Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1950 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1948 - 1949

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 16ú Samhain, 1950.

Thursday, 16th November, 1950.

The Committee sat at 11 a. m.

Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. J. Mooney and Mr. M. Breathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 9—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Diarmuid Ó hEigceartuigh called and examined.

84. Chairman.—There is a paragraph, number 10, by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

“Insurance of Workmen.

As stated in a note to the account, sums amounting to £15,611 6s. 10d expended in prior years on compensation, etc., in respect of claims arising out of accident risks which had been covered by policies of insurance with the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association, Limited, which is in liquidation, remain charged to a suspense account. A sum of £6,017 4s. 0d., being portion of the premium paid for the year 1938-39, also remains charged to the suspense account pending settlement of the Commissioners’ claim against the Liquidator. Sums amounting to £1,908 18s. 0d. which would otherwise have been payable to the Association under the policies have been retained by the Commissioners as a set-off against their claim. In reply to a recent inquiry I have been informed that the Notice for service on contributors, referred to in paragraph 10 of the last report, was duly issued and resulted in the collection of a further £2,500 by the Liquidator. I have also been informed that further recoveries from contributors who have not discharged their liabilities would be unlikely without recourse to additional legal processes and that as such proceedings would tend to dissipate the amount already collected the matter has been referred to Counsel for advice. Negotiations have, I understand, been proceeding on the claim against the underwriters, which is still unsettled.”

We discussed this matter of the insurance of workmen last year. The Liquidator had succeeded, according to the Chairman last year, in collecting substantial amounts and was doing his best to have the matter cleared up, but had not reached finality. Have you any further comment to make on it, Mr. Wann?

Mr. Wann.—I understand that the present position is that a claim has been made against the Liquidator for priority in respect of the State debt, and that the issue is in course of hearing in the High Court.

85. Deputy S. Collins.—It is not very likely that the State will obtain priority?

Mr. Wann.—I could not say that.

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—It is at hearing at the moment.

Chairman.—Then it is really sub judice.

Mr. Wann.—To that extent.

86. Deputy Sheldon.—Last year, I made complimentary remarks about the Accounting Officer on giving very full information on this Vote in connection with subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances.

Chairman.—I think we suggested to Mr. McElligott, representing the Department of Finance, which has to do with these matters, that the explanatory note on page 83 dealing with salaries, wages and allowances for the Valuation and Boundary Survey seemed to give a great amount of information. I do not know whether the Valuation and Boundary Survey is in a special position, whether there is not so much routine and general work to be done. It may be that their duties are very restricted, the staff small, and so on, and that they can give all this information, but in this matter it is pointed out to me that we are not in a position to say what proportion of the savings was due to the vacancies and to what extent it was offset by the increase in Civil Service remuneration. I do not want to take you at a disadvantage if you have not got the information, but you might be able to send us a note on it, as is often done by Accounting Officers if they are asked a question for which they are not prepared. In the case of an office which has a big staff, however, I think that, speaking for the Committee, we would like to get the fullest information as to the extent to which the savings are due to vacancies or otherwise?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—I have not got the information in detail, but I will have a note sent about it.*

87. Deputy S. Collins.—What is your staff position at the moment? Are you still carrying a number of vacancies?— We are. We inevitably carry a number of vacancies.

88. Does that position result in putting too much work on other individuals?—It is normal enough to have some vacancies.

89. My point in putting the question is that it is offered to us as an excuse for delays in the Board of Works that you have not got the staff. Is there any way of rectifying the staff position? Is there some special category of people missing? —The difficulty arises in the case of technical staffs. We find it difficult to recruit, and still more difficult to retain, technical staffs. It is probably due to the outside demand at the moment for people like architects and engineers.

90. Would it be fair to say that the reason for your difficulty in the matter of recruitment is the fact that the remuneration and conditions of service do not compete with those offered outside?—That may be so at the moment. The remuneration and terms of service offered outside vary very considerably, and it is a fact that people with experience are sometimes able to get better terms outside than we can give.

I was wondering if amelioration in the terms you could offer would offset a good deal of your staff difficulty?—I doubt that.

Chairman.—There was a reference to this matter last year. On page 36, question 212, of last year’s Minutes of Evidence I find the following:—

“Is the difficulty this, that the remuneration is not sufficiently attractive to engineers, or is it that the number of men going in for engineering is limited?—No. I am not speaking of that Vote, but on the whole or in existing conditions, I think we are offering what is fair and reasonable to induce people to come to us. There are plenty of young engineers qualifying, but we find that very many of the young men want a variety of experience. They work for six months with us, and it is a natural thing that they desire experience in other types of work. Some of them change their jobs every twelve months in order to get around.”

Do you wish to add anything to that?— No. That is accurate enough, particularly in the case of engineers who like to get varied experience.

You do not feel that you have a difficulty at present, by reason of remuneration solely, in getting these technical officers?—Our view is that we are paying them what is a reasonable amount. It may be that the peculiar situation outside at the moment enables better conditions to be given than they would get inside, but I doubt if an increase in remuneration would make any serious difference.

91. Deputy S. Collins.—It is not seriously contended that this transitory period which engineers go through for the first three or four years is any part of the difficulty you have? You would not seriously contend that your difficulty arises out of young engineers wanting to chop and change? The type of engineer who would be applying for a post in your Department would not be a man who would be chopping and changing?—We have had a very considerable amount of experience of that up to fairly recently. The reason, I think, was that we were not engaged upon actual works. We were mainly engaged upon surveys in the early stages of the drainage work, and I think the young engineers became rather tired of that and were anxious to get out in order to get experience.

92. Chairman.—You have a good deal of constructional work and drainage work at present which ought to be attractive. Do you think they will stay?—We hope that will induce them to remain.

If you have an engineer working on a drainage scheme and he decides to go, there is no way of stopping him. When he has been two or three years with you and then decides to go it is a great loss, but there seems to be no way out of it.

93. Deputy S. Collins.—With regard to subhead B—Travelling Expenses—there seems to be a large increase in the amount of money spent on travelling expenses. Was there any particular activity that would specifically account for this large increase?—During the war and in the subsequent period when travelling was difficult, the amount expended was restricted, but it has come back to normal and, in addition, there were some extra expenses in regard to travelling. There were visits abroad by technical members of the staff in connection with the planning of schemes.

Chairman.—That would scarcely account for the whole lot. Was there any change in the general level of payment for travelling, or was there a larger number of officers travelling?—There would have been a larger number travelling, and I think there was an increase—I am not sure if it arose in this accounting period or not—in the subsistence allowance. In addition, the cost of travelling has increased.

Unless the period of foreign travel was very prolonged or you had a large number of men abroad, it could hardly, from our experience of other Departments, involve a very big expenditure?—It was not very big.

If there is any further information you think we could usefully have on subhead B, perhaps you could send it along to us? —Very good. I will do that.*

94. As to subhead CC—Competition for Design for a National Theatre—there has been a Supplementary Estimate here and perhaps the Committee might like to know what these Assessors have been doing and how the matter generally stands?—Three Assessors were appointed for the purpose of a competition for a design for a National Theatre. They had done a considerable amount of work when it was decided that the project should be postponed. That happened in 1948. The Government decided to defer the project. At that stage the draft conditions governing the competition for the design had been put in final form and a considerable amount of work had been put into the investigation of sites. The regulations of the Royal Institute of Architects which govern the promotion and conduct of competitions of this kind provide that, if it is decided to abandon a competition, the Assessors are paid two-thirds of their fees. The figure of £798 12s. 5d. includes two-thirds of the fees of the three Assessors and a very small sum for travelling expenses for one of them who is resident in London.

That means that subhead CC disappears as far as we know?—Yes.

Deputy S. Collins.—Am I to take it that, as distinct from postponing the project of building a National Theatre, they even postponed the competition?—Yes.

95. Chairman.—As to Appropriations in Aid, the amount realised is substantially in excess of the amount estimated. The fees under the Local Loans Fund seems to bring in a very substantial figure. This is the whole of the expenses of management of the Local Loans Fund, as we were told last year. Deputy Sheldon then asked: “That does not represent the total expenses of managing the Local Loans Fund, as other Departments also contribute?” and the then Chairman of the Board of Works (Mr. Connolly) replied: “So far as we are concerned, I can only speak for our Vote.” He then explained that the Board administered the Fund, issued the loans when sanctioned, and collected the repayments.

Deputy Sheldon.—Perhaps you will tell us why the amount realised was so much higher than the amount estimated?—The answer, I think, is that the amount of the issues from the Local Loans Fund during the period was much greater than was expected at the time the estimate was being framed. The fees depend on the issues.

96. Is there an immediate relationship between Item No. 2—Fees—and Item No. 6—Amount recoverable as expenses of management of the Local Loans Fund? These expenses were less than estimated? —The amount recoverable as expenses of management is the amount expended in the previous year. In arriving at that figure, the fees are taken off and, if there is a variation in the fees, there will be a variation in the final recovery. The amount recoverable is brought to credit as an Appropriation in Aid. It is the amount of the expenditure incurred in the previous year. An increase in fees will affect the estimate in the following year.

Deputy Sheldon.—I do not understand it, but I am not blaming you.

97. Chairman.—The increase in fees is due to the fact that you had far more applications and loans granted?—Yes.

98. Deputy Briscoe.—These two items, No. 2 and No. 6, seem to be related, but in fact, they are not really related. Item No. 2 is an estimate as to what fees you expect to receive in relation to loans which may come in the year under review?—Yes.

Item No. 6 is an estimate of the fees which have accrued in the preceding year. While they may have reached a figure of £20,000, the question is how much you will get in the financial year from the people from whom it is due. Would that be correct?—Item No. 6 represents the amount expended in the management of the Local Loans Fund during the previous year. That is made up of salaries and apportioned office expenses. There are set off against that penal interest and fees, which would give the net figure of £20,000 in the estimate. If the fees were under-estimated for the previous year, the amount recoverable would be less than the estimate.

99. Deputy S. Collins.—Is it the position that one is an actual figure as distinct from an estimated figure?—The £18,347 is an actual figure, and the £20,000 is an estimated figure.

When framing the estimate you take it on the basis of what you calculate will be the use made of the Local Loans Fund. It turns out in the subsequent year that that sum was a good deal under-calculated. When you come to deal with it in the following year, you are dealing with the question of money actually realised and you adjust your whole accounting on that basis.

Deputy Briscoe.—I take a different view from Deputy Collins.

100. Deputy Sheldon:—I am afraid we are all getting a bit muddled. May I take it this way, that Item No. 2 represents fees charged to borrowers for the year of account?—Yes.

Item No. 6 is the expenses of management of the loans in the previous year?— Yes.

Then there is no real connection between the two?—No.

Chairman.—In fact, this £18,000 has been recovered from the local authorities?—No. The £18,347 has been paid to Vote 9 out of the Local Loans Fund.

VOTE 10—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Diarmuid Ó hEigceartuigh further examined.

101. Chairman.—There is a paragraph, number 11, from the Comptroller and Auditor-General which reads as follows:—

“Office of the Consul General, New York.

Premises in New York which had been leased by Aerlinte Eireann, Teoranta, for a term of 21 years from 1947 at a yearly rent of $20,000 were taken over for the purpose of providing suitable offices for the Consul General. In consideration for the transfer of the lease the Commissioners of Public Works paid to the company the sum of £20,282 7s. 0d., which was equivalent to the expenditure incurred by the company on the renovation, of the premises. This amount is included in the charge to subhead A.—Purchase of Sites and Buildings. Other expenditure incurred in connection with the acquisition of the premises and the transfer thereto of the Consulate General are charged to the vote as follows:—

In addition, the vote for Stationery and Printing (No. 21) includes a charge of £646 18s. 5d. for office equipment and supplies taken over from Aerlinte Eireann, Teoranta. Part of the acquired premises had been sublet at a rent of £1,000 a year and another portion appeared to be surplus to requirements and available for sub-letting. As no revenue had been received in respect of the property, I communicated with the Accounting Officer and was informed that the question of the collection of the rent and the letting of the surplus accommodation was being pursued in consultation with the Department of External Affairs

I think that in a case like this the usual procedure is for the Accounting Officer to oblige the Committee by giving details as to the present position.

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—The rent that was outstanding at the time and that was referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor-General has since been collected.

102. Chairman.—The question of surplus accommodation is the next matter then, after the rent.

Deputy S. Collins.—Has the surplus accommodation since been let?-No. The position regarding the surplus accommodation is that efforts were made to get tenants, but they were not successful. It has since transpired that the greater part of the building will be required by the Department of External Affairs. The precise extent of the building that will be available for letting later has not yet been determined, but it will be small.

103. What will be the net annual cost, then, of this building?

Deputy Briscoe.—The present position, I take it, is that the capital cost is £20,000.

Deputy S. Collins.—Add 20,000 dollars a year on top of that for rent.

104. Deputy Sheldon.—It occurs to me to ask if the Commissioners are satisfied that the expenditure of £20,000 on a property with a 21-year lease was fully justified. The air company was compensated to that extent. It seems an extraordinarily high amount to spend on property which had only a 21-year lease. Of course, I am not conversant with the American situation or whether that is customary there. Can Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh give us any information?—That was expenditure which was incurred by Aerlinte on the premises.

105. I can believe that. But are the Commissioners satisfied that that was proper expenditure?—The Commissioners are not aware of the condition of the building prior to the lease being taken by Aerlinte.

106. It says in the note that the £20,000 was equivalent to the expenditure incurred by the company on the renovation of the premises. There is no fine on the lease at all. The company was not paying any fine, is that so?—No. They were refunded what they expended.

107. Deputy Briscoe.—Is this not quite an unusual way of dealing with the acquisition of premises for the Department of External Affairs? Normally, the Department of External Affairs would come before the Dáil. It would estimate its requirements and include the commitments that would arise from the acquisition of premises for legations or consulates. Apparently, all this was done in an extraordinary fashion. It has not come before the Dáil. It is rather a very substantial commitment for a consulate, even in New York City. It is probably a very big consulate but it is still a very big commitment. The figures are so high that, as a matter of fact, I did not realise that there was a rental of 20,000 dollars a year until Deputy S. Collins pointed it out to me. It is rather an extraordinary procedure and I think the Committee should be given some details.

108. Chairman.—In a case of this kind, is the Board of Works responsible for making the arrangements? Had they anything to do with this lease-making arrangement, Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh?—No. The lease was with Aerlinte.

And then the premises were not required?—Yes.

109. So the question arose of what was to be done with them? In general, with regard to the acquisition of buildings for the Department of External Affairs, or otherwise, outside the country, how would you deal with the matter? You must be guided, I presume, by the needs of the Department that requires the offices. There may be different views which, in the end, may have to be adjusted. But take, for example, the case of New York. How can you, at that distance, manage these matters?—We have to rely largely, in a case like that, upon the Department of External Affairs or the representative of the Department of External Affairs. We have to rely largely upon the Consul-General or on the Minister Plenipotentiary for advice in a case like that as to their requirements and the general looking after of the premises.

110. Deputy S. Collins.—Would this be an unprecedented method by which the Board of Works would acquire a consulate?—I do not remember any precisely similar case.

111. Taking the circumstances as we now know them of this consulate being acquired at the price and rent stated, and apart from the fact that the building could be sublet and that some of it was available for subletting, was it at any stage a suitable building for a consulate? —It was inspected by the Minister for External Affairs and by the Secretary of the Department. They reported that it was very suitable.

112. Am I to take it that it was not inspected by any representative of the Board of Works?—Not at that stage.

113. Deputy Sheldon.—Was it unprecedented, particularly for the Department of External Affairs, to purchase through the Board of Works a building abroad which had not been provided for in the Estimate?—That is not common.

114. Deputy Briscoe.—I take it that the position was rather unprecedented arising from the circumstances which brought this building into being as our property. If Aerlinte, having already made a commitment, had not been closed down, this property would not have been in being at all. Normally the Board of Works would have been expected to comment on a building or a premises which the Department of External Affairs proposed to take over. That would be the normal procedure but what happened in this case was completely abnormal. Is that not so?—As far as I understand it, this was a building which became available at a time when the Department of External Affairs were anxious to get more extensive accommodation.

115. Chairman.—I think the Committee would like to know if there is a recognised procedure for calling attention to the disposal by you of a property which comes into your hands. What is the position, for instance, if it should happen that one Department buys a building that is not required and that can be transferred to another Department? It is obviously necessary, in the public interest, that there should be some way in which this matter should have attention called to it. We have the Comptroller and Auditor-General calling attention to it here. Otherwise, I take it that we would not know anything about it. What is the position, Mr. O hEigceartuigh?— Generally speaking, it would be brought to notice in the Estimate but I do not think it is the practice to set out the specific buildings under subhead A in the printed Estimates.

116. Deputy Briscoe.—Aerlinte was not a Department of State; it was an independent body. They made certain commitments and acquired certain properties. When they were put out of existence certain properties remained their assets. This office was one of them. Was it not possible to consider disposing of these premises and for the Board of Works to seek premises in the normal way? It seems rather strange that the two events should have coincided—the immediate need of appropriate premises for the consulate and the availability of these premises because Aerlinte had been closed down. Would it not have been better to have adopted the normal procedure of disposing of these premises in the first instance and the acquisition of other premises for the consulate? Deputy Sheldon says now, and he is probably right, that the Department of External Affairs was the bigger mug to take these premises.

Deputy S. Collins.—It looks as if the gun were put to somebody’s head to take these premises.

117. Deputy Sheldon.—Was the Board of Works satisfied that this figure of £20,000 was a reasonable figure to pay for renovation? It does not matter if it was vouched for by Aerlinte. I do not think that that is the material point. If I take premises and make some elaborate change in them and then try to palm the premises off on the Board of Works I think they would take a dim view of it. Is that not reasonable?

Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—The arrangement in connection with the purchase was one that was arrived at by the Department of External Affairs with the consent of the Department of Finance. We were merely given the terms.

118. Deputy Sheldon.—We appreciate that you are the agents but the point we would like to know is, when you are given the job by a Department of acquiring property have you no powers of representation to that Department with regard to the expense?—Oh, yes.

119. In this event, were the Commissioners satisfied?—They were not consulted.

They were not consulted in this case? —No.

Deputy S. Collins.—That is the answer we are looking for.

Deputy Sheldon.—That is the point 1 wanted to establish.

Chairman.—I think it is useful in the proceedings of the Committee to have it on record that the Commissioners were not consulted in connection with expenditure for which they must bear a certain responsibility in the public eye. I think it is important that the Committee should know that.

120. Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—It is right to say that the expenditure incurred was incurred prior to this transaction. It was incurred, not by the Commissioners of Public Works—that is the actual expenditure—but was incurred by Aerlinte.

121. Deputy Briscoe.—Deputy Sheldon points out quite correctly that when a concern spends a considerable amount of money to improve a premises or to alter a premises to suit their requirements, if they go out of business, it does not follow that whoever takes the premises should be held responsible for all the equipment and all the alterations which they do not need for their requirements. We know what these premises were. They were offices for the purposes of air offices. There were, probably, counters and all kinds of things which would suit their requirements. I want to ask, in addition to all that, would I be correct in saying that this is at the present moment the most expensive premises we have in our Foreign Service, both as regards cost and rental. Have we any other premises that cost us 20,000 dollars a year in rent alone, less £1,000?—I could not say that offhand.

122. Deputy S. Collins.—Could I add one question to Deputy Briscoe’s question, to put it on record? Is there any other consulate anywhere in our service that has been acquired in this way without the Commissioners being consulted about the actual expenditure that was made on the premises before acquisition? —It is understood, of course, that this was a recoupment of expenditure.

123. We are aware of that. I put it as an addition to Deputy Briscoe’s question, is this the only type of building we have in our Foreign Service where the Commissioners were never consulted about the cost, either by way of recoupment or otherwise. The indications are that this was presented to you as something that was accomplished. You were told by the Department to recoup the people to the amount of the expenditure already made? —That is what happened. I do not recollect any other similar case.

124. Deputy Sheldon.—When the offices were then taken over for the Consul-General, was this amount of £438 4s. 9d. the only amount that had to be spent in order to make the premises suitable for the Consul-General?—That is right, yes.

125. Deputy Briscoe.—May I ask at this stage if we could have given to us in the form of a minute a list of all the premises we have in our Foreign Service, the cost and the actual rentals attaching to them?

Chairman.—That will arise later on when we are going through the details.

126. Deputy S. Collins.—I was wondering would it be possible to have the Board of Works supply us with some detail as to the location and type of these premises? It is in the public interest to know what kind of a pig in a poke we bought for this money?—The situation is in the vicinity of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York. It is 33 East 50th Street. It is reported to be very well situated and to contain quite good office accommodation.

Deputy S. Collins.—I was told quite differently by people who came from New York. That is why I raised the question. I was told that near St. Patrick’s Cathedral is not the best place for it at all. I was wondering if it would be possible to get that information. It is in the public interest that we should know.

127. Deputy Briscoe.—I would like to get the statement that I suggested, if you rule it is in order, Sir. I would also like to add to what Deputy Collins said, that normally an air company would acquire premises, first of all, that would be on the ground floor and would be more in the nature of a trading establishment. They would have quite a different approach from a Government expecting to find adequate and suitable and up-to-date suites of offices. I am sure it is possible that the £1,000 a year we are getting is for the basement, or what I call the shop premises, but I do not know that. If the Board of Works were asked to select premises for the purpose, I do not know that, if they were free agents, taking everything into account, they would have selected this particular one.

128. Chairman.—Could you give us any particulars, Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh? Probably it will be necessary to send a note to the Committee describing the premises and the accommodation available in them?—Yes, we will do that.

129. What else, Deputy Briscoe, do you think we should ask for?

Deputy Briscoe.—I want to have a list before us of all our property abroad, all the figures attaching to them with regard to acquisition costs, expenditure for alterations and, above all, the commitments in respect of rentals.*

Chairman.—That will take a little time, I suppose. You may be able to let us have the information later on?—What is required is in respect of all premises abroad?

Chairman.—Yes. The cost of acquisition and of any original adaptations?

Deputy Briscoe.—Yes, and the rental—the annual charges.

Chairman.—And the expenditure up to date, so to speak?—It would take a considerable amount of time to produce the expenditure up to date.

Not necessarily to date, but to a particular date.

130. Deputy Briscoe.—Are there any rates on this property?—There are certain taxes on it. There is a real estate tax in New York, I think.

How much would it amount to on these premises in addition to the rent of 20,000 dollars?—I could not give you that figure at the moment.

It certainly would be considerable, would it not?

Deputy S. Collins.—It looks bad enough to be committed to over 400,000 dollars. Apparently we are committed to a fair bit more than that.

Deputy Briscoe.—What about city rates?—

131. Chairman.—In regard to sub heads A, B and L, paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:

“Subhead A—Purchase of Sites and Buildings.

Subhead B—New Works, Alterations and Additions.

Subhead L—Appropriations in Aid.

Certain buildings in the Phoenix Park which had been used in part by the Department of Education for the accommodation of a preparatory college and in part by the Army were taken over during the year by the Dublin Corporation at the request of the Minister for Health for use as a tuberculosis hospital, the corporation being granted a lease for a term of 99 years subject to a fine of £120,000 and a yearly rent of £2,600. The amount of the fine, which was received in the year and is credited to subhead L., was determined by reference to the cost of providing alternative accommodation for the preparatory college and for Army use.

The property known as Shanganagh Castle was purchased for £30,000, together with auctioneer’s fees, for use as a preparatory college, and £22,550 2s. 0d. is included in the charge to subhead A., in respect of this purchase, £9,000 having been paid in the previous year. Expenditure amounting to £11,883 4s. 7d., which is borne on subhead B., was also incurred during the year on the provision of temporary dormitory accommodation in the grounds of the Castle. It is estimated that a permanent scheme of adaptation of the premises to render them suitable for the purpose of a preparatory college will cost £55,000.”

132. Chairman.—The position as regards Shanganagh Castle then, is, that it was purchased for £30,000 together with auctioneer’s fees?—Yes.

Expenditure amounting to £11,883 was incurred during the year on the provision of temporary dormitory accommodation and it is estimated that a permanent scheme of adaptation to render the premises suitable for its purpose will cost £55,000. What is the total expenditure? Will we get it by adding these three figures together?

133. Deputy S. Collins.—Is the £55,000 additional to or does it include expenditure already incurred?—The £55,000 is additional to what has already been expended.

134. Deputy Sheldon.—Is it correct to say that the difference between £30,000 and the amount spent represents the auctioneer’s fees—£1,550. There would probably be legal expenses as well.

Deputy S. Collins.—It would be the auctioneer’s fees. It would not be quite up to the standard figure of 5 per cent.

135. Chairman.—Was it bought at public auction, Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh?—It was, Sir, yes. You have £31,500, which is the £30,000 plus 5 per cent.

136. What land is attached to the premises?—The hotel has about 27 acres of land attached to it.

137. Deputy S. Collins.—Had part of the land of the hotel been disposed of before the Board of Works bought the Castle?—it was put up in two parts and the second part, which is of fairly considerable extent, was sold separately.

138. Chairman.—Have you started on the permanent scheme of adaptation, Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh?—The plans for the permanent scheme are at present being considered by the Department of Education. They have been brought to a pretty close stage of finality.

139. Deputy S. Collins.—Is this alleged payment of £120,000 by the Corporation of Dublin notional or actual?—It is actual.

140. Chairman.—Recoverable from the Hospitals Trust Fund, I believe.

Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—Is that correct, Chairman?

Chairman.—So I understand. I do not know whether Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh or the Finance representative is in a position to give us any information about this matter.

Mr. M. Breathnach.—I really could not say but I expect it is from the Hospitals Trust Fund.

Chairman.—Perhaps you will be able to confirm that, please, for the information of the Committee.

Mr. M. Breathnach.—Certainly.*

141. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—Has the amount in fact been paid by the corporation?

Chairman.—It has.

Mr. Wann.—It is included in the figure of £149,292 on page 25.

142. Chairman.—This amount was determined by reference to the cost of providing alternative accommodation for the Preparatory College and for Army use. That was the sole consideration, apart from the urgency on the part of the Minister for Health of getting premises? —That was how the fine was determined. There is also a yearly rent.

143. I would like to have, for the information of the Committee, an estimate from you of what a hospital with accommodation in beds equivalent to that which has been provided here would cost to build at the present time. Would it be possible to get that?—I do not think we would be competent to do that. An estimate of that kind would probably be better obtained from the Department of Health.

Deputy S. Collins.—This is the old Hibernian School?—Yes.

144. The amount of the fine payable by the Dublin Corporation will be more than adequate to cover, in theory anyway, the question of the establishment of this new school in Shanganagh Castle?—It is slightly in excess of what we estimated. Of course, there are always contingencies in cases like that.

145. Chairman.—What are the terms of the lease—the corporation would be responsible for all maintenance and repairs? —Yes.

Deputy Briscoe.—Alderman O’Sullivan and I are responsible from now onwards for keeping it in order.

Chairman.—You mean the Hospitals Trust Funds are responsible?

Deputy Briscoe.—No, we have to pay the rent.

Deputy Davern.—I take it the income would cover something.

Deputy Briscoe.—We get no income— it is all free treatment.

146. Chairman.—The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General—paragraph 13—sets out the following:

“Subhead J.2—Arterial Drainage— Construction Works.

Brosna Catchment Drainage Scheme.

The Brosna catchment drainage scheme is the first drainage scheme undertaken by the Commissioners under the provisions of Part II of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945.

The total cost of the scheme is estimated to amount to £1,080,000. The expenditure during the year amounted to £67,965 15s. 11d. and, as noted in the account, the value of the services rendered to the scheme by engineering plant and machinery has been estimated at £30,640 0s. 6d.”

When will the scheme be completed?—In about two and a half years’ time.

Is it the experience that the estimate of cost is generally fulfilled? I know how difficult it is to estimate these matters in advance. When you say the total cost is estimated to amount to £1,080,000, is that a routine estimate or do you feel it will be, in fact, the actual cost at the end of the two or three years’ period?—It is a carefully prepared estimate but, of course, changes in wages—and there have been changes—would affect it. So far the scheme appears to be working fairly closely to the estimate.

147. Deputy S. Collins.—Would not an increase in the cost of heavy machinery affect it? It is purely an estimate on the basis that these contingencies will not arise?—It is the best figure we could foresee.

You will be lucky if it is not £250,000 out?—Yes.

148. Chairman.—Have you put any figure on the amount that might be recoverable from the benefited area or will there be any proportion?—There will be nothing recoverable; the whole cost is borne by the State.

149. By whom will the maintenance be undertaken?—By the local authority. Actually it will be undertaken by us at the expense of the local authority.

150. Deputy Davern.—This is the only undertaking under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, that has been started as yet?

151. Chairman.—Yes. Is there any other scheme being undertaken, Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh?—The Glyde and Dee scheme is in progress, but it had not started in the year we are now dealing with; it started in this present year.

It is the only other one?—That is the only other one under the 1945 Act that is actually in progress.

152. Deputy Sheldon.—In the Brosna scheme, how many men are there employed?—Roughly 500. It varies a certain amount as between the summer and the winter, but the figure is roughly 500.

Deputy S. Collins.—How many civil servants would it take to look after that 500?

153. Chairman.—As regards the purchase of engineering plant and machinery, I suppose that is an accountancy matter. The value of the service rendered to the scheme by the engineering plant and machinery has been estimated. How do you calculate that?—Every item of large plant has a hiring charge attached to it; there is a book charge to the scheme in respect of the hireage of each item of plant.

154. Deputy S. Collins.—Over what period of time do you write off this heavy equipment?—It depends upon the machine. Usually ten years is regarded as the life of an excavator and the hiring charge is based on a ten years’ life.

155. If, as is most probable, you get more than ten years’ life out of this plant, how do you charge the use of the plant after that period?—The probabilities are that after ten years, during which the plant has done heavy work, it will not be suitable for further use. If it is, it will be a bit of a windfall.

I suggest there is a considerable amount of plant in the Board of Works that has done more than ten years’ service?— There is.

156. Chairman.—If it were in constant use, would it go ten years? I know the ordinary equipment is looked after very well. You are dealing with this matter of the depreciation of machinery?—Provision is made in the hire charge for depreciation and overhauls. These machines require very heavy overhauls.

You have a staff for that purpose?— We have.

157. Chairman.—Paragraph 14 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report reads:

“Subhead K.1—Purchase of Engineering Plant and Machinery.

Subhead K.2—Maintenance of Engineering Plant and Machinery.

Subhead K.3—Central Engineering Workshop and Stores.

Specific provision was included in the Estimates of previous years for the purchase and maintenance of plant and machinery for drainage works only, and when equipment was purchased for engineering work other than drainage, its cost was charged against the work, credit being allowed for any residual value when the equipment was withdrawn. This procedure led to accounting difficulties which have been overcome by extending the ambit of the Vote and making specific provision under the above subheads for all the engineering plant and machinery required for the various works undertaken by the Commissioners, the value of the service rendered to each work now being assessed on a hire charge basis and recorded in a note appended to the appropriation account.”

There is to be a new accounting system, making special provision for the engineering plant and machinery required and for the value of the service rendered to each work now being assessed on a hire charge basis.

158. Chairman.—Paragraph 15 of the Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“Subhead L—Appropriations in Aid.

Bourn Vincent Memorial Park.

The credit to this subhead includes receipts from the Bourn Vincent estate, amounting to approximately £4,450, the main items being £4,214 2s. 3d. from the sale of live stock, wool, and dairy and farm produce, £119 1s. 6d. from rents and £109 from lettings of sporting and fishing rights. I understand that the greater portion of the cereal and root crops produced was retained for the feeding of the live stock.”

159. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—I would like to ask a question about rents. Would it not be a better practice to give the cottages that are the property of the Board of Works to the employees of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park rather than to outside people? The rents here on the expenditure side amount to £107 16s. 2d. and the rents receivable are £119 1s. 6d. Do you see my point? If the tenancy of the cottages were given to the employees, then the Board of Works would not have to pay the rents for the employees, presumably?—The item of rents on the expenditure side does not refer to the cottages.

160. Deputy Sheldon.—On page 28 there is a note which says that the rent of £131 per season payable for the woodcock and rough shooting rights at the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park was reduced to £90 for the seasons 1946-47 to 1949-50. In the receipts on page 26 it is stated that the fishing amounted to £101 and the rough shooting to £8. I wonder how you reconcile these figures?—The position there was that two figures of £131 had been paid, one for 1946-47 and one for 1947-48. That was a total of £262. Three years at £90 makes £270 and the £8 is the balance for 1948-49.*

161. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Referring to the note on page 24 regarding Garda barracks, could Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh say— having regard to the number of times this matter was raised in the Dáil—whether, in fact, his Department has any scheme on hands for the building of houses for the Gardaí, particularly in areas where housing accommodation is not available? —No. There is no special scheme for building houses for Guards. Most of the barracks we build have married quarters.

There is no scheme, so far as you know, contemplated in your Department for the building of houses for Guards in rural areas?—It has not reached us, at any rate.

162. Chairman.—I see here “Foreign Exchange Control Division, 3 Merrion Square, Dublin, £15,000 2s. 0d.” Is there any explanation as to what this expenditure is for?—It is for the purchase of No. 3, Merrion Square.

Deputy S. Collins.—This is for E.C.A.? —No, it is for the Foreign Exchange Control Division of the Department of Finance.

163. Chairman.—Is that merely for the purchase of the house and whatever equipment was available?—Yes, it is the cost of purchase.

The cost of the house?—Yes.

164. Well, normally, a house in Merrion Square would not fetch £15,000?—It is a big house.

Was there any special reason?—Was it a public auction?—No.

165. Deputy Briscoe.—It was not a public auction. This is the property at 3 Merrion Square. We know the history of it and it changed hands several times in a comparatively few years and it is now the property of the Department of Finance, where they transact the Foreign Exchange business of the Department of Finance. It has nothing whatever to do with E.C.A. It was purchased privately, was it not?—Yes, it was on the market.

Chairman.—My point is that it is the cost of the house, as far as you know?— Yes.

166. Deputy Briscoe.—Was any valuer called in?—Yes, the house was valued. It is a big house.

167. We know they are all big houses in Merrion Square?—The prices were very high at that time.

Deputy S. Collins.—This £15,000 is a high price.

Chairman.—When was it purchased?— In 1948.

168. What was the cost of the house that the Institute of Advanced Studies has in the same vicinity?—I cannot remember.

Could you tell us later on?—I could let you know.*

169. Deputy Briscoe.—Did the valuer value it at that?—The valuer valued it at that. It was based on the rent.

The rentable value?—Yes, for office space. It would be worth something more than £15,000 on that basis.

170. Deputy S. Collins.—It was bought as a private house and subsequently converted into offices?—It was bought as a private house.

171. Where did the notional figure come from, then, to estimate the value of it, of what it might have made as an office, if someone were looking for it as an office? Is that a new device of estimating the value of a house the Board of Works want to get, or an old device?—It is quite a common thing to estimate per square foot of office space.

Chairman.—The value determines the price?—Yes.

172. What about the condition of the house architecturally?—It was architecturally inspected.

Separately?—Yes.

173. Deputy Briscoe.—The fact remains that the house was the private residence of the occupier from whom the premises was bought and was not, in fact, a business premises, either as an office or otherwise?

Deputy S. Collins.—Was it not reconstructed at that time?

Deputy Briscoe.—No, it was a private residence of the gentleman who sold it.

174. Chairman.—In this matter the Board of Works were definitely consulted? —Premises were urgently required and we could not get them elsewhere.

175. We have cases where the Board of Works are told that the Minister or the Government wants so and so done, hut it appears that in this particular case you had a certain amount of authority in dealing with the matter. Could you have withdrawn out of this matter or were you told to confine yourselves to a particular area, or was there anything special about it?—It had to be fairly close to the central office of the Department of Finance. That was an essential requisite.

176. Deputy Sheldon.—I think the Committee has to inquire very closely into this, as it was for the Department of Finance. In the ordinary way, with any other Department, we can rely on the Department of Finance to keep the matter in mind, but in this case they are the people receiving the property and we have to inquire into it. Was the valuer an, outside valuer or was it done by the Valuation Office?—It was valued by our valuer, by the Office of Public Works.

177. Deputy Davern.—Was there any attempt on the part of the Office of Public Works to purchase any building other than this at the particular time?—There was no other suitable building on the market at the time. We had been looking for accommodation all over the place. We were in a bad way indeed from the point of view of getting premises and this was the only house that was suitable and available.

178. Deputy S. Collins.—Do you not think that if you had offered anybody in any part of Merrion Square £15,000, you could have got their house in a flash?— There are very few houses in Merrion Square which are suitable, that have not been bought up already for office accommodation.

Taking the particular location of this house where it is on Merrion Square, I suggest to you that in that terrace of houses alone there are at least ten or 12 houses of the same type and character that, if an inquiry were made, would have been on the market for less than that? —I am not aware of that.

179. Can you tell the Committee what inquiries were made at that time with regard to these houses on Merrion Square or whether this house was bought baldheaded?

180. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Could Mr. Ó hEigcerartuigh say if, in transactions of this particular character, the Board of Works appear as direct purchasers from the vendor or if they adopt any other means of purchase rather than direct as from the Board of Works to the person selling the house?

Chairman.—Have you any intermediary in this matter?—In the majority of cases we do appear as the purchasers.

181. Deputy O’Sullivan.—You are fair game, then?—Yes. It would be very difficult to avoid appearing, as our agents would get known very rapidly.

182. Deputy Briscoe.—Would it be fair to ask did the occupier try to get more than the £15,000? Did you have a battle beating him down to this?—Yes, the occupier was looking for more.

You know from the documents now what the occupier paid for it before?— Yes.

Deputy S. Collins.—Then we know who the mugs were.

Chairman.—Deputy Collins seems, to have a special grievance.

Deputy S. Collins.—I advised against the sale.

183. Deputy Davern.—In view of the attitude of the Committee of Public Accounts would Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh say that in future he would try to devise a different method of approach when a house of this kind would be required, say by public advertisement or something of that kind? It is obvious that if any Government Department looked for a house of that kind, naturally people would ask more. Their conscience apparently becomes elastic, needless to say, where it is a Department of State?—Normally, in a case of that kind the house would be on an auctioneer’s books and the price demanded would be known. It would be a question of beating the price down.

If the auctioneer were to ascertain that the Board of Works were likely purchasers, he probably would be inclined to increase his estimate, too.

184. Chairman.—Before the war, the then Chairman thought that it was better policy to rent houses than to buy them. Is it considered better policy now to buy them than to rent them?—I would not say that. Normally speaking, in the matter of a house that is required, where it is not purpose-built, if it could be obtained on a rental basis, we would prefer to obtain it on a rental basis. But the accommodation position in Dublin for the last five or six years has been very difficult, and we have had to do the best we could to meet the situation.

Deputy S. Collins.—In view of the particular Department for which you were purchasing this house, the Foreign Exchange Control would it not have been better to take a premises on a rental basis?—Certainly, but it was not obtainable.

185. I wonder would it be possible to have a note on the particular nature of the inquiries made and searches carried out by the Board of Works at that time before they disbursed this £15,000 on No. 3, Merrion Square?—The position during the whole of that period was that we were watching the market very closely in regard to houses. We were looking for houses and they were not obtainable.

Chairman.—I suppose this house was purchased at the peak period?—It was at the peak of the prices, yes.

186. Chairman.—In regard to “Public Concert Hall, Dublin,” where there was an expenditure of £124 3s. 0d., as given on page 24, how does that matter stand? —Arrangements had been made to purchase a site for a concert hall, but when it was decided that the hall would not be proceeded with, the expenditure incurred by the vendors in legal and other expenses was refunded. That is the amount of £124 3s. 0d.

187. Under subhead B—New Works, Alterations and Additions—Houses of the Oireachtas—page 29—I see an expenditure on the preparation of busts of Padraig Pearse and other national leaders? Is that expenditure now finished?—I think it will be finished this year. The casting of two of the busts has just been finished and we expect to finish payment this year.

188. Deputy Sheldon.—With relation to Item 4, how many clocks were added at a cost of £511? It seems a very high figure for an extension of the electric clock system. There were always a number of electric clocks but at that time the one in this room, for instance, was put in.

189. Deputy S. Collins.—There would want to be a fair number of clocks and a good deal of wiring to account for that money. Was there any item of saving shown to offset that by the disposal of the old clocks which, apparently, were still functioning?—They would be taken into stock for use elsewhere.

190. Chairman.—Is there a great deal of work involved besides just the provision of the actual clocks?—There is a considerable amount of wiring. In an old building like this, wiring is an expensive job.

191. Have you your own staff on the electrical side or do you employ a contractor?—We work both ways. In the main we would do that type of work through contractors but there are certain offices where one does not want people from outside rambling round and in such cases we employ our own men.

192. We shall pass on now to the Department of Finance. Do any queries arise under that?

Deputy S. Collins.—I see a note in connection with No. 5—Replacement of Protective Railings at Government Buildings —that this project has been postponed. Is that postponement indefinite?—No. 5 is an indefinite postponement; 8 and 10 —Replacement of Railings and Renewal of Statues at the Custom House—are also indefinite.

193. Deputy Briscoe.—I see an estimate —item number 6—of £73,000 of the installation of a staff restaurant in Iveagh House and office accommodation.

194. Chairman.—What proportion of the £73,000, if that is still a firm figure, can be attributed to the restaurant and what proportion to the office accommodation?—It would be difficult to segregate the figures. The position is that the lower floor or semi-basement is the restaurant and the other floors are used as offices.

195. Is this restaurant available to staff generally apart from the staff of the Department of External Affairs?—It is available to all civil servants.

196. I suppose the Board of Works diningroom is not quite as good as this new restaurant?—It certainly is not.

Deputy S. Collins.—It is not as big as Iveagh House, is it?—Comparatively, it is very small and it would not need anything like the same requirements.

197. Chairman.—At the bottom of page 30 we have an item dealing with the central heating of Government establishments. We had some reference to that last year with regard to conversion to oil burners. How does the matter stand at the moment?—The position is much the same as it was. We have not introduced anything new.

My recollection is that you were held up?—That is right. The position is still as it was then.

198. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—May I go back to No. 2 for a minute—Improvement of Entrance to Houses of the Oireachtas. Is anything to be done about the accommodation for visitors at the entrance gate? I see that expenditure was something less than that voted. Would it not be possible to do something to remedy the present position at the gate. The accommodation is not nearly adequate enough? —Schemes are actually being examined but I cannot say at the moment how far the examination has progressed.

199. Deputy S. Collins.—Is there an alternative scheme to change the entrance to Merrion Square side?—Not that 1 know of.

200. Is there any possibility that in the near future there will be some prospect of getting rid of that hut, as the reception quarters are called?—I would not like to prophesy. The matter is being examined, I believe.

201. With regard to Education, has there been a general speed-up in the building of schools?—Expenditure on school building has increased considerably.

202. With regard to Meteorological Services has any effort been made to make the conditions of the staffs in these offices in any way comparable with other meteorological concerns working in this country?—We do not control the staff in that service. That is a matter for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Chairman.—We pass on now to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

203. Deputy Gilbride.—With regard to Ballina Post Office, was there not an estimate some years ago for a new post office. This is merely provision for improving the old one. It is not at all suitable.

204. Chairman.—The best course would be to put down a question. We can go through all these items if we wish but that would involve a tremendous burden on the Accounting Officer and his staff and they are really only acting as agents for the Departments in question.

205. Deputy S. Collins.—With regard to the Department of Defence, is any real effort being made to provide married quarters?—Married quarters are being provided at the moment in Cork. There is a contract in progress in Cork for married quarters for officers.

206. Deputy S. Collins.—I know that the responsibility ultimately lies with the Department of Defence but I wanted to ask a secondary question. From the point of view of the Board of Works there is no difficulty in getting more than one contract or scheme going?—Provided the money is there.

That is the answer I wanted.

207. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to the Department of Social Welfare, I notice that Store Street does not appear in this at all.

Chairman.—No.

Deputy Briscoe.—Was it not in 1948 that Store Street was about to be taken over?

Deputy S. Collins.—It is only just taken over now. We will have it next year.

208. Deputy Davern.—May I ask what procedure is adopted in cases where additional Social Welfare offices are required? What steps are adopted with a view to acquiring suitable premises?

Chairman.—Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh caries out the instructions of the Department concerned.

Deputy Davern.—He has to find the office accommodation?—The normal practice when we get a demand for an office in a town is that our local architect goes around and sees whether any premises are available and suitable. Negotiations are then entered into with the owners of those premises to rent them.

209. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the explanation at K.2., page 25, that the overhaul of certain dredging plant and machinery was not done, I was wondering if that was found to be unnecessary or was less work being done?—The position with regard to that is that some of the repairs which were intended were not carried out partly because the engineers could not catch up on the job. Mechanical engineers were particularly short at the time and they were not able to reach all the repairs they intended to carry out.

Deputy Sheldon.—What I was anxious to know was whether this was a sort of bottleneck. Would this affect works that should be carried out by the Department?—It did not in fact, because as far as dredging plant is concerned these repairs would have been in preparation for the start of the Brosna scheme. We had a certain amount of old plant which we were to recondition but when new plant became available the reconditioning was not necessary. In any event the mechanical staff was depleted at the time and had to be diverted, to a certain extent, to the Brosna. It did not have any deleterious effect on the work.

210. Have you been able to catch up on the position regarding staff? Is the servicing staff all right now?—It is improving. Actually a Civil Service competition for mechanical engineers is on the stocks at the moment.

211. Chairman.—With regard to the note on K.3., is this a new workshop or has it been there for a long period?—A workshop for drainage plant has been there for quite a long period. Originally it was situated on the Barrow at Athy, but when the Barrow work was completed it was brought up to Dun Laoghaire and the place at Dun Laoghaire has been in continuous operation since. A more extensive workshop is about to be taken over because the Dun Laoghaire one is not adequate for the extensive repairs now’ needed on the machinery we have purpurchased.

212. Deputy S. Collins.—I want to come back to Merrion Square. I have discovered another little note with the aid of Deputy Briscoe on page 52 saying that we have to spend another £1,000 on Nos. 2 and 3 Merrion Square, the Department of Finance. How much is it going to cost in the ultimate analysis, as it is only in progress at the moment?—It is fully occupied.

It says that certain renovations are in progress. Could you give us an indication of what the renovations actually cost?—I could not say offhand.

Would it be possible to give us a note on it?—Yes. *

213. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to note (2) on page 27 which deals with a corrugated iron hut at the Phoenix Park National School, under the Town Planning Act no private person is allowed to have anything to do with corrugated iron. Surely the Board of Works should set a headline and have nothing to do with corrugated iron either. Would Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh not agree that it is a very bad headline to have such huts in the possession of the State? I know that the State has immunity under the Act as statutory bodies have but still could it not be done away with at the earliest possible moment?—In order to provide additional temporary accommodation to relieve overcrowding at the Phoenix Park boys’ national school the manager proposed to have a hut erected on the site. The hut was in very bad condition and it would have cost £950 to reconstruct it and as a hut surplus to requirements was available in reasonably good condition at Árus an Uachtaráin it was transferred. It is a purely temporary arrangement.

Deputy S. Collins.—The hut is still there?—I believe it is.

Deputy Sheldon.—It is not so temporary after all.

214. Deputy Davern.—With regard to No. 2 on page 29, re the Leinster House entrance, my recollection is that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges recommended some alterations at the entrance and in the waiting-room accommodation. I see that the Vote was £3,500. Would Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh say if it is the decision of the Board of Works to implement that recommendation?—Was that a recent recommendation?

I think it was last summer. I just thought that that Vote might have something to do with it?—This would relate to events two or three years back.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix IV.

* See Appendix IV.

* See Appendix V.

* See Appendix VI.

* See Appendix VII.

* See Appendix V.

* See Appendix V.