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

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 12 Iúil, 1973.

Thursday, 12th July, 1973.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY de VALERA in the chair

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

VOTE 33—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Dr. J. White called and examined.

102. Chairman.—On subhead D.—Purchase and Repair of Pictures (Grant-in-Aid) —I do not think that sum of money would get you very far?

—That is true but it has slightly improved since 1970-71.

103. Between this subhead and subhead E a sum of approximately £4,000 was granted. This seems disproportionate out of a total expenditure on the Vote of over £64,000?

—The figure for the purchase and repair of pictures is almost a repetition of an historic figure. As you can well appreciate, it does not buy much in the way of pictures; but it is token of some importance that the State contributes towards the purchase and repair of pictures. Of course, as you know, we have some bequests which enable us to purchase pictures. I hope, when we become a more affluent nation, that that figure will go up.

104. Deputy Tunney.—On extra remuneration we presume that it is more efficient and better for you to have this overtime rather than to have extra attendants. I suppose the £7,616 would employ four or five extra attendants?

—I should like to explain the situation in regard to the overtime. It is not so much a question that we actually work overtime but that our system of remuneration is such that we pay the men overtime for Sunday afternoons, when the Gallery is open from 2 o’clock to 5 o’clock and on Thursday nights from 6 o’clock to 9 o’clock. This is recurring overtime all the year round. It is really the only way you can cope with a problem of men working on Sunday. I think in general in the public service there is no other way to cope with Sunday work except by overtime.

Chairman.—Yes. I think that is also the case outside the public service. We are treating you very summarily, I am afraid, but these accounts are for 1970-71 and does not seem to be much point in labouring the matter further. I would like to thank you for coming. I am sorry you have to give so much time for so little.

—I am very grateful to you for treating me so gently.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 27—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Mr. S. Ó Conchobhair called and examined.

105. Chairman.—Paragraph 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Free Post-Primary Education Scheme

Reference was made in previous reports to the operation of the free post-primary education scheme including tuition, transport services and free school books and accessories for necessitous pupils. The principal costs of the scheme in the year under review were as follows:—

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph gives for information the main costs and the incidence of Vote charge in respect of various heads of the free post-primary scheme.

The Committee will note that the expenditure on school transport accounts for 45 per cent of the expenditure listed. The figures in the paragraph relate only to the heads of expenditure under the scheme which are easily identified. The extra costs which fall on voted moneys in respect of salaries of additional teachers or in respect of additional school accommodation required are not so identifiable.

Deputy Tunney.—We need not worry too much at this stage about school transport. We shall find that later accounts are in the region of £5 million, so any questions on school transport might await a later day.

106. Chairman.—Paragraph 38 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“I referred in previous reports to the provisional payments made to Córas Iompair Éireann in respect of school transport services introduced in 1967-68 and the finalisation of arrangements regarding financial control and procedures with the company. The charge to voted moneys in respect of transport services for the financial years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 amounted to £5,625,103. Of this amount £5,330,716 was paid to Córas Iompair Éireann for the costs of its operations under the free transport scheme. A further payment of £236,046, made in May 1970 in respect of March 1970, brought the total paid to the company under the scheme in respect of the three years to £5,566,762. Córas Iompair Éireann expenditure on these operations as certified by its auditors totalled £5,532,119, and £34,643 was, accordingly, deducted from subsequent payments. The balance of charge to voted moneys in respect of transport services for the three years, £294,387, comprised £172,510 paid to Córas Iompair Éireann in respect of a fares subsidy scheme for school children who were not entitled to benefit under the free transport scheme, £97,760 towards the cost of other transport schemes and £24,117 in allowances to transport liaison officers.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph shows the payments made from voted moneys in respect of the first three years of the free transport scheme and the amount of the refund recovered from CIE at the end of the three years. The accounting arrangements agreed between the Department of Education and CIE provide inter alia for discounts to the Department of 10 per cent of indirect and administrative charges and 8 per cent of charges for children carried on CIE’s scheduled services, an allowance of 4½ per cent in respect of absenteeism of children and a profit element for CIE of 4 per cent on all costs, excluding amounts paid to school bus contractors.

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

“Subhead A.4—Higher Education Authority

Reference was made in paragraph 36 of my previous report to ex gratia payments to the members of the Higher Education Authority in respect of services rendered by them in the period ended 31 March 1970. The charge to the subhead includes ex gratia payments totalling £7,000 made with the sanction of the Minister for Finance to the fourteen members of the authority for the year under review.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph is for information. The allowances paid in the year under review were made on an ex gratia basis with the sanction of the Minister for Finance. The authority functioned as an ad hoc advisory body during the year, but has been given statutory authority under the Higher Education Authority Act, 1971 which was brought into force by ministerial order on 15th May, 1972. Under the Act the members of the authority may be paid such allowances as the Minister for Education, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determines. The accounts of the authority will be audited by me under the terms of the 1971 Act.

108. Chairman.—Paragraph 40 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead C.5.—Higher Education Grants

The Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Act, 1968 authorises the making of grants by a local authority to persons ordinarily resident in its functional area to enable them to attend university colleges or other approved institutions of higher education. Section 4 of the Act provides for the refund from voted moneys to local authorities of the annual cost of such grants over and above the total amount provided by them in the year 1967-68 by way of assistance and scholarships under the Irish Universities Act 1908 and the Local Authorities (Education Scholarships) Acts, 1944 and 1961. The charge to the subhead includes £424,033 in respect of such refunds.

College fees were increased in the year under review and the charge to the subhead includes £46,399 paid to the constituent colleges of the National University of Ireland and to Trinity College in lieu of fee increases which would otherwise have been payable by students in receipt of higher education grants from local authorities.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Grants under the Act are made by local authorities in accordance with grant schemes approved by the Minister, and are subject to a means test. Grants were paid on a sliding scale according to means and the number of dependent children in the applicant’s family, and subject to maximum rates of £300 or £175 according to whether the grantholder lives away from or in or adjacent to a university town.

109. Deputy MacSharry.—There is no provision at all here for payment of grants in respect of children attending regional schools.

—There was not at that time, but we are now developing a scheme.

It has to come into operation?

—It is to come into operation this year There was not a scheme at that time.

110. Local authorities got notice from the Department saying that such a scheme was not in operation and that there was no intention to introduce one.

—There is one now.

Through the local authorities?

—No, through the vocational education committees.

111. Is there any reason why regional colleges should not be included in the same way as the universities, with the grants being given through the local authorities?

Chairman.—This is a matter of policy.

Deputy MacSharry.—It might be administration as well as policy.

—It is not a matter of administration.

112. Chairman.—Paragraph 41 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead H.15—Union of Students in Ireland (Grant-in-Aid)

In the year under review a grant-in-aid of £1,000 was paid to the Union of Students in Ireland towards the cost of a research project relating to graduate emigration from Ireland. The project, which is being conducted under the auspices of the Union, is expected to cost in the region of £12,500 and contributions have also been received from commercial and other interests.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph is for information. I understand that it was estimated that the project which was to commence on 1st March, 1971, would cost £12,500 approximately and would take three years to complete. A further amount of £1,000 was paid from voted moneys towards the project in 1971-72 and the provision for an additional grant of £1,000 is made in the Estimates for each of the the years 1972-73 and 1973-74.

113. Chairman.—Does this complete the operation?

—As a matter of fact, they have only got £1,000 in 1971-72 and we have not got a report from them, so we do not intend to pay them any more until we get a report.

Chairman.—We now turn to the Vote itself.

114. Deputy MacSharry.—On subhead B.5—Technical Assistance in Education— there is a note to say the scheme was not availed of to the extent expected. What type of assistance is given here?

—The intention was that we would have some money available so that if we knew of somebody abroad, an expert in a particular field, we could bring him here to talk to people in education. Alternatively, if we knew of a course abroad that we thought would be of particular reference to us, we could send some people to it. This does not mean members of the staff of the Department. This technical assistance was to send people in the educational sphere outside of the Department to courses abroad and, on condition that they paid one-third of the cost, we would pay the balance. We imposed this condition to establish the interest was genuine. In the case of a man we imported, of course we would have to pay the full cost.

Chairman.—It is expert advice?

—Yes.

115. Deputy Tunney.—On subhead D.1— Publications in Irish—is it not unusual to imagine that money provided in this respect would not be availed of?

—The saving in that year of £26,000 was because it was not possible to send for printing the anticipated number of books and general literature which would have fallen due for payment in 1970-71, and the number of texts which we thought would be published in that year were not published, and we could not pay for them.

116. On subhead D.5—Physical Education—I thought this was taken with the grant-in-aid to youth and recreational bodies?

—This is for the students we send to Strawberry Hill for training as teachers.

117. On subhead H.11—Voluntary Youth Organisations—I know we will be receiving this report at some future date in more up-to-date figures but would the Accounting Officer say what guarantee we have that grants-in-aid to certain organisations are being devoted to the purposes for which they are granted?

—We require all recipients to furnish certified audited statements showing the manner in which the grants were spent.

118. Have they been obtained since the beginning of the scheme?

—As far as I know.

Perhaps the Accounting Officer would have a look at it to see that there are certified audited accounts or statements?

—I will.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Sometimes the grants are very small and it would not be worth their while to get audited accounts.

119. Deputy Tunney.—This is something to which we might devote a little time. If there are other organisations that get £3,000-£5,000 should we be happy with accepting their statements that the money was spent, or would we be obliged to get evidence of the fact that it was spent?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This has been covered in the Finance circular on grants-in-aid. There are strict instructions to Accounting Officers as to what they are to do about grants-in-aid before they issue them.

120. Deputy Bermingham.—Somebody will have to ensure that they spent the money in accordance with the instructions. We want some facts on how the money was spent.

Deputy Tunney.—There are organisations which might only get £300 and to insist upon their getting a certified statement is insisting on their spending a certain amount on such certificate. It would be wise to look at this.

Deputy Pattison.—Is it necessary when organisations are applying for these grants that they must specify what they are going to spend the money on?

Deputy Tunney.—Attractive ambitions can be expressed by organisations. There is an obligation on us to see that the money is devoted to the purpose stated.

Chairman.—What evidence is required as to the spending of these grants?

—All recipients were requested to furnish certified audited statements showing the manner in which grants are spent.

Chairman.—Always?

—Always.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The Committee will note that this is one of the grants-in-aid that is not subject to my audit.

121. Deputy Tunney.—It should be noted that the Accounting Officer said that all organisations were requested to furnish certified statements, but whether or not they were furnished is a matter that we might look at.

Deputy Crotty.—If the money was not spent would it be held over for use in the following year?

—This would depend on what their statement said.

122. Chairman.—Having noted this, we can apply ourselves to the more recent accounts. On Extra Remuneration (exceeding £100), allowances for special duties— will the Accounting Officer say what these special duties were?

—The Higher Executive Officer was Private Secretary to the Minister. The Executive Officer was Private Secretary to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Staff Officer received £122 for special duties in connection with our examination paper reproduction unit which has a high degree of secrecy attached to it.

123. What was the £275 spent on?

—The officer was Private Secretary to the Minister.

Was it all in respect of one thing?

—Yes, it is an allowance as Private Secretary to the Minister.

It is a normal allowance?

—Yes.

124. The other item is a special allowance in connection with examinations?

The Executive Officer gets an allowance as Private Secretary and the other sum is for special duties in regard to examinations.

VOTE 28—PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mr. S. Ó Conchobhair further examined.

125. Chairman.—Paragraph 42 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead C.8—Special Educational Project

Reference was made in paragraph 43 of my previous report to a special educational project being carried out by the Department of Education in the Rutland Street schools area of Dublin in association with the Van Leer Foundation of the Netherlands. The project is aimed at offsetting the educational disadvantages of children in the area and is being financed broadly on the basis that the Department will meet such educational expenditure as would normally fall to be met from voted moneys and one half of any abnormal expenditure, the balance being met by the Van Leer Foundation.

Total expenditure on the project to 31 March 1971 amounted to £64,885 including £27,227 in the year under review. Contributions from the Foundation amounted to £35,006 at that date including £19,230 received in the year and credited to appropriations in aid (subhead E.3).”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph is for information. I understand that this project, which was commenced in 1969-70, is supervised by a steering committee on which the school manager, the Van Leer Foundation, the Department of Education and the Dublin Health Authority are represented. The project is expected to continue for an initial period of five years. The Vote expenditure covers such items as salaries of teachers, social workers, sociologists, a Project Director, a Research Director, as well as building and other administrative costs.

126. Deputy MacSharry.—On C.6— Grants towards the cost of Free School Books for Necessitous Children—the applications for grants were less than anticipated. What is the administrative procedure involved?

—This has never been a terribly successful scheme. It was only getting off the ground in that year. In previous years for some reason we were only offering one shilling per student. It was a very small sum. Schools did not think it worthwhile making application. Very recently we had introduced a revised scheme, but whether it was that the schools did not believe us or something else we did not get as many applications as we anticipated in that particular year. It improved in the succeeding years.

127. You did not allocate a certain sum of money for each primary school? They had to come to you with the number of pupils?

—They came to us with proposals. We assumed that approximately 25 per cent of the students would be necessitous, but this was our estimation of what it might be. We based our sum on that and decided we would grant £1 to each student of that 25 per cent of the students who would require help for books. That works out at approximately £80,000, so we put in that figure. We did not get that number of applications from the schools in that particular year. In 1972-73 the figure increased by another £5,000. In other words, the schools are now beginning to use it.

It is their business to use it?

—Yes.

You do not say to a school: “You have got £50 to spend on free books this year”. They must submit a case to you for each child?

—They must make application.

128. There was a certain amount of confusion, and possibly still is, in some schools in that they thought it was so much per school. Is it the case that they must submit the total number of pupils they consider deserving of the free school books?

—We send them out a circular every year telling them how they can apply for the grant.

I appreciate it was only starting that year and that it is working a lot better now?

—It is working a lot better now.

129. Deputy Bermingham.—What yardstick is used to decide what pupils are entitled to free books? Is it the school or somebody else who decides?

—We laid down a kind of yardstick but we did not insist on it. We simply indicated that a widow’s children, the children of a person on the dole and other categories should receive free school books. We laid down certain things but we did not say nobody else could receive them. We felt we could not operate the scheme because we are too far away. We left it to them to operate. We decided to get them to make application but at the same time we said: “This is the kind of person we would expect you to look for”. We did not tie them down. We did not say: “It must be so and so and only so and so”.

130. Are there many schools who never made application for this money?

—I do not know about the schools but there are certainly children for whom it was not applied. I cannot say if there are schools that did not apply.

131. Deputy MacSharry.—Would you think it is fair for the teacher in a school to give out as free books books which were used in previous years by other pupils? Is that a proper contribution to those children under the free school book scheme? Should those children not get new books?

—To speak quite frankly about this, we will never have enough money for all the things we want to do in education. Let us make it clear that we will never have enough money. Therefore, if a headmaster can collect books that were used the previous year and no longer required by students, then he can spread the money we give him further. I would be the last man to stop him from using this.

132. Chairman.—How do you ensure that the money he gets for the books is applied to them? Suppose you have a case where you have 13 per cent used books and you give a grant for 25 per cent surely there is an opportunity to start making a profit on that?

—He has to retain for inspection receipts for the books he buys.

133. Then, he is only paid if the books are bought, or is he paid in advance?

—He is paid in advance but he must retain for inspection a receipt for the money he has spent. I see what you are getting at. The only way he could do it— we would have to have evidence of this— is if he charged subsequently for the books. This is a bit absurd.

134. He would not need to charge for them?

—He would. Of course, he could be on the make.

135. Let us take a class of 100, which is a purely hypothetical figure. We will take it that 25 per cent, that is 25 pupils, are entitled to free books. Over the years a teacher could have accumulated 30 used books and circulate 25 of these. He is getting his grant for new books and he has some books over?

—No, because he must have his docket to show he has spent £25 on the books.

That in turn is ipso facto. You are satisfied about it?

—I am satisfied enough about it.

136. Deputy MacSharry.—I think some sort of suggestion should be made to the teachers operating this scheme. I saw a book last Saturday which was given out under the free book scheme that was used for the last two years and was not fit to hand out to any pupil. It should not be tolerated that books used along the line should be given out under the free school books scheme.

—We are a bit helpless here because these are primary schools. There is a manager. We cannot watch all the books and the principal could send out books like that. It is a local effort, not a Departmental one.

137. A suggestion from the Department would eliminate a large amount of this. I do not know if it goes on on a large scale but I witnessed this last Saturday.

—The only thing I can offer to do is to see what is going on in that regard.

138. Chairman.—Would the inspectors see the books?

—They would.

Would they report on it?

—They would if they saw it.

Can they not ask to see them?

—They can; but out of 126 inspectors we have 43 vacancies, so inspectors are rather overworked. I am afraid if we send them chasing everything like this they will not do the work we are really sending them after, which is to look at schools and teachers.

139. Deputy MacSharry.—You mentioned earlier about sending out a circular to managers and teachers about the scheme. You should put in a note saying it has come to your notice that books which are not fit for pupils are being distributed.

Chairman.—We will note this. This will arise again.

140. Deputy Bermingham.—I would not like anybody who would be reading the comments made today to take from it the inference that there was any weakness in the scheme as administered by the teachers. The whole scheme needs examination. Could I just say in passing that when you are paying a principal teacher a fairly handsome salary to be involved in education, it is a pity he has to spend so much time administering this free book scheme. I have no doubt that what Deputy MacSharry says is true but on the other hand, it often happens that a child who has availed of the free books this year will sell those to another student who does not qualify for the scheme next year and that other student is forced to make do with these secondhand books. Another aspect of it is that children are much more sensitive to status and position than their parents are and the question of saying to one student “You are getting free books”, and to another student “You are paying for them”, is something we might all be thinking about.

Chairman.—We shall have to curtail the speeches.

Deputy Bermingham.—To adopt the suggestion that the inspector might have looked at the books would, I think, be a retrograde step. The inspector could only look at the book that would be given under the free scheme; the book might be in good condition when given to the pupil but by the time the inspector would see it, that might be irrelevant.

Chairman.—We can look at that again. We had better remember that our duty is to ask questions.

—I am afraid that until you have free books for all you will never solve this problem and that will cost an enormous amount of money.

VOTE 29—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. S. Ó Conchobhair further examined.

141. Chairman.—Paragraph 43 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead I.1.—Secondary Schools—Annual Repayment of Building Loans

Reference was made in paragraph 44 of my report for 1969-70 and in previous reports to a scheme whereby secondary 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. Grants totalling £371,996 were made during the year in respect of twenty-four schools. Also charged to the subhead is an amount of £3,000 paid towards the expenses of a study of post-primary building costs which is being carried out by a design group on behalf of the Department.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph gives the total of annual grants paid during the year to secondary schools who obtained building loans from sources other than State funds. As stated, the grants represented not more than 70 per cent of the repayment charges on the loans. The Committee will note that the charge to this subhead includes £3,000 paid towards the expenses of a study of post-primary building costs. Strictly speaking, this payment should not have been made out of moneys provided specifically for grants to meet charges on building loans. I understand that a further payment in respect of this study was made from this subhead in 1971-72.

142. Chairman.—Can the accounting officer say why it was paid in that way?

—We had a design group doing a post-primary building cost study and we found it was the only place to put it. This is the £3,000?

Chairman.—Yes.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—There is no general subhead on secondary education. I am not suggesting there should be one but if they had a general subhead they could have put it there. They may have thought the amount was too small to introduce a special subhead.

143. Chairman.—Would it not have been better to introduce a special subhead?

—This was a study on building costs and we are trying to keep building costs down in building schools of all kinds. We put it under this because it was part of the cost of keeping costs down, if I might put it that way.

144. Deputy MacSharry.—Did you succeed in keeping costs down?

—The accountant tells me the sum arose after the Estimate was prepared and we put it in. Whether that is any satisfaction to the Comptroller and Auditor General I am not too sure.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The amount is so small that we regard it as a venial sin, but it is the principle of charging something to a subhead to which, strictly speaking, it should not be charged.

145. Chairman.—I think the Committee feel it would be better to account for such matters specifically?

—Except that we did not have a subhead at the time the money arose. We had to put it into some subhead.

146.—Chairman.—Why not create a subhead? Would it not have been better to put this in straight for what it is, and if it had not been provided for to seek the proper authority for providing for it?

—I suppose it would.

Chairman.—You know what the Committee feel about it?

—I know what the Committee feel.

147. Chairman.—Paragraph 44 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead I.2.—Secondary Schools—Building Grants

I referred in previous reports to a scheme under which the Department of Education makes funds available for the erection or extension of secondary school buildings on the basis of 70 per cent free grants and 30 per cent loans repayable with interest over fifteen years. The charge to the subhead comprises £2,049,485 in grants and £637,316 in loans. Loan repayments under the scheme amounting to £78,223 were received during the year and appropriated in aid of the vote (subhead L.4). In one case the grant rate was increased to 85 per cent with the sanction of the Minister for Finance and the school authorities were provided with a site for the new school building at a reduced cost.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph gives for information the amount of grants and loans made available by the Department from voted moneys during the year for secondary school building. The position in regard to loan repayments is shown in a table appended to the appropriation account, page 78 of volume. It will be observed from that table that the total loans made at 31/3/71 was £1,394,714; of this £1,377,800 was outstanding at that date.

148. Chairman.—Paragraph 45 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead J.1.—Comprehensive Schools—Running Costs

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

The comprehensive schools at Coote-hill, Carraroe, Shannon Airport and Glenties continued in operation during the year under review and their running costs, including the salaries of the teaching staffs, are charged to subhead J.1. The school buildings at Raphoe, Ballymun and Limerick have not yet been completed. The Ballymun school commenced partial operation in September 1970 in prefabricated classrooms and its running costs are also charged to subhead J.1. Site costs and expenditure on the erection of the seven schools amounted to £1,632,040 at 31 March 1971 including £216,483 for professional fees. In addition, expenditure on furniture and equipment amounted to £61,415 at that date.

Site costs and fees amounting to £2,424 and £7,733, respectively, were paid during the year in connection with the erection of a comprehensive school building in Manorhamilton.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph gives information in regard to the progress achieved in the provision of these schools and the total capital costs to 31st March, 1971. The salaries of the established teachers serving in a comprehensive school are paid directly from the Vote and the other running costs are paid out of an imprest account under the control of the principal of the school and fed by advances from the Vote. In its recent report on the Appropriation Accounts for 1969-70 this Committee asked that particulars of current expenditure on comprehensive schools, together with particulars of income, if any, be submitted to them in the form of a receipts and payments account for each school.

149. Chairman.—We could note that for mention to the Finance Accounting Officer. We now come to the Vote itself. On subhead A.3—Science and other Equipment Grants—it seems very nicely balanced. Is this on a very steady level?

—Yes. We have the applications and we are able to estimate it fairly closely.

150. Deputy MacSharry.—On subhead A.5—Bonus for Choirs and Orchestras— how is the bonus assessed? You give them a bonus for some examinations?

—These sums vary between £3 and £15 per choir or orchestra. We pay in arrears. In 1969-70, 281 choirs and 54 orchestras were given grants, in other words 335 applied. We estimated there might be more because in two previous years we had 368 and 375 applications, respectively. We must ensure we have enough money.

151. Is it falling off?

—In the year under review it was better than in the previous year when the number was 270. One never knows with choirs and orchestras—it depends on teachers in the schools. Orchestras maintain a level because the instruments are there but choirs can fall apart with the disappearance of teachers.

VOTE 30—VOCATIONAL EDUCATION.

Mr. S. Ó Conchobhair further examined.

152. Chairman.—Paragraph 46 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead A.—Annual Grants to Vocational Education Committees

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

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

Reference was made in paragraph 47 of my report for 1969-70 and in previous reports to the building of Regional Technical Colleges at eight centres. The colleges at Athlone, Carlow, Dundalk, Letterkenny, Sligo and Waterford have been completed and are in operation. The college at Galway is in course of construction. A contract has not yet been placed for the college which is to be built in Cork.

The capital expenditure on these colleges (subhead I.2) to 31 March 1971 was as follows:—

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph gives a general picture of the progress made on the erection of the regional technical colleges and it shows the cumulative capital expenditure from voted moneys on these colleges up to 31st March, 1971. The erection of the colleges is the direct responsibility of the Department; the capital costs are charged to the Vote and are thus subject to my audit. Grants to meet the running costs of the colleges are made to the vocational education committees concerned on the basis of estimates submitted. The actual expenditure of these grants is not subject to my audit but will be audited by the local government auditors who audit the accounts of vocational education authorities.

153. Deputy MacSharry.—Has the Comptroller and Auditor General any comment to make on the fact that these accounts are audited by the local government auditors?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—There are a number of areas in which this is done. Generally we see the reports. The audits are a couple of years in arrears. Ultimately, we can always see the audited statements in the Department.

154. Chairman.—Paragraph 47 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“I observed in the course of audit that the estimates, on which grants were made to five Vocational Education Committees from subhead A, included provisions for running costs and purchase of equipment for the Regional Technical Colleges situated in their areas. I also observed that payments totalling £362,500 were issued to the Committees from subhead I.1 towards the purchase of equipment. In reply to my inquiry the Accounting Officer stated that the costs of teachers’ salaries, general administration and maintenance were included in the estimates upon which subhead A grants were based and that the subhead I.1 payments were intended to put the Committees in funds to meet expenditure on the purchase of equipment to which the colleges were committed in 1970-71. As I have some doubts regarding the extent to which moneys issued during the year in respect of equipment were needed to meet liabilities which had matured at 31 March 1971 I have deemed it desirable to draw attention to the matter.

I sought information from the Accounting Officer regarding the accounting arrangements made with the Vocational Education Committees for these colleges and I have been informed that the Committees have been requested to submit separate annual financial estimates and to keep separate accounts in respect of the Regional Technical Colleges commencing with the year 1971-72. I have also been informed that annual grants based on approved estimates would be paid to the Committees from the provision for running costs and expenditure on equipment would be met from the provision for capital costs.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph deals with the provision made for the running costs of the five regional technical colleges. We would have expected that such provision would have been made in full in subhead I.1 which was specially opened for that purpose. The Accounting Officer has, however, stated that provision for teachers’ salaries, administration and maintenance costs was included in subhead A. This means that these running costs of the technical colleges were treated as part of the general expenditure of the committees. The provision in subhead I.1 according to the Accounting Officer was used mainly to put the committee in funds to meet expenditure on equipment but it appears to us that some provision for this equipment may have been included in subhead A also. However, the Accounting Officer has assured us that from 1971-72, separate accounts will be kept for these regional colleges and the annual grants to meet operational costs will be made from subhead I.1 and grants to meet capital costs from subhead I.2. The paragraph also refers to doubts we have as to the extent to which the money issued during the year to meet the cost of equipment was required to meet matured liabilities at 31st March, 1971. In other words, we are not satisfied that this money had been fully spent by the committees on equipment by that date.

155. Deputy MacSharry.—There was a question some years ago, which has been resolved, that regional colleges would have separate accounts and be notified separately. Are they being notified separately now?

—This was a very early period. When we started off with these colleges we decided that in order to get them going salaries of teachers would be paid out of the general expenditure of the committees. As the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, in the following year we got them all under one subhead, I.1. I do not like to use the word gamble, it may be the wrong word, but we started them on what you would call a gamble. We had to establish the colleges. In the first year it was anything but gratifying. Indeed, it was disastrous as far as attendances were concerned. The following year people got to know what we were offering. We were in a state of flux.

156. Chairman.—The Committee are concerned about the method of accounting. There should be no laxity in accounting under one heading for something which essentially comes under another heading. It is the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General to see that that does not happen. Is the Comptroller and Auditor General satisfied that that has been regularised now?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—We will see when we are doing the 1971-72 accounts. This will come up again, perhaps not in this particular context. There is a tendency in some Departments to be rather lax in the use of money provided under one subhead for purposes which come under another subhead.

157. Deputy MacSharry.—I do not fully understand the point made by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Our idea was that expenses for the running of the colleges should be met under subhead I.1. Provision for administration, salaries and maintenance was made under subhead A. We suspected that this provision also included something for equipment. Near the end of March, 1971, very little money had been issued from subhead I.1. In March the balance of the money in the subhead—£360,000—was issued to the five committees concerned for the cost of equipment. We were not happy that that was in respect of equipment which had already been bought. We were fairly satisfied that some of the money was still in the hands of the committee after the end of the year. Strictly speaking, the money was voted for the year 1970-71. If it was not spent in that year it should have been surrendered. We know there are difficulties in dealing with bodies like VECs. The Accounting Officer has the difficulty of satisfying himself that the money has been spent.

Deputy MacSharry.—Some of the committees were getting civil bills for payment of some of the equipment they got.

158. Chairman.—The accounting for any provision should have been such that money voted for a particular purpose is accounted for under the proper subhead. Money voted should not be diverted, either accounting-wise or otherwise to some other place. There is another point about money unexpended at the end of the financial year. We will not labour it. The Accounting Officer will take note of this. We will come back to these matters on the 1971-72 accounts. This is properly the Committee’s function as the Committee of Public Accounts. The Committee take a very serious view of any fuzziness in accounting procedures. A serious view should be taken of the comment of the Comptroller and Auditor General in this case.

VOTE 31—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS

Mr. S. Ó Conchobhair further examined.

159. Deputy MacSharry.—On subhead E, in the explanations, and in the Note on page 83, is that the number of children?——

—The number of children on detention.

Deputy MacSharry.—I presume those are travel allowances for parents or others visiting.

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

Mr. S. Ó Conchobhair further examined.

160. Chairman.—Paragraph 48 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead G.1.—Limerick Institute of Higher Education—Current Expenditure (Grant-inAid)

“Subhead G.2.—Limerick Institute of Higher Education—Capital Expenditure (Grant-inAid)

A Director of the proposed Institute of Higher Education at Limerick, who was appointed by the Minister for Education, took up duty in January 1970 and his salary in the year under review was paid by the Department of Education out of the grant-in-aid for current expenditure (G.1). The balance of this grant-in-aid was issued to the Director in monthly instalments to meet his administrative expenses and also the expenses of a planning Board appointed by the Minister to advise regarding the steps to be taken for the establishment of the Institute. The Director furnished the Department with monthly accounts of his expenditure.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph gives for information the initial steps in the setting up of the Institute at Limerick, which opened for classes in the 1972-73 academic year. I understand that legislation will be introduced to give the new Institute a statutory basis, and no doubt this statute will provide for the keeping by the Institute of the requisite accounts and for their audit. In so far as expenditure, both capital and current, is being charged to voted moneys, it is subject to audit by me.

161. Chairman.—Paragraph 49 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Payments out of the grant-in-aid for capital expenditure (G.2) include £26,970, being a further payment towards the cost of a site purchased by the Department of Education for the proposed Institute, bringing the total outlay under this head at 31 March, 1971 to £68,970. Other payments out of this grant-in-aid were auctioneers’ fees (£3,500), expenses of renovation of temporary office premises (£2,593) and miscellaneous costs (£409).”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The purchase price of the site for the Institute was £70,000. A payment of £42,000 towards this price was made in 1969-70 and £26,970 in the year under review making a total of £68,970 paid up to 31st March, 1971, as shown in the paragraph. I understand that the planning of the Institute building and services is being carried out at present and that, pending the provision of the new premises, the Institute is functioning in an existing building on the site which has been renovated.

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

“Subhead G.3.—National College of Physical Education (Grant-in-Aid)

A site has been acquired at Limerick for a proposed National College of Physical Education. The charge to the subhead comprises the purchase price of the site, £81,824, auctioneers’ fees of £2,046 and an initial payment of £6,130 for architect’s fees in connection with the planning and building of the college.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The paragraph is given for information. The sanction of the Minister for Finance was obtained in principle in December, 1971, to the construction of the proposed college at an estimated cost not exceeding £655,900, exclusive of the cost of furniture and equipment and fees. I understand that a contract has been placed and that the work of erection is proceeding. Pending the setting up of the college, some Irish students are being trained as teachers in physical education in England and the training costs are charged against subhead D.5 of Vote 27—Office of the Minister for Education.

163. Chairman.—On subhead D.2—University College, Galway—Building Grant— what is the reason for the big discrepancy in the grant for Galway and that for the other two colleges?

—The procedure here was that the original figure was £400,000, less a supplementary of £220,000. The expenditure on the new science building at Galway did not materialise that year. We thought it would.

164. Deputy Tunney.—Generally speaking in the matter of grants-in-aid, having regard to recommendations made in regard to semi-State bodies, are universities included in the wish we have that all grants-in-aid should be submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—We audit the accounts of the National University and of its constituent colleges under statute. We do not audit them for Maynooth or Trinity. The relevant provision in the circular is that where the grant-in-aid forms the greater part of the income of the body it should be subjected to our audit. That certainly would not apply in the case of Maynooth and I doubt if it would apply in the case of Trinity College.

165. Deputy Tunney.—I thought we had more or less accepted in principle that anywhere public moneys were paid to anybody in the future they should be subjected to audit.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Sorry. I was talking in terms of the Finance circular. We have not yet got a definite decision on the Committee’s proposals. We have got a letter but I do not think the Committee have discussed it yet.

Chairman.—The Deputy can remember that and bring it up at a later stage.

Deputy Tunney.—There will be another opportunity of discussing it.

166. Chairman.—In the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the accounting procedures we realise you were not the Accounting Officer at the time of these Estimates. The Committee, in the particular circumstances of recent years, are very concerned that all accounting procedures will be very rigidly and stringently adhered to. The Comptroller and Auditor General has been asked by the Committee to give particular attention to these particular aspects. I think that is the only comment we will make on this occasion.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.