COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 17 Nov 2005

Údarás na Gaeltachta — Financial Statements 2004.

Mr. P. Ó hAoláin (Príomhfheidhmeannach, Údarás na Gaeltachta) and Mr. G. Kearney(Secretary General, Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs) called and examined.

Chairman

Ba cheart go dtuigfeadh finnéithe nach bhfuil pribhléid iomlán acu. Tarraingítear aird finnéithe air go ndéantar, le halt 10 den Acht um Choistí Thithe an Oireachtais (Inordaitheacht, Pribhléidí agus Díolúintí Finnéithe) 1997 cearta áirithe a dheonú amhail ar agus ón 2 Lúnasa,1998, do dhaoine a aithnítear le linn imeachtaí an choiste. Tá siad seo ar áireamh sna cearta sin: an ceart chun fianaise a thabhairt; an ceart chun láithriú os comhair an choiste, go pearsanta nó trí ionadaí; an ceart chun aighneacht scríofa agus ó bhéal a dhéanamh; an ceart chun iarraidh ar an gcoiste ordú a thabhairt go láithreoidh finnéithe agus go dtabharfar doiciméid ar aird; agus an ceart chun finnéithe a chroscheistiú. Go hiondúil, ní fhéadfar na cearta sin a fheidhmiú ach amháin le toiliú an choiste. Daoine a n-iarrtar orthu teacht os comhair an choiste cuirtear ar an eolas iad faoi na cearta sin agus aon daoine a aithnítear le linn imeachtaí agus nach mbeidh i láthair, b'fhéidir gur gá iad a chur ar an eolas faoi na cearta sin agus scríbhinn den chuid iomchuí d'imeachtaí an choiste a chur ar fáil dóibh má cheapann an coiste gur cuíé ar mhaithe leis an gceartas.

D'ainneoin na forála seo sa reachtaíocht, is ceart dom a chur i gcuimhne do na comhaltaí go bhfuil cleachtas parlaiminteach ann le fada ar dá réir nach ceart do chomhaltaí tagairt, cáineadh ná cúiseamh a dhéanamh i leith duine lasmuigh den Teach nó i leith oifigigh trína ainm nó a hainm a lua nó ar shlí a fhágann gur féidir é nóí a aithint. Cuirtear i gcuimhne do chomhaltaí freisin nach mór don choiste, de réir fhorálacha Bhuan-Ordú 156, staonadh ó fhiosrú a dhéanamh maidir leis na fiúntais a ghabhann le haon bheartas nó beartais de chuid an Rialtais nó de chuid Aire den Rialtas nó maidir leis na fiúntais a ghabhann le cuspóirí na mbeartas sin.

Ar mhiste leis an Uasal Ó hAoláin a chuid oifigeach a chur in aithne don choiste?

Mr. Pádraig Ó hAoláin

Ar thaobh mo láimhe deise tá an tUasal Brian Ó Cuív, rúnaí an údaráis, agus ar thaobh mo láimhe chlé, tá an tUasal Gearóid Breathnach, ceannasaí airgeadais agus oifigeach soláthair an údaráis.

Chairman

Ar mhiste leis an Uasal Ó Cearnaigh a chuid oifigeach a chur in aithne dúinn?

Mr. Gerry Kearney

In aice liom, tá an tUasal Séamus Mac Giolla Chomhaill, príomhoifigeach sa Roinn.

Mr. John Purcell

Labharfaidh mé as Béarla ós rud é go bhfuil an líofacht caillte agam le tamall anuas. I will introduce the supplement to the audit report on the 2004 accounts which deals with the way in which the sale of a property was handled by Údarás na Gaeltachta.

The property involved was a group of 13 holiday homes in south Connemara that had become surplus to the needs of the údarás. The disposal of the property was the subject of a tender competition which culminated in February 2004 with the receipt of 11 bids. The executive of the údarás examined the three highest bids and received details of the bidders' plans for the operation of the holiday homes. It then circulated the details at a meeting of the board of the údarás held on 20 February 2004. In recommending the highest bid of €1,955,000, the executive confirmed that the bidder would be satisfied to abide by all the conditions attaching to the sale. The board, however, did not accept the executive's recommendation, opting instead for a bid of €1,450,000 submitted by the third highest bidder, a local group. The decision to accept other than the highest valid bid prompted the executive to seek the advice of senior counsel who stated the sale of State assets at a price lower than the highest bid was notifiable to the European Commission in the context of state aid rules. In the circumstances the board decided not to proceed with the sale.

In July 2004 the údarás decided to put the property on the market again, this time with a reserve of €1.5 million and more stringent conditions attaching to the sale. The sale was duly advertised and on this occasion only two bids were received, one of which was deemed invalid. In November 2004 the údarás agreed to sell the houses to the only valid bidder for €1,645,000. The net point is that the údarás dropped over €300,000 on the disposal of the property as a result of the handling of the sale. It is open to the board of the údarás to reject the executive's recommendation but the requirements of transparency dictate that any such action stands up to scrutiny. In this case, there was a serious doubt that it could, particularly at European level, hence the decision to abandon the initial intended sale. In this respect, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs expressed its opinion that the way in which the initial sale had been approved did not meet the standard of best practice.

Following the episode, the údarás updated its general guidelines for property sales and purchases to reflect best practice, drawing on the code of practice for governance of State bodies, the views of the parent Department, counsel's opinion and the rules regarding state aid. I hope the guidelines will ensure equity, value for money and transparency in future property sales. In all other respects, I was able to give a clear audit report on the 2004 accounts.

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Is mise príomhfheidhmeannach Údarás na Gaeltachta ó mhí Aibreán 2005. Tá muid an-sásta go bhfuil an deis seo againn cur i láthair a chur os comhair an choiste.

Faoi mar is eol do bhaill an Choiste um Chuntais Phoiblí, tá sé mar phríomhchuspóir ag Údarás na Gaeltachta caomhnú agus leathadh na Gaeilge mar phríomh-mheán cumarsáide sa Ghaeltacht a spreagadh. Úsáideann an t-údarás réimse leathan tionscnamh agus ionstraim eacnamaíochta, sóisialta agus cultúrtha chun an cuspóir sin a bhaint amach. Tá an Ghaeilge faoi bhrú an-mhór faoi láthair sa Ghaeltacht mar theanga teaghlaigh agus pobail ach tá réimse tionscnamh nua á seoladh againn chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar an bhfadhb sin ar bhealach fuinniúil fócasáilte.

Táim ag díriú san aighneacht seo ar na príomhphointí a léiríonn staid eacnamaíochta, sóisialta agus cultúrtha na Gaeltachta mar atá sonraithe i dtuarascáil agus cuntais an údaráis do 2004.

Tharla athruithe suntasacha le blianta beaga anuas sa chomhthéacs forbartha, infheistíochta agus buiséadachta ina bhfuil an t-údarás ag feidhmiú: tá laghdú ar an réimse déantúsaíochta, tá athruithe móra ag tarlú sa domhan timpeall orainn. Tá cuid mhór de na réimsí ard-scileanna atá mar bhunús fostaíochta sa chuid eile den tír deacair a mhealladh ach go bhfuil ag éirí linn de réir a chéile sárú a fháil thar na constaicí a bhaineann leis sin.

Tá an Ghaeilge ag staid an-leochaileach mar theanga phobail agus teaghlaigh sa Ghaeltacht. I measc na dtionscnamh a mheastar a chabhróidh le buan níos folláine agus níos láidre a chur faoi chúrsaí Ghaeilge sa Ghaeltacht tá bunú Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga sa Spidéal i gConamara agus tús feidhmithe Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla; sraith tionscnamh nua ag an Roinn Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta; tionscnaimh phleanála teanga sa Ghaeltacht i measc an phobail go háirithe; tá tionscnaimh nua eile beartaithe ag an údarás féin a bheidh ag teacht chun cinn de réir a chéile.

Mar is léir ón tuarascáil bhliantúil, tá réimse an-leathan gníomhaíochtaí idir lámha ag Údarás na Gaeltachta. Táéagosúlacht an-mhór idir sinn féin agus gníomhaíochta eile forbartha Stáit a chlúdaíonn gach aon aicme den phobal ó na naíonraí go dtí fostaíochta do dhaoine i dtionscail de chuid an údaráis. Léiríonn an taifead siar tríd na blianta gur éirigh go maith tríd is tríd leis an údarás ainneoin easnamh áirithe infrastructúir atá feabhsaithe go mór le blianta beaga anuas ach atá fós ann chomh fada agus a bhaineann le cúrsaí teileachumarsáide ach go háirithe, ach go bhfuil dul chun cinn ar leith á dhéanamh ann, ach ag an am céanna, d'éirigh linn tríd is tríd na constaicí sin a shárú agus fostaíocht nua a chur ar fáil. An rud is tábhachtaí ná an sprioc a bhí leagtha síos dúinn faoin phlean forbartha náisiúnta a shárú gach aon bhliain. Bhí 800 in aghaidh na bliana an sprioc a bhí leagtha amach dúinn agus tá breis agus 90% den sprioc sin bainte amach faoi dheireadh na bliana lena bhaineann an tuarascáil.

Tá dúshlán ar leith dúinne agus do na Ranna eile féachaint go gcuirfear tionscnaimh ar fáil a chuideoidh le buanú na bpobal ar na hoileáin. Tá nithe áirithe a thabharfaidh aghaidh air sin.

Chuir an coiste seo suim ar leith i gcostas in aghaidh an phoist ag cruinnithe roimhe seo. Ar an meán, ag féachaint siar sé bhliana, tá costas in aghaidh an phoist coinnithe ag leibhéal an-réasúnach ó thaobh luach ár gcuid airgid a fháil. Tagann ceisteanna aníos faoi chomparáid idir sinn féin agus cruthú fostaíochta in áiteanna eile sa tír. Is deacair comparáidí bailí a dhéanamh le gníomhaireachtaí eile forbartha náisiúnta mar bíonn a gcuid staitisticí sin bunaithe ar phoist a chruthú den chuid is mó i gcathracha, Baile Átha Cliath san áireamh, agus i gceantair ina bhfuil na réimsí go léir seirbhísí tacaíochta ar fáil. De réir nádúir na gceantar tuaithe agus Gaeltachta, tá costais breise a fhágann an costas beagán níos airde.

Tá trí ghné shuntasacha ag baint leis an gclár forbartha eacnamaíochta reatha. Tá leagan amach nua againn do na cúig bliana atá romhainn agus tá athrú treo á chur i bhfeidhm againn. Tá níos mó de na hacmhainníá gcur i dtreo na gceantar tearcfhorbartha nach bhfuair sciar iomlán cothrom den infheistíocht go dtí seo agus tá sé taobh istigh dár smacht féin sin a cheartú. Tá straitéis fhadtéarmach leagtha amach againn i gConamara agus i nGaoth Dobhair, na háiteanna ina bhfuil an dá phobal is mó maidir lé hardáin nua a chruthú do na blianta amach romhainn. Cuirfimid béim ar thionscadail bheaga agus mheánmhéide dúchasacha. Tá sé mar sprioc againn an leibhéal a ardúó 50% do 60% den bhfostaíocht iomlán ón bhfoinse sin agus an spleáchas ar infheistíocht ón taobh amuigh a laghdú chomh mór agus is féidir. Tá chomhpháirtíocht an-láidir eadrainn agus Fiontraíocht Éireann agus an IDA agus na Ranna eile lena mbaineann. Baineann an iomaíocht is mó againn le hAlban agus an Bhreatan Beag, san áit a bhfuil dálaíáirithe atá cosúil lena chéile.

TáÚdarás na Gaeltachta ag díol sócmhainní agus ag athchúrsáil an ioncaim thar 1970 i leith ó thráth go chéile. Cuireadh dlús leis an gcur chuige seo ón mbliain 2002 i leith chun an bhearna idir an t-ioncam a bhí ar fáil agus an caiteachas a bhí de dhíth a líonadh. Tá muid ag teacht go dtí an pointe anois go bhfuil cothromúá dhéanamh ar an soláthair atá ar fáil ón Státchiste agus na pointí eile agus gur bonus breise a bheidh ann don chlár forbartha as seo amach.

I gcomhthéacs díolacháin tithe saoire Eanach Mheáin i gConamara an bhliain seo caite, d'fhoghlaim muid ceachtanna áirithe ón gcéad chinneadh a rinneadh. Ghlac an bord le moltaí ag a chruinniú ar an 24 Meán Fómhair 2004 sular fógraíodh an mhaoin le haghaidh tairiscintí an dara huair, a leag amach treoirlínte nuashonraithe do dhíol agus cheannach maoine, agus meicníocht shoiléir scórála san áireamh. Thóg na treoirlínte sin san áireamh litir na Roinne den 21 Iúil 2004, an cód cleachtais um rialú comhlachtaí Stáit, comhairle abhchóide, na rialacháin maidir le cúnamh Stáit, agus deá-chleachtas coitianta. Coinneofar na treoirlínte seo faoi athbhreithniú rialta. Chomh maith leis sin tá freagrachtaí breise ar an cheannasaí airgeadais mar oifig sholáthair lena chinntiú go gcloítear le rialacha dlíthiúla agus riaracháin agus le cleachtais chearta maidir le soláthar poiblí agus díolacháin mhaoine agus trealaimh.

Ba mhaith liom tagairt bheag a dhéanamh don ghnó lasmuigh den Ghaeltacht a rinneadh tagairt dó ag chruinnithe roimhe seo. Rinneadh plé ag cruinniú an 2 Meitheamh agus rinne mé athbhreithniú ar an gcomhad ó shin. Fuair mé comhairle bhreise dlí faoi, chuir muid litir aisghairm an deontais amach chuig na daoine agus chuir mé chuig an Cathaoirleach comhad den chomhfhreagras idir mé féin agus na daoine sin. Ag éirí as an athbhreithniú sin agus an comhairle dlí, tá cinneadh déanta agam gan leanacht ar aghaidh níos faide leis an idirbheart seo.

Tá muid an-bhuíoch go raibh an deis seo againn teacht os chomhair an choiste agus má tá ceisteanna ag baill an choiste, freagróimid iad.

Chairman

An bhfuil cead againn an ráiteas sin a fhoilsiú?

Mr Ó hAoláin

Tá, go deimhin.

Deputy Deasy

Is it possible for the Comptroller and Auditor General to give a brief overview of the quarry issue which he has examined? I might have missed his doing so. Some members might be anxious to address the issue.

Mr. Purcell

The committee has received lots of documentation on this issue. I had my staff look into the matter when it was first raised and came to the conclusion that a mistake had been made. There was a suggestion by the correspondent that fraud was involved. Fraud is a very serious offence and one would need to have an awful lot of facts to back up a fraud charge. There is a particular mechanism for pursuing a fraud case; that is as it should be.

I will not disclose what the committee discussed in private session, but it is fair to say I listened to what members had to say and formed the view that, at the very minimum, Údarás na Gaeltachta should seek repayment of the grant. It eventually did seek repayment. The committee also wrote to Údarás na Gaeltachta asking that it seek repayment of the grant. It was fairly clear in the correspondence that the company would resist making any repayment. Údarás na Gaeltachta states it has taken legal advice to the effect that it would be counter-productive to pursue the money which amounts to approximately €55,000. It would not be a good use to taxpayer's money to seek repayment because there might not be a good prospect of recovering it.

Deputy Deasy

I would like to concentrate on the complex of 13 houses in Eanach Mheáin. I take it Mr. Ó hAoláin was a member of the executive when the tender was reviewed. Is that the case?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

It was.

Deputy Deasy

Who else reviewed the tender and was involved in making a recommendation?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

We have a property division manager who is manager of property engineering services. At the time we had two deputy chief executives — I was one and the other was responsible for industrial development. The chief executive and our legal officer were also involved.

Deputy Deasy

Did all of those involved in that process take part?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Yes.

Deputy Deasy

Why was the tender of €1.95 million recommended?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

We recommended it because it was not only the highest tender but also because the tenderers in each case had intimated they would fulfil the criteria that had been laid down in the process of sale. Criteria had been established beforehand and all those who furnished tenders were familiar with them. On that basis, it was decided by management to recommend to the board to accept the highest bid.

Deputy Deasy

Was there a difficulty in any respect with the tenders of the Dublin consortium or Gael Linn?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

To differentiate between the Dublin consortium and any other would be quite difficult for us in that it furnished a valid tender, was willing to abide by the conditions of sale and accepted the criteria.

Deputy Deasy

Once the authority's western sub-committee had made its decision, how did it justify overruling management's recommendation?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

There was no sub-committee.

Deputy Deasy

The board, I am sorry.

Mr. Ó hAoláin

A number of members of the board had a meeting during the recess which included most, but not all, of the members of the western sub-committee, as well as some other members. They discussed it among themselves and with other members. They arrived back after the recess and the question was put to a vote. It was proposed and seconded that the third tender be accepted.

Deputy Deasy

What was their justification?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

It was on the basis that those concerned had a known track record as business people and one, if not two, of them were already involved in this sector of business. It was felt they could be depended on to meet the Irish language requirements of the criteria. It was felt it was open to the board to disagree with management's proposal and that it was not abnormal in tendering processes not to accept the highest bid.

Deputy Deasy

Did Mr. Ó hAoláin point out to them, as he explained previously, that he did not believe Gael Linn and the Dublin consortium had a proven track record in business and community development?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Management did not feel it was its role to cherrypick on that basis. All the tenderers were willing to accept the criteria that had been established, which included continuing to use the holiday village as a Gaeltacht-based holiday village that would employ Irish speakers and have an Irish language basis. All of them were willing to accept this.

Deputy Deasy

Had Mr. Ó hAoláin no difficulty with the decision? Did he ask any questions as to the reason, especially after one of the members involved dissented?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

One of the members dissented but we said to the board as soon as the decision was made that management would have to consider the implications and that it would do so in the following days.

Deputy Deasy

Did Mr. Ó hAoláin ask the member who dissented why he had done so?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

The person who dissented spoke openly. Two members dissented — one of them spoke openly and the other simply said he dissented.

Deputy Deasy

As I understand it, the person who dissented made it clear why he had done so. First, he said there was no guarantee the purchaser would agree to the business plan. Second, perhaps more importantly, he said there was uncertainty that the decision could be defended. When he said this, did Mr. Ó hAoláin ask him the reason.

Mr. Ó hAoláin

I believe the management decision was prudent. It is one which is normally taken where there is a difference of opinion between management and the board which is to a large extent an elected one. We informed the board the implications of the decision would have to be examined, that this would be done in the following days and that we would revert to it when such clarification was received. That is a normal part of the process where there is disagreement.

Deputy Deasy

Let us talk plainly. There was obviously some surprise on the part of one member. Mr. Ó hAoláin alluded to two members. The Comptroller and Auditor General has just said it is very questionable whether this decision could have stood up to scrutiny. It must have been obvious to everyone once the decision had been made — it was certainly obvious to a couple of members of the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta. Did Mr. Ó hAoláin advise those members who wanted to continue that there was potentially a serious problem with the decision?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

There are many instances at board meetings where individual board members express, for various reasons, reservations about decisions taken by the whole board or recommendations made by management. The business of management is to accept the overall decision of the board rather than the reservations of one or two members. When the board made its decision, we informed it the implications of its decision would have to be examined by management. That was done in the following couple of days. Within 24 hours we were advised that one member of the board would take legal proceedings and matters gathered pace after that. Management's decision to inform the board that the implications of the decision must be examined was prudent and sensible.

Deputy Deasy

Is it standard operating procedure for the board to take that decision in the manner it did, separate from the executive being in the room? What happened? Did somebody call for a break? Mr. Ó hAoláin said there was a break in proceedings. He said that at the meeting on 20 February 2004 Údarás decided, after a short break in the meeting to examine the matter further, in the absence of the executive, that the bid of €1.4 million from the third highest bidder, a local group, be accepted. What is the procedure here with regard to excluding the executive? Did people step out of the room?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

The board did not consider the tenders in the absence of management. Management was present at all parts of the board meeting. Before the recess a member of the board recommended that the decision be postponed, then a member, seconded by another member, proposed that a recess be taken to give members of the board time to consider the tenders. The chairman agreed to the recess during which a group of members came together, discussed it first among themselves, then, we understand, with the other members. Management was present at all times while the board meeting was in session. There was no consideration by the board in the absence of management.

Chairman

There was during the recess.

Mr. Ó hAoláin

There was a group of the members. That is not unusual. It happens from time to time that a group of members would come together in a recess to discuss a particular matter which might indicate there was disagreement between management and the board in respect of a particular management recommendation.

Deputy Deasy

Did Mr. Ó hAoláin ask the person who dissented for his or her reasons?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

I am checking the minutes of the meeting for that time. The person who disagreed with the decision indicated why he was disagreeing — he felt it would be difficult to defend the decision and that perhaps the tenderers might not be in a position to adhere fully to the conditions of sale.

This is inherent in all sales, namely, to what extent there can be 100% certainty that the basis of the decision will be valid in the subsequent years. One of the conditions attached to the sale was that the village continue as a Gaeltacht holiday village for three years. That has since been extended in the new tighter criteria.

There was no particular discussion with this member, any more than there was with other members expressing various views to the contrary.

Deputy Deasy

On 26 March 2004 when the board held its second meeting on this topic, four members dissented from the sale. Did Mr. Ó hAoláin ask those members why they dissented?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

We did not have a second meeting about it.

Deputy Deasy

There was a second meeting after Mr. Ó hAoláin's advice to put this off at which four members expressed concern.

Mr. Ó hAoláin

At the meeting to which the Deputy refers it was recommended that the process be abandoned and four members strongly disagreed with that recommendation.

Deputy Deasy

Did they give reasons for their disagreement?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

They felt we should proceed with the decision made at the original meeting.

Deputy Deasy

Were there any dissenters at that meeting?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Yes, there were four.

Deputy Deasy

Did they dissent from the initial decision?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

They dissented from management's recommendation that the process be abandoned and that we start again, having reviewed the criteria and the basis on which the property was being sold, which happened eventually. Four members disagreed, feeling the board should stick to its original decision. Following legal advice and a review of the criteria and conditions of sale in the original process, management recommended strongly that the process be abandoned and started anew.

Deputy Deasy

Did any member disagree with that?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

All the others disagreed with it in that there was a board decision to abandon the process.

Deputy Deasy

What were their reasons for doing so?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

There were several complicated reasons — management recommended strongly that having reviewed the situation, it would be better to start anew because of the controversy, media coverage and the leak to the media, and one of the tenderers threatened legal action. Taking all factors into consideration management felt that the most prudent direction to take was to abandon the process.

State aid also became central to the decision to accept the lowest of the three tenders considered.

Chairman

Did the board take legal advice on that?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

We received legal advice on it.

Deputy Deasy

Will Mr. Kearney explain why on 21 July the Department wrote to Údarás stating that the decision to sell the property did not meet the standards of best practice for such sales?

Mr. Kearney

To comply with the principles of good practice on State boards the Department advised that a transparent process should always apply, rules and fair criteria should be agreed and published in advance and should be the criteria by which applications are subsequently measured. Where a disagreement or error arises in a process or it is necessary to change the criteria, the Department takes the view that the entire competition must be examined from start to finish.New criteria must be set out and the process readvertised.

In this case it seemed to the Department that the board brought in additional criteria at a late stage. Those additional criteria concerned focusing on bids from local groups, and giving preference to a bid from a local group. That was not signalled in the original criteria and departed from what was previously advertised.

Emphasis was also laid on the particular experience and history in business of this group. That was an emphasis on a local interest, none of which had been communicated in the original criteria or publicity for the competition. The view of the Department was that in fairness to other applicants, and consistent with transparency and good practice, a board should publish its criteria, have a marking system, and stay with that through the process. If anything significant changed during the process the board should go back over it again. It cannot simply substitute a decision.

Deputy Deasy

Does Mr. Kearney believe the board made the wrong decision on the first day, particularly as it pertains to Gael Linn and the Dublin consortium's ability to manage community affairs and so forth?

Mr. Kearney

I must respect the fact that this is for the most part a democratically elected board. Our role is governance. In the Department's letter of 21 July to Údarás na Gaeltachta we stated that we did not believe the board's decision was consistent with good practice.

Deputy Deasy

Turning to the quarry issue on which the Comptroller and Auditor General has touched, this has been dealt with previously by the Committee of Public Accounts, when I was not a member. It is quite serious in that an allegation of fraud has been made. My information is that there is a claim that on one occasion, Údarás na Gaeltachta gave the wrong information to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am sure Mr. Purcell has seen that in some of the information forwarded. The case having been examined, does the Comptroller and Auditor General accept the matter as stated?

Mr. Purcell

I was not personally dealing with this but my colleague here present, who was directly examining this matter, has stated that he never received incorrect information from Údarás na Gaeltachta.

Deputy Deasy

Does Mr. Purcell believe that the giving of the grant was incorrect but that procedures were followed?

Mr. Purcell

My view on it was that one of the basic conditions for receiving a Gaeltacht grant is that the project should be within the Gaeltacht. As it turned out, the grant did not meet that fundamental condition. It was from that point of view that I felt that the least that could be done would be a request for repayment of the grant.

The circumstances in which the grant was paid for that particular area, which was adjacent to the Gaeltacht, have been well laid out. There was confusion, and I tend to believe a genuine mistake occurred in the granting. I understand that in previous times, going back to Údarás na Gaeltachta's predecessor, Gaeltarra Éireann, grants were made in the particular area, but it may well have been part of the Gaeltacht then because I understand Gaeltacht boundaries can change from time to time and that areas can be included or not included when reviews take place.

On the evidence before me, I felt that on balance, an honest mistake was made, although that may be a euphemism. The alternative is the so-called appalling vista, but that must be proved, and that is not my game. It is for someone else, another arm of the State, if that is the case.

Deputy Deasy

Údarás has always made it clear it felt an innocent mistake was made. Does Mr. Ó hAoláin still believe that to be the case?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

I do. The particular area is one of rough quarrying terrain where there is no particular indication of the Gaeltacht boundary being in one place rather than another. Almost all of the surrounding area is a Gaeltacht area. As described by the promoters, the area is described as a small island of ground in the middle of an area which is almost all Gaeltacht.

There are some anomalies of this type in the Moycullen area too. A mile or two away from there is the area surrounding Drimcong House. The house itself is not in the Gaeltacht but all the surrounding area is. Down through the years, people have referred to both of these townlands, Baile na hÁille and Baile Dóite, as intermingled. I have looked at the terrain and walked it, and believe the mistake was innocuous, and made inadvertently at the time.

Many years before, the predecessor of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Gaeltarra Éireann, paid out a grant in that area. Accordingly there was a historical background to accepting a grant application from people who had worked hard, who had been in the quarrying business for up to six years, to expand their business. All the conditions of the grant have been met and the employment has been provided. The grant agreement was fully adhered to by those who received it. Of the seven people employed, four are from the Moycullen area, one from Oughterard and one from Rosscahill. They are all working in the immediate vicinity of the quarry or within a short distance of it. There was no wastage or misuse of taxpayers' money. Our legal advice is that it would be almost impossible to prove there was any effort by the promoters at the time to mislead us in any way.

Subsequent to the discussion at this committee I reviewed the file. I was not asked by the committee to request the reimbursement of the grant but was asked to re-examine the file, which I did. I asked our legal officer to seek reimbursement and we got a response from the promoters, the directors of M & M Caireal Teoranta, which I have provided to the Chairman. It is a very honourable response and indicates the bona fide basis on which the grant was applied for at the time and the application of the funds in the meantime. It also indicated that the directors would vigorously defend any action taken to recover the grant.

We have bent over backwards to facilitate all efforts to bring forward information on this issue. It would be a further waste of taxpayers' money to go down a legal route where there would be little or no possibility of proceeding successfully. I have looked at this issue during the past couple of weeks. The Freedom of Information Act is there, as well as our own openness and willingness to provide all the information possible to those interested in gaining it. We have also expended internally, without taking into consideration senior management time spent on this matter, staff time to the approximate value of €10,000. As far as I am concerned, the file is now closed.

Deputy Deasy

I have an unrelated question for Mr. Kearney, since he is here. Has he any idea of how much has been spent on instigating or bringing into effect the provisions of the Official Languages Act, including the cost for local authorities?

Mr. Kearney

My understanding is reflected in a number of replies to parliamentary questions. As with the Freedom of Information Act and other legislation, the administrative costs are to be borne from within the administrative allocations of Departments rather than from specific additional allocations. There has been an obligation on public bodies under Delivering Better Government, going back to the mid-1990s, I think, to seek to provide bilingual services as part of improved customer service. This would be addressed in the context of overall administration budgets on an individual public body basis rather than from a specific pot of cash.

Deputy Deasy

Regarding some of those parliamentary questions directed at different Departments, I got non-answers in many respects from some Departments. Some were spending €200,000 on implementing the Official Languages Act while others were spending €5,000. There was great inconsistency in the figures returned. Mr. Kearney says the costs are already internal to the Department, borne by administration. It is still money and it is still being spent. My local newspapers, for example, are carrying a quarter page advertisement in English and one in Irish directly underneath it. People do not understand why money is being wasted when certain people are looking for money related to Irish language issues and cannot get it.

Regarding holiday homes, the Comptroller and Auditor General said that this did not stand up to scrutiny. In some media reports there have been suggestions of impropriety.

I thank the witnesses for their responses, which I appreciate. I am happy with them.

Deputy Dennehy

I will speak in English. One of the reasons I will do so is that I have never received more correspondence on any topic than on the quarry grant. Out of the 97 items sent to us, I have with me an abbreviated 50-page version.

I have taken note of the comments by the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding an "honest mistake". However, I found the response dismissive, perhaps, as compared with his response to the changes regarding the holiday homes sale.

When the grant was applied for, given the relatively large sum of money involved, was any physical inspection carried out, because obviously the boundaries of the various Gaeltacht sites are not enclosed by barbed wire?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Inspections were carried out. It is a subjective opinion, I suppose, as to what constitutes a large sum of money. It was not seen as a large sum of money. However, the site was examined physically. Also relevant in this regard is the fact that a file was in existence relating to a grant that had originally been paid in the area many years before.

Deputy Dennehy

My second question is about the reluctance to seek the repayment of the grant. We have a tough regime in place here. Social welfare has been mentioned, but one of the rules implemented in this area was to the effect that anybody who is paid even by an honest mistake must repay the money.

I imagine each member of the committee has made representations on behalf of people who were the subject of similar mistakes. The best response we will have received from the State in such matters is a gradual refund to be repaid over time. It appears sharp contrasts exist between Departments on the approach to recovering funds that have been paid in error. What is Mr. Ó hAoláin's view on that?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

My view is that the organisation has had legal advice on this matter on two occasions. I was advised on a stronger basis than previously that there would be little or no hope of recovering this because of the fact that all of the conditions of the grant aid had been met. There was no indication of any misuse of funds. The funds were allocated in line with the basis on which they had been applied for and the purposes for which they were approved. The employment was generated, the benefit accrued in the local community, the objectives of Údarás na Gaeltachta were achieved on the basis of the conditions under which approval was made and the legal advice to me and the former chief executive was to the effect that there was little or no hope of successfully pursuing this matter, legally.

Deputy Dennehy

Is not the kernel of the argument the fact that all of the grant conditions were not met and that this project was physically located outside the Gaeltacht area? That condition does not stand up and obviously weakens the argument. I do not know the area or the background, but I have received so much material on this issue that I hope it will be concluded today, one way or another. I never like matters returning to an agenda and prefer to reach a conclusion. However, it appears that this condition was not met.

Mr. Ó hAoláin

In the normal course of events, where funds are received either innocuously or on the basis of misinformation, such a matter could be pursued. The normal legal advice in the event would be to the effect that there were good grounds for successfully pursuing moneys that were either misused or applied for on the basis of misinformation provided. In this particular instance my interpretation is that if a mistake was made — as obviously happened — it was made by the organisation rather than the individual who applied for the grant. That is also a consideration in any decision to proceed further along legal lines. The best legal advice available to us, as I said, is that since the original decision was based on a mistake made by the Údarás rather than the applicant, there is little or no possibility that the applicant provided us with misinformation or endeavoured to pull the wool over our eyes in any way.

Deputy Dennehy

We have often made the same argument for poor misfortunate lone parents and others who receive a double payment by mistake, but the Departments of Social and Family Affairs or Finance or the Comptroller and Auditor General would never accept that such moneys were non-recoverable as an honest mistake. We have a very rigid legally enforced rule in that regard. I am as au fait as possible with the issue, just from reading through the material. There was too much there for me to get through it as Gaeilge today.

I must compliment Údarás na Gaeltachta on the range of activities contained in its report. It includes nursing homes and matters such as that which are part of the social regime outside and can, perhaps, be taken for granted. In line with forecasts over the past few days about difficulties in the west and other areas, with commercial activities moving eastwards, what proposals does Údarás na Gaeltachta have to counteract this trend? Where does it see itself in the next five to ten years?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

We have set out our roadmap for the next five years. It is a changed roadmap. We are putting much greater emphasis on the need to exploit, as far as possible, the natural resources of the Gaeltacht — maritime, tourism and the other indigenous assets. We can exploit these to a greater extent for job creation opportunities.

We are visiting all the communities in the Gaeltacht on an information basis and inviting local people who may have business ideas to come forward. We have not done that for 25 years. We are talking to the commercial sector in the Gaeltacht — business people who up to now were outside the grant aidable sectors of the community. These are successful business people whom we are inviting to discuss with Údarás na Gaeltachta the opportunities we may be able to provide for them to become involved in sectors that are grant-aidable, to generate employment.

We are moving towards the provision of a new type of space locally. We are not building traditional factories any more. We are building office space, small enterprise centres and there is quite a series of these to be addressed in the next 12 months. We hope to increase the level of job creation from indigenous local resources, from 50% to 60% of overall employment within the next five years and I believe we can achieve that target.

We have made a successful start towards introducing into the Gaeltacht the modern sectors such as customer call services and so on, one of which is based in Gweedore and one in Dingle. A 50-person unit is to be opened on Achill Island early in the new year which was long awaited. It indicates the direction in which Údarás na Gaeltachta is going. We are managing to upskill people and making a considerable investment in training people in preparation for these new sectors, which I believe may be successfully introduced into the Gaeltacht, but with less dependence than heretofore in that there will be much more emphasis on building from our own resources.

Deputy J. Higgins

Ar an gcéad dul síos, maidir leis an gcairéil seo, nach gceapann tú go mbeadh sé chomh maith chun fáil réidh leis an scéal go sásúil, gur cheart go ndéanfaí dhá rud — gur ceart ar dtús dul i mbun an dlí chun an t-airgead a fháil thar n-ais agus féachaint cad a tharlódh, ionas gur féidir na hargóintí a bheith churtha faoi bhráid an phobail ins an chúirt? Bheadh gach rud faoi bhráid an phobail ansin agust réiteach leis an scéal.

Bhí sé curtha i leith i measc dreamanna áirithe a bhí páirteach leis an scéal go raibh saghas éigin caimiléireacht ar siúl. An rinne an t-údarás aon machnamh ar the scéalta a raibh churtha faoi bhráid an Garda síochána nó an roinn áirithe a bhaineann le caimiléireacht? Nach mbeadh sé chomh maith é sin a dhéanamh chomh maith i dtreo gur féidir iniúchadh ceart a dhéanamh ar an scéal agus nach mbeadh tuile ceisteanna, abair, ag teacht os comhair an choiste seo nó faoi bhráid an údaráis fhéin?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Ní dóigh liom go dteastaíonn aon saineolas mór dlí leis na himpleachtaí a bhaineann leis an gceist áirithe seo a mheas, ná le breithiúnas a dhéanamh ar an mbunús a bhí leis an iarracht a tháinig ar aghaidh ag an am agus an bunús ar a rinne an cinneadh. Bhí cinneadh ann roimhe sin. Tá cairéalacht ar siúl sa cheantar seo le 60 bliain anuas nó gar go maith dó sin. Bhí cairéalacht ar siúl ag tuismitheoirí an duine atá ann i láthair na huaire i bhfad roimhe. Ní raibh aon bhealach i ndáiríre do dhuine ar bith a shiúil ar an talamh ar a bhfuil sé le breithiúnas a dhéanamh ar an spota áirithe seo a bheith sa Ghaeltacht nó taobh amuigh di nuair atá na píosaí go léir timpeall air sa Ghaeltacht.

Sin an fáth go ndeirim gur botún neamhurchóideach a bhí ann ag an am, nuair a chuirtear san áireamh an cúlra a bhain leis agus an comhthéacs ar an iomlán. Níor tháinig an cheist seo maidir le caimiléireacht aníos ach amháin i gcomhfhreagras atá ar bun go leanúnach ag duine áirithe leis an gcoiste seo agus leis an údarás agus araile. Ní raibh sé soiléir dúinne ag aon am go raibh aon cheist chaimiléireachta i gceist. Ba dheacair dúinn dul chuig na gardaí lena leithéid seo de líomhain a chur in iúl dóibh gan aon léiriú againn féin ar cad é an bunús a bhí leis an gcaimiléireacht seo. Cén áit a bhfuil an líomhain seo bunaithe?

I ndeireadh an lae, caithfimid an breithiúnas is fearr a dhéanamh maidir le haidhmeanna agus araile. Tá dlíodóir inmheánach tí againn. Tá cáilíocht dlí ag rúnaí an chomhlachta atá mar oifigeach dlí chomh maith. Tá céim sa dlí agam féin. Tá dlíodóirí taobh amuigh tar éis comhairle a chur orainn faoin rud seo go léir, agus is é an chomhairle go léir atá ag teacht lenár mbreithiúnas féin ná go bhfuil sé réasúnta cinnte go gcaillfeadh muid an cás seo dá rachadh muid ar aghaidh agus tuilleadh airgid cáiníocóiríáíoc amach ar mhaithe le dul chomh fada leis an gcúirt ar cheist ar bheagán seans in aon chor a bheadh ann go mbuafaimis é.

Rinne mise athbhreithniú iomlán ar an gcód ó thús deireadh ag éirí as an bplé a rinne an coiste seo cheana féin ar an rud. Lorg mé comhairle breise dlí ag éirí as an mbreithiúnas sin, agus bhí an chomhairle níos láidre fós an uair seo. Airgead amú a bheadh ann ag dul síos an bóthar seo. Is ag féachaint ar na fíricí go léir a bhaineann leis seo, ní léir in aon bhealach ón gcéad nóiméad ar tosaíodh ag plé ar an iarratas, an bealach ar déileáladh leis, an bealach ar cuireadh na coinníollacha go léir i bhfeidhm agus araile, go raibh aon iarracht déanta ag na hiarratasóirí sa chás seo. Ní raibh aon chruthúnas ann nó aon fhianaise go ndearnadar iarracht dallamullóg a chur ar an údarás.

Má bhí botún ann, agus bhí, botún breithiúnais ó thaobh an údaráis de a bhí ann go raibh an spota áirithe seo taobh amuigh den Ghaeltacht i gceantar ina bhfuil na píosaí eile go léir timpeall air sa Ghaeltacht. Is airgead amú a bheadh ann, agus is ar an mbunús sin a rinne mise cinneadh gan dul aon chéim eile agus gan aon airgead eile cáiníocóirí a chaitheamh ar an gceist áirithe seo.

Deputy J. Higgins

Sin freagra ar an gceist, ar ndóigh. Ceapaim féin gur cheart an méid a dúirt sé a chur chun cinn i ndáiríre. Tá ceist eile agam maidir leis an chairéal. Cad iad na coinníollacha a cuireadh ar an deontas áirithe seo?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Go ginearálta, bíonn ar an iarratasóir cruthúnas a chur ar fáil sa gcás gur caiteachas caipitil d'innealra a bhí ann, go raibh sé le ceannacht ar an bpraghas a bhí luaite, go raibh na meastacháin fáilte roimh ré, go gcaithfíé ar an mbunús ar a gceadófaí an t-airgead ar an inneal áirithe a bhí i gceist, go n-úsáidfíé don chuspóir lena raibh séá chur ar fáil, agus mura raibh sé i gceist é a cheannacht go díreach, go mbeadh comhaontú leis an údarás roimh ré maidir lena léasáil, rud atá coitianta go maith.

Sa chás áirithe seo, is ar an mhunús sin a ceannaíodh an t-innealra agus a íocadh an deontas - go gcuirfí an fhostaíocht ar fáil a bhí luaite leis an deontas agus go gcuirfí cruthúnas ar fáil. Déanaimid teangmháil gach aon bhliain le gach aon dream a fhaigheann deontas ón údarás maidir le cúrsaí fostaíochta. Bíonn comháireamh ó chomhlacht go chéile gach aon bhliain. Tá na figiúirí go léir i ngach tuarascáil bhliantúil de chuid an údaris bunaithe ar chomháireamh ó chomhlacht go chéile. Rinneadh é sin sa chás áirithe seo, agus ó bhliain go chéile, bíonn na figiúirí fostaíochta tugtha leis an mbunús ar ar ceadaíodh an deontas an chéad uair.

Deputy J. Higgins

Maidir le daoine atá fostaithe ann, an bhfuil coinníoll ann go mbeidís ag maireachtáil sa Ghaeltacht? An bhfuil coinníoll go mbeadh labhairt na Gaoluinne san obair nó san áit áirithe seo nuair a bhíonn daoine ag obair i rith an lae, mar shampla?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Go ginearálta, is é an coinníoll coitianta a bhaineann le cúrsaí fostaíochta ná go dtabharfaí tús áite do chainteoirí Gaeilge as an gceantar, agus sa gcás nach bhfuil fáil ar chainteoirí Gaeilge, go dtabharfaí tús áite do mhuintir an cheantair. Ní fhéadfaimis aon choinníoll a leagan síos maidir le cén áit is gá do dhaoine bheith ina gcónaí. Ní bheadh sé indéanta a leithéid sin a chur i bhfeidhm.

Deputy J. Higgins

Nach féidir coinníoll teanga a chur i bhfeidhm?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Is féidir, agus bíonn. Ba mhaith liom coinníoll a léamh amach, má tá cead agam — gur cainteoirí Gaeilge ó dhúchas amháin a bheith fostaithe ag an gcomhlacht, agus, munar féidir na cainteoirí seo a aimsiú, go bhfostófar na daoine sin amháin a bheas in ann a ngnó a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge. Mura bhfuil cainteoirí dúchais Gaeilge nó daoine a bheas in ann a ngnó a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge ann, tá sé ceadaithe dúinn duine ar bheagán eolais ar an nGaeilge nó atá aineolach ar an nGaeilge a fhostú ar an gcoinníoll go nglacann sé cúram air féin an Ghaeilge a fhoghlaim taobh istigh de thréimhse áirithe. Má fhostaítear daoine nach cainteoirí Gaeilge iad, ba cheart cead an údaráis a fháil a leithéid sin a dhéanamh, ag tógáil cúinsí an ghnó san áireamh.

Deputy J. Higgins

An bhfuil ceann díobhsan anois a bhaineann leis an obair agus suíomh áirithe seo?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Sin é an ceann áirithe a bhaineann leis an suíomh áirithe seo.

Deputy J. Higgins

Bíonn céimeanna ag cuid daoine nach bhfuil chomh líofa sin. An bhfuil a fhios ag an Uas. Ó hAoláin ó thaobh an lucht oibre atá istigh ann?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Is é mo thuiscint gur cainteoirí Gaeilge iad cúigear acu as an seachtar atá ann i láthair na huaire. Is as an gceantar don seachtar, duine as Ros Cathaill agus duine as Uachtar Ard atáó Mhaigh Cuilinn. Ní féidir liomsa nó le haon duine eile san údarás a rá an é Gaeilge a bhíonn á labhairt acu ó lá go lá lena chéile, ach ón eolas atá ar fáil dom, tá Gaeilge ag cúigear den seachtar.

Deputy J. Higgins

Fágaimis é sin ar leataobh go ceann nóiméid. Go ginearálta, déanann an t-údarás tagairt sa chuntas a chuir sé os ár gcomhair inniu mar gheall ar an mbrú atá ar an nGaeltacht agus ar lucht labhartha na Gaoluinne. Nach mbeadh sé fíor a rá nach mbeadh sé ciallmhar deontas a thabhairt do thogra éigin murach gur chuir an t-airgead sin chun cinn labhairt na Gaoluinne nó caomhnúéigin ar ghnééigin de shaol na Gaeltachta?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Gan aon amhras. Bíonn plé againn le gach aon dream a fhaigheann cúnamh airgid ón údarás faoi cheist na Gaeilge. Tugaimid cuireadh do na comhlachtaí go léir a fhaigheann cúnamh a bheith páirteach i scéim atá againn atá dírithe ar chomhlachtaí. Níl aon iachall orthu é a dhéanamh, ach glacann formhór de na comhlachtaí seo páirt sa scéim a dtugaimid fondúireacht an Údaráis air sa mhéid go bhfuil oifigigh teanga ar fáil dóibh le cuidiú leo plean Gaeilge a chur i bhfeidhm agus na spriocanna a bhaineann leis an bplean sin a chur chun cinn.

Tá athbhreithniúá dhéanamh againn ar an mbunús oibre atá leis sin faoi láthair. Caithfimid cúinsí na Gaeltachta nach bhfuil dubh agus bán ó thaobh teanga de a thógáil san áireamh ar an iomlán. Sin é an fáth go bhfuil athbhreithniúá dhéanamh againn ar an chur chuige atá againn maidir le comhlachtaí. Is cuma cé acu seachtar nó seachtó a fhostaíonn siad, ionas gur féidir linne an tseirbhís tacaíochta a thabhairt dóibh chun na spriocanna teanga a bhaint amach. Tá coinníollacha teanga ag baint le gach aon cheann a ceadaítear.

Deputy J. Higgins

Tá ceisteanna agam faoi dhíolachán sócmhainní. Tá athchúrsáil á dhéanamh ar ioncam le 25 bliain anuas nó mar sin. Cuireadh dlús leis an chur chuige seo ón bhliain 2002. Cad is brí leis sin? Cén fáth gur cuireadh dlús leis?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Thosaigh bearna ag oscailt idir an méid airgid a bhí ar fáil ón Státchiste agus laghdú a bhí ag teacht ar an ioncam ó chíosanna agus ó fhoinsí eile mar gheall ar chúinsí a bhí ag tarlú sa Ghaeltacht atá luaite in áiteanna eile. Mar shampla, 2002 agus 2003, theip ar roinnt comhlachtaí déantúsaíochta, go háirithe i nDún na nGall. Is ionann teip ar na comhlachtaí sin — agus tharla sé ar scála mór in imeacht 2003 — agus comhlachtaí ag imeacht as an nGaeltacht, cuid mhór díobh go dtí an tSín agus áiteanna in oirthear na hEorpa. Thit an t-ioncam ó chíosanna sna cásanna áirithe sin. De réir mar a tháinig an bhearna sin chun cinn, agus, ag an am céanna, an riachtanas forbartha ag dul ar aghaidh ar leibhéal ard, shocraigh muid dlús a chur leis, is é sin, níos mó sócmhainní a dhíol chun an bhearna sin a líonadh. Táimid ag teacht go dtí an pointe anois go bhfuil leibhéal cothrom tagtha idir an clár forbartha atá leagtha amach againn agus an t-ioncam ón Stát. Táimid gar go maith don phointe sin. Sin é an fáth go ndeirim, uaidh seo amach, maidir le haon ioncam a thagann isteach chuig an eagraíocht ó dhíolacháin sócmhainní, gur comhlánú breise don chlár forbartha a bheidh ann. Creidim go láidir gur polasaí maith é athchúrsáil a dhéanamh ar an infheistíocht Stáit, mar nil na sócmhainní ag dul a bhogadh aon áit. Tá siad fós sa Ghaeltacht. Déanann siad buanú ar na comhlachtaí sa mhéid gur acu féin anois na foirgnimh seo. Tá siad ar an gclár comhordaithe le déileáil le hinstitiúidí airgeadais agus araile.

Má theipeann ar chomhlachtaí amach anseo, is ar éigean go gceannódh aon duine eile iad ach an t-údarás féin, mar níl aon mhargadh príobháideach sa Ghaeltacht do mhonarchana agus dá leithéid seo. Go ginearálta, tháinig méadú ar an ioncam, mar gur ardaíomar an leibhéal díolachán chun an bhearna sin idir ioncam ó fhoinsí eile agus ón Státchiste agus an riachtanas a bhain leis an gclár forbartha a líonadh.

Deputy J. Higgins

An ndéantar scrúdú géar roimh aon rud a dhíol, mar shampla, dá mba rud é gur monarcha a bheadh i gceist a bheith dúnta? Chuaigh an dream a bhí ann cheana go dtí an tSín nóáit éigin eile. An ndéantar scrúdú le feiceáil an féidir tionscal de shaghas éigin eile a chur isteach ansin, nó an ndéanann sibh cuardach tionscail sula ndéantar cinneadh ar an talamh nó an foirgneamh a dhíol?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Is é an próiseas atá ann ná nach ndíolaimid monarchana folmha ar an mbealach sin. Le 99% de na sócmhainní a díoladh i gcás monarchana, ba le tionóntaí a bhí ann cheana féin, comhlachtaí a bhí ag feidhmiú iontu cheana féin, tar éis luacháil neamhspleách a fháil. Lena chois sin, ceann ar bith acu atá lonnaithe ar eastát tionscail, má fheictear dúinn go bhfuil aon fhadhb ag baint le foirgneamh ar bith a dhíol le húinéir príobháideach agus an ceangal atá acu le seirbhísí ginearálta den eastát sin, is ar bunús críonnachta agus bainistíochta a dhéanfaí an cinneadh.

Níl aon rud á dhíol nach féidir linn a chosaint. Aon rud atáá dhíol againn atá taobh amuigh de na monarchana, mar shampla, talamh, tithe nó a leithéid, tá sé farasbarr de riachtanais an Údaráis. Ní dhíolaimid aon rud atá straitéiseach dúinn nó lárnach dár gclár forbartha, agus aon mhonarcha fholamh atá againn, mar atá i nGaoth Dobhair, tá athmhargaíocht á déanamh orthu. Tá iarrachtaí ar bun trí fheachtas margaíochta le tionscal nua a fháil dóibh sin. Is é sin cuid mhaith den chaiteachas a bhainfidh lena leithéid sin amach anseo. Táár ndóthain spáis againn, mar shampla, ar eastát Ghaoth Dobhair, gan aon spás breise a thógáil, fiú amháin má théimid ar ais suas go dtí an leibhéal ab airde fostaíochta a bhí ann. Tá athchóiriú ar na foirgnimh sin in oiriúint do riachtanais na linne seo, mar tógadh cuid mhór díobh sin 20 nó 25 bliain ó shin.

Deputy J. Higgins

An mbíonn bunspriocanna an údaráis i gceist in aon chinneadh a dhéantar? Mar shampla, tá sé ráite sa tuarascáil bhliantúil 2000 maidir le Gaelsaoire "margaíocht a dhéanamh ar thurasóireacht chultúrtha na Gaeltachta chun an Ghaeltacht a chur chun cinn mar ionad turasóireachta ann féin agus breis ioncaim a ghiniúint do sholáthróirí seirbhísí na Gaeltachta agus don phobal i gcoitinne." Tá sé sin an-mhaith, ach cúpla bliain ó shin, rinne an t-údarás cinneadh ar iartheach na sagart i nDaingean Uí Chúis a dhíol — chun airgead a fháil do nithe eile, cinnte. Ní fheadar an raibh gá leis ag an am sin. Cheapas ag an am, áfach, gur cheart don údarás luí isteach leis na gnáthdhaoine ar theastaigh uathu go gcuirfí ionad cultúrtha agus pobail i gceartlár an Daingin isteach san fhoirgneamh sin seachas é a dhíol. Anois, ó thaobh bunphrionsabal de, nárbh é sin an rud ceart a dhéanamh?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

D'aontaigh mé go hiomlán leis an gcinneadh an t-ionad áirithe sin a dhíol. Ní cúrsaí airgid amháin a bhí i gceist maidir leis an gcinneadh an áit sin a dhíol. Seanfhoirgneamh a bhí ann, agus an-tábhacht stairiúil ag baint leis, ach bhí sé mí-oiriúnach amach is amach don obair a bhí ar siúil ag Údarás na Gaeltachta ann. Ní raibh aon bhealach ceart isteach nó amach ann ar ceachtar den dá thaobh. Bhí sé lonnaithe ar choirnéal na sráide, rud nach raibh oiriúnach in aon chor. Rinneadh an cinneadh ag an am oifigí nua a thógáil i mBaile an Mhuilinn, timpeall míle go leith taobh amuigh den bhaile agus, lena chois sin, mar chuid den fhoirgneamh sin, áis nua-aimseartha oifige a chur ar fáil do thograí nua-aimseartha.

Mar a tharla, baineadh amach an dá sprioc sin sa mhéid go bhfuil togra nua-aimseartha, a fhostaíonn timpeall 80 duine, lonnaithe sa bhfoirgneamh timpeall ar oifig nua an údaráis. Maidir le seanteach an tsagairt, tháinig daoine ar aghaidh le moltaíéagsúla ina dhiaidh sin. Bhí speictream leathan moltaí, ach ní raibh aon togra in aon chor. Níor tháinig aon duine ar aghaidh le plean gnó le húsáid a dhéanamh don bhfoirgneamh sin mar ionad oidhreachta agus araile, cé gur tháinig na moltaí sin ar aghaidh go ginearálta. Níorbh fhéidir leis an údarás féin a leithéid a bhunú as a chuid acmhainní féin, agus chosnódh sé airgead an-mhór athchóiriú iomlán a dhéanamh air.

Chuireamar ar an margadh é. Ba é an fhadhb ba mhó leis ná cead pleanála athchóiriú a dhéanamh air seachas an cinneadh an teach a dhíol. D'aontaíomar rud éigin mar chomhartha dea-mhéine do na daoine go léir sa Daingean, a mheas go scriosfadh sé seo an teach. Rinne muid rud an-neamhchoitianta i gcomhairle le Contae Chiarraí. Tharraingíomar siar, agus d'iarramar ar an gComhairle Contae an cead pleanála a chur ar ceal. Níor thuig mé go dtí sin cé chomh deacair is atá sé cead pleanála a chur ar ceal, ach rinneadh é sin, agus sílim gur shásaigh sé sin na daoine a bhí buartha go scriosfaí an teach stairiúil sin. Tá sé coinnithe slán ag an té a cheannaigh é.

Deputy J. Higgins

Mar chríoch ar an gceist seo, bheadh sé i bhfad ní b'fhearr don údarás a thuiscint gur teach agus ionad stairiúil a bhí ann agus go bhféadfaí an teach a fhorbairt i slí chultúr agus thurasóireacht na háite, ach fágaim é siúd mar atá sé.

Léirigh an tUas. Ó hAoláin sa ráiteas a chuir sé os comhair an choiste inniu an brú an-mhór atá ar an Ghaoluinn faoi láthair sa Ghaeltacht mar theanga theaghlaigh agus pobail agus a leithéid. Is é príomhchuspóir Údarás na Gaeltachta ná caomhnú agus leathnú na Gaoluinne mar phríomh-mheán cumarsáide sa Ghaeltacht a spreagadh. An bhfuil aon chuntasaíocht déanta ag an Údarás — nóá déanamh aige — le feiceáil an bhfuil na bunspriocanna sin á gcur chun cinn agus an bhfuil ag éirí leo maidir leis na tograí atá ar siúl, an t-airgead agus na deontais a chuir an eagraíocht isteach? Conas a dhéantar breithiúnas ar an cheist an bhfuil éifeacht ag baint leis an airgead agus le hobair an údaráis maidir leis na bunspriocanna úd?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Sin ceist atá lárnach don obair atá ar siúl againn i láthair na huaire. Luaigh mé go bhfuil beartas nua chúig bliana leagtha amach againn. San áireamh ansin, suas go dtí seo, dhéantaí suirbhé ginearálta ar na comhlachtaí timpeall uair sa trí bliana, ag féachaint cé mhéad cainteoirí Gaeilge a bhí iontu, cén leibhéal ar a raibh siad ag feidhmiú, cén chaoi a raibh siad ag an leibhéal bainistíochta agus araile. Tá an patrún dóchasach go maith sa méid sin de gur féidir a rá go bhfuil i bhfad níos mó daoine de bhunadh na Gaeltachta, nó ar cainteoirí Gaeilge iad as péáit, ag teacht chun cinn ag leibhéal bainistíochta, agus ag meánbhainistíocht ach go háirithe, i gcomhlachtaí Gaeltachta ná mar a bhí amhlaidh deich mbliana ó shin, rud atá ina ábhar misnigh agus dóchais.

Ag an am céanna, tá sé seo socraithe againn. Táimid ag dul thart go dtí gach aon phobal faoi láthair. Tá an tionscal seo, a dtugaimse Gaeltacht 2005 air, á chur os comhair gach uile phobail againn le cuidiú a thabhairt do na pobail a bhí páirteach linn le struchtúir áitiúla a bhunú le pleanáil teanga a dhéanamh i ngach pobal ar fud na Gaeltachta, comhlachtaí agus scoileanna san áireamh. Tá sé sin ar siúl againn faoi láthair.

Tá sé i gceist againn 30 ionad buanaithe agus seilbhithe teanga a bhunú ar fud na Gaeltachta gan mórán costais breise ar chor ar bith ar an Stát ionas go mbeidh deis ag daoine atá lonnaithe sa phobal nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu — daoine nua a thagann isteach agus araile — ionad a bheith acu atá aitheanta agus lárnach agus a bhfuil seirbhísí teanga ar fáil ann. Tá sé seo á dhéanamh i gcomhpháirtíocht leis na coistí gairmoideachais agus tríúsáid a bhaint as caiteachas atá a dhéanamh ag an údarás cheana féin ar 30 nó 35 eagraíocht ón deontas réachtála, ceardchumainn, comhlachtaí, eagrais áitiúla cultúrtha agus araile a fhaigheann tacaíocht ón údarás do scéimeanna éagsúla ag leibhéal an phobail. Tá sé i gceist againn iad sinn a bheith bunaithe agus ag feidhmiú faoi lár na bliana seo romhainn gan mórán costais breise ar an Stát.

San áireamh ansin, tá an cheist iniúchadh a dhéanamh ar na comhlachtaí féin, agus beimid ag tairiscint páirtnéireachta nua do na comhlachtaí a bheith ag obair i gcomhar linn ar an mbealach céanna, ionas gur féidir linn tuairisciú bliantúil a dhéanamh sna réimsíéagsúla ar cén chaoi a bhfuil an dul chun cinn. Ceapaim gur ghá don phobail, don choiste agus don Státchóras trí chéile a fhios a bheith acu cá bhfuil an dul chun cinn agus cén chaoi a bhfuilimid le gur féidir linn tuairisciú don phobal féin mar ábhar misnigh gur féidir linn an taoide a chasadh, go bhfuil dul chun cinn á dhéanamh agus go bhfuil spriocanna ann.

Deputy J. Higgins

Go raibh maith agat.

Deputy Boyle

Tá cúpla ceist agam, agus ba mhaith liom labhairt as Béarla.

Mr. Ó hAoláin wants to close the file on the subject of the quarry. I have raised this issue at this committee in the past and by way of parliamentary question to the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. I was prepared to accept the reason given on geography, but looking at the chronology of events, I am now less inclined to accept it. It seems there was a meeting of the údarás and that the minutes showed two applications had been made by the company in question on 30 April 1998. However, the údarás does not seem to have any documentation. Does Mr. Ó hAoláin accept that this is contained within the minutes of Údarás na Gaeltachta and that there are no files other than the minutes?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

This is news to me, but I will check the matter and inform the committee within days. I understand from Mr. Ó Cuív, rúnaí na heagraíochta, that there was a discussion at a regional board meeting of the údarás on the matter. There was no FOI application made at the time. I am not quite sure what the Deputy's question means.

Deputy Boyle

I am operating from the chronology supplied to committee members by a third party and accept there might be a dispute about it. This occurred at an actual údarás meeting. The regional board meeting followed in June 1998. Both meetings occurred before the granting of the application in December 1998.

Mr. Brian Ó Cuív

If I understand the question correctly, it probably relates to discussions held at regional board level where the board questioned whether the grant should be given to the quarry. At the time there was not a strong policy in favour of giving grants to quarries in the Galway Gaeltacht area. Inquiries were made by the promoters as to whether a grant would be available. There appears to be a misunderstanding on the part of correspondents who have been questioning whether we had received an official application. My understanding is that we did not receive an official application. There were some hand-written notes about discussions. The matter was brought up at regional board level. It was explained at the time that a recommendation was not being made to give a grant to the particular quarry in question or to any other. Enterprise Ireland carried out a study of the demand for quarry stone in the area. Subsequent to this study, an application was received and it was agreed by the regional committee to grant-aid the quarry.

Deputy Boyle

Whether an official application was made, the interaction with the company occurred a full nine months before the official decision was made.

Mr. Ó Cuív

That is quite possible.

Deputy Boyle

Therefore, Údarás na Gaeltachta had knowledge of the company, including its location and activities, well in advance of the decision being made.

Mr. Ó Cuív

Absolutely.

Mr. Ó hAoláin

This is very much part of the normal process and what happens to a considerable number of applications for grant aid. There is much discussion with the údarás. In this instance, there was much discussion on the general activity of quarrying, as well as a specific quarry. There was also a question of whether we would grant-aid quarrying at all. In association with Enterprise Ireland, a study was commissioned of quarrying in Connemara. The finding of the report was that of all the quarries in Connemara, this was the one which offered most potential and was, therefore, more qualified to receive grant aid. There was much discussion, therefore, about quarrying in general, rather than a specific company. There is the normal process of making inquiries up the line and board members being approached by potential applicants and asked whether they should prepare a business plan or make an application, and if they are likely to be successful. That is not unusual.

Deputy Boyle

The Enterprise Ireland report was discussed by Údarás na Gaeltachta in September 1998, three months before the decision was made. While it gave favourable mention to M & M Caireal Teo., it also highlighted that allowing capital grants to be made in respect of quarrying should not be considered and that the allowance of capital grants for equipment was not consistent with general Government policy as outlined by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Is that correct?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Enterprise Ireland did not recommend that capital grants not be applied, but that the applicants seek partners or private sector funding to establish the quarry on a partnership rather than a grant-aided basis. Our understanding thereafter was that it was not possible for them to source such funding. That discussion took place at a regional board meeting rather than a full board meeting of the údarás.

Deputy Boyle

In the month the decision was made a letter from Galway County Council accompanied the application from M&M Caireal Teoranta Galway County Council subsequently built an access road on behalf of the company. Given the fact that the county council was involved and must have been involved previously, surely there could not have been any confusion on the geographical location of the company.

Mr. O hAoláin

There was confusion. It did not become evident until a number of years later that the quarry was located outside the Gaeltacht. Galway County Council was a major beneficiary of its development. It was a major customer for a number of years, during which the road between Galway and Moycullen was upgraded. The quarry was the major source of hard core infill material for that business, of which many aspects fall within the remit of the council. This indicates that the council was a major user of hard core material from the quarry.

Mr. Ó Cuív

By way of clarification, there was never any doubt as to the location of the quarry on the map. The officer dealing with the company knew exactly where he was going when he drove to the place. However, the mistake made from day one, which has been acknowledged by Údarás na Gaeltachta, was that the officer and the staff dealing with the grant at the time did not realise that the particular part of the terrain in question was located outside the Gaeltacht due to the lie of the land and because Gaeltacht and non-Gaeltacht areas overlap.

Deputy Boyle

Was it not always the case that this townland, by its address, was never part of the Gaeltacht? It was not a case of a line on a map going through a townland.

Mr. Ó Cuív

We have acknowledged that.

Deputy Boyle

This should have been known from the address on the application form.

Mr. Ó Cuív

No. Locals tended to call it Baile Dóite. Some do not accept that this was done innocently but we have no evidence that it was done other than innocently.

Deputy Boyle

The Enterprise Ireland report subsequently came back into the Údarás na Gaeltachta system and was discussed in terms of its overall recommendations. As a body, Údarás na Gaeltachta approved its recommendations which reaffirmed that capital grant assistance should not be given to aggregate industries and quarrying companies. How was it that at a subsequent meeting of Údarás na Gaeltachta some months after providing capital grant assistance this policy was reaffirmed?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

I am not quite sure what is meant by the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta reaffirmed this. We commission reports on an ongoing basis on various sectors of activity that we grant-aid or are considering grant-aiding. In the normal course of events we would inform the board — not always but where relevant — that a study had been commissioned or was available to be distributed to board members. Generally, it is not a question of the board accepting or not accepting reports of this nature. They are distributed and discussed by the board.

The board and management of Údarás na Gaeltachta and any other agency which commissions such reports will make its own call on the basis on which applications for grant aid will be dealt with in the context of the overall recommendations and thrust of the report. The overall thrust of this report pinpointed the quarry in question as the one with the most potential in Connemara from the 15 quarries examined.

Deputy Boyle

In a repeat, given a quarry quite firmly within Gaeltacht boundaries, would Údarás na Gaeltachta give grant aid in the acquisition of capital assistance to assist a quarry enterprise?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

I cannot give a blanket no answer. We would consider all of the circumstances, not only in terms of the potential market proposed by the quarry but also whether it was in line with national policy on quarrying in general which has changed considerably since 2002, in particular due to EU guidelines on quarrying which were not a consideration when this decision was originally made.

Chairman

The grant in this case was principally used for machinery. Did I understand correctly that the machinery was leased?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

The company had the option of purchasing directly or making a leasehold agreement with a financial institution which would be approved in advance by Údarás na Gaeltachta. In this case, the equipment was leased and the grant was paid directly to the institution in line with the leasing arrangement rather than to the individual.

Chairman

In effect, the grant was paid to the financial institution.

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Yes.

Chairman

Apart from the grant aid, did the financial institution receive additional money from the company?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

Yes.

Chairman

Did the financial institution also benefit from a tax break on the leasing arrangement?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

It is possible but we would not know that.

Chairman

Is it probable?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

All of the leasing arrangements would have been approved and all of the documentation available to Údarás na Gaeltachta before the grant was paid.

Chairman

Therefore, the company in question never received any money directly.

Mr. Gearóid Breathnach

The company had the benefit of the grant. When a leasing arrangement is in place, the following process applies. The grant is approved by the board on the basis that a lease will be taken out. Therefore, the board is aware of the leasing arrangement when the grant is approved. The grant is then paid under the grant agreement to the leasing institution which owns the equipment. It reduces the leasing payment liabilities to the client company.

Chairman

Is it reduced by the amount of the grant?

Mr. Breathnach

Yes.

Chairman

That is the important information for the committee.

Deputy Boyle

In terms of general policy, what is the position of Údarás na Gaeltachta on the grant-aiding of quarrying in regard to planning permission or subsequent planning enforcement?

Mr. Ó hAoláin

The planning regulations at the time were more flexible than is currently the case. It is a normal condition of Údarás na Gaeltachta in regard to a wide range of grants that planning permission be obtained and that evidence of this be provided for Údarás na Gaeltachta, not necessarily before the decision is taken but before any grant aid is paid. Obviously, we take into consideration the existing, more stringent guidelines relating to planning permissions, particularly those that relate to developments such as quarrying, as these have changed considerably in recent years, as the committee is aware. We understood from Galway County Council that the quarrying operation was in line with the planning regulations of the time, although that changed subsequently when the extent of quarrying increased considerably. It is more than likely that it increased because of the substantial increase in demand from the local authority.

Chairman

Will Mr. Purcell conclude?

Mr. Purcell

There is not much to add. To return to the sale of the property, as the chief executive said, Údarás na Gaeltachta has learned a lesson. The board now realises that it must comply with the code of governance for State bodies. It was a salutary lesson and, at a cost of €300,000, it could be said to have been a cheap lesson.

With regard to going after the grant overpayment, it is not right to state unilaterally that in the case of social welfare overpayments which are the fault of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and where the beneficiaries are totally innocent, the Department will seek recovery of the overpayment to the nth degree. There is an internal distinction in the Department between overpayments and over-issues. With regard to over-issues, if the beneficiary can make a good case as to why the money should not be recovered, it will not be pursued.

As indicated in my report, many overpayments are written off because the prospects of achieving recovery are close to zero. It is an economic decision to do so. In recent years, as members are aware, I agreed a write-off policy with the Revenue Commissioners as there is no use throwing good money after bad. Given all the circumstances, I agree with this approach. I would have a problem if the údarás was spending its money in pursuit of an issue in respect of which it had strong legal opinion that there was a poor chance of recovery. That would not be a good idea. If it amounted to a material sum, I might even comment on this.

Chairman

We will now dispose of the accounts for 2004.

The witnesses withdrew.

Chairman

The agenda agreed for the meeting of Thursday, 24 November is as follows: the Arts Council — financial statements 2003; and the National Theatre Society Limited — financial statements 2004.

The committee adjourned at 2 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 24 November 2005.