Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1956 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1954 - 1955

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 11 Deireadh Fómhair, 1956.

Thursday, 11th October, 1956.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY CARTER in the chair.

Mr. C. O’Neill (Secretary and Director of Audit), Mr. M. Breathnach and Mr. C. J. Byrnes (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 8—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. D. Ó hÉigceartuigh called and examined.

405. Chairman.—Subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—shows a saving of over £55,000. The note says it is due to difficulties in recruiting professional staff and to unfilled vacancies. Are these vacancies left unfilled for any particular reason?—They are mainly due to the fact that the staff could not be got. For the most part, they are engineers and architects. The candidature was not sufficient to fill the vacancies. A certain proportion of the saving arose from the fact that there were lump sum provisions for extra staff in the Estimate and that the actual numbers of staff to be authorised had not been settled in time to enable recruitment to take place. However, that was not the main cause. The main cause was difficulties of recruitment. Of course, there are always some casual vacancies arising through retirals, and so on.

406. Deputy Sheldon.—The whole way through Votes 8 and 9 you can see, all the time, that the shortage of engineering staff has been a great problem. Has it tended to solve itself or are you still in difficulties?—At the moment, we are 22 engineers and 2 draughtsmen short but the recruitment is in progress. There is always a shortage. There is a very considerable tendency on the part of younger men to leave.

Is there much trouble with young men coming out and taking a temporary job with the Office of Public Works just to get experience and then going off?— There is quite a good deal of that too.

407. Chairman.—Are you ever able to get back any of the experienced men from abroad?—No. They do not come back to us. They may go to the Colonies and settle down there.

408. With regard to subhead C.— Incidental Expenses—the note says that the expenditure on technical equipment and on incidental supplies was greater than expected. Nevertheless, is it not peculiar that you have difficulty in recruiting professional staff?—The position in regard to technical equipment is that certain levels which had been ordered and which were supposed to be paid for in the previous year did not arrive in time and came for payment in 1954-55.

409. I take it that all the expenditure would apply to technical equipment?— Yes. It would all be technical equipment of one kind or another—chains, levels, and so forth.

I presume that that would be due to the drainage programme?—Yes.

410. Subhead E. relates to Appropriations in Aid. This is not normal Government accounting as I see that expenditure charged to Vote 8 is also charged to Votes 9, 10, 27 and 51. What is the reason in these instances? — Generally speaking, subhead A. of Vote 8 bears the charges of salaries for all engineering staff and similarly subhead B. carries the travelling expenses. When engineers are employed on work such as drainage schemes or on works which, in the main, are paid for out of other Votes, the cost of the salaries and travelling expenses is recouped from the other Votes and is brought in as an Appropriation in Aid to Vote 8. It is quite usual in this Vote. That has been the practice for very many years.

411. Then presumably the Estimates would be framed on that basis?—Yes.

412. Deputy Bartley.—I take it that recoupment applies in respect of permanent established staff?—That is mainly right but we have a certain number of staff who, strictly speaking, are not established. If they are paid for out of Vote 8 and happen to be employed on these particular jobs, their salaries will be charged just as if they were established.

VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. D. Ó hÉigceartuigh further examined.

413. Chairman.—Paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions

10. Reference was made in paragraph 15 of the report on the accounts for the year 1944-45 to the presentation of Johnstown Castle and Demesne, Co. Wexford, as a gift to the Nation for the purposes of a lay agricultural college and to the acceptance of the gift in accordance with the provisions of the Johnstown Castle Agricultural College Act, 1945. It was estimated in 1946 that the cost of adaptation and renovation of the premises in order to implement the conditions of the gift would amount to £40,000. Adaptations additional to those originally envisaged became necessary and the expenditure to 31 March, 1955, amounted to £139,214. During the progress of the work it was discovered that the building was infested with dry rot and contracts for its elimination are still being carried out. It appeared that certain adaptations were rendered ineffective by the existence of the infestation and I have inquired as to the cost of reinstatement.”

Mr. O’Neill.—The scheme for the eradication of dry rot involved disturbance of certain adaptation works which had been carried out. We were informed that the cost of disturbance and reinstatement would amount to about £4,800. Whether or not that could have been avoided, I cannot say.

414. Chairman. — According to the paragraph, a sum of £139,214 was expended to 31st March, 1955. How much of the sum would be attributable to the eradication of dry rot?—The total expenditure on dry rot is estimated at £31,616.

415. What is the present position regarding the eradication of dry rot there? — That figure of £31,616 includes a sum of £5,000 for works that had not been done in March last but some, of course, have been done since. The trouble about the building is that originally it was regarded as sound from its external appearance. The first adaptations were, in the main, for the purpose of making the place habitable for a very limited number of students. Those adaptations were practically completed before any dry rot was discovered. A certain outbreak was found. It was confined and dealt with and the students went into occupation of the building. After a period of something less than a year it was discovered that dry rot had broken out in other places. It is very unlikely now that there will be any further major outbreaks because the timber has been replaced by reinforced concrete. However, there have been recent manifestations that there are one or two centres of infection. One of these is in portion of the main building, which probably will not present very much difficulty, and the other is in one of the wings. I cannot say definitely whether or not the £5,000 estimated to be the further expenditure likely to be incurred will prove sufficient but I do not think it will be very much exceeded.

416. Would it not have been cheaper at the outset to commence a new building? It seems strange that engineers would pass a building for alterations or reconstruction which was infested to that extent with dry rot. Having spent a large sum of money, they then discovered that the dry rot was spreading to part of the new work, or was it? Did any of it spread to parts of the new work and the adaptations already carried out? — A certain limited amount did. The trouble about dry rot is that it can remain dormant. It is a quite normal circumstance that if you introduce heating into a building the heat fosters the growth of the fungus and you do not know that it exists until the mushrooms show themselves.

417. Deputy Sheldon. — The original estimate was £40,000 and now over £139,000 has been spent. Deduct £31,000 of that which is due to dry rot and you are still left with £108,000, which is very much in excess of £40,000. How much of the increase of £68,000 is due to increase in costs and how much of it is due to changes in the amount of renovation that was finally decided on?—I have not the precise figures. However, the £139,214 covers, in addition to adaptations to the main building, work on the repair and renewal of cottages and out-buildings, the erection of a superintendent’s house, the re-surfacing of avenues and paths and work on soil-testing laboratories, some of which were not foreseen at the time the original estimate was made.

Therefore, in fact, the £108,000, to cut out the dry rot part, cannot really be compared with the £40,000?—Yes.

418. Deputy Bartley. — Where does Deputy Sheldon get £40,000 for the original estimate? I have £182,000?— Paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

419. When was the revised estimate of £182,700 made?—That has been revised from time to time. It is up-to-date.

420. Chairman.—Would it not have been cheaper to have a new building?— That might be so.

421. It seems to me that, even if these premises are presented to the Nation, the engineers and architects examining them should exercise extreme care in the matter of dry rot because, as has been proved here, it can be very costly?—Yes, that is so. Of course, the trouble is that if it has not manifested itself and if it is not discovered at the inspection, one proceeds as if it did not exist.

I venture to suggest that on a strict inspection they should be able to discover it?—I am afraid that is not possible because the nature of the malady is such that it can very often exist in serious dimensions without being discovered.

422. Are further adaptations contemplated?—At the moment there is nothing new contemplated. Work is in progress on certain repairs to cottages and on the new soil testing laboratory. As far as I know, nothing further is contemplated.

423. What is the area of the lands?— I could not answer that. The people in Agriculture would know that. I do not know it.

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

“11. Shelton Abbey estate was acquired for forestry purposes by the Department of Lands in 1952 for the sum of £34,650. It was decided to adapt the Abbey buildings, the apportioned price of which was £3,800, for use as a forestry school at an estimated cost of £48,000. A contract was placed for preliminary work amounting to £2,899, including £1,000 for contingencies and a provisional sum of £1,000 for the eradication of dry rot. The adaptation works were carried out under the “time and material” clauses of this contract as the nature of the work precluded the drawing up of plans and specifications on which firm tenders could be invited. The work is still in progress and I am informed that expenditure to January, 1956 amounted to £73,772, including approximately £57,000 attributable to dry rot infestation.

I am in communication with the Accounting Officer regarding a number of items included in the contractor’s accounts.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. O’Neill?

Mr. O’Neill.—There are two sub-paragraphs. The first sets out the scope of the works. The second deals with certain points which arose on an examination of the contractor’s accounts. With regard to the first sub-paragraph there was a contract placed originally for £2,899. That contract was placed after competition and dealt only with the preliminary work of demolition and so on. We were informed that it had been intended to invite competition for the further construction works, but it was decided that the work could be done more economically and expeditiously by the contractor on the spot under the time and material clauses of the original contract. Apart from items such as heating and lighting, which were measurable, there was no competition for the adaptation works. The estimated cost of the works is said to be £95,000, of which £57,000 is regarded as being attributable to dry rot infection.

425. Deputy Sheldon. — Presumably, when this property was purchased, it was known that there was dry rot in it?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—It was known that there was a very limited amount of dry rot in it. I may not be quite right in that. It was purchased as part of the estate by the Forestry people.

Presumably, from the fact that in the original contract there was provision for £1,000 for the eradication of dry rot, the existence of dry rot was known at an early stage?—Yes.

426. Dry rot increasing, when a building is warmed up, is something that is not new. That must be well-known. Surely the Department were taking a rosy view of the future in regard to the original estimation of what it would cost, knowing that, where dry rot existed, it was liable to get very much worse? That is the normal experience. Should they not have been more suspicious and considered whether it was worth while setting out to preserve this building at all but rather build a new premises? It might even work out cheaper?—In this particular case, the building was inspected by a dry rot expert before the preliminary contract was made. He thought he had found the full source of the infection and that it could be treated for £2,500. That included removing timber where the timber was affected and treating the remainder of the vulnerable portion with one of the appropriate chemical preparations. It was on that expert’s report that the decision was taken originally. As the demolition proceeded, the extent of the manifestation continued to grow from day to day. Actually, there was about ten times as much dry rot as the expert found in the beginning. There was a peculiar situation about this building. When it was stripped, it was found that the building was very badly constructed. There were apparently no skilled bricklayers employed on the work. In a number of the walls there was a series of brick courses with baulks of timber put in to keep them in their place. They were all concealed. The timber made it very vulnerable to dry rot. It was a very bad example of bad building which was concealed by the outside plaster.

427. Chairman.—We appreciate dry rot being present to a certain extent but then it is difficult to understand why a work which commenced with a provision of £2,899 and £1,000 for contingencies should now result in the expenditure of £95,000. It puts the layman at sixes and sevens, as it were, at this stage to discover that an expert having viewed it, and that amount I have mentioned above having been set aside, we should now wind up with a sum of £57,000 being provided to eradicate dry rot. There was no element of competition and the one contractor was allowed on the job from the beginning to the present. Would it not have been better to have some firm arrangement?— Working drawings and the specification were prepared for what we regarded as the second stage of the contract, but, when the quantity surveyor was asked to take out quantities, he examined the place and said it would be impossible to take out quantities by reason of the prevalence of dry rot as discovered and the possibility of additional reconstruction being required both because of the dry rot and the peculiar type of building. We were then in the position that we could not go to tender in the hope of getting any firm quotation because we had not the quantities. The matter was examined very carefully and the conclusion come to was that the only possible method of doing the work was to go to tender for any of the services that were open to tendering and to permit the contractor, who had by this time acquired a very good knowledge of the building generally, to continue to do whatever building work transpired. It is a very unusual case.

428. Mr. O’Neill.—The second sub-paragraph relates to questions raised on a test examination which was carried out on the contractor’s invoices and wages records. We sent a very long enquiry to the Accounting Officer. I think there are about 19 or 20 parts to it, and we had a very complete reply. I should like, if I may, to boil them down into two or three categories. In the first place, our examination disclosed a number of overcharges due to duplication of charges or incorrect mathematics. These minor overcharges will be adjusted. The second point is that we found a number of discrepancies between the contractor’s weekly accounts and his wages records. The Accounting Officer told us that whilst it has not been found possible to obtain a satisfactory explanation of the methods employed in the making of the weekly account for labour charges, he is satisfied, as a result of the complete check, that no over-payment occurred. Whilst there might be apparent overpayments in particular weeks, the overall wages claim is regarded as correct. The third point arises out of charges which the contractor made for holiday pay and insurances. These items appeared to be covered under the contract by the allowance of 25 per cent. on labour costs. He has now been told that the charges will be disallowed in the final settling up and he has claimed that they should be allowed ex gratia as he regards the 25 per cent. as inadequate. Those are the three main points arising out of the examination of the contractor’s records.

429. Deputy Bartley.—Is this in respect of work done on a time and material basis?

Chairman.—Yes, it arises under paragraph 11. Could you say what was the extent of the check applied to these accounts before payment? — They were paid, in fact, on an instalment basis. The wage records and the deliveries of materials were certified by the clerks of works. Of course, the architect had a general supervision over the matter. In the beginning, the clerks of works were not very satisfactory and I am afraid that the checking by at least one of them was not what it should be. We had to get rid of him.

430. In view of the checks applied to the accounts, how was it that the discrepancies noted by the Comptroller and Auditor General were not noticed?— The payments were made in a peculiar way. They were made on the instalment principle. There was always a certain amount of money retained. At a fairly early stage, the Accounts Branch had discovered that the check was not what it should be. They noted, particularly in regard to the insurances, that the contractor had made charges which he was not strictly entitled to. As a result of that, the final account would not have been paid without a complete check. Actually, there is no doubt that the checking was unsatisfactory in the initial portion of the contract.

431. Are these exceptional types of transactions?—They are. We very seldom have a time and material contract and in this case I should say, apart from the fact that one of the clerks of works was not reliable, it is quite possible that they were not fully alive to the extent of the checking that was necessary. The contractor’s books were kept, I think, in a way that was only intelligible to his clerk. When we tried to get an explanation as to certain of the charges, he did not know and his clerk had gone, as far as I remember. That is why we could not get a satisfactory explanation of how he made up his accounts.

His clerk had left him?—Yes.

432. Is it clear there was no duplication of wage charges?—It is. The thing has been very thoroughly gone into.

433. I notice the contractor also manufactured concrete blocks. Were those included and was there any arrangement in regard to their purchase?—Blocks were purchased from him but there was no duplication in respect of them.

434. Could you say what was the price per 100 quoted as against charge? — He quoted a price and charged it. I think I have a note of the price per block.

Mr. O’Neill.—£55 per thousand quoted.

435. Deputy O’Hara.—How does that compare with the price of blocks generally?—If you could buy blocks in bulk in Dublin, they were approximately £55 a thousand at that time which works out at 1/1d. each at the factory, but they would then have to be delivered to the site.

436. Deputy Sheldon.—Would he make those blocks on the site?—No. They were made at his plant.

437. What about this ex gratia claim of his? What are you doing about it?— We are examining it at the moment. I do not want to say too much about it until we get a decision as to how far it would be equitable to meet it. We have been pressed for quite a while by the Builders’ Federation to agree to a variation of the 25 per cent. on the grounds that the percentage is very much too low. The Builders’ Federation have agreed with the Institute of Architects on a different type of charge for labour. As far as we can ascertain, that charge would run to about 36 or 37 per cent. That is our guess as to what the 25 per cent. would become. There would be added to the basic wages, insurances, holiday pay, scaffolding costs and a number of other items which would formerly be for the contractor to provide. Added on to that was 15 per cent. Having worked it out, it appears to be 36 per cent. or thereabouts compared with 25 per cent.

438. Does the contractor specify it is 25 per cent. on the gross or the labour cost?—On the labour cost. The amount of day work in our contracts is very limited and we have been able so far to get by without changing the figure, but where the day work becomes a big factor, I think we will ultimately have to admit that 25 per cent. is too low.

439. Chairman.—We now turn to paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which reads:—

“12. In connection with the erection of a post office which was completed in 1952 at a cost of £113,281 a quantity surveyor was appointed to measure up the variations from the contract and to prepare the contractor’s final accounts. These accounts showed credits of £76,671 and extras of £73,944 and the surveyor’s fee, calculated at standard rates, amounted to £2,634. I have inquired as to the circumstances in which such extensive variations from the contract became necessary.

Mr. O’Neill.—The cost of this building was estimated originally at £107,000. It cost £113,000 so that there was very little variation as between the final cost and the original estimate. The extent of the variations appears, however, to be rather considerable. The accounts showed credits of £76,000 and extras of £73,000 and we inquired as to the reason for this. We were informed that they arose through the fact that certain works could not be measured in the bill of quantities. There were revisions of design, substitution of material where those specified were not available, and certain changes in conditions which became evident only as work progressed. A quantity surveyor was employed to draw up the bill of variations and his fee is based on a percentage of these variations—3 per cent. on the extras and a lower percentage in respect of some of the credits. In respect of items for which provisional sums had been included in the original bill, he gets the full percentage.

440. Deputy Sheldon.—I cannot see why the quantity surveyor should get a percentage on the extras due to a prices variation clause. I appreciate his work might involve consideration of the extras but I cannot see why the prices variation clause should affect the thing.

441. Deputy Bartley. — The estimate was exceeded by £6,000, as I understand from Mr. O’Neill. It is the description of the amounts that I do not quite understand. What seems to me to have taken place is that very considerable changes seem to have been made after the estimate was prepared and that what are described as credits really represent a change to the extent of 70 per cent. of the work as specified originally and that what are described as extras seem to me to be substitutions for what are described as credits. The two statements, one that the estimate was exceeded by only £6,000, and the other that there were credits of £76,000 and extras of £73,000 just do not tally.

Mr. O’Neill.—There was substitution of one item for another.

Deputy Bartley.—That must have been what happened. There is a statement that there were extras to the extent of £73,000. To take the ordinary meaning of the word “extras,” and then compare it with the statement that in fact there was only £6,000 of an over expenditure is not easily understandable.

Mr. O’Neill.—There were credits of £76,000 and extras amounting to £73,000.

Deputy Bartley.—I am suggesting that there was a change of mind as to the structure of this building.

442. Chairman.—Is it usual to have variations to this extent in a firm contract? — Extras and credits here are based on the quantity surveyor’s description. The quantity surveyor describes anything that is omitted as a credit and anything that is put in in place of it as an extra. We do not normally —in fact we have not up to the present— employed quantity surveyors to measure up because if you get a very detailed bill of quantities the amount of the variations may be very considerable. I am not an expert on this but I can give one example. Take a door. That may be billed for in a contractor’s job and it includes the building of the door itself, the lock, the hinges, the surrounds. If you change that door in the normal course of events in a small job where you have not a detailed bill of quantities, the architect will probably say to the contractor: “The new door should be at the same cost as the door which you omitted and we will cancel one out against the other.” When you have a surveyor on the job he will make out the charge for the carpenter, the painter, the locksmith and the result will be that a number of variations will occur. It depends very largely on how the bill of quantities was originally drawn up.

443. Deputy Brennan. — Have the Board of Works a clerk of works on these jobs or does the local engineer keep a constant eye on the work while it is in progress?—In cases of a big contract like this, there is a clerk of works.

444. Do you not think that a clerk of works, doing his job properly, would see that the work was carried out according to specification, or were the changes in the specification sanctioned by the local engineer?—The changes were made on variation orders which were issued by the architect.

445. There were £76,000 odd in credits and £73,000 odd put in as extras, showing a balance of £2,727 of an over all saving which was apparently the amount of the quantity surveyor’s fee, so that the position worked out as if you had not had any check on it. If a proper clerk of works were doing his job properly would it not obviate the necessity of having a quantity surveyor to go into the matter? — As I explained, it would be the architect’s job to settle the final accounts. In the case of some of these bills of quantities, where there are necessary variations of a fairly extensive character, and where, as in this case, certain items had to be provisionally specified, it would be beyond the capacity of a clerk of works to calculate the final account.

446. I would imagine that if the plans and specifications were properly drawn up in the first instance and submitted to a quantity surveyor, there would not be any need for variations. I cannot help suspecting that any contractors, given a free hand in the matter of variations, would always work out a big overcharge.

447. Deputy Sheldon — Surely these variations were not the idea of the contractor but of the designer?—They were all based on variation orders issued by the architect.

448. Deputy Bartley.—There does not seem to be anything wrong with this in comparison with previous cases we have examined this morning which were serious. The only point is that the Comptroller and Auditor General thought it advisable to refer to the point; he thought it advisable to question the value of the extras which he gives as £73,000.

Mr. O’Neill. — Our real point is the expenditure incurred on a quantity surveyor’s fee.

449. Chairman. — When a contractor’s final account is prepared, is there a quantity surveyor’s check applied before the payment is made?—If you employ a quantity surveyor to finalise an account, you accept his figures. There is an arithmetical check on it, but otherwise the quantity surveyor’s figures are accepted.

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

“13. Provision was made under this subhead for expenditure on the construction of hard surface runways at Baldonnel aerodrome for the Department of Defence. The Department of Industry and Commerce, which had the necessary technical staff, was entrusted with the work, the cost of which is met from this vote, together with the remuneration of the technical staff engaged on the project. A contract for £391,000 was placed in December 1953, and the expenditure incurred to 31 March 1955 amounted to £145,474, including £139,267 in the year under review.”

Mr. O’Neill.—There were three Departments involved in the job—the Department of Defence, who required the runways, the Department of Industry and Commerce, who are getting the job done, and the Office of Public Works who are paying the bill. Whether all that involves extra administrative costs and whether there is any question of divided responsibility is perhaps a matter for consideration.

Chairman.—I suppose it is inevitable in a case like this when it involves specialised work that would be outside the normal scope of the technical staff?—It is expert type of work. If we had had the staff available in the Office of Public Works, we could have done the job ourselves. As a matter of fact, we did supervise the construction of the original runway at Shannon, but the technical officers in our office who were responsible for airport work initially were transferred to the Department of Industry and Commerce and are still there. We did not have the technical staff available but the Department of Industry and Commerce did. That is how it happened that the preparation of the plans, the placing of the contract and the supervision of the work were handled by the Department of Industry and Commerce.

451. Was it the Department of Industry and Commerce that placed the contract? —Yes.

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

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

14. Provision was made under this subhead for expenditure of £21,000 on the Nenagh catchment drainage scheme. The scheme, estimated to cost £271,000, was confirmed by the Minister for Finance on 1 November 1954 in accordance with the terms of section 7 (2) of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, and the charge to the subhead includes expenditure of £315 on preliminary work. Direct expenditure during the year on the Brosna, Glyde and Dee, Feale and Corrib-Clare catchment drainage schemes, which were commenced in May 1948, June 1950, June 1951 and April 1954, respectively, amounted to £386,697. The value of stores issued, and of services rendered by plant and machinery, was assessed at £294,713, the total cost of the schemes to 31 March 1955 being:—

Have you any comment on this, Mr. O’Neill?

Mr. O’Neill.—I have no comment.

453. Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh.—The only scheme under maintenance is the Brosna and there is a separate heading for that, J.5. It does not appear on this subhead.

454. Chairman.—I presume a certificate of completion has been issued in regard to the Brosna?—Yes.

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

“Subhead K.—Purchase and Maintenance of Engineering Plant and Machinery, and Stores.

15. In the course of local audit at the central stores depôt it was noted that three 8-inch pumping units had not been used since they were purchased in January 1953 and that very little use had been made of a number of 6-inch centrifugal pumps which had been purchased during the period 1949 to 1953. Some of these had deteriorated in store and expenditure on overhauls became necessary. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on this matter and also regarding the utilisation of six Broomwade compressors.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. O’Neill?

Mr. O’Neill.—We examined the history records of three types of machinery— 8-inch pumping units, 6-inch centrifugal pumps and Broomwade compressors. Three of the 8-inch pumping units were purchased at a cost of about £4,300 and we found that they had not been put into service. They were really purchased for the Brosna scheme but were not required for that work and are now held as stand-by equipment. There was some slight deterioration due to lack of covered storage, but that has since been put right. In the case of the next item, centrifugal pumps, there were 17 purchased at a cost of £11,400. Some of these were not put into service and others were out of commission for certain periods. They also are held as stand-by equipment. Again, there was some expenditure due to lack of covered storage. In the case of the Broomwade compressors, I do not think I have any comment to make. There were certain breaks-down but these were serviced by the suppliers without cost.

456. Chairman. — With regard to the pumps, you referred to them as stand-by equipment. In what circumstances would they be used, Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh?— Take one scheme, for instance, where we were working on a culvert under the river. It was anticipated that considerable pumping would be necessary, but we got by without having to use the larger pumps. At any time you may get machinery bogged down. One of the 6-inch pumps was sent to the Brosna scheme to enable the resident engineer to relieve flooding which was impeding excavators. The intention was to dam the channel upstream and to pump down a by-pass. The weather suddenly improved and the pump was not needed. But if the weather had not improved the machinery would have been bogged down.

457. On the average, could you say how many of the pumps would be used in a period of operation? — It is practically impossible to say to what extent that type of machinery, such as pumps, would be used. It depends on the nature of the work. If you were doing a good deal of under-pinning of bridges you would require them, or if you ran into bad weather. It is stand-by equipment to that extent.

458. What was the nature of the damage to the machines in the store?—Water percolated through the cover in the case of one or two of them. At that time we had no adequate covered store. They were left outside in the open and they were covered as far as they could be covered, but in the case of one or two of them, apparently, water percolated into the engines.

459. Would it not be obviated by draining off the water?—Water can do damage to engines like that very quickly and although they were covered by tarpaulins and had the openings plugged the water seeped in and was not discovered before the damage was done.

460. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — With reference to those which deteriorated in store, was it in the central stores or stores adjacent to the schemes?—Mainly in the central stores, but there was not adequate covered accommodation and a lot of the hardier machinery had been left out in the open.

461. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Surely it would not have cost much to get adequate temporary cover and so preclude this cost?

Chairman.—I believe it has been done now.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—It has.

462. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — How often is plant checked to see if it is deteriorating? Would more frequent supervision of checking have prevented it?—Not in this particular case. They were very carefully checked.

463. Chairman.—Paragraph 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead L.—Appropriations in Aid.

16. Certain premises occupied by University College, Dublin, are held under a lease which provides for the repayment by the lessees of the cost of heating. It was noted that sums amounting to £19,035 claimed in respect of the years 1951-52 to 1954-55 had not been collected and I have communicated with the Accounting Officer.”

Mr. O’Neill.—We have been informed that the claim was reduced by the sum of £680, and I understand that payment of the adjusted amount has now been made.

464. Chairman. — Could you say what are the present terms of the lease, Mr. Ó hEigceartuigh?—So far as this aspect is concerned the provision is that the lessee shall, each year, pay 27½ per cent. of the total yearly cost and expense of maintaining, running and operating the central heating station. That 27½ per cent. was worked out on the basis of occupation at the time the lease was made. It is a figure involving very difficult calculations.

465. Deputy Bartley.—Is it a fact that the premises are not occupied exclusively by the university authorities?

Deputy Brennan.—You think they are sub-let?

466. Deputy Bartley.—It seems to me that it would be much simpler to fix the rate and make an allowance in respect of this item and not have to make a calculation each year. The arrangement suggested to my mind that possibly there were other occupiers in the building and that that necessitated making arrangements of this sort.

Deputy Sheldon. — They are occuping only 27½ per cent. of the building.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—It really turns on the central heating station which supplies the College of Science, Government Buildings, this building and one or two smaller places. The calculation of 27½ per cent. was made on the percentage of heating used by University College. It is true that there were other occupiers in the College of Science; the Comptroller and Auditor General was there himself for a while, and External Affairs was there for a while as well as the State Laboratory.

467. Deputy Bartley.—It is the College of Science building which is in question? —Yes.

Deputy Bartley.—I was not aware of that.

468. Chairman.—Paragraph 17 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Stores.

17. It was noted that approximately 40 lighting sets, purchased as portion of the ancillary equipment of excavators, had been removed from the excavators and were held in store. Some of these sets cost £350 each. I inquired as to the extent to which they had been used and whether they were required for future service.”

Have you anything to add to that, Mr. O’Neill?

Mr. O’Neill.—This refers to lighting sets purchased in association with excavators. The sets were purchased with the intention of carrying out shift work on drainage schemes but this was not found possible owing, I think, to the shortage of experienced personnel. There were 91 sets originally purchased of which ten or eleven were destroyed by fire some time ago, leaving a balance of 80. Of these 80 the majority have been removed from the excavators and are being held in store. The question of their retention or disposal is being considered.

469. Chairman.—Over what period of years were the sets bought?—They were bought around 1948 to 1952, I would say. The original intention was that we would introduce shift work. At that time, it was anticipated that there would be quite a large number of people coming back from England on discharge and that key personnel would be available. It was also anticipated that there would be a considerable number of people looking for work. The key personnel did not become available and it was not found possible to introduce shift work.

470. Deputy O’Hara. — May I inquire are there storage batteries connected with this equipment? — There are different types; some of them may have batteries.

471. Deputy Brennan.—Were the lighting sets for the purpose of operating extra shifts at night?—That was the intention.

472. Deputy O’Hara.—Are there any of them working on the storage battery system, I wonder? The reason I inquire is that it will be appreciated that storage batteries will deteriorate if allowed to remain unused?—I do not know enough to answer that question. You would want the record of the machines.

473. Deputy Brennan. — What type of lighting sets were they? Were they operated by engines?—I am not able to give you a precise answer.* Some of them were operated that way and some generated their own power. Some of them were powered by the excavator itself.

474. Chairman.—There is a good deal of money involved. Was there any consideration given before their purchase as to their ultimate use? — There was. The matter was gone into carefully. The policy as adumbrated was that we would do shift work and they were essential to that. As it transpired things did not work out as expected.

475. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — Were any of them ever used at all for shift work?—Yes, they were; not for shift work but they were used on machines in the winter occasionally when the evenings got dark. They were also used on tidal work on marine schemes where you have to work at hours of the night to suit the tide. They were used for site illumination in certain cases where no light was available; and for emergency operations, for instance, in case one of the excavators got bogged and you were trying to take it out of the bog and there was no light locally available. These sets were available and were used for the purpose.

476. Deputy O’Hara.—Might I inquire where they are stored at present?—Quite a number of them are stored in the central workshop. There are 55 in store there and there are 21 either on excavators or stored in the local stores.

477. It would be no harm, Mr. Chairman, for these people to keep in mind if there are batteries supplied with these lighting sets that they should be kept in proper condition so that there would not be any serious deterioration. It may be that there is some type of D.C. supply which makes that precaution unnecessary—in all probability there is—but if batteries are supplied, then they would certainly need attention.

478. Deputy Sheldon.—The only thing that strikes me is that the hope of using them on shift work has been abandoned since 1952. That is four years ago, and surely a decision should have been taken to dispose of them by this time? — I quoted the date 1952 because that was the date on which the last of them was bought, but the decision not to use shift work has not, in fact, yet been taken. But the chances of its being operated are very remote. As I explained to the Comptroller and Auditor General we are looking into the question of the extent to which they could be regarded as surplus. We have not completed the examination of that, but a preliminary report from our chief engineer indicates that he thinks that we would be sufficiently supplied in present circumstances by retaining 24. That is being gone into.

479. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—I noticed that one of the reasons Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh gave for their not being used was an over-estimation — I will not say a wrong estimation — of the amount of available labour to do shift work. Is that right?—Yes.

Surely now that has changed or does that position still obtain?—It does.

480. Deputy Brennan. — Taking an over-all view of the whole system would it not be wiser to seek contractors for these jobs who would bring in their own machinery and be responsible for it and its maintenance instead of having it as it is?

Chairman. — On arterial drainage schemes?

Deputy Brennan.—On any maintenance or heavy excavation work?

Chairman.—That would be policy, more or less, and we cannot go into that. That would not be a fair question. We have already agreed on the policy and we have set this course and we cannot question that now.

Deputy Brennan.—But I would be entitled to question it in the light of our experience?

Chairman.—In the House, yes—on the Estimate, by all means.

481. Deputy O’Hara. — I think the decision which is likely to be made to retain some of this stuff is quite a sound one because it is a type of stuff, generally speaking, that would not deteriorate. Actually, it must have gone up in value in the meantime, provided that the batteries I mentioned are properly stored.

Deputy Bartley.—If we apply the experience that we have as regards car batteries, I think the batteries must have gone by now.

Deputy O’Hara.—That is possible, but storage batteries on lighting sets last for a long period.

482. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“18. The position regarding stocktaking at the central engineering stores was under consideration by the Committee of Public Accounts in 1954 when the Accounting Officer stated that a physical count of stores had been completed and that the reconciliation with the stores records was in progress. I have inquired as to the present position.”

Mr. O’Neill. — That count was completed in June and there was a number of discrepancies. I understand that a report on the matter has been sent to the Department of Finance.

Deputy Sheldon.—Last June?—1954.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—You have no idea what is in the report to the Department of Finance?

Mr. M. Breathnach.—We got it only recently, Mr. Chairman, we have not examined it yet.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Are there no comments at all?

483. Chairman. — When did the stocktaking commence?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh. — It commenced in 1953, as far as I can recollect.

484. I presume you have not ascertained the final position? — The stocktaking?

Yes?—The first stocktaking was completed and the reconciliation with the books was made. It threw up quite a quantity of unders and overs, but the ultimate position indicated that we had more stock than we should have. That is what we reported to the Department of Finance. We gave them figures and we expressed our views as to how the discrepancies were occasioned.

485. Are you continuing the physical count?—The second stocktaking is pretty well in hands. The one we are talking about at the moment is the first stocktaking we were able to make in the new stores and the second stocktaking is in progress now.

486. Deputy O’Hara.—Might I inquire who carries out the stocktaking?—The Stores Audit Section of the Accounts Branch. There is a branch in the Accountant’s Office which deals with audit of stores.

487. Chairman.—Are you satisfied that deficiencies are not due to irregularities or pilfering?—In the main, they are not; they are due to mistakes and to——

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — Wrong entries?—Wrong entries and misidentification of parts and things of that nature. There may be a little pilfering but it must be very small because the stocks, as I say, are regularly spot-checked and spot checks up to the present reveal no discrepancies.

488. You are satisfied that the position is all right?—I am satisfied the position is all right and that the discrepancies which have occurred are, in the main, wrong entries and misidentifications.

And that the spot checks are efficiently carried out?—Yes.

489. Chairman.—Regarding subhead A. Purchase of Sites and Buildings—I take it there are no buildings included in this purchase?—I think there is one. In fact there are two. There is 6, Conyngham Road——

I am referring to Tara?—No, there is no question of buildings.

Chairman. — Excavations are still proceeding?—Yes.

490. 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, 1954-55.*

491. Deputy Sheldon.—May I take it that the observations have relation to the 31st March, 1955, and that when they say “completed” they mean completed in that year, and not since?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—That is right.

491a. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — In regard to furnishings of the President’s Establishment, does the Office of Public Works buy the materials required or is it done by contract?—We do both to a very limited extent. All the furniture like carpets and that sort of thing——

492. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—And curtains?—They are all contracts——

493. Deputy Brennan. — These things are bought under Combined Purchasing? —No; we buy by separate contract.

494. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—My reason for asking this question is to know whether care is taken that, where possible, Irish materials are used?—Oh, yes, that is standard practice.

495. Would it be true—could you find out—that the materials used in draping the walls of the reception room were not bought in Ireland but were bought in France and at the prohibitive price of £7 per yard?

Deputy Sheldon. — That is not a prohibitive price.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — It is; you would get it for £2 a yard in this country.

Chairman.—I think it would be better if you raised that matter in the House.

496. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — This material was bought for the accounting period with which we are dealing. This might not be quite true, but I have been told about it, and I have had a sample of the material and I have had it valued. It is imported, and if it cost £7 per yard, a tremendous amount was used because it was not just put on the windows but on the walls.

Chairman. — Is there any evidence of that?

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—If it was contract work, it could possibly happen and the Office of Public Works might not be directly responsible for importing it when Irish material is available and when Irish labour could be used to make that material available.

Chairman.—Would you mind sending a note on that, Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—The question is whether the materials——

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. ——used for curtains and drapes were of Irish manufacture?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh. — In Aras an Uachtaráin?

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — Yes, and, if not, why not, and where did the material come from.

Chairman.—We will get a note, and, if the Deputy wishes, she may raise the matter afterwards.*

497. On the Estimate for Agriculture, I note that it includes provision under subhead E.2. for expenditure on the adaptation of buildings at the Abbotstown Farm — is this not normally Commissioners’ work?

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—Subhead E.2?

Yes, on page 61? — I had forgotten about Abbotstown. I was mixing it up with another place. The Department of Agriculture themselves undertook the adaptation of the main building at Abbotstown. That is how the provision happens to be in E.2. They employed their own architect.

498. Deputy Sheldon.—I notice that on all these farms, provision is made for petrol and oil storage. I do not suppose there is any significance in the use of the term “petrol storage” in one case and “oil storage” in another. It is probably just an accident of name I take it, but the amounts provided seem to indicate that they are going to control a very considerable amount of fuel. For instance, at Athenry Agricultural School, £280 is provided for oil storage. To the best of my recollection, a 750-gallon tank for oil —which is a fairly substantial quantity for a farm—costs about £60. I am wondering how amounts like £280 or £400 at Abbotstown arise for fuel storage?—So far as petrol storage is concerned, my recollection is that it is underground. The diesel storage would not be.

Deputy Brennan. — If the storage is underground, it is a glorified petrol pump.

499. Chairman. — Number 41 refers to Grange Stud and Dairy Farm—Adaptations. The expenditure on the premises, £34,000 odd, is considerable. Are the buildings there extensive?—The buildings are extensive and quite a lot of modifications have had to be made so far as the farm outbuildings are concerned.

500. At present, development is taking place on the National Library. They are reconstructing it at the moment, are they not?—They are renewing the stonework.

501. Is the £70,000 the estimated cost of renewal of all this stonework?—That was the estimated cost but that estimate was made a considerable time ago. It would be very much too low now, if we continued on the same basis as that on which we started. I am not certain about this, but I am told that recent discoveries have been made which may enable us to adopt a cheaper method of dealing with it. However, that is being investigated.

502. Deputy Sheldon.—May I go back to Item No. 43 — Munster Institute: Electric Lighting and Equipment? There is a note at the bottom which says that the amount given excludes £75 6s. 6d. erroneously charged to subhead C., Maintenance, in the year 1953-54. I do not quite see the point of the note. Surely if the amount had been erroneously charged to some other subhead, it should have been added to this and not excluded from it?—That note was inserted mainly for the information of the auditors so that they would be able to reconcile the books. The £75 6s. 6d. was charged against subhead C. in the previous year when it should have been charged against subhead B.

503. The correct way to put it right would be to include it in its proper place, would you not say?—Once the Appropriation Account is closed, it cannot be altered. However, the mistake was discovered, and the note was inserted to draw attention to it.

504. What does the next note mean, which merely says that the amount was adjusted? It does not say whether it was included or excluded. What is the position?—That is a somewhat involved business. Prior to 1953-54, the item described under one number as “Improved Accommodation” included provision for (a) electric lighting and equipment, and (b) improved accommodation generally. In 1953-54 it was split into two separate works. A payment of £450 made in 1952-53 in respect of electric lighting and equipment was incorrectly allocated against the provision for general improvement and the adjustment of £450 was made to give the correct figures, £749 3s. 2d. and £924 2s. 6d.

Deputy Bartley. — Are these observations applicable to the 31st March, 1955?

Chairman.—Yes.

505. Deputy Bartley. — Take Item No. 2a on the first page which refers to 14/15 Upper O’Connell Street, Dublin: Adaptations. No money is voted and still the work is “Virtually completed.” That does not read very intelligibly. Then take Item No. 3a on the same page which refers to Cork Custom House: Installation of Storage Heaters. No money is voted and no money was expended in 1954-55. There was no previous expenditure and yet the work is “In Progress.”

Deputy Sheldon.—It is later than 31st March, 1955.

506. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—What about Item No. 17: Rotunda Gardens— Garden of Remembrance? We see “Planning in Progress.” The expenditure to the 31st March, 1954, was £600 1s. 8d., and, again, to the 31st March, 1955, it was £600 1s. 8d.

Deputy Bartley.—Yes, but there is an explanation there. The planning costs £600. That is an intelligible statement. Take Nos. 2a and 3a on the same page and you will see that no money was voted, and so on.

Chairman. — We will ask Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh to deal briefly with it.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—With regard to Items Nos 2a and 3a on the first page of this statement, one has to refer to the change in the format of the Estimate whereby the provisions under Subhead B. are now shown by Departments instead of by separate works. If an unforeseen work becomes urgent and so long as money is available within the total provision for the Department, the job is charged against the departmental provision. In former days, 2a and all the other “a’s” on the statement, for which no money has been specifically voted, would have been dealt with as urgent and unforeseen works and charged against that provision.

507. Deputy Sheldon.—No. 71B relates to additional cooking equipment for the Land Commission Luncheon Club. The total estimate is for £1,000. They must be setting up a very extensive kitchen there?—It serves a very large staff. It is extensive.

508. Deputy Brennan. — How is the income from the Club arranged? What is the charge to members?—That is run by the Club committee within the Office. We do not know anything about that end of it.

509. Deputy Bartley.—With regard to facilities such as those in question, is it a fact that the charge is arranged to cover the cost of the service and no more?

Deputy Sheldon.—Surely that does not arise on this Vote?

Deputy Bartley.—It has a relation to it to the extent that public money is voted to furnish the means of providing the service. It may not be a direct contact but certainly it has some relation to the supplementary question raised.

Deputy Sheldon.—Surely this Office is mostly concerned as an agent to carry out works for other Departments? What they do with them or want them for is no concern——

Deputy Bartley.—Quite agreed. However, I do not think it is any harm to put the question at a meeting of a Public Accounts Committee. I am directing my question to the Chairman. I am asking the Accounting Officer here present for an answer.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—I think I can give a general answer. When a luncheon club is set up in an office, certain facilities are provided from public funds such as cooking apparatus and fuel. The State gives the rooms free and does any necessary adaptation work. After that, the clubs are supposed to run themselves. They do the purchasing of the meat and and vegetables, and so on, and they do the cooking.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Pay the staff.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—They also fix the price at which the luncheons will be provided. That is the general set-up.

510. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — What was bought for the £603? Was it a large stove?—It was some cooking equipment, a stove or something else. There are a number of such items. I am not very well up on the names of them. There are vessels for cooking soups, hot plates, and so on.

Was it necessary to spend such a large amount?

Chairman.—Does Deputy Sheldon want a note on it?

Deputy Sheldon.—I was just wondering what type of equipment was involved.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—They spent only £603.

Deputy Sheldon.—So far.

Chairman.—Could we have a note on it, then?* Next page now.

511. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—Are you taking them in any particular order or just as it strikes any member of the Committee, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—Page by page, as we have taken them so far.

512. Chairman.—Items 85-102 and 102A to 126 and 127 to 147.

513. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could indulge me for one moment as regards item 56. There is a note here saying: “See details at back.” Item 56 relates to Garda Síochána Stations (to be specified) — New Works, Alterations and Additions. I have not found the details at the back.

Deputy Sheldon.—We will come to them.

514. Chairman.—Items 148 to 162.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—On item 148. How long has sanction been awaited for a nurses’ quarters at the Curragh Camp?—That is a matter for the Department of Defence. They have to get the sanction.

515. Deputy Sheldon.—No. 28 refers to the installation of thermal storage heaters in a room at 2 Kildare Place. £145 seems a very high figure.

Deputy Bartley.—Where is that?

Deputy Sheldon. — The minor new works. The heaters are about £20 each.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh. — I would not remember the details of that. There may have been wiring.

Chairman.—Could we have a note on it?—Yes, certainly.*

516. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—There is a sum of £166 6s. 9d. for the provision of a bath at Garda Síochána Station, Drumshambo, Co. Leitrim. That seems rather expensive. What type of bath was it or was there more than one bath? It is the last one under B58: Minor New Works at Garda Síochána Stations, 55/26 of 1953-54. Did it involve structural alteration? — It meant structural works as well.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — The note merely says “Provision of Bath.”

Mr. Ó hÉigcearthuigh. — If it were elaborated, it would read “Provision of Bath and Necessary Construction Works.” There would be plumbing, partitions and so on.

517. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — Where are we now, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman.—The next page, 134/11 of 1953-54 down to the bottom of 51.

518. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — No. 13 relates to Publication Branch, 29 Marlboro’ Street: Improvement of lighting— £123 13s. 7d. There are no details in relation to substitution of neon for ordinary lighting or as to the nature of the alteration. Have you any information?—The standard of lighting generally in that building was bad and it was necessary to improve it to enable the personnel of the Publication Branch to work in it.

519. Deputy Bartley.—With regard to 2, Kildare Place, at item 28, I understood that building was abandoned. The installation of heat is provided for, but I understood that building was abandoned.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—It is no longer being used? — That is correct. The building was evacuated.

Before or after the heating? Where are the heaters being used now?—They have been taken into store.

520. Chairman.—Let us now turn to the next page.

521. Deputy Sheldon.—Was there some special difficulty in regard to Falcarragh. The figure of £166 with regard to a septic tank seems to be a very high figure. Was there rock excavation or something?—I could not answer that question off-hand.

Chairman.—Would you please give us a note on that?—Yes.*

522. Deputy Brennan. — There was a fairly large sum for expenditure on Falcarragh in previous years. What is the reason that was not included in this? —It is a separate job.

523. Deputy Brennan.—With regard to alterations in progress at 51, St. Stephen’s Green, that is one of the biggest items on this particular page. It is for a sum of £3,176. Is that for an extension of the building or is it just for renovation?—That arises from the out-housing of the Accounts Branch, the reorganisation of the building and the redistribution of the accommodation. The original building was too small to meet the requirements of the staff which was steadily growing.

524. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — How many storage heaters were installed in the Department of Lands?—I shall have to look that up. I would not know the answer. I shall let you have a note on it. I should like to know precisely what information is required.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—I want to know how many storage heaters were installed in 25-26 Merrion Street?—We will get the Deputy a note about that.*

525. Deputy Brennan.—With regard to item No. 8, what are we doing with the Papal Nunciature? Are these office buildings leased to the Nunciature?— They are. The works were related to accommodation for the nuns who attend upon the Nunciature.

Chairman.—Let us now turn to the next page.

526. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to this matter of the minor balances, there are three or four items where the balances do not look very minor. Take, for instance, the second one where the balance constitutes three-quarters of the cost? — That would arise where the anticipation of expenditure up to 31st March in the previous year proved too low.

527. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — With regard to the adaptation of Áras Brugha, I think that was the result of the Department of Social Welfare going to the new building in Store Street. Is there furniture included in the figure of £12,000?— I could not answer that question. There probably is, but the adaptations were mainly structural and partitioning for the purpose of accommodating the Branches of the Revenue Commissioners which have gone in. There may be some furniture in it. They would normally have brought their furniture with them.

I believe they did not bring in their own furniture. Would you get a note as to what happened the old furniture and why it had to be replaced?—Yes.†

528. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to Subhead A, there is a very considerable expenditure mentioned on Page 20 in regard to Department of External Affairs, Paris, Embassy premises. Does the sum of £141,000 represent the price of the building?—The purchase price of the building was £151,940. There was £11,000 in the previous year.

529. Will much expenditure be needed on adaptation? — Expenditure on adaptations and furniture will be something over £40,000.

530. Chairman.—Were the premises in good condition when you acquired them? —They were. They are in good condition.

531. Had you any difficulty in surrendering the old premises or was the lease up?

Deputy Brennan. — The lease had expired.

Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh.—I think that is right. They were surrendered, in any event.

532. Chairman.—Let us now turn to the Appropriations in Aid, items 1 to 9. With regard to item 1—Rents and Fines —what is the explanation of the big jump in the rents received? There were some unexpected receipts in that particular year. There was a sum from Fógra Fáilte and Córas Tráchtála Teo., in respect of lettings in the New York consulate. There was, in addition, a small item in connection with a letting to the Department of Agriculture. There was a certain number of windfalls.

533. With regard to item 4—Hire of plant — £4,500 was estimated and over £12,000 realised. To whom were the dredgers on hire? — They were used in Arklow and the work was paid for from the Department of Industry and Commerce Vote, supplemented, I think, by a local contribution from the Arklow Harbour Commissioners.

534. Deputy Mrs. Crowley. — With regard to item No. 7 — Lettings of sporting, fishing rights, etc.—has the Office of Public Works any rights on the Lower and Middle Lakes in the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park or is that just the river fishing?—The fishing is on the Upper Lake and on a stretch of the River Laune below the Lower Lake.

535. Chairman.—With regard to item 5, we can take the Balance Sheets for the Bourn Vincent Estate to 31st March, 1955.* If there are no further questions, we can pass on. On item 8—Recoveries from other Departments, etc., for services carried out on repayment terms (see subheads C., D.1. E., F.1 and K)—what was the cause of the big jump to £46,000 from £29,000? I am referring to item 8 in the Appropriations in Aid on Page 21?—I think that is partly due to an over-estimate of the amount that would be recovered from the Department of Social Welfare because we did not take responsibility for it as early as was anticipated.

536. There are notes on Page 22. With regard to Notes 9 and 10 concerning a net deficit of £50 and the writing off of £87 for untraced shortages, what was the gross surplusages on deficit? — On the Glyde and Dee (Note 9) there were surplusages to the value of £2,878 and there were shortages to the amount of £2,928.

537. Are you satisfied that there was no neglect in these cases?—Yes. We are satisfied there was no neglect. The matter was due to misidentification of parts and to bad posting, in some cases.

538. With regard to item 27—articles lost by theft—what was the nature of the theft?—The articles were two life-buoys and a boat hook stolen from Dún Laoghaire harbour. The boat-hook was found but the Guards were unable to trace the life-buoys. A coil of electric cable was presumed to be stolen from Dún Laoghaire work-shop and the Guards were not able to find any culprit. There was a box of small tools stolen from a locked tool-box in the Phoenix Park. The box was forced. The Garda enquiries proved futile. Then, there was a 6-volt battery taken from an excavator on the Glyde and Dee Scheme. The matter was investigated by the Guards but without result. A pump, a hose, a crow-bar, a pinch-bar, a sledge hammer and other articles were stolen from a ganger’s hut on the Glyde and Dee scheme. The hut was forced open. There are a few other small items. There was a pair of rubber boots stolen from a jeep, and a small box, worth £1, was stolen from an excavator. The lock from a door in the Botanic Gardens was stolen. Some lead was stolen from the Phibsboro Post Office. They were all small items. The biggest item is that for £9.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 10—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Risteard Ó hÉigeartuigh called and examined.

539. Chairman.—Paragraph 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“19. Provision was made under subhead F. (Urban Employment Schemes) and subhead G. (Rural Employment Schemes) for grants towards expenditure by local authorities on road and amenity schemes, etc., to provide employment. The grants, amounting in all to £198,237, were paid in instalments, during the progress of the various works, by the Department of Local Government acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The accounts of the expenditure on the schemes are examined by Local Government auditors whose certificates are available to me.”

Mr. O’Neill.—I think the only comment I have to make on this Vote is with reference to paragraph 20.

Chairman.—We could deal with paragraphs 19 and 20 together. Paragraph 20 reads:—

“20. Grants amounting to £4,659, of which £1,000 was paid in the year 1953-54 and £3,659 in the year under review, were made towards the cost of the construction of a swimming pool, and charged to subhead F. The grants were sanctioned, having regard to the estimated unskilled labour content of the work, for the purpose of providing employment for persons in receipt of unemployment assistance. As it appeared that the unskilled work was carried out mainly by mechanical means, and that accordingly, the object for which the grants were sanctioned was not achieved, I inquired regarding the suitability of schemes of this type for the purpose of employment grants. I have been informed that the matter is under consideration.”

Mr. O’Neill.—This paragraph refers to a grant for the erection of a swimming pool which was sanctioned on the basis of providing employment for unemployment assistance recipients. It was estimated that the labour content would represent roughly 35 per cent of the cost. In the result, the labour factor was rather negligible and the Accounting Officer has told us it has been decided that such schemes will not in future be accepted for grants except in exceptional cases in which worthwhile employment will result.

540. Chairman. — Did the county engineering staff construct the pool? — No. In this case it was done by contract.

541. Was the contractor required by the terms of the contract to decide the labour content?—One of the conditions of the contract is that the unskilled labour would have to be recruited from the unemployment assistance register and that for the skilled labour the contractor must also go to the local labour exchange. Swimming pools, by their nature, have not a very high labour content, but when this scheme was originally mooted it looked a much better proposition from the point of view of the Special Employment Schemes Office than it eventually turned out to be. The proposal was first raised in December, 1951. At that time it was estimated to cost £6,500. The Sligo Corporation anticipated the work could be done by stages, and estimated that the first stage would cost £4,500. That amount was intended to be raised through a State grant of £2,700 plus £1,000 which a local committee had raised through subscriptions in the town and the balance, £800, which was to be contributed by Sligo Corporation. Sligo Corporation that year would normally provide only £375 for an employment schemes grant of £2,700 but were agreeable to increase that to £800. From the labour point of view, we in the Special Employment Schemes Office anticipated that the scheme on that basis would be a reasonably good proposition. The scheme was submitted in December, 1951 and by the time we had examined it, it was March, 1952 before we authorised the carrying out of the scheme at an estimated entire cost of £6,500, the first stage of which would run to £4,500. The second stage came up for consideration in the next year, and by that time the estimated cost of the total job had increased to £7,765, the balance being financed in the 1952-53 financial year on the basis of a State grant of £1,959, Sligo Swimming Club £500 contribution, and £806 from the Sligo Corporation.

Unfortunately, things did not turn out as we originally anticipated. In fact, the scheme was not put in hands at that particular time, and it subsequently transpired, it could not be done in stages at all as originally anticipated. We went into the year 1953-54 having found that the scheme could not be carried out as originally planned and that the cost had increased considerably in the interval. In 1953, we began to consider whether in fact the moneys which we had promised earlier should be made available from our Vote at all. The case came up for further consideration in September, 1953 when we decided the scheme should not be financed as a special grant from our Office. We suggested at that time in fact that we would withdraw the grants altogether.

At that stage, unfortunately, or fortunately from the point of view of the Sligo people, the job had advanced to the stage where a tender had been accepted, and the Corporation had committed themselves irrevocably to proceed with the scheme. We, as I have said, had considered whether there was not some alternative way of providing State assistance. By that time the cost of the scheme had increased to about £12,000 and we could not possibly justify a grant proportionate to that figure from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote. The conditions under which grants could be made available from the National Development Fund laid down that such grants could only be given in respect of works which otherwise would not be done, so that this swimming pool could not be brought within the four walls of the National Development Fund. The position in 1953 was that these grants had been promised to the Corporation and that we felt it would be most unreasonable to withdraw them. In the exceptional circumstances, we recommended to the Minister that the grants already allocated be allowed to stand. The balance of the money, I may say, was found on a loan basis from other funds at the disposal of the Minister for Local Government. Although we had considered withdrawing the grants earlier, the Minister eventually agreed, in the circumstances obtaining, to let them stand.

As I said earlier, one of the conditions of the contract was that the unskilled labour would be recruited from the unemployment assistance register and that, as far as possible, the skilled labour would also be got from the employment exchange. I should say the administration of these urban schemes is controlled on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office by the Minister for Local Government, who acts as our agent in the matter. Our office does not in any way normally exercise control of individual schemes. The circumstances of this case were rather unusual and the circumstances under which we eventually agreed to let the grants stand were so unusual that we kept a special eye on the job. We knew the work had started about October, 1953, and we made some special inquiries in January, 1954. We found that according to the returns sent to our Office no unemployment assistance recipients had up to then been employed on the scheme. We asked the Department of Local Government specifically to explain why, and they explained that up to that stage only preliminary work was undertaken which required the services of from two to three semi-skilled men, and that the job had not really started. They indicated that the real work on the scheme would start shortly and that they had given a special warning that unemployment assistance recipients should be employed on the work.

As the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General has stated, very limited employment of unemployment assistance recipients was given and we made inquiries as to the circumstances under which that happened. We found on investigation that the contractor duly obeyed the instructions in the memorandum by going to the labour exchange for a list of men. A list of 21 unemployment assistance recipients was submitted to the contractor on 10th February, 1954, and a further eight later on. We verified from the manager of the labour exchange that these 21 men were, in his opinion, the most suitable of those available on the register but the contractor’s view was that none of the men was suitable. He refused to engage any of the 21 names submitted to him by the labour exchange. That exhausted the number of suitable unemployment assistance men available on the register at that particular time. A list of names of unemployment insurance beneficiaries was then submitted, six on 13th February. The contractor engaged these six men. Some further labour was required in March, and on 24th March the names of eight unemployment assistance recipients were submitted to the contractor. Again the contractor took the view that none of these men was suitable for the work and he refused to engage them. A list of unemployment insurance beneficiaries was then submitted and he engaged these instead of the unemployment assistance recipients. In February, of the seven men he had engaged on the scheme six were unemployment insurance beneficiaries, commonly called stamp men. In April, when the number of men had gone up to 12, nine were unemployment insurance beneficiaries and when the number of men employed went up to 19 at the end of April, 12 were unemployment insurance beneficiaries. From that on, the number varied. The maximum number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries employed was 17. The entire number of men employed on the scheme varied from 24 one week to 29 another and went down to 19 and 20 as the work proceeded.

The contractor, on being asked to explain why the amount of unskilled labour originally thought possible did not work out, explained that, owing to the delay in the delivery of pipes for the job, work which would normally be done by unskilled labour had to be done by skilled labour, owing to the fact that the larger pipes were intended for tidal work and that semi-skilled or skilled workers would be required to set and look after these pipes. For a few hours each day there would be more work of a non-tidal nature, which could be done by unskilled men but that would leave the skilled workers idle for these hours. In the result, only unemployment insurance beneficiaries were employed on the scheme and work normally done by unskilled labour was done by excavator equipment.

As may be seen, things did not turn out as we originally anticipated. The history of the Sligo swimming pool is such that it is most unlikely that any other swimming pool will be financed from our Office.

542. Deputy Bartley — The cost went up to £12,000. How much of that eventually was paid by means of a grant from this Vote?—The total was £4,659.

That is the figure given here, I thought there was a subsequent payment to this? —No.

Deputy Bartley.—Well, they did not do too badly.

543. Deputy Brennan.—On paragraph 20, I want to ask whether there is much difference in cost where minor employment works are carried out by the Department’s own engineers and carried out by the county council engineers. I would be interested to know if there is a saving apart from the fact of being more satisfied in the case of work being done by your own engineers?—No. I would say the cost by our own engineering staff of supervising the work is dearer than the commission we pay to the county engineers, but we get full value for it.

544. In view of that, it is not likely that there will be an expansion of the system whereby it is done by your own engineers? You need not answer that if it is a matter of policy?—It is a matter of policy, as a matter of fact.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 58—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. S. Murphy called and examined.

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

“Subhead C.1.—Cultural Relations with other Countries (Grant-in-Aid).

105. The charge to this subhead includes £1,028 in respect of the printing and publishing of a number of illustrated booklets included in a series on Irish life and culture. As the contractual arrangements entered into with the publishers were not clear I have asked for information in the matter. I have also inquired regarding the receipts arising from sales of the booklets.”

Have you any comment on this, Mr. O’Neill?

Mr. O’Neill. — This paragraph deals with the publication of certain illustrated booklets under the auspices of the Cultural Relations Committee. We were not clear as to the arrangements made in regard to printing and publishing, and we had some difficulty in reconciling the amount paid. We were recently informed that estimates were obtained from three firms when the scheme was initiated, and the firm whose estimate was lowest was selected. There was some delay in collecting receipts from sales and we have been informed that any moneys outstanding have now been remitted.

546. Chairman.—I presume there was a formal contract with the publisher, Mr. Murphy?—There was an arrangement as to the number of copies and the price, and also an arrangement for sales, but you could not describe it as a detailed contract.

547. Deputy Bartley.—Do these booklets include the weekly bulletin?—No.

548. Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll.—The publisher undertakes the sale of the books? —He distributes them for sale.

549. Are you showing a profit? — We have done better than was anticipated.

550. Chairman. — On subhead B.1.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—I notice, Mr. Murphy, that the explanation of the saving is that it was due to vacancies and to exchange compensation not being called upon to the extent estimated. To what extent did savings arise? Was it on exchange compensation solely? —Some of the posts were not filled for the entire year. Then there was in some cases an interval between the beginning of the financial year covered by the Estimate, and the time that the posts were filled.

551. In what countries is exchange compensation paid?—It is paid in the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Sweden. I think that is the lot.

552. Deputy Sheldon. — In relation to subhead C.2.—Irish News Agency—was it considered in relation to this whether or not a Supplementary Estimate should be introduced? It looks a suitable opportunity to introduce a Supplementary Estimate?—There appeared to be a saving in the general Departmental Vote and that was given to the Irish News Agency, to fill up a loss over and above the grant.

I appreciate that, but it is rather out of the ordinary run of the grant made to the news agency?—The Department of Finance was consulted and approved that method.

There was at any rate consideration as to whether or not a Supplementary Estimate should be brought in? — I think there was.

553. Chairman.—Could you say roughly what is the total amount advanced to the agency to date?—Up to 31st March, 1956, it was £273,500.

554. On subhead C.4. — Official Entertainment—does the charge under this subhead represent entertainments by the Department of External Affairs only?— It represents all Government Departments.

Deputy Mrs. O’Carroll. — Even the Department of Defence?—Yes.

555. Chairman. — On subhead C.5.— Celtic Congress (Grant-in-Aid)—what was the nature of the Congress?—It was a Cultural Congress attended by representatives of all the Celtic peoples, the peoples of Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Cornwall and Brittany—as well as Ireland.

556. In Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, why are the accumulated balances on dead accounts treated as extra receipts? We mentioned this before. I think I mentioned it on the Appropriations in Aid subhead? — They are not regular receipts and we could not forecast how much would be involved. They are consular fees and visa fees which we could not estimate in advance.

557. Chairman. — We mentioned last year that they might be brought in under the Appropriations in Aid subhead. There are fees here for consular services on estates. What type of services are performed? Do they consist in looking after the interests of Irish people and estates abroad?—That is it.

Solely?—Yes, solely.

558. Deputy Bartley. — On that question of fees, is there a fixed percentage of the profit accruing to the Irish beneficiaries charged by the Department for the services rendered by our consular representatives?—There is, 5 per cent., when the Consular Office do the entire thing; and 2½ per cent. when legal assistance is required as well.

559. Usually, I take it, the profits accruing would be in the form of cash and readily assessable?—That is right.

560. Well, if you have other forms of bequests what do you do?—It only comes to us in the form of cash because the administrator of the estate in the country concerned will liquidate anything like real estate in order to make the distribution and we only get it when it is divided.

I was thinking more of heirlooms than anything else?—I do not think we have had any experience of that.

VOTE 59—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.

Mr. S. Murphy further examined.

561. Chairman. — Arising out of subheads A.1. and B.1. — Contribution towards the Expenses of the Council—Contribution towards the Expenses of the Organisation — the Estimates show that these contributions are settled on a percentage basis. What is the percentage based on? Is it on a population or national income basis?—On a population basis in the case of the Council of Europe but on a national income basis in the case of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

562. There is a saving on subhead A.2. and the explanation given of the cause is not sufficiently enlightening?—Well, the saving arose in this way. We had to provide for a certain number of journeys to Strasbourg by Deputies, Ministers and so on, and not as many journeys were made as we anticipated.

563. On subhead C.2.—Contributions to the United Nations Childrens’ Fund— Mr. Murphy, was this simply a grant or were there any other conditions attached to the contributions?—It was a grant, pure and simple.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* Note by Witness.—I have since ascertained that none of the lighting sets is powered by a storage battery; all are engine powered.

* See Appendix XII.

* Note by Witness.—The curtains and drapes used in the work at Aras an Uachtaráin are of Irish manufacture. The covering of the walls of the reception room was renewed in silk tapestry. This is of English manufacture, as a suitable material is not available in Ireland; the cost of the material was 45/9 per yard.

* Note by Witness.—The additional cooking equipment supplied was:—

Electric food mixer; dish washer; griller; meat slicer; fish fryer and two boiling pans.

The total cost of these items was £1,052 9s. 2d., of which £603 3s. was paid in the year of account (1954-55), £150 was contributed by the Committee of the Luncheon Club and £299 6s. 2d. came in course of payment in 1955-56.

* Note by Witness.—The expenditure of £144 19s. 6d. is made up as follows:— six storage heaters in one room and four storage heaters in another room, £66; switch gear and fuse boards, £22 1s. 7d.; three thermostats, £7 0s. 9d.; cables and sundries, £20 13s. 5d.; labour, £29 3s. 9d.

* Note by Witness.—The expenditure of £166 13s. 4d. was incurred on (a) excavating for and forming an outfall manhole and a septic tank, 15 feet long, 5 feet 6 inches wide and 6 feet 6 inches deep, complete with filter and (b) excavating for and laying a stoneware outfall drain 230 feet long leading into 500 feet of french drains, which had also to be formed. Approximately £50 of the expenditure represented the cost of the labour, the balance being in respect of materials.

* Note by Witness.—Fifty-five heaters were installed in twenty rooms. The heaters cost £398 15s. 0d. and the balance of the cost is in respect of switchgear, fuse boards, thermostats, cables and labour. The total cost of the work was £763 14s. 7d., of which £68 10s. 4d. came in course of payment in 1955-56.

† See Appendix XIII.

* See Appendix XV.