Committee Reports::Report - Appropriation Accounts 1935 - 1936::22 April, 1937::MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA / Minutes of Evidence


	HOME Baile
	COMMITTEE REPORTS Tuasascálacha Coistí

Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1937 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1935 - 1936

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 22adh Abrán, 1937.

Thursday, 22nd April, 1937.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Members Present:
Deputy	Beegan	Deputy	Haslett.
„	T. Crowley.	„	Keyes.
„	Doyle.	„	McMenamin.
„	Goulding.	„	O Briain.
„	Harris.	„	Smith.

DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair.

Seóirse Mag Craith (Ard-Sgrúdóir) and Mr. T. S. C. Dagg (An Roinn Airgid) called and examined.

1. Chairman.—Gentlemen, if it meets with your approval, I propose to ask the Comptroller and Auditor-General to deal first with the facts on any particular Vote, and then to go through the several heads of the Vote when it will be open to any Deputy to raise any points he likes under any sub-head. I should like to say that, if possible, we should avoid going back after we had passed a particular sub-head of a Vote. That is not, of course, a rigid rule, because something may escape a Deputy’s eye, but it will expedite our business greatly if we prepare the accounts before we come in, and deal with each sub-head as it arises.

VOTE 10—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. J. Connolly called and examined.

Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote. No question.

VOTE 11—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. J. Connolly further examined.

2. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note on this Vote is as follows:—

“As stated in a note appended to the account a grant of £100 was made during the year in respect of fees paid to a quantity surveyor for preparing bills of quantities for a proposed new all-Irish National School. It appears that plans of an experimental design were prepared, and quantities, including schedules of four alternative methods of constructing the new school, were taken out on the assumption that it was in order to proceed with the proposed erection of the building. Subsequently it was found that the bills were not required, as the Department of Finance was unable to give approval to the scheme.”

Mr. McGrath.—This note deals with a nugatory payment of £100 to a quantity surveyor in connection with the proposed erection of a Bun Scoil Gaedhealach in Rathmines. It seems that the Office of Works was being pressed by the Department of Education to get the matter forwarded, and they went to the trouble of getting a quantity surveyor to supply the necessary information. It turned out afterwards that the scheme was not approved of, and the Office of Works found themselves liable for the sum of £100, for which in the ordinary circumstances they would have gone for approval to the Department of Finance. If the scheme had concluded, this question, I think, would not have arisen. It is rather unfortunate for the Office of Works they find themselves liable for a payment of £100 for which they had not the prior sanction of the Department of Finance.

3. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Connolly would say a word in this regard.

Mr. Connolly.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has stated the case. The proposal was to have an Irish-speaking National School on the grounds of Lissonfield House, Rathmines. Normally the procedure followed in the case of an ordinary school built to special plans is that, when the plans of the school are approved, quantities are taken out so that tenders can be invited and the actual cost ascertained to enable the grant and local contribution to be accurately and finally determined. In this case the Parliamentary Secretary was asked specially by the Minister for Education to press the case forward as quickly as possible, and we, therefore, had plans prepared and sent to the Department of Education for approval. At the same time, in order that no time might be lost, we arranged to have the quantities taken out for the new building, including alternative methods of construction, so that tenders could be invited when sanction to proceed was obtained. However, after the plans and quantities had been prepared, the Department of Education abandoned their intention to proceed with the scheme, and the payment of £100, which had to be made to the quantity surveyors, became of a nugatory character. The payment was sanctioned by the Minister for Finance subsequently. The matter was pressed as an extremely urgent one, and there was no doubt in the Board of Works at the time that the matter was going to be proceeded with. Apparently something intervened, and a decision was reached that the school would not be proceeded with, so that the payment of £100 was rendered nugatory.

4. Chairman.—Subsequent sanction was obtained from the Minister for Finance for that payment?

Mr. Connolly.—It was, Mr. Chairman.

5. Deputy McMenamin.—Have you any power to get the Department of Education to account to you for the £100?

Mr. Connolly.—I do not see how we could charge it to them.

6. This would seem to leave the door open for a similar occurrence in the future?—The only thing about it is that once bitten, twice shy.

7. It is very difficult for your officials to watch all those things, and I think there should be some method of having the matter adjusted afterwards?—The normal procedure was not followed in this case, owing to the stress which was laid on the extreme urgency of the matter.

8. Apparently there is no urgency now? —Apparently they decided afterwards that they would not proceed with the scheme.

Chairman.—I would ask Deputies to remember to raise their voices when asking questions, as it is somewhat difficult for the official note-takers to catch everything. I take it, gentlemen, that we can pass from that note?

9. Deputy Haslett.—The decision was taken by the Department of Finance and not by the Department of Education?

Deputy McMenamin.—The veto was exercised by the Department of Finance?

Mr. Connolly.—I cannot say that.

10. Deputy McMenamin.—The note rather implies that?—As far as the Board of Works is concerned, I think that their official intimation would be that the Department of Education had decided not to proceed with this scheme.

11. Chairman.—The fact, Mr. Connolly, is that you, at the request of the Department, did something which, in the strict order of procedure, was somewhat irregular. It was then determined, subsequently, that the school would not be built. You got subsequent sanction from the Department of Finance for what was, in the ordinary course, a not strictly regular procedure. The estimate should not have been prepared, I suppose, until sanction had been forthcoming from the Department of Finance?—Strictly speaking, under the procedure it should not.

12. I think we may pass from that. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note to sub-head C—Maintenance:

“The sum of £2,023 6s. 6d. was expended during the year on the overhaul and repair of a steam dredger. The work was carried out by contract approved by the Government Contracts Committee. This vessel was built over 30 years ago at a cost of about £9,300, and in recent years considerable sums have been expended for overhauls and renewals of equipment.

“In view of the heavy outlay on the vessel, I have inquired whether Department of Finance sanction was obtained for the expenditure charged in the year.”

Mr. McGrath.—I may say that the Department have replied since, and their reply is that the prior sanction of the Minister for Finance was not sought for the expenditure referred to, as periodical repairs and overhauls are incidental to the maintenance of dredgers, “and it is our practice to provide for such expenditure in the Estimate for sub-head C— Maintenance and Supplies.” The members of the Committee will observe that this vessel, or dredger, originally cost £9,300. Now, we have a record here which shows that the repairs and overhauls on this particular dredger for the past ten years amounted to £10,862 9s. 8d. It has occurred to the officials in the Audit Office that it was a rather expensive dredger, and that previous to the outlay of £2,023 6s. 6d., referred to in the paragraph, it should have been considered by the Board of Works whether it was worth while, after the lapse of ten years, during which a very considerable sum was spent on it, to spend another £2,000. I merely ask the question: Did the Department not go to the Department of Finance to get prior authority for further repairs and overhauls, and the Department state that they think that it was not necessary? Now, the Committee have the two opinions: The opinion of the Audit Office and the opinion of the Board of Works. I still maintain that it would have been reasonable to expect the Board of Works to have gone to the Department of Finance for prior sanction, considering that the outlay was to the extent of £2,000. I also had in mind that it was the intention of the Board of Works to have another dredger overhauled in the near future, and that a decision in one case might be a guide in the other.

13. Chairman.—Would Mr. Connolly tell us something about this dredger and give us a short sketch of its uses and history?—We have altogether three dredgers—the Saxifrage, the Sisyphus and the Fag-a-Bealach. Now, the procedure with regard to the maintenance of these dredgers has always been that maintenance was provided for, and at the end of the year a statement was then made indicating the expenditure on them. Apparently, procedure on that basis has been going on for quite some years. It never occurred to the Department that they would have to ask for special sanction for any expenditure in connection with the maintenance of the dredgers. That accounts for the fact that no special note was taken. There is another matter arising out of these dredgers, and that is that it is sometimes difficult to know what the actual repair cost is going to be. Repairs proceed a certain distance, and then it may be discovered that very serious defects are found in, perhaps, the bottom of the ship —defects which can only be seen when the engineers reach the bottom. In this matter of dredgers, you are really taking a step in the dark when you propose to carry out some repair work. It is almost impossible to get a real estimate from the engineers or mechanics who are going to do the repairs until they get down into the vessel. However, a note has been taken in the Department with regard to the repair of these dredgers, and, in so far as it is possible to do so, we shall endeavour to get fixed estimates for such repair work in the future. We will be guided by the value of the dredger, the need for it, the service that it has given, and, naturally, will take into account whether the expenditure can be justified in view of the capital cost of the dredger. I think that is all I can say on the matter.

14. I observe that under sub-head C there was a sum of £32,211 less expended than the Vote allowed. If, in fact, the Department had expended the entire grant of £199,251 under sub-head C, would you have applied to the Department of Finance for special sanction for this extra expenditure?—I do not know that I could answer that question, and for this reason, that certain things are established as ordinary maintenance work. Then we have what one may call special maintenance work. If, in the opinion of the Board, we do require special sanction for a particular expenditure, then we naturally in all cases try to protect ourselves by going and seeking special sanction. It is our practice, even in cases of doubt, to go to the Department of Finance for special sanction.

15. That is just the question. In your judgment, was this special maintenance or ordinary maintenance?—In my judgment, it was ordinary maintenance, but it might be said that it was of a special nature that might have been. considered specially. I should say, however, that it was definitely ordinary maintenance, according to the accepted tradition and procedure in the Department.

16. Deputy Goulding.—I take it that if the question of the purchase of a new dredger was involved, sanction would have to be obtained?—Yes.

17. Deputy McMenamin.—In the opinion of the Board, was it considered worth while spending £2,000 on the repairs of this dredger in view of the fact that repairs and overhauls to it had already cost over £10,000, the original cost of the dredger being over £9,000? Should it not have been possible to get an approximate estimate from the engineers as to what the repairs were going to cost?—The engineers had given an approximate estimate, but, as I have mentioned, difficulties do sometimes arise for the technical men so that it is almost impossible for them to know what they have to face in the way of repairs.

18. Surely, it would be possible for the engineers, having made an examination of the dredger, to give an estimate for the repair work that would be within, say, a couple of hundred pounds of the ultimate total cost.

Chairman.—As I understand the Accounting Officer, the dredger is, in fact, a capital investment which, it is anticipated, will have an entirely disproportionate maintenance fund, because the very nature of the work of a dredger results in recurrent breakages and breakdowns. Because of that it requires constant attention?—That is so.

19. Deputy Smith.—What would you regard as the normal life of one of those boats?—The Deputy is now asking me an engineering question which I do not feel competent to answer. The fact that this boat has been 30 years in action may give the Committee some indication of its life.

20. You mentioned that the Board has three boats. When were the other two purchased by the Board of Works?—I would have to make inquiries about that. I am not in a position to answer it straight off.

Chairman.—I think it is a very relevant question as to what the Board’s view is of the normal life of a boat of this kind, so that some kind of determination might be come to as to what sums may be justifiably expended on its repairs towards the end of its normal life.

21. Deputy Doyle.—I think there is a good deal in what the Accounting Officer has said about the difficulty an engineer would have in framing an estimate for repair work of this kind until he has gone through the boat and made a full examination. I would like to know if the Board of Works, or any other Department, can carry out repair work without the sanction, of the Department of Finance provided the expenditure does not exceed a certain sum?

Chairman.—I think the answer to that is—the Comptroller and Auditor-General will correct me if I am wrong— that the amount of the grant for Maintenance and Supplies under sub-head C was £199,251. There is no doubt about it, if the Board of Works did exceed that figure under sub-head C, it must apply to the Department of Finance for permission to borrow from another sub-head or to incur additional expenditure. For any maintenance work which, in the judgment of the Chairman, of the Board, is normal, the Board is entitled to expend money up to the limit of that £199,251?—Yes.

22. Deputy Doyle.—With regard to the repairs to this dredger, was it possible for the Board of Works to undertake the repair work until they had received sanction from the Department of Finance to expend a particular sum on it?

23. Chairman.—Yes, provided the total expenditure on the dredger did not bring the Board of Works beyond the sum of £199,251 under sub-head C for maintenance and supplies. Would the Accounting Officer say if, in his opinion, the Board would require any special sanction for any individual piece of maintenance work coming under sub-head C?—I do not think so. As to the point that Deputy Doyle raised with regard to the maintenance of these dredgers, we are within our rights, according to tradition, practice and procedure, in expending that amount on the repair of the dredger. It has not been the practice to ask for the sanction of the Department of Finance specifically for repairs of this nature. I think that would apply to a great deal of our maintenance work—there may be exceptions. I think there would be exceptions if there were exceptional expenditures as to which, on being reported to the Department of Finance, they might suggest that we should have got sanction beforehand. Or, again, something that might come under the eye of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Naturally the Board is conscious all the time of these matters, and in any case, where they think it would be advisable or desirable to get the sanction of the Department of Finance, for their own protection they get it. Within the sub-head they were entitled by practice and procedure to expend that amount of money.

24. Chairman.—I think you can help us Mr. Dagg, in this. Deputy Doyle raises the point that the total sum provided for maintenance is £199,251.

Mr. Dagg.—Under sub-head C you will see that the amount for the repairs of dredgers is £6,160.

25. Chairman.—If it were proposed to spend more than £6,160 on the repairs of dredgers, would the Department of Finance expect the Board of Works to come to them for authority for virement?

Mr. Dagg.—They would. In the ordinary course they would come to us. If there was any likelihood of an excess over that amount they would come to us and ask whether they were to proceed with the work and we would probably say “Yes.” Then they would come for the sanction of the actual expenditure later on. I might say that some years ago this present system which Mr. Connolly refers to was adopted—that is, the Board of Works furnish us every year with a full statement of all the costs and all the receipts they get in respect of these dredgers. Some of these dredgers are hired out; some are used entirely for our own ports—Dun Laoghaire, Dunmore and Howth. As a matter of fact, they did mention, in their returns for this year that this amount of £2,000 odd had been spent on this particular dredger. We did not raise any question at the time, as we regarded the expenditure as ordinary and necessary. I might also say that any contracts for the repair of dredgers go before the Government Contracts Committee, who examine them, and it invariably happens in the case of a dredger or the Muirchu that the estimate of repairs is very problematical, because when the vessel is opened up it is nearly always found that there is a tremendous lot of work to be done which was not apparent on the surface. Frequently the extras are more than the original estimate for the repair of the vessel.

26. Deputy Smith.—Apart from the question of whether or not the Board of Works are supposed to live within the estimate, I think, as Mr. Connolly pointed out, when a boat of this kind needs repairs of a considerable nature after 30 years’ life, that it would be a wise policy to ask themselves the question whether it would be justifiable to spend such a sum on a boat that was so old as this one is.

Mr. Dagg.—This boat cost over £9,000 over 30 years ago, and at the present time it might cost four or five times that amount.

27. Chairman.—On page 53 of the Estimates for 1935-36 these maintenance and current charges are sub-divided by the Board of Works for the information of the Department of Finance, and I think Mr. Dagg clears the matter up when he says that, if the Board of Works wish to exceed in any of these sub-heads their own apportionment of the total sum granted, they must apply to the Department of Finance for sanction.

Deputy Doyle.—Assuming that the repairs to this dredger, according to the original estimate, were to cost £2,000, and that sanction should have been obtained for that, is it possible for the Board to go ahead and exceed that amount without further sanction, particularly in a case like this? If, after being in use for 30 years, the expenditure on repairs was more than it cost, would it not be wise to endeavour to get as near as possible an actual estimate of the cost before the expenditure is sanctioned? If there is an amount unspent out of the total amount provided under the sub-head, that money is available if required for extending the repairs on a boat.

Deputy Haslett.—This £2,000 expenditure may not be as extravagant as it seems, when you consider that the probable cost of a new dredger now would be £40,000 or £60,000. Perhaps it may be normal enough.

28. Chairman.—In fact, did the Board of Works in that year expend more than £6,160 on the repair of dredgers?—No; I think they were within that figure, but I have not the actual expenditure figure here. Mr. Dagg might have it.

Mr. Dagg—The net cost of the repairs was £5,596, according to the returns furnished by the Board of Works.

Mr. Connolly.—The estimate was £6,160.

Mr. Dagg.—The Board got receipts.

29. *Chairman.—I think you will agree, Mr. Connolly, that it might help the Committee if you will be good enough to prepare a general memorandum on this note in connection, with this dredger, the view of the Board of Works as to its expected life, and a general suggestion to the Committee as to what the Board’s view is about repairing dredgers, and what their ordinary life would be.

Mr. Connolly.—I will do that.

30. Deputy Haslett.—The point that emerges from the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note is not so much exceeding the total estimate as whether the sanction of the Department of Finance should have been got within this subhead of the estimate, and then have a full discussion as to whether the dredger was worth repairing. I suggest that we would be taking a wrong basis if We relate it to the original cost. I think in that case we must take the replacement cost.

Deputy Smith.—I should like, when Mr. Connolly is doing what you suggest, that he should tell us something of the history of the other two dredgers so that we may see how long they have been in the hands of the Board. If these dredgers had been in the hands of the Board ten or 15 years, we could get an idea of the amount expended on them and have a fair idea of whether the life of this boat is coming to an end.

Chairman.—In fact, Mr. Connolly, a general note on dredgers. I think it is agreed that, so long as the Board remain within the limit of their own sub-head— which has been approved by the Department of Finance—of £6,160, the Committee would not expect them to apply for specific sanction. If they go over that sum, then the Committee would expect them to apply to the Department of Finance for authority to overspend.

31. Paragraph 9. Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

“The actual expenditure within the year on the Barrow Drainage scheme was £5,484 15s. 9d., offset by receipts from the disposal of plant, machinery and stores, which made the net charge £26 15s. 10d. The total expenditure on the scheme to 31st March, 1936 (including £2,202 6s. 11d. expended on preliminary investigations in 1925-26) was £509,658 6s. 6d. Of the net expenditure of £507,455 19s. 7d., chargeable to the cost of the scheme under the Barrow Drainage Acts, 1927 and 1933, £253,755 19s. 7d. had been met out of voted moneys, the balance £253,700, being provided out of Local Loans advances. The total expenditure sanctioned under the Acts for carrying out the works is limited to £550,000, one-half to be provided out of voted moneys and the other half to be advanced by the Commissioners of Public Works from the Local Loans Fund.”

Mr. McGrath.—That paragraph is merely for the information of the Committee.

Chairman.—That is, in fact, a formal note to keep the Committee in mind of the situation under the Barrow Drainage Acts.

32. Paragraph 10. Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report:—

“The receipts include a sum of £60 for a former Gárda Síochána barrack, which was sold together with the site. The site was purchased in 1925-26 for £20. The barrack consisted of two semi-detached huts, erected by the Commissioners at a cost of £1,462 10s. 9d., and was occupied by the Gárdaí from April, 1926, to December, 1929. It was subsequently let for about four years prior to disposal.”

Mr. McGrath.—It would seem that the transaction has turned out to be a very uneconomic one for the State. I would remind the Committee that there was a somewhat similar case last year, which they referred to in their report and stated:

“While the Committee does not wish to criticise the various items of expenditure connected with this building, it cannot but feel that the expenditure was out of proportion to the value of the structure.”

I think a similar remark might be applied to this particular building. However, I feel that it is not altogether the Office of Works that are to blame, but really the Department of Justice. They have to provide the barracks, and, in 1929, the barracks were found to be surplus. The Office of Works could not dispose of the building, and afterwards disposed of it for the sum mentioned, at a loss to the State. But, really the matter could not be avoided. I am bound, however, to draw attention to such matters as this, and this paragraph is written for the information of this Committee.

33. Deputy Haslett.—Could they not get an auctioneer to sell it?

Mr. McGrath.—I think the Office of Works did everything possible.

34. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Connolly will tell us the circumstances under which this was disposed of?—This note refers to the Gárda Síochána post at Boston, County Clare, which was abolished by the Department of Justice and the premises vacated in December, 1929. This barrack was provided in the first instance in circumstances of urgency under pressure from the Department of Justice. It consisted of huts first assembled in Dublin, and after being passed by the Gárdai authorities as suitable, the huts were dismantled, conveyed to Boston, and re-erected on suitable foundations in a remote location where land is poor and where dwelling accommodation is required only for labourers for whom provision is made by means of labourers’ cottages at the customary low rental. When the barrack became surplus to requirements the best disposal that could be made of it was a letting at £20 a year, plus rates and maintenance. The tenant went into occupation in December, 1931. In August, 1934, he was ejected, having defaulted in his rent payments. As it was impossible to effect a satisfactory letting, the Minister decided that the structure and site must be disposed of for the best price obtainable, which was £60, secured and accepted with the Minister’s approval after offers had been invited several times by public advertisement. The case is identical with that of Scartaglin, County Kerry, which was discussed before the Public Accounts Committee last year. The high cost of construction was due to the fact that the exceptional method of constructing the buildings in Dublin for subsequent erection on sites in the country was resorted to, due to the urgency of the requirements of the Department of Justice, so that immediately sites were obtained accommodation could be provided. Apart from Scartaglin and Boston, there were only two other similar cases, viz., at Clonakenny, County Tipperary, and Laherdaun, County Mayo, both of which are still occupied by the Gárdaí. It seemed to be a case where an immediate emergency arose, and where accommodation had to be provided. Sanction was got, and I believe the scheme was approved, but an expensive method of putting up huts for occupation by Gárdaí was followed. When this hut was available and when there was no market, it had simply to be sold as scrap.

35. You mentioned that part of the disproportionate expenditure resulted from the necessity of erecting these huts in Dublin and then re-assembling them as in Clare. Why was it necessary to erect it in Dublin for approval before erecting it in County Clare, when similar huts were already in use?—Technically it would probably mean that it had to be assembled here and then fitted up in Clare. In other words, you could not get these huts built on the site, this being a remote area. That is the only explanation I can offer.

36. Deputy Smith.—They were only partially assembled here?—Assembled and fitted, and then re-assembled in Clare.

37. Chairman.—Mr. Connolly will not misunderstand me when I say that we must extend certain indulgence to him, as this is the first time he has appeared here as Accounting Officer, and he does not speak from personal knowledge of what happened some years ago?—These transactions took place in 1935-36.

38. I understood that materials were sent from Keogh Barracks, in Dublin, and used on the site for the erection of this hut?—Apart from my recollection, the file which I read indicated that these huts were specially made for this purpose. They may have been assembled in Keogh Barracks or somewhere else. That I am not in a position to say.

Mr. McGrath.—The hut was erected from old materials sent down from Keogh Barracks. I think that is the fact. It may not have been put that way by Mr. Connolly. I know Keogh Barracks, and the memorandum would indicate that the hut was erected by the Commissioners from old materials sent down from the barracks.

Mr. Connolly.—That was the Boston hut?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

Mr. Dagg.—The four huts which were constructed of old materials were sent down from Keogh Barracks. One was sent to Boston, one to Scartaglin, one to Clonakenny and one to Laherdaun.

39. Chairman.—It seems odd that the construction of a hut from old materials that were already available in Keogh Barracks should cost £1,462.

Mr. Connolly.—It certainly looks expensive.

40. Deputy McMenamin.—When old materials are mentioned, does it mean that the hut was re-assembled, having been previously somewhere else?—I presume it would mean that any materials they had at the time were used. Here are the details of the expenditure: Preparation of building in sections, including provision of new materials and construction of new out-offices, £848; cartage, £152; re-erection on site, £260; fencing, £120; clerk of works, £80; making a total of £1,460.

41. Chairman.—It seems superficially to be a rather lavish provision for this particular accommodation?—It is certainly a high cost. Whether the peculiar circumstances of the emergency that existed when it was done may have helped to account for it, I do not know.

42. Deputy McMenamin.—What about the cartage—I take it that it was a very remote district.

Deputy Beegan.—The materials had to be taken asunder.

Deputy McMenamin.—That would make the carting all the easier.

43. *Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Connolly would like to look into the matter and let us have a note of the costs that are set out in the detailed statement that he has.

Deputy Smith.—This is exactly on a par with a case that the Committee discussed last year. It is the same case, practically. No matter how far you probe it, the money has been spent, and I do not think any reason can be found for such an enormous cost.

Deputy McMenamin.—But with regard to the future?

Deputy Haslett.—The Committee should concentrate on the disposal price.

Chairman.—I think the cost is bound to influence our judgment very considerably when we come to consider the disposal price. If you reach the conclusion that the cost was extravagant, the disposal price may not appear to be so inadequate. If a hut was built from old materials at a cost of £1,460, that would appear to be an extravagant price, but £60 as a disposal price might not be too little if it was a dilapidated hut and in a remote area. Would it meet the position if Mr. Connolly let us have a note? If we are greatly shocked by the contents of the note, we might ask for Mr. Connolly’s assistance again.

Deputy Keyes.—Probably some old sashes and frames and old materials were used in conjunction with new materials on the main body of the building. That point ought to be cleared up.

Mr. Connolly.—I will get the fullest particulars for the Committee.

44. Chairman.—On sub-head A, I notice that your expenditure was £29,430 10s. 0d. less than granted. Do you propose to amplify that?

Deputy Smith.—There is an explanation on page 27 of the Accounts.

Mr. Connolly.—This sub-head is intended to bear the cost of the purchase of properties required for Government Departments, with the following exceptions: (a) Lands for the Department of Agriculture; (b) lands for Department of Lands; (c) buildings and sites for buildings for postal, telegraph and telephone purposes. In these cases the Votes for the Departments concerned bear the costs of the sites, etc. The saving of £29,430 10s. 0d. in 1935-36 was due principally to the fact that sites for Sluagh Halls were not purchased within the year, as anticipated, amounting to £11,500, and the purchase of reversionary interest in the Dublin Custom House site was not completed within the year, amounting to £14,600. The two figures, taken together, account for £26,100 of the savings.

45. Chairman.— Sub-head B — New Works, Alterations and Additions.—The note says: “A saving of £162,993 resulted from the postponement of the construction of Sluagh Halls pending the adoption by the Department of Defence of a standard plan, and progress with the National Schools programme was not as rapid as had been anticipated, and resulted in a saving of £73,033.” Was there any special reason for that?— Nothing, only the difficulty of technical staffs and the general hold-up that took place with regard to getting on with the work. We are not solely responsible for the programme of national schools work. In other words, we may have a number on the way, but the managers may not definitely agree and contracts may not be fixed.

46. Deputy McMenamin.—As far as your Department is concerned, you are prepared to carry out any works sanctioned, provided the managers have got the sites?—Quite so. That is particularly so where managers are building schools under grants.

47. Chairman.—In connection with the estimates and expenditure, are they prepared by your Department or, in connection with national schools, by the Department of Education?—There is collaboration between the two Departments. The Department of Education is primarily responsible for putting forward proposals as regards schools, and then we co-operate with their wishes.

48. Is this unexpended sum surrendered at the end of the year or carried over and included in the provision made the following year?—Whatever is saved is surrendered.

49. Chairman.—I think it is, but I think over-estimation of this kind is an embarrassment for the Legislature, if it could be avoided by the estimating department. I think that comes within the competence of the Accounting Officer.

50. Deputy Smith.—It is very difficult, I imagine, to control that. I have some cases in mind—one where a school is about to be erected and where everything is complete, the site cleared, and materials on the spot. Everything would seem to be in order, except for some dispute between the manager and the Department of Education as to whether central heating or some other form of heating will be installed. You could imagine the Department of Education assuming in advance that a school would

Page missing from the original volume

taking over of the district from the Board and the transfer to the local authority? —I understand that an amount was set aside towards this Lerr drainage district and the amount that was expended was expended against the amount previously provided, and this was an adjustment of what had already been sanctioned in the estimate for the drainage work. We, of course, got Finance sanction for the expenditure.

Deputy McMenamin.—This is a token Vote?

Mr. Connolly.—We have a token Vote annually in case a question like this arises.

67. Deputy Goulding.—Will you follow the same procedure in the case of certain lands in respect of excessive flooding, or anything like that? Is that covered by the token Vote?—I doubt if we could do that. There is a case, which I do not want to discuss now, in respect of which what you have in mind arises, but I am afraid we have to get statutory authority —and probably fresh statutory authority —to do it.

Deputy Goulding.—How do you manage if a thing has to be done in a very great hurry to avoid increased damage?

Deputy McMenamin.—It is taken out of another Vote for the time being.

68. Deputy Smith.—I am in the same difficulty as you, Mr. Chairman. I cannot understand how the Board of Works can be responsible for maintenance. If a drainage board is in existence, it was my impression that the Board of Works could not make a contribution for that purpose. If a scheme had actually been carried out, and the functions of a drainage board had been transferred to a local authority, I thought that the Board of Works could not give their assistance to the local authority as regards maintenance.

69. Mr. McMenamin.—The Chairman’s case is that there was a grant made and that this is part of it. Is not that the net issue?—I understand that that is the case.

Mr. Dagg.—Under the 1924 Act, the Board of Works are empowered to go in and restore a drainage district that has been neglected, and then to assess the repayments to be made by persons benefited by the works. So far as I remember, this is a case in which they did that, but the restoration works were not carried out to the extent they should have been. They then went in and expended more money in completing the restoration. That was all done under the 1924 Drainage Act.

70. Chairman.—Did not that Act provide that the Board of Works could pursue that course of action if they determined to dissolve the drainage board and transfer the drainage area to the local authority? Then they could take over the area, repair it, put it in proper condition, and hand it over by sealed order to the local authority, who thereafter were bound to maintain it. The nett question is: Was the £500 granted to the Lerr drainage district before the sealed order was made?—I think it was granted before the order was made, and it was not issued until 1935-36. The grant was sanctioned in the previous year.

71. Did the Board of Works spend this money just prior to handing over, or did they give it to the local authority to spend on their behalf after the handing over?—I understand the Board spent the money directly on maintenance and repair.

72. Is the work now in the hands of the local authority or a drainage board?—I could not say whether it is in the hands of the local authority or a drainage board. It has passed out of our supervision.

73. Chairman.—That is an important point. Perhaps Mr. Dagg could remind us as to whether the Board of Works have any authority to go in and repair a drainage district and give it back to the old drainage board, or whether they are obliged, under the terms of the 1924 Act, to hand the drainage district over to the local authority if they purport to repair it under that Act.

Mr. Dagg.—I should not care to answer that question offhand.

Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Connolly would let us have a note upon that question.

Deputy Smith.—I am confused as between the Act of 1924 and the Act of 1925.

Chairman.—The 1925 Act is an Arterial Drainage Act.

Deputy Smith.—I know it is, but I cannot understand how the Board of Works could come in and assist a drainage board in this particular way.

Deputy Beegan.—In the event of incorrect assessments having been made, and men having been charged for lands for which they should not have been charged at all, would it not be possible for the Department of Finance or the Board of Works to come along and cover the cost?

74. *Chairman.—We can make an end of speculation by asking Mr. Connolly to be good enough to let us have a note at his leisure on this question. If we want further information, I am sure he will be glad to come back and help us?—In answer to Deputy Beegan, if this amount had not been included prior to the order, it is very questionable that we could have expended anything.

75. Deputy Harris.—Lerr Drainage District is in County Kildare, and it was at the county council that we heard for the first time of the agitation in connection with it. The landowners’ case was that they were satisfied with the drainage as it was. Engineers, however, came down, and men were put to work on some improvements on the River Lerr. The landowners were notified that an extra charge of 3/- or 4/- per acre would be put on them. They agitated against that. Several deputations came up here during the period of the previous Government, and they kept on objecting until recently. Eventually this sum of £500 was granted.

Chairman.—I think the Accounting Officer will now see the urgent necessity for quoting the statutory authority under which that grant was made.

76. Deputy Smith.—Is this the same case we were discussing here last year?

Deputy McMenamin.—That was in Tipperary.

Deputy Smith.—No, it was in Kildare.

Mr. McGrath.—That was a case under the Land Commission Vote.

Deputy Smith.—Both the Land Commission and the Board of Works were involved.

Mr. McGrath.—We were objecting to certain local work being done from the Land Commission Vote.

Deputy Harris.—There was a long dispute as to whether the Board of Works had authority, but it was eventually decided they had authority.

77. Chairman.—The Chairman of the Board of Works will give us a note on that, and we can look into it further, if the necessity should arise. Under subhead J 2, I see you surrendered £17,511 10s. 2d. Was that due to inadequate staff?—No; it was due to certain anticipated schemes which the Board thought would have materialised that year but which did not materialise.

78. Were there, any peculiar difficulties which prevented the materialisation of these schemes?—I do not think so. A great many schemes come to the Board of Works which we find to be completely uneconomical and which, even with a generous Government grant and a grant from the local authority, would not be feasible. It was anticipated that more schemes would have gone through that year. It was under the head of “New Works” that practically all the saving occurred. The estimate for expenditure on the works in progress was £17,300. Actual expenditure on that item was £16,432. On works at draft-award stage, the estimated expenditure was £2,150, and the actual expenditure was £2,964. On new works, the estimate was £20,550, and only £3,092 was spent. These three categories account for an estimated expenditure of £40,000. The actual expenditure was £22,488. The bulk of the saving of £17,511 was in respect of new works which did not materialise.

79. Deputy Keyes.—May we take it that that work will not be undertaken?— That was merely an estimate of what was like to develop that year.

80. It was found it would not be economic?—That might not be the only reason. There might be others. You have to get the agreement and approval of local authorities.

81. Deputy Smith.—Is there a definite limit to the amount of new work in which the Board of Works can engage in any one year because of shortage of machinery —say dredgers—or staff?—Of course there would be a limit. We have a great deal of our plant working on the Airport. We are not particularly busy on drainage work at the moment, but, if we were, we could not carry on and do the Airport work as well.

82. Deputy Smith.—There is great dissatisfaction regarding the delays that are taking place in connection with arterial drainage. It would be interesting to know whether these delays are caused by shortage of machinery. I think that is sometimes advanced as a reason why schemes are not proceeded with?—We are generally—I am not speaking particularly of drainage—up against the problem of competent technical staffs.

83. Chairman.—In your judgment, the difficulty would probably be a staff rather than an equipment difficulty?—Sometimes. You might have a staff difficulty in one case and you might have a shortage of equipment elsewhere. This whole drainage question is giving the Board a lot of concern at the moment. We are interesting ourselves very much in the question of arterial drainage.

84. Deputy Haslett.—It is rather disquieting to most Deputies that the Dáil should have passed an estimate of which £17,000 odd was not expended. It is the experience of most Deputies that arterial drainage is very important to the people in the country. When the Dáil passes a certain sum for this purpose, it is disquieting that a proper way of spending it cannot be found. Quite a number of schemes which should have been done long ago have been held up.

85. Chairman.—I suggest that we might get over it under the general question of over-estimation, on which perhaps the members of the Committee would wish to say a word. I think that would arise on the first paragraph of the Auditor-General’s report, on which a question, I imagine, would be most properly addressed to the Accounting Officer of the Department of Finance. That, of course, is the general question of the Department estimating over and beyond their capacity to spend. There is at the end of the first paragraph of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report a figure of £2,288,572 1s. 2d. as the amount to be surrendered. It may be that the Committee would wish to call the attention of the Accounting Officer to that.

86. Deputy Smith.—Getting back to this matter of the amount unexpended, the Accounting Officer has referred to the possibility of a scheme being uneconomic. Perhaps if it were outrageously so the Department of Finance would not give the necessary sanction, or perhaps they would not agree to make their contribution to this scheme under the Act. What I would like to know is this: Take the case of a scheme being found to be uneconomic, yet where the local authority was prepared to make good the difference. Whether it was 22 per cent., 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. uneconomic, they were prepared to make their contribution, whatever may be necessary. Is it suggested in such a case that the Department of Finance should come in and say, “We will refuse to sanction this,” or “We will refuse to make our contribution because of its being uneconomic.”

87. Mr. Dagg.—Perhaps I might explain. Most drainage schemes are about 80 per cent. uneconomic, but the Department of Finance is willing to contribute up to 50 per cent. of the total cost. The local authority may agree to contribute up to 25 per cent., say. Then the balance that would remain would be borne by those occupiers who have benefited by the improvement in the land consequent on the drainage scheme.

Deputy Smith.—What I am putting to the Committee is this: I regard 50 per cent. contribution by the Department of Finance as something from which you step off, and, even allowing for that contribution, there are some schemes found to be 17 per cent., 18 per cent., or perhaps 25 per cent. uneconomic. Is there any limit, after your contribution has been taken into consideration, at which your Department will say after the local authority has made its contribution, “We will not sanction this scheme”?

Mr. Dagg.—Well, the lands should only be assessed to the extent to which they have been improved, and in that case we would not mind.

88. Deputy Smith.—You would not mind whether it was 17 per cent., 30 per cent. or 31 per cent.; you would agree?

Mr. Dagg.—Yes.

Chairman.—We must be careful to avoid questions of policy altogether, on which neither Mr. Dagg nor Mr. Connolly can give us an answer.

89. Deputy Keyes.—How much of the money unexpended is due to schemes not being gone on with because the schemes were considered uneconomic? If that is the case, why was not that known to the Department of Finance before the estimates were made up?

Chairman.—Mr. Connolly will have something to say about that.

Mr. Connolly.—If you want the full details as to the failure to expend this £17,511 10s. 2d., it would mean that I would have to send you a report on the question as to why the schemes were not gone on with. There are many reasons for this besides the question of the schemes being uneconomic per se. There are various reasons as to why the Board may not consider it wise to do a piecemeal scheme for an area, a scheme which may be bound to cause flooding somewhere else. Very often we come up against a scheme which in itself would be useful but which would cause results which would undo what might have been done elsewhere. There are many factors that may make a scheme inadvisable. I am not going to go into the technique of the whole question now, but if you want further information as to why more money was not spent in 1935-36, I will have to submit a further report as to why we spent £22,488 9s. 10d. instead of £40,000.

90. * Chairman.—We must not too lightly ask Mr. Connolly to furnish this Committee with memoranda under any head of this Vote. Of course, if the Committee expresses a wish, I am sure Mr. Connolly will submit further information.

Deputy Keyes.—This question that we are on now is a very important point.

Deputy Smith.—Yes; nearly all of us here are members of local authorities, and we are continually coming up against this question. It would be very interesting to most of us to know why, in a particular year, money was provided for this purpose of arterial drainage and that the arterial drainage was not carried out.

Chairman.—Very well; I think it is the feeling of the Committee that we would like to have a memorandum on that point.

Deputy O Briain.—What I complain about is that this whole procedure about drainage is as slow as a funeral. That is the feeling I have. There are schemes for drainage that were started as far back as 1925 or 1926 and it seems to be very hard to get finality in, the matter of the sanctioning of these schemes. Some people in the area want the schemes, others do not want them. The whole thing is terribly harassing to anybody who takes an interest in arterial drainage.

Deputy Haslett.—We are prepared to allow for the delays that are insuperable in a scheme of this kind, and we would be prepared to allow any fair latitude. But over and above the point that there might be anything questionable as to whether a scheme is economic, I think the Department, in cases of that kind, should be able to go on to a further scheme and not to stick on at a doubtful one an unduly long time.

Deputy Smith.—I am inclined to object to the term “uneconomic,” because so long as the State, by law, is obliged to make a 50 per cent. contribution, and so long as the local authority is obliged to make its contribution in addition, in order to make a scheme economic, I think when these things are done that there is no such thing as an uneconomic scheme. I think that should not be advanced as a reason why a particular scheme was not carried out. If the local authority is prepared to make their contribution, whatever it is, to bring a scheme up to the required standard, then the scheme is economic regardless of whatever devices have been resorted to in order to reach that position.

Chairman.—The reductio ad absurdum of Mr. Connolly’s idea would be that if you improve land in one particular district by 5/- or 10/- an acre, you may thereby wreck land in another area to the extent of £10 an acre.

Deputy Smith.—I am not disputing that at all.

Chairman.—The point is that the Board of Works, after having carefully examined a scheme, might have made up their minds that it would interfere with instead of benefiting a certain area. However, as Mr. Connolly has promised us a memorandum on this question, I propose that we postpone further consideration of this until we have that memorandum. Then, if necessary, we can have Mr. Connolly back

91. Chairman.—We now come to subhead J 4—Arterial Drainage.—Purchase of machinery, expenditure £1,354. Here it appears that the Board of Works are trying to repair some of the inadequacy of their equipment.

Mr. Connolly.—This item is for the purchase of plant from the Barrow Drainage works. Those works were practically completed. This transaction is practically a book-keeping entry. This was for certain machinery which had been charged to the Barrow drainage, and that amount has now been credited to the Barrow drainage scheme.

92. Chairman.—This item, I take it, appears as a grant-in-aid under the heading of the Barrow drainage expenditure?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes, and the expenditure on the Barrow drainage scheme is reduced by that amount.

93. Chairman.—It is a set-off against sub-head J 3—Barrow Drainage?

Mr. Connolly.—Yes, the expenditure on the Barrow drainage scheme is reduced by that amount for that year.

94. Chairman.—Sub-head J 5 — Arterial Drainage—Maintenance of Machinery, is an item on which there is no question to be asked. Sub-head J 6—Arterial Drainage—Central Repair Workshop and Stores. This is another item which reduced the expenditure on the Barrow. We now come to the next item, sub-head K—Telegrams and Telephones. I do not think there is any query on that. Sub-head L—Appropriations-in-Aid; estimated, £65,260; realised, £61,539 5s. 5d.

Deputy Goulding.—That was very good estimating.

95. Chairman.—All the particulars of this sub-head appear on page 28. In item 1 of these particulars we have “Rents and Fines, £23,421 9s. 7d.” as realised. What are the fines referred to?—I take it they are any charges other than rents, that is the paying of a lump sum for rents, or that sort of thing.

96. Chairman.—I see. That is the kind of fines they are, property fines and penalties?—Yes.

97. Are you satisfied that we got all that could be got out of our lettings of sporting and fishing rights?—It is difficult to know, but we get all that we possibly can get. Whether we could get more if the circumstances were more favourable—that is to say, if local conditions were better and that there were bigger demands, and so on—is another question. I can say this, that everything possible in the way of advertising has been done in the very best papers, that is the type of papers that anglers are likely to read here and across the water. We took every possible step to appeal to people who would be likely to pay us the best rent. We have, for instance, in one fishing district somewhat of a local difficulty. There is a certain attitude taken up in that particular area. The annuitants there feel that they have certain riparian rights. When a man comes in to take up a fishing he is looking for some comfort, and any sort of local trouble like that puts him off. We try to soothe these feelings diplomatically. Whether we can succeed in that, or whether we may have to go farther than using this diplomacy, I cannot say. Every effort has been made to try to get the best out of these sporting and fishing rights—that is, to get the best rental or revenue for the Board, and also to do the best to develop the tourist traffic.

98. Of what do most of these properties consist? Where are they situated?— Well, you have such a letting as the Muckross estate in Killarney.

99. Are the sporting and fishing rights in the Bourn-Vincent property included in these?—I think so.

100. Deputy Goulding.—Have you any special bailiffs of your own?—Yes; and we have caretakers.

101. Chairman.—Do you own the deer in the Phoenix Park?—I believe we have control of them.

102. Is there any revenue derived from them? What happens to their natural increase?—There is a distribution of some of those to different people in the State. I think there is some revenue from their hides, but whether there is anything from the sale of deer I do not know.

Mr. Dagg.—Some of the deer are shot every year, and presents of deer are made to various high officials in the State.

103. Chairman.—Under the new Constitution, the Leader of the Opposition might be granted a deer.

Mr. Connolly.—The Ministers all get one each, and orders come from them to the Board of Works to forward the meat to a charitable institution of one kind or another.

104. Chairman.—So, in fact, Ministers of State do formally receive them and dispose of them?—They do, and they order the Board of Works to distribute them.

105. In connection with the Appropriations-in-Aid, you show a contribution from the Widows’ and Orphans’ Pensions Fund. What is the explanation of that? —That is simply a repayment of our expenditure. In certain cases we do a service for Departments, and this is charged to that particular Department, and they refund to us the amount of the expenditure on it, plus what we call a service fee.

106. Is it clerical work, or work of that kind?—No; it is more in the nature of the provision of offices and any services that we may render.

107. Chairman.—That does surprise me, for I thought such a charge would have been made against the Department of Local Government and Public Health. I never heard of a charge of that kind being made against a fund like an insurance fund. The insurance fund, I think, consists of certain moneys paid over by the National Health Society and certain moneys contributed by the State. That constitutes a fund out of which pensions are paid to widows and orphans in certain categories. How does any work done by a Government Department constitute a charge upon that fund? Perhaps Mr. Dagg could help us?

Mr. Dagg.—I am afraid I cannot. I did not notice it before.

108. Chairman.—It is always gratifying to raise a hare no one has noticed before.

Mr. Connolly.—I might say it is a self-supporting fund, and in rendering a service like this it is on the basis that we are repaid for our expenditure on the service, plus a service fee. We have a good many services of that nature in the Board of Works.

109. Chairman.—I would be amazed to hear that structural work, or office accommodation or anything of that kind would be charged against the fund.

Mr. Connolly.—Do not take me as saying it is charged against the fund. All I know is that we recover from the organisation in charge.

110. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Dagg and Mr. Connolly will look into that matter and let us know how that charge falls. I should be amazed to hear there is any statutory authority for drawing money from the fund itself for office equipment. Is that a matter on which Mr. Dagg will let us have a memorandum?

Mr. Dagg.*—I could ascertain some information in connection with it, and furnish a memorandum.

111. Chairman.—There is one matter that I desire to raise, and it is referred to in a note on page 31. The note says: “The sum of £851 7s. 9d. was received from an Insurance Company on foot of a policy covering part of the Dundalk Employment Exchange, which was accidentally destroyed by fire in the previous year.” There appears elsewhere in the accounts reference to expenses in which the Board of Works was involved in order to repair the damage done by the fire. Why is it that certain items of damage by fire are covered by insurance, while others are not? Is there any fixed policy with regard to the matter, Mr. Connolly? —As I understand the position, the sum of £851 7s. 9d. was recovered on premises that we had leased. They were not, strictly speaking, our own premises. We had them on lease, and, therefore, the landlord had to insure them. It is not the practice, as you may know, to insure State property. The State carries its own insurance. In this particular case the tenant had the premises insured. He recovered, and we recovered from him.

112. And you carried out the repairs?— I take it the repairs were carried out.

113. Chairman.—I do not see how the Board of Works could receive from an insurance company £851 7s. 9d. on the foot of a policy by which the insurance

Mr. McGrath.—I might say that on examining that note I was in exactly the same position as you are in now regard-company was bound to a third party. ing the matter. I thought it was very exceptional, and I made some inquiries, and the inquiries resulted in this information—that the Office of Works leased these premises from the landlord, who insisted upon the Board of Works keeping them insured. The Office of Works actually paid the premium, I understand.

Mr. Connolly.—Yes, they did.

Mr. McGrath.—That is not in accordance with the rules in regard to State property. This building here, or a barracks, or anything like that, would not be insured. It is thought it would be more economic to act as our own insurers, that is, that the premiums, if they were all added together, would be a great deal more than the average annual loss caused by fire.

114. Deputy Goulding.—These premises, being leased from another individual, were not State property.

Mr. McGrath.—They were not, and the Board of Works, under the terms of the lease, had to insure. They were bound to insure—that is the information I got.

Mr. Connolly.—In the circumstances, it was rather a fortunate clause.

115. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Dagg could say if there is any general authority on the Board of Works Votes for paying insurance premiums, or does the Department of Finance permit them, or approve of such payments?

Mr. Dagg.—No. It is only in a very exceptional case, and this is an exceptional case. This is a case where the Board of Works leased premises from a landlord for use as an employment exchange and the landlord insisted on insurance. It was an exceptional case altogether, and we agreed in the special circumstances. In order to get the lease, we had to comply with the landlord’s requirement to insure the premises.

116. Chairman.—So far as I understand it, every item of expenditure on these Votes must have general statutory authority. Is there any authority by any statute authorising the Board of Works to pay a fire premium to an insurance company?

Mr. Dagg.—I think there must be, because they do insure in certain cases.

117. Chairman.—Under what sub-head do you say this premium should be charged?

Mr. Connolly.—Under sub-head E— Rents, etc. We have a number of properties. As you know, we have often to take offices in a town and it is not always easy to get accommodation. There may be, and are, in fact, quite a number of cases, where there is a clause in the contract or lease imposing on us the necessity for insuring. We treat that as part of the rent—in the same category that we are paying for accommodation. It may be a five years’ lease, or a letting from month to month or year to year. We treat it on that basis and where conditions are imposed by the landlords we have to carry them out. In this case we were singularly fortunate.

118. Chairman.—It comes in under Rents, etc?—It does.

Deputy Haslett.—How does that extend in relation to your employees? Are you your own insurers for them?—We are; but perhaps I should qualify it by saying that in the case of drainage relief works generally throughout the country we do take out and operate a policy for workmen’s compensation. In all other cases we carry the liability of our employees ourselves.

119. Chairman.—Where you take out insurance, what is the procedure? Is it done by tender?—By advertisement and specification and by open competitive tender.

120. On page 29 there is this note:— “In respect of a genuine error in his tender for improvement works at a national school, a contractor received an ex gratia payment of £20 14s. 0d.” You have a Department of Finance minute approving that. Was that a clerical error, or something of that kind?—It was a miscalculation, probably on his bill of quantities. It affected the tender to the extent of £20 14s. 0d. The Board were satisfied that there were two miscalculations in that particular tender which caused that difference and, of course, we got Finance sanction to the ex gratia payment of ₣20 14s. 0d.

121. Are you in a position to say, if that sum of £20 14s. 0d. had been added to the original tender, that the tender would still have been acceptable in comparison with the others?—It still would have been the lowest. As a matter of fact, the next lowest tender was a little over £100 more.

122. I take it, your other note—“A sum of £100 was paid in respect of bills of quantities for a proposed national school, which was not subsequently erected”—refers to the school we have already discussed?—Yes, that is so.

VOTE 27—HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.

Mr. J. Connolly further examined.

123. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has no note on this Vote, and therefore we will proceed with the sub-heads. In regard to sub-head A— Dockyard Maintenance—I see here again that you are held up owing to shortage of staff?—It is rather that we curtailed the staff there. It is not that there was any particular difficulty in getting staff.

124. So that, in fact, you curtailed the staff because you postponed the works, and it is not that you curtailed the works because you postponed the staff; is that the case?—Yes.

125. Now, with regard to sub-head AA 2—Reconstruction of Naval Jetty —for what reason did you reconstruct a naval jetty at Haulbowline Dockyard? —Well, I think “naval jetty” is more of a courtesy title. The total charge to Vote in respect of this work was £3,466, of which £3,220 was charged in 1935-36. The estimated cost was £3,000. The excess was principally due to (1) extra provision on account of erection of a special type of fence and laying of tarmac surface on approach, £109; (2) cost of Clerk of Works, not estimated for, £311. That explains the excess. This work was approved. I do not know what was the special need, but I assume that a special need for this jetty was found in 1935-36.

126. Who uses it?—It is used by the people going to and from the Island. There are a good many residents on the Island. There are the Cork oil people, who have quite a business there and who pay a substantial rent to the Board, and they have constant intercourse between the mainland and the Island. Then there is our own staff, and also the residents in the houses there.

127. On a previous occasion, in this Committee, attention was directed to the fact that where a Department of Finance Minute is secured, approving excess expenditure, it did appear desirable that there should be a uniform practice of giving the reference to that Department of Finance Minute in the Appropriation Accounts. You will notice that that is done in some cases. For instance, in connection with Vote 11, reference is made in many cases to the Department of Finance Minute. Is there any uniformity of practice in that matter?—I think Mr. Dagg would advise on that matter.

Mr. Dagg.—Yes, I think there is. Of course, a lot of those notes refer to matters of procedure and do not require sanction. This particular case came up for discussion in the Dáil in connection with the Estimates, but wherever there is a Department of Finance sanction, I think it is always inserted in the Appropriation Accounts.

128. Chairman.—The sanction of the Department of Finance is always required for any virement, is it not?—Yes.

129. This is an excess of expenditure? —Yes.

130. That is a case of virement?

Mr. Connolly.—We had sanction for that.

131. Chairman.—But it is a case of virement, is it not?

Mr. Dagg.—Yes.

132. My point is that I think it is a desirable practice to have a reference made. Do you not think so?—I might explain that sanction for the excess was not asked for until the work was completed, and that the Commissioners did not get the sanction until August, 1936, after the total work had been completed.

133. Are we to assume that where reference is not made to a Department of Finance Minute, approving the virement, the approval was not forthcoming until after the accounts had been prepared?

Mr. Connolly.—I wonder does it lie with the Department, or even with the Department of Finance, as regards the statement of that? When we report to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, am I right in saying that we have to indicate to the Comptroller and Auditor-General exactly whether we had Department of Finance sanction or not, and might it rest with your Department, Mr. McGrath, to indicate, in the statements for the report, whether the Department of Finance sanction had been got or not?

134. Mr. McGrath.—Where we see an excess expenditure on any sub-head we always see the authority. We are not satisfied merely because you say that you have the authority. I think the Chairman’s point is that in some accounts you will see a note pointing out that the Department of Finance has sanctioned the excess, and that in a subsequent Vote you will see an excess there, but no note of the authority. I might explain here that the Audit Department sees in every case that there is an authority, but the Chairman’s point is that there is a want of uniformity in informing the Dáil, in the Appropriation Accounts, that in every case where there is an excess there has been an authority. I think that the only way to get over that is for the Department of Finance to issue a circular to the Departments themselves if they consider it necessary. This is only a suggestion, but it would lead to uniformity of practice. Three years ago the Chairman of this Committee spoke to me about this matter, and I made a promise that I would have the matter attended to, but when I went across to my office I found that it did not lie with the Department so much as with the Department of Finance. However, the Committee can rest assured that, wherever there is an excess expenditure, whether there is a note of the authority or not, the Audit Office sees that there is an authority.

Mr. Dagg.—It would, of course, lie with the different Departments to see that the Department of Finance sanctioned the excess.

Mr. McGrath.—I am not speaking of going to the Department for sanction. I am speaking of the practice of setting out in the accounts furnished to the Audit Department the fact that they have gone to the Finance Department. We do not assume that they have authority. We see that the authority is produced to us, but in furnishing the accounts the practice is not uniform. One Department ignores putting down the information that is required by the Chairman, and another Department carries it out very religiously. There is a difference of practice, and, in my opinion, the only way to get over that is for a circular to be issued by the central Department of Finance to the effect that there ought to be a note in each case that the sanction has been obtained. That is a suggestion, but there may be reasons why that should not be done.

Mr. Dagg.—I think it would be rather desirable that there should be a note of the sanction in each case.

135. Chairman.—I am glad, Mr. Dagg, that you take that view, because I have always thought it desirable, and I think the Committee would appreciate it if regular reference were made in the Appropriation Accounts to those Minutes. Now, I see here, on page 81, a reference to a temporary inspector having received extra remuneration while acting as clerk of works in connection with the reconstruction of the naval jetty. Are we to take it, Mr. Connolly, that relief schemes were proceeding on the island at the time, and that this inspector divided his time between the work on the naval jetty and the relief schemes?

Mr. Connolly.—A temporary inspector of relief schemes, Grade B, received extra remuneration amounting to £33 15s. 0d. while acting as clerk of works in connection with the reconstruction of the naval jetty. Yes, that is the explanation of it—that this man received that extra remuneration for his work on this particular reconstruction.

136. You do not happen to know whether the relief scheme was proceeding at the time in which he did this work?— He was withdrawn from another relief scheme and put specially on this job.

137. Are we to understand that he continued to receive his salary as a relief scheme inspector and, in addition, this £33 15s. 0d., or was this in substitution for the wages he would receive as a relief scheme inspector?—He received his salary and the addition, which is all charged to this Vote.

138. Frankly, I cannot see why he should receive this additional salary if he was already in the service of the Board of Works as an inspector. Was there any reason why he should have more money for supervising the work on the jetty than on the relief scheme?

Deputy Goulding.—I take it that they were two separate works.

139. Deputy Smith.—The Accounting Officer has stated that he was withdrawn from the work on which he had been engaged. I can quite see that certain factors might enter into the withdrawal that might necessitate giving a man a greater allowance. However, I do not know what these factors might be.

Mr. Connolly.—I have no specific details as regards the matter, but I assume that this man earned the money when he got it. As Deputy Smith has pointed out, there were probably other factors.

140. Deputy Smith.—The cost of his maintenance might be higher there than in the place where he had been working. Factors such as that might enter into it, might they not?—There may have been a great deal of overtime work, and I think that is the most likely explanation.

Deputy Keyes.—It might be a superior type of work for which this man happened to be competent, and if he was not called to do the work it might necessitate getting a thoroughly competent clerk of works.

Deputy Smith.—Yes, but I doubt if that would be a justification.

141. Chairman.—The great advantage of having Mr. Connolly and Mr. Dagg with us to-day is that we can put an end to speculation of this kind by asking what the facts are.

Mr. Connolly.—I think my surmise is reasonably near the mark—that is that this man undertook to do the work in conjunction with his own work and that the special character of the work required him to be on the job practically whole-time. I presume that in a job of this kind there would be a good deal of overtime because it would have to be done within a season and would probably have to be done, whenever there was good weather, through the whole day on into the dusk and even into the dark. That is my assumption, and that seems to be the reason of this extra compensation— that it was for extra work.

142. So that this £33 15s. 0d. would be more or less in the nature of overtime pay?—I would say that it would be an allowance for overtime and for the general and constant supervision he would have to do in connection with the job.

143. Deputy Smith.—In addition to what he was already doing?—Probably.

144. Chairman.—You said, Mr. Connolly, that he was withdrawn and put specially on this job?—Yes, but he may have been put specially on other work also. If the Committee wishes, I shall get the additional details for them, but I think you can rest satisfied that nobody gets by with anything in that way.

145. Well, perhaps you would look into the matter, and if you find anything abnormal in connection with this payment, I am sure you will be kind enough to let us know. The last note has reference to a sum of 5/- due for electric light which had been supplied to a resident subsequently deported from the country which was written off as irrecoverable under the authority of the Commissioners. What are the circumstances of that remarkable transaction? —This note refers to a man who was formerly employed by Haulbowline Industries Limited and who was deported from the country, leaving a sum of 25/-due to the Commissioners for electric light. We held a deposit of £1 which was applied to the debt and as the prospect of recovering the balance of 5/- was very remote, there was no option but to write off that amount as irrecoverable.

Chairman.—We sympathise with the dilemma in which the Department found itself there. It redounds greatly to the credit of the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that it is able to give such an exhaustive account of a sum as low as 5/-. I take it there is no other matter which Deputies wish to raise on this Vote.

The Committee adjourned at 1.20 p.m. until Wednesday, 28th April, at 11 a.m.

* See Appendix III.