|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 3 Nollaig, 1959.Thursday, 3rd December, 1959.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY COSGRAVE in the chair. Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Miss M. Bhreathnach, Miss M A. Kiely and Mr. J. F. MacInerney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 49—ROINN NA GAELTACHTA.Mr. Seán O Braonáin called and examined.116. Chairman.—Paragraph 64 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead D.—Bord Gaeltarra Éireann (Deontas-i-gCabhair) 64. Under the provisions of the Gaeltacht Industries Act, 1957, the rural industries formerly administered by the Department were transferred with effect from 1 April 1958 to a board known as Gaeltarra Éireann. Section 25 of the Act enables grants in aid of the expenses of the Board to be made available and with the sanction of the Minister for Finance £120,285 was issued during the year. Certain assets and liabilities including property vested in the Commissioners of Public Works were transferred to the Board on the day appointed and the valuation of these assets had not been determined at the date of my report.” What is the position, Mr. O Braonáin, regarding the accounts of Gaeltarra Éireann?—That would be the existing board? Yes?—They have submitted their audited accounts up to the 31st March, 1959, to the Minister, as required by the Act. 117. Does the sum of £120,285 represent a loss on the year’s trading?— That is not exactly right. That £120,285 is the portion of the Grant-in-Aid that was issued from the Vote. It need not necessarily mean the trading loss. It was money advanced to the board as and when they required cash. Some of it would be for administrative expenses?—Yes. 118. Has the valuation of the assets been made?—It has, and has been agreed by the Department of Finance, but that is outside this year’s operations, that is outside the year we have under review. The valuation was decided during the course of the current financial year. The last report of the Committee, in paragraph 21, stated that, under the Act, the assets and liabilities of the industries were transferred to the new board, and the Committee expressed a desire to be kept informed of the basis of the valuation of trading stocks on transfer, and also the manner in which the net liability of the board to the Exchequer would be discharged. Has that yet been completed?—The valuation has been completed as I have already said and I expect the Department of Finance will notify the Committee as to the details. Chairman.—It will probably arise on the next year’s accounts then. 119. Deputy Cunningham.—I raised this question last year because I felt there might be a difference between the valuation at take-over by the board and the subsequent realisation price by the board of the assets and, if there was a debit balance, I understood at the time that sum would have to be refunded in some way to the Exchequer?—No. The arrangement is that it will be a liability payable to the Exchequer on conditions and terms specified by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Gaeltacht. That has not been decided?—A decision has been made and I expect you will get details of it in the reply you will get from the Department of Finance. 120. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead G.—Scéimeanna Feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht 65. The charge to the subhead comprises:—
121. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “66. Under the Roads scheme, local authorities are recouped their expenditure on the improvement of certain county roads. The roads are selected after consultation with the local authorities and the Department of Local Government which acts as agent of Roinn na Gaeltachta in administering the scheme.” Who decides what roads are selected for recoupment by the Department? Is that decided by your Department?—It is decided by our Department. We get information and suggestions from our local officers. They get suggestions from different sources, such as county councils, and then send in a list to us. The decision is made in our Department as to the roads to be repaired. Are these accommodation roads or tourist roads?—Both. Confined exclusively to Gaeltacht areas?—Yes. 122. Is there any subvention from the Department of Local Government in respect of minor schemes referred to in paragraph 67 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which reads as follows:— “67. The Water and Sewerage scheme is also administered through the agency of the Department of Local Government. Grants for minor schemes are paid to local authorities at the rate of 60 per cent. of the expenditure incurred where the work included water-piping or power-pumping, and 50 per cent. otherwise. Grants for larger schemes are paid at the rate of 25 per cent. of the cost to supplement the contribution towards these schemes provided from the vote for Local Government.” Mr. O Braonáin.—No. There was no subvention in respect of minor water or sewerage schemes from the Department of Local Government. We give a grant of 50 or 60 per cent. of the cost. 123. Chairman.—Paragraph 68 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “68. The Special Employment Schemes Office is recouped expenditure on the improvement of selected accommodation roads.” 124. Chairman.—Paragraph 69 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “69. Under the Marine Works scheme, minor improvement works are carried out on an agency basis by the Office of Public Works. The appropriate local authority is required to undertake responsibility for subsequent maintenance.” What improvements were carried out under the Marine Works scheme?— That would be during the past financial year. The Department carried out works on Tory Island and on Inis Mór in the Aran Islands, Co. Galway. 125. Deputy Sheldon.—May I go back for a moment to paragraph 65 which gives the detailed expenditure under Subhead G.? I notice, in the Estimate that no details are given in Part III in respect of subhead G. In fact, I think it is the only subhead about which no details are given. I was wondering could we be told why a subhead like this, which seems capable of division in Part III, is not, in fact, so divided?—The only explanation I have is that the matter was discussed when the first Estimate was being prepared, after the establishment of the Department, and it was decided that it would not be feasible to give anything like a close estimate of expenditure on the various subdivisions of this subhead. 126. Chairman.—Paragraph 70 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads as follows:— “70. The expenditure under the Glasshouse scheme was incurred on the installation of heating plants in a number of the unheated glasshouses erected by the Department of Agriculture in Connemara in previous years.” Deputy Sheldon.—Do I take it from that that the various schemes which are embarked upon in any particular year are very much ad hoc and are not really planned in advance?—That is not correct. I can give you one very good example: the glasshouse scheme in Connemara. In that particular year we estimated an expenditure of £50,000. Actual expenditure came to about £2,500 because of difficulties in getting arrangements made on the sites; then unavoidable delays in making arrangements for the placing of the contracts, and so forth. That is not quite the point I am raising. The information we have is that it is not possible to forecast accurately in advance. I appreciate that, in a scheme like the glasshouse scheme, that could have been a difficulty. If, however, it is not possible to estimate accurately in advance, surely that must mean that expenditure is not absolutely foreseeable and is dealt with during the year?—That factor does enter into it. I can give you another example—water and sewerage schemes. Our expenditure depends on the amount of work done by the county councils. They may not always be able to carry the work through during the financial year. We do not pay for a scheme until it is finished and certified as complete satisfactorily. 127. Chairman. — You recoup the county councils, through the Department of Local Government?—Yes. Does the initiative come from the county council or from your Department in relation to each scheme?—Most of the schemes come to us from the county councils. We ask them if there are any schemes, in Gaeltacht areas, that they would wish to do and which, for one reason or another, they are not in a position to proceed with. We get a great many suggestions in that way. Deputy Sheldon.—I would say that is an understatement?—We get more proposals than we can finance. 128. Deputy Desmond.—In view of the fact that local authorities must work through the Department of Local Government, I should like to know if delay arises, not through the fault of the Gaeltacht Department, but through delay on the part of the Department of Local Government in sanctioning schemes?—I would not be in a position to comment upon that. Deputy Desmond.—That has been my experience. In view of the fact that this Department cannot hand over the money until the work is done the result is that money is held because of the obligation of obtaining sanction from the Department of Local Government; that Department is holding up local authorities in regard to a great number of these schemes. 129. Chairman. — In connection with the pig scheme, is that scheme widely availed of?—I think it has been availed of very well. The number of sows supplied is the best indication I can give. In the first year 159 sows were issued. They were spread over the Gaeltacht areas of Mayo and Galway principally. There is not much interest in the scheme in Donegal. Is there a limit to the number of sows for each applicant? Could an applicant get two sows if he wanted them?—An applicant gets only one sow, and we expect a sow to be kept for four or five years. Deputy Desmond.—Have there been applications from the Southern Gaeltacht in relation to this scheme?—The scheme has not been in operation in either Cork or Waterford. The Minister decided that he would confine it to the Gaeltacht areas of Kerry, Galway, Mayo and Donegal at the start. This year a decision has been taken to apply the scheme to the other southern Gaeltachts. 130. Deputy Jones.—In regard to the glasshouse scheme, how many glasshouses were heated?—Nineteen in Connemara. 131. Chairman.—Paragraph 71 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “71. Grants are paid at the rate of 75 per cent. of the cost, subject to a maximum of £5,000 in any one case, for the building, improvement or extension of secondary schools. In addition, special grants of £200 per year for three years may be paid towards the running costs of new schools.” Deputy Jones.—In regard to paragraph 71 how many people participated in the secondary schools grant?—There were two cases in Donegal. One was the new school near Derrybeg; the other is Falcarragh convent secondary school. Deputy Desmond.—Were there many applications under that scheme?—In addition to these two, we have four or five under consideration. What part of the Gaeltacht would that be—north, west, south-west or due west?—One is in Donegal, two in Connemara and one in Ballingeary. There is another in Co. Waterford. 132. Chairman.—Paragraph 72 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “72. Under the Heat and Light scheme, assistance is given towards the provision of bottled gas facilities in islands in the Gaeltacht. Payments were made to suppliers for certain basic equipment provided for each household.” Could you say to what islands these facilities were granted? — Expenditure during the financial year under review related solely to the Aran Islands, Galway. The decision was to start with these and then take others in due course. 133. What exactly does the equipment consist of?—We supply two full cylinders free. The governor on the cylinder is also supplied free and piping to two points in the house—two lighting points, or one lighting point and one heating point, whichever the occupant may wish. After that, it is the occupant’s responsibility to put in any additional points. What sort of fuel is used?—Calor gas and Kosangas. What percentage of the total cost is allowed by way of grant?—The total cost of the equipment mentioned works out at about £11 and we pay that. 134. Deputy Cunningham. — What is the method of contracting for this? Is it central or localised?—We invited the two companies, Calor and Kosangas, to come in and let us know what they would do the work for in each case. They were in competition; they was only a difference of a few shillings between the two. We were quite satisfied that their prices were competitive and that there was no arrangement as to price. We also got a firm undertaking from the companies that they would not charge then, or in the future, any more for their services on the islands than they would charge on the mainland. The local arrangements, in each case, are a matter for the successful firm?— Yes, and the choice of the firm lies entirely with the householder. The householder can have either. We do not enter into it at all at that stage. 135. Chairman.—Paragraph 73 reads as follows:— “73. To encourage pig breeding, a grant of £10 is paid towards the cost of each sow purchased by selected applicants, and seeds and fertilisers for the growing of suitable fodder are supplied at reduced prices through the agency of the Department of Agriculture.” If there are no further queries on the paragraphs we can turn to the Vote itself. An English translation of the Appropriation Account has been circulated. Deputy Booth.—On subhead H.—Cultural Services—is there any further information on that? The note simply says that a number of applications were received and that they were less than the number for which provision was made. What were the applications?—I will give you an indication of the general type of case we deal with. We gave a grant to the Gweedore Drama Society to enable them to buy a recorder for recording speech and music. They found that very serviceable. We also bought a recorder for a society in West Donegal which runs dance classes through Irish for children. It is a strict rule of course that these activities must be conducted through Irish. We also assisted a teacher in a national school in South West Donegal to buy simple musical instruments for the school band. In Tourmakeady we gave assistance to the local dramatic festival, which was very successful. In Carna, we gave assistance to purchase and to instal stage equipment. They have a very successful drama club. We also gave assistance to a music club in Rosmuc to enable them to buy musical instruments. That is the general type of case. 136. Deputy Lynch.—Under subhead N.—Dramatic Productions in Irish (Grant-in-Aid)—what was that in aid of?—That grant was paid almost entirely to the Taidhbhearc in Galway. Could we get any information as to the support that is given—how many people go to see those productions and how much money is taken in?—We audit the accounts of the Taidhbhearc in Galway every year We send a member of our Accounts Branch staff down for the purpose. We assure ourselves the grant is needed and, as far as possible, that the expenditure during the year was reasonable and proper. Would I be correct in saying that the reason the grant is needed is the paucity of attendance?—I regret that I have no information on attendance. 137. Deputy Jones.—In regard to subhead P.—Technical Assistance—what is covered there?—The expenditure there represents portion of the payment for commercial consultants and experts who were brought into the offices of Gaeltarra Éireann after the transfer from Civil Service control to commercial control. That represents the first portion of the total payment? 138. Deputy Cunningham.—May I ask how many scholarships to the Gaeltacht are included under subhead O.?—These are short period scholarships of a few weeks during the holiday period and are provided for schoolchildren principally. They all go to recognised Irish colleges?—Yes. Chairman.—Thank you very much. The witness withdrew. VOTE 8—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.Mr. H. J. Mundow called and examined.139. Chairman.—This is Mr. Mundow’s first appearance before the Committee since his appointment as Accounting Officer. I am sure I am expressing the views of each member of the Committee when I wish him well in his post as Chairman. In the case of Vote 8 there is no comment by the Comptroller and Auditor General so that we can turn to the Vote itself. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead A., although it is not mentioned in the note —whether that is done coyly or not—I gather from the notes on the various subheads of this and the next Vote that there is still a considerable shortage of engineering staff?—There is, but we are making it up gradually. It is caused by people leaving us after getting whatever experience they want rather than by getting in less. We are really recruiting as many as we need but they continue to leave. Chairman.—Then you have no difficulty in getting engineers?—It is certainly much better than it was a couple of years back—they are coming in more freely now. 140. Deputy Sheldon.—They are being better paid of course. I suppose that helps. On subhead C., I take it from the details in the estimate that there must have been a very considerable addition to the amount of equipment purchased? Is there any particular reason for this? —Part of it is due to accounts which came in for purchases made in the previous year. That accounts for part of the spending on levels. There has been a very large increase in expenditure on photo film. We got in a photocopying machine which is consuming quite a lot of film. That is for plans and that sort of thing?—Yes, and even for correspondence. It is sometimes quicker and cheaper to use the machine for correspondence than typing. 141. I wonder what was the reason for item No. 2 of the Appropriations in Aid. It says that lending transactions were less than expected. Was there any special reason?—The estimate is based on issues of £12 million but actual issues were only just over £6½ million. Chairman.—Is that mainly for houses? —I should think so, yes. What is the explanation for the difference, the fact that the estimate was so high and the actual payment so much less?—I presume the situation had altered somewhat since the time the estimate was made. The position did change: the local authorities did not borrow as much as had been anticipated when the estimate was made. 142. Deputy Sheldon.—On item No. 6, I assume from the discrepancy between the amount estimated here and the amount estimated by the Department of Agriculture under subhead M.7. that the two figures do not quite relate to the same year? Would you be estimating, under this head, £21,400 for some payments due from the previous year because the Department of Agriculture estimated that they would only pay £20,000?—I am afraid I have not got that information. Oddly enough, with regard to the realisation, the Department of Agriculture claims to have paid £3,919 less than they anticipated and when you add that to the receipts it does not correspond. It makes more than £20,000; it is a figure in between. I wonder why these discrepancies should turn up?—We would have to look it up, Deputy. Chairman.—Perhaps you could send us a note of it?—Yes, I shall do that.* 143. Deputy Sheldon.—On item No. 4, in connection with consulting engineers, there is a very considerable overrealisation and it says that this was due principally to the recovery of fees paid to consulting engineers. The estimate, I think, was £2,600 for that—was there any particular reason why much more use was made of consulting engineers in this year?—We were recouped £3,000 which had been paid in fees. Business suspended at 11.40 a.m. and resumed at 11.55 a.m. 144. Deputy Lynch.—Deputy Cosgrave is engaged in the House on the Petroleum Bill and cannot be present for the remainder of the meeting. He has asked me to propose that Deputy Sheldon be elected chairman for the balance of today’s sitting. Deputy O’Toole.—I second that. Question put, and agreed to. DEPUTY SHELDON took the chair. 145. Chairman.—I was asking about consulting engineers. I think you mentioned the figure of £3,000?—That was a payment to consulting engineers on a particular scheme. We had two additional schemes in the same year. I think the point was whether there were discrepancies between our figures and those of the Department of Agriculture. That was the other point. Could we finish with this one first, then go back? I notice in the estimate that of the £2,600 in the subhead only £1,600 of that was noted as being recoverable. That would account for an extra £1,000 of the surplus?—Yes. On the other point, I had an opportunity to look up the Department of Agriculture notes during the interval and their figure does not seem to differ very much from ours. They say, “Payment to Office of Public Works, £3,919 less than estimated as it was not found possible to undertake the full programme of survey work planned” and the discrepancy I think as compared with ours is £4,500. 146. What arises next is the fact that you are estimating you would receive £21,400 whereas the Department of Agriculture estimated that they would pay you only £20,000. I wonder what the explanation of that would be?—As regards estimation I do not know whether we have any discussion at estimates time. I do not think we have. Surely that would be a bit odd?—It does not lead to a very big discrepancy. Their guess is fairly near ours and our estimate is not too far out. Are you sure there is no element of payments due from the previous year coming into your estimate? I do not know why I should be trying to save the accounting officer. I am putting explanations into your mouth and perhaps I should not?—I expect it is, though we try to avoid that as far as possible. 147. In note No. 10, Mr. Mundow, what precisely is the meaning of “offset by the sums brought to account in that year”, the total on No. 10 of the Appropriations in Aid?—I think the amounts are relatively small sums of penal interest. It is not so much the amount. I take it that what it means is that this amount of penal interest appears as Exchequer receipts during a previous year, and that this is a net figure?—We get a full amount, the total expenses of management less the fees, Nos. 1 and 2 of the Appropriations in Aid—the penal interest and the fees. 148. Do I take it, in fact, the total amount received in respect of the Local Loans Fund—to find out that you add Nos. 1, 2 and 10 altogether?—Yes. It comes to £32,099 and we deduct from that £21,318 which gives you the figure of £10,781. 149. On page 17 there is a note about the realisation of £3,650 of stock, on the Marine Works Act Maintenance Fund. Why was that undertaken?—Is this the account which includes expenditure of approximately £2,553? It is note (a) under the Statement of Receipts and Payments on Non-Voted Services, at the foot of page 17. The receipts were mainly the realisation of stock?—There was a debit balance at the beginning of the year of 983, and there was pretty heavy expenditure that year, so the only other source of revenue was from the realisation of stock. 150. Just for the record, the notes disclose the final winding up of the Employers’ Mutual Insurance Association. I am wondering why the note should be included here rather than in Vote 9 when the account for it is down in Vote 9?—It was worked as a suspense account one time, and since then the suspense account was cleared from payment in Vote 9. But it had been dealt with under Vote 8 formerly?—Yes. VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.Mr. H. J. Mundow further examined.151. Chairman.—Paragraph 15 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions. 15. The expenditure charged to the subhead includes sums amounting to £1,491,975 in respect of grants towards the cost of erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools. Two-thirds of the full cost or such greater proportion as may be sanctioned in each case by the Minister for Education, is paid from the Vote and the balance is provided by the managers of the schools. £838,686 was paid to managers who undertook responsibility for the works and £653,289 was expended on schools erected by the Commissioners. The balance of the charge to the subhead amounting to £345,029 was expended on general architectural and engineering works of which the principal items were:—
If the Committee would agree I would prefer to discuss subhead B., and anything in relation to it, on the subhead itself when we will have the full details of it. 152. Chairman.—Paragraph 16 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead B.B.—Coast Protection 16. Reference was made in paragraph 19 of my previous report to the survey and experimental works in connection with the prevention of coast erosion at Rosslare Strand. Including £13,065 expended during the year, the total expenditure to 31 March, 1959, on this project amounted to £20,853 towards which the Wexford County Council contributed £5,596.” This paragraph is for information. 153. Chairman.—Paragraph 17 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead C.—Maintenance and Supplies 17. In December 1957, damage to the extent of £10,000, approximately, was caused by a privately owned vessel to a pier at Howth Harbour. During the year under review expenditure amounting to £5,332 was incurred in repairing the damage but the work is not yet completed. I have inquired as to the liability of the owners of the vessel to make good the cost of repairing the damage.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—The accounting officer, in reply to my enquiry, stated that the question of the institution of proceedings for the recovery of some of the expenditure is being considered in consultation with legal advisers but, having regard, inter alia, to the construction of the damaged portion of the pier, and its condition at the time of the occurrence, there is considerable doubt as to the possibility of sustaining a claim. Deputy Booth.—Are we to take it from that that the pier was about to fall down anyway?—It was not too good. What kind of vessel was it that caused this amount of damage?—A French fishing vessel. 154. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead J.2.—Arterial Drainage—Construction Works 18. The charge to the subhead includes expenditure of £422,196 on the Feale, Corrib-Clare, Nenagh, and Maine catchment schemes which were commenced in June 1951, April 1954, May 1955 and February 1959, respectively. The Maine scheme, which is estimated to cost £760,000, was confirmed by the Minister for Finance on 13 December 1958, in accordance with the terms of section 7 (2) of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. The value of stores issued and charges for the use of plant and machinery for these schemes were assessed at £187,270, the total cost to 31 March 1959 being:—
The balance of the charge is made up of sums of £19,422 expended on additional minor schemes and £1,204 in respect of remanets of expenditure on completed schemes.” This paragraph is for information. 155. Chairman.—Paragraph 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Exchequer Extra Receipts 19. As a result of an agreement reached between the Minister for Education and the manager of a national school, a grant, assessed at £11,968, issued in earlier years, towards the cost of erecting the school assembly hall was refunded during the year so that the hall could be used for other than educational purposes. I observed in the case of another assembly hall for the erection of which a grant of £14,000, approximately, had been paid that a similar agreement was entered into in 1957 and I inquired regarding the recovery of this grant.” There is just one thing about this paragraph. I am wondering why the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to a grant as an assessed amount. Is it not just a grant?—The grant covers the building and improvement of the school itself together with the hall. It is a combined figure and to arrive at the actual amount applicable to the hall it has to be assessed. They have to look into the figures and see what proportion of the grant was applied to the hall. 156. Chairman.—In relation to the second part of the paragraph, Mr. Suttle, have you any further information? Mr. Suttle.—No. The Accounting Officer has informed me that he is taking action to recover the grant of £14,000 in that case. Chairman.—Nothing more has transpired in the meantime?—It is not so easy to deal with as the previous case. In the first case the assembly hall was separate from the school and it was relatively easy to assess the amount. In this case it is part of the general structure and we will probably have to employ a quantity surveyor to work out costs. It is being proceeded with at the moment with the Department of Education. Chairman.—I hope it does not take us as long as Aras Mhic Dhiarmada. Deputy Lynch.—Where is this hall?— It is in the same town, Dundalk. 157. Deputy Cunningham.—Do these refunds arise as a result of notification by the manager, or whoever is in charge, that the hall is so used?—I think it just comes to the notice of our architects going around, and Department of Education inspectors going around. They cannot help noting things of that sort and they feel obliged to report them. 158. Chairman.—The owners do not rush upon their fate, in other words. Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “20. A sum of £1,127 was brought to account as Exchequer Extra Receipts during the year being a refund of portion of a capital contribution paid to the Electricity Supply Board for the supply of electricity to an agricultural college in 1950-51. I have enquired whether any similar contributions fall to be adjusted in respect of increased revenue to the Board from the services provided.” Deputy Booth.—Have you any further information on that as to when other similar contributions fall to be adjusted? Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer has informed me he is investigating the possibility of obtaining further refunds from the Electricity Supply Board in respect of capital grants to the board in recent years. 159. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Comptroller and Audtior General’s Report reads as follows:— “Stores 21. I inquired regarding the availability of inventories of furniture, etc., supplied to embassies and legations abroad and whether instructions had been issued regarding the formal handover on a change of occupants of the premises. I am informed that the general question of the preparation of inventories of the furniture, etc., and of periodical checks of such inventories is under consideration, but that the problem is not a simple one.” I am not quite sure whom I should ask about this. The phrase is used “the problem is not a simple one.” If it had been a simple one it would not have arisen. Would the Accounting Officer like to take responsibility for this phrase?—I do not think we mean “simple” in the same sense. What we really meant to say was that it was a difficult problem. 160. Surely the fact that it is difficult is hardly sufficient reason for a delay in making arrangements in things like inventories?—I understand the thing was in hand in 1938 and the war intervened and made it impossible to carry on. Then there were other reasons why it had to be delayed. One of the principal ones was that the staff of the Furniture Branch was down below strength, and there were quite a lot of big works which involved them in fulltime activities. Apart from that the position now is that we have been thinking about how to carry out these inventories without involving ourselves in very heavy expenditure. These offices are spread all over the world and it is estimated, if we were to keep full inventories and keep them up to date at fairly regular intervals, it would involve a great deal of travelling by some of our staff. I think that is why we find it difficult to say it would be possible to do all we might have done if these were offices at home, with valuable furniture and fittings. Would the Department of External Affairs not make any arrangements about keeping inventories in these places, which might be subject to a spot check by you?—I think they leave it entirely to us. 161. Deputy Booth.—Would it be possible to have this done on an ordinary commercial basis? The taking of inventories is a highly specialised job. It could be done by a man on the spot, in, say, Paris or Bonn. Presumably the furnishings are typical of the country in which the legation or office is situated and I would imagine that an insurance assessor, or somebody locally, would be able to make a complete inventory in three or four days, being professionally qualified to do that sort of job, and the keeping of it up to date should be a comparatively simple one, and could be carried out again by a spot check by a professional local man and some one from our staff here at home. I can quite see that as far as the Department itself is concerned the carrying out of the preparation of inventories all over Europe and in America would present almost insuperable problems and that it would be tremendously expensive. Would it be proper to make that suggestion and ask that it be investigated? Chairman.—We could do that but not just at the moment. At present we are only taking evidence. Deputy Booth.—It is like a supplementary Question. Could I enquire whether that possibility has been investigated already?—If it has not I am sure it will before our investigation into this is completed. 162. Chairman.—The suggestion could be embodied in our report. Paragraph 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “22. Having regard to the risk of obsolescence and deterioration in store, I inquired about the utilisation of reserve stocks of building, plumbing, and electrical materials purchased in the years 1939 to 1945 and in 1951. I was informed that the purchase price of these stocks was about £18,000, that materials valued at approximately £8,000 had been used mainly on works undertaken by the Commissioners and that the question of the disposal of the remaining stocks was under consideration.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—These materials have been in stock for a long time. I understand they are not of a nature that is likely to deteriorate but they may be subject to obsolescence. They should be reviewed and the question considered whether to dispose of them or not. 163. Chairman.—I suppose we will hear further on the subject. Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “23. Reference was made in paragraph 12 of the report on the accounts for 1947-48 to expenditure incurred on the conversion to oil burning of central heating installations in Government establishments and to a decision not to proceed with the completion of this work. Oil burners and storage tanks purchased at a cost of £6,861 for this project are still retained in store. I am informed that this equipment is serviceable and that possibly some of it may be used, but that the market for its disposal has been unfavourable.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—No, I have nothing to add to that. 164. Chairman.—Could I ask why the market for the disposal of those stores is considered unfavourable? I though at the moment there was a great demand for oil burners and storage tanks for oil? —We found great difficulty in disposing of them and we are endeavouring to use as many of them as we can. Certainly we have used, or will use, all the tanks in our own works. We have disposed of a great number of them and we expect to dispose of the rest fairly quickly. It is the non-automatic burners that give the main trouble. Nobody seems to want those. We expect to dispose of the automatic ones all right though it is not easy. The non-automatic seem to be a very poor article to be putting on the market. They have been advertised?—We have taken all the steps we could. 165. Chairman.—Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “24. In the course of a local audit at the Central Engineering Workshops it was observed that a considerable number of vehicles which were recommended for disposal were stored in the open. As the low prices obtained for cast vehicles at the sale which was held in 1956 were in part attributed to deterioration arising from storage in the open, I made inquiries regarding the present position. In reply I was furnished with a list of forty-two vehicles awaiting sale which were withdrawn from service in the period since 1955. I am informed by the Accounting Officer that it would be uneconomical to provide covered storage for these vehicles and that it is proposed by more frequent sales to reduce the risk of loss from deterioration in store.” Mr. Suttle.—I understand the vehicles referred to have since been disposed of. Deputy Cunningham.—Forty-two vehicles awaiting sale which were withdrawn from service in the period since 1955?— They have been disposed of and we have made arrangements to ensure that this situation cannot arise again. In future, auctions will be held more frequently. 166. Chairman.—Paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “25. I have inquired as to the progress of stocktaking at the Central Engineering Workshops.” Mr. Suttle.—I am informed that a physical count of the stores has been completed and the discrepancies arising between the count and the stores records are being examined. Chairman.—The Committee has already adverted to this and will be informed?— Yes. 167. In another year there was a query in relation to the 1955-56 accounts about lighting sets for excavators and the Committee was to be informed of the result of your efforts to sell?—We have disposed of them all except the ones we kept for our own use. There were 80. We have retained 24 for our own drainage and marine works. Nine have been transferred to other Departments. We sold the rest, mainly by auction. They are all gone now, except the ones we are using. 168. If there are no other queries, we can turn to the Vote which is on page 18. Under subhead A., could you tell us why there was such a very small expenditure?—The explanation there is that there was a very large commitment entered into, which had to be provided for but which did not mature. The legal formalities did not permit of the payments being made within the year. That accounts for £8,600 of the saving. 169. We have considerable detail under subhead B. I propose to take this Appendix page by page*. On page 1, these estimates, taking them in general, are revised estimates?—In the main, they are. Where there is completion, I notice there is a much better relationship between the actual cost and the estimate now as compared with hitherto?—We are gaining more experience as we go along as to what things will cost. 170. Deputy Lynch.—How long will the reconstruction of the loggias take? —The work is completed. The north loggia was found to be in a very bad state. It was a temporary structure. It has been practically entirely reconstructed, and has been replaced by a permanent loggia. The south loggia has also had to be rebuilt. When they got inside that they found the position got worse and worse. It was found to be in a worse condition than when it was originally examined. How long was the work going on?— Not very long. It is, of course, very slow work and inevitably it would take some time to complete. Chairman.—There was interference with the progress of the work when the Houses were sitting. I remember this Committee complaining about the noise, so we are partly to blame ourselves for having the work stopped on occasions. 171. Deputy Jones.—What was the nature of the improvements at Pallaskenry Garda Station? Are these rented premises?—I have not got that information with me here. Were the improvements in the nature of the installation of sanitary facilities? —I cannot say offhand, but in a very big number of cases that is what the improvements are. A great many Garda station needed sanitary facilities. These are being provided in a fairly extensive way. 172. Deputy Lynch.—Would it be possible to find out how much is spent each year in a particular county or constituency? Chairman.—It can be discovered by a piece of simple arithmetic on the part of the Deputy who wants to find out. Deputy Lynch.—It is not so simple at all. I put down a parliamentary question and I was told that I could not be supplied with the information; the Parliamentary Secretary could only give me the bulk figure. 173. Chairman.—It would depend on the year to which the figures related. I notice that, in Raphoe, there was an expenditure of £606 on bathrooms. How many bathrooms would be provided for £606?—That probably includes a great deal of ancillary plumbing and excavation work. I am surmising now. 174. Deputy Cunningham.—With regard to Coláiste Iosagáin, will the balance enable the job to be completed satisfactorily?—I think it is virtually completed now. If there is any excess over the latest estimate, it will not be very much. Deputy Lynch.—I should like to have a report on what this college has cost since away back in the 1930s when the whole business started with a contractor who was not able to carry out his contract. Chairman.—We already have a good deal of information on that in the year 1956-57. Deputy Lynch.—That will satisfy me, but could I have the headings of the main expenditure?—I will let the Committee have a note.* 175. Deputy Cunningham.—What harbours are involved in these surveys?— These are major harbours. A survey is being carried out with a view to finding out what should be done. Is there a list of the harbours available?—I have not got a list here, but I can let the Committee have it.** 176. Deputy Booth.—On page 7, No. 73A, the Hague Legation Residence. How was that expenditure covered? Was it unexpected expenditure?—What happened was that the existing premises were found to be unsatisfactory. We had to buy two houses—one for offices and one for the legation proper. A good deal of additional work was necessary. A garage had to be provided, new kitchen quarters, and things like that. The dining room had to be enlarged. The garden had to be restored. It was in very bad condition. The whole place had to be refurnished. It was a very considerable item. Work is completed now. 177. Chairman.—I think Deputy Booth was wondering why it was you had not estimated anything for it? Deputy Booth.—Exactly, in view of the fact that £7,900 had been spent in the previous year. Was the £14,500 an unexpected expenditure in view of the fact that the premises or some part of them were found to be unsatisfactory?— I think what happened was that as the works developed a new condition was found to exist. The works were taken as they turned up and it was not easy to establish what had to be done. Apart from this did you not anticipate that you would be spending any money this year because no provision was made?—We must have thought it would be all completed in the previous year. Deputy Booth.—Could we have any further information on that? It seems unsatisfactory to find that having spent £7,900 in one year we should be run into unexpected expenditure of £14,534. Chairman.—Perhaps you could give us a note on that?—Yes.* 178. Deputy Cunningham.—On works Nos. 71, 72 and 73, no figures are given for expenditure. Chairman.—Did you see the note? Deputy Cunningham.—Yes, I have seen the note. It is not possible to say whether all this was done or the money expended? Chairman.—It is not Mr. Mundow’s responsibility. He does not know anything about it. Deputy Sheldon.—You are an accounting officer late. Deputy Cunningham.—I am a year late. 179. Deputy Booth.—Might I have the same information on work 73B as I asked for on 73A, as the circumstances seem to be similar?—Yes.* 180. Deputy Cunningham.—On work No. 41, on page 8, Oireachtas heating, is there any control of heating because it seems it cannot be cut out when it reaches a certain temperature?—I think the usual complaint is that it needs to be supplemented and we have arrangements for supplementing the heating, I think. Deputy Cunningham.—What prompted me to ask this question is that all over the place it seems to get stifling hot and apart from going around and turning off the radiators there does not seem to be any system of control outside and if there is, it is not applied. Chairman.—It does get overwarm at times but I think it is due to a lack of air conditioning?—Yes, it is a very old problem I think and I believe our architects and engineers are very much alive to it. They still have not found a satisfactory answer I am afraid. Chairman.—You are not responsible for some of the overheating. Deputy Lynch.—The Members of the House should get the factory inspectors in and prosecute the Office of Public Works. Chairman.—Prosecute the Department of Finance; the Office of Public Works only do what they are told. Deputy Lynch.—We can prosecute both of them. 181. Chairman.—If I might go back on page 5, in regard to the work on the National Museum and National Library, I think that the estimate of £53,000 is not a new estimate? A very small part of the work is done at a cost of £22,000 —and I hardly believe the remainder can be done for £31,000?—The second stage is still at the planning stage and I am pretty sure the estimate will have to go up in the light of experience of what it has cost up to now. 182. Chairman.—On page 7, in regard to No. 67, I wonder why a new building like Aras Mhic Dhiarmada should require, at such an early stage, improvement of the sprinkler and fire alarm system? I thought it was the last word?—They had to put the sprinkler system to the test a few years ago when they had a little fire. It worked very well but I assume that whatever experience they gained then has created the need for this expenditure. 183. Turning to page 9, is there a difference between a staff restaurant and a lunch club, the Department of Lands appear to have both?—I do not think there is very much real difference. So far as I know all these places serve lunches. They also serve coffee and tea. It may be that the bigger ones are called restaurants and the smaller ones clubs. Chairman.—I had just noticed that the Department of Lands has both and I wondered if it was two names for the same place or whether they are doing themselves more than well. 184. Deputy Cunningham.—On subhead BB., is all this in respect of Rosslare?—Yes, this is Rosslare. The experimental works are still going on. 185. Deputy Booth.—On subhead C., there is a very substantial discrepancy which is referred to in the note which again refers to further payments on page 24. Chairman.—That is the first column. Deputy Booth.—And the matter arouses my curiosity because of the fact that so many items of expenditure are so much in excess of the Vote. I admit there is some difficulty, possibly, about estimation but, so far as the present case is concerned, there is just under £4,000 excess expenditure, on the Department of the Taoiseach. In the case of the Department of Finance there is a very considerable excess of some £25,000 or £30,000; in the case of Justice, £16,000; Lands, Posts and Telegraphs, Social Welfare, Health and Defence are all up a bit also so that there is a total expenditure of £647,390 against a Vote of £580,000—that is £67,390 of an excess. Is that normal or does it disturb the Accounting Officer as regards the extent of it? Was there anything unusual in this year, a review of maintenance, repairs, greater charges or anything which would account for the expenditure being so much in excess?— The expenditure covers hundreds of items and the excess was due partly to an increase in wages which occurred in that year and which could not have been foreseen and also to catching up with works suspended in a previous year which had been scheduled and which had not been carried out. Our architects did their best to catch up with the ordinary programme. That amounts to quite a considerable amount of it and I think the original estimate was a bit too low. It was cut too fine. 186. Deputy Booth.—Does the same explanation apply in the case of subhead D.2. for the excess expenditure? —No, this is rather different. This is just the balance of expenditure. Furniture that is bought during the year and taken into store and issued within the year does not appear in this figure at all but if it is still in stock at the end of the year it has to be shown here. 187. Chairman.—Your stock did rise then?—It did rise very considerably. Deputy Booth.—The actual total value of the stocks was £15,800?—Yes. Is it really necessary to carry such a heavy stock?—It covers an enormous variety of needs. Apart from office furniture, tables, chairs, desks, it includes cups, saucers, glasses and all sorts of things. We have to keep a very big variety. I could not say what the actual number of items are but it is very large. 188. Chairman. — This expenditure figure is a net one; it does not show the actual expenditure?—No. It is the difference between what comes in and goes out?—Yes. 189. On subhead E., what happened in relation to the note on page 24? I notice the Department of Local Government had expenditure of £99 on rent for which there was no provision made. Did they acquire new property or something?—I cannot say from memory how that arose. It looks as if they rented some premises. 190. On subhead J.3., I do not know if we should make a practice of telling accounting officers not to put in notes in such a case. It does not seem necessary where the amount was credited exactly as voted?—We will take note of that. 191. Deputy Booth.—On subhead K., this shows a very high valuation of stores. Over £200,000 is shown on that account. Is that a net figure or a total expenditure figure of £268,600?—The latter is the expenditure in the year. Chairman.—It is not the same as under furniture?—No, it is different under furniture. Deputy Booth.—Is the explanation the same to that extent that it is a wide variety of stores, or how is it necessary to carry such a very heavy total value of stores? Is it necessary to carry one year’s supply in stock?—That whole question is being examined at the moment and I think I would rather wait to see the result of the investigations before expressing any view on that. 192. Chairman.—On subhead L., this is the amount referred to in the note on the last Vote?—Yes. 193. Deputy Booth.—On subhead M.— Appropriations in Aid—Note No. 2 refers to the increase of tonnage rates on the mail boats at Dún Laoghaire Harbour. Could we have any information as to what other harbour dues are payable in respect of small boats, yachts and so on, and whether they have also been reviewed or is there any prospect of them being reviewed?—The mail boats, of course, are practically the only commercial users of the Harbour, and practically the whole of the revenue comes from them. Are there any harbour dues payable in respect of anchorage for yachts, that is permanent ones?—I enquired into that myself during the year and as far as I can make out the only charges made on yachts is when they are taken up on the slip during winter. They pay a fee and there seems to be nothing paid only mooring fees, collected by a local longshore man. It is a half a crown a year, I think. Chairman.—Is it not a bit less than parking?—Much less. 194. Deputy Booth.—What are the fees payable in respect of taking the boats up out of the water?—Speaking from recollection I think it is only 10/- for the winter, or £1 at most. It probably would arise more on the Estimate but, in view of the fact that some of the dues as far as mail boats are concerned, have been increased with such excellent results, I would like to know is there any prospect of the others being reviewed?—We have been looking into that also. We have a standing instruction from the Department of Finance to see that all these fees are kept up to modern standards. The Irish Lights presumably pay some fees? They always have their light ships, the big tenders, normally anchored at Dún Laoghaire?—I would have to enquire into that. Chairman.—Would you let us have a note, Mr. Mundow, when you have completed your enquiry?—Yes.* 195. Deputy Cunningham.—With regard to Sales of Property on page 19, does that include sales of lorries and so on, or does it include sales of property, housing, etc.? Does it include sales of buildings?—Yes. Coastguard Stations, buildings, and various properties that we own for which there is no further use. The Department of Lands have a list of any properties which they have up for sale. Is that done in this case here? —You mean do we keep a list? Each year the Department of Lands issues a list of properties they have for sale, for letting and so on. Do your people do the same?—If we have a property for letting it is advertised in the newspapers. If we have something for sale it depends on the nature of the property. It may be very hard to get somebody to take it. We use the local architects to find out who might be interested and when we find out the number of people who may be interested we ask them for offers. 196. Chairman.—In the notes on page 21 there is a reference to the National Library and Museum Buildings. Do I take it that the stone originally was to come from County Meath, that it was to be County Meath granite? Do I take it some other quarry had to be used?—They were told that some of the stone should be obtained from a certain quarry in Cork, and that quarry apparently was not able to produce the stone owing to some labour trouble. Therefore, the contractor had to go to County Meath, to Ardbraccan, where he got stone costing a great deal more and we refunded the extra charge, which he could not have foreseen when he was making his tender. Chairman.—I heard it was from County Meath it was to come. I did not know about the Cork angle. 197. Deputy Booth.—On the same page, in Note No. 1, reference is made to six cases in which unforeseen extra works on foundations were found to be necessary in the course of building contracts, and payments totalling £1,501 were made to contractors, but it goes on to say: “on a strict interpretation of a standard clause in the building specifications they were not legally entitled to payment.” I cannot resist the temptation to stress again that money is being paid out to which people are not legally entitled. I know it has the approval of the Department of Finance but what precautions are taken to see that contractors know what they are doing when they make a tender?— We had followed the trade practice of paying these amounts until we were advised by our legal advisers that the strict wording of the contract precluded us from making such payments but it is the practice all over the trade, I understand, to pay in these circumstances. We have since had this clause revised so that it is unlikely any payment of this sort will occur in the future. 198. Chairman.—I do not understand this business about the employees’ holidays in Note No. 5 on page 22?—We employ tradesmen in the Dublin district for maintenance work, but for some work there are periodic contracts. These men were not direct employees of the Office of Public Works. They were employed by a contractor but, when the contractor happened to change at a certain critical date, while the same men were employed by the new contractor, their rights to holidays were affected by the break in their employment. It was a technical break and we felt it only fair that the men should not be at any loss, and we had to make this ex-gratia payment to the contractor. 199. On Note No. 16, which refers to rock-breaking equipment, do I take it it was not used when it was sold, that it was in a new condition?—There were two hammers and accessories bought to meet special conditions on the Brosna. It was felt that blasting would be very difficult in the town of Tullamore so special equipment was brought there. However, owing to weather conditions, they were able to remove the rock without special equipment and without blasting. Then it was hoped to use this equipment on the Corrib, but again it was found possible to do it better by other means, and when the job was finished there was foreseeable no further use for this equipment in the Office of Public Works, and it was disposed of at the best price we could get. Chairman.—Somebody thought they would be very useful. 200. Deputy Booth.—On No. 15, the note says: “Arising from stocktaking stores on the River Feale Drainage Scheme amounting to £1,132 were written off.” Does that mean the stores had been expended, used up, and were of no further value or was it the position that certain stores were found not to be there?—The bulk of it was deficiencies. When the official stock was taken there were deficiencies. That was the net result of the stocktaking. There was no evidence of any dishonesty. It may have been that the storekeeping was not as perfect as it should have been, but we had no reason to believe that there was any dishonesty. Certainly there was no evidence to that effect. 201. Chairman.—On No. 17, what type of tractors are these? At £2,000 each they would be very substantial machines? —These were three tractors described as D7 Caterpillar Tractors. They were got for very heavy work on drainage schemes. 202. There appears to be no further queries on the Vote. We have before us the statement which has been circulated regarding the Register and Rentals of State Lands and Buildings*. We also have before us the appendix dealing with the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park accounts.** The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
