the same condition applies.

551. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I should like to raise a question in connection with the Sluagh Muiri. What provision is made for the personnel when they retire? At what age do they retire?

—They are the marine counterpart of the FCA and the question of provision for their retirement would not arise because they are part-time.

552. Are there any full-time marine services?

—Apart from the Naval Service, no. The Naval Service proper, of course, is full-time. It is a full-time element of the Permanent Defence Force.

553. What provision is made for them on retirement?

—The same as for the Army, rank for rank.

554. Are they encouraged to go into the fishing industry?

—That would be a matter for themselves to decide. Their naval training should be a help if they decided to undertake a career in fishing after leaving the service.

555. I understand that as far as deep sea fishing is concerned we are very much behind the rest of the world. It struck me that these people could be used. I raised this matter the last day with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and suggested that something should be done between the two Departments to make this nautical skill available in the fishing industry.

—The Department of Defence would not have a direct responsibility for that sort of development but the nautical skills are there. When the officer retires his skill remains, I am sure, and it would be, perhaps, for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries or Bord Iascaigh Mhara to take it from there.

556. I understand that would be the position at the present time. What I am suggesting is that there should be close liaison between the two Departments so that the men would understand that help would be available to them. In view of the fact that our deep sea fishing seems to be neglected due to lack of personnel, something should be done to tap this source.

Chairman.—That is a policy matter.

—As far as making the services of naval officers available is concerned, that would not be possible, at present anyhow, because we find it difficult to get the full complement we require and the number of vessels available serves only our minimum needs.

VOTE 44—ARMY PENSIONS.

Mr. S. Ó Cearnaigh further examined.

557. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Are you still investigating the award of IRA medals? Are there new applicants?

—Yes. There are new applicants coming all the time.

558. How many applications?

—About 400 or 500 a year. The investigations are becoming increasingly difficult.

559. Deputy MacSharry.—Did these people apply before? There could not be 400 new applications every year.

—They are new applications.

They must have applied before.

—Not necessarily. These would be new.

First applications?

—Yes.

Almost an impossibility.

Deputy Bermingham.—There are many people who would not apply and then might change their mind.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 36—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.

Mr. L. Tóibín called and examined.

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

“Subhead E.—Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht

Roinn na Gaeltachta may pay up to 85 per cent of the costs of erection or extension of secondary schools in Gaeltacht areas after consultation with the Department of Education. A proposal for the extension of a secondary school was cleared by the Department of Education and grants amounting to £12,700, representing 82 per cent. of the costs incurred on preliminary works and professional fees, were made by Roinn na Gaeltachta in 1969-70 and 1970-71. I inquired as to the progress of the work of extension and the Accounting Officer has informed me that it has been suspended pending the outcome of a reappraisal by the Department of Education of the post-primary facilities best suited to the area.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph refers to grants amounting to £12,700 paid by Roinn na Gaeltachta in respect of the extension of a secondary school in the Donegal Gaeltacht. This amount was paid in two instalments, £1,200 in 1969-70 and £11,500 in the year under review, 1970-71. I understand that as a result of the re-appraisal by the Department of Education of the post-primary facilities best suited to the area it has been decided to establish a community school there.

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

“Grants are payable out of this subhead towards the erection or improvement of hotels, guest-houses, etc., in Gaeltacht areas. Such grants may not exceed 20 per cent. of the approved cost and are supplementary to grants provided by Bord Fáilte Éireann. A company which received in 1969-70 a grant of £30,000 towards the approved construction cost of a hotel also received in the year under review from this subhead, £14,000 as a short-term interest-bearing loan; the total of those payments was within the 20 per cent. limit.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. It is also referred to in the Report for 1971-72 and, perhaps, the Committee might wish to defer consideration of it until we come to next year’s report.

—There is nothing unusual about this particular payment. In effect, what is involved here is payment as a loan of an amount that could have been paid as a grant.

562. Deputy MacSharry.—It was within the 20 per cent limit?

—Yes.

563. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I do not know whether this is a question of policy but may I ask how do they staff these hotels? Do they staff them completely with Irish speakers?

—As far as possible. That is a condition of our scheme, that we require Irish speakers to be employed as far as possible. We recognise there are difficulties in recruiting Irish speakers for all the posts in these hotels.

564. If the guests going into these hotels talk English, do they contribute anything to the Irish language as distinct from the economy of the Gaeltacht?

—In so far as there are Irish speakers employed, which is the idea behind many of these schemes, that is something itself; and they cater for other Irish speakers when they come in. Of course, you will find people coming in speaking English, French, German and so on.

565. Deputy Tunney.—Would you have any knowledge as to the shortfall in the matter of particular staff, whether they be waiters or waitresses, who might be required?

—There seems to be a shortage of Irish speakers at all levels. It seems the people of the Gaeltacht are not attracted to hotel work— at least that is an impression we have got. The most important individual in any hotel is the manager and it is extremely difficult to get a competent manager who is an equally competent Irish speaker.

566. Has any effort been made to move towards a situation where we would have that type trained?

—Irish courses have been laid on for people who are employed.

567. Chairman.—The statement that it is impossible to get qualified people means that, in effect, people who would have that potential are now moving out of the Gaeltacht at a young age?

—Of course, at management level it would be exceptional to find a person from the Gaeltacht trained as a hotel manager.

Unless he left the Gaeltacht?

—That will not necessarily follow in future because there may now be enough of these hotels in the Gaeltacht for training purposes.

568. Chairman.—Paragraph 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“The charge to the subhead includes £10,000 being the first instalment of a grant towards the cost of constructing an airstrip, estimated at £26,000, on Inis Meáin in the Aran Islands. The grant, originally based on two-thirds of the cost, is being paid to a company which intends to operate an air service between the mainland and the islands.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. The company concerned was paid £15,400 in the previous year, 1969-70, towards the cost of an airstrip on Inis Mór. Further payments were made to the company in 1971-72, including grants towards operational losses and towards the cost of a new aircraft for the service so perhaps the Committee might wish to defer its examination of the matter until the 1971-72 report is being considered.

Would the Accounting Officer like to add anything?

—The only thing that bothers me is that there is not yet a regular air service operating into Inis Meáin. The problem was to get grass to grow; the site is exposed to blowing sand.

Deputy Tunney.—It is nearly ready?

—One of these days, we hope.

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

“In 1969 the Government approved special arrangements for the provision of electricity on certain Gaeltacht islands where the normal supply will not be available. The capital cost of installing the electricity generating plant and network on Oileán Chléire, Co. Cork, estimated at £28,500, will be met from voted moneys. In the year under review £9,495 was paid from the above subhead towards this cost.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph gives the estimated cost of installing the electricity generating plant and network on Oileán Chléire as £28,500 and indicates that an initial grant of £9,495 was made from voted moneys towards this cost. The cost of the installation, up to 31st March 1972, was £36,444 and a further grant of £26,949 was made in that year. This matter is also referred to in the report on the Appropriation Accounts for 1971-72.

570. Deputy MacSharry.—On subhead D— Tithe Gaeltachta—why did this reduction arise?

—We found at a late stage in the financial year that we could save that amount and we transferred it to subhead H.2 by means of the Supplementary Estimate. They are both capital items.

571. It was taken from Tithe Gaeltachta and put into Gaeltarra Éireann?

—Yes, to provide increased capital for Gaeltarra Éireann, for making grants to industry towards the cost of fixed assets such as factory structures.

Chairman.—The accounts of Gaeltarra Éireann have been circulated.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.