asked the Minister for Labour the amount of grant-in-aid paid to NISO in each of the last five years.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - NISO Grant-in-Aid.
12.
(Cavan): The amount of grant-in-aid paid to NISO in each of the last five years was:
|
£ |
|
|
Year ended 31st March, 1971 |
10,000 |
|
,,,,,, 1972 |
11,663 |
|
,,,,,, 1973 |
12,000 |
|
,,,,,, 1974 |
13,095.40p |
|
9 months ended 31st December, 1974 |
13,000 |
|
Year ended 31st December, 1975 |
Nil |
As the organisation had accumulated substantial reserves, it was not necessary to make any payment to it from the Vote in 1975 or so far in 1976. I should add that staff, accommodation and other services such as postage and telephone facilities, are made available to the organisation, free of charge, by my Department.
In view of the fact that the amount of grant allocated for 1975 and 1976 has been nil to date is this an indication of lack of interest by the Government or by the Minister in the necessary functions carried out in the field of safety by NISO? Would he not agree that it is now time for expansion of that service rather than contraction?
(Cavan): I would not agree that the fact that no grant was paid in 1975 or 1976 is an indication of lack of Government interest, as suggested by the Deputy. In fact at the end of 1974 the organisation had accumulated substantial reserves and it was not, therefore, necessary to make any grant to them. As soon as the necessity for further finance arises it will be readily forthcoming.
Would the Minister state how the substantial funds to which he referred accumulated?
(Cavan): They were accumulated partly from Government grants and partly from membership subscriptions.
Surely the Minister must agree that if such funds were partly accumulated by way of Government grants in preceding years grants over and above what was necessary were paid in each of those years and, as a result, such accumulation arose. Surely there must be an inconsistency in what the Minister says with reference to the accumulation, and then no payment of grant in a period now of almost two years?
(Cavan): That is not so. The Deputy may or may not be aware that this body, when first established, was set up as a voluntary self-supporting body. As time went on it was apparent that it would require Government grants in addition to its membership subscriptions. Those grants were forthcoming, as I have outlined and, as I have said, by the end of 1974 the organisation had accumulated substantial funds in the neighbourhood of £50,000. Therefore it was not necessary for a further State grant to be made in 1975 or 1976. Again, as I have said, when these grants are required they will be forthcoming.
Question No. 13.
In view of the Minister's comments—and I can accept that the Minister would know little about the functions, usefulness or necessity of an organisation like NISO —is he saying that, in the Government's opinion, NISO is an organisation that fulfils little purpose? Is that what the Minister is saying because I think that is what he is trying to convey? If that is so, all I can say is that it is disgraceful.
Order. We are entering into the realm of argument now. Question No. 13.
(Cavan): I cannot for one moment see how the Deputy gathered that from my reply. I said no such thing. I have said that the Government are making grants available and, as the Deputy will see, these grants have been steadily increasing and reached their maximum in 1974 at nearly £14,000. For the nine months of 1974, £13,000 were granted. Surely the Deputy is not suggesting that grants should be handed over when an organisation is already in possession of sufficient funds to carry out its very useful work.