Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1955 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1953 - 1954

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 3 Samhain, 1955.

Thursday, 3rd November, 1955.

The Committee sat at 10.30 a.m.

DEPUTY CARTER in the chair.

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

VOTE 60—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE.

Mr. P. J. Keady called and examined.

337. Chairman. — With regard to this Vote the Committee will notice that this group of accounts is presented in a new form. Members will find approval for this recorded Appendix XXV to the Report on the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1950/51. There are also paragraphs 102 and 103 by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Paragraph 102 reads as follows:—

“Subhead N—Losses.

The manager of a branch employment office misappropriated moneys paid to him by employers in respect of contributions due to the Unemployment Fund and, as stated in a note to the account, he was dismissed from the service and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. With the authority of the Department of Finance a sum of £640 was paid to the Social Insurance Fund to make good the loss.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have nothing to add. These paragraphs simply record that losses to the Fund have been made good from voted moneys.

338. Deputy A. Barry.—It was the only way to deal with that?—The only way.

339. Deputy Sheldon. Over what period of time did these defalcations occur?—It was rather an old case. It first came to light, as far as I remember, in 1944 and it took a long time to investigate it. There were some 26 cases involved in it. I have not got the actual period of time over which it extended, but I know it extended over some years.

Deputy Bartley.—Does 26 cases mean 26 officers?—No.

Deputy A. Barry.—Twenty-six offences by the one officer.

340. Chairman.—I will read the next paragraph and we can discuss both together. Paragraph 103 of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“In another case a temporary clerk in an employment exchange misappropriated unemployment assistance moneys amounting to £121. He was dismissed from the service but had left the jurisdiction before proceedings could be taken against him. Of the total amount misappropriated £29 had been charged in the account for the year 1950/51 and the balance is charged to this subhead with the authority of the Department of Finance.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have nothing to add.

341. Chairman. — Do you have many prosecutions? — We have comparatively few. Those are the only two I remember in the last few years.

342. What methods do these officers adopt in carrying out such frauds?—In the first case, that of the branch manager, part of his duty was to ensure compliance with the collection of contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. He made it a practice, shortly before the end of a contribution year, to approach fairly big employers in his district and ask them to give him a cheque payable to himself for the amount of the contributions due in respect of the employees, and he would stamp up the cards. That was a breach of official instructions. The instructions are that in no circumstances may cash be accepted in payment of arrears of contributions; and cash is defined as including cheques, postal orders and money orders. He did not, of course, stamp any cards in respect of these; but, in cases where a claim might arise, he took stamps off other cards belonging to men who were not likely to make claims and put the stamps on the cards of the employees from whose employers he had got money. It was rather a complicated fraud and it took a long time to uncover. This man was in very high standing in the district and he was highly trusted.

343. Deputy Sheldon. — You did not prosecute the employers, who connived, as accessories before the fact?—They were not aware there was any fraud. They were paying the money to an officer of the Department in respect of stamps due.

Deputy A. Barry. — It seems a perfectly normal kind of thing.

344. Deputy Sheldon.—Is it normal for employers to hand out money?

Deputy A. Barry.—I do not know that it would be particularly wrong. I think if the local manager came to me and said: “You will get into trouble if you do not clear this up; give me a cheque for the arrears,” I might easily fall for it. I am intrigued by one phrase of the Accounting Officer: it is illegal to pay by cash or cheque.

Deputy Sheldon.—This did not happen in one of the three Ulster counties at any rate. I can say that, without asking?— No.

345. Deputy Bartley.—The officials concerned were civil servants?—In this case he was a branch manager. He was not a civil servant in the ordinary sense. He was under contract for service.

346. Is there a fidelity bond necessary in the case of managers of branch offices? —Yes.

They are not civil servants?—No, but since that case occurred, since about 1950 or 1951, we have insisted on fidelity bonds in all those cases.

347. Chairman.—Have you a large investigation staff? — It is the duty of Social Welfare officers really to secure compliance. These frauds occurred before the Department was set up. The entire duty of compliance is now on Social Welfare officers, of whom we have a couple of hundred, I think, offhand, and it was one of those who discovered the fraud when he went to check up compliance in a particular hotel; the proprietor told him he had already paid the cash to the branch manager.

348. With regard to subhead F—Manufacture of Insurance Stamps — I notice that expenditure is equal to the estimate?—Yes. The estimate is furnished by the Revenue Commissioners. They print the stamps and they furnish us each year with the estimate of cost, and it is always exactly as they say.

349. Under subhead G—Advertising—is there an agreed figure on this subhead and are the services of the Stationery Office availed of?—So far as I know there are agreed papers to which advertisements are given. Whether it is done through the Stationery Office or directly I am not sure. I think it is done through the Stationery Office.

350. On subhead H—Insured Persons’ Medical Certificates—I take it all certificates furnished by insured persons are in support of claims for benefits?—Yes.

How, then, does it arise, as mentioned in the note to this subhead, that the expenditure was for a shorter period than a year?—The Act of 1952 came into force on the 5th January, 1953. The payment system adopted is on a calendar year basis and in framing the estimate we estimated for a full year but part of the charge, for the first four days, fell on the National Health Insurance Fund and not on the Vote.

351. Under subhead K—Transport and Compensation — the excess seems to be large in relation to the grant.

Deputy A. Barry.—Was it on replacements?

352. Chairman.—On cars? — We took over 13 cars from the National Health Insurance Society. I think we probably have the same number at the moment, but the cause of the excess was due to the fact that the original estimate contained provision for two new cars at a trade in cost of £400. During the course of the year five new cars were purchased at an all-in cost of £1,849. The net proceeds from the five replaced cars aggregated £811 and that was taken into account as an Appropriation-in-Aid so that the actual cost of the five cars worked out at £200 each which is about the same as we estimated for the two new cars—£400. The difference is the replacement of the five cars on the basis of the gross cost instead of the two cars on the basis of the trade in cost.

353. Deputy Bartley.—I should like to get one point clear before we pass on. All the National Health Insurance Societies were taken over by the Department of Social Welfare? — There was only one Society.

I know but it now comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Social Welfare. I take it that the 13 cars taken over were those used by 13 officials employed by the Society?—Yes.

What is the difference between the status of these 13 gentlemen and all the other employees of the National Health Insurance Societies? Have these 13 officials who used these cars become Civil Servants?—Yes.

But no other employee of the Society has become a Civil Servant? — All the other employees of the National Health Insurance Society have become Civil Servants as well as the 13 officials who use these cars.

Are they all established Civil Servants? —Not all. Local agents in rural areas are unestablished.

354. Deputy Mrs. Crowley. — I notice there is no grant this year in connection with losses. In former years has there been a grant for any losses that might occur?—This is a new subhead which has been opened on the authority of the Minister for Finance. It was opened in October, 1953. There is no provision in the Estimate for it—it is not an Estimate subhead.

355. Chairman. — With regard to subhead M — Appropriations-in-Aid — what does the large sum in item No. 1 in the details on page 198 represent?—It represents the expenses incurred by the Minister in administering the insurance side of the Act.

356. Item No. 3 in the details to Appropriations-in-Aid refers to payment in respect of agency services performed on behalf of the British Ministry of Pensions. How does that arise? — The British Ministry run a general practitioner scheme for British ex-servicemen residing in this country and we administer it by setting up a panel of doctors and keeping it up to date and make the actual payments to the doctors in respect of services rendered.

357. Why was a payment of £70 in respect of the use of an official’s car made on an ex-gratia basis as explained in the notes following this Vote?—The official concerned was not a travelling official. He was the establishment officer of the Department and as such he did a tremendous amount of travelling in Dublin when the offices were being integrated. It was estimated he had incurred this expenditure, the item was put to the Department of Finance and they agreed he was entitled to some recompense.

Deputy Sheldon.—In their usual generous way.

VOTE 61—SOCIAL INSURANCE.

Mr. P. J. Keady further examined.

358. Chairman.—Paragraph 104 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead A—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952.

Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, provides that the amount by which the income of the Social Insurance Fund for any year is less than its expenditure shall be paid into the Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas and further provides that the income and expenditure of the Fund for any financial year shall be determined for the purposes of the sub-section by the Minister for Social Welfare on such basis as may be agreed with the Minister for Finance. Section 39 (10) provides that any sums payable into the Fund pursuant to sub-section 9 shall be paid in such manner and at such times as the Minister for Finance may determine. In accordance with these provisions sums amounting to £3,509,000 were paid to the Fund from this Vote during the year under review.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This sum is subject to adjustment when the final figures are available.

359. Deputy A. Barry.—Is there a time lag of considerable length involved?— There is a considerable time lag.

360. Chairman.—Paragraph 105 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead B—Investment Return.

As stated in paragraph 113 of my last report Section 21 of the Social Welfare Act, 1950, as amended by Section 68 (5) (e) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, authorises payments from the Social Insurance Fund in respect of expenditure by the Minister for Social Welfare on the acquisition of lands, premises, furniture or equipment, and the construction or reconstruction of premises. It also provides that an investment return in the form of contributions to the Fund shall be made in respect of such payments at rates to be agreed upon from time to time between the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Finance. Such contributions fall to be made out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund under this section in the year ended 31 March, 1954, amounted to £238,951 which, together with £82,575 paid from this Fund during the period 5 January, 1953, to 31 March, 1953, brings the expenditure from the Social Insurance Fund under Section 21 to £321,526. As stated in my last report payments from the National Health Insurance Fund under Section 21 up to 4 January, 1953, amounted to £882,546. The total expenditure under this section to 31 March, 1954, thus amounted to £1,204,072, all of which was expended on the construction and equipment of Árus Mhic Dhiarmada. The greater part of the building is occupied by the Department of Social Welfare. The amount paid from this subhead during the year to the Social Insurance Fund on account of investment return was £41,867.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Regarding portion of the building not occupied by the Department of Social Welfare, I am informed by the Accounting Officer that it was occupied as a bus station by C.I.E. Negotiations are still proceeding between the two parties on the terms of the letting.

361. Chairman.—On subhead A of the Vote—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952—how did it come about that you required such a large Supplementary Estimate?—The scheme was a new scheme, coming into force on the 5th January, 1953 and we were estimating towards the end of 1952; the conditions governing unemployment benefit, rates of unemployment benefits and the duration had all been fundamentally altered by the new scheme. The disability scheme had been radically changed by the inclusion of dependents. It became clear from the very start that the estimates were very low particularly in regard to unemployment benefits and as the year went on it looked as if the estimate would be much too low. As well as that there was a likelihood of the contribution income falling short of expectation. The combined effect of all these was to necessitate a Supplementary Estimate for this amount.

362. On subhead B—Investment Return —does this represent the full amount you pay for the use of premises?—It represents the interest on the capital expenditure and on the equipment, reduced by the amount we expected to receive from C.I.E. in respect of the bus station.

363. Deputy Sheldon.—The Accounting Officer says that this sum is reduced by the amount they expect to receive from C.I.E. Is there a suspense account of some kind?—Sums have been received on account from C.I.E.

VOTE 62—SOCIAL ASSISTANCE.

Mr. P. J. Keady further examined.

364. Chairman.—Paragraph 106 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead C.—Unemployment Assistance

Under the provisions of section 9 (1) of the Unemployment Assistance (Amendment) Act, 1935, as amended by the Social Welfare Act, 1952, a person is not entitled to receive unemployment assistance while he is in receipt of or entitled to unemployment benefit. Pending determination of entitlement to unemployment benefit claimants are paid unemployment assistance provided they fulfil the necessary statutory conditions, and if entitlement is established the decision already made authorising payment of unemployment assistance is revised. The Social Welfare (Assistance Decisions and Appeals) Regulations, 1953 (S.I. No. 9 of 1953) provide that, in the case of revised decisions, payments of assistance already made may be treated as payments on account of any other assistance or benefit properly payable. During the year under review a sum of £8,794 has been included in the amount credited to this subhead in respect of payments of unemployment assistance subsequently treated as payments on account of unemployment benefit. As indicated in paragraph 104 of my last report this sum was determined on an estimated basis in the absence of definite figures as to the amounts so paid but arrangements have been made to have exact figures available for future years.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This is a small matter. About £27,000 odd paid out as assistance in the period January/September, 1953 was subsequently treated as benefit. The resulting credit to the Vote covered two years 1952/53 and 1953/54 but the returns received at head office did not show the break up as between the years and it was necessary to adjust the accounts on an estimated basis. The Accounting Officer has informed me that instructions have now been issued with a view to ensuring that precise figures will be available for future years.

365. Chairman.—Paragraph 107 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“With a view to securing economy in administration and with the approval of the Department of Finance the Department of Posts and Telegraphs ceased to furnish separate certified figures for payments of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance made through post offices after 31 May 1953. The amount charged to this subhead in respect of such payments of unemployment assistance in the period from 1 June 1953 to 30 November 1953 was determined on an estimated basis. Following the introduction of a mechanised system of control in the Department of Social Welfare precise figures of the amounts paid as unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance respectively became available as from 1 December 1953.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The payments made through the Post Office in the period referred to were divided between benefit and assistance on the basis of the total advices issued under these heads. I do not think there is a very wide margin for error. If there is an error it should be very small.

366. Deputy Sheldon.—I take it that as unemployment benefits funds do not require voted moneys, it does not really matter greatly whether there is a precise figure arrived at for these two sums. In fact whatever way the total figure is divided both sums come from voted monies. It is merely a matter of from which vote they will come—am I right in that?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Not exactly.

Deputy Sheldon.—What I am getting at is I would not like to see any particular expense being incurred in getting precision where in fact it did not matter?

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — All assistance is paid out of voted monies. A trivial error might arise here from advices not cashed through the Post Office, and I am sure they would be very few.

367. Deputy Bartley.—I do not understand the purpose of this certificate of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Was it by way of check on issues made by the Department of Social Welfare?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I did not quite get the point of the question.

I take it that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was asked to furnish certificates of the payments which they handled?—Under a number of heads.

But the fact is that these are payments made by one Department of State. Was there a feeling on the part of that Department that their own accounts were not a sufficient check and that the aid of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had to be enlisted to ensure the accuracy of their own machinery?—No. We are referring merely to payments made through the Post Office which is a very small proportion of the whole.

Mr. Keady.—They are paid only where a man is resident more than six miles from an exchange.

368. Deputy Bartley.—I still do not quite understand. Are there two methods of payment, one through the Post Office and the other by officials of the Department of Social Welfare? Is that right?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

369. Chairman.—Paragraph 108 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead D.—Widows’ and Orphans’ Non-contributory Pensions.

The arrangements under which separate certified figures showing the amounts paid at post offices in respect of contributory and non-contributory pensions had been furnished by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was discontinued as from 1 May 1953 in line with the revised procedure referred to in the previous paragraph. Contributory pensions fall to be charged to the Social Insurance Fund and non-contributory to this vote. With the sanction of the Department of Finance the total payments as certified by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are apportioned between Fund and vote in proportion to the amounts payable in each category. I am satisfied that under this procedure the error in the incidence of charge will be negligible.”

370. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead H of this Vote—Grants towards the Supply of Fuel for Necessitous Families— is there a means test in the case of these grants?

Mr. Keady.—The scheme is operated by local authorities and the fuel is distributed to three categories of persons, those in receipt of home assistance—who are of course selected on the basis of a means test—people of low income not in receipt of home assistance and the pensioners.

371. With regard to the note to Subhead H what was the summer scheme referred to which ceased in 1953?—It was a scheme of the same nature as the winter scheme but the charge for fuel was rather higher than the winter one. It was not availed of to any great extent and it dropped into disuse in several places and was eventually abandoned altogether.

372. Deputy Bartley.—What part of the total expenditure is contributed by the State?—The total cost of the fuel; but no part of the administration costs.

The total cost of the fuel?—Yes, with a set-off of any payments made by people who contribute 6d. or 1/- per cwt.

373. Deputy O’Hara.—What means have you of checking the quality of the fuel?—That is in the hands of the local authorities too. It is up to them to check the quality of the fuel. We have not had many complaints. We did have one complaint about the quality of fuel and it was rectified.

374. Chairman. — On Item 1 in Appropriations in Aid—Contributions from County Borough and Urban Area Councils under Section 26 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933 etc.,—how are these contributions fixed?—In the case of county boroughs, it is at the rate of 1/8 in the £1 valuation, and in the case of urban adeas, it is 9d. in the £1.

375. Deputy Sheldon.—On item 4 in Appropriations in Aid—Recoveries of unemployment assistance overpaid—does the improvement in this figure indicate that the new system is working better from the office point of view, or is it purely casual? —I do not think it is in any way exceptional. I think it is fairly normal.

376. Chairman.—With regard to the details of Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, I notice that some overpayments recovered are treated as Appropriations in Aid and some as Exchequer Extra Receipts. What is the reason for the difference in treatment? Why treat such a small sum for instance as £42 differently or separately?—In the case of Exchequer Extra Receipts, you will notice that there are no items payable to beneficiaries as it were. They are refunds by public assistance authorities of overpayments made to themselves. They cannot be foreseen. We know we will have some refunds but we cannot foresee the amount. The other cases are not foreseeable.

377. Chairman.—In the notes to this Vote on page 202 information is given regarding old age pensions. There was a large amount of overpayment under the head of old age pensions. Is that due to failure to disclose means or are there other reasons?—The usual case is failure to disclose means. Very often it is discovered on the death of the pensioner.

378. What is the principal reason for these overpayments? For instance, is a big sum not recovered?—I would not say a big sum is not recovered. You will notice that, lower down in the note, £1,725 was written off as irrecoverable. That is pretty small in relation to the total Vote which amounts now to nearly £10,000,000.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 8—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Diarmuid Ó hÉigceartuigh called and examined.

379. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—I should like to hear Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh explain what seems to me to be an odd circumstance with regard to employment. As far as I have been able to gather by asking questions on the subject, it appears that temporary mechanical engineers have to have a higher qualification than permanent engineers. I do not understand it and I should like to hear Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh’s explanation as to how this arises?—I do not think that is correct.

On inquiring into the replies I got from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, and from various other enquiries, my information is that if a temporary mechanical engineer is recruited directly by the Office of Public Works it is specified in the advertisements that a University Degree or a similar qualification is essential. With regard to permanent posts for mechanical engineers, however, when such posts are being filled through the Civil Service Commission that requisite is not necessary—it is only desirable. Therefore, it seems to me that where a temporary man is being employed he must have this technical qualification whereas when a permanent post is being filled it is not considered necessary.

Deputy A. Barry.—You would not be dealing with the architectural branch, would you?

Deputy Sheldon.—No. I do not know whether it happens in other cases too but certainly it happens with mechanical engineers.

380. Deputy Bartley. — How does Deputy Sheldon make out that a man without these qualifications can be described as a mechanical engineer?

Deputy A. Barry. — Mechanical engineers and architects: there are various kinds.

381. Deputy Sheldon.—No, they are all provided in the Book of Estimates. The different Grades are there — civil engineers, mechanical engineers, and so on. It is all there, is it not?—I think the position in regard to those posts is that the first advertisement for the particular vacancies to which the Deputy refers was a competition under Scheduling Order. In that case, the University Degree in Mechanical Engineering was one of the necessary qualifications. That competition, as far as I remember, proved abortive: when I say “abortive” I am not saying it did not produce anybody but I mean that it did not fill all the vacancies. A similar competition, held by the Civil Service Commissioners, also prescribed the same qualifications. I think the Civil Service Commission also was not successful in filling the vacancies and the number of applicants was so limited that it was considered desirable to widen the field. In regard to the posts in question, possession of specialised experience is the most essential qualification.

382. Deputy A. Barry.—In effect, you say there is no difference in the demand that is made?—What I am saying is that the field of competition was widened by making a University Degree a desirable qualification rather than an essential one after competitions had failed to produce an adequate number of successful candidates with the Degree requirement.

383. Deputy Bartley.—In the case of those recruited who did not have the University Degree, I take it that those appointed had some sort of diploma from a technological institute of some sort, plus their experience?

Deputy A. Barry.—If there is such a thing.

Deputy Bartley.—I think so.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—I have not got the precise qualifications before me but they were men who had gone through their apprenticeship in large mechanical workshops and had worked up to important posts in civil employment, i.e., non-Government employment, and who had the requisite experience in the various special functions for which they were required.

384. Deputy Sheldon.—I hope Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh realises I am not suggesting that the possession of a Degree, of itself, makes a man suitable for employment but I could visualise that in a Department it could actually work out in practice that a man who could only be recruited by widening the terms would find himself acting as the superior of a man who had the strict qualifications. That might not lead to a happy staff position. Whether or not that has happened, I do not know, but I think it should be avoided. I appreciate that the Department has had great trouble because of the scarcity of mechanical engineers in this country: civil employment here does not offer much opportunity and therefore students do not tend to take it. However, I am not quite sure that this sort of temporary solution of a difficulty will make the supply from the Universities any better. I would imagine that when the Office of Public Works recruits its permanent staff, having ignored University qualifications, it would hardly encourage an engineering student to go on for mechanical engineering with the object of getting into the Board of Works. Do you agree, Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh?—I do not think it is quite right to say “having ignored University qualifications” because a University Degree is prescribed as desirable. The University man gets his chance.

Deputy Bartley.—What was the Civil Service Commission then to do if these men were not available? Was the work to be suspended?

385. Deputy Sheldon.—As far as I am concerned, it is all part of a larger picture that I do not like particularly well.

Deputy Bartley.—But the fault is not with the Civil Service Commission or the Office of Public Works. It may be with the Universities.

Deputy Sheldon.—It may be, but I still think it is not particularly encouraging to students of mechanical engineering.

386. Deputy A. Barry.—And you think precisely the same type of qualification should be required for both permanent and temporary staff?

Deputy Bartley.—I think we would all accept that, if the personnel were available. However, if it has been proved by repeated advertisements that the men are not there, the only alternative to recruiting these lesser qualified men is to suspend the work. I do not think anybody would agree to that.

387. Deputy Sheldon.—I cannot see why the terms have to be widened where they are made permanent.

Deputy Bartley.—If you cannot get them on a temporary basis.

Deputy Sheldon.—I do not know that there is evidence to show that. I am not aware that it was impossible to get people who had not the Degrees on a temporary basis.

388. Deputy Bartley.—Do you suggest that a man with the type of qualifications set out by the Accounting Officer would leave his good job which he had held for 20 years and come over and take a job at twice the salary, on a temporary basis, from the Office of Public Works? Personally, I do not think he would. Do you? I say “come over” because we have to go to these engineering places in England, I take it, where only the experienced man is at present available.

Deputy Sheldon.—Deputy Bartley may know something about it that I do not know. I am not aware of how many engineers in the mechanical division of the Board of Works are, in fact, people who came from Great Britain.

Deputy Bartley.—Naturally, a lot of Irishmen working over there would like jobs in their own country. I doubt, however, if anybody who has spent 20 years in a good job in any engineering undertaking in any part of the world would take a temporary appointment from the Office of Public Works, feeling that he would be turned out as soon as a Graduate would come from the University.

389. Chairman.—Is the Committee clear on the matter now?

Deputy A. Barry.—Obviously not.

Deputy Sheldon.—I am clear about what has happened.

Deputy A. Barry.—I agree it would be wiser if it were widened for both categories.

390. Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—Unless I am mistaken, the advertisement for temporary mechanical engineers was, of necessity, for temporary men because it was an advertisement under Scheduling Order. The Civil Service Commission alone can recommend established officers, as the Committee know. There are a number of permanent vacancies at the moment: I do not know if there are any temporary vacancies.

391. Deputy Sheldon. — On this subject, might I ask something about the wider picture of establishment? I understand the recent position was that so far as technical staff was concerned the whole set up was still incomplete and that the Department has not been able to arrive at a final administration that would suit the size of the Department at present. Would Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh say how quickly they think they can arrive at a better establishment? — It will depend upon the recruiting results. There is at the moment a competition in the hands of the Civil Service Commissioners for people of the equivalent of Engineer Grade II.—These include a Design Officer; a Development Officer; an Estimator and a Planning and Progress Officer. That is four. I have an idea that there is another one also. Until we get those, the complete workshop organisation will not be reached. The competitions are at the moment in hands.

392. Deputy Barry.—There seems to be a fundamental weakness in the whole recruitment of highly technical people into this service.

Chairman.—I presume they are having difficulty in getting the personnel of that description. I suppose establishment provides for that?—Yes.

393. With regard to item No. 2— Appropriations in Aid — Fees under the Local Loans Fund (Fees and Expenses) Regulations, 1946, what are these fees and how are they fixed? — There is a Statutory Order under the Local Loans Fund Act which prescribes fees and expenses. It is an Order made by the Minister for Finance and has been in force since 1946. On every loan sanctioned there are fees. They differ if the loan is partially or wholly on the security of land. The number of those loans is not very great. The greater proportion of the loans is made to local authorities for various purposes. In the case of local authorities, where the loan is not secured on land, a fee of 4/- per £100 or part of £100 is charged. There is a minimum fee of £1. In the case of lands, there is a schedule which prescribes the fees. This schedule is divided into two parts. The first part provides for fees secured on registered land and the second part provides for fees for loans which are secured on non-registered land. As I said, they are very uncommon at the moment. The majority of the loans is made to local authorities and is governed by the 4/-rate.

394. With regard to No. 2 in the Notes on pages 16 and 17, what is the present position regarding the liquidation proceedings of the Irish Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association? — The position is that the liquidator is making up his accounts. He has not got to the stage of determining what dividend will be paid out.

395. Under “Statement of Receipts and Payments by the Commissioners of Public Works on the Undermentioned Non-Voted Services in the year ended 31st March, 1954,” item No. 1 concerns Shannon Navigation. What is the Board’s function with regard to the River Shannon? —Many years ago the Board took over the control and management of the Shannon Navigation from the Shannon Navigation Commissioners. They still retain that control and they collect the tolls. Actually, there was an hiatus, in that the Commissioners’ statutory control of the Shannon Navigation was interrupted by the Ministry of Transport Act of 1919, but they have since been acting as agents for the Ministry of Transport, and subsequently for Industry and Commerce. Actually, the Commissioners of Public Works have been doing the work throughout the period.

396. With regard to the heading “Marine Works Act, 1902, Maintenance Fund,” what marine works are maintained out of this fund? — The works maintained out of that fund are works constructed under the 1902 Act and they consist of works at the harbour in Cape Clear, County Cork; Roundstone, Kilronan, Cleggan and Kinvara in County Galway; Gortnasate, Cladnageeragh, Portnoo, Downings Bay and Falcorrib, County Donegal; Liscannor, County Clare; and Renard Point, County Kerry. Those are the works which are maintained. They were originally constructed under the Marine Works Act of 1902 and that Act contains a provision whereby annual contributions towards maintenance are paid into a fund by the County Councils concerned.

397. Deputy Bartley.—Was the Act of limited duration?—It had a limited sum of money at its disposal.

What I mean, Mr. Chairman, is, could a marine work be undertaken at the present time under this Act?—That is a matter in regard to which I have very great doubt from a legal point of view. We examined that matter but I think we arrived at the conclusion that it would not be safe.

VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Diarmuid Ó hÉigceartuigh further examined.

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

“Subhead A—Purchase of Sites and Buildings.

Subhead B—New Works, Alterations and Additions.

The charge to subhead A includes a payment of £11,000 in respect of a deposit on the purchase of premises for use by the Department of External Affairs as an embassy at Paris. The agreed purchase price was £150,000, approximately, and the balance is charged in the account for the year 1954-55.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph is for information only.

399. Chairman.—Paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“The conversion of premises for use as an embassy and ambassador’s residence in London was completed in the year 1953/54. A lease of the premises was acquired in 1950/51 at a cost of £76,028 and expenditure on adaptation and furnishing, including £10,283 charged to subhead B in the year under review, amounted at 31 March, 1954, to £111,795. The adaptations included restoration work arising from war damage in respect of which £9,903 was received from the British War Damage Commission. This amount has been brought to account as an Exchequer extra receipt.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph is for information also.

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

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

Provision was made under this subhead for expenditure of £25,000 and £15,000 on the Corrib-Clare and Nenagh catchment drainage schemes, respectively. The Corrib-Clare scheme, estimated to cost £2,120,000, was confirmed by the Minister for Finance on 7 April, 1954, in accordance with the terms of Section 7 (2) of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. Expenditure on preliminary work amounting to £1,169 is included in the charge to the subhead. No expenditure was incurred during the year on the Nenagh scheme. The balance of the charge, £403,626, 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. The value of services rendered by plant and machinery during the year was assessed at £137,532, the cost of the schemes to 31 March, 1954, being:—

401. Deputy Sheldon.—On that matter, Mr. Chairman, could the witness say how much expenditure he expects to come to account for the Brosna Scheme? — The total cost of the Brosna Scheme is expected to be something like £1,150,000 or £1,180,000.

402. Deputy Sheldon. — Last year, possibly mistakenly, I got the impression that the figure then given indicated practically the end of the payment. Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh at the time said that it was practically finished and that it was very close to the estimate. Since then another 10 per cent. has turned up, another £120,000. That is why I was asking you whether we are now at the absolute finality. I think we were near it last year?—I think we were, but some things that come in course of payment are thrown up late. The Brosna has been virtually completed for quite a while. The Certificate of Completion has not yet been issued but it is in course of issue. Any expenditure up to the date of the Certificate—there is a certain amount of maintenance on the banks and so on— will be charged to this subhead. Subsequent to the issue of the Certificate, it goes on to Maintenance.

403. Deputy A. Barry.—It is virtually maintenance at present? — Actually the expenditure is maintenance but it has to be charged to this subhead, J.2, because the Certificate of Completion has not been issued.

Deputy Sheldon.—The County Council will be delighted if the certificate is not signed too soon.

404. Deputy Bartley. — Would any of these unforeseen payments arise from claims for compensation from land owners who submit claims that their lands were damaged by the works carried out?— Yes, there is an element of compensation in the payments — claims for damage to crops, for accidents to cattle and for water supplies, and other claims contemplated in the Act as being possible.

405. Chairman.—Paragraph 14 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

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

In the course of a test examination of plant records it was noted that a number of excavators and other machines became unserviceable within comparatively short periods of completion of major overhaul and I have asked for information on the matter.”

406. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I inquired as to the reasons for the break down, within short periods of overhaul, of two excavators and three caterpillar tractors. These cases were noted on a test check. I received replies which I regarded as reasonably satisfactory, but I have no technical knowledge to judge them. In the case of the first excavator, I am told that the overhaul was not a major one but that certain minor repairs were necessary to enable it to carry out certain work at Greencastle. The overhaul of the second excavator was completed in November, 1952. It was used in Arklow between January and April, 1954, when it broke down. I am informed that the cause was damage to the main gear wheel, which was probably due to some material falling into the gears in the course of work. Again, a tractor overhauled in January to April, of 1954, was issued to the Feale scheme in May, 1954, and broke down in June, 1954. I am informed that the break down was due to seizure of a bearing which had been fitted too tightly on overhaul. The makers of this machine had amended the specification of clearance for the bearing without informing the Office of Public Works. A tractor, the overhaul of which had been completed in July, 1954, was used on the Feale scheme in August and September of that year, when it broke down. I am informed that this breakdown was due to a failing of the hydraulic oil pump and that the overhaul referred to was not a general one. In the case of the third tractor, the overhaul referred to was completed in April, 1954, and it was transferred to the Feale scheme in June, 1954. The starting engine broke down immediately and was returned to the workshops. The main engine was started by towing until July, 1954, when it broke down due to a cracked cylinder head not discovered during overhaul.

Deputy A. Barry.—I suppose they are a normal kind of thing, although it seems to be a considerable list?

407. Deputy O’Hara.—What is the cost of the excavators as distinct from the tractors? — The 701 excavator, the first one mentioned, originally cost £3,600. The second, 802, cost £4,900. Those costs go back a long distance and replacement would be heavier now.

408. Deputy Sheldon. — Can you get parts for the 802 now more freely?—A difficulty with the 802 at the moment is the engine. We are finding it very difficult to get the makers to supply parts that will fit the machine. They have made several efforts to supply some of the parts and they have not been successful.

409. Deputy O’Hara. — Is it in your own workshops that the repairs are carried out that are referred to there?— These repairs referred to here were carried out in our own workshops.

410. Deputy O’Hara.—I would like to know if the Accounting Officer feels that it is due to the lack of experience of our staffs that this thing has arisen. My reason for saying this is that it is the general belief that many of the people we employ in excavation work in this country are not as experienced as those across the water, due to the fact that we do not pay them a proper rate of wages or a rate of wages comparable with the rate across the water. I am of the opinion that a good lot of this breakdown is due to a lack of greasing, lack of proper and timely maintenance and eventually the repairs become more expensive to do. Is the Accounting Officer satisfied that the type of men we employ on this work are up to the standard we require in order to give us an efficient return?—All I can say is that the standard is improving.

That is encouraging, in itself?—I think I told this Committee several times before that there has been a great shortage of skilled operatives and that is particularly so in the country. We have to train the excavator drivers. It is difficult to establish how far difficulties might arise from rather rough handling on the ground in the course of excavation. It is true that in the drainage work we have been doing, we have run up against a greater proportion of hard excavating material such as rock and boulder clay, than has been anticipated or than is usual, I gather, in other countries. There is no doubt that the standard of the excavator drivers and the standard of the fitters at the work is improving. I am myself of opinion that the first overhaul on the 701 the subject of the first question, was not satisfactory; that it is, I believe, a satisfactory machine but the first overhaul was not a good one.

411. Deputy Bartley.—Have the Commissioners any information as to the experience in this respect of commercial public works contractors?—We have not, but actually the works they do are not very strictly comparable with most of our drainage work, which is much more racking on machines.

412. Deputy A. Barry.—On the face of it, I think that is reasonable. It is a rough job and something has to give and it keeps on giving more in this job than in any other.

413. Deputy O’Hara.—Not necessarily. Is there any incentive for the men in charge of such machinery—which is rather costly and valuable machinery—to maintain their machines in good condition? Is there any recommendation in the matter of promotion or otherwise, or any financial reward. I think that is the practice across the water, that there is an incentive there.

Deputy Bartley.—If you try that, I am afraid you will be making a case for dispensing with those who do not earn the bonus.

414. Deputy Sheldon.—Even so. Some of them are working on £43,000 machines. Is overtime permitted? — Limited overtime, yes.

I understand that is one of the difficulties. I understand that the basic pay across the water is lower than the basic pay here, but the permission for extensive overtime means that a man can earn very much more in the week, as well as the bonus system given by big contractors. Admittedly, my own view would be that any scheme which would bring overtime into it could become very difficult from the organising point of view and the question of proper control would be a difficult one, with the lack of profit motive, because it could be possible to go slow in such a way that overtime would be inevitable and that might lead to great difficulties. May I say, in fairness to the Department, that the evidence certainly so far as the number of machines in for overhaul in the workshop is concerned, shows that the position has improved very much. In last May, out of 128 excavators only 23 were in fact in the workshop and of those five were completed and sent back to work in that month. That shows on the face of it that the position is very much better than it was?—That is so.

415. Deputy O’Hara.—I do not want to be throwing mud all round, but I think there is not sufficient incentive to our men, where we get good men, to make it worth their while to see to this. It is very valuable machinery and I recognise the fact that there is an improvement.

416. Chairman.—In the normal course, how frequently do the machines require major overhaul? — I think the original calculation was that after about three and a half years, they would require their first major overhaul.

417. Deputy A. Barry.—How does that fit in with experience?—So far, it has not been very far out. You run into cases where machines do much more work than they were expected to do in the three and a half years before they fall due for overhaul, but then you run against the unlucky machine, as you may run against an unlucky car. The 802 was an unlucky machine from that point of view. I do not know much about cars, but I think the 802 dates from 1947 which they say was a bad car year, too.

418. Chairman.—What is the machines’ normal working life?—We estimate ten years working for 40 weeks out of the 52, but the probabilities are that the life is greater than that. We have not gone through the full cycle. The main bulk of machines was purchased round about 1950—in one way or another—and they have only served a five-year period, so we do not know how accurate our estimates will be.

419. Were all your machines purchased from the one country or had you to go to different countries for them?—No. Prior to 1947 or 1948, all our machines—they were all practically Ruston Bucyrus machines — were purchased across the water in England. Deliveries became impossible and you could not get excavators from England about the time we were trying to start the Brosna — certainly not under a delivery period of two to three years. We could not get them from any other delivery country about that time, but very shortly after, in 1948, the market opened and we got a number of machines from the United States. We have Marions and Limas— they are the two main United States machines — and we have a number of English machines of various sizes, such as the Ruston Bucyrus and the Ransome Rapier in the bigger sizes and the Priestman, Smith and the Ruston Bucyrus in smaller sizes.

420. Deputy Sheldon. — How old are the Priestmans? — I am not absolutely sure, but I think they are a comparatively recent purchase, about 1950.

The reason I ask is that the plant number of the machine gives a fair indication of the number actually held by the Board of Works. My information is that in May last there were 20 Priestman-Wolfs, but I see that the numbers now run up to 27. I wonder was it that they were old and some were disposed of?—I do not think so.

421. Deputy O’Hara.—Take the case of a man working one of these excavators. Is he only responsible for its maintenance or who looks after its maintenance? Does somebody inspect it and say that certain repairs should be carried out? Does the man work without any technical advice? —There is a machine foreman who advises in the case of the smaller districts and in the more important districts we have a mechanical engineer on the staff to look after machines in a general way. There are mechanical foremen to advise the drivers and to see that their machines are properly looked after.

422. The mechanical foreman in that case is an important man, from the point of view of the machines. It would be his duty to detect any trouble brewing, so to speak, and have it corrected before the man would perhaps wreck the whole machine. Are you satisfied that these mechanical foremen whom you have in your employment are competent to do that work?—So far as I know.

423. How are they recruited?—They are fitters who have been proved capable of looking after the work for the most part. They are industrial staff.

424. Deputy Sheldon. — When we are on the subject of this machinery, I should like to ask Mr. O’Hegarty if he could give any indication of the average number of excavators and so on at work. I have the total figure of machines held by the Board of Works and I know how many were in for repair in May last and also in the year of account, 1953, but that does not necessarily mean that all those not in for repair are working?— Of the total of 128 machines, 107 are out on drainage schemes and 5 are engaged on various marine works, which makes 112. Then there are 16 at the central engineering workshops, of which a certain number—I think, 3—are finished. The others are undergoing repair.

425. Mr. O’Hegarty will be aware that I was asking questions about the use of the Marion machines which are very expensive, costing £43,000 each, and the Minister did not see his way to furnish some of the information. Naturally, that makes me even more suspicious. I cannot very well ask Mr. O’Hegarty to produce information which the Minister has already refused — I do not think that would be fair — but seeing that it has arisen, I should like to ask the Department of Finance if they have examined the log sheets of these Marion machines and if they are satisfied that they are being fully and properly used, taking into account the capital involved.

Mr. Breathnach.—No such examination has been requested by us, Deputy.

426. Deputy Sheldon. — Could Mr. Ó Cadhla say if his Department has examined the log sheets of these machines?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I am afraid I could not answer offhand, but I am almost certain they have been examined.

427. Deputy Sheldon. — It will be appreciated that I am only asking this because naturally I am bound to be slightly suspicious when the Minister says it is not desirable to produce the log sheets. I want to know from what point of view does the undesirability arise, and I take it it would not be fair to ask Mr. O’Hegarty to produce something which the Minister had refused. I am not quite sure of my rights in the matter, but it does strike me that if there is anything suspicious about it, it should be examined by the Department of Finance, and by the Audit Office.

428. Deputy O’Hara. — Would it be advisable to have some efficiency experts brought in on this whole scheme?

Deputy O’Hara.—I appreciate that it is rather difficult for Mr. O’Hegarty to answer questions that are highly technical, but I am personally of the opinion that you could reach a much higher standard of efficiency if the thing were properly organised and there were some experts on the work.

429. Chairman. — The only question appears to be the publication of the information for which Deputy Sheldon asked in his questions and I do not know if the broader issue, though efficiency would come in to it, arises.

Deputy A. Barry.—It is the heart and soul of it.

Chairman. — It is not within our province here to advocate it.

430. Deputy Sheldon. — There are two points I should like to make. From Mr. O’Hegarty’s story, we are already aware that the organisation of the engineering side is not very satisfactory. I should like to know if he thinks the Board of Works is being pushed into undertaking more work than it can properly supervise and possibly even that it is purchasing more machines than it can efficiently supervise?—As regards the first question, I do not think I am entitled to give an answer. With regard to the second, we are not being pushed into buying more machines than we can properly supervise —not at the moment, anyhow; but there is an aspect which may be what the Deputy wants to get at — whether the Lima machines and the machines of that size will have work available for them continuously. The answer is: No; they will not. As the work progresses, there may be intervals of years—a year or two years—when there would be no work for the bigger machines. These machines, however, were required for certain jobs. The economy of buying them is not confined to the use of the machine. It is the rate of progress at which the use of them enabled the scheme to be proceeded with and the fact that they did eliminate very serious double handling jobs which would otherwise arise. Some of those jobs we could not do at all with smaller machines, but some we could at a very considerable expenditure of time and money in double handling. The purchase of the big machines, in other words, is not justified on the basis alone of having continuous work for them.

Deputy Sheldon.—That is an interesting point, but it is not really what I was thinking of. The two questions I asked were really inter-related, because where you find that it has not been possible to develop an administrative machine which is satisfactory to the Department to handle what is being done—I was probably wrong in asking Mr. O’Hegarty for his views as to whether that meant they had been taking on more schemes than they had the organisation to meet, but I appreciate that it is hardly a question he can answer.

431. Deputy A. Barry.—Except in this way that if there is any evidence of strain within the Department because of this great accession of work to the Department, it is only right that in this place we should get our minds cleared about it because that becomes inefficiency, obviously, after a while.

Chairman. — I think the Accounting Officer has given a fair summary of it.

Deputy A. Barry. — He did not deal with that matter at all — whether the machinery of the Department is able to stand up to this extra work. Is it sufficient?

Chairman.—Of course, that would be a matter to raise in the House later on.

Deputy Sheldon. — I raised it in the House but I did not get any answer. That is why I am asking Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.

Deputy A. Barry.—We will all be better informed.

432. Chairman.—The question involves a matter of procedure—that is, would the Department require technical experts? I think that comes under procedure.

433. Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh. — The only thing I can say in answer to the Deputy’s question is that nobody working in the workshops or in the office generally has a moment’s leisure.

Deputy A. Barry. — So that, at least, you are at full pressure?—Yes.

434. Deputy O’Hara.—If one of these excavators is held up for a day due to a breakdown, does it follow that any man working on the machine or connected with the machine is knocked off work or are they paid? For instance, will the driver receive his pay all the time if the machine is idle?

Deputy A. Barry.—Are the men idle if the machine is idle?

Deputy O’Hara.—Yes, and do they get paid?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh. — That question raises a number of points. In fact, I do not think anybody has been laid off—any driver—has been laid off because of a machine being out of action. There is always work for him to do, I think, but I would not like to say that a man would be paid for being idle because he would not. I do not think a case has arisen.

Deputy O’Hara. — They would try to provide alternative work while the machine is laid off?—Yes.

Deputy Sheldon.—It might be a good idea to lay off if Deputy O’Hara is suspicious about this because laying off is a sort of reverse bonus that would ensure the man would keep his machine going.

435. Chairman.—With regard to subhead A of the Vote—Purchase of Sites and Buildings—the relevant note shows a large amount for a site for a Garda barracks.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh. — That is Crumlin?

Chairman.—Yes—£2,400.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—Of course, it is in the city. It was part of Dublin Corporation property. It was bought from the Corporation. The price of land in Dublin is much higher than it would be in the country. It is, moreover, not an ordinary Garda station; it is a district headquarters.

436. Chairman. — Under subhead B— New Works, Alterations and Additions— the Committee has been furnished with a tabular statement of expenditure on New Works, Alterations and Additions, 1953/54.* There is reference throughout the statement to expenditure on a number of luncheon clubs and restaurants. How are these clubs operating? — They are run by committees of the staff of the Departments concerned. The State provides certain facilities. It provides accommodation; it provides fuel; it provides certain cooking utensils and certain table necessities such as dishes and so on, but the actual management is carried out by committees of the staff.

437. Item No. 5 on the statement is Waterford Government Offices—Erection, and item No. 131 is Waterford—New Employment Exchange. Are these separate buildings?—Yes. The Government offices building includes a telephone exchange, Revenue Commissioners offices and, before it is finished, will also include buildings for the Post Office other than the telephone exchange.

438. Item No. 8 in the statement is the office of Public Works—New Central Engineering Workshop and Stores. What is the nature of this work?—It consists of a very large number of proposals, such as the provision of gantries, the provision of loading bays, gate-house, gates for entry by machines etc. The original figure provided for certain schemes that are now dropped. The object generally is to provide larger accommodation for staff, cycle sheds, gate house, stores, all sorts of additions to the sheds which, when taken over, were really a bare hall.

Is this not the workshop you rented from C.I.E.?—It is, yes.

The estimate for this in 1952-53 was only £30,500. What is the cause of the increase to £128,000?—Because at that time there was a number of big projects dictated by staff requirements and by the expansion of the work to be carried out there. Some of that expenditure will not now be undertaken because, instead of providing, by new building, accommodation for certain staff and workmen, an adjoining building has been rented and that will render it unnecessary to proceed with quite a number of the items that are included in the £128,000.

439. What is the annual rent?— £13,500 for the original stores and for the new building the rent is £1,750.

In respect of item No. 16, in the statement — Dún Laoghaire Harbour — Additional Customs and Sanitary Accommodation—the expenditure seems very high. Does it include anything besides customs and sanitary accommodation?—That £36,000 includes the new extension along the pier on the east side which was designed to enable two ships to be at the pier at the same time. It was a temporary method of dealing with the travel difficulties that were experienced at peak times owing to a shortage of accommodation at the pier.

440. Deputy O’Hara.—Has it proved to be a satisfactory solution to the problem? —So far as the pier is concerned, it has. Of course, it is only temporary. It will not last forever. It has served its purpose to a considerable extent.

441. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to item No. 15—Buncrana Harbour— Improvements, I notice it says “project partly completed.” The expenditure however is only £475, whereas the estimate was £1,050. What exactly does the note mean which says that the project is partly completed? Is it not intended to go on with the full scheme?—The scheme, as far as I recollect, consisted of two parts. One was the provision of wave screens. The other was the diversion of the stream flowing into the harbour. One of these was done. It was done by the Harbour Commissioners. The £475 represents the grant paid in respect of the partially completed scheme. They have since, I think, completed the other work. Whether it was the precise original work, or not, I am not in a position to say but I understand that the question of paying them the balance of that is now under consideration.

442. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the general question of these total estimates, item No. 39—Electric Lighting and Equipment for the Munster Institute—I take it that these total estimates are made in a very general way. I see the note reads “awaiting plan and specification.” I would have thought you would have got the plan and the specification before you were able to give the estimate? —That is peculiar to the Munster Institute. There was involved in that particular case the question of bringing in the Electricity Supply Board supply instead of a generator. The original estimate was made a very long time ago. The work has been done, as far as I know, in parts from year to year. I am not quite sure whether that item 39 refers to an isolated item or not. The work on the Munster Institute of bringing in the electric supply was started quite a number of years ago. It was put into the Superintendent’s house and into some of the offices, and there is still a number of other places, such as the laundry, into which the new lighting has not yet been put.

In previous years there was quite a large amount under the Munster Institute. The Department of Agriculture had an estimate of £72,000. It seems to have disappeared now from this list and instead there is this small sum dealing only with electric light and equipment. I think what Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh is speaking about is the old item, the improved accommodation?—The £72,000 is at No. 40 of the Schedule. I am not quite certain what the position is in regard to No. 39, whether it is part of an old item or whether it is a new one. I would have to look that up. As I said, the original installation in the Munster Institute was done piecemeal and this may be a special provision referring to some other part of the old building.

I was not really asking about this to know what exactly happened. It was just that on the general question of the preparation of an estimate I see that the note says: “Awaiting plan and specification.” I would have thought that you would arrive at an estimate after the plan and specification had been made?—We do, but in order to get the matter decided in principle we obtain a rough estimate based on a sketch plan in the first instance; that is the first figure sent in on which the Department of Finance decide in principle whether the work will go on or not. If they decide in principle that it should proceed the working drawings and specification are prepared in due course and the estimate is revised if necessary.

443. Chairman.—With regard to item No. 38—Johnstown Castle—Adaptations and Renovations—I note the total estimate for this work was £55,000 in 1948/ 49. What is the cause of the increase to £146,000?—The building was an extremely deceptive one. It looked a very fine building and it was not until we commenced the renovations that we discovered there was a lot of very inferior work in it and that there was also concealed dry rot which was very widespread and caused an enormous amount of trouble. Then the requirements were altered from the original requirements. The main trouble was that the original building was very largely a jerry-built job, although it dates back a very long time, and that there was very serious dry rot in it.

Will it take long more to finish the work?—Most of the work is finished there.

Deputy Sheldon. — Could Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh say if the building was inspected before it was purchased?

444. Deputy A. Barry.—It was given to us?—Yes, it was a presentation.

Chairman.—With regard to item No. 43—Fishery etc. Harbours: Dredging Operations—where are these operations being carried out?—The dredging operation in that year referred to Dingle.

445. Deputy Bartley.—On the general question of dredging operations I see on page 21 of the Appropriation Accounts under the heading Appropriations in Aid, that in relation to item No. 4—Hire of plant—the estimate is £29,000.

Chairman.—We will come to that later.

Deputy Bartley.—But I am dealing with one to which you yourself have referred.

Chairman.—Dredging operations.

Deputy Bartley.—Yes and associated with that is item No. 4 in the Appropriations in Aid. The estimate is £29,000 and the amount realised was £11,377. There is practically a third reduction; and in the operations carried out by the Commissioners £4,000 worth of work out of an estimated £21,000 was done. There was a falling off in the direct operations of the Commissioners and also in work done by bodies to whom plant would be hired. Is there any special explanation of the falling off of this class of work in the year under notice?—Actually there is a special reason for the Dingle business. The estimate was framed on a wrong basis. The estimate was framed on the basis that the hire charge of the dredger would be charged to Subhead B 43 and recovered in Appropriations in Aid. Actually it is a case where between one subhead and another no hire charge would be made. Therefore, the estimate of £21,000 is £13,000 too high because of the mistake in the original estimate for works.

Deputy Sheldon.—That would also affect item No. 4 in the Appropriations in Aid?—Yes, because there was a corresponding credit there.

446. Deputy Bartley.—On the major works still under consideration, has the Cork survey been completed?—The survey has been completed but I am almost certain the report has not yet come to hand.

It is now a year and a half since it was undertaken. I take it the survey was completed some considerable time ago?— This survey falls into two categories. There is, first of all, a general reconnaissance of the area with a view to enabling the Committee in charge to pick one or more centres for more detailed survey.

Then I take it what is happening is that the engineers have completed their work; it is the Committee that has not done its job of selection?—I would not like to say that. I am not very familiar with it but I think the position is that the Committee did request a detailed survey of one or two of the possibilities suggested by the reconnaissance in order to enable them to consider the matter further. The report of that survey is nearing completion but I do not think it has yet been furnished.

447. Chairman.—On item No. 53 in the statement—Gárda Síochána Barracks (to be specified) New Works, Alterations and Additions—£96,000 was provided and you spent £7,000. What happened that you spent so little of the amount provided?— At a period round about this time or somewhat before it, there was an inquiry into the method of Garda administration throughout the country, and the erection of new stations was held up for quite a while. The point is that while sites were available and work could be proceeded with, as the matter of administrative organisation was under consideration by the Department of Justice the work did not go on.

448. Under item No. 62—National Schools, Grants for Building, Enlarging, etc.—the sum estimated was £730,000 and £1 million was spent. You spent considerably more than was estimated in this case?—That is a very difficult figure to estimate. One knows in a general way at the time one prepares the estimate what schools are likely to be in progress during the period but one does not know with any great accuracy, even in respect of the schools the Board themselves are building, how soon contracts can be started. In the case of schools undertaken by managers, which are the larger schools and in this particular period these would be mainly schools in the new housing areas, it is impossible to forecast the rate of progress. The expenditure on these schools in the particular year in question will be seen when I say that the schools built by the Commissioners of Public Works represented only about £340,000 of the total expenditure. Expenditure in relation to those built by managers represented about £730,000. Of course, that varies from year to year. It happened that during that particular year there were some very big schools under way in Dublin and they progressed with greater rapidity than it was originally contemplated they would. I think I said on a previous occasion that it is very difficult to estimate the cost from year to year because there are many circumstances outside the control of the Commissioners, which affect expenditure.

449. Items Nos. 89 to 104 in the statement deal with new post offices. Number 26 of the notes at the end of Vote No. 9 states that you charged over £44,000 to the Telephone Capital Account. On what basis do you divide the cost of these buildings?—That is not a very easy question to answer because it is not entirely within the control of the Commissioners. The Post Office comes into it too. Generally speaking, in the case of a building which comprises a telephone exchange and a post office the cost would be divided as between telephone capital and this Vote in proportion to the volume of the building used for the various purposes.

450. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Under item No. 99—Killarney New Telephone Exchange and Garage—does the note “suspended” mean that the work is suspended indefinitely or only temporarily?—Not necessarily. It means that the Posts and Telegraphs people are reexamining their proposals in the light of some developments in auto-manual exchange practice. In that case we are waiting for a decision by the Post Office.

451. Chairman.—With regard to item No. 117—Baldonnel Camp—Hard Surface Runways—I notice that paragraph 98 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report states that the land was purchased out of the Defence Vote?—The Department of Defence does its own purchasing of land. If any extra land were required to be purchased there, it would be purchased by the Department of Defence and not by us.

452. Who is carrying out this work; is it yourselves or the Department of Defence?—Actually it is being carried out on our behalf by the Department of Industry and Commerce; they are the airport experts. We pay for the work, but it is being carried out by the Department of Industry and Commerce, by the engineers in charge of the airport section of that Department.

453. Therefore we have three Departments involved in it—Defence, Finance and Industry and Commerce. Under what type of contract is the work being carried out?—It is under a lump sum contract so far as I know. But, as I say, the contract is made by the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is a Department of Industry and Commerce contract; they act as agents for us in the matter.

Deputy Sheldon.—If it is a lump sum contract it is something new for an airport?

Deputy A. Barry.—Why?

Deputy Sheldon.—Because they are always on a cost plus basis?—This is the extending of and concreting of runways.

That type of work has been done on a cost plus basis. The Committee has been complaining about that for some time?

Deputy Bartley.—Cost plus what?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—I am nearly certain it is a lump sum contract. I can look it up, if you like.

Deputy Sheldon.—It will probably arise on the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Chairman.—Would you send us a note on that?—I will, certainly.*

454. Under item No. 125—Haulbowline Dockyard, New Jetty—I notice that this work was completed. Is this the total cost, £81,000?—It is very close to it. There may have been some payments made in the subsequent year, but the £81,000 is close to the completion total. I am not absolutely certain as to whether it is the full payment. In fact, it is not the full payment; I remember now there were payments in subsequent years.

455. You had some trouble with this project. Does the jetty provide the full depth of water planned?—Yes, we had a very considerable amount of difficulty with this. The original plan provided for three sets of piles upon which the jetty would stand. By reason of difficulties experienced in the placing of the outer line of piles, the contract was altered, and the jetty was finished at the second line of piles.

Deputy A. Barry.—In shallower water? —In shallower water, yes.

456. Chairman.—Item No. 135 deals with Urgent and Unforeseen Works. What type of surveys were these and for what purpose were they carried out?—Those are urgent and unforeseen works. There is a list of them at Page 11 of the statement; it starts with the decoration of Government Buildings for the Tostal.

Under item No. 136—Minor Balances of Expenditure on Works of Prior Years etc.—in the details of this under the heading of the Department of Justice there is an item, Garda Siochana: Headquarters—Transfer to Depot. I take it those men were previously housed in Kilmainham?—That is correct; that is the transfer from Kilmainham to the Depot.

The premises in Kilmainham are now vacant?—Yes.

457. Under subhead C.—Maintenance and Supplies—you retain a large pool of labour for these works?—We have certain workshops in Dublin. We have a small workshop in Cork and a few men employed in Limerick; but, otherwise, the works are mainly done by contract.

458. Under subhead FF.—Emergency Fuel Stores—what is your system of purchasing fuel?—Fuel is purchased by contract, but this subhead arises in the main out of the fact that you cannot get handwon turf all the year round, and handwon turf was used in this particular year in open fires in Dublin. In order to ensure there would be a supply, we had to buy turf in bulk in July and August and store it in a dump in Dublin from which it was reissued. This subhead was opened to deal with turf that was bought not for immediate allocation to any particular Department but as a general stock to be issued to Departments when the necessity arose. Any balance remaining unissued at the end of the year was a charge against subhead FF.

459. Under subhead J.1 — Arterial Drainage — Surveys — have you many surveys in hands at the moment?—We have. We have the Suck, the Deele and Swillyburn; we have a survey in progress also in Wexford on the Ballyteigue and Cahore. That is all we have in progress at the moment but of course survey parties will come in now for design work during the winter. The subhead includes in addition to river surveys the hydrometric survey which is general to the entire country.

460. Do you carry out surveys for other Departments also?—We do. We do surveys for the Department of Agriculture particularly.

461. Under the subhead J.4—River Fergus Drainage—what is the position of the Fergus drainage scheme at the moment?—It is completed.

462. Deputy Sheldon.—Under subhead K.1 which, deals with the Purchase of Engineering plant and Machinery—to be quite honest I am not quite sure whether it was paid for in the year under review or in a previous year—I am interested in this new crankshaft regrinding machine for the workshop. I have been asking questions about it in the House. Why was that purchased; what was the necessity for getting such a machine?— Because we found it impossible to get crankshafts reground. There was no outside firm in Dublin at the time capable of regrinding crankshafts of the type or to the fineness we required.

My main concern is that the amount of work it is doing is not very impressive considering its price.

Deputy O’Hara. — It is a highly specialised job I expect.

Deputy Sheldon.—On the contrary. It does all the work itself. It is one of those new-fangled machines on which you press a button. I suppose that is why it costs so much. It is very easy to operate it in comparison with the normal type of machine?—It requires a well-skilled man.

463. Did you have much trouble procuring the services of the skilled operative?—We had a little but not much. We got one or two applications and I think we were able to get a man for that post who was quite satisfactory.

464. Does he also operate the cylindrical grinder?—He did at one time at any rate and he probably still does.

465. What precisely does the cylindrical grinder do, what is the difference between the work it does and the work the crankshaft regrinder does?—I could not tell you. I do not know.

Deputy O’Hara.—I think it rebores and probably does sleeving work.

Deputy Sheldon.—I thought it worked from the inside rather than polished the outside. That is what I understood; I have heard some talk about its polishing shafts. I understand from somebody who knows something about these things that it did the inside of a cylinder rather than the outside.

Deputy O’Hara.—Perhaps it does both sides of the cylinder?—I am entirely innocent of knowledge of the work done by a machine of that type.

466. Deputy A. Barry.—Under subhead K.3—Central Engineering Workshop and Stores—could you say if the stocktaking position is more satisfactory now than it has been?—It is. The original stocktaking was finished in 1954. Since then there have been quite a number of spot checks and they have shown that the transactions since then are being satisfactorily recorded.

In other words, the items are being found in the stocks? That is so.

467. Deputy Sheldon.—I should like to raise this question of the convenient checking of plant in the engineering workshop by means of keeping a filing system. When the Committee visited the workshop my recollection is that it was possible quickly to look at a chart on the wall and see where a particular piece of plant was, then to go to the files and be able quickly to get a history of the repairs and overhauls of that machine. I am afraid I have been taken aback completely in that regard as a result of answers I got to questions in the House. I was then given to understand that it would mean wading through thousands of dockets. I should like to know how far the system, which appeared to me to be put into operation for having readily available a complete history of every piece of machinery in a file, which certainly would not mean going through thousands of dockets, how far that system has gone or is it intended to pursue it?—I do not quite get what the replies to the Deputy’s questions were. Do they refer to machinery in the field?

468. I was trying to have a differentiation made between the minor and the major pieces of machinery and the reply I got to my question was that the histories of the machines were not easily ascertainable because of the necessity of going through thousands of dockets. My impression of the position was that a system had been devised by which the history of each machine had been faithfully recorded and that information of each movement of a certain machine in and out of the workshop was easily available from the files, having first looked at a chart on the wall. I was rather taken aback by the reply I got to the effect that it would be necessary to go through thousands of dockets because, as I say, I had understood that a simple system had been put into operation. The system I had in mind would give a complete history of the movement of each piece of machinery?—There are two types of record kept. One contains in a file the mechanical history of a machine and I think that is the type of file that the Deputy is thinking of but that system did not start until 1953 and anything that went before that is not recorded in detail but will ultimately come in on the financial record of the machine which will also be prepared. It might come in inaccurately in the former record but they are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of inspection. Owing to the staffing position the recording of the financial history of the machines has not been compiled in book form. The books are there but they are in arrears. The difficulty, if I understand the question which arose, would have reference to the situation prior to 1953. As I say I am speaking without the book. I do not know precisely what the parliamentary question was.

469. All I want to be satisfied on is that a system will be in operation by which all this large amount of plant, whose value runs into something over £1,000,000, should be faithfully recorded so that there will be a complete check on the administrative side as far as each machine is concerned?—That will be done but it is pretty well in arrear at the moment. We are looking for staff to deal with it, but there is a shortage of clerical staff at the moment.

470. Chairman.—Is the workshop fully equipped yet? — It is practically fully equipped to meet any emergency contemplated at the moment.

471. Chairman.—Under item No. 4 in the Appropriations-in-Aid—Hire of Plant —what plant is hired out?

Deputy Bartley.—That is the dredger question I referred to a while ago.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—Yes, that is dredgers as the Deputy says.

472. Deputy Bartley.—Under item No. 7 in the Appropriations-in-Aid—Lettings of sporting, fishing rights, etc. — how many separate items approximately do the Commissioners administer? It is listed in the explanations at the foot of the page, woodcock and rough shooting and deerstalking. These two are in the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park,* but that only accounts for £110? — That is the whole realisation.

When the estimated figure is given as £307, I took it you had other items besides this Park?—No. It was still in the Park; it was the fishing letting, but the agreement had not been concluded and the money was not paid within the year.

I see.

473. Chairman.—With regard to item No. 1 of the Appropriations-in-Aid— Rents and fines—there is a statement furnished concerning the compilation of property rentals.** This work is going on for a number of years?—Yes.

Have all properties held by the Board been dealt with? — The examination definitely has been very slow but it has been completed in nine counties: Carlow, Cavan, Clare, Kildare, Louth, Offaly, Roscommon, Waterford and Wicklow. It is in progress in Galway, Laoighis, Longford, Sligo, Dublin, Donegal and Cork. It has been very slow because of the difficulty of retaining surveyor staff. It is apparently a job that people do not like to get stuck into and stay at, and we had a very large number of changes of personnel. The work gets held up also if there is a vacancy in our general service class or a vacancy in the solicitor’s office. I think I gave figures in a recent statement as to the total number of properties which had been completed. I think it runs into something like 700 properties, which would be something less than one-third of the total. Dublin and Cork present very great difficulties and occasion grave delay. Take an institution like Dublin Castle. You may have it held under various titles and the clearing of all those has to be done before you can take the whole property on record, so that it is a slow process but it is proceeding.

474. “Sales of Farm and Garden Produce” also come into the estate of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park?—Yes.

Deputy Sheldon. — I presume that the tractor which was the subject of discussion by the last Committee was struck out?—It was dealt with. It had not come into course of payment and therefore was not brought in as a cash transaction in the previous year but it had gone on store charge. It was a pity we did not make a note of that at the time; it would have saved a lot of trouble.

475. With regard to item No. 21 in the notes at the end of the Vote concerning equipment taken over from the Land Rehabilitation Project to a total value of £8,611: that, I take it, does not include the six famous excavators?—No.

They never got as far as the Land Project really?—No. That is right.

Are those excavators—just as a matter of curiosity—of real benefit? Have they proved to be a useful type to the Commissioners? — Yes. They are the same type as we use on our own works.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix VIII.

* Note by witness: I wish to confirm that the contract was for a fixed sum.

* See Appendix IX.

** See Appendix X.