Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1954 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1952 - 1953

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 6 Deireadh Fómhair, 1954.

Wednesday, 6th October, 1954.

The Committee sat at 2.30 p.m.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Máire Bhreathnach, Mr M. Breathnach and Mr. J. Mooney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 38—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. J. Garvin called and examined.

372. Chairman.—Paragraph 43 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead I.1.—Contributions towards Housing Loan Charges of Local Authorities.

Contributions towards loan charges of local authorities under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1950, amounted to £794,318. Also, non-statutory contributions amounting to £130,681 8s. 8d. were made in recoupment of the additional charges incurred on certain loans advanced from the Local Loans Fund for subsidy housing schemes by reason of the increase from 2½ per cent. to 3¼ per cent. per annum in the rate of interest.

The Committee of Public Accounts, in its report on the appropriation accounts for the year 1950-51, commented on the method of calculating the non-statutory contributions as being unsatisfactory. I have recently been informed that the Office of Public Works has arranged to supply the information necessary for the recalculation of these contributions on a revised basis.”

Is there anything further to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. I have no later information.

373. Chairman.—Do you propose, Mr. Garvin, to review the payments already made?—Yes, Mr. Chairman.

374. You are reviewing the current payments?—Yes. The method of calculating the non-statutory contributions has now been completely regularised, that is to say, for the future. As regards the overpayments in respect of the years under review, the amount involved has now been finally determined at a certain sum. The amount is £69,247 14s., and it is proposed to recover it by deductions from arrears of statutory subsidy due to the housing authorities concerned. I think that we will manage by that method to reinstate about £58,000 of the £69,000 odd in the current financial year and the remaining £11,000 odd will for the greater part be recovered in 1955-56.

375. Chairman.—Paragraph 44 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Motor Tax Account.

A test examination has been applied to the Motor Tax Account with satisfactory results. The certificates and reports of the Local Government auditors who examine the motor tax transactions of local authorities were scrutinised, in so far as they were available, but in five cases this audit had not been completed at the date of my test examination.

The gross proceeds of motor vehicles, etc., duties in 1952-53 amounted to £3,869,438 16s. 4d. compared with £3,191,476 5s. 1d. in the previous year. They include £39,356 7s. 10d. attributable to fines collected by the Department of Justice and £6,015 11s. 0d. in respect of fees received under the Road Traffic Act (Parts VI and VII) (Fees) Regulations, 1937 (S.R. and O., No. 92 of 1937). A statement of the gross and net receipts of the Motor Tax Account, and of the payments thereout to the Exchequer, appears on pages 6 and 7 of the Finance Accounts, 1952-53.”

That, I take it, is for information, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes, sir.

376. Chairman.—Mr. Garvin, with regard to the capitalisation of the payment to the Commissioners of Public Works, referred to in the note to subhead H.—Grants to Local Authorities, etc., under Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919 —since their account does not show a receipt, is the note quite accurate? Is it not the Local Loans Fund that should get this capital sum?—Yes; it will be paid into the Local Loans Fund.

I was checking back on the Public Works Vote and there is no sign of it.

Mr. Garvin.—I expect that is the position. I am not aware how they account for it.

377. In regard to the note on Subhead K.—Grants to Local Authorities for the Execution of Works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949—was a permanent saving made or will the payable order be re-issued?—The payable order was re-issued in the subsequent financial year.

378. Deputy A. Barry.—In connection with Subhead N.—Grants to An Chomhairle Leabharlanna under the Public Libraries Act, 1947—what function does An Chomhairle Leabharlanna perform?— It performs two functions. One is to take responsibility for the Central Library for students which devolved on this statutory body—An Chomhairle Leabharlanna—on the winding up of the Carnegie grants. The second is to examine the general organisation of library services throughout the country and to make recommendations to the Minister for improvements in the library service.

379. Have they got a headquarters with staff, an organisation and officers? —Yes. They are located in the Office of the Central Library and they have the services of the staff of the Central Library. An Chomhairle Leabharlanna itself is representative of the libraries throughout the country and other cultural interests and its Chairman is nominated by the Minister for Local Government with the consent of the Minister for Education.

380. Deputy Desmond.—I should like to know what progress is being made in regard in Subhead P.

Chairman.—Do you mean with regard to the text-book on Local Government?

Deputy Desmond.—Yes. When will it be available?

Mr. Garvin.—The text-book is practically ready for publication. Its publication has been delayed by printing difficulties and, as its editing was a one-man job, certain personal difficulties attended the checking of the proofs. We do expect—I hope we are not over-sanguine—to have it in the course of the present year.

Deputy Desmond.—It seems to me that we should have it as soon as possible?— I agree.

Chairman.—It could be one of those things that are out of date by the time it is published.

Deputy Desmond.—That is what I am afraid of.

381. Chairman.—In the Notes on page 94, Mr. Garvin, there is reference to a special grant for sanitary service work. Could you give us something of the background of this?—Yes. The cost of the scheme was estimated at £25,000. The council in question raised a loan of £10,700 and a grant of £8,256 was allocated from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote. A supplementary grant of £943 was subsequently made. The county council in question contributed £6,000 by reason of their interest in having certain county institutions serviced. This was prior to the institution of the new procedure whereby since 1950-51, we subsidise sanitary service loans by way of contributions towards charges arising annually. Prior to that the subvention was by way of a capital contribution. By 1952, however, the estimated cost of the scheme had risen to £42,320 as compared with the original £25,000. The increase was due mainly to increases in the cost of materials and wages and to the fact that it was found necessary to replace a large section of old pipeline which was found to be defective and to carry out repairs to the floor of the reservoir. Neither the repairs nor the increase referred to could have been foreseen when tenders were being invited for the original work. In these circumstances and having regard to the restricted financial capacity of the urban district council concerned, the Minister for Finance sanctioned the making of a further grant of £6,390 towards the cost of the scheme but in view of the transition in the meantime from the system of block grants to that of loan subsidy, he directed that an explanatory note on the grant should be inserted in the relevant Appropriation Account.

382. Of course, the borrowing powers of the local authority are limited?—For sanitary purposes, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Garvin.—Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 8—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Diarmuid Ó hÉigceartuigh called and examined.

383. Chairman.—On subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—the savings due to additional staff provided for not being authorised was, I take it, thanks to the Department of Finance?— Yes. That would be a case where it was admitted when the Estimates were being prepared that additional staff would be necessary but the precise nature and numbers would not have been settled. In this particular year there was a considerable delay and the sanctions for the additional staff provided for in the Estimate did not come through until the following financial year.

384. I am interested in this because it becomes evident later on that shortage of staff caused a certain amount of difficulty and delay in your Department. I am wondering was there any undue delay in relation to the authorisation of additional staff. Perhaps some official from the Department of Finance might care to say something on this point.

Mr. M. Breathnach.—There is nobody from the staff side here. I am sorry we cannot answer the question.

Chairman.—I appreciate, Mr. Breathnach, that this might be one of these cases where, in an attempt to do things from a very economic point of view and avoid giving any increases in staff, you might cause a loss to public funds by causing difficulty to the Department. We shall come to this point in a more material way later where there were losses which the Accounting Officer says came from staff pressure of work. For that reason I feel I ought to draw the attention of the Department of Finance to that angle of the matter; it might possibly be saving pence and wasting pounds by causing undue delay in increasing staff where such increase is obviously needed.

Mr. M. Breathnach.—I will convey those views to the Department.

385. Chairman.—On Subhead E.— Appropriations in Aid—in relation to item No. 6, regarding the amount recoverable from the Department of Agriculture, I note that that Department shows a payment under their Subhead M.9.—Land Rehabilitation Project and Water Supplies—to the Office of Public Works of about £50,000. In your account an amount of £19,548 13s. 0d. is shown. How does the difference arise?—There is a pretty big item in Vote 9—Public Works and Buildings—for Appropriations in Aid from Subhead M.9. of the Vote for Agriculture. There is a sum of £18,840 for the hire of plant included under item 4 Subhead L. of Vote 9.

386. With reference to the notes on page 17 has anything else developed about the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association Limited?—No. The liquidator has not yet made up his report and declared a dividend. He is at the moment making it up, but I gather it is a protracted job and it will be some time before we get the results.

VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Diarmuid Ó hÉigceartuigh further examined.

387. Chairman.—Paragraph 11 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

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

The charge to this subhead, £372,082 15s. 10d., represents further direct expenditure on the Brosna, Glyde and Dee, and Feale catchment drainage schemes, which were commenced in May 1948, June 1950, and June 1951, respectively. It was estimated that each scheme would cost approximately £1,000,000 and take about five years to complete. The value of services rendered by plant and machinery during the year was assessed at £154,057 19s. 6d., the total cost of the schemes to 31 March, 1953, being:—

I take it that is for information.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

388. Chairman.—The Brosna Scheme is about to be cleared up, is it not?—It is practically finished.

389. You have kept remarkably close to the original estimate?—Yes. The Brosna Scheme has worked out very closely and any differences are really due to increases in wages. The drainage wages rate was 60/- per week, I think, when we started, on the Brosna. It is 88/- now. That is the basic labourer’s rate so that any increase on the original estimate would be covered by the increase in the drainage labourer’s rate.

390. I am noticing it because, when you come to Subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions—there are very marked increases in estimations and for that reason this particular one stands out as showing a very slight increase over a number of years. Has the scheme been carried out exactly as it was planned?—Practically—there have been no omissions of any importance. There have been very few additions. I do not know precisely whether there was a liberal allowance made for contingencies in the original estimate—there may have been because we were starting a new job after a long period of idleness in executing drainage schemes, so the engineers may have made a fairly liberal allowance for contingencies. I do not quite remember the figure, but it has worked out reasonably well. As a matter of fact, all the drainage estimates so far have worked out reasonably well.

391. Chairman.—Paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

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

It was observed that payments for two excavating machines were not made within the period specified in the contract for the allowance of discount and that, as a result, an extra charge of £106 18s. 4d. fell to be borne on this subhead. I was informed that in one case the invoice had miscarried and, in the other, certification of the claim was delayed owing to very heavy pressure of work in the central engineering stores.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The contract was for the supply of six excavators, which were delivered singly. It provided for a cash discount of two per cent. for payment in full within forty-five days from the date of invoice. Payments for four machines were made within the specified period and discount was obtained. As I have stated in the paragraph, the Accounting Officer informed me that the delay in making payment was due in one case to late certification of the claim owing to pressure of work in the central engineering workshop and to inadequate staff. In the second case referred to it appears that the original invoice was not received in the Accounts Branch of the Department. A copy was furnished by the suppliers, who, however, refused discount because the prescribed period had already elapsed.

Deputy A. Barry.—Could the omission of the delivery invoice be laid at the door of the suppliers?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—We could not ascertain what happened the original invoice.

392. Chairman.—The only point is that these machines must have cost about £2,600 each, reckoning that is on the basis of the amount of discount at two per cent. One would think that when a machine of that size and value would arrive your Accounts Branch would be notified in some way internally, quite apart from depending on an invoice coming in?—That would not necessarily be so. It would not be in this case because the arrangement is that an invoice will come to the Accounts Branch as well as to the engineers. The Accounts Branch does not get notified internally of the arrival of these machines; they rely on getting the claim or getting the invoice. There was something very strange about the invoice. When we proceeded to track it down, the duplicate invoice did not appear to correspond with the date on which the original should have been issued. I think there must have been a slip-up by the firm as well as any slip-up at our place. The firm is a difficult firm to deal with. They have given us a good deal of trouble with discounts and they take a very rigid view of their conditions. We had discussions with them on one occasion and they told us that, in regard to any discount being lost by reason of any failure on their part, they would accept no responsibility for our losing it.

393. Were they quoting exceptionally keen prices?—I would not say that. They were always a satisfactory firm to deal with except in respect of their discount allowances. At this particular time you could not hold a supplier to any terms. They were very difficult days of supply.

394. Then, with regard to the other case where “certification of the claim was delayed owing to very heavy pressure of work”, what have you to say?—That was a definite slip-up on the part of the Engineering Branch. The Accounts Branch have a system of checking-up on any cases where discounts are payable. When such a claim comes in, it is specially marked but at that particular period things at Inchicore were in an almost chaotic condition. The man responsible for certifying the particular invoice in question had the work of two major posts and was trying to fill both. That was a human failure.

395. “Certification of the claim” sounds very imposing. What exactly is involved?—The machine had to be taken out, examined, and checked in all its parts. I am not sure, in this particular case, whether it would have arrived assembled or whether they would have had to examine the separate parts. Anyhow, it meant taking delivery of the machine and making sure that all was in order.

396. It was not merely a matter of looking at it and looking at the invoice and saying: “it is here”?—No.

397. That was partially due to shortage of staff?—Yes. I want to say, however, that this post is not one of the posts that was not sanctioned. The difficulty there has been to get the men. We had the sanction but we could not get the men.

398. Deputy A. Barry.—Is that a continuing position?—It is. We are very short of mechanical engineers. We cannot get them. I think the other Departments here are experiencing the same difficulty and I have seen reports in the British journals that they are short of them.

Deputy T. Lynch.—I consider that the conduct of this firm was not what one would call liberal or generous.

Chairman.—One does not make money in the business world by being generous.

Deputy T. Lynch.—They should be liberal and generous with people who were spending so much money with them and when their money was safe.

399. Chairman.—I am sure that the Accounting Officer put that point of view to the firm?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—They are the most difficult firm we deal with on the matter of discounts. They more or less say: “This is our system. You are getting discounts because you are able to comply with our requirements. If you are not able to comply with these requirements, that is too bad for you.”

Chairman.—A seller’s market.

Deputy T. Lynch.—So there is red tape in more places than in the Civil Service.

400. Chairman.—Paragraph 13 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead K.3.—Central Engineering Workshop and Stores.

The Committee of Public Accounts commented in its reports on the accounts for the years 1950-’51 and 1951-’52 on the delay in completing stocktaking of the stores held in the central engineering depot. I understand that although the stocktaking has not yet been completed considerable progress has been made.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—My latest information is that the stocktaking will be completed in about eight to ten days. Then it will be a matter of investigating the discrepancies.

Deputy A. Barry.—Is that a current stocktaking?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It is current, but it is very long overdue.

401. Chairman.—Once the Arterial Drainage Act came into operation the business of the Office of Public Works was enormously increased. They changed to new premises and they changed their system of stocktaking. We are suffering from a sort of interim period in which the new system is being put into operation and the old one is being abandoned. However, there are certain points to be raised about the stocktaking. The stocktaking was begun at the end of February, 1953, that is, the physical count. Is that right, Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh?—Yes.

402. Is the physical count finished by now?—Yes.

403. When was it finished?—About June. It was started in February, 1953, all right, but was suspended for a short period to see how it was working out with the ledgers. There was a space before it was resumed.

404. In other words, there was a reconcilement?—Yes. At a later stage, when it was resumed, the whole thing was counted through. It was finished in June. All stores were physically counted by the end of June. Since then, they have been working on the reconciliation. The reconciliation is practically completed. There are certain cases where there are ledger cards and no articles, and other cases in which there are articles but no ledger cards. They will have to be checked-up before the discrepancies list is ready for examination.

405. What sort of percentage would you say showed discrepancy as compared with the ones that seemed to be all right?— I do not yet know the answer to that. Quite a large number of items have no discrepancies but I think there is quite a considerable number of cases where there are discrepancies.

406. There are bound to be delays when you are changing your card system, are there not?—It was the introduction of an entirely new system and there are bound to be delays. Undoubtedly, there will also be mis-identifications because it was very difficult, in fact impossible to get the stores men trained to identify various parts. Catalogue numbers in the maker’s catalogues were sometimes changed. Then there was the matter of new parts for new types of machine. There were all sorts of difficulties in getting staff trained to do the work.

407. Is it also your experience that different firms are inclined to call the same article by different names?—We get that trouble, too.

408. You are referring to stores here. Am I right in thinking that you draw a distinction between stores and plant? —Yes.

409. What about the stocktaking of plant?—That has been completed in respect of most of the drainage schemes. I am told that the audit staff are working on the inventory of plant in Inchicore at the moment.

410. Deputy A. Barry.—How often is the stocktaking done?

Chairman.—This is the first time. I can appreciate that there are bound to be difficulties in the process of changing-over, but once you get this system established, how often is it intended to have a physical count?—We visualise, at the moment, that the physical count will be more or less a continuous process. We shall probably have to have it continuous, that is, that before the first count is finished the second will have begun.

Chairman.—Yes, like the painting of the Forth bridge.

411. Deputy A. Barry.—If somebody takes a dredger to Limerick, how do we find out that it has gone?

Chairman.—I can answer that. Every machine, excavator, and so forth has a card of its own. Everything that happens to it is shown on that card—when it is brought in for repairs, changed from one job to another, and so forth.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—That is right. There is a machine history. That was not formerly kept in the same detail.

412. But once you get the system going will you not be able to tell everything that happens during its entire life?—Yes.

413. I suppose we cannot be too hard until we see how the system works?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—We are doing our best.

414. Details of the Vote itself are on page 18. Subhead A.—Purchase of Sites and Buildings—shows that the expenditure was very small. May we take it that we did not purchase any sites and buildings at all because the amount seems to be just sort of balances left?— Actually, there was only one real purchase. We had a fairly considerable amount in the Estimate for Garda barracks sites and employment exchanges. In none of these cases did the purchase materialise. Then, we had a fairly large contingency sum. This Estimate is made in November, say, 1951, and we do not know what is likely to turn up. We have a certain number of cases going through but we do not know when payment is likely to mature. Therefore, we generally put in a fairly considerable contingency item but in this year it was not required.

415. There was no question of a change in policy as being the reason why work was held up?—No. I would not say there was. It may be that we did not proceed as rapidly with the acquisition of sites for new Garda barracks as we might have if there had not been some question at the time as to the future organisation of the Guards. That might be responsible for some of the shortage, but subhead A. is a subhead that one cannot estimate with any degree of confidence.

416. Yes, it is very conjectural. The details of subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions—will be found in the statement which has been circulated to members of the Committee.* Looking at page 1 of the statement, I see that there was a very considerable saving on work No. 1, which relates to the President’s Establishment, where £28,000 was voted and only £528 10s. 8d. spent. Have you any comment on that, Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh?—A contract that was in contemplation at that time was not made during the year.

417. I see. On the other hand, when we come to work No. 3, which relates to the alteration and improvement of the Oireachtas Restaurant, the issue was £2,443 13s. 4d. whereas the Vote was £1,500. A sum of £2,443 13s. 4d. was spent and the work is still in progress. Can you tell us why there is such a great variation between the amounts granted and the amount of the issue?—The original proposal was much smaller than what ultimately developed. In addition to what was originally contemplated there was considerable improvement in the way of kitchen equipment The requirements of the Restaurant Committee were disclosed as time went on, and they turned out to be greater than the original idea was of what was required. The total cost of that job was a little over £4,000.

418. Deputy Desmond.—Is it correct to say that your Department were not notified in proper time of the requirements of this Committee?—I do not know.

Deputy Desmond.—I think I know; we were kept in the dark, and I think you were also kept in the dark.

419. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—I see that there has been a good deal of money expended on Aras an Uachtaráin for some years. Have all the improvements now been effected and is it expected that this expenditure will cease?

Chairman.—No. You will see the total estimate is £108,000.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—This matter came before the Dáil recently and members expressed the opinion that it was a substantial amount of money to be expending on these premises. There were some doubts as to the advisability of laying out such a large sum of money.

Chairman.—What decision, Deputy, did the Dáil come to in the matter?

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Like many other questions—

Chairman.—That is all we are concerned with.

420. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—What is the nature of the work? A sum of £108,000 would erect a parish. The building is a very substantial one and people cannot realise the necessity for expending such a large sum of money on this building. I would like if Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh could clarify the position?— It is a fairly long story, but it amounts to this. When it was decided that there would be an Uachtarán with a residence a decision had to be taken as to whether the Áras would be utilised or whether a new building would be erected. It was realised at that time that the existing building would require a very large amount of adaptation and improvements before it would be suitable for its purpose. It was ultimately decided as a matter of policy that the Áras would be utilised and the adaptation would be carried out. Once that decision is made we have just got to try to carry it out as best we can.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—What I had in mind was to get some idea of the nature of the work under this heading.

421. Deputy Bartley.—What is the age of the building?—It was erected about 1780 or thereabouts.

422. Deputy A. Barry.—Anyway, the £108,000 decision is a very old one?—It is.

423. Deputy A. Barry.—And the progress made on that is up to date?—The west wing has been finished. That end of it is covered by the £55,000.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—That Estimate should be revised seeing that it is rather an old one. It will have moved to £208,000 before all the improvements are carried out.

424. Deputy T. Lynch.—As regards furniture, I happened to read in a newspaper that there was furniture taken from Mr. Vincent’s place in Killarney and brought to Áras an Uachtaráin . Is that correct?—That is probably right. There was certainly furniture taken from Muckross House and utilised for other buildings, some, I think, in the Áras and some in the State apartments in Dublin Castle.

425. Chairman.—With regard to work No. 13—Phoenix Park, Shelters for Relief Gatekeepers—I take it it was expected that when the Estimate was framed you would get this finished? You spent £994? —It was anticipated, I should say, that the work would have been finished and paid for completely in the previous year.

426. Deputy Desmond.—As regards work No. 16—Dún Laoghaire Harbour, Additional Customs Accommodation—it is stated that the main work is completed. Was it anticipated that there would be more there?—That is practically the whole cost. There were two small items that would come in in a later year. There was additional lavatory accommodation, and another item I cannot recall.

Chairman.—When was the original estimate of £35,000 made?—Probably in 1950.

427. Deputy T. Lynch.—On work No. 7—Waterford Government Offices, Erection—there is a total of £17,000 spent, and the project is partly completed. What is intended to be built there?

Chairman.—Some of it is chargeable to telephone capital account and would not appear here.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—The scheme comprised three or four items: the first one was the telephone exchange and that is completed; there is a project for improving the Post Office accommodation, and a proposal for providing the Revenue and Income Tax Departments with accommodation. These have not materialised so far.

428. With regard to work No. 28— Johnstown Castle, Adaptations and Renovations—there has been a very marked increase in the provision made in the Estimates as the years went by. Obviously from the figures it must have been due to a decision to make more adaptations and renovations than had at first been planned. I think the first Estimate was £40,000; now it is £142,000?—The original proposal was changed; there was a development in soil testing which was responsible for a certain amount of the increase. The other part of it was due to the fact that the Castle was found to be full of dry rot. It had been very badly built, and the cost of adapting it was greater than was originally anticipated. The dry rot was not observed there until the renovations had started.

Deputy A. Barry.—Is it completed now?

Chairman.—The main adaptations were completed.

429. Deputy Desmond.—Progress seems to be very slow on works Nos. 26— Clonakilty Agricultural School—and 29— Munster Institute. According to the figures only a very small part of the total estimate has been expended.

Chairman.—It has a fair relation to the amount voted in a year; in other words, the Department’s estimate of the amount of work to be done in the year was reasonable enough.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—The planning of these buildings is in hands and the vote of £500 under Clonakilty Agricultural School was merely in case anything turned up in the course of planning that required expenditure of moneys. The same is true of the Munster Institute.

430. With regard to the harbours referred to under work No. 31, is Greencastle completed now?—It is.

431. Have you a figure for the total cost?—I have forgotten what it is, but I can send it to you.

432. I am interested in Greencastle because of the unfortunate dredger. You have a note on it which mentions a sum of £5,167. What was the total cost of repairs to the dredger?—I think it was round about £6,000.

I understand it hit a rock where rocks were not supposed to be. The argument between the local people and your Department was whether there were rocks there or not; the local people turned out to be right, and you found that out in the most expensive way.

433. Deputy Desmond.—According to the details of work No. 22, which refer to new grain stores at Athenry Agricultural School, apparently the preliminary work has only started. There is an expenditure of only 4/8?—Yes.

434. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—Referring again to Greencastle, it appears the engineering advice was not correct. Is any action taken against an engineer who has made a report which is incorrect?— This did not occur in the area covered by the engineering report. The accident occurred in the course of dredging, and there was a court of inquiry into the damage to the dredger, which found that it was an ordinary risk which had to be taken and that there was no real blame.

Deputy M. P. Murphy.—The Chairman mentioned the local people and their local knowledge.

Chairman.—Do not take that too seriously.

435. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—If your advisers were more on the alert would they not have had first-hand information and would not their report have turned out to be correct?—I do not know what the local opinion was.

Chairman.—There was a dispute. The learned engineers insisted that the old pier was built on sand and therefore before any dredging could be done the pier would have to be underpinned. The local people said it was there for 200 years and could not have been built on sand or it would not have been there so long, and the mishap to the dredger was looked upon as poetic justice.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—I think the rock is in a different place. It was not under the pier.

436. Chairman.—The Department of Justice seems to be most unfortunate in the amount of work done compared with the estimate. This arises in connection with Garda barracks largely?—It does, yes.

437. What exactly is meant by the observation: “Completed but not paid for” in regard to work No. 44—Central Model Schools, Erection of Italian Presentation Statuary?—It has been paid for since, I presume?—It did not fall for payment in the year of account.

438. Deputy Desmond.—In the case of work No. 49—National Museum: Internal Passage between Divisions—there is a great difference between the estimate and the amount expended?—That was a case in which the architect did not realise that the job was going to require so much work. That happens quite commonly when one is dealing with adaptations in an existing building. You run into snags which are not foreseen until you open up a wall and that sort of thing.

439. Would it not be more satisfactory if the architects of the Office of Public Works scrutinised the position more thoroughly at the start? I am speaking with actual experience of difficulties in relation to extras afterwards. Some of these architects are very prone to give a certificate for extras which more or less shows that they have not been estimating correctly at the start?—I think that the contractors would get after them about that all right.

440. I am speaking as one who has had experience of this?—It does sometimes happen, I should explain, that there is a considerable delay between the time at which the estimate is framed and the time we get down to work, and that explains why there is occasionally a difference between the estimate and the actual cost.

Deputy A. Barry.—By reason of rising costs?

Deputy Desmond.—No. I take a particular interest in this matter, and it is not a question of rising costs at all, but of incomplete assessment—

Deputy A. Barry.—Bad estimating.

441. Deputy Desmond.—Is there not bad estimating by architects, particularly in relation to work on old buildings?— It must be realised that it is very difficult to estimate work on old buildings. Architects will confirm that. When I use the phrase “old buildings,” I mean existing buildings. I do not mean old in the sense of being antique.

442. Chairman.—With regard to work No. 58 which relates to the spinning factory at Kilcar, it is a minor matter, but I wonder why the sums are subdivided in the third and fourth columns but not in the fifth. Why should there be these separate amounts of £6 3s. 6d. and £192 2s.?—I could not answer that. It may have been that there were two contracts and one of these was the tail-end of the contract. The note says: “Supplementary works in progress,” and it probably means that the £6 3s. 6d. is the closing of an old contract, but I should have to have it looked up.

Chairman.—It is not very material.

443. Deputy Bartley.—With regard to work No. 59—Roundstone Knitting Centre, Extension—the note states that tenders are under consideration. Expenditure, however, has been incurred.

Deputy A. Barry.—Would it be in respect of advertising?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—It might be, but it might also be the cost of a visit by the architect to check up on the site.

444. Deputy Bartley.—Are such expenses included in the costs of the job? —His travelling expenses would not be included, but if he had to hire a local man to investigate foundations or to carry a chain it would. That is the type of small expenditure which is involved.

445. Chairman.—Work No. 61—Residence for technical staff, Tourmakeady Knitting Centre—reflects an unusual circumstance—£800 estimate and the work completed for £516. That makes up for some of the others.

446. Deputy T. Lynch.—Work No. 64 —Rosslare, new meteorological observing station and training centre—show £15,500 estimated and 9/3 spent. They have not started there yet?—That would be the same as work No. 59, Roundstone Knitting Centre, Extension.

447. Deputy Desmond.—In the case of work No. 79—Improvements in Cork Head Post Office—the estimate was £15,200 and the amount spent £20,619.

Chairman.—When was the estimate made?—The Cork Head Post Office has been completed for a considerable time, but I think that the estimate would have been made not very long before they went to tender.

448. Deputy Desmond.—Could it be a matter of wages and materials since the estimate was made out?—Partly that. That would come in anyhow, but I think there was more work done in the improvement of the Cork Head Post Office than was originally anticipated.

449. I agree with the work done, and I am not questioning it. My point is that we might get nearer to the actual figure at the time of estimation?—In cases like that, the Office of Public Works is largely in the hands of the occupying Department. If the occupying Department says it wants a certain amount done, our estimate would be based on what they asked for. It very often happens, because of experience or for some other reason, that the Post Office comes to the conclusion that they require more than their original demand, and in that case we have to go ahead and carry it out.

450. Chairman.—That is a fairly normal thing that happens in all businesses and not only in the State service? —It is very common.

451. Deputy A. Barry.—With regard to work No. 90—Cork, New Studios—I do not know if this is the proper place to raise this matter, but a lot of the work there has been completed, and musical people in Cork tell me that these studios are not suitable for taking a large orchestra as they hoped. Is there discussion with technical and professional people on matters like this before these decisions are made?

Chairman.—If there were, they would take place between the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works carries out the instructions of the Department. You would not be involved in a dispute between musicians and the Post Office as to what should be provided? —We would let the Post Office settle their requirements.

452. Deputy A. Barry.—Your architects presumably oversee the work and devise it. I have been told by musical people that the studios which have now been completed are entirely unsuitable for certain types of broadcasts. If that is so, does it not suggest that the State in its works does not produce an efficient result?

Chairman.—This is not a point of accommodation but a point of acoustics.

Deputy A. Barry.—It is a point of accommodation. The studio is a long narrow room which is completely unsuitable acoustically and in area for the broadcasting of a symphony concert.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—I think you may take it that Post Office broadcasting experts were in on the planning of any portion of this building to be used for radio purposes and that their requirements were discussed with the architects. This building is not being built by us; it is being built by the Vocational Education Committee in Cork, and it comes on our Vote because we refund them that portion of the cost attributable to the broadcasting station.

Chairman.—The Deputy might take it up with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

Deputy T. Lynch.—Or with the Vocational Education Committee who are usually the employers of architects.

453. Deputy Desmond.—With regard to works Nos. 103, 104, 105 and 106 relating to embassy and legation buildings, what system is in operation? Is it simply that an official of the Office of Public Works supervises? Do they get tenders from local people?

Chairman.—Yes, I think so.

454. Deputy Desmond.—How do we manage here?—We send out a man, our own man, in most of these cases to ascertain what precisely is required and to arrange for it.

455. Deputy A. Barry.—Would you send him out to Canberra?—We have not sent anybody to Canberra.

456. Chairman.—There was one famous case where no one was sent. Canberra is only a matter of furnishing so that there is no question of an architect involved. The Deputy spoke about Áras an Uachtaráin—let him take a look at the London Embassy figures. It was only a question of adaptations there. What was the first cost of the building?—Roughly £75,000 or £76,000.

I still think that you could have built one for £101,000, and you might even have found a Roman Temple in the process.

457. Was there any marked change in work No. 108—New employment exchange at Waterford? Is it not very remarkable that £33,950 should have done the work for which the estimate was £51,800?—I am not sure if that sum of £33,950 is the final payment. There may be some more, but it was a cheaply done job all right.

Deputy T. Lynch.—That is the worst value yet.

458. Chairman.—On the general question of this subhead, as usual, you allow for works which may not be carried out, and you allowed to the extent of £65,925, so that your net estimate was £1,150,000. Even with that, you had a very considerable saving of £124,583 odd. That looks very like considerable over-estimation.—It is very difficult to persuade technical men that unexpected occurrences are liable to cause delay. We have to work on the figures we get from our architects. They may say when they have arrived at a certain stage of planning that they expect to be in a position to invite tenders, say, in July of 1955. We would be working just now on our estimates for 1955-56, and any sort of unforeseen delay might push that date forward from July, 1955, to October, 1955. The delays might be caused, for example, by the Department concerned in approving the final drawings. When preparing the estimates we endeavour to anticipate these delays as far as possible, but we do not always succeed. When one is dealing with a large number of items the cumulative effect shows itself in the total, but it is very hard to discern the trend from the individual items.

459. How do you arrive at the figure of £65,925? It looks as if it was carefully worked out?—That is to get the total in round figures. Actually, when the estimate is completed, each item is very carefully gone into, and so far as one can see at the time the estimate is prepared, there should be no work included which would not be carried out. It does not work out that way. We have had on occasion, as you no doubt remember, to call for Supplementary Estimates for subhead B There is a number of other considerations also. If one gets a good contractor he will push the work forward more rapidly than a bad contractor, but one does not know at the time of the estimate who will be the contractor. Then there may be bad weather. Frost, for instance, would hold up the cement work. Generally speaking, the estimate for subhead B. depends on a lot of factors over which we have no control.

460. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—On that point, let us take the case mentioned by Deputy T. Lynch, the employment exchange at Waterford which was erected for about two-thirds of the estimate. Had the contractor any prior knowledge of the estimate? Supposing he was to tender for £51,000, would it not be approved? I take it that the work was carried out by contract?—It was. There would be competitive tenders.

461. The tender would have to be approved?—The contractor would not have any idea of the estimate. That would not be disclosed.

462. One would think that there is no use in getting an estimate for a job. We know it is difficult to get the correct one, but you would expect a reasonably correct one from these people. We assume the contractor was a businessman and got a reasonable profit?—I am sure he did. I am not quite certain if £33,950 is the total figure.

463. Chairman.—There might have been accounts which would fall due for payment this year?—There might.

464. Deputy Desmond.—I want to raise a question in regard to the new Garda barracks at New Ross erected at a cost of £17,334 10s. 9d. The particulars are on page 7 of the statement. Is there living accommodation there for the members? How many houses are there?— There are dormitories in the barracks. I think there is only one sergeant’s house. I do not precisely remember, but I think that is the position. There is a house for the sergeant and there are dormitories in the building itself.

465. The sum of £17,334 10s. 9d. seems very large?—It is not an ordinary barracks but a divisional headquarters.

466. Take the barracks at Bundoran, County Donegal. The cost there is £5,913?—Bundoran is a bit bigger than an ordinary station

I am not saying that these men should be put into bad houses, but I think the figures in respect of the building of barracks are very high. In other quarters we are objecting to the cost of the building of a medical residence for a dispensary doctor. They cost roughly about £5,000. I think the estimates and the planning for some of these barracks require to be reorganised somewhat.

467. Chairman.—Is not the whole question under review?—The question is under review.

468. Deputy Desmond.—On page 8 particulars are given of work No. 4 in respect of electrical installation at Mullinavat, County Kilkenny. The figure is £98. For electrical installation at Pallasgreen, County Limerick—Work No. 11—the cost is £226. That is much higher. In respect of electrical installation at Rochfortbridge, County Westmeath, work No. 29, the cost was £30 1s. 2d. What is the explanation of the great difference? Would it be that the buildings are at a distance from the Electricity Supply Board connection?— I would say offhand that it is probably due to the extent of the work required to be done. I doubt whether in those small cases it would have anything to do with the distance from the supply. It might be that they required electric light in one or two rooms, in the day room or in a cell. I think that is probably the explanation of it.

469. Deputy A. Barry.—With regard to Pallasgreen, County Limerick, the figure of £226 seems to be very high in relation to what we can do our own houses for?—I could not tell you what was the precise job at Pallasgreen, but I can find out.

Chairman.—Perhaps you would. It does look a bit high?—I will send you the particulars.*

470. Deputy Desmond.—On page 14 of the statement particulars are given of work No. 77 of 1951-52 concerning Collins Barracks, Cork: Married Quarters. How many houses are involved there?

Chairman.—What is the number of houses at Collins Barracks?—I gave that information. I think, last year. I do not remember precisely.

We had a discussion on this last year. It worked out at £5,000 or £6,000 each? —They were very expensive, but then there was a certain number of garages as well.

Deputy A. Barry.—For information, Mr. Chairman, in the past the Army undertook a lot of that work.

Chairman.—You mean the Construction Corps?

Deputy A. Barry.—No, the engineering service.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—In the old days the regulation was that the Office of Public Works undertook any building costing over £200, I think. The Department of Defence engineers undertake the maintenance of buildings and the smaller jobs. In later years I think the Department of Defence have been undertaking more building.

471. Deputy A. Barry.—Did they ever make any contribution towards the completion of that work?—If they did, it would be something very limited in the nature of the original development work.

472. Who did the actual work?—It was done by contract.

473. Deputy Desmond.—On page 6 particulars of work No. 102—Kilworth Camp, Officers’ Mess—are given. When was that estimate arrived at?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—I should say that was of a date not very far back from 1950-51.

Mr. Desmond.—It seems that there is a lot more to be done?—Actually it was only started in that year. It was only completed in December, 1953.

Mr. Desmond.—It is not completed yet according to the note which reads “in progress”. That observation dates to 31 March, 1953

Is it now completed?—It is finished by now: I am not sure that the retentions have been paid, but the building is finished.

474. Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—On the earlier question about houses—there are five houses with garages attached and four separate garages.

Mr. T. Lynch.—That is at Collins Barracks?—Yes.

475. Chairman.—On subhead C.— Maintenance and Supplies—I note that in the Book of Estimates we get in tabulated form the amount expected to be spent on each Department under subheads C. D.1., E. and F., but there is no corresponding table in the Appropriation Accounts. Would it be very difficult or expensive to produce something in the Appropriation Accounts which would be immediately related to the table in the Book of Estimates? It might be of interest to the Committee to see, where there was a variation, whether it was equally spread over the Departments or whether one or two Departments were responsible for the difference between the estimated amount and the amount actually spent on those subheads?—It could be done; how informative it would be is a matter of doubt. In cases like fuel for instance, a lot would depend on how much you had stocked in your cellars as between one year and another at the close of the heating season.

476. But surely that would be reflected in the estimate too?—It would, but there are so many items in it that it would be lost.

The way I was looking at it is that you are bound to have the items anyway?—There is no difficulty in giving them.

I would be glad if you would look into this and consider the matter. I think it would be informative.—It is a new proposal and apparently was never done; even in the days when the Estimate gave the long list, they did not produce anything in the Appropriation Accounts.

I know: but I am always willing to look for more information if I can get it.—Very good, sir, we will look into that.

477. Subhead C.C.—Reserve Stores for Building Purposes, etc. This is a special subhead, is that not right?—Yes.

478. On subhead D.1.—Furniture, Fittings and Utensils—I must confess that I may have raised it in the past, but I do not really appreciate why there should be separate subheads for D.1. and D.2—Central Furniture Stores?—Taking a simple case such as the requirement in office tables or office chairs—these are of general application and one does not buy them specifically for a Department. They are bought in bulk. Those bulk purchases may not be all issued at the end of the financial year. Subhead D.1. bears the cost of any furniture issued to the various Departments and subhead D.2. represents the proportion still in stock and which has not been issued. That remains as a charge on subhead D.2.

479. With regard to subhead D.2.—I am a bit in the dark with regard to the explanation given with the account that the issue of stocks during the year was retarded by trade disputes. How did it happen that your stock on hand is up only £1,000 on the previous year, if your issues were retarded?—Whereas we anticipated we would have only £3,000 worth unissued we actually had £6,000.

But still your stock is only up £1,000.

Deputy A. Barry.—Where is that figure?

480. Chairman.—It is in the previous year’s account. It does not seem quite to reflect the position. How did it happen that the issue of stocks was retarded by a trade dispute and stocks coming in were not?—That may have been due to the fact that this strike was a carting strike in the city and we would have the stock in store. It would have been a question of getting it carted out. This was a strike business anyway and I think that is the answer—that it was a carter’s strike.

481. On subhead H.—River Shannon Works—has this expenditure anything to do with expenditure on the Shannon Navigation noted in Vote 8?—No. Long after the Shannon Navigation was completed there were complaints about flooding and I think in 1883 or thereabouts certain sluices were inserted in the various weirs for drainage purposes only. The maintenance of those sluices has always been borne on the Vote as apart from the Shannon Fund.

482. Deputy Desmond.—On subhead J.1.—Arterial Drainage—Surveys—I note there is a shortage of technical staff. Is that a question of Finance sanction not being obtained or of staff not being available?—I think the answer here is that technical staff were not available by reason of depletions in the Survey Staff. I am sorry—the real answer is that we had to divert staff from survey to works.

483. Deputy Desmond.—Would it not be advisable to try and employ extra staff in view of the urgency of the work? —We do, but we have two sources of survey: one, our permanent staff and the other temporary. We do lose permanent staff sometimes but we find it very difficult to keep temporary staff and we are always short. We are never at full strength in any part of the office; there are always some vacancies.

484. Deputy Desmond.—I would still like to know the cause of the difficulty with regard to the shortage of staff. Is it simply a case of not being able to get them or is it lack of co-operation on the part of the Department of Finance? So far as I know there are plenty of engineers clamouring to get jobs?—They do not come to us. We succeed in filling our quota perhaps to-day and within a fortnight or three weeks the Colonial Office or someone else will have taken some of them.

485. Deputy A. Barry.—Are the conditions of employment here less attractive?—Oh yes, much less attractive For some reason the temporary men like to get out and I think you will find many engineers, when young, if they have any ambition, like to get abroad and get the widest possible scope for their activities, wider than we are able to give them here.

486. Deputy Desmond.—Would it be possible or advisable to have efforts made to have greater co-operation with the Universities by informing them when you have vacancies?—That is done. The Department of Finance give the Universities a list sometime about this time of year indicating what vacancies are liable to turn up in the ensuing year.

I think it is a serious matter and I know several engineers who have come up for an interview and seemed to be waiting a long time before they hear anything and still we seem to have a shortage.

487. Chairman.—On subhead J.4.— River Fergus Drainage—could you give the figure for the total expenditure on the River Fergus to date?—I think if you take all the work—that is, all the works covered by the District of Fergus Act—referred to which includes works done nine or ten years ago the cost will be roughly £120,000.

488. Was nothing firm laid down in the Act?—There was. The figure laid down in the Act was something in the region of £31,000 or £32,000. That is exclusive of the cost of the lands which it was proposed to enable the Clare County Council to purchase. Included in the £120,000 is work which was not part of the District of Fergus Act. It was the removal of a rock shoal just beside the automatic tidal sluices. That was embarked on because after investigation the engineers came to the conclusion that the full value of the rest of the work would not be enjoyed if that rock shoal were not removed. Of course it turned out a very much more expensive business than was originally anticipated. The figure for the automatic tidal sluice was put down at £12,000. That was away back in 1942-43. It was a provisional estimate based upon the chief engineer being satisfied first of all that he could get sluices and secondly that their erection would do no damage to interests in the vicinity of Clarecastle. It took a very long time before the chief engineer was able to satisfy himself that both those conditions would be fulfilled. Costs had gone up very largely by then. In addition the original scheme for dealing with their erection had not been closely examined. It was a rough shot arrived at between the engineer for the plaintiff and the engineer for the defendants in the legal action and it turned out that the work could not be done in the way it was expected to be done. The whole river had to be diverted into a new course. That work added very considerably to the cost because the Fergus at that point is a pretty big river. Then unexpected rock formations were discovered which turned out to be limestone with fissures. They gave enormous trouble. Then we ran into extremely bad weather for this tidal work and we were washed out on a number of occasions. As a result the cost is much greater than was anticipated.

489. How do you relate the actual cost to the provisions of the Act? I am not conversant with the Act beyond that there was a figure named in it?—The Act set out four different types of jobs to be done. One was the repair of the embankments, estimated to cost £5,500. As far as my recollection goes, it worked out fairly accurately but it is ten years since the expenditure was incurred so I could not be definite. It was not far out. Another was the erection of an embankment beside the Ennis-Quin road, £4,000. I think that was fairly accurate, too. Then there was the works of restoration on the Upper Reaches, £10,000. I think that was practically the limit of the amount we were prepared to spend— though perhaps we did spend a little more. We regarded that £10,000 as what we were entitled to spend. Then there was the provision of automatic tidal sluices, which was stated in the Act to be estimated to cost £12,000. As I say, that estimate was completely changed; the cost was very much greater.

490. Chairman.—The Act did not prohibit you spending greater than that?— Oh, no.

491. Deputy Desmond.—On subhead K.2—Maintenance of Engineering Plant and Machinery—there is another example of shortage of staff. Is there a possibility of serious loss arising through maintenance not being kept up because of shortage of staff?—You say “serious loss”. There may be serious delay and there has been serious delay overhauling machines but that is a difficulty that there is no solution for. These are mechanical engineers and these are the people we cannot get. There is no question of having to go to the Department of Finance for sanction. We have the sanction for a large number of staff for the last three years but we have not been able to get them. For instance, there are seventeen posts of mechanical engineer in connection with the mechanical workshop and of those we have succeeded in filling only ten. We have tried practically every method of filling them. There have been a number of cases where we have had scheduling orders. We made a number of efforts by advertisements ourselves to get men.

492. Deputy A. Barry.—Are you offering a lower figure than the competitive figure for such professional staff outside? —We do not think so. Mechanical engineers are very well paid.

Deputy A. Barry.—They are at a premium.

493. Chairman.—Mechanical engineering requires an extra year at the University. The difficulty arises here by the fact that there is not a great outlet in private industry for mechanical engineers? —That is so.

494. Deputy A. Barry.—There is no floating pool?—I do not think so. The only place where there was any employment for them up to quite recently was Belfast. I do not think there is any place with a real volume of employment for these people in the rest of Ireland and of course a lot of the work is diesel work, which is only a new development.

495. Chairman.—I am wondering, going into this case after case, if it is the Department of Finance that is holding you up. In every case raised you said they were not—that it was difficulty in getting staff. You would not be blaming them in the wrong?

Deputy Desmond.—I think he is not, but that he is too fairminded with them? —As I said in the beginning, there was a hold-up in supplying us with authority to provide working staff on the Feale. I am not quite sure why. There might have been an economy campaign or something of that kind on at the time. We had asked for working staff on the Feale and for some survey and other purpose staff and there was considerable delay in agreeing that we required them. They have been sanctioned since.

496. Deputy Desmond.—Would it be possible, or has it been done, to advertise in English papers? There may be some Irishmen there who would come over here. Such advertising might prevent machines being held up?—We have done that, we have advertised in England. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to get these men.

Deputy Desmond.—It must be that the salaries being offered are insufficient.

497. Chairman.—Were the salaries not increased last year?—They were.

498. Chairman.—The details of subhead L.—Appropriations in Aid—are on page 21. Under item No. 5 the receipts in respect of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park are referred to and there are several points I would like to raise The first point concerns the valuations under Expenditure as at 1 April, 1952, and under Revenue as at 31 March, 1953, which are given on the last page of the separate account* under the heading of farm and dairy machinery, plant and equipment. The account as presented shows an increase of £324 in the valuation of that equipment. As far as I can see from the account, the only new equipment purchased for the farm amounted to £5 15s. I wonder how the appreciation of £324 arose if no new equipment was bought?—I would have to check up on that. I could not answer that. I will send you a note about it.*

499. One would normally expect that in the absence of anything new being bought the figure would show a very sharp reduction for machinery due to depreciation. With regard to the valuations in general, do you know how the figures for the value of cattle, sheep and horses are arrived at?—They are taken at a conservative estimate of what they would sell for.

500. What is the approximate size of the farm in acres? It must be fairly considerable, judging by the wages, which come to £2,799?—It is considerable. There is a big herd of Kerry cattle; I think the total number of milch cows is about fifty.

501. I have great difficulty in making head or tail of this whole farm account. There is another point. You give one figure for purchases of livestock, £585, and you do not distinguish it; yet the sales of livestock are distinguished between cattle, sheep and horses. There seems to be a considerable number of sheep. Do they graze over the park as well as over the farm?—Mainly over the mountains and in the park in the winter. They scarcely graze on the farm at all.

502. The running of a farm seems to be out of your line of country. How does it happen that this is your bailiwick rather than that of the Department of Agriculture?—I think the Department of Agriculture refused to take charge of it, many years ago.

503. It is a bit worrying to look at it. This is apparently a very expensive farm and yet it is showing only a nominal profit. Indeed, it would not show a profit at all if it were not for the extraordinary business about the valuation of machinery, plant and equipment. I would have thought that a farm of that size would be a better paying concern than it appears to be?—The farm is run for the purpose of maintaining the herd.

504. I understand that the herd has to be maintained. Must it be maintained on this farm? Is there anything in the agreement dealing with that?—I do not think there is, as a matter of fact, but it has always been associated with Muckross.

505. Does the Department of Agriculture take any interest in this farm? Do they inspect it?—The man who is in charge of it is a man we got originally from the Department of Agriculture. Occasionally, if there is anything on which we require advice, we consult the Department. They also buy some of the pedigree rams from us.

506. There is another point. The account mentions dairy produce consumed. Have you any idea what that refers to?

Deputy T. Lynch.—Probably it is the amount of milk that goes to calves.—Yes, it is the milk going to calves.

507. Deputy T. Lynch.—I think these accounts should be presented in more detail.

Chairman.—I take it that the cattle mentioned comprise the dairying herd. Do you keep any other cattle?—No. The purchase of livestock is practically all sheep. You might buy an occasional horse, but otherwise it is all sheep.

508. Deputy A. Barry.—I agree that this is all very unsatisfactory. I think that the question of responsibility should be discussed between the two Departments. There is a certain amount of interchanging of labour between the park proper and the farm.

Chairman.—I appreciate that, but the accounts do segregate that. The wages are given under each head.—This form of account was settled, I think, with the Committee at one time. It was before my time. I do not remember how the form of account was settled but I know it was agreed as to the form in which the account would be rendered. If the Committee want to get it in greater detail, that would present no difficulty.

Chairman.—Personally, I think it might be no harm to have another approach to the Department of Agriculture. It does seem to be a bit out of their line of country for the Office of Public Works to be bothering about that. If it is a farm that is required to maintain a special herd which is a very specialised business I do not see why the Department of Agriculture with all their resources should not take it on.

509. Deputy A. Barry.—What condition is the house in?

Chairman.—Could you tell us anything about Muckross House, what has happened to it?—It is there.

Deputy A. Barry.—As what?—As a house. There has been no satisfactory scheme put up for its utilisation.

510. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Is there any provision for the employment by the superintendent of outside labour on the roads around the lakes or is the maintenance of the road the work of the employees of the estate only?—As far as I know, yes.

511. No outside labour is allowed?—I do not know. I would not like to say “not allowed”. If it were required he would probably requisition it and get authority but normally speaking it is done by the existing employees of the estate.

512. During the summer months there is a great deal of traffic on the road and the employees of the estate are needed for the farm work and so on?—It would cost a lot.

513. Chairman.—If they need £10,000 worth of labour, it is well run.—The difficulty that arises in the summer months is that there is a great deal of horse-drawn traffic, jaunting cars, and so on, passing along and in a month or two that churns up the road and there are hoof holes in it. We endeavour to put the road in a sufficiently good condition before the tourist season proper starts, to keep it going for the season but it does not always work out.

Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—I agree.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—Very often in September or thereabouts you find the roads are in a very bad condition but they are safe.

514. Chairman.—It might be possible to segregate the management of the farm from that of the park. The Department of Agriculture might be willing to take on the supervision of the farm if they have not to worry about the park. I think you might have another talk with them and see if something could be done. I think it is bound to be a bit unsatisfactory for your Department, which is not normally concerned with farm work. The Department of Agriculture ought to have some interest in the matter.

Deputy Bartley.—Does the Office of Public Works get advice from the Department of Agriculture?—Not necessarily, except we require it. The man who is superintendent of that farm is an expert agriculturist and was formerly an instructor in the Department of Agriculture.

515. Deputy Bartley.—What more could the Department of Agriculture do other than appoint an expert agriculturist in charge of it? That has already been done.

Chairman.—The only thing is that when the accounts come before us you would not have Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh, who is not concerned with agriculture, coming before us.

Deputy Bartley.—Why not go further and get somebody from the Department of Agriculture to come here?

Chairman.—They do not know anything about it. They will not answer for something that they do not administer.

Deputy Bartley.—I am not suggesting that that person should come here as accounting officer but any accounting officer has a number of advisers here. Why not have an additional one for this purpose? If, in fact, there is an expert agriculturist running the place, what more could the Department of Agriculture do?

Chairman.—Why should the Office of Public Works be responsible for a farm?

Deputy Bartley.—If the responsibility stems from the person actually in charge, what practical difference would it make to us here? What better information will we get?

Chairman.—We would hope to. The Department of Agriculture knows more about agriculture than the Office of Public Works.

Deputy T. Lynch.—I would like to know what state the farm is already in. These cows may be twenty years of age. Half of them may not be in calf Half may be going to the factory next year. We do not know whether they are over-valued or under-valued.

Deputy Bartley.—The expert in charge must not be the best possible person if he is an agriculturalist and makes these mistakes. Possibly the Department could get you a better man.

Chairman.—My idea is that the Department of Agriculture would be in a better position to assess his value than the Office of Public Works.

Deputy Bartley.—Yes, but the assessment must take place on the work done by the superintendent. Otherwise it would be quite fallacious. The office here may not have the day-to-day personal knowledge. They must get it from the man below and if the man below is efficient then is not the information authentic?

Chairman.—How is an engineer in the Office of Public Works to assess information about a farm? You might as well have the Department of Fisheries in charge of Áras an Uachtaráin.

Deputy Bartley.—Let us take the converse case. Suppose you turn it over to the Department of Agriculture, would you not have the same difficulty in relation to the non-agricultural aspects being dealt with by the Department of Agriculture as you have now in relation to this particular instance?

Chairman.—What non-agricultural points are there about a farm?

Deputy Bartley.—What about the building? Is it not a unit?

Chairman.—I do not know. That is why I was suggesting to Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh that he might discuss the matter with the Department of Agriculture, that they might take over the farm part of it and be able to give us some information.

Deputy Bartley.—Has not the whole place been bestowed on the nation as a unit? After all, it is a show place. I take it the State when they took it over did not expect to take it over as a profit-making concern. At least that was not my impression when the Bill was being piloted through the Dáil.

Chairman.—I dare say. At the same time, this Committee is anxious to see that a large farm should be run at a profit if it can.

Deputy Bartley.—There was no anticipation of profit so far as I remember when the Bill was passed but the possible use of the place by sight-seers.

Deputy Desmond.—If we had the possibility of making a profit on a farm, would not it help to relieve the problem mentioned by Deputy Mrs. Crowley—the condition of the roads? Could we not spend more in improving the scenic aspect? Is not it right for us to say that we would like some information? It is unfair to expect Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh, who spent his life in a different line altogether, to be able to answer in regard to the matters we would like to know about.

Deputy Bartley.—I do not see the point. I may be rather obtuse. The question now revolves around Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh’s ability to assess reports from a competent agriculturist who is down there. That seems to be the point. There is no question being raised, apparently, about the ability of the person actually in charge of this farm, who has been selected by the Department of Agriculture.

Chairman.—That is a nice point of view. I want to know, for instance, how his machinery increased in value without his buying any more.

Deputy Bartley.—Then the man in charge must not be the proper person for the job.

Chairman.—That is one explanation. As it is, I have not any explanation.

Deputy Donegan.—With the exception of that one item of the increase by £324, I cannot see anything in this account to prove that the person down there is not the proper man in charge. Furthermore, I would expect that it would not take an agriculturist to deal with farm accounts alone but an economist who had a flair for agriculture in a big way. If the farm and park are combined and men may be working at hay in the morning and repairing a road in the evening, I do not see how you could segregate the accounts.

Chairman.—That is already done there.

Deputy Donegan.—I wonder are they successfully segregated. I do not believe it is possible to segregate them.

Chairman.—I do not know. All I want to know is whether everything is being done that ought to be done and it strikes me personally as rather odd that a farm should be under the Office of Public Works when there is a Department of Agriculture. I am not suggesting that that is the ideal solution. I am only suggesting that the matter should be reviewed.

Deputy Bartley.—Does that not raise the original question as to whether when the Act was passed this place was really contemplated as a farm or merely as a national show place?

Chairman.—I take it from what Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh said that it had been endeavoured to get the Department of Agriculture to be responsible. Someone must have had the idea.

Deputy Bartley.—For the very good reason that they understood the spirit of the Act.

Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—I think one explanation is that the tolls are now off. There is no money coming in from people going in to look at the place. I think a great deal of energy is spent on the farm rather than on the grounds, which are the main point of the whole thing. The farm is only secondary. The place was originally intended for the benefit of tourists and visitors. Personally, I think there is a great deal too much attention paid to the farming side and not enough to the other side.

516. Chairman.—Generally speaking, you can take it that we are not very satisfied and we would ask you, if you can, to find out something more about this for us.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—I will certainly get you an explanation of the discrepancy in the farm and dairy machinery.* I must say I missed that point. We get complete returns every year of the number of cattle, divided among heifers, bulls and so on, of the amount of milk produced and the amount of the various crops produced. We get returns of all the sales, itemised. I have a suspicion as to what has happened with the farm and dairy machinery but I would prefer to make sure before I would say anything about it.

Chairman.—Very good.

Deputy T. Lynch.—I think that in the accounts presented the stock should be classified. I think that is very important. I have some experience of administering other people’s farms, of having to walk in on stewards and check on them. I am not throwing any aspersions on this man. I do not know who he is. In my own business I would not take such accounts. If I would not take them in my own business, I would not take them here.

517. Deputy Desmond.—Could we go any further? Could we get Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh to obtain the views of the Department of Agriculture? Deputy Mrs. Crowley has mentioned my point—the possibility that we are concentrating at present too much on the farm rather than on the show place. Can we get the views of the Department of Agriculture as to whether they are prepared to come in on the agricultural side? That will give the Office of Public Works more time to concentrate on their own job.—You may take it that we have no objection to doing that. So far as the farm is concerned, if the dairy herd is to be kept intact and the farm is to be used properly, it will have to be run in the way it is being run now, whichever Department runs it. The only effect a change should have on the running would be that the interchangeability of personnel at seasonal times will probably have to cease. It does not mean that you spend any more money on the park proper. I think the cost of the park is fairly high as it is.

518. Deputy Desmond.—If the accounts on the agricultural side came through the accounting officer for the Department of Agriculture, would it not be more satisfactory for us?

Deputy A. Barry.—I think so.

Chairman.—Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh is going to look into the whole matter and see what is best to be done, with due regard, of course, to the original bequest. —Oh, yes, I want to make it clear that the lay-out of the information under the various headings here was not our suggestion. It was settled in consultation, I think, with the Committee of Public Accounts many years ago and that is the form which was agreed to. It will give us no difficulty to present the stock valuations in more detailed form and we will do that as long as we have responsibility for doing it.

519. Chairman.—I am sure Mr. Ó Cadhla could work out with you something that would be more satisfactory.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—Certainly.

520. Chairman.—On the Extra Receipts, you mention the sale of a former Legation in Rome. Could you give us the total sum that was realised from the sale? —The total sum was £40,043 18s. 9d.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XII.

* See Appendix XIII.

* See Appendix XIV.

* See Appendix XV.

* See Appendix XV.