Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1980 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1978

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 6 Márta, 1980

Thursday, 6th March, 1980

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY O’TOOLE in the chair.

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

VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS

Mr. M. J. Healy called and examined.

1. Chairman.—On subhead F3, which grants a very small sum for entertainment expenses of our delegation to the European Parliament, I see there is a note which says that proposals regarding the expenditure of this provision were not received from the Delegation. Could you comment on that, please?

—I could not give you any further enlightenment. The Delegation, for reasons best known to themselves, decided not to hold a reception that year.

2. On the question of Extra Remuneration, I see that four pensioners received fees. Two seem to have received fees of over £5,000. In what capacity were these people functioning when they received these moneys?

—As translators and a reporter. The employment of these people was due to the fact that we could not recruit officers. Some competitions held by the Civil Service Commissioners failed to recruit the necessary staff. We had to bring back these people from retirement to help. The position has changed now. We have succeeded in getting staff.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH

Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin called and examined.

3. Chairman.—On subhead D—Information and Public Relations Services—the grant was far in excess of your expenditure. It contained a contingency element as you say in your note.

—This is a subhead which is not uniform for each year. The amount expended depends on what one is doing in the Public Relations’ area. In 1978, as you see, we did very little. We spent only £211. We spent £6,000 in each of the two previous years.

VOTE 5—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON

Mr. D. Ó Súilleabháin called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 36—NATIONAL GALLERY

Dr. J. White called and examined.

4. Deputy N. Andrews.—On subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—the amount spent was £9,500 less than the amount granted. How did that come about? Is there a shortage of staff?

—It was in part the failure to fill a post which was available and we did not get permission to appoint a man, and in part slightly less cost than we estimated. We have a fair amount of overtime which we have to estimate for.

5. Chairman.—What is the present position in relation to space in the National Gallery?

—It could be said that the National Gallery has got reasonable space in which to exhibit its works of art and it is extremely suitable for the collection of a country of this size. I do not think we could ask for better conditions than we have got.

6. Deputy Horgan.—On subhead D— Purchase and Repair of Pictures—am I right in assuming that the greater part of the £21,000 would be devoted to repairs rather than to purchasing pictures?

—Yes, it is mainly for framing. As the Deputy probably knows, nowadays it is extremely difficult to buy anything for that kind of money. We use that largely for repairing frames. All our purchases are made out of the Shaw/Lane funds we have. We occasionally buy something small which is Irish, but nothing important.

7. Deputy N. Andrews.—Will we see you next year?

—No. I feel like a prima donna. This is the third time I have said it was my last visit. The new director comes on 1 June next and I go on 31 May. There were problems in replacing me. Now it is all fixed.

Chairman.—I can imagine that. We appreciate the problems.

—I am talking about financial matters.

May I again say that we appreciate your coming here. You have always co-operated fully in replying to our questions. May I wish you long years of success and happiness in your retirement.

—Thank you very much. I am very grateful.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 12—OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. D. Quigley called and examined.

8. Chairman.—Paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead G.—Law Reform Commission

Under Section 8 of the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, grants are paid from this Vote to provide for the remuneration of certain members, the salaries of staff and other expenses necessary to enable the Law Reform Commission to perform its functions. Section 9 of the Act requires the Commission to keep accounts which shall be submitted annually to me for audit. Draft accounts for the year ended 31 December 1977 were received in February 1979 and accounts in respect of the grants paid in the year under review have not been received at the date of this Report. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding the completion of the audit of these accounts.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Two matters caused the delay in completing the audit of these accounts. One related to the verification of certain balances in the Commission’s books and the other related to the appointment and status of one member of the staff. Since the date of my report I have received the necessary certificates from the Commission verifying the balances concerned. The problem relating to the member of the staff was resolved recently and I have therefore certified the Commission’s accounts for 1977 and 1978.

9. Deputy N. Andrews.—In relation to staffing, are the staff appointed by the Law Reform Commission or by your Office?

—There are two types of staff; there are the ordinary staff who are civil servants and they are appointed to the civil service in the ordinary way. Then there are staff appointed by the Commission in consultation with the Attorney General and with the approval of the Department of the Public Service. Then there are the members of the Commission who are appointed by the Government.

10. Is there a set number of staff appointments on the Commission?

—The number is fixed in consultation with the Attorney General after approval by the Department of the Public Service as to number.

11. What is the current position in relation to staffing on the Commission?

—The current position is that at the top level there are four members of the Commission. Then there are counsellors and research officers.

12. What I really want is some information based on the expenditure here about the number of staff appointed either by the Government or through the civil service to the Law Reform Commission and about whether staffing arrangements at the Commission are adequate.

—At present they are considered adequate with one exception. They are looking for a draftsman for a period of some months because they wish to have some measures drafted. As you will appreciate, drafting is a specialised activity so they are looking for a specialist draftsman for a short period; they are speaking in terms of two or three months.

Chairman.—On a contract?

—It would be on a contract.

13. Deputy N. Andrews.—What sort of salary would be paid to somebody of that kind, or what kind of contract would be offered?

—It is envisaged that he would be paid the salary of an assistant secretary in the general service grade. If he is employed for three months he would get a quarter of the salary as the contract price; if he is employed for two months he would get onesixth of the salary.

14. In relation to the £121,000 which was expended, that is, the grant to the Law Reform Commission, is this for salaries alone or is it also for other expenses?

—It is for all expenses.

15. How many staff in the Law Reform Commission are covered by the £121,000?

—I cannot say precisely what the number of staff is beyond the members of the commission. The president of the Commission, who is a judge of the Supreme Court, does not have any salary as president of the Commission; he continues to have his salary as a member of the Supreme Court.

16. Is it correct that your Office, in effect, has no control over it? It is simply a grant from the Office of the Attorney General to the Law Reform Commission and you have absolutely no control over the activities or the expenditure of the grant to the Commission. Is that correct?

—In general, yes, but I do examine each application for payment of portion of the grant when it is made to the Department of Finance.

17. Are you satisfied that the grant is adequate to meet the staff demands of the Law Reform Commission or do you have a responsibility in that direction?

—I am satisfied. So far as I am aware all the requirements are catered for by the grant.

18. Chairman.—Arising out of Deputy Andrews’ discussion with you concerning your control over the expenditure of the Law Reform Commission, under section 10 (5) of the Act you must be consulted if extra staff is being recruited for the Law Reform Commission. Having given your consent to making available extra staff, thereafter you have no control over the expenditure of moneys within the Commission. As Accounting Officer you will appreciate that is putting you in a rather awkward position before this Committee.

—I appreciate that.

19. It comes to us as an ordinary subhead. Do you not think it would be more appropriate to show the sum as a grant-in-aid for the reason that you are not and cannot be held responsible for it? As Accounting Officer dealing with an ordinary subhead you cannot carry out your function to this Committee because of the designation of the item as an ordinary subhead.

—That is quite correct. I asked that it should be a grant-in-aid but my request was not met.

20. What reasons were given for the refusal?

—None that impressed itself on my memory.

21. I think this is a matter on which we should seek clarification. As I said, as Accounting Officer before the Committee, you cannot carry out your function to us in that you cannot be responsible for the expenditure even though on paper you are supposed to be held responsible in so far as it is a subhead.

—That is how I feel about it. I will explain what I do; probably it is the best I can do in the circumstances. The Law Reform Commission apply to the Department of Finance for a grant of a fixed sum, say, £18,000 or £20,000 and they itemise what they want it for. The Department of Finance always give me a copy so that at least I know the reasons why they are requesting the money. That happens perhaps six times a year. I do not know what I could do if I felt I could not approve of any item—I do not think I could do anything. I may add I have not seen any such item. In the circumstances at least I try to keep informed about the position.

22. In the light of what the Accounting Officer has said I think the Committee should recommend that consideration be given to changing this item from a subhead to a grant-in-aid which would be more appropriate. Do the Committee agree with my suggestion?

Deputy Morley—Yes.

23. Deputy Horgan.—In relation to subhead F—Defence of Public Servants—how does expenditure arise under defence of public servants and what kinds of cases are likely to be involved?

—If a public servant is sued in respect of something that he did arising out of the course of his duties then he could look to the State to pay for his defence. The position then is that each case is considered and if it is considered a proper case in which to pay for his defence he will be defended by the State and he would be represented by the Chief State Solicitor; this is when it is desirable that he should be shown to be defended. Then there might be a second kind of case where he would defend himself and after the case is over it might be decided that is was a meritorious and proper case in which he should have been defended and he might be paid his costs even though he was not represented by the Chief State Solicitor. There would be a third type of case in which he would not be defended at all.

24. Could you give me some kind of indication of the number of cases covered in the £10,000 expenditure?

—There was the costs of four gardaí in Cork. That was the biggest expense.

25. What happens in relation to a case which is defended in which the court finds against the defendant? Do the damages, if any, also fall to be paid out of this Vote?

—No. I certainly have never seen any instance where that arose.

26. Do they fall to be paid out of any voted moneys under the control of the Attorney General?

—It would be for the Department concerned. The Attorney General is only defending.

On the legal side?

—Yes.

We are glad that there is an underspending in this Department.

—Let me explain it. It is almost impossible to estimate in advance what might happen. You will, perhaps, recall that for a number of years the figure was nil and then last year we had to pay for the defence arising out of the election petition; suddenly we spent £13,000. This year we had a figure of £1,040. The estimate was high because the previous year it had been £13,000.

27. In relation to subhead E—General Law Expenses—how do these arise other than fees to counsel as in subhead D7.

—The main items would be jury expenses and witnesses’ expenses in State cases.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 13—OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Mr. S. O’Leary called and examined.

28. Deputy N. Andrews.—On subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is a note indicating that the saving was due to delay in appointing additional staff provided for. Has that been rectified?

—We got sanction for the appointment of another legal assistant but in the light of the result of the competition it was decided not to make the appointment.

29. Therefore, I presume the grant for salaries will be reduced accordingly?

—Yes.

30. Deputy Horgan.—Is it unusual to hold a competition and not find somebody of the appropriate standard?

—Not in the legal services I am afraid.

31. I take it it is a question of remuneration?

—I would say so.

32. Deputy N. Andrews.—On subhead D—Fees to Counsel—obviously there is a set rate at which counsel is paid. Will the Accounting Officer tell us the rate for senior counsel and junior counsel under this heading?

—There is no set rate for fees to counsel.

33. How do you base payment?

—It would depend on the court. There would be a notional minimum fee for, say, junior counsel prosecuting in the Circuit Court but each case is assessed individually by the Director or by the legal assistant dealing with the matter. From year to year you will find there is a basic lower fee and in the year in question it would have been about £56.70. That would be the lowest fee paid to prosecuting counsel in the Circuit Court. However, in the case of a notorious trial in the Special Criminal Court, there is an upper limit of a brief fee to senior counsel of 300 guineas. For an amount in excess of that we would have to seek sanction from the Department of Finance. In between those two amounts the fee would vary from place to place.

34. Chairman.—Does a higher fee come as a result of demands by the counsel involved? What is the normal process of negotiation to set a fee?

—When senior counsel, for example, is briefed he is asked to accept instructions at a particular fee and if he feels it is not enough he will ask for more.

35. Deputy N. Andrews.—There seems to be an almost precise grant and a precise expenditure, £667 less than granted. How did you estimate so accurately? Do you have advance knowledge of cases?

—Pure fluke.

36. Deputy Horgan.—In relation to subhead F—Appropriations in Aid—could you give us an idea of the circumstances in which costs and fees stand capable of recovery by the Director of Public Prosecutions. From whom are such fees and costs recovered?

—From the defendants.

37. In other words, if the Director of Public Prosecutions is prosecuting somebody and the defendant is found guilty, he is then liable for fees?

—It is in the discretion of the court and on extremely rare occasions the court will, in addition to sentence or penalty, say “and you will pay the prosecution costs”. It happens very rarely.

38. Chairman.—Considering all the variables involved I compliment you on the accuracy of estimation. We are not suggesting that there is anything wrong.

—You are very gracious.

39. Deputy Horgan.—Is it the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions in any cases, such as tax evasion or something like that, actually to seek costs against a defendant?

—I could not give you the policy in tax evasion cases. They are very much the province of the Revenue Commissioners and we would be guided by them. I know of no set policy in those cases but in prosecutions in general, the Director does not seek costs.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 15—STATIONERY OFFICE

Mr. J. F. Harman called and examined.

40. Deputy Horgan.—On the Vote itself, may we refer to the Trading and Profit and Loss Account for the Government Publications Sale Office?

Chairman.—Yes.

41. Deputy Horgan.—Is the figure for sundry debtors at £21,655 of the normal order when the books are balanced?

—Yes, that is pretty normal.

42. Deputy Leyden.—In regard to subhead C—Post Office Services—at £31,026, is that mostly franked envelopes?

—That is right. The Post Office keep a record. They are responsible. We do not check their bill. The normal practice is that one Department does not check another: they just say we owe so much. It covers telephones and letters.

43. So. for accountancy purposes, the Post Office is given credit for all Government services, divided into each section and that is your credit?

—Yes.

44. Deputy Horgan.—On subhead A2. could we get an idea of the consultancy services envisaged for the year in question, whether this consultancy study was definitely shelved or whether action is being taken on it?

—I think I explained to the Committee in previous years that we had trouble about accommodation because we were in a very old building. Beggar’s Bush Barracks, for 50 years. We had negotiations with the Board of Works. As a result they have bought for us the back portion of Jacobs place at Aungier Street-Bishop Street, the newer portion. There is a very good warehouse about the correct height of 30 feet and very satisfactory. But there is a large block that was used for biscuit processes. This has to be refurbished for our storage and office staff. With all this going on, we thought it necessary to include a heading for consultancy as we felt we would have to get advice on the best modern methods of paper storage, exact type of fork lifts, containers and so on. It did not occur in that year. These things take time. In fact last year and again this year we have been using the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and engineers there have produced two reports, one completed last year and one this year, on this move. You can see from our stock figures that we hold quite a lot of stock and we have been in very bad accommodation with old sheds and so on and we want to have the job properly done. That was the reason for the consultancy. It did not arise, but we were not sure.

45. Deputy N. Andrews.—Is there a general reorganisation of your Department?

—Yes, in the sense that we are trying to organise and have our complete premises together in Jacobs. It will take probably another two years before we are installed. We are also revising our contract system in line with modern technology and methods. We also hope to computerise. We have had negotiations with the Department of the Public Service and we have a firm engaged with us in that. We have no agreement with them yet, but hopefully we will.

46. Under Appropriations-in-Aid, sales of publications realised £219,000. Are you satisfied that the Arcade Office is adequate to meet needs?

—We are very dissatisfied. Luckily, again through negotiations with the Board of Works, we have got the shop or whatever it was next door to the tourist office in O’Connell Street, beside the Gresham Hotel. It will be much bigger than the Arcade and it will have a good front. We will be able to get in our stocks in the back lane beside the Pro-Cathedral. It will be a much better place. The Board of Works architect is working on it. We are trying to have it like one of the modern shops with different types of curved shelving and, at the same time, watch for thieving and that type of thing. We hope to have that early in 1981 but I am sure the Committee know how these things take time.

47. Deputy Horgan.—Do all sales of Ordnance Survey maps go through your office?

—Not necessarily.

Are some of them handled up in the Park?

—Yes. We deal with the more common ones. They have a very efficient outfit in the Park. We are anxious to help them as much as we can.

Is there good co-operation between you?

—Yes, we have very good relations.

48. Deputy Leyden.—In connection with extra remuneration for staff I see there are sums of from £3 to £3,000 in respect of overtime. What is the situation now? I am in favour of seeing more staff employed rather than giving overtime to existing staff who are being paid by the State and in secure employment. They should be adequately remunerated. Is this practice still in force in relation to this type of overtime?

—I am afraid there is still a fair amount of overtime. Our view is to have as much extra employment as possible. We were in negotiation with the Department of the Public Service. They gave us seven extra people to try to cut down on the overtime. Our difficulty is that it is a relatively small office. The total staff is 192 but it is split into a lot of different sections and the people in each are accustomed to their own work. That overtime figure comprised £31,000 for the warehouse, £4,400 for contracts, £7,700 for accounts, £2,400 for publications and £16,000 odd for security and miscellaneous typing. One of our biggest expenditures is in security. It is a very big barracks. There have been a couple of thefts there. Some fellows came in and stole a few typewriters. In essence, very little was stolen. An even stronger danger is if people climb over a wall and set fire to the place, because there is a large store of paper. We store paper for two reasons. The first is that we get a cut on it from the mills and, secondly, since we have to have everything for the Government we have to keep a lot of it. It is, to some extent, sabotage or the type of hooliganism that goes on. It is a very big perimeter. We considered employing a security firm but in the end we felt on economic grounds it was better to have our own people. The trouble is that we have to limit it to a small number of people, over 21, under 50, in good health, with a good sick leave record and availability, either living very close or that we can contact them very quickly. The result is that there is a very small number of men in that category. This is why so few men get a lot of money. We hope, when we move into Jacobs in two years’ time, where the building is an oblong shape, that there will not be the same difficulty with regard to security. We should be able to dispense with it. At the moment there is a long wall all around the barracks, which is easy to climb, so we are in a dangerous position. We wondered recently if we could reduce the security but we were afraid to do it.

49. I see the cost of printing the register of electors was higher than anticipated. That surprises me because I thought the local authorities printed their own registers?

—It is really up to themselves and the Department of the Environment. We act as agents for the Department of the Environment. We print most of them still but if a county want to do it they arrange with the Department of the Environment and do it themselves. We just act as brokers and make the arrangements with the printers. At the moment there are 25 printers spread throughout the country who are doing this work. We recover the cost from the local authority and they recover most, if not all of it, from the Department of the Environment under some Act.

50. The cost of printing the register of electors should not affect your accounts?

—We pay for it but then we get it back in the Appropriations in Aid which then goes to the Exchequer.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA

Mr. L. Tóibín called and examined.

51. Deputy Horgan.—On subhead D—Gaeltacht Housing—I see there was an initial Estimate of £500,000 with a Supplementary Estimate of £150,000, and the expenditure went to just over the £500,000. Is there a decline in the level of applications for grants under this particular subhead?

—Not really; the Supplementary Estimate was arranged when we increased the rates of the grants but, as we explain in the note, it took quite a while for the increased grants to take full effect in the form of payments. The main payments during the year would, therefore, have been at the previous rates of the grants.

52. In relation to subhead H.1—Gaeltarra Éireann, Current Expenditure—and subhead H.2—Gaeltarra Éireann, Capital Expenditure—but especially to H.1—I do not want to usurp the functions of the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies, which would be involved with these subheads in a more detailed way—could the Accounting Officer confirm for us that those subheads are not the only source of finance for Gaeltarra Éireann and that they receive money from the European Social Fund?

—That is correct.

53. The next matter is a point of detail which I would not expect the Accounting Officer to have at his finger tips. Is he aware if Gaeltarra Éireann publish any information in relation to those companies in which they hold majority and minority shares in such a way as to distinguish between the companies where they hold majority shares and those where they hold minority shares?

—There is a document before the Committee in which that appears—the Report for 1978. There are different headings in Schedule 1 to the Accounts. There are Fochuideachtai, where the share ownership is 100% and between 51% and 99% and Comhchuideachtaí, where the holding is between 20% and 50% and under 20% of the ordinary shares.

54. Chairman.—In respect of Cuntas Chiste na Gaeilge there is expenditure in ex-excess of £900,000 grant-in-aid. The recipients are listed. Is the Accounting Officer satisfied that there is no overlapping here in the function of the different bodies involved?

—That has been referred to by the Committee on a number of occasions and it is something that we watch very carefully. While it could happen that different organisations are doing more or less the same thing in different areas we would not regard that as overlapping. But we are very careful to see that there is no duplication of funding or anything like that for the same work.

55. Deputy Horgan.—In relation to Gearrscannáin Ghaeilge, £4,250, under subhead F, does that relate to one film?

—No. It was in relation to two films. It includes, as more than half of that amount, the final payment for the film called Poitín which was a feature film. There was also a payment for another film, Obair an Lae, which is a film that shows how children visiting Inis Óirr see life on the island. I have not seen the film yet but I know what it sets out to do. It was made by a man called Neville Presho who also made the film about Toraigh Island a few years before.

56. Deputy N. Andrews.—Will you still be paying grants to film makers and so on when the national film board is set up?

—We hope they will disappear altogether as far as our accounts are concerned at that stage. We have been carrying on this scheme for quite a while to assist certain film makers and we hope the new board will be able to look after them.

57. As we were talking about overlapping of expenditure I wondered if this would arise on the accounts?

Chairman.—The two bills are just published. The second stages have not been taken yet but I suppose as the debate goes on we will analyse all that.

—We felt all along that it was worthwhile helping film makers in a small way but, when this new board comes in, we hope it will relieve us of the job.

58. Deputy Horgan.—In relation to Arramara Teoranta, on what basis is State capital provided?

—The original capital consists of ordinary shares in the company, the majority of which are held by the Minister for the Gaeltacht for the State. It is quite an unusual commercial company for that reason. It got assistance in 1949 at a time when the IDA, An Foras Tionscal and such boards did not exist; to keep the industry in operation and enable it to expand the State took shares in Alginate Industries (Ireland) Limited which later became Arramara Teoranta. But the company has since received various grants from the IDA for development.

I see from the report that the company is in a sound financial position?

—Yes.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 48—FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr. A. O’Rourke called and examined.

59. Deputy Leyden.—In connection with the cross-Border studies, I see there is an under-expenditure of £49,977. Could you expand on the explanatory note to this subhead, particularly in relation to the development of cross-Border expenditure and studies? Are you spending anything at the moment on these very important matters?

—To date expenditure has been related to two studies, one on communications in the Derry—Donegal area which was completed towards the end of 1977. As can be seen from the appropriation account for 1978 there was almost no expenditure in that year. There is another study at present approaching completion on the Erne catchment area. It is expected that the report of the consultants will be presented to the two Governments and to the European Communities, probably next month. There is the other cross-Border study of the Newry— Dundalk area which is the subject of discussion between members of the two Governments and officials at the moment and it is expected that, in a few months perhaps, it will be possible to take a decision to have an independent cross-Border study on this area carried out by consultants.

60. Chairman—In relation to the Passport Office, are you satisfied that the level of staffing there at peak periods is satisfactory? Let me say that I, in no way, find fault with the existing staff there. I find them very courteous and, from calling in from time to time on passing, I notice they are among the busiest staff in the public service, particularly from Easter onwards. But there are long delays there despite their best efforts to facilitate everybody as quickly as possible. Do you make arrangements for extra staff during the peak periods?

—Yes. In 1978 there was a very large increase in the number of passports. It went up 28 per cent. It had been steady at about 80,000 passports for the previous four years but there was a big jump in 1978. In that year we did have to engage people on an overtime basis but I am glad to say that the expenditure in 1979 was minimal. It is also true to say that in that year the delays in the issue of passports were very much reduced. You will be aware that in 1979 we started a small advertising campaign urging people to make early application for their passports and this had some success. Despite the problems of 1979 when a postal strike complicated matters, I think it was a successful year for the Passport Office. In that year they issued up to 120,000 new passports. Of course there is always room for improvement and we keep the matter constantly under review. We are trying to computerise the issue of passports and we are having some success in that area.

I am not finding fault with the staff but it appears to me they are overworked during peak periods.

—It is an extremely busy office.

61. Deputy Horgan.—On subhead F—Information Services—is the money in this case spent on publicity material or on staff? What is the staff allocation and what is the allocation for publicity material?

—Payment for staff comes under subhead A. The amounts in subhead F are in respect of information material to a large extent and also on bringing groups of journalists to Ireland. From time to time we bring groups of British or European journalists here in order to ensure that they are better informed about this country and its policies. In addition, there is considerable expenditure on publications. We have a bi-monthly publication Ireland Today and also Facts about Ireland which is a small booklet that has been reprinted recently. We have a series of other booklets regarding various aspects of Irish life and culture which are prepared specifically for distribution abroad. We purchase, distribute and show films through our embassies abroad. These are some of the areas and I can go into the matter in more detail if the Deputy wishes.

62. Deputy Leydon.—Will the Accounting Officer tell us what is the expenditure on Information Services in Britain which is specifically geared towards the press?

—I cannot give a precise figure immediately. We have two officers in the embassy working full time on press matters and keeping in contact with journalists. Of course all members in the embassy from the ambassador down pay considerable attention to keeping in contact with leaders of opinion in Britain. It is necessarily an ongoing function of the embassy because one cannot influence the press immediately in respect of a particular incident. You must establish good relations with them over a long period and there must be an understanding in the media of the policies and attitudes of the Government so that when an incident occurs hopefully the press will write their articles in a balanced and informed way.

That answers my question.

63. Deputy Horgan.—On subhead G— Contributions to Bodies in Ireland for the furtherance of International Relations (Grants-in-aid)—will the Accounting Officer tell us what groups are involved? How do they come on the Department’s list?

—There are two bodies involved: The Irish Council of the European Movement which got £3,000 of the £3,500 available and the other is the Irish United Nations Association. Prior to and during discussion of our membership of the EEC, it was considered important that the public be given as much information as possible regarding the Community. It was felt that the organisation concerned could do very useful work in that regard and for that reason they were given a grant-in-aid. The Irish United Nations Association have received this very small grant-in-aid for several years on the general grounds that it is desirable that there should be involvement by interested people in the work of the United Nations.

VOTE 49—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION

Mr. A. O’Rourke further examined.

64. Deputy Horgan.—What is the basis on which a division is made between priority countries and non-priority countries?

—Basically on the grounds of the state of development or non-development of the countries in question; we have selected some of the poorest countries in the world as priority countries—some of the least developed in the language of the United Nations.

65. Chairman.—I should like to thank the Accounting Officer for the detailed breakdown of payments made to developing countries under subheads E and F*. We received the detailed breakdown in respect of 1977 and 1978.

—We will shortly provide a breakdown for 1979.

66. Deputy Horgan.—I should like to raise one or two queries on points of detail. In the detailed breakdown we received I notice that the Higher Education Consultation Group got a grant of £5,000. May we have some details about that? The other item in which I was particularly interested is the co-financing with non-governmental organisations. The amount involved in this case is nearly £500,000—a considerable amount. Perhaps the Accounting Officer would tell us the major items involved here.

—With regard to the second point raised by the Deputy, the co-financing is carried out through organisations such as Concern, Trócaire, Gorta, the Irish Missionary Union and similar organisations. The Government are approached by these organisations and asked to co-finance projects that are identified by people working in the field from the organisations. For instance, the project might concern the provision of a well in a developing country, the provision of school equipment, a jeep or something of that kind. These requests are examined in my Department and then, if the decision is favourable, we give up to 75 per cent of the cost of these projects.

67. As regards the Higher Education Consultation Group?

—Perhaps I might have an opportunity to submit an explanatory note to the Committee about that?

That will be quite satisfactory and also if you would do so about Development Education. I would also be grateful for details about that.

—I shall be very glad to do so*.

68. Deputy Leyden.—There are some other items on the detailed list under Zambia about which I should like further information. There is a grant to Cement Ltd. —that is Irish Cement Limited I presume, or Roadstone Cement; I think it is the same firm now amalgamated. Is that not the firm that got the grant of £111,550? Was that to train staff from Zambia in the production of cement or had we staff from Cement Limited in Zambia to train people out there? How does it work?

—I should like to check this and, perhaps, submit an explanatory note* also, but as I understand it they sent consultants to the factory in Zambia to see how the factory could be made more productive and to advise on training of workers and so on.

69. Is that expenditure actually necessary at all? It sounds like a commercial undertaking. I would certainly question that grant-in-aid to that firm. I do not know what the situation in Zambia is. It seems to be a developing country but is there any possibility of recouping that sort of money eventually from these people? We are a small nation and can we afford to spend £111,000 out there?

—Zambia is one of the priority countries we have selected because it is a particularly poor country. The idea is to give financial assistance to Zambia so that effectively we are paying for work which a more developed country would itself pay for. This is normal in providing development assistance.

70. It is quite a lucrative field, a field in which there is quite a lot of profit-making. I presume that the Chilanga Cement Company is a profit-making organisation. I am making the point that I feel these matters should be carefully scrutinised. I presume they are. I wonder if the Chilanga company is making money at the moment. Is this an extra perquisite?

Deputy Horgan.—It might be a semi-State organisation in Zambia. There is a lot of State investment in major things like that.

—If the Zambian Government were richer they would undoubtedly pay for this themselves but the purpose of development aid is to assist them to improve the infrastructure of the country and it is in that context that this assistance is being given.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix 4.

*See Appendix 5.