Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1990 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1988

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of Public Accounts)

Dé Céadaoin, 11 Aibreán, 1990

Wednesday, 11 April, 1990

The Committee met at 11.30 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY G. MITCHELL in the chair

Mr. P. L. McDonnell (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 4 — CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.

Mr. T. P. Linehan called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee of Public Accounts are examining Mr. Thomas P. Linehan, Director of the Central Statistics Office, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that office, on the 1988 audited accounts. You are very welcome, Mr. Linehan.

Mr. Linehan.—Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—In relation to Appropriations-in-Aid to this Vote, can you explain exactly what receipts are obtained from the EC?

Mr. Linehan.—The total includes two basic elements. One is the refund of travelling expenses incurred by attendance at meetings in Luxembourg and Brussels and, second, the major part of it consists of money received in support of certain surveys, specifically the Labour Force Survey which is a Communitytype survey carried out in all countries, each of which gets some support for that survey.

Chairman.—What proportion of the survey would the EC pay? Would the EC pay the entire amount?

Mr. Linehan.—No, it would be between one-quarter and one-third of the cost of the Labour Force Survey. It produces extremely valuable information nationally as well as for the Community.

Chairman.—Some time ago there was some difficulty in relation to the veracity of statistics and a new arrangement was made, a new board or a new management committee was appointed. Will you tell the Committee what the position is and how the board is functioning?

Mr. Linehan.—Is the Chairman referring to the National Statistics Board?

Chairman.—Yes.

Mr. Linehan.—It is established on a nonstatutory basis at the moment, pending legislation. It has already issued two annual reports on its activities. Its function is to guide the overall strategy of the CSO, particularly in deciding on priorities and putting forward a plan for the development of statistics within the resources available. It is functioning quite satisfactorily and we have found it to be of assistance in the work of the office.

Chairman.—Are you satisfied that any slackness or difficulties in the preparation of statistics have now been removed?

Mr. Linehan.—The main problem was in the plethora of demands for different types of development and statistics. Being able to focus, through the board, on an established programme of priorities has been a substantial help in that way. That is the main benefit.

Chairman.—On subhead A.2 — Consultancy Services — an amount of £778 was spent. Is this just a question of spending a nominal amount in order to keep that heading open for future years? I notice there was quite an amount available there for Consultancy Services — £10,000 — but you did not use most of it?

Mr. Linehan.—No, that was not the objective. That was an actual expenditure incurred. We had anticipated when these Estimates were prepared in the middle of 1987 that there might be a need for consultancy in respect of the development of software for computer operations. That necessity did not rise to anything like the extent that we anticipated.

Deputy M. Ahern.—Under subhead D — Collection of Statistics — the amount spent on the collection of statistics was less than granted and I see that the saving was due mainly to the expenditure necessary on census of services and on the collection of agricultural statistics being less than envisaged. Was less work done?

Mr. Linehan.—No, it was not due to less work. The provision was more than was found necessary. In this Committee we discussed the agricultural statistics on several occasions. We have been moving to a postal type of inquiry as distinct from field enumeration. For the change-over, we expected that there would be a bigger amount needed for the field element of the operation i.e. that with the postal inquiry we might have to have a substantial field follow-up. The response rate was quite satisfactory, we did not have as much follow-up as anticipated and we did not use the total amount voted.

Deputy M. Ahern.—What was the response to the postal inquiry? Did many people reply? Were the replies accurate from the checks that you did afterwards? Was there an error margin?

Mr. Linehan.—We were pleasantly surprised at the outcome of that change-over. The response rate was up to 90 per cent, following a certain number of reminders. Always in these inquiries a certain proportion of the forms returned back may not be usable. The proportion that has to be discarded is small as people are getting more used to them. Only a small percentage now have to be rejected. We are very satisfied with that.

Chairman.—In relation to the Estimate you estimated that you would need £9.5 million but only spent £8.9 million. Obviously, the main share of that was on salaries and travelling and incidental expenses. Does that indicate that you had projects in mind which did not go ahead or what was the reason for that?

Mr. Linehan.—With regard to Travelling and Incidental Expenses, we had expected that we would have some particular expenses travelling within Ireland in respect of a recruitment or updating of some panels of field staff. We were able to operate without having to incur that. In regards to Salaries, Wages and Allowances, the is always a problem in anticipating in the middle of the previous year what is going to happen in the following year because of people leaving, going on career breaks or resigning to take up other jobs. The figure under subhead A.1 represents the extent to which we had not properly or fully anticipated what the fall-out would be.

Chairman.—In the notes, it is stated that a sum of £500 was paid in respect of an award made by the equality officer. What was that about?

Mr. Linehan.—It arose basically in respect of the 1986 census of population when some field staff were appointed. We had to recruit the field staff through a series of interview processes and one of the unsuccessful candidates brought a claim under the equality legislation. The finding was that there was no direct discrimination but that there was indirect discrimination because the basis of selection of the candidates had given preference to those who were on unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit. My understanding is that the basis of the claim was that it was more difficult for married women to satisfy that condition of being on unemployment assistance, or unemployment benefit, than it was for unmarried women or for men and the decision of the officer concerned was that there was indirect discrimination.

Chairman.—Because you gave preference to people who were on unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit a lady successfully took a case against you for discrimination on sexual inequality? Is that the point?

Mr. Linehan.—That is the basis of it. There was a technical decision and that was the result even though it was clear that even without any preference being given to others the person concerned was not high enough on the list of merit to get the job. There was a decision that pain and disturbance was caused and an award was made.

Chairman.—It seems an extraordinary decision really.

Mr. Linehan.—We had no alternative but to accept it.

Deputy Dennehy.—I would like to go into that a little further because it will have implications, obviously, for other areas. We constantly receive recommendations from the public that at election time presiding officers and related people should be from a specific category, let it be the unemployed, long-term unemployed or various other categories. This decision would seem to indicate that, in fact, we would be prohibited in all cases from indicating such a category. Would you read that into the findings in that case decided by the equality officer? In trying to be helpful we often make recommendations. In this specific case it was unemployment assistance or benefit, but in other areas we would try to discriminate in favour of a given deprived group. Would you see a knock-on effect as a result of this? Would it restrict a Minister deciding that specific people should get preference? In line with that, I would like to have this decision conveyed formally to the appropriate quarters for discussion because it is something that we might need to pursue further and get clarification on it. We very often get recommendations at election time that presiding officers or clerical officers should be long-term unemployed and so on, but it would seem that we will be restricted here. I would like the details of this case to be forwarded to the appropriate people for further clarification and discussion. It is a worry that we should have had such a decision in this case.

Chairman.—I presume that in that case we would have to ask the Labour Court for clarification?

Mr. Linehan.—Yes, the Labour Court. I would not have any function in the general implications of it. I have the decision here but I did not read it out because it is very long. We may have been unfortunate in the particular phraseology used, in indicating in advance that absolute preference would be given to persons on unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. That wording interpreted in the technical terms of the equality Acts, led to this result. We have had to be careful in any subsequent activities in not using the same form of expression. It does cause a problem but we have not had any difficulty since then.

Chairman.—Let me bring in the Department of Finance. Does Deputy Dennehy not make a valid point here? Should the State not be in a position to give preference to people on unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance?

Mr. O’Farrell (Department of Finance).—The CSO have to abide by the decision even though it would not be something that they foresaw. To the best of my knowledge the phrase that is used now in such cases is that people be registered with the National Manpower Service. Maybe the Accounting Officer could confirm that. It seems the difficulty arose because of linking it to a certain allowance which was harder for a married woman to qualify for than anybody else. I understand the Accounting Officer for the Department of Labour will be before the Committee; but without being an expert on labour legislation let me say I think anyone has an equal chance of being registered with the National Manpower Service as looking for employment. That is possibly the phrase the CSO use now. I would consider that other people in comparable situations could use it. Unless and until that formula is struck down, it would be safe enough to use it in analogous cases.

Deputy McGahon.—I support the comments in relation to the recruitment for elections of unemployed people who are qualified. On a point of information, who recruits or appoints them? Is it not left to the local county registrar?

Chairman.—Mr. Linehan would not know that. It is left to the sheriff or whoever the returning officer or presiding officer is.

Deputy McGahon.—Irrespective of whom it is left to, it is an open sore and a great bone of contention, as Deputy Dennehy said, at election time. The jobs are given out to people in local authorities or to school teachers or what not who have secure employment. I believe there are many people on the unemployment register who are well qualified to participate in that. Irrespective of whose decision, some steps should be initiated to correct that and to ensure that people who are genuinely unemployed and on the register and registered with Manpower, as they all are nowadays, are given an opportunity of earning a few pounds on those days.

Deputy Dennehy.—I do not want to labour the point, but we should discriminate in favour of long term unemployed in areas where we can encourage it, and this was an excellent effort by the Central Statistics Office to do that. Unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit are the only real way of identifying these people. You get on to unemployment assistance only when you are long term unemployed. Anybody can register with Manpower — FÁS nowadays — and you need only be unemployed a month. We should contest anything that will restrict any Department in trying to discriminate in this area. I accept that the CSO are not concerned with this now. Let it be the Minister for Labour or anybody; for instance we are constantly harassing the Minister for Social Welfare to identify schemes that will help the long term unemployed. The longer they are unemployed the more difficult it becomes to get a job. The decision by the equality officer is a very dangerous precedent. The only way to identify the long term unemployed is by their receipt of unemployment assistance. To register with FÁS you need only be out of school, you can be long term or you can be anything. I would like the Committee to have the details if we are the correct body to deal with the matter.

Chairman.—The Committee would like to have a note on it giving the Department of Finance’s point of view. Since there is a Presidential Election later in the year you might bear in mind the suggestion that when there is work available counting, at polling stations and the like, unemployed persons should be given the opportunity whenever possible to take up these temporary jobs. For many it would be a welcome boost and I think it could be done in many areas. The one area all the members of the Committee have a certain expertise in is elections, so I ask you to bear that in mind when you are considering the matter.

Mr. O’Farrell.—I will. I imagine that the matter of presiding officers etc., comes within the ambit of the Department of the Environment, and if I am correct in that I will convey the Committee’s views on the matter to that Department. I will also send a copy of the letter to the Committee accordingly.

Deputy Dennehy.—The Central Statistics Office are involved in monitoring prices. Is this price control? Many people are now worried about fluctuation in prices and the need to control that. Does the Accounting Officer have a role in fairly speedy monitoring and feeding back of prices or price differentials and that kind of thing? Do the CSO advise on what would seem to be really out of line increases?

Mr. Linehan.—No, the CSO has no function in the monitoring of prices. The involvement in the price area is in the production of the quarterly consumer price index in which we collect a variety of prices on quite a basket of commodities throughout the country for the purpose of compiling the index. We have no function of monitoring at individual shop level or of identifying questionable increases. We would have no function in that way at all.

Deputy Allen.—I apologise for my late arrival. In relation to the gathering of statistics, what yardsticks and standards are used in relation to how interpretations are made on information coming in? My experience of the office is in relation to a problem that my own health board area were dealing with, the problem of suicides. We found the figures that were supplied by the office were totally out of line with reality. Having had the ability to double check on the figures the office supplied on an annual report, we found them out of line with the figures supplied by the coroners in the south-west region. It transpired that the CSO were getting figures and were interpreting them. Could I get into this whole area of interpretation and the management figures?

Mr. Linehan.—Was that brought to the notice of the office? Was there any communication to us on it?

Deputy Allen.—I assume there was from the health board management. These were figures between 1986 and 1988 and showed no real increase, while we on the ground knew there were major increases, very serious increases in the incidence of suicides. Someone suggested then that we contact coroners, and the coroners’ figures supported our views. While the CSO figures showed no national problem, in fact there was a problem. If we cannot depend on figures supplied by the office, whom can we turn to? Are they in the business of gathering information and interpreting it, or gathering information and redistributing it? Where does the problem lie in the system of gathering and distributing? If there is an interpretative role for the office I must question then the validity of some of the figures.

Mr. Linehan.—I am not familiar with the particular incident you mentioned in that area. The figures of causes of death are based on the information sent to us from the Registrar of Deaths. The case of suicide, which has always been a particularly difficult area, we do in publishing statistics of deaths have categories which have been identified as accidental or suicide, there is also an intermediate category for which it is not possible for us to allot suicide or accidental death. Those are published according to the international classification of causes of death. We have special returns from coroners where there have been inquests, particularly in respect of suicide, to try to get as accurate a position as possible. I am a little puzzled by the picture you have painted to me on that one. If it were a question of something relating back over 30 or 40 years when coroners’ practices may have been different or something of that nature — because there was a great reluctance at one stage to indicate suicide on a return to us — I would understand that; but certainly in rspect of that last few years I am quite surprised at that and it is something I would like to look into. I would be very happy and pleased to have a contact with the office to clarify it, because most of the information on deaths is not interpretive; it is on the medical evidence of the cause of death. In the case of death the manner of death is indicated, but whether there was an intention to commit suicide is another matter. That is the most difficult one and we have been making every effort to try to get figures which are as realistic as possible in what would be considered as sensible interpretation. I would welcome that information.

Deputy Allen.—I respectively suggest that maybe your office would contact the coroners because they have very strong views on the manner in which they are controlled in their reporting of situations to you. There is a certain procedure which limits their ability to transmit information to you.

Mr. Linehan.—There are legal problems—

Deputy Allen.—There are legal obstacles to getting a real grasp of the reality of the situation and in fact the figures that came from your office for the two years mentioned are totally out of line with reality. As a result Government systems are not responding to the problem; indeed, they do not accept that there is a problem. There is a hidden problem in the relationship between your office and the coroners and your office and the health boards. I suggest that your office should contact the Southern Health Board and some of the coroners in the south-west region because they tell me they have a problem.

Mr. Linehan.—We will certainly take this up, but I am rather puzzled because we do have regular contacts and we are aware of the legal problems in coroners’ official or formal statements. We have a special return system involving gardaí etc., to get views of individuals. I am quite surprised that there is that assessment.

Chairman.—Will you take up Deputy Allen’s suggestion?

Mr. Linehan.—It would be an additional help if there has been something put together which identified the different figures and I would be glad to have a copy of that.

Deputy Allen.—They can be fully documented. The figures supplied by you and the figures supplied by the coroners in the south-west region are in total disagreement. It was only when we got the coroners’ figures for their areas that we realised there was a problem.

Chairman.—Will Deputy Allen supply a copy?

Deputy Allen.—I suggest that the CSO should contact the health boards and the coroners because it is not my job to do so. There is a fully documented report in the possession of the Southern Health Board. They have the coroners’ reports and CSO figures for those years which show a difference.

Mr. Linehan.—It is possible that there has been contact already. I was not aware of this particular point coming up. I will be surprised if there had not already been discussion with——

Chairman.—Will you pursue the matter?

Deputy Allen.—The figures supplied by the CSO hide a major problem to which we have to react and deal with on a social basis. The figures, unfortunately, were hiding the problem up to now.

Mr. Linehan.—I wish to make it perfectly clear that it is not the wish of the CSO to hide that problem. We are recipients of data on deaths and we make particular efforts on that one point — suicides — which is the only difficult one in causes of death really.

Chairman.—The Committee accepts that you base your statistics on the information made available to you, but perhaps you would try to reconcile those statistics with what the coroners and the health board say in that particular region and you might let the Committee know your findings.

Mr. Linehan.—Yes, we will take it up.

Deputy Allen.—We are not unique, I would say——

Chairman.—Can we conclude on this examination? Mr. Linehan, we will note the Vote.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 32—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.

Mr. S. Olden called and examined.

Chairman.—Vóta 32, 1988. Tá an tUas. Seán Olden, an t-oifigeach cuntasaíochta, á scrúdú ag an gCoiste um Chuntais Phoiblí. Tá fáilte romhat.

Mr. Olden.—Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh.

Chairman.—Níl aon alt i dtuarascáil an ardreachtaire, agus, mar sin, cuirfidh mé cúpla ceist ort faoin vóta go ginearálta. Ar B.2 — Costais Áitreabh Oifige — cén fáth nach raibh an caiteachas ar chostas reachtáil oifige chomh hard agus a measadh; £42,000 an t-iomlán a bhí sa Mheastachán ach níor caitheadh ach £23,500?

Mr. Olden.—Tá córas nua i bhfeidhm anois, ach seo é an chéad bhliain. Roimhe sin is faoi Oifig na nOibreacha Poiblí a bhí an cúram agus, mar sin, ní raibh rudaí oibrithe amach chomh beacht agus a d’fhéadfadh siad a bheith nuair a bhí an obair á déanamh ag an OPW.

Chairman.—Ar E. — Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht — cén fáth go raibh an caiteachas ní ba mhó ná mar a measadh sa chás seo?

Mr. Olden.—Tá míniú éigin air sin ar an chéad leathanach eile. Tá sé luaite ansin, agus tá sé fíor nach ndeachaigh oibreacha áirithe ar aghaidh chomh tapaidh agus a ceapadh. Ní dheachthas ar aghaidh in aon chor le togra amháin, agus níl dulta ar aghaidh leis go fóill, mar a tharla.

Chairman.—Inis dúinn, le do thoil, faoin díscríobh a rinneadh, le cead na Roinne Airgeadais, maidir le hiasachtaí ó chomharchumainn, idir 1977 agus 1983.

Mr. Olden.—Is seancheist é sin, a Chathaoirligh, Bhí an t-am ann, agus tá sé blianta fada ó shin, agus measadh sa Roinn, agus sa Roinn Airgeadais leis, go mba cheart iarracht a dhéanamh brú áirithe a chur ar roinnt áirithe de na comharchumainn, agus, in ionad deontas a thabhairt dóibh, do na blianta áirithe sin, tugadh iasacht dóibh ar an tuiscint go raibh dualgas orthu é a íoc ar ais. Ach, mar a tharla, ní raibh mórán acu ar aon nós, ach amháin b’fhéidir ceann nó dhó, ar éirigh leo aon phioc de a íoc ar ais. Ag an deireadh, mheasamar nach raibh aon mhaitheas bheith ag súil leis agus go gcaithfimis díscríobh a dhéanamh air. Arís, tar éis tamaill, d’aontaigh an Roinn Airgeadais linn faoi sin agus fuaireamar an cead.

Chairman.—When will you provide language courses for the Chairman and other members of the Committee of Public Accounts?

Mr. Olden.—First, I do not think you need any classes and, second, I do not think it would fall on us to provide them. As I understand it, steps have been taken and much progress has been made in regard to the use of Irish and to the availability of aids for the speaking of Irish in Leinster House.

Chairman.—I understand the Minister is to open a language laboratory — or would that be too strong a word to use — in the Houses of the Oireachtas shortly?

Chairman.—I am not absolutely sure about that, but I am quite sure he would be very willing to do so if one was ready to open.

Chairman.—I understand that is the case. It is certainly time the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas were given the opportunity to avail of courses which, after all, are available to members of the public service. This matter should be pursued. Deputy Andrews, as Cathaoirleach of An Chomhchoiste don Ghaeilge, seems to be making great progress just like his colleague, Senator Tom Fitzgerald, did before him. I hope they get the co-operation of your Department. It is time Deputies went back to school and learned a little bit more. Let me suggest residential courses of a week to ten days ought to be available in the Gaeltacht at some stage during the summer for those Deputies and Senators who wish to undertake concentrated courses. Such courses might complement the small language laboratory to be opened in the Houses of the Oireachtas shortly.

Mr. Olden.—Again, I do not know whether it would fall on us to provide financial help for any such demarche, but we certainly would be fully in favour of it, as I am sure the Minister and Minister of State would.

Deputy Allen.—Ar 7. — Scéimeanna Cultúrtha agus Sóisialta — an bhfuil eolas agat faoin mhír, “Lucht iostais a choinníonn foghlaimeoirí aitheanta Gaeilge”, £1 mhilliún?

Mr. Olden.—Sin ceann de na scéimeanna is fearr atá againn. Sin é an scéim faoina dtéann mic léinn, daltaí scoile, chun na Gaeltachta ar feadh thréimhse trí seachtain, agus íocaimid deontas leis na mná tí, a choimeádann na daltaí sin. Bhí an figiúr sin, an £1 mhilliún, mórán mar a cheile le blianta anuas ach tá méadú beag ar an deontas don bhliain reatha.

Deputy Allen.—An íocann na tuismitheoirí táille chomh maith.

Mr. Olden.—Íocann na tuismitheoirí táille le pé coláiste a mbíonn na daltaí ag freastal air agus íocaimidne an t-airgead díreach leis na mná tí as na daltaí a choinneáil. Íocann an Roinn Oideachais as tuarastail na múinteoirí, nó cuid de, a bhíonn ag múineadh sna coláistí.

Deputy Allen.—I did my leaving certificate through Irish but later found, through lack of use, that I had lost fluency. I too would welcome the provision of facilities in the House in an effort to help us gain greater fluency in the language. In fact, a number of Deputies from all parties some years ago took private lessons each Thursday morning, provided by the Department of the Public Service, in this Building but the facilities were not great and we lost heart after 12 months. People are a bit shy and reticent about getting involved due to their lack of fluency. At least, such courses would be of help in regaining our fluency.

Mr. Olden.—I do not think that our Department can be of direct help. We would provide moral support. We believe that if leadership is given by the Houses of the Oireachtas this would have tremendous influence throughout the country.

Deputy Allen.—The most sickening part of this is the opening of a conversation with the token few words in Irish — the cupla focail. I do not get involved in this any more because I feel I would be paying lip-service to the language.

Mr. Olden.—I do not think you need make excuses.

Deputy Allen.—I hope facilities will be provided to encourage greater use of the language. I ask you to consider this suggestion.

Deputy Connor.—I speak in the vernacular. The Department of the Gaeltacht has an overall budget of £18 million.

Mr. Olden.—Yes.

Deputy Connor.—Do we get good value for that?

Mr. Olden.—It is very difficult for someone in my position to give an answer to that. What could I say but yes? I think we do. More than half of that money is spent by Údarás na Gaeltachta who contribute in a very direct way to the economy generally and to the social life of the Gaeltacht. That money, we believe, is well spent and Údarás believe they are getting good value in comparison with what is done in the rest of the country. The remainder of the money is not great when what is in question is a very fundamental matter of national policy, which is to bring the Irish language back to a very significant degree in the lives of the people of the country, both inside the Gaeltacht and throughout the country. We have to take cognisance of the fact that Irish is taught in the schools and there is a certain extra cost in that but I do not think anybody would seriously suggest that Irish should not be taught in schools as a subject. I think we would defend it, even though it is not necessarily a matter for the civil servants to defend, more a matter of policy. We are not ashamed of what has been achieved. In a sense, the achievement can be regarded as being largely negative; the situation, we believe, would be so much worse if this kind of money was not being spent.

Deputy Connor.—Is it not a fact all Gaeltacht areas are losing large numbers of their people through emigration? In looking at the map of Ireland, in particular at those areas designated Gaeltacht areas — I live in a peripheral region myself — I can see that they are even more peripheral.

Mr. Olden.—We have to accept that this is happening. People of certain age groups are emigrating as they are from other parts of Ireland.

Deputy Connor.—Do you monitor the level of emigration from the Gaeltacht areas?

Mr. Olden.—We do not monitor it from year to year. We depend on the census and, of course, on our own knowledge. We have offices in the Gaeltacht and the people who work in those offices are in the main from the Gaeltacht. They have a very close relationship with the community and know what is going on.

Deputy Taylor.—Do your Department have any input or involvement with the Scoileanna Lán Ghaelach, a very welcome phenomenon, which are doing very well, or are they completely a matter for the Department of Education?

Mr. Olden.—They are a matter for the Department of Education.

Deputy Taylor.—Is that satisfactory? Do you not feel, from many points of view apart from the financial one, that your Department should at least have some input?

Mr. Olden.—That matter has not come up for consideration. The upswing in all-Irish schools is a relatively new phenomenon. There was a time when there were very few of them, but now their number is increasing. Perhaps, it is something worth considering; but, as far as I am aware, it has not been considered as a policy option that we get more involved with them.

Deputy Allen.—On the point raised by Deputy Taylor in relation to Scoileanna Lán Ghaelach, they run into problems from time to time with the pupil — teacher ratio, given the small numbers involved. For example, the Model School in Cork, an old traditional Irish school, found itself this year without a teacher for a class because of the Department of Education guidelines on the pupil-teacher ratios and panels. Your Department should get involved with these schools. It should be a combined effort, with the Department of Education drawing up guidelines to meet the demands of schools where students or young children are taught through Irish. Your Department could play a role by topping up the system. There should be a greater relationship. What would be your reaction to that?

Mr. Olden.—I cannot give a reaction to that because it is a question of policy. It is certainly something that could be looked at. The Government would not welcome that kind of division between two Departments in relation to something which has traditionally been a matter for the Department of Education and which, I am quite sure, they approach with as much sympathy as they can. We know that they do. They may not always be able to solve each individual problem.

Deputy Allen.—They are not meeting the demands of the population at present through no fault of their own. They have to treat every category equally in their eagerness to learn Irish at a very early age. You can spend a lot of money on people like myself, in other words, flogging a half-dead horse. Spending a small amount of money on young children at the formative age would be a far greater investment.

Mr. Olden.—There would be more at issue. I speak from the top of my head. I do not see how we could go around topping up certain schools if we, or some others, were satisfied that that pupil-teacher ratio had fallen below a certain level, because that could have spinoffs in all kinds of other areas. It is probably better to leave it with the one Department. It is a matter of policy.

Deputy Allen.—There is a problem. Can I ask your Department — which is the Department responsible for the promotion of Irish — to communicate with the Department of Education on the problems that Scoileanna Lán Ghaelach are encountering now, especially in older parts of urban areas, like parts of Cork to which I have referred?

Chairman.—Could I prod you on one other thing? Could we persuade you to discuss with the Cathaoirleach den Chomhchoiste Gaeilge, Deputy David Andrews, the possibility of organising a week-long residential course in the Gaelteach for TDs and Senators who wish to avail of it? I am sure there are not that many who would need to. There are many who are quite competent but Deputy Andrews and this Committee are disposed to it. It would certainly help here in carrying out a proper examination of your own Department if——

Mr. Olden.—Certainly we would be quite willing to do it but there is within the Civil Service in the Department of Finance, and formerly in the Department of the Public Service, a body called Gaeleagras. Traditionally they have fulfilled the task of providing courses for civil servants and so on. If anything on the lines you suggest is to be done they might provide the proper vehicle as they are better equipped for it.

Chairman.—May I suggest that you act as the honest broker and involve Gaeleagras and Deputy Andrews? Deputy Andrews is thinking along those lines.

Mr. Olden.—Certainly we will do what we can.

Chairman.—That concludes the examination.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 34 — LABOUR.

Mr. M. Keegan called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee of Public Accounts is continuing its examination with the examination of Mr. Michael Keegan, Secretary of the Department of Labour, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Department and the audited accounts for 1988. You are welcome, Mr. Keegan. In relation to subhead A.2. — Superannuation and Pensions for Members of the Labour Court — do members retire at the age of 65 years?

Mr. Keegan.—No, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—At what age do they retire?

Mr. Keegan.—There is no set age. They are usually appointed for a period of years. The general policy at present is that nobody should be appointed beyond the age of 70. A number of people serving are already over 65 years.

Chairman.—What is the set number of years?

Mr. Keegan.—It is roughly three years at the moment but it can vary.

Chairman.—Under subhead A.3. — Consultancy Services — expenditure over ran by more than twice the original amount. What consultancy services were involved?

Mr. Keegan.—I have a list of them. The biggest one is the Consultancy Market Research Bureau of Ireland who did research in connection with the report of the Advisory Committee on Management Training — the Galvin Committee. we also had the consultancy by Noel Jones, also in relation to the report of the Advisory Committee on Management Training, and a lesser amount Dr. Pugh, UCD, on the assessment of data in connection with the notification of chemical processes. This arises under an EC obligation, that where a new factory is going to engage in the manufacture of a new chemical process they have to supply the data to the Department of Labour and it has to be examined and circulated to other member states.

Chairman.—Did you not anticipate at the beginning of the year that you would require this service? Is that the situation?

Mr. Keegan.—That was generally the situation. It is a small subhead of £10,000. It can vary up or down substantially. The amount of money is not great. There was another fairly big consultancy which cost £3,400. Irish Pensions Trust were engaged in consultancy work in connection with the Insolvency Act.

Chairman.—In relation to FÁS —FÁS was to replace agencies which were considered not to be running efficiently. Can I give an example of a case I have currently with your Department? The person involved is a tradesman. He receives something of the order of £62.30 unemployment assistance. He would get £65 from FÁS for a number of weeks — either 26 or 52 weeks. The difference is £2 or £3 at the most. At the end of the day the likelihood is that he would be up and running, would have established a business and he would be off the dole. Your Department having got the man to prepare accounts, forecasts, etc., say that they are not satisfied about the outlets he would have, but he is satisfied. Do you not think in a case where the difference is only £2 or £3 per week it is being a little pedantic? Is it not worthwhile for the State to invest a couple of extra pounds per week to ensure that at the end of the day a man comes off the dole?

Mr. Keegan.—A perennial question in relation to FÁS is whether they should only run what people call economic courses or whether they should run social courses. Some of the courses they run are economic courses. In other words, they are geared, as specifically as possible, to particular jobs. Other courses have an element of that in them but they have a stronger social element. The Deputy has raised the point that unemployed people, drawing unemployment assistance perhaps would be better off doing some sort of training, even if it did not lead to a job or was unlikely to lead to a job. The general policy of the Minister is to try to ensure that the payments made to people engaged in FÁS courses are as good as they would be getting on unemployment assistance, otherwise they would not participate.

Chairman.—The Minister’s attitude is good, and I think this Minister is a very practical man; but the point is often on the interpretation of these things. It is not a very big gamble to pay an extra £2 a week for 26 weeks or 52 weeks or whatever. Presumably they will save on the administration of the unemployment assistance scheme for them. Surely where the project looks pretty good and somebody is prepared to take a chance, a couple of pounds a week is not beyond the investment of your Department? Are we not being a bit pedantic in cases like that?

Mr. Keegan.—Let me make two points in response to that. First, I think you will recall that I was criticised here some years previously because people who were engaged on the enterprise scheme did not last out the time or failed after a few months or whatever. In some cases when we used to give a large number of lump sums there were accusations that perhaps they were not spent to the best advantage, to put it mildly. Over the years efforts were made to try to improve the quality of the projects the people were engaged on under the enterprise scheme so as to try to ensure they would have a reasonable chance of viability. There is another point — and to a certain extent what you say is valid — there is a limited amount of money available for all of these schemes. If somebody gets on, then somebody else with perhaps a better project is deprived of the opportunity. It is not an easy thing; it is not black and white.

Chairman.—Could you give the Committee an indication of the number of disputes in the year under examination and how the situation has improved since then? What do you put that down to and what has it meant for your Department in terms of resources used?

Mr. Keegan.—Certainly the number of industrial disputes has gone down significantly over the last few years. I have the figures for 1988 and 1989. I have the figures for earlier years as well. I can give you the total number of strikes, and the number of days lost, if you wish. In 1988 the total number of strikes was 72, and the number of days lost was 130,000. For 1989, speaking from memory, the number of days lost was 41,000 as compared with 130,000 days lost for the previous year. The number of strikes was around 40, but I am checking that figure now. As to what one would attribute that to, a number of reasons have been put forward. The Programme for National Recovery has been given a lot of the credit; also an improved standard of negotiation; and finally — perhaps I should not say “finally” because I do not know in what order one should put them — certainly throughout the early eighties there was high unemployment, there still is, and some people argue that when there is a high level of unemployment there is less propensity to engage in industrial action. These are the types of arguments that are put forward.

Chairman.—It would be fair to say that the trade union movement have played their part and have been very responsible, which is a major contributory factor as well to the programme for recovery?

Mr. Keegan.—That is so. The improved standards of negotiation are on both sides of the table, on the employers’ side and on the trade unions’ side.

Deputy Allen.—I wish to ask a number of questions under the FÁS heading on the second page of the accounts. In relation to FÁS, there is a figure of £5.27 million for administration and £48.7 million for training. The allocation for training is a grant-in-aid — in other words, you give grants to the different FÁS centres throughout the country to run training courses. Out of that £48.7 million, could I have the figure for spending on external courses — in other words, where you hire consultants to take external courses outside the FÁS centres throughout the country? Could we have a breakdown of the sum spent on these external courses outside the FÁS centres, and if there is also another administration element in the £48.7 million? Second, we are spending £39.13 million on the social employment scheme. Could I have a rundown on the type of organisations that are running the social employment schemes — I know the local authorities are — but may I have a more detailed breakdown of the figure?

I have my own opinions on social employment schemes, but I would like to get your reaction on how you feel the scheme is being used by organisations. Third, DÍON have been allocated £250,000 for emigrant services. Could I have a rundown on how that money is being allocated, who is getting it and the way it is being spent? I also had the impression that your Department were in receipt of substantial moneys from the European Social Fund but I see zero in the column for the appropriation made. Were you getting moneys? Have they stopped and why? The dispute in the Department of Labour at present means old age pensioners cannot get information on pensions. Could we have information on the up-to-date position because people are being seriously inconvenienced by people who are well placed themselves? Finally, in relation to the FÁS dispute, what is the up-to-date situation there?

Mr. Keegan.—May I reply to those questions in reverse, if the Deputy does not mind? The dispute in the Department of Labour was settled some weeks ago. Normal working has been restored and special efforts are being made with the co-operation of the staff to get rid of any arrears that have accumulated. On the Social Fund in the past some of the Social Fund was allocated to schemes, in particular training schemes run by FÁS or AnCO before it, and some was allocated for employment schemes run by the NMS. In the case of the NMS, which was part of the Department of Labour, the practice was that the gross cost of the scheme was voted in the subhead and the ESF money came in as appropriations-in-aid. In the case of AnCO any sum voted in the Estimate was a net sum from the Exchequer and the European Social Fund money was paid directly to AnCO and did not come through the Vote. As the Deputy will be aware, since 1 January 1988 the National Manpower Service of the Department has merged with AnCO to form FÁS and all NMS training schemes are now part of FÁS. Nowadays none of the money from the ESF comes through the appropriations-in-aid; it all goes directly to FÁS in respect of schemes under their aegis.

Deputy Allen.—What amount of money are we talking about? We are talking about £48.7 million for training, so what figures are you talking about?

Mr. Keegan.—In 1988 about £49 million was going direct to FÁS from the ESF for training.

Deputy Allen.—That would be on top of the moneys that were included in the Estimate?

Mr. Keegan.— That is right. The figure for 1990, in case the Deputy is interested, is £79 million, under the reformed Structural Funds.

Deputy Allen.—What controls are on the money that is brought in to FÁS? In other words, we cannot, as a Committee of Public Accounts, deal with those moneys because they are not on your Estimate. Who vets the spending of those moneys and who has accountability for the spending of that £79 million?

Mr. Keegan.—The board would have accountability but the Comptroller and Auditor General audits the accounts of FÁS. The board would have general responsibility but the Department of Labour have an overall responsibility for every agency in the country which gets European Social Fund money.

Deputy Allen.—But it does not show up here?

Mr. Keegan.—The European Social Fund money always went direct to semi-State agencies; it always went direct to AnCO. The proportion for the NMS went through the Vote for the Department of Labour; and, nowadays, because the NMS have gone into FÁS, it all goes into FÁS direct.

Deputy Allen.—As a member of this Committee looking at the accounts for that year, I see no European Social Fund moneys went into the Department of Labour or into FÁS, but you tell me that in 1988 there was £49 million and in 1990 there was £79 million.

Mr. Keegan.—An estimate for 1990.

Deputy Allen.—Yes, but I do not have that information before me. Looking at the accounts I would have taken it that FÁS had spent in this year £48 million. It is news to me now that you have an extra £40 million coming from the European Social Fund.

Mr. Keegan.—That is the system operated by the Social Fund. The Vote does not show money that goes direct to FÁS. That is the general practice. Similarly, the levy money goes direct to FÁS.

Chairman.—Would it not be possible to bring in the gross amount and then to show the £49 million receipt as an appropriation-in-aid so that it would show in the accounts?

Mr. Keegan.—Yes. The accounting practices of that nature are all subject to the Department of Finance. We do not decide on the accounting practices in relation to the Vote. We account for the money voted by the Oireachtas and it is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and it is examined here by the Committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General also audits the FÁS accounts. The accounts are published and are laid on the table of the House.

Chairman.—Let us deal with this point before Deputy Allen proceeds. Will Mr. McDonnell tell us what is to stop the accounts being rescheduled to show the gross amounts and the European Social Fund money as an appropriation-in-aid?

Mr. McDonnell.—In addition to the point made by the Accounting Officer, the preference of the European Social Fund would be that the funds do not go into the Exchequer. We have had this point before in other areas. The wish of the European Social Fund is that it would not be seen to go into the central Exchequer lest — and this is a constant bone of contention — it be seen as being in substitution for and not in addition to national contributions. The EC would be anxious to see that there is a national contribution in addition to European Social Fund.

Chairman.—That is a valid point. Just to deal with this point and not to be cutting across Deputy Allen, I wonder if it might be possible by way of a note to the account to illustrate this more clearly than is shown? Looking at the accounts one would think that all that was spent was £48.7 million but, in fact, it is almost twice that.

Mr. McDonnell.—I take the point that you make, Chairman, and also the point made by Deputy Allen. I do not see that there would be anything wrong in putting a note to the accounts.

Deputy Allen.—I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor General in that I believe that the moneys from the European Social Fund should be kept separate, but at the same time there should be some notification to the Committee that in fact there is £80 million extra in the system. The impression created on me was that all FÁS were spending was £48.7 million when, in fact, they were spending more than double that. There should be some form of control by this Committee on the manner in which the moneys were spent. There should be accountability to somebody in the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would like to know what safeguards there are and the manner in which the moneys are spent. Does the European Social Fund keep a close scrutiny on how the moneys are spent and what are the mechanisms?

Mr. Keegan.—That raises a big question of principle. The statute setting up FÁS determines the procedures in FÁS and it is under the general control of the Minister for Labour. The published accounts are laid on the Table of the House. They are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It would not be for an independent Department like our own, or a spending Department, to decide on the proper procedures. As I understand it, all I am responsible for or answerable for as Accounting Officer is the money voted by the Oireachtas and that is the expenditure set out in the Appropriation Account. In another capacity the Department have of course a general overview of FÁS. We are aware of everything that is going on. The Minister is responsible for policy in FÁS and we have a general overview of procedures in FÁS. I would have thought that it was not my function to answer in detail for the accounts of FÁS. On the EC side of things and in regard to ESF money, FÁS and ourselves have to account to the Commission for expenditure, ourselves in a general way and FÁS in a particular way. We have to put in claims and those claims are very closely vetted by the Commission staff and queries are often raised on them. We are often consulted in relation to FÁS and other agencies, but generally the queries are answered by the agency concerned through the Department of Labour. That is in the capacity of having oversight of the ESF expenditure, not as Accounting Officer for the Vote.

Chairman.—It is fair to point out that the ESF funds are audited by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities and the Comptroller and Auditor General audits FÁS. The Accounting Officer accounts for the moneys voted by the Oireachtas. There is a tradition where there are non-commercial State bodies or agencies of this kind involved that the Accounting Officer is able to tell the Committee what the position is in relation to various points.

Deputy Allen.—The point I am making is that the accounts which include money for FÁS are laid before us for examination here today and there is well over £100 million under the heading of FÁS to be examined. We could do it in a far more realistic way if we realised — I did not realise it — that there was another £79 million coming from the European Social Fund which we are not being told about. That colours my attitude to the whole examination of FÁS.

Chairman.—It has to do with the lay-out of the accounts. The Comptroller and Auditor General has reassured us on that basis. In future, if there is no objection, a note can be put in which will draw the Committee’s attention to that.

Deputy Allen.—There should be a note to that effect.

Mr. Keegan.—The Deputy asked me about DIÓN. He wanted to know the organisations which got the money.

Deputy Allen.—Before we leave FÁS, there was a question on the level of external courses and the cost of external courses?

Mr. Keegan.—I was going backwards on your line of questions. I have a list here that I could read out, or I could submit it in writing to the Committee. It is published in the annual report of the Department of Labour. The annual report for 1989 is already out so it is right up-to-date.

Deputy Allen.—Would you read it out?

Mr. Keegan.—Would you like the 1988 or 1989 figures?

Deputy Allen.—The 1988 figures.

Mr. Keegan.—Irish Centre, Camden, £75,000; Irish Welfare Bureau, Hammersmith, £39,000; Irish Community Care Centre, Haringey (Stroud Green), £32,000; South London Irish Association, £7,500; Brent Irish Advisory Service, £11,000; Irish Welfare Centre, Birmingham, £10,500; Irish Centre, Liverpool, £14,500; Irish Welfare Centre, Manchester, £11,000; Action Group for Irish Youth, £11,000; Soho Project, Charing Cross, £4,000; Piccadilly Advice Centre, £5,000; Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas, £4,500; Irish Centre, Haringey (Pretoria Road, Tottenham), £5,000; Irish Centre, Luton, £10,000. There is also one other organisation which is based in this country — the Emigrant Advice Bureau — which received £10,000.

Deputy Allen.—Where are they stationed?

Mr. Keegan.—In Ireland. I think they may be stationed in Dublin but I am not certain.

Deputy Allen.—There are different advice centres in the different cities. Which city?

Mr. Keegan.—I think it is in Dublin. The 1989 figures are in the report which was circulated last week. As regards the social employment schemes I have the percentage participation of voluntary and public sector. First of all the percentage of projects — 81 per cent voluntary, 19 per cent public sector. The percentage of participation — 55 per cent voluntary and 45 per cent public sector.

Deputy Allen.—Perhaps I am a bit slow, but what were the 81 per cent and 19 per cent figures?

Mr. Keegan.—The percentage of projects. It is easy to see from the figures that the public sector projects are bigger. The Deputy asked about the type of voluntary groups. There are community groups, sports organisations. heritage groups and unemployed centres. This is the breakdown of that.

Deputy Allen.—In relation to the public sector, could we get a further breakdown on those?

Mr. Keegan.—Apart from the fact that they are local authorities, I have not got details. The Deputy asked me for the separate figures for external training. I have not got those but I can send them into the Secretary of the Committee.

Deputy Allen.—Have you an approximate figure? I am asking because I am concerned about the manner in which external courses are run and the level of control on external courses.

Mr. Keegan.—The running of the individual courses is a day to day matter for FÁS.

Chairman.—If the Oireachtas votes money for it and if there was any problem it would be a matter for this Committee. If you have not got the information——

Mr. Keegan.—I will send it in. I have not got it now.

Deputy Allen.—That is not much good to me. I wanted to examine in detail today the level of spending and the amount of control of these external courses. I am personally concerned about the level of control on these courses, how they are allocated and how external directors are appointed. I wanted to know the amount of money being spent by FÁS on these courses, what control there is on the level of quality and the mode of appointment and why FÁS cannot do a certain amount of these courses themselves. It is a whole area that should be looked at because I feel there is inadequate control on it and that is why I wanted the information today.

Mr. Keegan.—I have not got detailed information but I can send a memo to the Committee answering all of those points. I will write to the chairman of FÁS and ask for information on those headings.

Chairman.—Let me suggest, since Mr. Keegan does not have the information, that when he forwards it we will circulate it to the Committee and if any member of the Committee wants to raise any further questions on it we can always recall Mr. Keegan if the information is not detailed enough.

Deputy Allen.—He does not have information in relation to the amount of money spent, but I would like a run-down on how the courses are controlled, how people are appointed on these courses, the level of control there is on the quality of these courses and the whole general principle of policy towards extra courses within FÁS. That information should be available today.

Mr. Keegan.—FÁS organise and run these courses and FÁS are a semi-independent agency. The Department would not have the staff to go into that detail on them. We would accept a general responsibility overall for the operations of FÁS and in that context we certainly could ask for the control arrangements and mode of appointment — the various matters you raise — as well as the amount of money. I have not got that detailed information here.

Deputy Allen.—We are spending over £100 million on these types of courses in training between European Social Fund money and money allocated by the Exchequer and the Houses of the Oireachtas. I think it is unsatisfactory that that information is not available because, even though they may be a semi-independent body, they get money voted from the Dáil and we are entitled to the information. It should be available here today.

Chairman.—We will get the information. It is just that the Accounting Officer does not have the details you want. Mr. McDonnell might be able to give us some figures from the accounts which he has audited which might give an indication of the situation.

Mr. McDonnell.—In 1988, expenditure by FÁS on training totalled £98 million, the figure Deputy Allen mentioned. In a breakdown of that there are the direct training costs, the staff costs and the overheads. The direct training costs in that come to just £58 million, within that £58 million — I do not know if this is the figure Deputy Allen is interested in — the course fees paid to external trainers is £8,677,000. Apart from that, within the £58 million there are training grants to community groups and foreman costs for community groups. There are the trainee allowances, which are a big element of it. The trainee allowances, accommodation and travel come to £34 million and there are materials, etc. Is there any other figure that Deputy Allen would like me to give?

Deputy Allen.—That is helpful. We have now established that over £8.5 million is spent on external courses in fees to external directors. On top of that you have the attendance allowances for students and a number of other extra items which would raise the figure substantially. We are talking in the region, I estimate, of between £15 million and £20 million, which we should have more detailed information on because it is a whole grey area where I believe there is a certain laxity. I use that word just for now.

Chairman.—Would you forward a detailed note to the Committee on this matter, Mr. Keegan?

Mr. Keegan.—I will.

Chairman.—We will proceed in the way I suggest, in that it concludes the queries raised by Deputy Allen.

Mr. McDonnell.—In the course of my audit of FÁS, I have carried out examinations some of the local centres but I do appreciate what Deputy Allen is saying. I have had correspondence with FÁS in regard to the controls and so on in relation to the training centres.

Deputy Allen.—Has the response been satisfactory?

Mr. McDonnell.—I am concerned with the accounting controls. I have received assurances from FÁS that controls are being improved but it is an area of concern to me and an area which, I might add, is a difficult one from an audit point of view.

Deputy Connor.—Returning to the grant for DÍON, I notice that it is all spent in London. Are there expenditures in other centres?

Mr. Keegan.—Not all of it is spent in London. Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Luton are also mentioned. Most of the centres are in London, I agree, but some money is given to other centres.

Chairman.—Does that conclude the examination? Thank you very much.

Deputy Allen.—When we get the information, I ask that the Secretary be invited back because I have many more questions in relation to external training, with which I am totally dissatisfied.

Chairman.—We will try to slot Mr. Keegan in at the beginning of a meeting at some stage soon so that we can conclude this matter. I would appreciate if you could let us have the note as soon as possible. I was about to wish you farewell but we will have to do that another day. We will note the vote for now.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.