Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1957 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1955 - 1956

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 24 Deireadh Fómhair, 1957.

Thursday, 24th October, 1957.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. P. S. Mac Guill, Mr. J. F. Maclnerney, Mr. J. Mooney, Mr. S. Ó Conaill and Mr. L. V. O’Neill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 54—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.

Mr. Leon Ó Broin called and examined.

296. Chairman.—Paragraph 88 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead H.2.—Losses by Default, Accident, etc.

88. The losses borne on the Vote for the year ended 31 March, 1956, amounted to £3,921. A classified schedule of these losses is set out at page 171. At page 173 particulars are given of 20 cases in which cash shortages or misappropriations amounting to £1,088 were discovered; the sums in question were made good and no charge to public funds was necessary.”

Do you wish to add anything, Mr. Ó Cadhla? I take it this is the usual formal paragraph?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. The amount charged to the Vote is £3,921 and is £321 greater than Estimate and £485 greater than the loss for the previous year. The largest item is £717 due to misappropriation of Savings Bank deposits.

297. Deputy Brennan. — Was all that recovered?

Chairman.—Is that recovered, Mr. Ó Broin?—No.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is the amount charged to the Vote. Details of these charges to the subhead are on pages 171-173.

Deputy Sheldon.—I see Donegal figuring in the recital there.

298. Chairman.—I must ask my colleagues to remember that what members of the Committee say has to be recorded and that can be done only if the note-taker is able to hear it. Paragraph 89 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Stores.

89. A test examination of the store accounts was carried out with satisfactory results.

In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix No. II as valued at £1,976,475 on 31 March, 1956, engineering stores to the value of £10,060 were held on behalf of other Government Departments. Stores other than engineering stores were valued at £668,463 including £188,850 in respect of stores held for other Government Departments.

Including works in progress on 31 March, 1956, the expenditure on manufacturing jobs in the factory during the year amounted to £39,060, expenditure on repair work (other than repairs to mechanical transport) to £49,117 and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs to £9,926.”

Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph contains the usual information relating to engineering and other stores held by the Post Office at the end of the year. It also indicates the value of work done by the Post Office factory. There is a note in Appendix II showing that these stocks of engineering stores decreased by £450,000 approximately between 1st April, 1955, and 31st March, 1956. Investigation of discrepancies disclosed in the 1954-55 stocktaking has been completed showing a small net surplus, but the final result of the 1956 stocktaking is not yet available.

299. Chairman.—The Appendix referred to is on page 179. If there is no further question on that, we can turn to paragraph 90 in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which states:—

“90. As stated in a note to the account a quantity of used copper wire valued at £1,400 was stolen from a temporary store. A sum of £312 was received as a result of legal proceedings from a dealer alleged to have purchased some of the missing wire, and a quantity valued at £86 was recovered by the Gardaí. The wire had been salvaged from overhead routes which were replaced by underground cables. The normal procedure is to dispatch such materials to the Controller of Stores, but this procedure was not followed as it was anticipated that the wire would be used on another job. In the circumstances I have inquired as to the arrangements made to safeguard stores against loss between point of recovery and delivery to the Stores Branch or to another job.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that the theft of copper wire from the stocks at Dublin Castle was facilitated by the failure on the part of a responsible officer to comply with normal procedure and, in one instance with specific security instructions, not by any weakness of the system of control, and that suitable disciplinary action has been taken in respect of the officer concerned. I may mention that the periodic tests of the efficiency of the general control of stocks carried out by my officers disclosed no defects.

Chairman.—I suppose, Mr. Ó Broin, this is the kind of thing that is liable to happen but is not going to happen again? —I agree. This particular case arose in most extraordinary circumstances. It occurred in Dublin Castle actually within a few yards of the Detective Branch. A lorry came into the Castle and took away this stuff by collusion between one of our men inside and a group outside. I think the same thing could happen anywhere if it happens in those particular circumstances. We did the very best we could to clean up the mess and as the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, it was not due to any fault in the system but to the exploitation of a particular opportunity.

Chairman.—Has the officer concerned ceased to be in the Service?—Yes, he was dismissed.

300. Chairman.—We can turn to paragraph 91 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which says:—

“Revenue

91. A test examination of the accounts of the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone services was carried out with satisfactory results.

The net yield of revenue for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56 is shown in the following statement:—

£6,891,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year, leaving a balance of £639,337 at 31 March, 1956, as compared with a balance of £441,336 at the end of the previous financial year.

Sums due for telephone services amounting to £1,744 were written off during the year as irrecoverable.”

I think that is for the information of the Committee.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.— Yes. The amount of £1,744 written off as irrecoverable was in respect of telephone services. It is £725 less than in the previous year. The revenue from the telephone service amounted to nearly £3,000,000.

301. Chairman.—If there is no further question on that, we can turn to paragraph 92 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which says:—

“Post Office Savings Bank Accounts.

92. The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31 December, 1955, were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results. The balance due to depositors, inclusive of interest, amounted to £82,176,317 (including £10,991,178 in respect of the liability to Trustee Savings Banks) on 31 December, 1955, as compared with £76,967,779 at the close of the previous year. Interest accrued during the year on securities standing to the credit of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund amounted to £2,919,812. Of this sum £1,991,166 was paid and credited to depositors in respect of interest, management expenses amounted to £182,120 and £746,526 was set aside towards provision against depreciation in the value of securities.”

I take it that is for the information of the Committee?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is so.

302. Chairman.—We can now turn to the Vote itself on page 165.

Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead G.1.— Stores—how did it arise that cycles are hired rather than having official cycles?— I think we are using a wrong word there and on the next occasion I propose to see that the word “hiring” is eliminated. What actually happens is that we pay allowances to officers who use their own cycles.

303. Chairman. — On subhead G.2.— Uniform Clothing — it appears that the claims from other Government Departments were less than anticipated. Perhaps Mr. Ó Broin would expand that a little bit? Do other Government Departments not give a firm estimate of their requirements or is there something peculiar which happened this year?—I understand this really depends upon the deliveries. When we deliver, we get paid. There must have been some sort of lag, perhaps coming to the end of the financial year or something of that kind.

It is proportionately small?—It is, yes.

304. Deputy Brennan. — In connection with subhead H.1.—Law Charges—I thought there was always a reasonably safe deposit held and paid by the subscriber which was forfeited in the case of non-payment?—It might possibly be in excess of the deposit.

Deputy Sheldon.—There is not always a deposit?—There is, except in the case of Government Departments.

305. Deputy Sheldon. — On these subheads, the Supplementary Estimate does not seem to be particularly happy?—Are you discussing subhead I or subhead H?

Subhead I, and really, subhead K is tied in with it also. There does not seem to be a very accurate forecast at the date of the Supplementary Estimate of what was going to happen. Was the Supplementary Estimate early in the financial year? There was a Supplementary Estimate under I.1 of £15,000 and then it turned out that the saving on the subhead—

Mr. Ó Broin.—Yes, the Supplementary Estimate was taken rather late, in February actually, but I know that very frequently adjustments have to be made after the close of the financial year as between capital and maintenance works. It is possible that was the reason for the fact that we did not require, as you will see in subhead I, for example, the supplementary item.

306. Deputy Sheldon.—That, in a way, is getting to the net point that I want to raise. Why should there be difficulty in forecasting the amount that is to be charged to the Vote and the amount to be charged for capital and these various things?—It is a very wide picture, of course, but one of the things that very often upsets the balance is the arrival of a substantial storm. There may be a diversion of men who ordinarily would be engaged in putting in extensions to our system back on to repair of damage caused by storms. That would seriously upset things.

307. Chairman.—Are the engineering materials under subhead K used for maintenance and for capital works or are they kept separately?—They are here, of course, in subhead K, but we ourselves have to distinguish between the purposes according to the job done.

Therefore, the same considerations would apply to a large quantity of materials which might be used on capital works or a large quantity of materials used on maintenance?—Exactly.

308. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead L.2.—Contract Work—does the saving on telegraph services indicate a policy decision because of the fact that the telegraph services do not pay?—In this particular year certain works were not undertaken, but it does not necessarily mean that we would not carry them out in the following year. It was in your own area that we were contemplating doing some work, at Malin Head in fact. Whether or not we have since undertaken it, I cannot say, but we did postpone it in 1955-56 for what appeared to us at the time to be good reasons. On our general attitude to the telegraph service I may say that we have been reorganising that service with a view to controlling the tremendous loss which it has carried since the beginning of the State and we have in recent years succeeded in pulling it down substantially.

VOTE 55—WIRELESS BROADCASTING.

Mr. Leon Ó Broin further examined.

309. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor General on page 30 which says:—

“Stores.

93. A departmental check of stocks of music revealed that certain pieces which had been paid for in previous years were not included in the contents of the library used by the light orchestra. In reply to my inquiries I was informed that on investigation it was found that pieces for which £242 had been paid were unaccounted for, the loss being attributed to payment of irregular claims to a music arranger. I understand that these claims were for arrangements that had not been completed, or for work not delivered. I have also been informed that the procedure for checking claims for services of this kind has been reviewed and that it is now considered adequate.”

Have you any further comment to make on paragraph 93, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I understand that the person concerned has been prosecuted on a number of charges and remanded until June, 1958, when the court will consider what effort has been made in the meantime to repay the money.

Chairman.—If there is somebody on remand on a criminal charge, I think the Committee may feel with me it might be more appropriate to postpone detailed examination of this question until next year.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I agree.

Chairman.—If there is no other question on those Votes, then we are very much obliged, Mr. Ó Broin.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called and examined.

310. Chairman.—Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh has come to help us in the matter. The accounts are signed by Mr. Ó Muirthe who has since retired from the service.

Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the note on subhead A.2, I am rather taken aback to find that there appears to be a grammatical lapse. The note says: “Travelling by officers of the Department and of representatives of the Department at conferences.” Should it not be “to conferences”?

Chairman.—I am afraid I must stigmatise this intervention as savouring of pedantry.

Deputy Sheldon.—If it had been any other Department, I would not have mentioned it.

Chairman.—The Accounting Officer responsible for drafting these notes is not here to-day. We cannot make Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh responsible for the oversights of his predecessor.

Deputy Cunningham.—Nobody holds out his hand.

Chairman.—If there is no further question, we will turn to Vote 40.

VOTE 40—PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

311. Chairman.—Paragraph 56 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead A.1.—Training Colleges

56. Provision is made under this subhead for the payment of grants, under a scheme approved by the Minister for Finance, to training colleges in respect of students maintained therein. In the case of one college it was noted that an increased grant was paid with effect from 1 February 1955 although the date from which the increase was sanctioned was 1 April 1955. It also appeared that no adjustment of grants had been made, as provided in the scheme, in respect of absences of students. I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In reply to my inquiries, I have been informed that the Department of Finance has, since my report, accorded covering sanction to the payment of the increased grant from the 1st February, 1955 instead of the 1st April, 1955. This aspect of the matter is now in order. In regard to the point about adjustment of the grant in respect of absences of students, I understand that exceptional treatment was afforded to the training college in question because the numbers in training were small and the full grant was based on a notional number of students. Consequently, it was not intended that deductions should be made in respect of the absence of any students.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—That is so. In regard to the first point, I should, perhaps, add that it had always been the intention to pay that grant covering the three months up to the 1st April. The idea in originally asking for the increased grant was that the April payment always covered the previous three months. That had been our intention. Perhaps that was not as clear as it might have been. I think the Department of Finance had accepted the intention but, as the Comptroller and Auditor General said, we have a covering sanction for it in any case.

312. Chairman.—In regard to the second matter mentioned about the adjustments of the grants, is there any observation you would care to make? I think they have a very limited number of students and there is the widest discretion exercised in their case where necessary?— They had always a notional figure of 50. We really regarded the new number, 54, as also a notional number for the time being. Therefore, we did not interest ourselves in small absences.

The attitude being that whatever the number enrolled at the beginning of the year you would pay for that number in full?—No, even if they had only 10, 20 or 30 we would pay them on the basis of the notional figure of 50. We increased that notional 50 to 54. Since then we have increased it to 80.

They are paid now on the assumption that they have 80 students?—Yes.

Chairman.—It has been substantially smaller?

Deputy Sheldon.—Surely not “substantially”? Frequently more people are trying to get in than there is room for?— Yes.

313. Chairman.—Paragraph 57 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead A.3.—Preparatory Colleges, etc.

57. Accounts have been furnished to me showing, for the school year 1955-56, the expenditure on and the revenue from the farms and gardens attached to the colleges. Four of the accounts disclose deficits and two show excesses of receipts over expenditure. Periodical inspections of the farms are carried out by officers of the Department of Agriculture and their reports are available to me.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph is informative. The three colleges for girls have farms attached. In the case of two, the accounts showed deficits of £400 and £145. Coláiste Mhuire shows a surplus of £251. These statements are simply statements of the cash receipts and payments and do not reflect the financial effect of any increases or decreases in stocks. The three colleges for boys have only gardens and playing fields attached. The statement shows small deficits in the case of two and a surplus of £147 for Coláiste Einde.

314. Deputy Booth.—Are the farms an essential part of these colleges?

Chairman.—Do they constitute part of the educational programme?—No. They are merely there for the purpose of supplying vegetables, potatoes and so on to the students and staff. We do not teach farming or rural science or anything of that kind on those farms.

315. Deputy Booth.—Are these deficits just a sort of trading fluctuation?—Yes.

Chairman.—Are they consistently running at a loss?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I would not say so. It is very difficult to discover from the returns. They are simply cash returns.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—The comparatively large deficit in one of the colleges, Coláiste Ide, Daingean, where they had a loss of £402 in 1955-56, was quite unusual. The figures for the five previous years show that on three of the college farms there was a small gain. In 1954-55 there was a loss of £138 on the Coláiste Ide farm. In 1955-56 there was a loss of £402. The reason for that might be attributed to the cattle disease that occurred in the year 1954-55. The milk production fell very considerably. They had to kill a number of the stock with the result that, whereas at the 31st July, 1953, there were 31 beasts on the farm, the number at the end of December, 1955, was only 13. It takes time to recover. That explains the comparatively large loss in Coláiste Ide that year. The only other loss of substance was in Coláiste Bhrighde in Falcarragh. It is £145. It is coming down. In 1953-54 it was £581. There is very bad land at Falcarragh. It is very low lying, damp and wet land. Except for Coláiste Ide, where trouble occurred with the cattle, the others are, I think, doing well enough.

316. Chairman.—Doubtless the Department will take suitable measures to deal with the dampness of the land at Falcarragh through the admirable schemes operated by the Department of Agriculture?—I cannot say whether we have started already but there is a drainage scheme envisaged for Falcarragh farm.

Chairman.—Does that clarify the matter for you, Deputy Booth?

Deputy Booth.—Yes.

317. Chairman.—Paragraph 58 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“58. The average cost per student for maintenance and tuition for the year has been assessed at £143. The average fee paid by the students was £24.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla? I take it that that is purely for information?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

VOTE 41—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

318. Chairman.—Paragraph 59 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead E.—Grant towards Publication of Irish Text Books.

59. The scheme for the publication by independent publishers of secondary school text books required by schools conducting courses through the medium of Irish, which commenced in the year 1954-55 and to which reference was made in paragraph 58 of the previous report, was continued during the year under review. Repayable grants amounting to £2,088 in respect of additional books are included in the charge to this subhead, the total amount of grants paid to 31 March 1956 in respect of ten approved text books being £5,326. Repayments amounted to £1,588, including £445 credited to appropriations in aid in this account.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, except that the Stationery Office was unable to undertake the publication of these books at short notice and it was decided that the work should be done by an outside firm of publishers. I have nothing further to add to the information contained in the paragraph.

VOTE 42—TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh called.

No question.

VOTE 43—SCIENCE AND ART.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

319. Chairman.—Paragraph 60 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General roads:—

“Subhead B.1.—Publications in Irish.

60. In paragraph 47 of the report on the accounts for the year 1951-52, reference was made to the non-publication of a number of works in Irish for which fees had been paid to authors and translators, and to the disposal of stocks of books which remained unsold. As noted in this account, it was decided to defer indefinitely the publication of 35 manuscripts for which fees amounting to £3,067 were paid in the year 1931 and subsequent years. In regard to unsold books, the Accounting Officer indicated in 1953 that a considerable reduction in numbers had been effected over the years. It was noted however, that additional stocks of books for which there was little or no demand had since accumulated and I have inquired as to the present position regarding their disposal.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In regard to unsold books, I have been informed that as a result of a survey it was decided to dispose of 113,000 copies of 68 books for which no appreciable sale was expected. 97,000 copies were sold as waste paper for £180 and 16,000 copies are being held to meet any possible future demands.

320. Chairman.—What are the books we have sold for waste paper?

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—I have not a list of those books but I can supply such a list.

321. Chairman.—If you will be good enough to let us have a list of the numbers of each title that have been destroyed. You say at the end of this note, Mr. Ó Cadhla, that “additional stocks of books for which there was little or no demand had since accumulated and I have enquired as to the present position regarding their disposal.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—What I have stated refers to the complete stocks.

Chairman.—You have mentioned that a great number have been sold for waste paper.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is right.

322. Chairman.—Are we to take it that the likelihood of this occurring in the future is being provided against?

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—I think that we are taking measures. If I might refer to a reply of Mr. Breathnach in 1944-45 on this question, he pointed out:—

“We have a certain number of manuscripts which have been paid for and which have not been published and the reason for that is this: In the early days it was thought that a general supply of Irish books might create a demand. It was remarkable, of course, that there was a very small number of Irish books available at the time. If you went to a public library you saw one shabby little shelf, or perhaps half a shelf of Irish books, while the rest of the place was taken up with books in English. The policy at one time was to produce a good supply in the hope that it would create a demand, and for some time commissions for translations were accepted fairly generously in the hope that we could supply a variety of reading in Irish for the reading public, and for another reason also. The Irish language had been allowed to grow rusty through not being applied to modern ways of thinking and modern modes of expression and it was hoped by having a good deal of translations that the language would be exercised, so to speak, and brought to bear on subjects that, on account of the way it had been obscured, it had not dealt with previously. A very distinct advantage has been gained in that way. In spite of the fact that we have not been able to publish some of the books and that a good deal that have been published are still unsold, there is still that gain, that the language has been set to work on subjects it had not been working on before and in that way its application has been considerably widened. We are preparing some of the manuscripts that we accepted and paid for, without immediately publishing them, so that they can be sent to the printer gradually—those that we consider really worth it.”

Those were the two principal reasons for having books translated, but experience showed that the Irish reading public did not seem to take to translations. We found ourselves with large accumulated stocks on hands and in the last number of years we have accepted very few translations from English. We will accept something in a Continental language which would not be available in English in the hope that because it is not available in English there might be some sale for it. We are accepting very little in the line of translations.

323. Deputy Cunningham.—Were those books published by An Gúm?—Yes.

324. Instead of selling them as waste paper, would it not be possible to have them made available to the various county libraries and to the branches of those libraries?—I do not think we actually thought of that, but we did take other measures for disposing of surplus books from 1934 on. In 1934, we gave over 3,000 books to 154 schools in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht. In 1935, we reduced 27 titles to half price and in 1938 we had 42 further titles reduced, some to half price and some to less. In 1940, of 100 book titles we offered £1 worth to schools for 12/6. These were books published up to 1937. In 1941, we sent around 2,000 catalogues to individuals and public bodies who we thought might be interested in purchasing books at reduced prices. In 1943, from 40 book titles we offered £3 17s. 6d. worth for £1 and any books from a special list we offered for 10/-. Later we again circularised to bodies and schools these offers and in 1949 we made further offers of books at bargain prices. In 1953, we listed 103 books from which 40 might be selected and bought for £1. Our prices were coming down all the time. These were books published between 1927 and 1941. We again offered 50 books in 1955 at reduced prices. I do not think we thought of the Deputy’s point of sending them to local libraries but we sent the catalogues and circulars to the libraries and any other public bodies in 1941.

325. Deputy Larkin.—What would be the difference between the amount which would be received from the sale of those books at reduced prices and selling them for waste paper?

Chairman.—They had actually been sold for £180 as waste paper. The alternative was to take 6d. a copy.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—The trouble was that we did not get 6d. a copy or anything like that. The scheme for selling lots at £1 and 10/- was very successful but I do not think there was any hope at that stage of selling 90,000 copies. A number of those were copies of the same books.

326. Deputy Larkin.—With reference to Deputy Cunningham’s suggestion about county libraries, if there are a number of this type of book on hands, surely you might consider issuing them free to some of the schools?—We did issue some free to the Gaeltacht schools.

I am not talking about Gaeltacht schools. I am talking about schools where the language is taught and where the children have no chance of hearing or reading it at home.

327. Chairman. — I take it these were not school books, they were novels?— Yes. The Collegians was one, an interesting book but rather dull for youngsters nowadays.

You have been good enough to promise us a list of the books which might be destroyed and perhaps Deputy Larkin would consider that list. We could then determine whether it would be more advantageous to issue the books free or dispose of them for waste paper.

Deputy Larkin. — If there are more books now that might possibly be destroyed, I would be interested in them.

328. Deputy Cunningham. — That is really my point. Whereas the methods adopted by the Department for disposal were very good methods, they involved too many purchasers. By disposing of them to the county council libraries you would have a smaller number of purchasers. The books would be circulated and would be available for a number of years. I think they could be sold at a very low price to the county councils.

Deputy Sheldon.— I think they were offered at sixpence a copy to the county council libraries.

Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh.—We circularised the county libraries among others. I dare say they would take them for nothing, but on the other hand we felt £180 was better than nothing.

329. Deputy Sheldon.—I imagine most county libraries are bound to suffer from shortage of shelving space. They are not going to take books just because they will get them for nothing. They are not very readable or very interesting and that is not because they are in Irish. It is not because of the language. People will not read dull books in English.

Chairman.—Mr. Ó Raifeartaigh will give us a list of the books that have been destroyed and of the books that remain on hand.*

Deputy Cunningham.—And in respect of the books that remain on hands, the numbers of each.

330. Deputy Sheldon. — On subhead A.8.—Survey and Reproduction of Irish Historical Records in Foreign Collections (Grant-in-Aid)—the principle governing the amount of the subhead which turns up in the note seems a bit unusual. This rather, I assume, unusual arrangement that the amount over £5,000 is governed by some other factor is not referred to in the Estimate. Is it of long standing?— Yes. It is there almost from the beginning of this Survey and Reproduction provision. The National Library makes microfilms of manuscripts here and there throughout Europe and Harvard University said they would like to have some of these microfilms and they would pay for them, up to £750 per annum. Apart from the intrinsic merit of the proposal it was bringing in dollars as well and it was decided that the National Library should be allowed to spend on Survey and Reproduction work, in addition to the normal £5,000, whatever sum we received from Harvard.

331. Was this recession of interest in regard to Harvard just a temporary one? —I do not know. The figure has come down from the beginning. It is now down, I think, to £65 worth. They just take microfilms in which they have a special interest.

I would assume that this process of microfilming historical documents is bound to peter out, that there is bound to be an end to the supply of interesting documents?—Yes, but I do not think it will happen for many years. One of the troubles is to find these documents. In many of the libraries in Europe they are not catalogued as such. People have to come across them there, and list them. We give an order to the library concerned to microfilm them for us or to send us photostats of them and microfilm them here. It is not expected to end for many years.

332. Is it possible to know in advance the type of documents which will be of interest to the Library? Have you any general indication of that? — No, we would not have.

You just do not know from year to year how much they will take?—We do not.

333. Chairman.—This survey is confined to these Irish historical records in foreign collections?—Yes.

334. Is there any parallel service for microfilming Irish historical documents in domestic collections?—Yes. The Library is doing that all the time steadily out of its normal Vote. If anyone has a document of that kind and brings it to the notice of the Library, the Library will be very glad to microfilm it.

Collections of family documents will be microfilmed by the National Library and the microfilm is retained in the National Library if, in the opinion of the librarian, it is of sufficient interest?—The National Library employs a permanent inspector who is continually travelling around the country inspecting private collections and reporting on them.

335. On subhead B.2.—Dramatic Productions in Irish (Grants-in-Aid) — does that apply to the theatre in Galway or the theatre in Dublin, or where are these dramatic productions given?—It includes the theatre in Galway. The Gaeltacht drama is another and the Irish section of the Abbey Theatre is also included. Then there is a dramatic society in Dublin called An Compántas which presents semi-humorous productions three or four times a year. All these are included under that heading.

336. How is the Grant-in-Aid determined? If some enterprising group propose to present a play in Irish and applies to you for a grant, how do you determine what they should get?—I am afraid we do not give that type of group anything. We first have to be sure that the group will be of a permanent character and will not be a mere flash in the pan.

This is primarily for the promotion of repertory groups?—Yes.

On what basis do they get the grant? —They send us a list of the productions they hope to stage during the coming year and an estimate of the cost of the plays, which does not vary very much from year to year.

337. On subhead B.5.—Irish Committee of Historical Sciences (Grant-in-Aid)— what does that body do?—The Committee of Historical Sciences is a joint Committee of the Irish Historical Society and the Ulster Society for Irish Historical Studies, and is affiliated to the International Committee for Historical Sciences. The normal grant is £100 and it enables them to send one or two delegates to an annual meeting in Paris, London or wherever it may be. Of the £850, £750 is towards the production of the historical work on the Famine which has since appeared, and so this year we have only £100 there instead of £850.

338. On subhead B.6. — Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge (Grant-in-Aid)—the Comhdháil is a kind of body for amalgamating a whole series of activities?—Yes.

339. On subhead B.8. — The National Film Institute of Ireland (Grant-in-Aid) —are they producing any films in Irish? —Yes. Of that £2,000, £500 goes to films which are entirely in Irish. Of course the whole £2,000 is towards a library of educational films.

340. Could you tell us if there is any subhead in this Vote for the Place Names Commission or is that on another Vote? —It is on one of the Department of Finance Votes.

VOTE 44—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

341. Chairman.—There is no paragraph by the Comptroller and Auditor General. On subhead C.—Places of Detention— which, I presume, refers to Marlborough House, is there any provision being made there for the attendance of a child psychiatrist or a person skilled in child guidance?—No, not at the moment.

Have you any such plan in contemplation?—The whole position in regard to Marlborough House is under review at the moment.

VOTE 45—DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES.

Mr. T. Ó Raifeartaigh further examined.

342. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I should like to refer to the position in regard to the audit of the Institute accounts. I complained in the past of the delay in submitting accounts for audit but I am pleased to inform the Committee that I have before me the accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1957. They are ready for signature.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 8—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. G. P. Fagan called.

No question.

VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. G. P. Fagan further examined.

343. Chairman.—Paragraph 14 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions.

14. I have been furnished with a detailed statement of the works on which the expenditure of £1,700,556 charged to this subhead was incurred. Grants for building, etc., of national schools, estimated at £1,350,000, amounted to £1,041,712, the resulting saving being the main portion of the saving of £499,444 on the subhead.

The principal major works on which expenditure was incurred were:—

Have you anything to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph shows the position regarding the major works on which expenditure was incurred during the year. I included cases in which the expenditure to the end of the year of account exceeded £40,000. Three of these have been completed, Nos. 43, 131 and 136.

344. Deputy Sheldon.—Would it be proper to ask for the final figure for item No. 136?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The final figure differs very little from £40,191.

345. Chairman.—In regard to item No. 40, have we reached the end of the outlay in regard to that building?

Mr. Fagan.—Not yet, I think. I am not very familiar with the particular building. I know there is still an amount of work to be done, but I hope we have reached the end of dealing with the dry rot which, as you know, was the subject of discussion in previous years.

Chairman.—Yes. I take it the phrase “Adaptations and Renovations” includes the new laboratory at Johnstown?— Yes. I could give you particulars of the works. The balance of the expenditure there incurred up to 31st March, 1956, was spread over a number of items; notably on the erection of a new soil-testing laboratory. There were also electricity and heating works and there were surfacing works on avenues and yards and additional office and sanitary accommodation, the erection of a superintendent’s house and extension of the temporary soil-testing laboratory.

346. Deputy Larkin.—With regard to item No. 1, may I ask the same question: have we reached the end of the expenditure there or, if not, what is the final figure likely to be?—The final figure, on the best information I have, is there already; it is about £134,600. That is our total Estimate. The first stage of that job was completed, as members of the Committee probably know, some considerable time ago—1950. The cost was £56,300. The second stage, which covers the east wing works was estimated at about £78,000 to £79,000.

347. When was that estimate?— 1955-56.

There is no change in the estimate?— I beg your pardon, there is, yes. It was revised recently and the total estimate now is £141,500.

Chairman.—Members of the Committee will recall that they have already received, in anticipation, a copy of a statement of expenditure on new works, alterations and additions.

348. Chairman.—Paragraph 15 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“15. The expenditure charged in respect of premises for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs includes in certain cases only portion of the cost. The balance, appropriate to telephone construction, is charged to the Telephone Capital Account and amounted in the year under review to £90,545.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.— The paragraph is merely informative.

349. Chairman.—Paragraph 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Subhead E.—Rents, Rates, etc.

16. To provide accommodation for the legation at Brussels, furnished premises were leased in 1947 on a yearly tenancy at a rent of 240,000 Belgian francs per annum, reduced to 210,000 francs per annum from 1950. A deposit of 60,000 francs repayable on termination of the tenancy was lodged with the lessor as a guarantee against damage to the furniture and fittings. The premises were formally surrendered in December, 1954, and I have inquired as to the recovery of the deposit.”

Do you wish to add anything to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I am informed that the lessor has raised a claim against the deposit in respect of the reinstatement of the premises and its contents. It is expected that the final settlement of this claim will result in the retention by the lessor of a sum of the order of 54,000 francs out of the 60,000 francs. The equivalent in Irish currency of 60,000 francs is about £430.

Chairman. — Is there any further information on that matter, Mr. Fagan?

Mr. Fagan.—The negotiations are still proceeding, Mr. Chairman, and what the Comptroller and Auditor General said is, we hope, likely to eventuate. The lessor did raise a claim, really for dilapidations, losses, breakages, and so forth and negotiations are based on valuations carried out by valuers for each side.

350. Chairman. — Paragraph 17 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

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

17. The charge to this subhead includes expenditure of £446,775 on the Glyde and Dee, Feale, Corrib-Clare and Nenagh catchment drainage schemes, which were commenced in June, 1950, June, 1951, April, 1954, and May, 1955, respectively. The value of stores issued and charges for the use of plant and machinery were assessed at £274,931, the total cost of the schemes to 31 March, 1956, being:—

Do you wish to add anything, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The provision of £416,000 for this subhead was exceeded by nearly £38,000. As stated in the note to the subhead, the excess is attributed to increased labour costs and to greater progress on some of the schemes than had been anticipated, offset to some extent by savings resulting from delay in starting the Nenagh scheme.

351. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“18. A certificate of completion of the Brosna catchment drainage scheme was issued on 6 December, 1955, by the Minister for Finance pursuant to Section 13 (2) of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. The cost of this scheme, which was commenced in May, 1948, was £1,184,000. Direct expenditure incurred after 6 December, 1955, on the maintenance of the works is charged to subhead J.5 and amounted to £2,228. Under the provisions of the Arterial Drainage Acts, 1945 and 1955, the cost of maintenance is recoverable from the councils of the counties in which the benefited lands are situated and, by direction of the Minister for Finance, moneys so recovered are to be appropriated in aid of the Vote. No amount was due for recovery during the year.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla. — The transfer of the completed Brosna scheme from construction to maintenance was not effected until late in the year. In consequence, the charge in respect of maintenance was approximately £2,000 as against an estimate of £18,000.

Chairman.—But the scheme is now on maintenance?

Mr. Fagan.—It is, Mr. Chairman.

352. Chairman.—Paragraph 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Central Engineering Workshops and Stores.

19. £426 was expended on the purchase of certain spare parts though there had been no issues from a stock of similar parts which had been held in store for a number of years. I have inquired as to the necessity for the purchase.”

Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Following a limited test examination of the stores records, I inquired regarding the purchase of certain items which cost £426, as it appeared that similar items were held in stock. I have been informed that some of the items had been purchased to bring stocks up to the levels considered necessary to meet operational and overhaul requirements. These levels were within the limits of maximum and minimum stocks set up for guidance under the material control system at the Central Workshops. These limits are subject to review and adjustment in the light of experience. The purchase of other items was attributed to errors in the material control record cards. I am informed that these are good stock and likely to be required; that some of them had since been used; and that the balance will not deteriorate in store.

Chairman.—Have you any comment to make, Mr. Fagan?

Mr. Fagan. — I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. We have given the information to the Comptroller and Auditor General in reply to his query and he has summarised it very correctly and accurately.

353. Chairman.—Paragraph 20 of the Report is as follows:—

“20. A number of excavator buckets were manufactured at the workshops at an assessed cost ranging from £730 to £1,130 per bucket. As comparable items had previously been purchased at prices ranging from £577 to £788 I have asked whether supplies could not have been obtained more economically from contractors.”

Do you wish to add anything, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I am informed that the buckets manufactured in the Central Engineering Workshops included a number of modifications, based on experience, designed to improve performance. As these buckets were not identical with those supplied by contractors, the figures quoted in the paragraph are not really comparable. I am satisfied on this point.

Deputy Sheldon. — Some years ago, when the Committee visited the workshops, one of the things to which their attention was drawn was the special design of buckets which was better than those that could be obtained.

354. Chairman.—In any case, I take it your comment, Mr. Ó Cadhla, on this note qualifies in some measure the last paragraph?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—How do you mean?

Chairman. — I understand from what you say now that, having reviewed this matter in the light of the minor alterations in design of bucket, you are satisfied that the prices of £577 to £788, as compared with the prices £730 to £1,130, do not reveal as wide a discrepancy as you at first feared?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Quite so; they are not comparable figures. But there is one point to which I should like to direct the attention of the Committee. It is on this matter of costing. There was very considerable investment in plant and machinery for this Arterial Drainage Scheme. To maintain this plant and machinery it was necessary to erect workshops, to equip them, and man them with the necessary technical labour. The overheads thus built up are constant; they are not affected to any appreciable extent by the rate of inflow of maintenance work, so that it may be misleading to compare the all-in cost of production of a bucket with the commercial price of a similar bucket. To take a concrete example— the cost of making a 2½ cubic yard bucket is shown as £730. That cost is made up as follows: cost of material, £310; cost of labour, £130; overhead charges, £290. To my mind, the cost to the State of the manufacture of the bucket is little more than the cost of the raw material. If this work had not been undertaken there would have been no resulting saving in labour or overhead charges. This question arises in connection with work undertaken in other State workshops and I submit for the consideration of the Committee that it would be in the interests of economy if State workshops were utilised to their full capacity before supplies were sought elsewhere.

Chairman.—What would your view be on that, Mr. Fagan?

Mr. Fagan.—Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that it is a general question, rather a big and important one, but before I make any comment on that I should just like to say, if I may comment on the Comptroller and Auditor General’s reference to the £730 bucket as including £310 for materials, £130 for labour and £290 for overhead charges, that these are the correct figures but it is something new to me to hear that you could, in the Central Engineering Workshops, or indeed in any other workshop, cost an item of manufacture without including the cost of labour engaged on it.

355. Chairman. — I think the point made by the Comptroller and Auditor General is that to describe the most expensive bucket here as costing £1,130 is probably to over-estimate the cost of manufacturing the bucket because, whatever about the labour charges, the overheads would be constant whether the labour was used for manufacturing this bucket or allowed to stand idle. They have to be kept on because they may be required for maintenance works at any moment. If, therefore, the buildings and the other amenities available are used for the purpose of manufacturing these buckets, while for accounting purposes an appropriate part of them must be charged to the bucket, the charge would probably stand if the bucket was never made and I think the Comptroller and Auditor General is suggesting here that if we disregarded that element in the cost of the bucket which is represented by overheads it might be found that the manufacture of the bucket by the Office of Public Works shops was perhaps as economical as the purchase of the bucket from an independent contractor?—Yes. Well, that is what I say; that would require a lot of consideration because it is, I frankly admit, new to me to hear the suggestion made that in costing any article like that you could ignore overheads and the cost of labour engaged on it. May I put it this way, Mr. Chairman, that if, in costing this job, we had shown the cost as £310 only, which is the cost of the material, I might be answering a very different question—as to why we had not included for labour or overheads. The general question is one, of course, I would not like to touch on here, as it would require a lot of consideration, but I would like the Committee to bear in mind that the primary function and purpose of the Inchicore premises is to keep our engineering machinery and plant in service. In other words, it is a repair and maintenance depôt rather than a factory. The factory side should be subordinate to the more important service. Another observation I would like to make on this general question is that it is not quite correct, I think, to say that overheads are constant and are not affected by the inflow of maintenance work. In fact, we have had occasions on which we have had to take on extra labour where we have had an inflow of rather exceptional work and likewise we have had to get rid of redundant labour where we have had no work for them and that might change the overhead costs also. I imagine that if there were a big extension of production we might have to acquire new premises and that certainly would increase the overheads.

356. Chairman.—In the absence of the need to acquire additional premises or additional machine tools, is there not a good deal in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s contention that a fair estimate of the cost of these buckets would be the material plus labour and that to charge them with their full share of overheads is perhaps excessively conservative costing procedure?—Well, as I say, Mr. Chairman, it is a rather big general question. It comes to me as a bit of a surprise. I am not really competent to express an expert opinion on it but, since you asked me for my views on the matter, I gave them as they came to me off-hand.

357. Deputy Sheldon.—I was very much on the same point. Mr. Fagan did mention the question of bringing in labour and putting off redundant labour affecting the figures. I understand the Comptroller and Auditor General’s figures separated labour from overheads?—Yes, I agree.

So the question of standing-off men or bringing in men would not affect the overheads at all? He has the labour content separated completely. I think, if I understood correctly everything that has been said, Mr. Fagan is probably defending something that was not being attacked. I rather took it that the Comptroller and Auditor General was on the side of the use being made of a workshop, in a sort of spare-time way from maintenance, to make these buckets and that it was a good thing to do it.

Chairman.—I think we are in the astonishing position that we have the Comptroller and Auditor General singing Mr. Fagan’s praises and we have Mr. Fagan bristling and rebuking himself for his extravagance?—I had certainly no intention of conveying such an impression; but when I heard the point about the costing of this job and when I was asked for observations, I felt bound to say that I considered one could not ignore labour charges in the costing of any job of work.

358. Chairman.—I rather lean, in the light of your valuable advice and that of the Comptroller and Auditor General, to the idea that an appropriate charge for the purpose of determining the relative costs of these two procedures would be labour and materials for the home-made bucket as opposed to the contractor’s price and that where labour and materials represent a lower cost than the contractor was prepared to offer, we would be justified in manufacturing these buckets, but where labour and materials were grossly in excess of the contractor’s tender we probably would be under a duty to take the lower price from the contractor; but I rather lean to the view also, Mr. Fagan, that the Spartan procedure of appropriating to each individual bucket a share of the overheads in addition to the labour and materials is perhaps too Spartan a costing procedure. However, perhaps you will consider this matter?—Yes. If I got the Comptroller and Auditor General correctly, it is a general question that does not apply to us only but that applies to other State Departments.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes, it is a general question. I allowed this note to stand for the purpose of having this question discussed.

359. Chairman.—Perhaps you would give the matter your consideration and possibly at your convenience you would let us have a note of your considered opinion on the question, or the considered opinion of the Commissioners, as to whether in costing a product produced in a maintenance workshop regard must be had not only to (1) the materials and (2) the labour, but also to (3) an appropriate share of the standing charges?—Yes, very good.*

Perhaps you would ask the Commissioners to let us have their view on that? —That is, for our workshop. That is all I can speak of. But, as I say, it is a general question.

Yes, but we would value the experienced view of the Commissioners on the question?—Thank you.

360. Deputy Sheldon.—There was a further point, that is, that full use should be made of the machines. I do not know whether he had in mind something that I had in mind. There was some machine we had a discussion on here before, a grinding machine or a cylindrical polishing machine. They were both rather expensive and at the time I was certainly left under the impression that the overheads on them were high and very skilled men had to be employed in their use, and yet they were not in really very constant use. I think I remember that, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, the hours of work in the year looked very small. I was wondering whether this machine which deals with the crankshafts of engines is of that nature. Perhaps the workshop does deal with that; I do not know. For instance, the Department of Defence and the Post Office from time to time must have to get engines overhauled and vehicles dealt with. Is any attempt made, or has it been thought of, to have this work done and so keep this expensive machine in full employment?—I am afraid I do not know about that. I know about the machine but I am not quite familiar enough with what the Deputy is speaking about. Was this matter not gone into, at a previous meeting of the Committee, with Mr. Ó hÉigceartuigh?

It has cropped up several times, as the use that was given to this machine seemed rather small?—That could be, of course.

I do not know whether it was considered whether work could be found for the machine, in other Government Departments?—I could only answer in a general way by saying that we do work for other Departments. You probably are aware that we do a very substantial amount for the Forestry Department.

Chairman.—And the Department of Agriculture?—Yes, we have also taken over Department of Agriculture machinery.

361. I think Deputy Sheldon makes the point that if, in the Office of Public Works Maintenance Shops, there are highly specialised machines, it might be advantageous to direct the attention of other Departments of State to the availability of such facilities in your maintenance workshops, so that if a machine tended to stand idle other Departments might ask you to do work for them with this machine, rather than seek the services of an independent contractor?—Yes.

362. Chairman.—However, that is rather a wide departure from the specific issue of buckets. Mr. Fagan will let us have the Commissioners’ considered view on this question and on the three elements of cost in the job. We come now to paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which reads as follows:—

“21. Two sets of stores records are maintained in the central workshops— one operated by engineering staff and the other by the accounts branch. I have inquired as to the necessity for this apparent duplication of records.”

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

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I am somewhat embarrassed by this paragraph. For years we have been complaining that the system of store accounting was not adequate—now we complain that it is too elaborate. The Accounting Officer made a strong case for the retention of the two systems. In his reply he stated that they serve separate purposes—the function of the Accounts Branch ledger is one of store accounting; the function of the Material Control Records is to keep the workshop management aware at all times of the current physical position of and the anticipated demands for the various items required for stock. As the purposes served are different, it is necessary, as matters stand, to maintain the two systems and it is doubtful if any attempt to merge them would be conducive to efficiency or economy. Receipts into and issues from stores are recorded in both systems, and to that extent there is duplication, but this is unavoidable. Actually that is the one point at issue. I must say I cannot at present appreciate the difficulty of merging the systems, since it seems that the more elaborate Engineers’ system contains all the particulars relating to stores which are shown in the Accountant’s ledger. The Accountant has used over 30,000 cards to record the stocks and I am sure the Engineers have probably used three times as many. However, I should be very reluctant to suggest that either system should be scrapped without further investigation — and investigation on the spot. One point is that we have yet no precise measure of the economy which would be effected; another is that the Engineers’ system is apparently not up to date.

363. Chairman.—Have you any comment you would care to make on that, Mr. Fagan?—Well, I welcome the suggestion of the Comptroller and Auditor General to have an investigation on the spot. We would be just as anxious as anybody to get rid of unnecessary duplication. That is the whole point—is it unnecessary? He has correctly said that this matter was the subject of a push from his Office many years back. I was involved in that myself, as a matter of fact, as Accountant in the Office of Public Works about 22 or 23 years ago and it was in consultation with the Audit Department that a system was drawn up. I should like to mention this point, that the fundamental principle or basis of the Store Accounting system which was drawn up—not, of course, for Inchicore because it was not there at the time, we had a very small Stores at that time—was that the Accounting Officer must be expected to account to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to this Committee for stores in the same way as cash and that, therefore, store accounting becomes a function of the Accountant under the Accounting Officer. For that purpose, he must be in a position to effect an independent check on what is going on in any stores. He cannot go up to the Engineers, for example, in the Central Engineering Workshops and say: “Give me your records” and take them as being 100 per cent. accurate, if they are the only records that are being kept, because they would be the people who are operating the stores, taking them in and giving them out. If there is duplication that can be got rid of, I am all for getting rid of it; and I welcome the suggestion of the Comptroller and Auditor General. We will go into that matter with the Audit Department and arrange for an investigation on the spot with him.

Bearing in mind that while there may be a superficial appearance of duplication it may be very necessary?—That is right.

It may be necessary for the proper administration of the Office to have two systems operating collaterally?—Yes.

That is, if proper records are to be kept and proper prognostications made of engineering requirements?—That must be borne in mind.

364. Deputy Sheldon.—Before leaving the question of stocks, is the stocktaking reasonably up-to-date now?—There is a continuous stocktaking going on.

Earlier there was some sort of lag. Has that been caught up?—The first stocktaking is complete and the second is in operation. There is a continuous stocktaking going on all the time now through these very simple records which the Accounts Branch Ledger Section have for the purpose of doing that audit.

365. Chairman.—Do you wish to add anything to Paragraph 22 of your Report, Mr. Ó Cadhla?—It reads as follows:—

“Plant and Machinery.

22. An examination of plant history records disclosed that five excavators and two tractors located at drainage works remained unused for periods of from six to twenty months. Six of the machines were out of service apparently owing to delay in obtaining necessary spares. The seventh machine, a large excavator, was not re-assembled for seven months after transfer from one drainage district to another. I have inquired as to the reasons for these delays.

Another tractor which had undergone a major overhaul in the year 1952-53 required a similar overhaul in the year 1955-56, having been in operation for only 786 hours in the meantime. I have asked for an explanation.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—A couple of hundred machines are in use in the arterial drainage scheme. I do not wish to suggest that my complaints on the seven or eight to which I refer in the paragraph reflect the general position. The Accounting Officer in his reply has given a history of each machine. There was a series of accidents. I shall read the first paragraph of his reply. It relates to a Priestman Wolf Excavator:—

“The total delay was due to a number of causes cumulative in effect. The bearings on the engine of this machine failed on the 5th November, 1954, and the engine was removed. An overhauled engine was issued in replacement and received at the works on the 27th November. Owing to flooding of the land around the machine and to the staff being fully engaged on the salvage of the floating dredger which had sunk during the storm in December, 1954, it was not possible to have the replacement engine fitted until 4th January, 1955. A transmission wheel had been inadvertently returned to the workshop with the defective engine and a delay ensued until the 27th January when a transmission wheel was fitted. The replacement engine failed prematurely on account of a tooth breaking in the gear wheel driving the lubricating oil pump. Repairs then undertaken were not effective owing to faults which had not become apparent, and it was necessary to order new parts and to carry out repairs on two further occasions before the machine was finally put into service on the 5th May, 1955.”

The story of the other five machines is somewhat similar. If the Committee wishes, I have no objection to submitting the full reply in evidence.

366. Chairman.—I take it that breakdowns inevitably take place. Are you satisfied there was no negligence in relation to any of these machines?—In the short time at my disposal I have gone into these cases and I am satisfied there was no negligence. As the Comptroller and Auditor General has pointed out, he drew attention to cases where there were idle periods of six months or more. Where you have over 200 machines in use, if you have only seven idle for six months, the position is not too bad. At least, that is the way it occurred to me. I would like to be able to say there were none idle, but in these individual cases I am quite satisfied and I am sure the Committee will be satisfied if they accept the Comptroller and Auditor General’s offer to submit the memorandum in evidence.

367. Chairman.—Might we turn for a moment to the seventh machine?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The seventh machine was a Marion Excavator. I am informed that the delay was mainly due to the difficulty of obtaining spares from the official agent.

Mr. Fagan.—That is correct. We shortened that delay ourselves as a matter of fact. Our engineers made special efforts to avoid loss of time. They did, in fact, get the parts elsewhere earlier than we would have got them through the agents. But there was that delay in getting spares.

Chairman.—Has the agent for this machine given any undertaking that he is prepared to maintain a better service in future?—I cannot answer that.

368. Chairman.—Would the Committee wish the Comptroller and Auditor General to incorporate in our Minutes of Evidence the detailed reply of the Office of Public Works in respect of each of these machines?

Deputy Sheldon.—I think that would be a good idea. It would clarify the position.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The following is the text of my query:—

“VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS (1955-56).

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

It is observed that the following machines were out of commission for the periods set out, apparently owing to delay in obtaining spares:—

It is noted further that Lima No. 16/01 was transferred to the Corrib C.D. scheme in May ’55 but did not commence work until August ’55, owing apparently to delay in obtaining a supply of mats, and that Marion No. 36/01 was transferred to this scheme in October, ’54 but was not put into use until May ’55, owing apparently to delay in assembly.

Information is requested as to the cause of the delays in these cases.”

I received the following reply from the Accounting Officer:—

“The information requested is as follows:—

Priestman Wolf Excavator No. P3/26.

The total delay was due to a number of causes cumulative in effect. The bearings on the engine of this machine failed on the 5th November, 1954, and the engine was removed. An overhauled engine was issued in replacement and received at the works on the 27th November. Owing to flooding of the land around the machine and to the staff being fully engaged on the salvage of the floating dredger which had sunk during the storm in December, 1954, it was not possible to have the replacement engine fitted until the 4th January, 1955. A transmission wheel had been inadvertently returned to the Workshop with the defective engine and a delay ensued until the 27th January when a transmission wheel was fitted. The replacement engine failed prematurely on account of a tooth breaking in the gear wheel driving the lubricating oil pump. Repairs then undertaken were not effective owing to faults which had not become apparent, and it was necessary to order new parts and to carry out repairs on two further occasions before the machine was finally put into service on the 5th May, 1955.

Ruston Bucyrus Excavator No. RB4/19.

The delay is mainly attributable to confusion that arose over the replacement of an engine clutch shaft, which happened to be a non-standard production (for which there is no ordering specification or makers’ part number) but which could not be known to be such except from the makers’ special knowledge. The manufacturers are now making the special shaft.

Marion Excavator No. M36/02.

There are two excavators of the same size and type, M36/01 and M36/02. The driving gear between the starting and main engines failed on both machines during the week ended the 17th December, 1955. Immediate repairs were effected but in the same week the same equipment on machine M36/01 failed again. It was essential to keep this machine working and, as further spares were not available, the gear on machine M36/02 was transferred to it. For the same reason, the starting engine was transferred from M36/02 to M36/01 when the unit on the latter failed on the 16th January, 1956.

The defective starting engine removed from M36/01 was an American production, and inquiries with a view to obtaining spares were made at once to the agents through whom the machines had been purchased; but the agents did not reply until the 17th April, 1956. Meanwhile, inquiries were made as to the possibility of purchasing the required spares from another source and were successful. Orders were issued on 22nd February and 1st March, 1956, and were completed on the 23rd June, 1956. Owing to shortage of fitter staff and pressure of work, repairs on machine M36/02 could not be completed until the 29th August, 1956.

Caterpillar Tractor No. 4C/2.

There were three tractors of this type on the Feale works during the period in question, Nos. 4C/1, 4C/2 and 4C/4. Tractor No. 4C/2 was laid off on the 2nd September, 1954, for the purpose of renewing excessively worn tracks. The main cause of the delay in completing repairs, which were completed on 5th July, 1955, was that replacements for tractor 4C/2 were diverted to the other tractors 4C/1 and 4C/4 and also that the starting engine was removed from it to replace the unit which had become defective in tractor 4C/4. It was considered economical to maintain two tractors in operation with a minimum of idle time by the lay off of the third.

International Tractor No. 18TD/2.

The long idle period is attributable mainly to there being no demand for the use of the tractor at the time. A delay, due to a misunderstanding, did occur over the supply of a spare part, but this caused no inconvenience as there was no work available for the tractor.

Lima Excavator No. L16/01.

The delay was due to the failure of a contractor to deliver mat timber in accordance with his contract, despite constant pressure and a personal visit by an engineer. A contract had been placed in sufficient time for mats to be provided to enable the machine to be put to work on the scheduled date if the contractor had been able to meet his obligations.

Marion Excavator No. M36/01.

On this machine the main engine drives, through a clutch, a generator for supplying electric power for slewing, derricking and travelling. The friction plate in this clutch was found defective and the combined unit—engine and generator—was sent to the Workshop for repairs on the 6th October, 1954. The subsequent delay was due to difficulty in obtaining spares from the official agents. Special efforts to avoid loss of time, by getting some parts elsewhere and by manufacture in the Workshop of other parts, enabled repairs to be completed by the end of March, 1955. Main assembly was completed by the 12th April and detail assembly and adjustment by the end of April. The travelling route from the assembly site to the working site had subsequently to be settled in consultation with the local authority. The Machine started work on the 23rd May, 1955.”

369. Chairman.—We have Mr. Fagan’s assurance that, having considered these matters, he is satisfied there was no culpable negligence on the part of any of those responsible for these machines.

Mr. Fagan.—That is so. In one case the Comptroller and Auditor General read out the details and referred to staff being fully engaged on salvaging the floating dredger. The floating dredger, as the Committee probably knows is the Little Dragon on the Feale and it was very expensive. It cost £25,000. We did salvage it and it was desirable that we should have applied ourselves to salvaging it.

370. Deputy Donegan.—I do not quite understand the difficulty of budgeting for machinery engaged on land reclamation. There is a point in relation to the supply of a reconditioned engine. Was that supplied by the agents or was it reconditioned in our own workshops? What happened?

Chairman.—Was that engine reconditioned in our workshops or was it supplied by the manufacturers under an engine exchange scheme?—This is subject to correction, but I would say that it was overhauled in the workshops.

Deputy Donegan.—It was evidently faulty?—We have facilities for overhauling engines.

371. Chairman.—I wonder was there any defective workmanship accountable for the early breakdown of the replacement engine?—The advice which we passed on to the Comptroller and Auditor General was that the replacement engine failed prematurely on account of a tooth breaking in the gear wheel driving the lubricating oil pump. I am not an engineer, mechanical or otherwise, but I do not think it could have been due to faulty workmanship. It might be faulty manufacture.

372. Chairman.—There is one paragraph at the end of this note on page x. Is there anything you wish to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It refers to a tractor. I am informed that the second overhaul was due to the very heavy nature of the work which resulted in exceptional wear and tear on the machine.

373. Chairman.—If there is no further query on the paragraph, we can turn to page 18 and deal with the subheads.

Deputy Sheldon.—What precisely is meant by “Unappropriated” at the end of page 19, where you have an item of £3?—Unappropriated is the term used in dealing with buildings or premises which are not appropriated for use by Government Departments or are not occupied as Government offices. If you are puzzled about that item, I can explain it to you.

Chairman.—Perhaps I could clarify it for the Deputy. The other headings deal with buildings in the possession of the Department of Finance, and so on. The buildings housing the Courts of Justice are not appropriated to any Government Department. They belong to the Incorporated Law Society.

374. Deputy Sheldon.—I am wondering what our function is in the matter.

Mr. Fagan.—I can explain. It is a long story. It goes back to the period before the destruction of the Four Courts. In the Four Courts group of buildings you had the Society of the Benchers of Kings Inn and the Incorporated Law Society. They each had certain premises and rooms. When the destruction took place they, of course, had claims for compensation in the same way as everybody else whose property was damaged. When the Four Courts was being reconstructed, by arrangement between them and the Minister for Finance, they agreed to waive their claims for compensation in return for an undertaking that in the reconstructed Four Courts they would be placed in a position no less favourable than that in which they were before the Four Courts were destroyed. In the event that was done. That, as you can understand, did not mean that they were put precisely in the same site occupation and, to regularise matters, there had to be a number of complex legal transactions. There was a conveyance from the Benchers to the Incorporated Law Society, a lease from the Incorporated Law Society to the State, a lease back from the State to them and a licence to the Benchers. The Minister for Finance agreed to pay the costs which the Benchers and the Incorporated Law Society incurred in effecting these legal transactions. This is the balance of the costs which the Benchers got.

375. Chairman.—Deputy Sheldon has elicited an interesting historical record. Are we to take it now that this is the end of these costs or may there be another sum in some future account?—I am not a lawyer, and I cannot really say.

376. Deputy Jones.—In regard to subhead B, is there any itemised statement in relation to national schools as there is for Garda stations, for instance?—We do not list individual schools as we do Garda stations. That has not been the practice and we have never been asked to do that.

Chairman.—It is taken in globo in the schedule?—Yes.

It is the local parochial authority who really builds the school?—Yes. As a matter of fact the large schools are all built by them. They employ their own architect and the bulk of the grant, or the major portion so far, has been for what we call “managers’ cases”.

377. Deputy Jones.—I was interested in discovering how the grants go in the various counties.

Deputy Larkin.—Is there any reason why we could not get the list taken out in the same way as the Garda stations?

Chairman.—I can assure the Deputy that Mr. Fagan is only too anxious to give any information the Deputy wants. Would it be possible to ascertain the counties which received grants out of this £1,041,000 spent in 1955-56?—It would be possible to do that, but it would be a very big task. There are a lot of schools. We arrange for the plans and the approval of plans. In some cases we build. As you said, Mr. Chairman, the managers build in a lot of cases. It is the Department of Education which allocates the grants.

Chairman.—Perhaps Deputy Jones would let the matter stand this year. If he thinks it is desirable to secure such a segregation, we can raise the matter on the Department of Education Vote.

Deputy Jones.—I merely wanted to know if the information was available.

Chairman.—It would probably have been very costly to get it through the Office of Public Works. Next year the matter could be raised on the Estimate for the Department of Education. We shall now move to subhead C.

378. Deputy Sheldon.—Do we not examine this table giving a statement of expenditure on new works, alterations and additions under subhead B?*

Chairman.—Do you want me to go through all the items?

Deputy Sheldon.—No. We could examine it, page by page.

379. Deputy Donegan.—In regard to Garda stations, the cost of two new ones built in Cork seems to compare unfavourably with other such projects. I am suggesting that in all such cases new sites should be acquired. I am also concerned with the question of Post Office buildings.

Chairman.—Page 9 of this statement deals with Post Office buildings.

380. Deputy Donegan.—I do not wish to deal with improvements to existing Post Office buildings but with the provision of new ones. I do not know who dictates the policy in regard to the provision of sites for such buildings. I should like to give a case in point. Not so many years ago a considerable sum of money, something like £4,000, was paid for a derelict building at Charleville. The subsequent demolition of that building in order to provide a site for the Post Office building in that town must have cost another considerable sum, so that, between acquiring the old building and demolishing it, a lot of unnecessary expenditure must have occurred. Surely a clear site could have been acquired in the first instance.

Chairman.—Is the Deputy referring to the new Post Office and telephone exchange at Rathluirc?

Deputy Donegan.—That is the building I mentioned.

Chairman.—Mr. Fagan, could you tell the Committee why a lot of money was expended in that case to purchase an old building, still more to demolish that old building, when a virgin site might have been bought?

Mr. Fagan.—I am afraid I have not got the information for the case in question. The decision in that case would have been taken following the usual procedure—consultations with the Post Office engineering and administrative officials by our architects. These consultations would include advice on the condition of the building to be purchased. The matter of the acquisition of sites is not in our hands: the Department of Posts and Telegraphs buy their own sites. I do not mean to say that they buy a site and then tell us to go ahead and build on it. We first must advise them about the suitability or otherwise of the site.

381. Chairman.—Of course all those sites must be considered from the point of view of public amenities as well as location. If the Deputy would like it, I feel sure Mr. Fagan would be delighted to let him have a note on the matter.

Deputy Donegan.—Why spend a whole lot of money buying an old building and still more on pulling it down to clear the site instead of buying a virgin site in the first instance? A site was available not more than 200 yards from the old building that was purchased.

Deputy Sheldon.—I think I recollect something about this. I may be wrong and am open to correction on it. I think a previous Committee elicited the information that this building was bought by the Department of Defence for some purpose, that it turned out to be unsuitable like other such buildings we acquired from time to time and that it was ultimately decided to pull it down. I think a previous Committee examined this matter and found there was a perfectly good reason for what occurred.

Chairman.—Experience has taught me that it is the wise course to ask Mr. Fagan to let us have a note on the matter later. I know he will be only too happy to come to the Committee later with such a note.*

Deputy Donegan.—I am quite satisfied with that.

382. Deputy Sheldon.—There is this item dealing with minor balances of expenditure. I think I have raised this matter before. There are one or two of these items which look odd described as minor balances. That item second from the top was over £1,000. That dealt with the Department of Education. If you look back over the Department of Education item in No. 57 you will see an item of £1,500 for Dunmanway school?— The fact is that the major portion of the expenditure in this case was during the year of account.

It seems odd that it should be included as a minor balance rather than in the general Vote. There are several other items which call for the same comment. It is very hard to find them in a list like this and I was wondering if Mr. Fagan could clear up for the Committee just what is the dividing line between normal expenditure and minor balances?—I think the Deputy raised this question in a previous year because I remember reading a report in which a similar point was raised. The answer is a simple one. We, like every other Department, must prepare our Estimates each year as early as November. We must have our draft Estimates in before December 1st. We are preparing our Estimates on the best information available. We know that certain items of expenditure will fall within the year but where you get advice that the work will be paid for within the current financial year and that you will not require any money in the year for which you are estimating you do not provide for it. Of course something may go wrong during the year and thus there is necessity for this item of minor balances. In one or two cases it might not be a minor balance at all. I feel quite sure the Committee realise what can happen in cases where builders are held up by weather or for other reasons, where contractors get into financial difficulties and other such contingencies.

383. Chairman. — Could we not call them “contingency” balances?—That is what they are. A solution would be to have a major balance subhead as well as a minor balance but that would appear unnecessarily precise.

Deputy Sheldon.—Many of these items deal with the completion of works?— They represent expenditure that had to be met in the year of account which we anticipated would have been met in the preceding year

384. Deputy Sheldon.—I was wondering what was the difference between a building being completed and virtually completed. Would that be a minor balance?

Chairman.—It is like the £3 put on a bill of costs in the Four Courts?—Virtual completion is used to describe a case where you would have a building completed and perhaps occupied and with just a few odd bits of finishing off to be done.

385. Chairman.—We shall now resume consideration of the Vote. Under subhead F.2 what exactly is meant by “reserve fuel stocks”? — That is gone now. It stemmed from the time when stocks of turf were kept in the Phoenix Park by the Office of Public Works as well as by Fuel Importers Limited.

386. Deputy Sheldon.— One general question—is the position with regard to the staff generally in the Department improving or are there still difficulties?—We are still in trouble about trying to recruit staff. From information I have had in the past two days I can tell the Committee that there are 33 vacancies for engineers and seven for engineering draftsmen on our engineering staff. On the architects’ side, we have fifteen vacancies. That is the professional staff. The engineering branch staff total 202 and there are 40 vacancies; that is, 20 per cent. We are all the time endeavouring to recruit staff. We have Civil Service competitions when the vacancies arise. If there are men available, they assign them to us, but the time comes when the Civil Service Commission says: “We have no more men,” and we have new competitions. That is a continuous process and I think it applies to other Departments.

387. I was wondering if the Department keeps an eye on the Universities with regard to the intake of engineering students? Have you any idea as to what the potential is likely to be and whether it is improving and if there are more students going in for engineering?—I should say our chief engineer would have that information but I have not got it at the moment. Our engineering staff would, I think, know the size of the colleges, and I feel sure they would know the out-turn in qualified engineers from year to year.

It is a major headache in a great many countries and I was wondering if any thing could be done by the Office of Public Works to encourage the intake of students into engineering courses in our Universities?—As the Deputy knows, the method of filling posts is through the Civil Service Commission. Regulations and conditions are laid down and graduates or anybody else with the necessary qualifications may apply.

387a. Chairman. — Notes supplied by the Accounting Officer regarding the Accounts of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park for the year ended 31st March, 1956,* and the progress on the compilation of Rentals and Registers of State Lands and Buildings† will be included as appendices to our Report.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix XXI.

* See Appendix XXII.

* See Appendix XXIII.

* See Appendix XXIV.

* See Appendix XXV.

† See Appendix XXVI.