|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISEMINUTES OF EVIDENCEAN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS PHOIBLÍCOMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTSDéardaoin, 19 Eanair, 1995Thursday, 19 January, 1995The Committee met at 11 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT:
DEPUTY JIM MITCHELL IN THE CHAIR Mr. J. Purcell (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.Mr. Philip Ryan, Mr. Colm Gallagher, Dept. of Finance representatives in attendance.APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS 1993VOTE 42 - AN ROINN EALAÍON CULTÚIR AGUS GAELTACHTAVOTE 44 - AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍONMr. Tadgh Ó hÉalaithe, Rúnaí, Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, called and examined.Chairman: Before we move to the Vote of An Roinn Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta, and the Vote on An Chomhairle Ealaíon, the Comptroller and Auditor General wishes to make a statement in relation to the legal difficulties which have arisen on the tax amnesty and further developments in this respect. I call on the Comptroller and Auditor General to make a statement. Mr. Purcell: I received a letter from the Attorney General yesterday in which he stated that he concurred with the views of his predecessor, Mr. Harry Whelehan, in regard to the interpretation of section 7(5) of the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act, 1993 insofar as my functions are concerned - that is, that I am not entitled to report to Dáil Éireann on the results of the matching exercise carried out as a part of my audit of the Incentive Amnesty. In the letter he suggested that the appropriate method of resolving the issue is a determination by the High Court and, if necessary on appeal, by the Supreme Court. In the light of this letter, I can inform the Committee that it is my intention to seek the approval of the Minister for Finance to my engaging legal counsel to take the matter to the courts in the most appropriate way. Chairman: This is a very significant development indeed, where the Comptroller and Auditor General effectively is being forced to go to the courts to establish his constitutional rights and duties. It seems to me that in the end of the day it is probably the best course that the courts actually should interpret the law and, indeed, the Constitution in relation to the powers, rights and duties of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of this Committee. As Members will be aware, we have taken our own advice, which is contrary to that of the Attorney General, and that is that the Comptroller and Auditor General is perfectly within his rights to do what he proposed to do and that is that the Comptroller and Auditor General is perfectly within his rights to do what he proposed to do and to report to this Committee. However, it would not be within the ambit of this Committee to be party to any proceedings even though we will be crucially concerned about the outcome of those proceedings. On the other hand it will be a matter for the Committee to decide, in the light of our own legal advice, whether or not to make a special report to Dáil Éireann on the matter. It is very clear that if a precedent is allowed to be established whereby any area of public expenditure is, in any way, exempted from the unlimited examination of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of this Committee, a very dangerous precedent will be created. The Comptroller and Auditor General has discharged his duties in this respect absolutely correctly. He has gone through the proper process and it is very important that this Committee also goes through the proper process in ensuring that parliamentary control of public expenditure is in no way diluted, because that is what is at stake here. The legal advice which the Committee has sought has been circulated to Members. There are a number of aspects which need to be clarified with counsel, and an appointment has been fixed for this afternoon. Unfortunately, we could not get an appointment before this afternoon. As the Committee knows, a sub-group. I been established to monitor these matters and it would be my intention to discuss this matter with the sub-group. I suggest that we would leave that with the sub-group. I am conscious of the fact that the future membership of the Committee is in question following the change of Government. Clearly, if there is a change of personnel, either in the Chair or otherwise, the new arrangements will have to take up the baton from there. But as of now I suggest that we would clarify our own legal advice as it needs to be clarified in some respects. We should also consider whether it is now time to report specially to the Dáil on the developments, or whether we should await the outcome of the judicial review proceedings. Any comments? Deputy O’Malley: In general, I obviously welcome, like you do, what has happened. The Comptroller has taken the right action in bringing proceedings now. However, there is one caveat that I would enter and it arises partly out of what you have just said - that you think it is right that the courts should now decide what the powers and jurisdiction of the Committee are. I do not think that that is so necessary. Chairman: Not of the Committee, of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Deputy O’Malley: Of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not think that that is so necessarily at all. In particular, this Committee should be very careful to ensure that it is answerable only to the Dáil. That is what the Constitution makes clear. It is not subject to the courts; it is answerable and subject only to the Dáil. We should not regard it as a precedent that at any stage in the future either what this Committee might hear by way of evidence or what it might report on could be decided by the courts. They are a separate body and the Dáil is the only body competent to direct this Committee as to what it does or does not do. Subject to saying that - and hopefully avoiding any misunderstanding - I welcome what has happened. I suggested several months ago, if you recall, that this should happen. You will note from the opinion that the proceedings have to be taken by way of an application for judicial review and that if they are not taken expeditiously the court, on those grounds alone, can refuse it. Mr. O’Reilly draws particular attention to that and I would draw the Comptroller’s attention to that. It is very important that he start the proceedings at once and not delay otherwise, while he might have won on the merits, he could lose on that particular heading. Deputy Broughan: I apologies for being late and missing the start of the meeting. Do we know the stage at which the consultations between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the new Attorney General are? Chairman: Yes, they are over. Deputy Broughan: Are they over? Chairman: Just to bring you up to date: the C&AG has just told us that the new Attorney has responded agreeing with the view of the previous Attorney as I nearly expected he would. Deputy Broughan: So the Comptroller and Auditor General then - Chairman: It is going to court for judicial review. The interesting point made by the Comptroller is that he is seeking the approval of the Department of Finance to go to court which is, in itself, a somewhat unacceptable situation. Deputy Doherty: I just want to raise that aspect of it. Does it not interfere with the constitutionally acknowledged independence of the office of the Auditor General that he cannot, if refused, find the necessary finances? Chairman: It certainly is not, in my view, satisfactory but, at the same time, I think we can take it that the Department of Finance will not object. We had to get Department of Finance approval for our legal advice and they did not stand in the way. However, it is a bad arrangement in the sense that if the Department of Finance was to take a contrary view, we could have a serious conflict. The Comptroller might comment on that. Mr. Purcell: I did not seek to go to court earlier because I believed I had a duty to act with due regard to the economy of the public finances which we preach here every week and certainly I, as Comptroller and Auditor General, want to practise. It was for that reason I explored every avenue outside of incurring the expense of going to court because the Committee will be aware that can involve expenditure of considerable proportions. It is in the matter of getting sanction for that expenditure that I need to go to the Minister for Finance in the same way that all other Departments need to have the specific or delegated sanction of the Minister for Finance. I do not want to anticipate that but I would not expect that there would be a problem. It may well be that if there was a problem and a refusal in that regard, the Minister for Finance would also be seen as inhibiting me and we might then be really into an appalling vista. Let us not anticipate that because personally I do not think it will arise. Deputy Foley: Chairman, I compliment you on the work you put into this but as the new Attorney General has agreed with his predecessor on the issue, I think the Comptroller and Auditor General should take note of it. I am just saying that now. You have arranged a meeting this evening for the group - Chairman: It is for counsel to clarify - Deputy Foley: - It is only just to clarify - Chairman: About four points. Were you going to suggest the group meet? Deputy Foley: I was going to suggest putting it back for week but if you think that would be awkward, go ahead with it this evening. Chairman: The meeting this evening is only to get clarification on a number of points. Deputy Foley: Okay. Chairman: The Committee has to consider the development because I only learnt of this in the last few minutes. I realise Deputies will not have had time to immerse themselves in the full advice we have received. It is clear, for instance, that the Committee cannot be party to any proceedings even though we have a crucial interest in them. That does not mean that Members of the Dáil or the Committee, as individuals, do not have a right. They may themselves wish to be party to the proceedings and that is legally possible. Of course there are cost implications for them personally. Deputy Broughan: The 12 existing members of the Committee could, if they wished, be involved in the judicial review. Chairman: As individuals, yes. As I understand the advice, because the Constitution requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to report to Dáil Éireann, Members of the Dáil as individuals would have locus standi in these proceedings but no Committee of the House would have that right. It should also be clear - maybe we should seek to clarify this - that the question being put to the court for judicial review is whether section 7 of the Act in any way restricts the Comptroller and Auditor General in his duties and, if so, if it is valid. Is that the net question? Mr. Purcell: There are two questions and one is dependent on the other. The first and most important is: what is the correct interpretation of section 7(5) of the Act? Obviously if that permits me to carry out my functions as I see fit then the question of the constitutionality of that the section does not arise. However, in the event that the courts determine that the interpretation is the more restricted one, the question as to the constitutionality of that section has to be raised. In fact there are two points: one, the interpretation of the section itself and, if that is, from my point of view, adverse, the constitutionality of that particular section. Deputy Doherty: Is there any distinction being made between what the Auditor General might be entitled to know at the end of the day and what he might be entitled to report on to this Committee? I think there was a suggestion at a previous meeting that what he could possibly be interpreted as having access to might not necessarily mean that he had an entitlement to convey same to the Committee and subsequently indeed to Dáil Éireann. Chairman: There is that possibility as I understand it. The legal advice is that the discretion as to what reports are to be made to the Committee lies with the Comptroller and Auditor General. What he, in his judgment, believes should be reported to the Committee is what is reported to this Committee. Deputy O’Malley: My understanding of the position was that, contrary to what had become the popular view or opinion, the Comptroller was not restricted in his access to information. The inhibition or restriction on him is that the Revenue Commissioners and the Attorney General do not want him to report it to this Committee and to the Dáil. Deputy Doherty: That is correct. Deputy O’Malley: However, he actually got the information he sought. Could he confirm that? Chairman: That was the stance the Revenue took but when the advice of he Attorney General was sought, the Attorney General went further and said not only could he not report to the Dáil but he should not have made a comparison in the first place. That latter point is a very significant additional point. Deputy O’Malley: Yes, I see. I was not clear on that. Mr. Purcell: My understanding of it conforms with yours, the advice being that the carrying out of the exercise itself was illegal or in contravention of section 7 (5) - Chairman: As the Attorney General saw it. Mr. Purcell: If section 7 (5) is interpreted in the way the Attorney General interprets it. I would not see a distinction between the carrying out of the exercise and the reporting of it. I would not make that distinction because my function includes both auditing and reporting. While it is clear that I had no problems about access to any information - and there was never any restriction on my access to information - there is a question mark over how I use that information. Chairman: It is a well established precedent that the Comptroller and Auditor General is unrestricted in his access to State papers and it was the Department of Justice’s precedent in the 1960s where, on grounds of national security, it was sought to restrict his access to certain papers. However, it was agreed then by Government decision that where national security or tight confidentiality was pleaded, the Comptroller and Auditor General would personally have to see those papers and nobody else. However, in this case - at least it seems to me - the Attorney General seems to be going further in his advice. While it is true that the Comptroller and Auditor General had access to all the documents in the Revenue Commission and, indeed, he says in his report that he had access to papers which the Revenue Commissioners did not have access to, having sought the advice of the Attorney General, the Attorney General says he should not have had that access or should not have made that comparison. Mr. Purcell: No, just should not have made the comparison. Chairman: Not the access, but not the comparison. That is a new situation. Mr. Purcell: Deputy Broughan asked a question about being enjoined in the action. It is my understanding that that is not the situation of which your legal adviser spoke. It is only in the event of me failing or deciding not to take action that it would be open to any Member of Dáil Éireann to take that action. He said I would be the obvious person to take the proceedings. Deputy O’Keeffe: I refer back to the application for funding to proceed. While the Department of Finance might not refuse the request, is it possible that a response to a request could be so delayed that our case would fall by default if an answer was not forthcoming with some urgency? As regards the mechanism of committees and the modus operandi in relation to seeking legal advice from time to time, this will be difficult with the development of committees because there will be circumstances whereby legal advice will have to be sought. As elected Members of the House, should we consider having that right pertaining to ourselves and, perhaps, to the Dáil, rather than having to go through the Department of Finance for sanction? This is an important point for the future because I envisage the type of situation which developed here with all the committees occurring again. As committees of the House, we should have the right to determine that ourselves, rather than giving that right away to the Department of Finance. Mr. Purcell: I will clearly impress on the Department of Finance the urgency of the need for speedy sanction. The Committee can rest assured that I will write to the Department of Finance this afternoon or tomorrow and impress on it the urgency of the situation. Deputy O’Keeffe: What timescale would you put on this in terms of getting sanction? Mr. Purcell: I do not know because I cannot presume how the Department of Finance will act. However, I have no reason to believe it would not act speedily on the matter. I have no doubt about its best intentions. It is as anxious to resolve matters which affect the public finances as I am. Chairman: Perhaps a telephone call could be made to notify it that this urgent request is coming. The Committee of Public Accounts is keen for this authority to be given quickly. Deputy O’Malley: Arising from what Deputy O’Keeffe said, several months ago, not just in this Committee, but in another one, I made the suggestion that a standing counsel or legal adviser should be appointed for committees of the House generally. I understand that was to be taken up at the liaison committee meeting of the chairmen. All the committees need legal advice from time to time. It is impossible that someone must be picked each time and then one must go through the laborious procedure of going to the Department of Finance which may refuse the request in any event. All the committees of the House should be entitled to get legal advice when they want it, not by courtesy of the Department of Finance. There should be a standing legal adviser appointed to all the committees. Chairman: The liaison committee discussed it and in the last few days I discussed it with the Government Chief Whip. In view of the development of committees and also the questions of natural justice and how one proceeds in certain situations, there is almost certainly a need for a legal services office in the Houses of the Oireachtas. In other words, there should be a staff legal office. It would be cheaper to have a few staff barristers, not only to advise when one wants legal advice on a net point, but also when one needs a legal adviser to sit in on committees, especially if one is questioning witnesses whose constitutional rights and rights of natural justice could be affected by the proceedings. By proceeding wrongly, we could, in fact, compromise the effectiveness of a committee. A legal services office is almost certainly something which should be considered. Deputy Broughan: If we are to get a compellability of witnesses Bill through, which this Committee has badly needed because a number of people, including the Governor of the Central Bank, refused to come before us - and we have watched our sister committee in action over recent weeks in this area - there is no question but that we must have standing counsels for all the committees. The other problem is that people will come here with counsel as well and this will, as we have seen in recent weeks, change, in a progressive and democratic way, the nature of the Dáil to some extent. Does the essence of this matter not go back to whether or not the Executive of the Dáil can restrict the powers of the Legislature? Is that not the heart of the matter? Chairman: This relates to the question of parliamentary control of public expenditure and the need for the Comptroller and Auditor General as an agent of Parliament to ensure that. The main question is the constitutionality of section 7. There will be concerns about whether the courts will go further and if they find that the section is unconstitutional, is there a danger they will find the entire Act unconstitutional? This has been raised by me and by other Members of the House. I am not a lawyer, but our concern is not with the constitutionality of the Act, but with the constitutionality of any implication that the Comptroller and Auditor General is restricted or, through him, that this Committee is restricted in its control of public expenditure. Deputy Broughan: I hope there is no possibility that someone will indicate that the money must be given back. As you know, the reason the Minister for Finance is in a reasonably happy humour is partly because of that amnesty. While we want to clarify the constitutional implications, like a certain gentleman said to us last week at this Committee, I hope none of that money will be taken away from the public purse. Chairman: On the contrary, I do not think it will arise, but we should not speculate about that. Deputy O’Malley: It might have the opposite effect to what Deputy Broughan suggests because instead of paying 10 or 15 per cent, these people should pay their taxes in full and pay interest on them so that the public purse would, in fact, benefit by a factor of 3, 4 or 5, perhaps. More money would come in if this Act was declared unconstitutional. These people should pay their taxes in full and pay interest on them so that the public purse would benefit by a factor of perhaps, three or four of five. A lot more money would come in if this Act was declared unconstitutional. Deputy Broughan: I support that view but - Deputy O’Malley: Unfortunately, the Deputy voted for the Act. I voted against it for that, among other reasons. Deputy Broughan: The President approved the Act, if you want to go that far. Chairman: Let us not get into that debate. The Act was enacted by the Oireachtas. There is a presumption of constitutionality until this is shown otherwise. I only raised the point on the basis that there may be concerns in he Department of Finance in relation to the whole Act and that might affect their attitude to legal proceedings. I do not believe it will and I do not think the larger issue will arise on this point. That is not to say that there are not other points on the Act. Can we leave it at that? Deputy Foley: I support the point made by Deputy O’Malley about legal advice. In 1983-1984 this Committee indicated that as a result of the interim Telecom board we had a problem. We met Mr. Bruton by way of deputation who was co-operative at the time on that issue which was that certain funds were made available for legal advice but there was a change of Government and it was not followed through. It would be worthwhile taking it up again with the liaison committee. Chairman: We will note that as a proposal. Due to the transitional position of the Committee perhaps we would note it to draw it to the attention of the Chairman this day fortnight. Deputy Foley: We have only just received Mr. O’Reilly’s opinion and it has some interesting aspects, especially where on page 15 he makes reference to the Attorney General being in no way the servant of the Government. On page 31 he says: “On instructions, correspondence in train between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Attorney General in an attempt to resolve the conflicting legal opinions that have been furnished. The outcome of that correspondence may be awaited before instituting judicial review proceedings.” Would that delay what you would want to do? Chairman: No. That is what has been received. We have legal advice; we need certain clarification. On the question of bringing it into the public domain, in view of the fact that there are now proceedings imminent we may need to consider exactly how we handle that I would prefer not to get into it at the moment until we are clear how we proceed. We will note the situation. There will be proceedings in the courts between two institutions of State, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Office of the Attorney General. I understand this is not without precedent; indeed, in the case of the tribunal the Attorney General and the tribunal were on opposite sides on the case on Cabinet confidentiality. I do not think it is a great shame that at the end of the day this had to be brought to the courts. It may well turn out to be better because Parliament itself cannot define what it meant by legislation - that is a matter for the courts. I hope the end result is that the question of constitutional and parliamentary control of public expenditure is strengthened by the developments. VOTE 42 - AN ROINN EALAÍON CULTÚIR AGUS GAELTACHTAVOTE 44 - AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍONMr. Tadhg Ó hÉalaithe, Rúnaí, Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, called and examined.Chairman: As Gaeilge? Deputy Byrne: As Béarla. Chairman: B’fhéidir gur féidir leis an Teachta Byrne ceist a cur as Gaeilge. Deputy Byrne: Bhíomar ag caint mar gheall ar sin. Chairman: An tUasal Ó hÉalaithe, tá fáilte romhat. Mr. Purcell: There are no paragraphs on these Votes in the report for 1993. Vote 42 was established in 1993 to amalgamate financial provisions which were formerly made in other Votes in order to reflect the creation of the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht. Arts and cultural activities had formerly been funded through the Department of the Taoiseach; the grant to RTÉ in respect of television licences had previously been met from the Vote for the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications, and, obviously, matters relating to the Gaeltacht and the Irish language had been met from the vote for Roinn na Gaeltachta. The Committee will note that the cost of administration in the Department was higher than anticipated and the Accounting Officer attributes this to the difficulty in estimating the costs accurately in a start-up situation. The rest of the Vote is mainly taken up with grants to organisations with specific responsibilities in the areas covered by the Department’s remit, and the details of those funded from the National Lottery are set out on pages 288 to 292. In the case of Vote 44, The Arts Council, this Vote is merely used to channel State funds to The Arts Council. A distinction is made in the Vote between funding from general revenue and that sourced from the National Lottery. The Council uses the money it receives to give grants to individuals and organisations involved in the practice and promotion of the arts, including, of course, the Abbey Theatre. I remind the Committee that the accounts of The Arts Council are audited by me. Deputy O’Keeffe: Under the salaries, wages and allowances subhead I note that £0.25 million was expended in 1993. Would you outline exactly how that occurred? I understand it related to the acquisition of additional people in the Department. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I do not know where you are getting your figure, Deputy. Deputy O’Keeffe: An overrun of £0.25 million. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: You are talking about the overrun. Roinn na Gaeltachta came with 70 staff, we got three people from the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications and 11 or 12 administrative staff from the Taoiseach’s Department, plus the staffing of the National Museum, the National Library and the National Archives. We had great difficulty in assessing our needs. First of all, these Departments were quite reluctant to give us staff and I contend that we never got the amount of staff we should have got. In our first year we were continually looking for increases. They gave us just what they considered to be the segment of their administrative budget applicable to us and that is where that problem arises. It was accepted from the beginning that our administrative budget wouldn’t meet the costs. In 1994 our provision was argued strongly and heatedly with our friends in the Department of Finance to get us what we would call a realistic administrative budget. We came in at about 5 per cent less than our allocation so we were able to manage within our allocated administrative budget for 1994. Deputy O’Keeffe: What is the total staff in the Department? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Including the National Library, the National Museum, etc. something of the order of 360. Deputy O’Keeffe: When the Department was set up was it made up from people coming from other Departments and was given additional people -- 11 from the Department of the Taoiseach and three from Tourism, Transport and Communications? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Three from Tourism, Transport and Communications. Deputy O’Keeffe: The number received - Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: In addition to that we took in the region of 70 people from the National Library; in the region of 90 from the National Museum; 40 or 41 from the National Archives; five people from the National Gallery; and there were others. Those were the main additions. We also got people from the Office of Public Works in the middle of 1993 -- 13 people, I think. Deputy O’Keeffe: - The witness said he could do with more staff. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I could. Deputy O’Keeffe: The question of productivity arose in connection with the Office of the Attorney General. It was asked how exactly one could measure the amount, the quality and the designation of staff. Has there been any real investigation into productivity levels within the Department since it was set up? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: It is difficult to define productivity. Some people may be on the ‘phone for half an hour; others may do it in five minutes. We have been seeking extra staff; my officials here with me sometimes doubt whether I have sought them as strongly as I should. Undoubtedly we have arrears of work. Towards the end of last year the Department of Finance sanctioned a new Principal Officer, two new Assistant Principal Officers and did what I would call a quick investigation into our requirements at senior level. As regards lower levels, the Department of Finance says we have an administrative budget and we should get on with managing it; this is what we do. I feel that if I need administrative staff at a lower level, I have no problem in coming before this Committee to say I have to get them -- and I will get them. I try to live within my administrative budget but it gives us flexibility; we can bring money forward from one year to another over a three year period. This year, for example, Collins Barracks is a new project which will require, I would say, at least 100-plus staff to be realistic about it. From my perspective the Department of Finance seems to look on Collins Barracks as adding a new room to the Museum. We have to fight that battle; we were fighting it last night with the Minister for Finance until 8 o’clock. Deputy O’Keeffe: Since the Department was set up has an efficiency audit or anything similar been carried out by any arm of the State? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes; if it could be called an efficiency audit, the people here from the Department of Finance sent people in for a couple of weeks to look at the senior levels. To some extent we are only getting our act together. People are sometimes drawn together from diverse areas with different cultures -- and it is amazing how different some are. One would think all civil servants operate similarly but they do not. People from different Departments have different perspectives. I suppose everyone coming before the Committee says his or her Department is efficient but I would welcome any investigation. Deputy O’Keeffe: I am not saying the Department is not efficient but this issue arose in the context of the recent inquiries in the Office of the Attorney General. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I should say the Management Services Unit of the Department of Finance is almost working from our Department full time; it is looking at work in the Arts Council and in our accounts branch in Furbo when we get demands for additional staff. It is also conducting a big study of the current and future requirements of the staff of the National Museum. In that sense we have been examined. Deputy O’Keeffe: Regarding the overrun on salaries and wages, could the witness pinpoint the appointments made in the Minister’s office and outside the service? What was the cost of that in his budget? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We had two Ministers. We had Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher, who had seven or eight people working for him and Deputy Higgins, who had eight or nine people. Deputy O’Keeffe: The specific information I want is what additional staff were involved, for instance people coming from outside the public service. Could the witness give a breakdown of the cost of those additional employees? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: The Minister had a programme manager, a special adviser and a personal assistant. That would be his total outside staff. Deputy O’Keeffe: Is it possible for the witness to give a breakdown? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I suppose I could. The cost of the programme manager has been given -- perhaps not to the witness’ party as it was in Government at the time but to others who put down a number of questions which we answered without any trouble. The programme manager and adviser are paid at the Department of Finance Principal Officer scale, which is about £41,000 to £42,000 per annum. I think the personal assistant was paid in the region of £20,000. One could say a total of £100,000 but I would say that is nothing exceptional. Deputy O’Keeffe: Could the witness furnish the details of that in writing to the Committee, if that is possible? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: What exactly does the Deputy want to know? Does he want to know the cost in 1993 of employing a programme manager, a special adviser and an administrative assistant? I can give him those figures. Deputy O’Keeffe: Those were the three appointed to the Minister’s Office when he took over? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: He would also have other people working for him. Deputy O’Keeffe: I realise that. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Ministers have various numbers but the Government put the ceiling that they could have no more than 10 or 12, I am not sure which. The Deputy wants that information? Deputy O’Keeffe: If the witness does not mind. To turn to the fire station on Inis Meáin, does the station still have beer or what is the position? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Although I am a teetotaller I think the station still has beer. The terminal was built at a cost of £82,000 by Údarás in 1992 and 1993. I think air terminals of that nature are entitled to a bar licence to accommodate passengers and the terminal has that. People were in touch with this Committee and I was in correspondence with the Chairman about it. There is only one other pub on Inis Meáin, which has a community of 300 souls or less. To some extent the complaint made may have been in consideration of competition. Be that as it may we are not happy about what is happening and Údarás is trying to get the co-op to regularise the position. The terminal is entitled to have a licence for passengers; the most that would be going in or out on an aeroplane would be eight or nine. There is no police presence on the island, so who is to know what time any bar on the island opens or closes? The co-op is the agent for Údarás on the island and it is in serious financial difficulties. The manager has left in the last few months. The co-op applied to Galway County Council for permission to open a proper bar and planning permission was given in early December. The Údarás has appealed that to An Bord Pleanála. I would say the Údarás is rather slow in getting involved. As I outlined in my last letter to the Chairman of this Committee, the problem concerns a small community and co-operative. I do not think it is as big a scandal as the amount of time spent discussing it this morning would lead one to think. Deputy O’Keeffe: When was this raised first and how long is it going on? The witness says he is trying to have this regularised. I am not sure how many months it is since this matter was raised. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: The Chairman wrote to me on 15 July last. Deputy O’Keeffe: So from July until now the matter has been regularised. However, effectively you are saying that it is still there. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: It was closed for a period. Then they got a new aerodrome licence. Chairman: We will visit it. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: They are entitled to have a licence. It is a question of how many are in the pub at any one time. I would not frequent it but you might. Deputy O’Keeffe: I probably would. Deputy Byrne: Most definitely would with no drink driving laws there. Deputy O’Keeffe: What was the council’s decision? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: The council gave them planning permission although the Údarás hoped that it would not do so. Obviously, however, the committee of the co-op can exercise certain political powers as well. Deputy O’Keeffe: You are saying it was influenced politically? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Many decisions are. Deputy O’Keeffe: There is an honest answer. Chairman: Some would say not enough. Deputy O’Keeffe: The Committee made a report on the collection of TV licences last year. With regard to the recommendations contained in that report, have they resulted in any worthwhile decrease in, for example, the level of evasion and what points has your Department decided to adopt and to implement? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We would estimate the evasion rate - now at the beginning of January - at 10 per cent. It was, perhaps, running at 11 per cent or slightly in excess of 11 per cent before that. The Committee prepared a report on this and heard evidence from the Accounting Officer of the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications and from representatives of An Post and RTE. The Committee made various recommendations and we are taking all of them seriously. We have responded and given our views. Some of them do not fall within our bailiwick. There was one suggestion of having one licence fee for black and white sets and one licence fee for the colour sets. That is essentially a matter for Government. I think that will come in time because the number of black and white sets is decreasing all the time. One could argue that technology costs to some extent, in that it is more expensive to provide the service to those holding the black and white licence than it is to those holding the colour licence. However, that matter will fall for consideration. RTE has applied for a licence fee increase and that is being examined at present. That is one of the issues that will be taken on board. Deputy O’Keeffe: What about the situation where some people prefer to pay a fine rather than get a licence? Has any progress been made on that? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We have had discussions with people from the AG’s office to see if anything can be done. You are talking about the same hard core of people who may look upon it as a type of optional tax. The Committee drew attention to the fact that it was cheaper to be fined than to pay for the licence. I suppose we are all guilty of it when we get the reminder - if we put it up on the shelf we may forget it for a couple of months. Chairman: Is there an internal audit function within your Department? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: There should be and I have approval to appoint half an officer to do it. I am in consultations with another Department for whom that post has also been sanctioned. I sought an Assistant Principal Officer to set up an internal audit unit. Under my former hat as Secretary of the Department of the Gaeltacht it was considered too small. However, I certainly see a need for it. When one seeks two people from the Department of Finance one is given one and when one seeks one person one is given a half. I was given approval to appoint an AP who will join with my Department and the Department of Equality and Law Reform. I am negotiating to see if we can get that going immediately or within the next couple of months. Chairman: The Committee would be particularly keen that there would be such an officer. Many of the inefficiencies and malpractices that come before this Committee could have been detected within Departments had such a person been assigned to do so. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I realise that it is a different function but we have set up a new finance function headed by a Principal Officer and we have found many areas where improvement can be made. Chairman: I am glad to hear that and I hope that effort continues. On the question of expenditure on the Gaeltacht and on gaelic language organisations, has any review ever been undertaken as to whether it is worthwhile or leading anywhere? Are we getting results? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: That is an appropriate question. The programme for the Government of Renewal makes that point and wishes to set up a commission to look into the Irish language organisations. That will be done as soon as possible. It will be looked at although we are not sure yet what remit it will have and if it will look at the broad question. The organisations have been reviewed at different times but they might need to be examined from the outside rather than from the inside. Chairman: It appears, on the face of it, that there is a spectacular lack of success in perpetuating the use of the language even in Gaeltacht areas. I was at a funeral in a Gaeltacht area in Donegal yesterday and it is depressing the extent to which the language is not being used as much as it was previously. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Are you blaming the clergy? Chairman: No, the Mass was in Irish. Has there been any new thinking on the efficacy of policy or are there any new avenues of policy? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. I am not here to explain policy but I have strong views on what the policy should be. I am giving those views to my Minister. Chairman: Would you like to whisper them to the Committee? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I do not think I should. I do not think this is the place. However, we must look at the Gaeltacht. The idea of the Gaeltacht was that it would be an area within a barrier. The theory was that the barrier would move eastwards and eventually we all would be in the western pale, as it were. However, let us face facts - that will not happen. There is also the mentality of being within a confined area. We know from when the Gaeltacht was established in 1956 by the first Inter Party Government that it was ill-defined from day one. There were areas within it where many people could not speak Irish. From the beginning----- Chairman: If I remember correctly, it was the second Inter Party Government in which Mr. Lindsay was the first Minister and Cill Easa was included. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: There were worse areas than that. Chairman: Inchicore in Dublin would not have been included, would it? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: It might have as good a chance as some of the areas. Chairman: We had a very strong craobh of Conradh na Gaeilge for a long time. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes, and in Clondalkin in your old constituency. Chairman: Has your Department any involvement - or is it a matter for the Department of Education - in the development of scoileanna naonraí, bunscoileanna agus meanscoileanna lán-gaelach? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: That is basically a matter for the Department of Education although the organisation called Gaelscoileanna - the umbrella organisation which promotes those schools - receives grant aid from Bord na Gaeilge. It is a difficult area in the sense that with numbers now on the decline, when an Irish school is established in an area it has implications for the established schools. It has also had the effect of, perhaps, encouraging Irish in those schools. They realise they must meet the opposition to some extent. Sometimes it is perceived that gaelscoileanna get a better deal from the Department of Education, perhaps an additional teacher or some other advantage. However, no gaelscoil is established without the trojan efforts of parents. There must be a certain number of pupils - about 20 - to start and it can be very difficult in the early years. However, some of them have grown spectacularly in major towns such as Youghal and Fermoy. There are different areas where they have sprung up and grown. Chairman: I am aware this is going into the area of the Department of Education - but it also relates very much to the very purpose of the Gaeltacht section of your Department - but given the depressing level of Irish language results in the Leaving Certificate and the Junior Certificate in other schools, is not the standard falling, and does there not appear to be a tremendous cultural resistance to the Irish language among the generality of students? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. Again, I am outside my sphere of responsibility, and I suppose I am giving you my own views, but I think Irish has been an uninteresting subject for too long and the emphasis has been too much on literature. Certainly, we would like to see, or I would like to see an emphasis on the spoken language. People come out with Bs and As in their Leaving Certificate Irish and they cannot communicate very well. One of the problems we have in our Department is trying to recruit people who can converse and work through Irish. The fact that they have an A, a B or a C in Irish in the Leaving Certificate does not necessarily mean that they have any great level of fluency. The great academics will tell you that if it goes to the stage that you base it solely on the speaking knowledge of Irish, it could then be argued that if you came from an Irish speaking household or from the Gaeltacht, you had an A in the bag before you started. Nevertheless, the approach to French is very much like that, where there is a higher emphasis in this respect. I am not a great expert on this, but we should be bold enough to take that chance and try for a while. We could not be doing much worse than we are doing at present. Chairman: I know from my own children that there is a kind of resistance - it is a turn off with them and their friends. They almost wish that they had not got to learn it, and they do not see the cultural value of it. Is it not overtime, between yourselves and the Department of Education, to be looking again at ways of, to use a vulgar expression, making it more sexy to talk Irish? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I agree. This is something that the commission will have to consider in a broader sense when it looks to Irish language organisations and what they are trying to do. Are they very much a closed shop talking among themselves, for example, Conradh na Gaeilge and so on - a minority within a minority? Chairman: There is also a certain type. What progress has been made with regard to Telifís na Gaeilge? Is that still on - Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: It is still a very live issue. Chairman: Are we going to have Telifís na Gaeilge or are we not? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I hope we are, yes. The commitment is there. We were not giving any secret away but we were discussing it last night, and we will be discussing it again, when we leave you here this afternoon, in the context of next year’s Estimates. It has been decided to establish a separate television channel. Hopefully it will be broadcasting for three hours per day, and it is now a question of deciding how that is going to be financed. The capital costs of it were to be met from the cap - the money RTE obtained from excess advertising. The running costs would certainly be expensive. It is not a light decision for any Government to take, because it will have implications beyond our tenure. Chairman: I note that it is being called Telefís na Gaeilge, unlike Raidio na Gaeltachta. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. Chairman: I always felt that this was a mistake - that we should have a Gaeltacht area rather than a national radio lán Gaeilge. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: This has taken up quite a number of heated late discussions among gaeilgeoirí, but such talk has been wasted. It should be Raidio na Gaeilge, because there are more Irish speakers outside the Gaeltacht than within it. We could spend an awful lot of time fighting one another as to whether we should call it Raidio na Gaeilge or Raidio na Gaeltachta, because many among the public would be questioning its use at all. If those who are looking for it want it, they had better have a united front in seeking it. Chairman: With the development of Telifís na Gaeilge it may well be that there should be a Raidio na Gaeilge, or Raidio a Trí. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I know that was you view when you were Minister, and I would not disagree with you, but in fairness to Raidio na Gaeltachta, it is a great facility for somebody who wants to learn Irish. You have to have so many hundreds of hours of Irish hopping off your brain before it rebounds and comes out again. Chairman: However, if the items are predominantly of Gaeltacht interest, the people in Dublin or the cities are not interested, whereas if it is a national radio station - staisiún náisúinta - it would be possible to have opt outs, for instance in Cork with Radio One - “Corkabout” and that kind of thing. It would be much more in the interests of the development of the language. If Telifís na Gaeilge is to go ahead a coterie of producers and communicators would be created in radio and television whose job it would be to provide a national Irish language service which could be a very powerful co-ordinating medium for promoting the language. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. I would concur with that. Chairman: Regarding film, and the success of Irish film, is this because of your Department, or in spite of your Department? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Can you rephrase that question, Chairman? It is because of the initiatives taken by our Department since its establishment that this happened. An Bord Scannáin was reconstituted. There were changes in the tax regime making it more favourable to invest in films. New broadcasting legislation in 1993 put an onus on RTE to commission film programmes from outside producers. The amount was to increase from £6.5 million in 1995, increasing to £12.5 million, or 20 per cent of its television spend, by 1999. In addition, the establishment of Telefís na Gaeilge will call for perhaps 600 or 700 hours of television programming. There is a great buzz in the industry and part of the problem is will they have enough programmes built up for the going on air date? We have seen the great publicity surrounding it, and companies coming in here from abroad. There may be criticism of the relief provided under section 35 of the Finance Act, but, to some extent, if they were not making them here they might be making them in Canada or somewhere else. Chairman: The tax concessions have been a significant contributing factor. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: They were augmented very strongly in the Finance Act, 1993, and it contains a provision that they will be reviewed again in 1996. It is not a measure that is in force for all time. We will see how it is working and whether the State is getting benefit from it. We would think that it is, but we have set up an economic objective test and an economic data base with IBEC, the film people, An Bord Scannáin and our own Department to ascertain the benefits to the economy of this move. We have all read about “Braveheart” and all of the other films, and maybe the odd criticism from time to time, but it has generated business and has helped our economy. For example, Ardmore Studios Limited, which was idle for so long, is booked out and there is great action taking place there. It is a cyclical business to some extent. It could be all gone again if we take the incentives away. Chairman: Is there any scheme to encourage the training and development of directors and producers? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: That is in hand. My Department has established a committee called STATCOM with Coras Trachtála, FÁS and other bodies. There will be a report on that next month. The committee is chaired by my Department. We saw that as a problem straightaway, as to where we would get these trained people all at once, unless we bring them in from abroad. Regarding the guidelines we have issued in respect of certifying those films, we try and insist that they employ so many Irish directors, so many this and so many that. We may be sailing a bit close to the wind as regards Europe, but we are prepared to take that risk in the short term. Chairman: Regarding the area of culture, I am aware this is a separate Vote, but the National Gallery received a magnificent gift from the Society of Jesus, the Caravaggio. Do we have any way of acknowledging, recognising in national terms such huge cultural gifts, or encouraging large cultural gifts? Is there any way we can give recognition to people? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We are considering means of addressing that. You might say it is late in the day to be doing it but that is, I wouldn’t like to say too much about it but we might be funding maybe a scholarship in art studies. There are various proposals being looked at in recognition of the generosity of the Jesuits in handing over that painting. I mean, I cannot put a value on it. Chairman: Okay, no. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Certainly the National Gallery made it the popular place for people to be. Chairman: Well I must say the National Gallery is always a pleasant place to go. It seemed to me, though, that it was a spectacularly generous gift and we had no way of nationally recognising that. I don’t think the Jesuit Order was even nominated for the People of the Year Awards. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Well if you go through the Gallery, it is interesting to note the various paintings and what has been bequeathed to the State over the years by very many people. Chairman: And we have no way of recognising it. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Well I suppose they have got the thank you letter, but I think they have not got any major - Chairman: No enclosures, as Mr. Russell said last week. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. Chairman: On the general question of the development of Irish culture, I think the very existence of your Department as a new Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht has been a step in the right direction, but would you like to just give us a view of where we are with theatre, music, literature? Are there any developments taking place or are there things that are not taking place that should be taking place, that should be addressed by your Department or Parliament in general? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I suppose that falls within the ambit of the Arts Council to a great extent and the Arts Council has got increased funding since the establishment of our Department. I do not have the figures straight in front of me, but I think we are talking in terms of an increase of maybe 30 or 35 per cent in funding to date to the council. Now the council has been asked to prepare a three year plan for the arts extending out over the next three years. Naturally the council will be looking for very much increased resources for that and my Department will be putting its full support behind it. I think we have somewhere in the region of 30 per cent of the council’s expenditure going to the Abbey Theatre and expenditure on theatre in general has gone up. I think somewhere in the region of £4 million last year was spent on theatre and they are trying to increase it in the regions because one doesn’t want everything to be in the capital. I think there has been a great upsurge in art activities in general. Chairman: You mention the capital. I have the good fortune, if you call it that, to represent Dublin Central constituency, which you might say is in the heart of the capital, but my constituency benefits nothing from the Arts Council, or next to nothing and similarly from RTÉ. RTÉ will do special programmes down in Galway or Cork but they say everything is in Dublin. Everything is in Dublin 4. There is no cultural impact whatever in Dublin 1,2, 3, 8, or 10 and this is one of the things, that official Dublin is not Dublin. Out in the living communities of Dublin, very often they are neglected by agencies like your Department and agencies under your Department. They see Dublin as getting too much, whereas it is official Dublin. The Abbey Theatre, for instance, goes under Dublin, but that does not make any impact on Ballyfermot. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes, but I think, you know, we have Collins’ Barracks where £10 million has been spent. I presume that is in your constituency. Chairman: It is in my constituency, but it is one of these things, it will not benefit the generality of my constituents. There are cultural groups in different areas of my constituency producing different types of theatre and music who would find it very hard to get a hearing in the Arts Council, which is seen as a very elitist body of people with nice accents. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Well, my accent might not be suitable either, but----- Chairman: I did not like to say that. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I would be surprised at that, and I have the Director of the council here with me somewhere and I will have a word with him about that. I am surprised to hear you saying that. Chairman: I do not want to take away from the work of the Arts Council, because quite honestly I think it is something that is respected, but I am trying to draw attention to the fact that there is another dimension to this. I have had these discussions with RTE as well. There is a community out there beyond the official Dublin and just because RTE has headquarters in Dublin it does not mean that Dublin gets too much coverage in RTE. In fact it is very difficult to get ordinary community activities in Dublin covered by RTE, whereas if you are in the country there is a much better chance and then the country has local radio which Dublin does not have. Similarly in the cultural area, I think there is a need, for instance I was trying to get some support for a Phibsboro music festival each year. RTÉ did give some help, a small amount of help but their argument was that they already give too much to Dublin. The reality is that out in residential Dublin, where the communities are, official Dublin makes very little impact, especially the further you go down the economic scale. It is maybe something you would----- Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes, well certainly my Minister is concerned that anything we would be giving assistance to would have an employment content, and he is very conscious of the need to help out in areas affected by unemployment. We have given assistance recently to CAFE which is involved in community arts, to try and do something for the particular segment you are speaking of Chairman: Yes. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I think of Buckingham Street, there the fire station has been turned into artists’ studios, but I think there is, if I could use the phrase, a culture change. I think that these people, you know, what you are really saying is they are intimidated in going to Merrion Square to look for assistance. Chairman: But even if you take Buckingham Street, which is in Dublin 1, again it is a certain cultural type. There is some input there, I have to say, but even though they are located, maybe, you get institutions like Collins’ Barracks on the quays, the effect of it is to serve a type of person who is interested in museums, but it does not really make a significant impact on the culture of the surrounding community. It makes no impact, in fact, generally speaking. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Certainly as regards Collins’ Barracks we have had discussions with the local community there, maybe you would say that we are not involving them in the high art of the matter but certainly we are conscious and we are prepared to integrate as much as we can. I agree, you know, I accept what you are saying. Chairman: I think I just raised the issue that it was something worth considering. I suppose these things have to be operated at different levels. Okay. This is your first full year at the Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht so I think we will let you off with an easy ride this time. Deputy Byrne: In case you were forgetting that there is another part of the country - Chairman: The sunny south east. My grandfather comes from there. That is the only bit of country blood in me. Deputy Byrne: - other than Dublin. Yes, I wondered where the accent came from. Just to get back again to questions more policy related rather than regarding money spent. On the question of the Irish language and the mere fact nach raibh aon ceist as gaeilge today, the fact that there were so few present and I think there might be very few press left, I think it is an indication that we may be flogging, not a dead horse, but a dying horse. Would you accept that? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I would not say the absence of the press should worry us. I think the press are highly overrated and I would not decry the fact that the press are not here to hear our learned discussion. That would not worry me in the least. I think we are all paying too much attention to the press. That is the fault of our politicians. Deputy Byrne: Unfortunately that is a fact of life - Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: It is a fact of life that may be taken on. Deputy Byrne: - Whether you like it or not. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Like it or not, I think people can take it on. I have forgotten the question you asked me? Deputy Byrne: Are we flogging a dying horse? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: No, I do not think so, I think anything but. I think that we have a long distance to go and it would be foolish to think, I mean the early revivalists felt that Irish could be restored, if we all made one Trojan effort and pushed hard we would be over the line so to speak. I think that was based on simplicity and foolishness, to some extent. I think it is a long hard struggle. Great efforts were made to suppress Irish in this State for 600 or 700 years. Chairman: And it survived. Somebody was saying that if you try it again, that is probably the way to get it to live. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I think though that there is more Irish now spoken, I think if I offered people, if I stood out on the street offering everyone a fiver through Irish, I would have quite a number of people around me. Deputy Byrne: You should try it here first. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: When we see people from Russia and other eastern countries on television speaking English, we say that they have great English. I would say that most of our own people have as much Irish but we are very critical of our own ability. People have it and this is where the message has to go out. Over the years, the purists have destroyed the language, to some extent, if you were not fully with it. Loads of people are afraid to talk it. Chairman: I agree with you. Deputy Byrne: That is the point I was going to make. We made an effort at Wexford County Council to have abhár amháin at every meeting. People were frightened by it. Councillors who could not speak Irish said “we do not want to hear any more of that”. It caused those of us who have a little Irish to do it as Gaeilge and then again as Béarla, which took up a lot of time. To cut a long story short, it failed. Would it not be better to try to introduce bilingualism and encourage the purists? I totally agree with you that they are putting us off. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I believe that you cannot run until you can first walk. If your county council comes to use looking for a translation system, costing anything up to £20,000, we will put up half the cost. We will encourage your council. It is possible now to get mobile translation systems, they can be moved around to the VECs, councils and so on. We are prepared to do that with the money made available to us from the National Lottery for particular individual projects. We would be prepared to take that on board and we are doing that. I am a member of Bord na Gaeilge and another initiative is that the Board will half fund the salary of an Oifigeach Gaeilge in a local authority, if the council comes up with half the cost. This is an area where we can try to push things out from Dublin, to some extent, because the Board would not have the facilities to put staff right around the regions. I agree with you that one has to start, and half a loaf is better than no bread. Is fearr Gaeilge briste ná - níl a fhios agam an seanfhocal anois. Deputy Byrne: I understand what you are saying and I agree. I might take you up on that translation system. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I can almost make a commitment to you that if your council comes in and puts up half the cost, we will match it. Deputy Byrne: To return to more mundane matters, I wish to ask you about the grant to RTE. Is it £50 million? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. Deputy Byrne: Do you have any say as to how that money is spent? We hear all sorts of rumours that a certain number of people are being paid very high salaries. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: That has been alleged. Deputy Byrne: So it has. They say that you are on about half the amount that they are, but I do not believe that to be the case. Chairman: You would wish to be on half the amount. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I think if I am on half their amount I am being grossly overpaid. Deputy Byrne: Do you have any say, whatever, as to how that £50.5 million is spent? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: No, because RTE is the national broadcasting authority. It would be a bad day where the State would be dictating to the national station. Of course, the Government appoints the RTE authority. Deputy Byrne: Did you ever question the suggestion that £500,000 was being paid to a few people? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I questioned that as recently as this morning. Deputy Byrne: And what was the answer? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I think they have difficulty in releasing information about individual earnings. The contracts which they sign with these top class performers have a confidentiality clause. We could, as a Department, instruct them not to have that any more. However, there is a danger, for example, if broadcaster X is earning whatever figure and broadcaster Y has half of that; immediately there is a whole question that the advertisers will follow who they think is the more valuable, higher profile person. They can also be bought off by their competitors. They can say if so and so is earning £100,000 or whatever the figure is -I do not know what the figure is - he or she can be bought off by another station. That is their argument against it. I am certainly in favour of transparency as much as possible. I know that the Committee on Commercial State Sponsored Bodies has been discussing this with RTE and they find some of these people from RTE quite forceful in talking about what ‘poorly’ paid people such as the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and others are getting; making a song and dance about it. Chairman: Not to mention backbench Deputies such as myself and Deputy Byrne. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: You have our sympathy. Deputy Byrne: Could I suggest to you to follow up on that one and that we might have a little more transparency because the people to whom you are referring have transparency of us, I can assure you, and all politicians - Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: You certainly have mine, mine is in the book of whatever it is------ Chairman: Eolaire an Stáit. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I have no underhand backhanders that I am aware of in the public arena. Deputy Byrne: Whatever the argument is for people to get £500,000 a year, if it is that much, or more, since the State is contributing to it the people paying money, the taxpayers, are entitled to know where the money is going. There should be transparency. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I agree with you but the other side of the argument is that there is the danger of that type of information being available to competitors. I do not know if there can be a secret, high level select committee of this House which would not leak anything to anyone which could be brought in - Deputy Byrne: I would not bet on that. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: - and told all this information. If you can guarantee me that, I think that we might be in business. Deputy Byrne: A politician leaking anything, now that is just totally- Chairman: It only happens in the Labour Party. Deputy Byrne: They are part of your rainbow now, Chairman, so I will not make a comment on that. I repeat that, irrespective of what excuse they may use - and it may be more of an excuse than anything else in order to prevent people from knowing - I think that people are entitled to know. I would support any argument that you would make to them - and you can use that - and I am sure that I am speaking for all members of the Public Accounts Committee. To move on to the National Heritage Council and moneys paid out there, what is the Fethard survey, because I live in Fethard? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: You have asked me a hard one. Deputy Byrne: I do not want to be too difficult. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Fethard, that is in Tipperary. Deputy Byrne: I thought as much. Chairman: No, Fethard-on-Sea. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Fethard town walls, County Tipperary. It was towards the cost of phase two of the restoration of the town walls of Fethard. Deputy Byrne: I think the other Fethard might have balanced that a little in the mean time. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: The National Heritage Council is being put on a statutory footing as a State agency, State board. It is established as an ad hoc body at the moment. It is independent of us and it is not, at the same time, because it is being funded by moneys provided through the Lottery. It simply means that these are grants which the council, in its own wisdom, decides to give. However, because the money comes through our Department my Minister has to bless it or approve the grant. Our involvement with it is not as close as grants given by our own Department. Deputy Byrne: That may be so, but you are funding it? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. Deputy Byrne: Should you not, then, have some say in the matter? I am talking in terms of questions which I have raised from time to time about the restoration of churches which, undoubtedly, are an enormous part of our heritage - Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: And the council has - Deputy Byrne: - and reasons why and why not grants have been paid. I have to say that I have a worry about it. What recourse do we have to having an input, if it is not through you? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I suppose that it is through me but I was trying to explain to you that - Deputy Byrne: You did say that they are independent. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes, they have an element of independence. They are chaired by Lord Killanin - Deputy Byrne: Lorcan Allen? Chairman: Lord Killanin Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: They were set up by your former party leader, former Deputy Haughey. Deputy Byrne: Yes, I know that too. Chairman: Am I permitted a question under this heading? What is this James Mitchell museum development, UCG? What is that about? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: What heading are we on now? Chairman: The National Heritage Council. Deputy Byrne: Called after you, Chairman. Chairman: Reports of my political end are greatly exaggerated. What is that, under Vote 42, schedule of payments? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Was much paid for it? Chairman: £3,000. See that, James Mitchell museum development, UCG. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: I am afraid I have no specific information on that one but I can drop you a note. Chairman: I would be delighted to hear about another distinguished James Mitchell. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: There might be a surprise there for you. Chairman: Or extinguished James Mitchell. Deputy Byrne: Could I go back to - Chairman: Ceist eile? Deputy Byrne: - Ceist eile. Are the scholarships to the Gaeltacht successful? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. You mean, people go to the Gaeltacht to learn Irish during the summer? Deputy Byrne: Yes. Most children and - Chairman: Very expensive. Deputy Byrne: Indeed. One of my girls went recently and she did very well in her Junior Certificate. There is no question about that. She can speak Gaeilge reasonably well. I have no doubt but that it was an advantage to her. However, I have heard her and her friends talking from time to time, saying that it was a great month away from home. I felt there was more craic than anything else involved. On a personal basis, I have found it very successful and helpful and a worthwhile exercise. In general, do you monitor its success? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. The numbers going there have increased to somewhere in the region of 20,500 in 1993. Basically, my Department gives a grant to the Bean an Tí, to the Gaeltacht housewife or household - I do not want to be sexist - to accommodate the children. They are paid £3.50 per night. Normally the courses last three weeks, 21 or 22 days, so it costs us about £70 for your daughter and for each student. It costs about £1.6 million per annum. It is a big boost to the Gaeltacht people as well because it fills their houses for the three months of the summer. As the Chairman said earlier, I think it gives people the chance to hear and see Irish spoken as an everyday language, rather than something which they see just for one hour a day at school, popping out of their school books. My Department examines the houses. From the point of view of accommodation, we lay down certain basic conditions. One could argue perhaps that they are a bit - it is not a first class or grade A hotel rating. However, we receive surprisingly few complaints. That may be two fold. The pupils might not like to complain because they may want to go again. We do not receive many complaints. I think it has been successful. I would say, of course, that some colleges are better than others. Some are more organised than others. Some people running them do it for motives of promoting the language more so than others who may be perhaps more interested in making a few bob out of the business. Deputy Byrne: Did you ever go back to the schools to ask the principals or the teachers about its effectiveness or check with the houses? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: We do in the sense that Cumann na bhFiann, which is one organisation that sends pupils, has a very strict rule as regards the Irish language. They will only take certain people. They assess them before they go. They interview them and they will only accept a certain grade on the course. I give them as an example of an organisation which is strict. They try to run an after care service. They organise clubs in the cities for those who have been on Irish courses during the summer so that they can at least begin to have activities, sporting activities, indoor football, games of all sorts. They organise outings to the Oireachtas, Rath Cairn and different places. This is on the east coast and I think they go down as far as your area, Deputy, to Wexford. That is the type of thing. To some extent, if people go there for three weeks, they do not get the follow up. It is costly and there are only 20,000 pupils going. That is a very small percentage of the total number of pupils at second level. Nevertheless, there is a limit to what we can accommodate in the Gaeltacht. We do not want to crush them in. There is a limit. I should say that the Department of Education pays the colleges a fee per student, a teaching capitation grant. Deputy Byrne: Keep up the good work. Chairman: An bhfuil tu sásta, a Theachta Byrne? Deputy Byrne: Táim, a Chathaoirligh. Chairman: I and a number of my friends would love to go on a Gaeltacht course but I do not think there are courses for adults. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: There are. There is a very good one in Glencolumcille. Chairman: Are they always in the summer? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: No, I think in the autumn also but in the summer mostly. Chairman: Perhaps you would give me some details. Is that possible? Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Yes. Chairman: Tá me an-buíoch díot. The Committee notes Votes 42 and 44. Mr. Ó hÉalaithe: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Chairman: Fáilte romhat, go raibh maith agat féin. The witness withdrew. THE COMMITTEE ADJOURNED. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
