Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1976 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1973 - 1974

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 29 Eanáir, 1976.

Thursday, 29th January, 1976.

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 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.

Mr. M. J. Healy called and examined.

369. Deputy MacSharry.—On subhead F.2.—Incidental Expenses and Travelling of Officers and Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas—a small amount has been included for the travelling of staff to EEC delegations and so on. Has the amount increased since then?

Chairman.—Is the provision adequate here?

—I think the amount has been increased. I know that we have found no shortage of money for that purpose.

370. Deputy MacSharry.—Do the EEC contribute towards some portion of the expenses for staff travelling to and fro?

—Not in respect of staff accompanying our delegations.

In other Departments there is some allowance from the EEC.

—There is such for Ministers and for Deputies and Senators and also for members of our staff employed by the European Communities but not for our delegation staff. The EC themselves provide certain staff in Luxembourg and in Strasbourg but that staff is not considered adequate for our purposes. We have to send a small number of staff with our delegations both to Strasbourg and Luxembourg and also to some Council of Europe meetings that take place at other centres.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin called and examined.

371. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Does subhead D—Information and Public Relations Services—cover the Government Information Bureau?

—Not quite. Salaries of the staff of the Government Information Services would be paid out of subhead A. Normally, subhead D would contain only a small amount of expenses in relation to Government Information Services.

VOTE 11—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON.

Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 26—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. G. A. Meagher called and examined.

372. Chairman.—Paragraph 27 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.2.—Private Housing Grants

Subhead F.—Water Supply and Sewerage

During the year under review responsibility for the administration and payment of certain grants was devolved on a trial basis to some local authorities. Meath County Council was given responsibility for the payment of grants under the Housing Act, 1966, in relation to new houses in County Meath and the County Councils of Longford and Westmeath were given responsibility for the payment of reconstruction grants under that Act and of certain grants under the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1962, in their respective areas. Grants paid by the councils are refunded from these subheads.

I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that the transfer of the administration of the grants to the county councils means that they act as agents of the Minister for Local Government and that the administration is carried out within the existing grants structure as defined in the Housing Acts and on the basis of the procedures of the Housing Grants Section of the Department. No definite audit arrangements were made as it was considered that this could best be done at the appropriate time. He added that all moneys paid into and disbursed from a county fund will come under the scrutiny of the Local Government auditor and that the county councils concerned will make their books and records available to me if required.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Mac Gearailt?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph notes the transfer to three county councils, on a trial basis, of the administration of selected grants charged on this Vote. Subsequent to the date of this Report, I was informed by the Accounting Officer that this experiment was being examined by a task force comprised of representatives of the Department of Local Government and the Department of the Public Service. Officers of my Department recently carried out a test examination of the grant procedures involved in the case of two of the county councils with satisfactory results.

373. Chairman.—What was the background reason for this? Why should this procedure be adopted? You say it is an experiment.

—Yes. The idea was to have a look at the possibility of rationalising the administration of the grants. At the present time the Department’s inspectorate look at houses. The local authority inspectorate will also look at houses. The feeling was that one set of inspections for grants and for Small Dwellings Acquisition Act purposes would produce economy in time. It was also felt that the administration of the grants if it were closer to the actual applicants might make for convenience.

It is basically a question of administrative organisation?

—It is.

From the accounting point of view is the Comptroller and Auditor General satisfied about the accounting control?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—We were satisfied.

374. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Is there any question of extending it to other counties now?

—That question is being examined. No decision has been made as yet. The experience in Meath and in the other counties is being looked at. The position will be affected now to some extent by the recent decision that new house grants should be restricted to supplementary grant cases. This changes the position somewhat.

375. Chairman.—Paragraph 28 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.2.—Private Housing Grants

In January 1972 the Government approved the introduction of a scheme of grants in respect of the adaptation of houses to meet the needs of physically disabled persons on the understanding that statutory authority for the scheme would be sought in the next appropriate housing bill. Under the scheme grants are payable where an additional room or other structural work is necessary for the proper accommodation of a disabled person in a house. The grants, which are made by local authorities, represent the cost of the work in the case of a local authority dwelling and a maximum of two-thirds of the approved cost in all other cases. Half of the expenditure incurred by the local authority is refunded from the Vote, subject to a maximum of £400 in any case. The charge to the subhead includes £30,878 refunded under the scheme in the year ended 31 March 1974.

In June 1972 the Minister for Finance sanctioned the raising of the maximum house reconstruction grant from the statutory figure of £140 to £200 subject to validation of the increase in the next housing bill. At the date of my report neither the new scheme of adaptation grants nor the increased limit for reconstruction grants has received the necessary statutory approval.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to the introduction of extrastatutory grants for the adaptation of houses to meet the needs of disabled persons and also to the increase beyond the statutory limits of normal reconstruction grants. The Accounting Officer informed me in September, 1975 that proposals for legislation to validate the changes effected in the grants scheme were being prepared.

376. Chairman.—Is this a case where legislation has actually been anticipated and which from a strictly statutory point of view and formally—note the way I am putting it—is ultra vires?

—It is. The statutory position is being anticipated. Of course the Appropriation Act would validate the actual payments.

You are relying on the Appropriation Act to validate it?

—As a temporary expedient, but there is the clear intention to produce a Bill which will validate these measures.

377. In a case like that is there a Supplementary Estimate even to cover it?

—Not necessarily. If the change involved payments beyond the provision in the Vote a Supplementary Estimate would be required or if a payment involved a major departure from the scope of the particular subhead, then a Supplementary Estimate would be required.

378. The Comptroller and Auditor General has raised the point on principle. Is there any question of transferring, say, surpluses or funds voted for one purpose to another arising out of this?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—No. The provision for housing grants was sufficient to meet the increased grants in one year.

Chairman.—Was provision for housing grants sufficient?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Yes.

379. Chairman.—Your net point is that, in the Accounting Officer’s words, the statutory legitimisation—you did not use the word “legitimisation”—was anticipated?

—It was anticipated.

And would be validated by the Appropriation Act?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—When the Government approved this new scheme, they approved it on the strict condition that there would be validating legislation.

Chairman.—We do not wish to inflict an argument on the Accounting Officer. Perhaps I might mention that the Committee are concerned about this established procedure in other cases, that legislation can be anticipated and that at the end, with the Appropriation Act, the Dáil at very short notice can be presented with a fait accompli. I merely mention that not as criticism of the Local Government Department or the Accounting Officer but to indicate the attitude of the Committee on this matter. The Committee would feel that there is a need for all Departments to consider carefully the implications of proceeding too far on this road. The Committee also recognise that this would be a Government or a ministerial decision. It would not be purely the secretary’s or an administrative decision. Therefore, to that extent, there is a policy decision behind it for which the Accounting Officer is not, strictly speaking, responsible. Here we are at the border line as to where you can divide the administrative responsibility of the Accounting Officer to see that everything is done in proper fashion and in proper form from the policy decision to do it in the particular form in which it is being done.

380. Paragraph 29 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead P.—Interest Subsidy for Building Societies

Pursuant to a Government decision in May 1973 a temporary interest subsidy was made available by way of supplementary estimate to enable building societies to increase their rates of interest on shares and deposits. The charge to the subhead, £927,269, represents payments in the year under review to thirteen building societies which qualified for subsidy.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information only. I have nothing further to add.

381. Chairman.—Does the Accounting Officer wish to say anything in respect of it? On any occasion naturally if the Accounting Officer wishes to comment to us as we go along, please do.

—Other than that the Government have decided to withdraw the building societies subsidy with effect from 18th February, 1976, on the grounds that the inflow of funds to the societies is adequate and that special subsidies to enable the societies to attract funds are deemed to be no longer necessary.

382. Paragraph 30 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Motor Vehicle Duties

A test examination of the revenue from motor vehicle duties, etc., was carried out with satisfactory results. The reports of the Local Government auditors, who examine the motor tax transactions of local authorities, are made available to me.

The gross proceeds for the years 1973-74 and 1972-73 were:—

£24,349,619 was paid into the Exchequer and £33,126 was refunded during the year leaving a balance of £315,368 compared with £288,248 at the end of the previous financial year.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. It details the gross proceeds of motor vehicle duties and associated receipts. Comparative figures for the previous financial year are also shown. I have no further comment to make.

383. Deputy Tunney.—This seems a welcome increase. In respect of 1973-74, what was the increase in motor taxation?

—Wide ranging increases in motor taxation and related charges were imposed in the budget of 1973. Briefly, the increases were as follows: private motor cars, increase of roughly 10 per cent; motor cycles, increases varying from 33 per cent to 78 per cent; goods vehicles, increases of up to 100 per cent on light vehicles, little change on those of medium weight and there was a reduction in respect of very heavy vehicles; agricultural tractors, the 25p rate, that is for haulage of necessary gear only was increased to £1; the £2.50 rate, that is general agricultural haulage, was increased to £5.

I am just trying to get the picture. There is a substantial increase in excess of £4 million? It does not give a fair picture unless you are also aware of what the corresponding increases in the actual charges were. It is difficult to say whether we should be commending the Department, having regard to the improvement in that field, or to what extent we should be commending them.

384. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The Stateowned vehicles do not seem to have increased their tax at all. The sum is the same for both years.

—The tax on State-owned vehicles is fixed at five-yearly intervals by agreement with the Department of Finance in order to economise on administration.

Chairman.—When is this five-yearly interval up?

—I think the five year period ended in 1973-74, so that the next account will show a higher figure.

385. Deputy Governey.—Under driver testing, would the increase in 1973-74 be due to a greater number of people taking first driving tests or to repeats from people who had previously failed the test?

—There was an increase in the level of the fees.

386. Chairman.—As a matter of interest, the driver testing scheme has been in operation for a number of years. You should have enough statistical information to show the numbers tested, the numbers passed at first test, the numbers passed at second test and so on. In other words, there should be a statistical picture of those presenting themselves for examination, the national rate of failure and repeats. I am not asking for it now, but I think the information should be furnished because, as Deputies said, one hears complaints and there is sometimes the suggestion that people are failed at the first test so that increased revenue may be obtained on the repeat test or tests, and for other unworthy motives. I do not subscribe to these views; I am merely noting that these things are said. The most effective answer to that kind of talk is the provision of a statistical pattern. If it can be pointed out that over the years it has remained fairly steady, that would provide a full answer to anybody querying the matter. Perhaps this Committee for the next account might want to have information of that nature. We do not expect that you would be able to obtain that information very quickly and we are not asking for it now for this Committee. It might be an interesting point, perhaps in a year’s time.

—As a matter of fact, the latest information I have seen on this indicates that there is a pretty uniform experience in that 50 per cent roughly of all those tested fail and at the second test the percentage of failures is also roughly 50 per cent.

That promotes an interesting point for the arithmetically-minded. It might be interpreted in a number of ways. Dare one ask whether it is an indication of probability? You expect a steady pattern. If there is wide fluctuation it requires explanation but if there is a steady pattern it raises the question as to whether it is the statistical result or the result of a policy?

—It raises the issue on the Department’s side of whether there is a uniformity of standard in the test. In so far as it is humanly possible the effort is made to ensure that standards of testing are uniform through seminars and the work of the supervisory testers, checks and so on.

You have probably achieved a fair standard of uniformity?

—Yes.

The basis of that uniformity is the question I am raising. We cannot pursue this any further now. I merely mention it as a possibility for further questions at a later date.

387. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Under what circumstances can an applicant get a change of tester?

—Generally speaking, if an applicant applies for a change of tester his request will be granted.

There is no limit to the number of times he must be tested by a particular tester.

—No.

388. Deputy Tunney.—You had the interesting situation where one of your testers, because of the fact that he was interpreting the regulations too severely, lost employment.

—That is true. That was referred to in the Dáil and I think there were special circumstances. Perhaps I need not go into them.

It was not just that he was over-conscientious? There were other matters?

—The circumstances of the case were thoroughly gone into over a long period. The Minister felt that he had no alternative, that this was the best course in the interests of the testing scheme.

389. Chairman.—On subhead E. 1— Housing Subsidy—there is a Supplementary Estimate. What is the reason for that Supplementary Estimate, which was quite a substantial proportion of the original?

—There were two main reasons. The estimated cost of the new subsidy scheme was higher than anticipated. Up to 1972-73 the subsidy for local authority housing was based on the proportion of the loan charges incurred by local authorities in providing dwellings subject to capital cost limits. The Government decided on a phased transfer of housing subsidies from the rates to the Exchequer. That resulted in a higher demand on this subhead.

You had to seek a Supplementary Estimate?

—Yes. The second factor was that a new national differential rent scheme was introduced with effect from 1st July, 1973. The effect of that was to increase the demand on the rates, with the consequence that the phasing out of the rates burden in respect of local authority housing was being transferred to the Exchequer. The demand on the Exchequer was, therefore, higher.

From an accounting point of view—we would have heard from the Comptroller and Auditor General if it were otherwise— everything is in order and from an estimation point of view it is good—it is actually an underestimation.

390. Deputy Tunney.—In respect of rent arrears in a local authority, say Dublin Corporation, which are substantial, and were in that year, where is the absorption of that figure? Under what subhead here would that appear? Is it in that housing subsidy figure?

—It could be to some extent. The Dublin Corporation housing account is operated on an income and expenditure basis. This means that housing arrears written off are carried into the account on which the subsidy is paid but the Exchequer would not lose finally unless the rent arrears are written off.

391. I am at a loss here. As a member of a local authority I know that there is a figure at the moment of £1 million outstanding which I see as a figure we may not recover, certainly not in toto. It is not going to manifest itself with the Corporation but it must manifest itself somewhere else and this is the only place I think it could. Will it ever appear here as a figure that was written off?

—No, not on this document. If arrears were written off finally and a burden was thereby thrown onto the Exchequer, this is a matter which I assume the Comptroller and Auditor General would have to look at.

How long does one wait for that finality? Perhaps it may indicate my lack of knowledge in accounting matters but to me the simple proposition is that there is £1 million outstanding. Where do I go looking for it or who is bearing the brunt? Do you wait indefinitely for it, hoping that it will come in, or what happens to it?

Chairman.—To whom is it owed?

Deputy Tunney.—Dublin Corporation but it does not manifest itself in the accounts——

Chairman.—How far is that money out of pocket to the State?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—As the Accounting Officer said, these outstandings would be accrued in the account as a debt due. I take it the subsidy is based on that?

—The subsidy would allow for that.

Deputy Tunney.—Maybe I have enough to pursue the matter elsewhere.

392. Chairman.—If you say the subsidy allows for that, does that not mean that, in principle, subject to the provision that the £1 million is collectable, the State is advancing £1 million in the meantime?

—No, unless the Dublin Corporation housing account showed a charge as a contribution made by the rates towards the housing account. If the rate struck made provision to make up any loss in rents, that charge falling on the rate would be met by the Exchequer because of the phased transfer. The likelihood is, however, that all or most of the arrears are actually carried on overdraft or in a suspense account in this intervening period and so they would not fail on the Exchequer. However, if it came to the point that the Corporation decided to write of, say, £500,000, that would have to be met as a burden on the rate and the Exchequer would be called upon to bear it. The Comptroller and Auditor General might have to look at that position.

393. Putting it in simpler terms, or trying to reduce it perhaps to over-simplified terms the Corporation is making a demand on the State for funds for the subsidy. Is that not correct?

—Yes.

It gets paid the subsidy. It makes the demand and the State pays. On the other hand, the Corporation in respect of this business is owed money; therefore, it seems that the Corporation has to be given more money than would be needed if that money were paid. In other words, the consequence of the money being outstanding, which Deputy Tunney has referred to, is that the State has to pay a bigger subsidy. I cannot make a sum of this because, as you say, there are various other items, but is it true to say that, because of the debt owed to the Corporation through its inability to collect this money, it is necessary year after year to pay a greater subsidy to the Corporation than it would be if that deficiency were not there?

—The answer is that if the shortfall in rents is shown in the housing account and thereby is a charge on the rates it would have to be met by the Exchequer because of the phased transfer. As I understand it, the Corporation’s accounts are kept on an income and expenditure basis rather than on a receipts and payments basis. The extent to which the arrears are actually shown as moneys written off in the housing account would affect the demand being made on the Exchequer. I do not know exactly at the moment what figures are in these accounts but certainly if they were purely receipts and payments the position would be that actual rents received as distinct from rents due would then be shown. In that event the Exchequer could have to pay the subsidy in respect of any net arrears which would otherwise fall on the rates.

394. Deputy Tunney.—The figure at the moment is £1¼ million or £1½ million. Knowing that that amount of arrears was there I was anxious to ascertain who or what was suffering because of it. Somebody must be bearing that burden. Here I might be moving into the area of policy, Mr. Chairman and, if I am, please do not permit me. I see in respect of another form of housing—private housing—that the amount which was allocated was not spent. I know from Dublin Corporation that in that area we have no arrears at all in respect of SDA loans. All the people who enjoy that type of housing are able to pay. I know that the reason for the arrears of rent was because some of those people maybe cannot pay it but other people in those houses will not pay it. I thought perhaps it was time to look at the value for money in that regard.

—The figure for private housing relates to the private house grants. It is not possible to estimate accurately in any year what the actual demand will be.

That would include SDA loans?

—No, private house grants. These are the grants payable by the Department to individuals building or reconstructing their own houses. Small dwelling operations are such that the local authority borrows money from the Office of Public Works Local Loans Fund and they charge either ½ per cent or ¼ per cent for administration. The general position is that there is a break even position, so that there is no loss or no gain. That operation is not provided for in the Vote. This is merely the grants payable by the Department for new houses.

395. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead J —Urban and Rural Employment Schemes— how do those schemes differ from the Local Improvements Scheme and why is there a different subhead?

—This subhead makes a terminal provision for both urban and rural employment schemes. The local improvement scheme is purely a rural scheme providing for grants in respect of improvements to private roads. bog roads and drains. The urban employment schemes on the other hand extended to such matters as the improvement of footpaths.

Where does the rural element come into subhead J?

—The rural employment schemes were the schemes originally administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office and they were much the same type of scheme as is now administered by the Local Improvements Scheme—grants, for bog drainage and private roads.

Subhead J includes urban and rural employment.

—You will note that the subhead J provision is merely a terminal provision. The schemes are now finished and are being replaced by the Local Improvements Scheme.

That is what I thought.

Deputy Tunney.—Is that the scheme where the beneficiary pays some contribution?

—Yes.

To what is it related?

—The total valuation.

396. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead N.—Grant to the Road Fund—I take it those are the main roads.

—They are all public roads, main roads and county roads—in other words roads which are the statutory responsibility of the local authorities. They do not extend to private roads, the type of roads on which money can be spent under local improvement schemes.

397. There are main roads and trunk roads. Have the Department any rights of initiative in deciding what roads should or should not be improved?

—In practice there is consultation between the Department’s inspectorate and the local authorities with regard to schemes to be undertaken on what one might call the national primary roads. Fairly big schemes are generally agreed with the local authorities in advance.

Did the Department ever say to any local authority: We think it is nearly time that road was done?

—Not formally by direction from the Minister but the inspectors are in very close touch with the county engineers regarding the road work schemes in each area. Specifically, the Department has got research done on roads which are deficient or roads on which there are accident black spots. The fruits of that research are conveyed to the local authorities and indeed the local authorities are encouraged by the Department to remedy these deficiencies and improve these black spots by the allocation of specific grants.

398. Why is the Road Fund not shown as Appropriations-in-Aid?

—The Road Fund is a separate statutory account. The account goes to the Dáil but it is not the subject of a Vote. The money which goes into the Road Fund is collected by the local authorities in the form of motor taxation. The Fund is also supplemented by fines and fees. The provision which appears in the Department’s Vote at subhead N is the grant of money by the Dáil from general Exchequer receipts in order to supplement the amount of money in the Road Fund available for grants.

Chairman.—Thank you very much.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 36—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.

Mr. L. Tóibín called and examined.

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

“Subhead D.—Tithe Gaeltachta

Grants are paid out of this subhead to householders in Gaeltacht areas for the purposes of building and improving houses, providing water and sewerage facilities in houses and providing accommodation for visitors. These grants are subject to statutory limits under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts, 1929 to 1967. Because of the rise in labour and material costs, it was decided by Roinn na Gaeltachta, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, to increase certain grants under the Acts in anticipation of amending legislation. The increases were effective from 1 June 1972 in the case of improvement grants and from 1 January 1973 in other cases. The amending legislation has not yet been enacted.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Paragraph 39 draws attention to the payment of grants in excess of the statutory limits in anticipation of amending legislation. The Accounting Officer has informed me that a Bill to make the necessary amendments in the Gaeltacht Housing Acts has been cleared by the Government and that the Minister for the Gaeltacht intends to present it to the Dáil as soon as is convenient.

400. Chairman.—Does this mean that payments have been made in advance of statutory authority?

—That is correct.

Would it be correct to say that, from a strictly formal accounting point of view, these payments are not yet authorised?

—That would be a very strict view. It has always been the practice to pay increased housing grants while statutory authority is awaited. That would apply to the Department of Local Government as well as to the Department of the Gaeltacht.

401. Will this legislation be brought in before the Appropriation Act which would give effect to such payments?

—No, because the increased grants have been in force for the past three years.

That means that without statutory authority payments have been made and have been automatically validated in each year by the Appropriation Act?

—That is possibly how it could be looked at.

402. I should indicate that the Committee are concerned about this matter. In effect, the result of this is that the Dáil is presented with a fait accompli at the passing of the Appropriation Act. Usually that has to be passed quickly without the opportunity of dealing with it. So, from that point of view, the Committee are concerned with this procedure. How long has this being going on?

—A little over three years.

We are awaiting legislation for three years?

—The legislation is ready. This is not really a departmental problem. It is a matter of Dáil arrangements, as I understand it.

In what way?

—It is a matter for the Minister to make arrangements to bring the Bill before the Dáil.

403. What is the responsibility of an Accounting Officer to see that payments are properly validated and authorised by a statute or order of the Dáil?

—We proceeded immediately. when the increased grants were authorised, to have a Bill drafted, approved and ready. It is ready, and available for the Minister whenever he can arrange to take it in the Dáil.

404. What is the responsibility of an Accounting Officer under the Ministers and Secretaries Acts and others in this sphere apart from the ministerial responsibility?

—I do not know if I could outline that very definitely, particularly when it has always been the practice to announce increased grants and pay them before the relevant Bill was enacted. Perhaps I should enlarge on this in another way.

I would be glad if you would because we are concerned about this.

—The Gaeltacht housing legislation, which goes back to 1929 in fact, is the only legislation, with which we are concerned, that specifically mentions amounts of grants. Of course, that was started long before the Department of the Gaeltacht was set up. Nowadays, and ever since the Department was set up, we give various other grants under schemes of ours with no specific legislation in relation to them except the Act setting up the Department and the annual Appropriation Act. I would therefore suggest that, if our housing grants had been introduced in the past 20 years instead of over 40 years ago, there might, perhaps, be no Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts. The system of grants might operate under approved schemes. So that looked at in that light it does not seem to be a major problem particularly when the expenditure on housing, as the appropriation account shows, is a relatively small part of our total expenditure.

405. Deputy Tunney.—In respect of the first year, 1972 or 1973, there was expenditure in excess of the provision in respect of that subhead. Would it not have been possible to include the excess, say, in a Supplementary Estimate?

—There was not an excess under subhead D.

It says here: “having regard to the rise in labour and material costs”. Quite often here we get justification for an increase in certain expenditure because there was an increase in labour or other costs and it does not seem to create any fuss beyond that. Was it not possible for you to presume along some line of that nature in respect of this particular excess expenditure?

—The first year in which the increased grants applied was 1972-73. In that year we were able to deal with them within the amount originally voted because, as you will understand, after a grant is sanctioned it takes quite a while before it is fully paid. In the following years we have in our estimating made provision for the increased grants so that we have not required a Supplementary Estimate.

You are saying that we require special legislation.

—That is right.

406. Chairman.—In regard to subhead D —Housing—which we are dealing with, is there not specific legislation covering that?

—Yes.

There is, therefore, a distinction between the other grants which are within a general discretion. You are in fact paying in excess of this specific authorisation. Is that not the factual position?

—That is the point.

407. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Does the fact that this is done with the sanction of the Minister for Finance shift responsibility in any way? Is this a suitable question for the Accounting Officer?

—It is approved by the Government and known to the Dáil. It is a matter of fitting in the Bill which is ready and will cover grants which have been paid for the past three years.

408. Chairman.—How do you say it is “known to the Dáil?” In what way?

—There were public announcements about it.

We are dealing with formal things. Things known to the Dáil as far as we are concerned are legislation and authorisation.

—On the first occasion when an Estimate was introduced after the grants were increased they would have been mentioned in the Estimate statement.

409. In other words, it has been provided in the Estimates?

—Yes.

And passed as such?

—Yes.

That is the relevant answer.

Deputy H. Gibbons.—There is the other point. If the Minister for Finance has to sanction this each year is there a time when he should say that legislation should now be introduced or he will not sanction it?

Chairman.—We will have to deal with him on that.

410. Paragraph 40 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.—Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht

The cost of certain harbour improvement works in Gaeltacht areas, carried out on a repayment basis by the Office of Public Works, is met from this subhead.

A scheme of dredging and harbour improvements at Dingle was approved by the Minister for Finance in 1968 at an estimated cost of £108,000 which was increased to £135,000 in 1971 and to £167,000 by 31 March 1974. Payments made by the Office of Public Works in respect of the scheme amounted to £180,723 at that date. In the course of audit it was noted that in December 1973 the Office of Public Works, in a report requested by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, outlined additional dredging operations which would enable Dingle Harbour to cater more effectively for larger fishing vessels.

I have sought the observations of the Accounting Officer on the increase in the cost of the approved scheme and I have asked for information on the estimated final cost of the improvements in the light of the further dredging envisaged.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that the scheme sanctioned for Dingle Harbour, which was drawn up some seven years ago, and some additional works, have been completed since June, 1974, at a cost of £225,000 approximately. I understand that the Minister for Finance has since approved that limit of expenditure for these works.

411. Chairman.—Is it true that you were spending in excess of the sanction in this case, before you got the sanction?

—It would be true that under the terms of the contracts the Commissioners of Public Works found themselves liable for additional payments. There were the usual price variation clauses and other provisions in the contracts and as the work proceeded there was more to be paid than mentioned originally in the contracts. That is unfortunately a normal experience.

It is I am afraid and this is the type of payment. Was the payment actually made by your Department before sanction?

—It was made by the Board of Works initially.

How are you involved?

—We recoup the money in the long run. They act as agents for us in carrying out the work.

412. But the decision to pay in advance of sanction was that of the Board of Works, not your decision?

—Yes, they are responsible for complying with the terms of their contracts.

That is the important matter.

—We would not have occasion to recoup money unless it had been paid out.

You have no responsibility. You were not directly instrumental in causing the money to be paid out in advance of sanction?

—No.

It was the act of another Department.

—That is so. I suggest in fairness that they were proper payments in accordance with the contracts, payments that could not be avoided.

413. Deputy Tunney.—On subhead F— Cultural and Social Schemes—could I have a breakdown on Gaeltacht trainees attending certain courses?

—In that particular year there were 94 trainees. These would involve apprenticeships such as carpenters, mechanics and electricians and also students attending various courses—radio courses, some courses in regional technical colleges and so on.

414. The heading there is “Cultural and Social”. What we seem to be referring to here would be educational.

—That is true to some extent. We break the schemes into two main groups. The first comprises the Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin which might almost be regarded as capital works; they are not classed as capital from a financing point of view but they represent physical works, normally speaking— halls, roads, marine works and so on. The second group—cultural and social—relates to more intangible things.

It would appear that these are matters of education?

—Social in the broad sense, I suppose. If a Gaeltacht pupil gets trained as a craftsman and returns to work in the Gaeltacht we look upon it as a social matter. The word “educational” could be included there, perhaps.

415. I think it would be desirable that it would because to me it would be specifically educational. If it is in pursuit of what he has been doing as a trainee in a vocational school or in a regional college, then I think it must automatically be regarded as educational rather than cultural or social. I can see some of the other subheads being regarded as social or cultural. That expenditure would seem to me to be more in the realm of formal education— education related to his skill or trade or in the area from which he is going to earn his living. Unfortunately we are relating that to education today.

—That is true to some extent. We have been trying to confine the main headings to the terms of the Act setting up the Department which refers to promoting “the cultural, social and economic welfare of the Gaeltacht”; the improvement schemes would be the economic side. We class these other schemes as cultural and social; the element of education involved in some instances would be undertaken for cultural and social reasons.

It would help to clarify the matter because if in the House one refers to something which is educational in respect of the Gaeltacht the Minister is entitled to say, and has said, that that is a matter for the Department of Education. Unless we are quite sure that they are not matters for the Department of Education, there should be a clear indication of what exactly they are.

416. Deputy H. Gibbons.—How many of the 94 trainees returned to the Gaeltacht and stayed there?

—I have no figures on that.

417. Deputy Tunney.—On subhead H. 1— Gaeltarra Éireann—in the matter of the accounts which we receive from Gaeltarra Éireann, last year reference was made both here and elsewhere to the fact that the accounts invariably arrive very late in the day. There was a promise made last year that they would be available much earlier but I am afraid that promise was not fulfilled this year either.

—We are dealing here with the financial year 1973-74 and the Gaeltarra accounts presented in connection with this are the accounts for the period ended within that year. In fact, there are later accounts available, of course, but we would not regard them as being relevant to this meeting.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Might I comment on that, because it has been suggested publicly that I was responsible for holding up the accounts? I was, to this extent, that I cannot clear the Gaeltarra Éireann accounts until I get the accounts for the subsidiary companies in which they have investments. Gaeltarra, I know, have had considerable difficulty in getting those for me. That is partly to blame for the hold up in the accounts.

Chairman.—Subsidiary companies in which they have investments?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Yes, they have 30 or 40 subsidiaries in which they have investments. We want to see what the outturn of their trading is.

418. Chairman.—There is another point in regard to Gaeltarra Éireann. Perhaps the Accounting Officer might or might not be in a position to help us here—there is a motion, because of some activity by this Committee in the past, on the Order Paper in connection with semi-State bodies. Gaeltarra Éireann are not included in the list. Is there a particular reason for this omission?

—That list is confined to commercial bodies. Our second body, Arramara Teoranta, is on the list. Nowadays Gaeltarra Éireann are regarded as a promotional body like the IDA; they were originally a commercial body, directly operating various industries. That would be the explanation, I think.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.