|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 1 Bealtaine, 1975.Thursday, 1st May, 1975.The Committee met at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY de VALERA in the chair. Mr. M. Jacob (thar ceann an Ard-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.VOTE 36—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.Mr. L. Tóibín called and examined.746. Chairman.—Vote No. 36—we will start with the paragraphs in the Report. —Before we start on the Appropriation Account for 1972-73, that before us at present, would it be in order for me to refer to your recent report on the accounts for the previous year. No. Afterwards, if necessary, we will see but we had better keep to our programme this morning. If there is anything else to be raised we can take it at the end. Deputy MacSharry.—Were there any references of what the Accounting Officer might say; did we receive prior notice of it? 747. Chairman.—No, the discussion will be free, subject to the rules of order. Paragraph 53 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead E.—Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht Reference was made in previous reports to the special arrangements under which the capital cost of installing electricity generating plants and network on certain Gaeltacht islands, where normal supply by the Electricity Supply Board will not be available, is being met from voted moneys. The work is carried out by the Electricity Supply Board and local co-operative societies are responsible for operating the plants. Further capital expenditure of £1,282 in the year under review has brought the cost of providing electricity on Oileán Chléire, Co. Cork, to £37,726. Installation work commenced in 1971-72 on Oileán Thoraí, Co. Donegal and £15,680 of the estimated capital cost, £26,500, was paid in that year. I understand that work is proceeding and that further claims for recoupment will arise in 1973-74. Installation work commenced in 1972-73 on Inis Oírr in the Aran Islands and the estimated capital cost of this scheme is £30,845 of which £7,370 was paid from the vote in the year under review.” Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph is for information. It gives details of the capital costs met from voted moneys up to 31st March, 1973 for the installation of electricity generating plants on Oileán Chléire, County Cork, Oileán Thoraí, County Donegal and Inis Oírr in the Aran Islands. 748. Chairman.—Does the Accounting Officer have any comments to offer? —I can give up-to-date figures if the Committee wish because the estimates there have since been revised. Would you like to supplement them? —The figures given there are estimated cost figures for various islands. The latest estimates of cost would be Oileán Chléire, £49,000; Oileán Thoraí, £31,000 and Inis Oírr, £36,000. The electricity generating stations are in operation in those three islands. Work is proceeding on the station for the Aran island of Inis Mór. 749. Deputy Griffin.—I may be out of order but some of us when we were recently in Malta noticed a lot of these wind chargers generating electricity. Was that ever tried on these islands, in view of the fact that strong winds from the Atlantic prevail? Perhaps this is not the place to discuss it? —I am prepared to have a shot at it. It has been investigated to some extent. Of course, we rely completely on the ESB for technical advice on these matters. The matter has been raised in the case of Inis Meáin where no generating system has yet been decided on. There are a number of technical problems, for instance, how does one store the electricity. Battery storage is not a very satisfactory arrangement. There was a question whether one would use the wind power to have pump water storage but then the building of suitable storage for water on a sandy island presented other difficulties. The balance of opinion and advice was against wind generation of electricity on that particular island. 750. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead F.—Scéimeanna Cultúrtha agus Sósialacha Scéim na bhFoghlaimeoiri Gaeilge which was introduced on 1 April 1972 provides for the payment of grants to Gaeltacht households in respect of each young person from outside the Gaeltacht who resides in the household for a minimum period of three weeks while attending a course of studies in Irish. The scheme replaces a number of other schemes under which grants were made available to assist young persons to pursue Irish studies in the Gaeltacht. Expenditure in the year under review under the new scheme amounted to £162,815 and is included in the charge to the subhead.” Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph indicates the total amount of grants paid in the year 1972-73 under the scheme to assist young persons to pursue Irish studies in the Gaeltacht. Chairman.—Accounting-wise it is in order? Mr. Jacob.—Yes. —It is a new scheme that replaced some previous schemes. Our entire payments now are made directly to the Gaeltacht house-holders. That is the main effect of the scheme. 751. Chairman.—Paragraph 55 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “As indicated on page 101 the charge to this subhead includes a grant of £50,000 to Gael-Linn Teoranta for working capital. Special provision was made for this payment in a supplementary estimate taken in March 1973. (See also paragraphs 12, 20 and 56).” Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph refers to a grant of £50,000 paid to Gael-Linn for working capital in addition to its normal grant. 752. Chairman.—What is meant by “its normal grant”? What is its normal grant? —It is the grant referred to in the Appropriation Account in the Ciste na Gaeilge account. This is the grant of £190,000? What proportion of that goes to Gael-Linn? —Gael-Linn in that year received £60,746. 753. There were in addition repayable advances of £87,500 plus £26,000 interest, converted into a grant. Is that correct? Does it come within your operations? —No, I am concerned only with the two payments from the Vote for Roinn na Gaeltachta. The payments referred to in paragraph 12 have no relation whatever to yours and, therefore, are a separate transaction. —That is right. 754. Deputy MacSharry.—Can you give us any reason, any indication or any information as to why a loan was converted to a grant? —That would be a matter for the Accounting Officer of the Department of Finance. I know that but have you any views to offer? —I can deal with it from the point of view of the working capital grant. A case was made by Gael-Linn that their financial situation called for additional assistance from the State and the decision was taken to give them £50,000 working capital. I take it a similar case would have been made for the conversion of the loan to a grant. Both things were done at the same time? —I could not answer that because I have not access to the papers in the Department of Finance. It was March, 1973, so obviously it was the same. —It was before the end of March, 1973. 755. Chairman.—Would we be right in interpreting what you have said to mean that the repayable loan and interest was converted into a grant and, in addition, a grant of £50,000 was made for working capital, quite distinct from the payments as grant-in-aid of £60,746? —That is correct. 756. Would that grant of £50,000 be likely to be a recurring thing or is it once only? —Once only. It has never happened before, has not happened since and is unlikely to happen again. A rescue operation? —That is right. Deputy MacSharry.—Is the financial situation in order now in relation to this? —Yes, it is. 757. Chairman.—Paragraph 56 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead G.—Íocaiocht le Ciste na Gaeilge (Deontas-i-gCabhair) In previous years provision was made in this subhead for grants-in-aid payable to a number of Irish language organisations. Following directions issued by the Department of Finance in relation to expenditure by way of grant-in-aid, a special account, Ciste na Gaeilge, was opened in the books of Roinn na Gaeltachta into which the grant-in-aid under the subhead was paid and from which grants to various organisations were made. The account of Ciste na Gaeilge which is appended to the appropriation account includes a payment of £60,746 to Gael-Linn Teoranta in the year under review. (See also paragraphs 12, 20 and 55).” Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph is for information. 758. Chairman.—Paragraph 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead H.1.—Gaeltarra Éireann— Caiteachas Reatha (Deontas-i-gCabhair) Subhead H.2.—Gaeltarra Éireann— Caiteachas Caipitil (Deontas-i-gCabhair) The following amounts were issued to Gaeltarra Éireann out of the above mentioned subheads in the year ended 31 March 1973:—
The accounts of Gaeltarra Éireann for the year ended 31 December 1972, which have been audited by me, disclose that £12,066 was received in respect of bank interest and it was noted, in the course of audit, that cash balances were held in deposit accounts throughout the year and that for long periods these balances were substantial. I asked the Accounting Officer for particulars of the controls in his department over the issue of moneys to Gaeltarra Éireann. In his reply he refers to the fact that the State funds provided annually for Gaeltarra Éireann (which include repayable advances, £1,170,000, in 1972-73) have been increasing substantially and that, in the course of the year 1973-74 (when they totalled £3,650,000), the desirability of stricter control of issues was recognised and measures were taken to that end including the submission by Gaeltarra Éireann of returns showing the capital on hands at the end of each week.” Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph refers to the issue of public moneys to Gaeltarra Éireann in excess of its immediate cash requirements in the year under review. The Accounting Officer has since introduced stricter measures of control. 759. Chairman.—Could we have further elaboration on that from the Accounting Officer? It is suggested in that that strict measures were not in use? —The measures were always strict. Perhaps I might refer to the discussion we had here on the last occasion. Towards the end of the previous year a substantial payment was made from the grant-in-aid in the knowledge that it would not be spent before the end of that year. It was spent for the particular purpose for which it was issued but in the next year. The result of that payment was that Gaeltarra Éireann started off in the year we are now reviewing with substantial funds on hands after receipt of a repayable advance to make up a deficit. Because of that, for a certain part of that year, they had funds on hands, which enabled them to earn interest. Since then the position has been completely reversed. Unfortunately Gaeltarra Éireann now are very often waiting for funds to cover expenditure incurred and paying substantial interest. That occurs because of delay on the part of the Department of Finance in issuing moneys as repayable advances. 760. Has the Comptroller and Auditor General anything to say? Mr. Jacob.—As the paragraph indicates, we raised the matter with the Accounting Officer and asked him for particulars of his controls when we found from Gaeltarra accounts that there was some money from the Vote lodged on deposit and earning interest. The interest amounts to £12,000. The Accounting Officer also indicated in the paragraph that he recognised that stricter control was necessary. These stricter controls have been implemented. In regard to money coming directly from the Exchequer he feels that they are slightly more than strict. We are concerned to ensure that controls operate satisfactorily. There may be delay of a day. —If it were only that I would be happy. It has been much more serious than that. 761. Chairman.—Would you please elaborate on that? You made a statement that you consider the controls too strict. In what regard? —We are dealing here with capital payments and they come from two sources—one from the Vote for Roinn na Gaeltachta, which I can directly control, and the other from the Exchequer, issued by the Department of Finance. The figures for the past couple of years show quite clearly that the Department of Finance have often been too slow in issuing funds; in other words Gaeltarra have had to go into debt to the bank to meet expenditure while they are waiting for some of these funds. Deputy MacSharry.—Is it because of what happened in the year under review that this strictness is now imposed? Chairman.—There was laxity in your Department. Is that not the plain fact? —I would not look at it in that light. Is that not what we have found? That is what the Comptroller and Auditor-General found. —The making of one particular payment at a particular time was questioned. The interest that accrued arose mainly from that payment. 762. Yes, it was lax. Incidentally, in regard to the comments about the Department of Finance, I suggest you take the matter up with that Department or with the Department of the Public Service. But, in so far as this Committee are concerned, strict accuracy must be observed. There are procedures which you, as Accounting Officer, must comply with. You are subject to them. —I accept that. 763. With regard to what has happened here, there were sums on deposit. Should they have been surrendered? —No. The position would be adjusted in the course of the year or in the following year. The point I was making was that, while in that particular year Gaeltarra Éireann were able to earn interest, since then, Gaeltarra have been paying substantial interest. I cannot consider that satisfactory either. Mr. Jacob.—We took the view that if Gaeltarra Éireann were receiving moneys too soon in advance of their requirements they would be able to place that money on deposit but they would not be getting the same rate as the Exchequer would have to pay for raising that money to give it to them. Therefore, it would be uneconomic for the Exchequer to issue money in advance of requirements. 764. Chairman.—On subhead D.—Gaeltacht Housing—there is a sum of £26,407 which was not expended. The note says that payments were not as high as had been expected. Was this because houses were not built? —Building work is a continuing process and has no regard to financial years. It is very hard to estimate with complete accuracy in advance. In the previous year payments were higher than expected. I ask the question to ascertain whether there has been a decrease in activity or not? —No, the activity is about the same. Deputy Griffin.—What grants as regards housing are available to the Gaeltacht in relation to other parts of Ireland? —The maximum grant for a new house is £800. These grants are for Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht. 765. Chairman.—On subhead E.—Improvement Schemes in the Gaeltacht—the explanatory note sets out the details. The amount involved is £57,664 less than was provided for. Expenditure on holiday accommodation, £30,063, which related to grants which do not exceed £200 in any particular case. Does any Member wish to comment on that? Deputy H. Gibbons.—Do the grants for the roads, water and sewerage go through the county council? —Yes. In the case of roads, we approve of particular works, they carry them out and we pay for them. In the case of water and sewerage our grants are supplementary and would normally go towards loan charges. In the case of roads? —The grants meet the actual cost that we sanction for particular cases. 766. In the case of the glasshouses, am I right in saying that the estimate was £50,000? —While it was £50,000 originally, it was revised in the supplementary estimate and scaled down to £5,000 which is the lowest figure we usually show in these estimates. The position there was that we had introduced a new scheme and we expected substantial demand which did not materialise. How is the scheme doing now? —There is no demand at all now because glasshouses are proving very difficult to operate profitably at the present time. With the heating situation? —Yes. 767. Deputy C. Murphy.—As regards agriculture, what are the various subsections involved in that or is it just a general figure of £93,832? —We give supplementary grants for farm buildings and that would be the biggest item in it. We also give supplementary grants in the case of the Land Project and then we have a scheme of our own for grassland improvement. They are the three main items in that total. Farm buildings in that year accounted for £49,730, Land Project payments, £21,266 and grassland improvement scheme, £22,333. 768. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Does any one area rather than another avail of those? —I would not think so. In the case of the farm buildings there would be a fairly wide distribution. Grassland improvements are concentrated in particular areas. Are they spread over every Gaeltacht? —They are spread over all the Gaeltacht counties. Is there a grant for removing stones off the land? —That would come under the Land Project as land improvement or land reclamation. 769. Deputy C. Murphy.—Under EEC regulations are these being continued? —There is quite a backlog yet of cases sanctioned before the EEC schemes came into operation here, but at present we have no supplementary grants under the EEC schemes. 770. Is it possible under EEC legislation to have supplementary grants? Have national schemes been terminated or can you tell us of any cases where they have not? —I would not accept that supplementary grants are prohibited. This is something we have under consideration for some time. The farm modernisation scheme came in first and we were trying to figure out what we might do to supplement that scheme. We felt, however, that the handicapped areas scheme might be more appropriate to Gaeltacht areas but that is not settled in final detail as yet. The disadvantaged areas scheme? —Yes. Our aim has always been to give something extra to Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht. How we will do that in the long run we do not know but at present we have not got any supplementary grants in those cases where EEC schemes are involved. 771. Chairman.—On subhead F.—Cultural and Social Schemes—the expenditure is set out in the note as to the purposes of the grants and the total is £415,849. Does any Deputy wish to ask a question on that? Deputy C. Murphy.—As regards short films in Irish how many were involved? —The payment related to two films made by Gael-Linn. The two films were “Páistí ag Obair” and “Poc ar Buile”. “Poc ar Buile” is a humorous film about golf. They have been shown publicly. 772. Chairman.—To whom were these grants paid? —To Gael-Linn. So, the grant of £9,420 is in addition to the £50,000 paid to Gael-Linn? —Yes, under a general scheme of assistance for Irish language films. They availed of a scheme that was available generally? —That is right. 773. What comprises the £49,649 on miscellaneous services? —The vast bulk of that is in two payments, one to Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann, £27,000; the other item is for recoupment of the loss incurred by CIE on operating the Galway Bay to the Aran Islands to provide a boat service in addition to the Naomh Éanna. We paid £17,503 in that year for that extra service. 774. Would it not be desirable in the case of the latter, where there is such a loss on a boat service of that magnitude, to itemise that separately for the information of the Committee? —Yes, that could certainly be done in the Appropriation Accounts. If, however, we put it specifically into the estimates it would be committing us to go on meeting it which we have not necessarily accepted. In fact, we did pay it in that year and we have paid it for a number of years. 775. How many years have you paid it? —Five or six years. There has been, in effect, a subsidy for that boat service for five or six years of the order of what? —£10,000 to £15,000. That has been included in miscellaneous services? —Yes. Do you not think that if there is anything of that nature it should be specifically shown? —We will certainly do that. In fact, that is what we have already done, as requested, in regard to the hotels and guesthouses. 776. Deputy C. Murphy.—Which boat service is this? —The normal boat to the Aran Islands is the Naomh Éanna. During the summer months a further service is operated by the Galway Bay and that is the service we are subsidising. CIE would not need to operate this extra service because they are already operating a normal service. The Naomh Éanna? —Yes. Does the Naomh Éanna receive anything? —I would be surprised if it did not but we do not become involved with that. Chairman.—Your Department is not involved then? —Not with the Naomh Éanna. The only one you are involved in is the Galway Bay. —Yes. It is the second service which CIE might not be disposed to operate if they had to carry the extra loss. 777. As regards periodicals published in Irish and newspapers publishing current news in Irish, are these exclusively Irish newspapers, that is, newspapers carrying news in Irish exclusively? —The periodicals are exclusively Irish. The newspapers publishing current news in Irish are ordinary newspapers complying with certain regulations and having suitable Irish material in them. In that particular year there were four provincial papers. I can give you the names of them if you wish. No, it is all right. —Some of them circulated in Gaeltacht areas and others elsewhere. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Those papers would be mainly in English but including Irish articles? —Yes, current affairs in Irish. 778. Chairman.—What are the regulations governing when a paper qualifies for a subvention and when it does not? —We have set out the details in a scheme that is available to the public and we supplied the information to all newspapers at the time. We give so much per column and so on subject to being satisfied with the quantity and quality of the material. All newspapers? —All newspapers do not get grants, but they have been made aware of the existence of the scheme. What decides the granting of an application? —First of all we see how they set about complying with the regulations, whether they publish enough material in Irish and whether that material covers current affairs and news. You mentioned four provincial papers at the moment? —Yes, four provincial papers. 779. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Are you satisfied with the hotel situation? Is it making a contribution to the Irish language? —That is the intention. The object of the scheme is mainly to provide employment for Irish speakers in those hotels and also to provide surroundings in which people who wish to speak Irish can spend holidays. Is there any supervision of the scheme? —Hotels have fallen on evil days in recent years and times are very difficult for them. That has made strict application of rules more difficult. 780. Deputy C. Murphy.—In the case of trainees attending certain courses, are AnCO courses involved? —That is a scheme which we had introduced before AnCO was brought into effect. For instance we assisted pupils who had to live away from home to train as carpenters, mechanics or electricians. That is a very longstanding scheme. Would commitments towards the Gaeltacht have been involved in the granting of such aid? —Not necessarily, but the hope would be that those trained would return to work in the Gaeltacht. 781. Chairman.—On subhead H.2.—Gaeltarra Éireann Capital Expenditure—of the grants payable by Gaeltarra Éireann towards industrial development, as many as expected did not mature for payment. The Estimate was £550,000 and the expenditure £412,000, leaving an unexpended balance of £138,000. What development is involved in this industrial development? —The saving reflects the same problem as we discussed on the last occasion but handled in a way that would be much more acceptable to the Committee. The difficulty here is to give in advance an accurate breakdown of the two types of capital. Towards the end of the year it became apparent that the whole capital in the grant-in-aid was not required and more capital was required in the form of repayable advances. Unlike the previous year, when we had a similar problem, £138,000 was withheld on the Vote account and an extra £170,000 that had not been originally provided was issued as a repayable advance during that year. 782. Deputy Griffin.—Why is Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann not included in the Ciste na Gaeilge Account? —Because they are not exclusively an Irish language organisation. Their grant is included in the miscellaneous items under the Cultural and Social Schemes. Chairman.—The amount? —£27,000 in that year. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Could you not itemise it again in the future? —We will do that. We can show the payment in the Appropriation Account in future. Chairman.—It is desirable to itemise sums of a substantial amount. What a substantial sum is we will not attempt to define at the moment. 783. Deputy Griffin.—Under the heading— Repayment of Loans—estimated at £495— nothing was realised. —That is right. What happened there? —That would refer mainly to the glasshouses. The loans have since been waived completely in those cases. Chairman.—You would naturally have a certain amount of bad debts in that area? Is this the total of what was involved there? —I gave the Committee a comprehensive note a few years ago detailing the various figures on that subject. It was rather complicated. 784. Chairman.—Thank you. Does the Accounting Officer wish to say anything more on this account? —Not unless I could refer to a matter which I referred to at the outset in regard to your recent report. On that question, it was a report of the Committee and a minute of the Minister for Finance is the proper formal reply to that report. It is not in order here to raise that and I suggest you raise it through the proper channels. The witness withdrew. VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.Mr. M. Jacob called and examined.785. Chairman.—What is your position in regard to staff and facilities for discharging your duties? —Our position in the years up to 1972-73 was somewhat difficult in that we had difficulty in retaining staff. There was an inflow of new entrants but there was an outflow of men who wished to leave the Civil Service and attend university. In other cases they left to go into commercial firms and they also transferred to other Departments. In that year we lost one very good man to the university staff itself and we were very sorry to lose him because he was a brilliant young man. He got first class honours in the B.Comm. examination and he was first of the first class honours class. He repeated that in the following year with the same distinction in an advanced business course. He was then entitled to exemption from parts (1), (2) and (3) of the ACCA Accountancy examination. He proceeded, within six months, to take the part (4) examination and he got first place in the world. In the following six months he attempted part (5) and got first place in the world again. We were very sorry to lose a man of that calibre. The bulk of our young men are all undertaking accountancy courses, either by the Bachelor of Commerce avenue or directly through the London Institute for ACCA. When they qualify, and they are at various stages of qualification, sometimes they are on the look out for wider horizons. We are on a salary structure which is controlled by the Department of the Public Service and if these young men feel that they can do better and obtain higher money in the commercial world they are apt to go. You have a situation somewhat similar to what the Revenue Commissioners have to deal with in relation to inspectors. Is that correct? —There is a similarity, certainly. 786. As regards numbers, have you sufficient numbers to cope with the work in the period in which you have to do it? —At the moment our vacancies are down to three. We hope to have these three vacancies filled in the next few months. On your point, we review annually our staffing position in relation to the workload which exists. As you are aware, legislation imposes additional work on us annually by the creation of new bodies. We may also have additional semi-State companies being audited by us. We have to review each year how our staffing strength copes with the expanding workload. If we find that we would need some more staff we make our case to the Department of the Public Service. In recent years we have had on a number of occasions to apply for additional staff and we have been given authority to recruit that staff. 787. The Committee would be very concerned to know that you are fully in a position to discharge your duties within the time limits imposed by the procedures and would invite you to inform us if you experience any difficulty in these regards. You are in a particular position in relation to the House itself. —Quite. That exceptional statement from us is in order. Have you anything further? —I have nothing further to say. The witness resumed the position of deputising for the Comptroller and Auditor General. VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.Mr. M. J. Healy called and examined.788. Chairman.—This being your first occasion before the Committee, please accept congratulations and welcome. —Thank you very much. We will take subhead A—Salaries and Allowances. There is an interesting note—the savings arose because of the General Election in February, 1973. Deputy C. Murphy.—We should have them more often. Chairman.—We used to be told they cost us a lot of money. It is interesting to see that there is a counter-balancing saving somewhere. —You understand that the moment the Dáil is dissolved Deputies cease to be Deputies but some Officeholders continue to get their money, for example the Ceann Comhairle. 789. Subhead B—Travelling Expenses of Members—that was less than provided? That was for the same reason? —Yes. 790. On subhead E—Salaries, Wages and Allowances of Officers and Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas—there was an over-expenditure of £9,624. This is a close estimate and there is a certain amount of variation in that. —It is a small amount on the total sum. You have overtime considerations also? —That is right. 791. Deputy Griffin.—Have you a full complement of staff at present? —There are some vacancies. We have been authorised to appoint two additional Assistant Librarians to help Members with research. The competition for the appointment of these people is at present in progress. On the reporting staff there are five vacancies and we are proceeding with a competition to fill them. Also some audio-typists are being recruited at present. 792. What about the EC office? —That has its full complement now as authorised by the Minister for Finance. It consists of a Principal Officer on ordinary scale, an Assistant Principal Officer on ordinary scale, two Higher Executive Officers and some typing staff. 793. Deputy C. Murphy.—Is the staff position satisfactory? —We have our full complement with the exception of those vacancies I have mentioned. The pressure in certain areas is heavy and we should like to give better service. It is not however easy to get sanction for extra staff. 794. From observation, the workload on the staff around the House because of longer sittings and so on, and then more activity possibly generated by Committees, has increased substantially in the last few years? —There is an increase all the time and we have obtained extra staff. For instance, the international section is a completely new section which was set up in the last few years. The Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the EC has a full complement of staff which has been appointed in the last two years. As we go along we are expanding. I should have mentioned some other staff we are recruiting: there is a shortage of three ushers on our establishment and a competition is under way for the recruitment of those also. 795. The House adjourned yesterday for an hour. Was it because of the strain that was on the staff? —The reporting staff. As I mentioned, there is a shortage of five reporters on the establishment and we are proceeding to recruit those at the moment. We have only 12 reporters where we should have 17. 796. Chairman.—Would 17 be adequate? —I consider it would. Yesterday was a very exceptional day. Both Houses were sitting for 12 hours. That was a very unusual occurrence. The Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities met also and had to be reported. 797. In regard to reporting work, have you any difficulty in getting competent recruits? —There is a difficulty. We felt it very much in the past and some of the competitions were abortive. Recently, as a result of a productivity agreement with the reporters to use tape recording in certain circumstances, thus reducing the number of reporters required, we got a considerable increase in their salary. The salary is something well over £4,000 now and we hope that the new salary scale will induce outside personnel to come in. 798. They require to be accurate stenographers? —Not only do they require to be accurate stenographers, but they require to have a good standard of education and intelligence. They must have a good knowledge of current affairs and understand, in a general way, what is being talked about. Otherwise they will not produce a satisfactory report. 799. Will the figure you mentioned compete with the demand for competent reporters in the commercial world? —It is the best we could do. It is the best increase we could get. With whom? —With the Department of Finance. Has any comparison been made with, for instance, the rates paid by the Dublin newspapers? —We tried to get the salary up to that paid by newspapers before but we failed. This new salary represents a considerable increase on the old scale and we are hoping that we may get recruits as a result. 800. May I ask a question with regard to the staff of the Oireachtas generally? How do the rates applicable to officers of the staff of the Oireachtas compare with the rates applicable in the principal Departments of State? Have you ever made a comparison? —I think they are comparable. For example, the salary of reporter is the same or more than that for court reporters. I imagine that as a result of this productivity agreement the pay of Oireachtas reporters has gone well ahead of that of court reporters. This is an exceptional case. We are dealing with the staffing of the Houses themselves and we are naturally concerned that you would be in a position to command the highest quality of staff for the purposes of the functioning of the Parliament. 801. On subhead F.2—Incidental Expenses and Travelling of Officers and staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas—in the nature of the outside contacts, that figure is bound to increase? —Yes. The increase in travelling and subsistence was due to the fact that we joined the EC in January, 1973. And your relations with the European Parliament and similar bodies? —Yes. 802. On subhead H.—Expenses of the Restaurant—there is a House committee dealing with this. Of course, the Joint Restaurant Committee is in control and our only function is to see that the accounting is correct. I presume the Comptroller and Auditor-General is satisfied in regard to that matter? Mr. Jacob.—Yes. 803. Deputy Griffin.—On subhead I.—Allowances to or in respect of certain Former Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas— there was very little spent. Was it that the widows did not apply or were not aware of this allowance or was it that there were no widows? —This allowance was provided for people who did not come under the contributory scheme. I should explain that Deputies who have held office after 1960 would come under the contributory scheme. When it was found that certain former Members who had gone out prior to 1960 were suffering hardship a scheme was introduced to give them a small pension, maximum £350 per annum. Then it was found that some widows were in the same position— widows of pre-1960 Members—and a provision of £5,000 was made in respect of those but none of them applied for a pension during the year we are dealing with. Subsequently we received applications and three widows have been given pensions. 804. Chairman.—On subhead J.—Ciste Pinsean Thithe an Oireachtais—is this a contributory scheme? —Yes, and that is the State contribution. The remainder is contributed by Deputies and Senators themselves? —Yes. 805. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead K.— Witnesses’ Expenses—under what heading would that arise? —Any of our Committees which is empowered to call witnesses, may do so and we have to pay their expenses if they appear before the Committee. Chairman.—It does not happen very often and obviously it did not happen in that year at all. Is that a token provision? —Yes. The witness withdrew. VOTE 48—HEALTH.Dr. B. Hensey called and examined.806. Chairman.—Paragraph 91 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead R.—Appropriations in Aid The Health Contributions Act, 1971 requires persons who have limited eligibility for services under Part IV of the Health Act, 1970 to pay, with effect from 1 October 1971, contributions towards the cost of the services provided. The contributions, which are appropriated in aid of this vote in accordance with regulations made under the Health Contributions Act, amounted to £4,735,943 in the year under review.” Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph is for information only. I have no other comment to make. 807. Deputy Governey.—In regard to subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances— have you difficulty in filling vacancies? With a big sum of money like that, there must have been a lot of vacancies involved. Do you find it hard to recruit staff? —Yes. The difficulty is mainly in recruiting professional and technical staff. The vacancies during the year were for two medical officers, one pharmacist, one architectural inspector, two administrative officers and an inspector of boarded-out children. 808. Chairman.—To what do you attribute the difficulty in recruitment? —The difficulty in recruitment in relation to the medical staff seems to be related to remuneration which is offered as against the remuneration available in clinical medicine. The difficulty in relation to the architectural inspector would be related to the availability of jobs outside the public service for architects at that time. That situation may have changed in recent months but in 1972 it was a big factor. 809. On subhead B.2—Post Office Services-there is a note to the effect that the cost of additional telephone facilities for staff housed in offices rented during the year is responsible for the excess. Did you require more telephone services because of expanded activity? —Yes. Around that time office accommodation was obtained in Hawkins House, which is separate from the Custom House, and the excess was mainly for the expenditure involved in providing telephone services in Hawkins House. 810. Deputy Pattison.—On subhead C.2— Microfilming of records in Oifig an ArdChláraitheora—is that work done in the Department? —It is done in the Department by an outside firm under contract. It is practically up-to-date now and from this on it will be just a matter of keeping new records microfilmed. 811. Chairman.—Do you find it an efficient and time-saving procedure? —Yes, very much. It makes for efficiency within the Department and also has the advantage of providing compact records which can be kept away from the main records as a security precaution. 812. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—How many direct copies do you make? —There is one copy which is used in the Custom House and a second copy is stored elsewhere. That has been the policy. Chairman.—This is something akin to what the Revenue Commissioners do with their computer information? —I could not be sure about that. 813. It is a security precaution in case of the destruction of the copy you are working with. —Yes, but also using the microfilm for a quick sight of information is more efficient. Quite apart from the efficiency and the merits of the system, it has the added security measure that you have an insurance against loss by fire and disaster. That is obviously a big factor in favour of the procedure. 814. Deputy Pattison.—On subhead D.— Expenses in connection with the World Health Organisation and other International Bodies— would it be advisable to know the exact amount of EEC travelling as distinct from other matters? Chairman.—That is a matter for accounting but I suppose it would not cause any great difficulty. —There were 38 meetings in Brussels that year in connection with the European Economic Community and it cost us £3,305. At that time, the Vote had to bear the cost of travelling and subsistence for all EEC meetings but, now that we are members of the EEC, in most cases the expenses are actually borne by the EEC. 815. On subhead E.—Statutory Inquiries— what statutory inquiry was involved in this? It is not a very big sum. —The Vote would cover a statutory inquiry under section 24 of the Health Act, 1970 or sections 83 and 86 of the Local Government Act, 1941. The latter would be an inquiry into the general working perhaps of a health board and there was no such inquiry during the year. The expenditure in fact was on two committees set up under section 24 of the Health Act, 1970, inquiring into proposals for the removal of certain officers of health boards from office because of misconduct or unfitness. 816. On subhead P.—Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies—the note says that the rate of progress in completing the smaller schemes remaining was slower than had been expected but is it still going ahead in a reasonably satisfactory way? —It is. It is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the work on this in any year because the installation of the fluoridation equipment is tied in with the much more extensive work involved in providing a new water supply scheme and it must be paced with the work done on this supply scheme. 817. May I ask—it is hardly relevant to the accounts but is a matter of curiosity—having regard to all the controversy we had on this subject years ago after your years of experience is there any positive evidence that the scheme of fluoridating water is practically effective? Have you statistics to show that there was any or what changes the result of the exercise produced? —Not at present. It was written into the Act that before the fluoridation started in any area a survey would be done of the incidence of dental caries among children. After fluoridation is in operation in the area another survey is done but it must be done after the scheme has been in operation for some time. There is a committee in charge of the second surveys. I have not seen any reports from them yet. In other words my question is still premature? —I think so. It would be interesting to know the outcome. 818. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On whose initiative is the fluoridation carried out? Do county councils inform the health board to the effect that they are going to develop a water scheme? —The health board have the responsibility of installing the fluoridation equipment, in that way taking the initiative, but I think that in each case special regulations are made authorising the health board to do this. The health board would know of proposed pipe water schemes and they would see that this is done. The local authority would also know that they should expect fluoridation equipment to be installed. Is there any direct liaison between county councils and health boards in relation to these schemes? —I am afraid I could not say what arrangements are made locally as between the health board and the local authority except that local authorities are all aware that where there is a piped public water supply scheme being installed fluoridation equipment has to be added; but whether they formally tell the health board this or expect the health board will know it I could not say. The witness withdrew. VOTE 29—SECONDARY EDUCATION (RESUMED).Mr. D. Ó Laoghaire called and examined.819. Chairman.—We will resume consideration of Paragraph 45 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which we adjourned last week. We have had some time to consider the statements and I think we shall ask the Comptroller and Auditor General for any comments he may wish to make. Mr. Jacob.—We have examined the statement of the Accounting Officer which gave a full résumé of the historical background of this transaction. We think that historical background is not relevant to the transaction under discussion in the paragraph. The Department of Education entered into an agreement to acquire from the diocesan trustees, at a cost of £40,000,16 acres of a parcel of 136 acres which with the buildings thereon had been leased for 20 years to the trustees by the Office of Public Works. This was done without consulting the Valuation Office which would be normal practice for the Department of Education in such type of transaction. Why was an exception made in this instance? It was five months after the deal was completed and following a query from my office before the Valuation Office was consulted. In the particular circumstances of the case the sanction of the Minister for Finance should have seen sought. It would seem that the delegated sanction to purchase sites could not be held to apply and that specific sanction was necessary. As regards the charging of the £40,000 to the subhead, the £40,000 was lodged to a joint account in the name of the Minister and the trustees’ solicitor pending legal transfer of the property. The money could not be regarded as having come in course of payment in the financial year. We feel it should be charged to a suspense account pending the clarification and passing of title. However, it was charged to the account and if we did not refer to that in the absence of title accruing to the Minister our certificate to the vote would not be proper. It involves a qualification of a certificate. 820. Chairman.—I would like to ask a question. We have read the evidence of the last day. We appreciate the background reasons. We are primarily concerned here with how these transactions were done and the regularity of them. In the first instance there were two separate items. There was the purchase of the property and also the negotiations with the trustees and the considerations arising out of that. Is that the position? —Yes. That is the position. 821. Let us take the question of the site. Would not the normal procedure for the purchase of the site have been, as the Comptroller and Auditor General points out, the seeking of a valuation in the regular way and the negotiation of a price in the vicinity of that? —Yes. 822. Would you agree that if you were departing from the figure so indicated that it would be a circumstance which required specific sanction from the Department of Finance? —I am not so sure about that. We have had a number of cases where the Valuation Office gave us a figure to put on a site but if there were particular reasons why one site was needed more than another they would not regard their valuation as being the actual figure at which a sale might be negotiated. They regard their figures as a guide rather than a limit. If we have the delegated sanction from the Department of Finance to negotiate in those cases it would not seem to be necessary to ask them in every instance. 823. You are now relying on the proposition that you have the delegated authority of the Department of Finance to proceed with this? —I think we had in this case. 824. Does that authority extend to the point where you do not even need to seek a valuation? —No. 825. But you did not seek a valuation until five months later? —That is true. This is an exceptional case. It is so exceptional that we are interested to know whether you still consider that it is a case where delegation covers? —The reason I say it is exceptional is that I think it is the only case in which we did not have a valuation. I can only assume that the reason it was not got at the particular time was because of the urgency of finalising the arrangements. 826. Was it not all the more reason, the fact that it was exceptional, why the matter should have been referred to the Department of Finance? —I think you may be misunderstanding the statement I am making. I am saying that this transaction is an exception to the rule of our getting a valuation; that it was one case in which we did not get a valuation. Yes, but because of that very fact does it not seem proper that you should have got cover from the Department of Finance for such an exceptional procedure? —I would not have thought so. The material fact to me is that when the view of the Valuation Office was got the valuation they mentioned was higher than the one at which we purchased. Five months later? —Yes. 827. Let me put it to you this way, the normal procedure is to have a valuation as a norm or standard by which you can judge the appropriate purchase price? —Yes. If you do not follow that procedure my first proposition is that it is incumbent on you to refer to the Department of Finance for departure from the procedure alone? Is that not so? —As of now I would say, “yes”, in so far as I am concerned. We are merely dealing with the objective facts. —Yes. 828. In the case where you got a valuation as a norm and a basis would you say that if your price differed markedly from the valuation, in excess, it would be necessary for you to go to the Department of Finance for sanction and that it might even be necessary for the Minister to go for a supplementary estimate? —I do not see how the supplementary estimate would have entered into it if the moneys available were sufficient to cover the transactions. I would have thought that in dealing with these matters with the Department of Finance if we found ourselves in the position of having to go for limited amounts in excess of valuations we would then have gone to them for a general sanction, for an understanding that we would have a certain tolerance in relation to these valuations. It would not make for efficient administration to be going to them in every individual case. 829. So much for the purchase aspect but the fact is that the normal procedures were not adhered to and discretions were assumed. Do you controvert the statements of the Comptroller and Auditor General in this regard? —I would controvert some of them. The first specific one was to the effect that the history was not relevant but I think the history was very relevant. If it is not relevant we should not be talking about— It is not relevant except to the extent that it is procedurely relevant. If what you are saying is right, would you not agree that we might as well say the hard cases will make bad law to the extent that we can forget the law? —I am not saying that we should forget— Is that not the logical consequence? —Not from my point of view. If you say the history is irrelevant you should forget the fact that we sold the property for £30,000. 830. We want to take the procedures. What I am concerned about is how does this work? How does one do what you wanted to do in a correct procedural manner? That is our problem here. We are not going into the policy and this is what the Comptroller and Auditor General means by the history being irrelevant. There are ways of doing it and nobody wants to interfere with discretions. We want to see the ways of doing it. Coming to the negotiation with the trustees, you have historical matters which we have considered here. It is relevant in the sense of the reasons why you wanted to do this. We are concerned about the reasons why your Department did not do it in a regular way. We are not concerned why you wanted to do it. Your Minister is perfectly entitled to do what you set out historically if he thinks it necessary and to take responsibility, but it must be done in a regular accounting and procedural manner. That is our concern. —I accept that. 831. On the question of the purchase it appears that the normal procedures were not adhered to and we are putting it to you that the matter was so extraordinary that it should have been referred to the Department of Finance, even to cover yourselves? —Yes. 832. On the negotiations with the trustees, what should the procedures have been in that case? The negotiations and transactions with the trustees have been inextricably mixed with this purchase so as to make it all one transaction. but considerable sums of money, on your statement, were involved in this. Should that not also have been referred to the Department of Finance? —I do not think so. I do not see what specific matter should have been referred to the Department of Finance with regard to that. The essential transaction was the purchase of the site for the school. The point I was making was that I did not think the point made in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report, that the purchase price was excessive, was a valid point. The transaction was the purchase of the site. The methods by which one assessed the transaction related to the need for the site and with the parties to the transaction. I do not think it is any part of my case that any sum out of that £40,000 was for anything else other than the purchase of the site. My case is that the £40,000 was not an excessive price. The surrounding circumstances are there. 833. An excess in price in the circumstance but the circumstances were not merely market circumstances? —Yes, they were. The market circumstance was that the people concerned had been purchasing sites at £2,500 an acre which was the yardstick which it seems to me was used to measure the £40,000. They were aware that they had paid £2,500 an acre for sites and they regarded £40,000 as not being an excessive price. The Valuation Office figure ultimately when it was received was £50,000, which seems to support that. My case could be that whatever about the surrounding circumstances, there was nothing within the £40,000 which should have been the subject of a separate sanction of the Department of Finance in relation to anything else other than the purchase of the site. 834. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The £50,000 referred to by the Valuation Office? Was it for 136 acres? —No, for the 16 acres. 835. Chairman.—The point on the Valuation Office is that the valuation was not sought until afterwards, which might have solved a lot of problems. In essence, was this not a package deal? —I do not think it was a package deal in the sense that we were getting anything else other than the site for the £40,000. There were various surrounding circumstances. 836. What was anybody else getting? —All the Bishop was getting was that, instead of the lease running its full term of 20 years, the covenant in the lease under which he was required to maintain an A-school was being released. The reason it was being released was because it would not have made any sense to keep an A-school down in Ballyconnell with a community school in Falcarragh. 837. The reasons, as I said so often, are irrelevant and may be very good justification for what you do. We are concerned with the way it was done, not what you wanted to do. The second consideration is that you did, as part of this transaction, release a financial interest. —We did not release a financial interest. We released a covenant to keep the school going on the site. That was not a financial interest. What was supporting the covenant? —During the currency of the 20 years the Bishop was maintaining an A-school on the site. It was a condition of the lease? —It was a condition of the lease but only until the end of the 20 years. When is the lease up? —1985. There was a covenant in the lease? Surely a covenant in a lease is a financial interest? It is part of the lease. You are modifying a lease? —Yes. 838. This is the difficulty. Everything was telescoped. I want to make it clear that we do appreciate your reasons and the problem of the Minister. But we must insist that the proper financial procedures are adhered to. From what you have said it does seem that in two ways these procedures do not seem to have been observed. As far as procedure is concerned it has not been observed. There has been a certain infringement of the spirit of accounting procedures. In making this kind of a package deal, accounting is meant to be a very specific thing, and not bringing the Department of Finance in and doing it in a formal regular way means that we are faced with the situation where the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General are more than justified. This is our problem. There were financial considerations here that should have been kept separate. If they had to be integrated in the end, then there was a way of doing it. If there was any question as to whether there should be arguments in favour that you set out here, that is a matter for the Minister to answer in the Dáil. But for you, as Accounting Officer—I mean you in your official capacity and not personally—you were not there—it was your duty to see that everything was done in proper order. That summarises the position of the Committee If there is anything further we should say about this, the committee will have to consider it when it comes to the report, but we are anxious to be accurate in this. That is why we asked you to come back. Is there anything you would like to say to us in that regard? —I do not think so. Do you appreciate our efforts? —I understand perfectly the position. I was a little troubled about the concept of a package deal. I do not think that concept was present in the minds of the people who dealt with the matter. You say here in last week’s evidence: “In the circumstances, an arrangement was come to, to pay an agreed figure of £40,000”. The question I asked was based upon that phrase. —Yes. 839. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The only thing that strikes me at the moment is the Valuation Office stating £50,000 on one side and £3,000 on the other. Mr. Jacob.—On top of the overleaf page we reported that it was noted from the relevant file in the OPW that the Valuation Office stated in September, 1972, that they considered that were the Commissioners, as lessors, selling the school site to the Department of Education, the lands should be disposed of at only slightly more than the agricultural value and that consequently a figure of £3,000 would be reasonable. —This is for the whole site? In relation to that it depends on the transaction that is in question. If it is a transaction between the Commissioners of Public Works and the Minister for Education the Valuation Office felt that £3,000 would have been an adequate consideration. The point I am making is that the consideration that was decided upon was £40,000, and that this was for the site. It was not present in the minds of the people we were dealing with that the matter was a package deal in that sense. 840. Chairman.—I have told you the sentence on which I base that statement. You appreciate the basis on which this Committee must act. We would be going beyond our terms of reference to inquire into your policy or even the very good reasons you may have for doing something. We are only concerned that it is done in proper form and manner. —I appreciate that. One final point, it should be disclosed in such form that the House should be in a position to ask about it. This is accounted for in your Vote, under subhead J.2. and I do not think anybody looking at the Appropriation Account could have a clue that there was anything abnormal there at all. I suggest that in such cases a note is called for. 841. Paragraph 46 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Prefabricated Building Units Suspense Account Reference was made in paragraph 50 of the previous report to the charge to a suspense account of recoverable expenditure incurred on the purchase of prefabricated classroom buildings for use by primary, secondary and vocational schools. At 31 March, 1972 the balance outstanding on this account was £283,795 consisting mainly of sums recoverable from vocational education committees. In the year under review, further payments for prefabricated classrooms amounted to £348,218. £280,666 was recovered leaving a balance outstanding of £351,347 at 31 March 1973 of which £258,000, approximately, was due from vocational education committees.” Mr. Jacob.—The Committee discussed the use of this suspense account when dealing with paragraph 50 of the Report on the 1971-72 Appropriation Accounts and reported on the matter. I understand that the balance has been reduced to £135,000, approximately, at 31st December, 1974, of which about £85,000 was due by vocational education committees. The Department’s scheme for the provision of prefabricated classroom accommodation was discontinued from 28th January, 1974. 842. Chairman.—On subhead F.—Courses for Secondary Teachers—there is a considerable saving on that subhead. Was it that teachers did not avail themselves of the course or were there no courses for secondary teachers? The explanation here is that some courses were not held and expenditure on some courses held was less than expected. Was there a shortage of people to attend or were the courses not held? —Some courses were not held. There are three separate sections dealing with this subhead. The courses as a whole do not form a co-ordinated programme. Variations occur depending on the numbers who attend individual courses and the numbers who qualify for expenses. The other point is that the courses, generally, take place outside school hours and the greater number of courses take place during summer holidays. Sometimes it is difficult to provide additional courses during the latter half of the year. The savings can occur in that way. 843. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead H.— Educational Television Service—why were the radio programmes not proceeded with? —There were production facilities which it was not possible to make available in RTE and only 24 programmes were produced. About 40 programmes would have been produced if there had been sufficient facilities. 844. Chairman.—On subhead J.2—Comprehensive and Community Schools, Capital Costs—it would be appropriate in exceptional circumstances to have notes to avoid subsequent difficulties. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
