Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1963 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1961 - 1962

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 7 Feabhra, 1963.

Thursday, 7th February, 1963.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit) and Miss M. Bhreathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 10—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Mr. Risteárd Ó hÉigeartuigh called and examined.

58. Chairman.—We will start with paragraphs 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote. Paragraph 22 reads as follows:

“22. Provision was made under subhead C (Urban Employment Schemes) and subhead D (Rural Employment Schemes) for grants towards expenditure by local authorities on roads and amenity schemes, etc., to provide employment. The grants, amounting in all to £263,852, were paid in instalments, during the progress of the various works, by the Department of Local Government acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The accounts of the expenditure on the schemes are examined by Local Government auditors whose certificates are available to me.”

Have you anything to say, Mr. Suttle, about these paragraphs.

Mr. Suttle.—These paragraphs are for information, I have no comment to make.

59. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 reads as follows:

“23. The expenditure charged to subhead E (Minor Employment Schemes) and subhead F (Development Works in Bogs used by Landholders and other Private Producers), amounting to £285,322, relates to schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office. In certain counties these schemes were carried out by the county engineers acting as agents for the Office.”

Deputy Carter.—Is it found that county engineers carry out the work well? Is it found that they carry out the work more expeditiously or better than if it is carried out directly?—We claim that where we supervise the works we do a better job. That, to an extent, is understandable because the county engineers have their own normal responsibilities. The arrangement we make with the county engineers is on a commission basis, so it is understandable that, seeing that our own staff have nothing else to do but to supervise these schemes, we consider we get better value for the money in the counties in which we supervise them ourselves.

Deputy Lalor.—Why, then, are the county engineers employed as agents? Is it that there is a scarcity of engineers? —It is. That goes back a long time. When the office started in 1932, it was the county engineers all over the country who supervised our schemes. That continued to 1948 or 1949 when some of the councils objected to the arrangement because the county engineers had too much to do. In the result, we had no option but to set up our own organisation to supervise the works. We supervise about 60 per cent. of the expenditure and county engineers supervise 40 per cent.

60. Deputy Cunningham.—How many counties are covered by your own engineers? In how many counties is the work done by the Special Employment Schemes Office?—We supervise the schemes in 13 counties.

Mostly the western counties?—Mostly, yes.

Have any further counties been brought into that scheme since last year?—No. Actually, we have a shortage of engineers. Until that problem is cleared up, we would not consider taking over any further counties.

What is the percentage in respect of yourselves?—Sixty-one per cent. We did 61 per cent. of the expenditure and the county engineers did 39 per cent.

61. Thirteen counties are involved. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a disparity in the division of money as between the counties in which work is done by the Special Employment Schemes Office themselves and the counties in which it is done by the local authorities? —That disparity does not arise from the point of view of who supervises it. The disparity is due to the different types of schemes. There are three types of schemes—minor employment schemes, bog development schemes and rural improvement schemes. The minor employment schemes are allocated in relation to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in the electoral division concerned or in the counties concerned and the allocation is irrespective entirely of who will eventually supervise the job. The bog development schemes are allocated in relation to the situation of the bogs all over the country. Again, the allocation has nothing to do with who supervises the job. In the third scheme, the rural improvements scheme, the allocations are dependent on whether the farmers are prepared to pay the necessary contribution.

62. Deputy P. J. Burke.—On the rural improvements scheme, particularly in County Dublin, you have to carry out that work yourselves through the office? —Yes, that is so.

63. Deputy Lalor.—Rural improvements schemes are mentioned specifically under paragraph 24. In the normal run of contribution—I am not clear about this—the grant is worked out on the basis of the valuation of lands lying adjacent to a road. Take a farmer with a small portion of land adjacent to a road which is being done up and who also has land away from it. Is his total valuation taken as the basis?—The total valuation is, normally.

Even if the farm adjacent to the road is only an out-farm?—That is so. It is a rough and ready system of measuring the ability of the person to pay.

Deputy Cunningham.—What happens if the person has another farm in a different parish or in a different county?— If it is completely away, we exercise a limited amount of discretion.

64. Chairman.—In paragraphs 24 and 25 of his report the Comptroller and Auditor-General comments as follows:—

“24. The scheme for which provision was made under subhead G (Rural Improvements Scheme) was also administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office either directly or through the agency of county engineers. The works carried out included the improvement and construction of accommodation roads to houses, farms and bogs, small drainage works, the erection or reconstruction of small bridges, etc. Only works which are estimated to cost not less than £40 are approved and the grants may vary from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. of their cost. The gross expenditure amounted to £190,379 and contributions by beneficiaries, which are appropriated in aid of the vote, totalled £34,368.

25. The amount charged to subhead H (Miscellaneous Schemes) comprises expenditure on accommodation roads on islands, archaeological works and sports fields by the Special Employment Schemes Office, on foreshore and other relief works by the Department of Local Government, and on improvement works on small fishery harbours and piers by the Office of Public Works.”

Now let us turn to the Vote.

65. Deputy Cunningham.—Subhead A. refers to salaries, wages and allowances. A sum of £5,000 received from the Vote for Civil Service Remuneration was credited to this subhead. How does that arise?—It means that the gross expenditure is £81,499—not £76,499. What happened in connection with that was that the Estimates were prepared before what was generally known as the eighth round increase came into effect, with the result that there was a Vote generally dealing with the increases in pay. Some Departments had sufficient savings or knew they would have sufficient savings to meet the expenditure but, in my case, when the matter arose, I was very nervous that we would not have enough money and I drew from the other Vote the amount I could get so that I would not be in the position that I would have to slow up the ordinary works of the Office owing to shortage of money. It actually worked out that it was not essential but I could not anticipate that when the original arrangement was being made. I anticipated the contrary.

66. Chairman.—In regard to subheads A. and B.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances and Travelling and Incidental Expenses—did the vacancies mentioned in the inspection grade, cause any delay in the work of the office?—They have caused delay in the current year. They did not do so appreciably in the year we are discussing but, definitely, they have caused delays in the year 1962-63.

Deputy Clinton.—Are you finding difficulties in filling the vacancies?—We are, yes. The first time we tried, we got nobody at all. There were then 38 vacancies in various Government Departments to be filled, of which three were in the Special Employment Schemes Office. Some of the engineers, after the Civil Service Commissioners’ interview, elected to come to us but then they changed their minds and elected to go elsewhere. With that experience, we tried on our own. I am afraid we did not do very much better on our own. We have got only one up to the present.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—What is the explanation?—The explanation probably is that there are more interesting appointments available, for the salary we offer, from the technical engineering point of view. Actually, we anticipated we would fill them but the gentlemen who, at the interview, agreed to come, changed their minds.

67. Deputy Carter.—Arising from that, have you changed personnel? The explanation refers to “changes in personnel”?—That refers to civil servants in non-technical grades. Some of them retired and junior people came in at a lesser salary.

68. Deputy Cunningham.—In regard to subhead D.—Rural Employment Schemes—is that the one which deals with the towns?—Yes, non-urbanised towns.

Deputy Cunningham.—It often amazes me, in the case of County Donegal, that it appears as if a line were drawn right across the county and the northern towns get nothing while the southern towns do. Take the towns of Moville, Buncrana and Carndonagh. They are all in congested areas; yet they get nothing as compared with Ballybofey and Donegal town. I gather it is on the same basis as the minor employment schemes, but it does not look that way.

Deputy Clinton.—It is the basis of selection.

Deputy Cunningham.—Why is it that towns in one area are included and other towns in another area are not, though they are all in congested areas?—The basis of selection is related definitely to the unemployed. In these towns we take into consideration persons in receipt of unemployment benefit also. Persons in receipt of unemployment benefit are not taken into account in respect of minor employment schemes and that is also ignored in urban areas. In these non-urbanised towns, we found that by basing it on the unemployment assistance position alone, the results would not be as satisfactory as we would wish from the point of view of the general problem of the unemployed in those towns. I should say there are 477 towns with a population of 200 or over, and, in 1961-62, we had only £35,000 to divide in those areas. We gave grants to 130 towns out of the 477. There were 3,965 unemployed in the 477 towns. There were 3,037 in the 130 towns to which we gave grants, leaving only 930 odd in the other 347 towns where we gave no grants at all. We had to work out some kind of a system that would apply all over the country. What we decided to do was to give a grant of £200 in any town with between 10 and 20 unemployed. We gave no grant at all where the number of unemployed was less than 10—that is, unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance people combined. Where the number of unemployed was between 21 and 25, we increased the grant to £250; we gave £300 between 26 and 30; £350 between 31 and 40; £400 between 41 and 50; and £450 between 51 and 60. There were a few towns with more than 60 unemployed and we gave something over £450 in those. That applied to Donegal as well as any of the other counties. The fact is that in respect of the towns mentioned—for instance, Moville—there were only four unemployment assistance cases and four unemployment insurance cases. That is less than 10 and, therefore, nothing was given.

It amazes me?—Those are the actual figures of unemployed persons taken on the third Saturday in January, which is the peak period of unemployment during any year throughout the country.

Deputy Belton.—It shows how figures can lie.

69. Deputy Cunningham.—What about Buncrana?—Buncrana is an urban area and I am almost certain it got a grant.

The same happened this year, last year and the year before. It amazes me that those two towns, Carndonagh and Moville, are never included. Perhaps you could let me have a note?—I have the figures for Carndonagh here: a total of seven, one unemployment assistance case and six unemployment insurance cases.

70. Chairman.—On subhead G.—Rural Improvements Schemes—you speak in your note of more favourable terms. How were the terms improved during the year?—They were improved in June, 1961, but it took some time after that date to get out the new offers, with the result that it was towards the end of the year that the contributions came in. For example, before June, 1961, farmers with from £7 to £8 valuation had to pay 15 per cent. and from £8 to £10 valuation 17½ per cent. From June, 1961, onwards, those from £7 to £10 valuation pay only 12½ per cent. Going further up the scale, we find that, since June, 1961, persons with a valuation of from £15 to £25 pay only 20 per cent. of the cost. That represents a very big proportion of the farmers concerned with the Rural Improvements Scheme. Prior to June, 1961, persons with valuations between £15 and £18 had to pay 25 per cent. and persons between £18 and £25 had to pay 30 per cent. They now pay only 20 per cent. Between £25 and £50, they had to pay 35 per cent., they now pay only 25 per cent. There are not very many in that category, and that is not very much for a farmer with a valuation going up to £50.

71. On subhead H. — Miscellaneous Schemes—in regard to accommodation roads on islands, could you tell us how much you spent on those?—Those are really excess grants beyond the number of minor employment schemes allocations. There are three islands mainly concerned. Two are in Mayo: Clare Island, where we spent over £1,000 in the year under review, and Inishturk beside it, where we spent about £500. Then there is Bear Island in Cork where we spent £300. That makes a gross total of £1,800. That accounts for the full excess.

72. On subhead I.—Appropriations in Aid—could you give us any breakdown of the contributions?—The Rural Improvements Scheme accounted for £34,000, which is practically the whole lot or a very high proportion of it. The figure for bog development schemes is only £34. That is a case where a bog owner made a very substantial income from lettings to his neighbours and we considered he should pay something towards the cost of the work. The figure for marine schemes is £862 and is mainly accounted for by payments by county councils towards marine works. Apart from that, we had other receipts totalling £1,130. Of that, the major portion of £980 represents the sale of old materials. In these minor marine works, which are in the most inaccessible places in the country, it would not pay to take back the materials to store. They are sold, therefore, when the job is done. The sale is held locally. Apart from that, there were overpayments from the local authorities. This year they do not amount to much, only £34. There is a small item of £5 from Ballina; £23 from Laois County Council; £3 in Clones and £4 in Monaghan. Those are cases which I explained before, where adjustments could not be made inside the financial year under review. Since they have to be made the following year they come in as receipts. There is an item of £38 bank interest in respect of county engineers. We “imprest” the county engineers. We leave them a certain amount of money and the bank gave interest of £38. You will find that that adds up to the total.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 8—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. H. J. Mundow called and examined.

73. Chairman. — On subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—you refer to unfilled vacancies. Is the Office having any difficulty in obtaining staff?— Yes, it is a continuing difficulty. We have it year after year. It seems there are not sufficient professional and technical people to go around. There is a big demand for them every year. We have had to adopt other methods of trying to get the work done.

In that respect is there any danger that the work will be delayed or neglected because of the lack of staff?—No doubt it has been, to a small extent, up to now, but we hope very soon the position will be put right.

Deputy Clinton.—What are the other methods you have been using?—We are seeing to what extent we might employ technicians.

74. Chairman.—The explanatory note in regard to subhead B.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—says that the excess was mainly due to increased travelling by technical officers and to increased subsistence rates. To what extent is the excess due to increased subsistence rates? —It would not be the major part; it would be a relatively small part. It is mainly for the engineers. They had to travel a great deal more.

75. Deputy Lalor.—Does that imply that if there were a sufficient number of engineers, if vacancies were filled, the estimated expenditure in regard to subhead B. would be far too low? The fact is that we have a lesser number of engineers and technicians than we require. It would appear that if we had the full complement, the travelling and incidental expenses would be increased enormously?—Not proportionately, because at present they have to travel greater distances than would be necessary if we had our full complement.

76. Deputy Cunningham.—The other part of the expenditure, then, is probably accounted for by increases of salaries, is it?—No, subsistence rates.

Increases in subsistence rates?—That is a relatively small part of it. Most of it is due to additional travelling.

77. Chairman.—In regard to subhead C.—Appropriations in Aid—the note says, “Amount recoverable as administration expenses in connection with agency services”. Might I ask what was the percentage charged in 1961-62 and, also, might I inquire when this charge was last reviewed?—It was 14 2/7 per cent. in that year. It is reviewed every five years. I think that rate prevailed in the previous period also.

78. Deputy Cunningham.—Note 8 says that certain harbour works did not progress as expected. What were the harbour works or where were the harbour works concerned?—It was Galway Harbour.

Galway?—Yes.

One?—Yes.

79. Chairman.—Note 11 refers to an amount brought to account in respect of the salary of an officer on loan. Is it a common practice for an officer to be on loan for such a long period?—No. This is very unusual. It is the case of a girl who wanted to go abroad and work for the Legion of Mary and we got authority to release her for a period and her salary was refunded to us as well as a percentage for her pension.

80. Deputy Cunningham. — Note 4 says: “The deficit arose mainly because four intermediate river drainage schemes and one catchment drainage scheme did not commence”. What were they, or where were they?—That should be “three”—three intermediate river drainage schemes. One was the Ouvane, which has since been done and, I think, finished; the next was the Duff, in Sligo, and the third, the Brickey, in County Waterford. The catchment drainage scheme which did not commence was the Killimor in Galway. It has started since.

81. Chairman. — In regard to the Marine Works Act, 1902, Maintenance Fund, what are the works involved and what distinguishes those works from works charged to voted moneys?—I have a note on that which, with your permission, I shall read out. It is as follows: For the maintenance of certain marine works in Counties Clare, Cork, Donegal, Galway and Kerry, the enabling Act provided that annual contributions of up to 1½ per cent. of the cost of original construction in each county should be made by county councils. The rate of contribution has been reduced progressively to ½ per cent. Surplus receipts over expenditure have been invested from time to time and the dividends, together with the annual contributions, provide an income, now round about £1,000, which is unlikely to be exceeded by maintenance expenditure save in the event of abnormal storm damage or necessity for exceptionally heavy works of maintenance. The original works, on which some £60,000 was expended, were carried out at Cape Clear, County Cork; Roundstone, Kilronan, Cleggan and Kinvara, County Galway; Gortnasate, Cladnageeragh, Portnoo, Downies Bay and Falcorrib, County Donegal; Liscannor, County Clare; and Renard Point, County Kerry. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of expenses on maintenance in the last couple of years and most of the funds have had to be realised. The fund is now dependent to a greater extent on the income from the ½ per cent.

VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. H. J. Mundow further examined.

82. Chairman.—On this Vote, paragraph 14 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:

“14. The charge to the subhead comprises £509,019 expended on general architectural and engineering works and £1,698,476 in respect of grants towards the cost of erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools. Of the latter sum £949,790 was paid to managers who undertook responsibility for carrying out the works and £748,686 was expended directly by the Commissioners. A school grant represents not less than two-thirds of the full cost, the balance being met by the manager from local contributions.”

You would seem to have no trouble in dealing with school problems but you would seem to have difficulty in carrying out works for other Government Departments and that seems to have been the case for a number of years. Is there any particular reason for that?—What has been happening for a number of years is that the architects, when estimating for the coming year, estimate for each work that is likely to be carried out and they estimate the amount they are likely to spend. Then, at the end, there is a deduction made for work not likely to be carried out. I found on going back over the figures for a number of years that that figure was too small, that really the amount which should be deducted is much greater. The experience is that the architects tend to be optimistic. They hope to be able to do every work. In fact, they cannot. If they do undertake every work they cannot spend as much money on the individual projects. We are taking the matter in hand now and we hope this large saving will not occur in future. It may not disappear all at once but it should disappear over a period of years.

83. Deputy Carter.—Reference is made in the paragraph to the fact that some school managers undertook to carry out the work themselves. Is it found to be a better system or does the manager get better work done than if it were done by the Office of Public Works directly?— Usually, it is the larger schools where the manager is allowed to employ his own architect. We see the tenders and approve the selection of the contractor but the manager’s architect supervises the work with supervision also by our architect, but not so close supervision as we give to our own schools. The only thing I can say on the question as to whether they do better work is that they cost more. The managers’ schools tend to cost quite a lot more than our schools.

Deputy Cunningham.—Is there a minimum of a 7-teacher school?—It would not be so big. I think about six classrooms.

Six or over?—After that, the manager is allowed to have his own architect. He need not but, generally, the manager likes to have his own architect.

Deputy Clinton.—In those cases, do you select an architect and do you advertise for an architect?—We do not select him. The manager makes his own selection.

You do not select him?—No.

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

“15. Reference was made in paragraph 15 of my previous report to expenditure on continuation of works of improvement and repair after the transfer of the agricultural institutions at Johnstown Castle and Grange Farm to An Foras Talúntais. As shown in a note to the account, further expenditure amounting to £6,283 was incurred during the year bringing the total from date of transfer to £28,880.”

This matter has been referred to in previous Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Have these works been completed?—They have been completed. There was still an unpaid balance of about £500 at the end of March, 1962, but the works themselves have been completed.

85. Chairman.—In paragraph 16 of his Report the Comptroller and Auditor General says:

“16. Following a Government decision to have Templemore Military Barracks converted to a training centre for Garda recruits the Department of Finance sanctioned expenditure estimated at £435,000, including £35,000 (approximately) for Architect’s and Quantity Surveyor’s fees, for the erection of new buildings and the renovation and adaptation of existing accommodation.

Because the Commissioners of Public Works were unable to undertake the planning and supervision of the project the Minister for Justice with the sanction of the Minister for Finance engaged an Architect and a Quantity Surveyor on a fee basis and entered into a contract for the execution of the work. The contractor was selected from 11 builders who were invited to tender on the basis of a schedule of rates for new works and adaptations to be measured and valued during the progress of the works in accordance with approximate Bills of Quantities.

The contract was placed on 12th July, 1961, and expenditure to 31st March, 1962, amounting to £93,506 has been charged to this subhead.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—We deemed it advisable to draw attention to this matter for two reasons, first, because while the expenditure is borne on the Vote for Public Works and Buildings, responsibility for the work rests with the Department of Justice. The Commissioners of Public Works advised the Department of Justice regarding the selection and terms of appointment of an architect and quantity surveyor and on the terms of the contract agreement entered into with the selected building contractor. The second feature of this work to which we wished to draw attention is that the contract entered into was not on a lump sum basis which is usual in the case of major building works. It is on a schedule of rates to be measured by the quantity surveyor and architect during the progress of the works. The figure of £400,000 is an estimated figure on the basis of what work the architect estimated will be required.

Deputy Belton.—It strikes me that £35,000, approximately, for architect’s and quantity surveyor’s fees is a very high percentage in a contract estimated at £435,000. If we all could get that percentage, I am afraid we would all be architects and quantity surveyors.

Deputy Clinton.—As a matter of interest, what percentage is it?

Chairman.—It is around 8 per cent.

86. Deputy Belton.—What is the standard rate of fees for architects and quantity surveyors?

Deputy Clinton.—6 per cent. is the standard rate for architects.

Deputy Belton.—But not for quantity surveyors. They are both included here.

Mr. Mundow.—I think those fees are the normal fees. There is nothing abnormal about them.

Deputy Cunningham.—There is a duplication, of course. We are talking in terms of a single fee but, in this case, the quantity surveyor’s fee is on top of the architect’s fee. In other words, there are two percentages added.

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

Deputy Clinton.—It is a total of 9 per cent. consultants’ fees.

Mr. Mundow.—That is right.

87. Chairman.—On this question of what exactly has happened, we cannot pursue that here. It is a question of a Government decision and so, we cannot ask Mr. Mundow about it. Any member, however, can pursue it, not here but in the Dáil. It does strike me, at this stage, to ask if the architectural staff is sufficient for the works for which you are responsible?—If we were allowed to do them in our own time according to the resources we have, we could do them all but some would have to be postponed longer than the Department wishes. We regard our organisation as adequate if we could fill all the posts. If we could do that, we think it would be adequate to do the normal work that is given to us. Of course, things have not been normal for the last few years. There has been a great increase in building and we have got some additional staff also.

88. A second question that suggests itself is: Did your office have a question to deal with in regard to fees? Did you make any attempt to negotiate fees—to reduce fees?—We did not have anything to do with that. All we were asked to do was to nominate a list of people who could be regarded as competent to do this work and after that we were out of the picture.

You do not know whether any attempt was made or not to negotiate lower fees? I think it is not easy to get lower fees from the professional Institutes.

Deputy Cunningham.—It certainly is not.

89. Chairman.—In regard to the building contractors, you advised on the terms of the agreement with the building contractors. Why was the contract not placed on a lump sum basis?—That arises out of the very nature of the job, I think. Nobody could have said precisely what works would require to be done. All that could be said was that certain works were required to be done, but it was almost certain that there would be others.

Deputy Cunningham.—It is the same as the reconstruction of Leinster House. It is the same type of contract, is it not?—More or less.

Chairman.—To what extent can the terms accepted be regarded as competitive?—I think about eleven contractors were invited to tender. As between that group, I think the tender was very competitive.

Deputy Clinton.—And the lowest tender accepted?—I believe that is the case.

90. Chairman.—You are meeting the cost of the work. Who checks the contractors’ claims and who is responsible for their accuracy?—The architect should and does, but also, so far as we can, we get one of our own architects to visit the site at intervals and to assure himself that the work which has been claimed for has been done.

Deputy Clinton.—You have not a clerk of works on the job all the time?—Yes, we have.

Chairman.—How is the figure of £435,000—new works and adaptations— made up?—I would say it is mainly adaptations, nearly all adaptations, at that stage. New works may be added later.

91. Chairman.—Paragraph 17 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads as follows:

“Subhead BB.—Coast Protection.

17. The survey and experimental works in connexion with the prevention of coast erosion at Rosslare Strand were continued and £19,865 was expended during the year. The total expenditure to 31st March, 1962, on this project amounted to £75,588 towards which the Wexford County Council contributed £25,217.”

Is the project nearing completion?—We hope it will be finished by the end of March, 1964.

92. Chairman.—Now we come to paragraph 18 which is as follows:

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

18. The charge to the subhead in respect of construction works in progress during the year amounted to £761,654. In addition, the value of stores issued and charges for the use of plant were assessed at £428,855. The cost of each scheme to 31st March, 1962, was:—

The balance of the charge to the subhead is made up of sums amounting to £3,470 being remanets of expenditure on completed schemes.”

Deputy Cunningham.—Why were you not able to give an estimated cost of the drainage works at Swilly and the Shannon Estuary?—I find it hard to answer that precisely but, as far as I remember, the estimates were not ready in time to be included in the printed Book of Estimates.

Since then, has any firm estimate been arrived at?—Yes. I have not the current estimates with me.*

93. I am interested in the Swilly project. I should like an estimate of the Swilly project, if it can be sent to me at any time?—Yes.*

94. Chairman.—Is the Ballyteigue and Kilmore scheme near completion?—It is finished.

95. Chairman.—Paragraph 19 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report comes next. It is:

“Stores

19. Reference was made in paragraph 19 of my previous report to surplus stocks of spare parts of an estimated value of £45,000 held at the Central Engineering Workshop. Following my inquiries the Commissioners appointed a Board of Survey who examined the items in question and made recommendations for their disposal.”

In his Minute in reply to the Committee’s last report the Minister for Finance refers to this matter. It seems that the figure of £45,000 has now gone up to £75,000, as recommended by the Board of Survey. Are we nearing the end of the problem of redundant stores?—Yes, I think it is round the corner now. This £75,000 is not comparable with the £45,000. It does not mean that there has been an increase in the £45,000. It means other items have had to be looked at. The £45,000 referred to spare parts for machines. Besides that, there are general stores and raw materials. Since the last examination of the accounts, all these stocks have been looked at, too, in the same way and they have been segregated to see how much of them we should not keep. The total of £45,000 plus the others makes up the £75,000 and, of these, approximately £17,500 will be kept. It was found it could be justified and we would be likely to use them within a reasonable time. They went back to store and the £57,500—including the £45,000 —were disposed of or will soon be.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—How? By auction?—Sometimes by auction, sometimes by advertisement. I saw an advertisement in to-day’s papers offering them for tender—quite a lot of them.

96. Chairman.—The next two paragaphs of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report—paragraphs 20 and 21 —say:

“20. I also mentioned in paragraph 20 of my previous report that following the recommendations made by a firm of consultants the stores were being reorganised and a system of material control introduced. Progress has been made in this direction but it is not expected that the recommendations of the consultants will be fully implemented before 31st March, 1963.

21. The Committee of Public Accounts in its report on the accounts for 1955-56 referred to the existence of two sets of store records and it was promised that this matter would be investigated. Since 1st November, 1961, on the recommendation of the consultants, only one set of records is being kept. A system of continuous stocktaking has also been introduced.”

I notice that only one record is now being kept. Is the single system satisfactory?—Yes. The accountant tells me that the system is quite satisfactory from his point of view.

97. Deputy Carter.—Were the consultants home based or from outside?—They have an Irish office now, from which the British firm of consultants operate.

98. Chairman.—With regard to the inventory of furniture in embassies and legations abroad, about which the Committee commented before, are you satisfied with these inventories?—We have not all of them yet but we have nearly all of them. There are three or four outstanding. We have been pressing the Department of External Affairs for them. We hope to have them very soon.

Deputy Clinton.—Who makes those inventories?—We get the local officials of the Department to make them.

99. Chairman.—Turning now to the subheads of the Vote—in regard to subhead A.—Purchase of Sites and Buildings —what is the total price for 21 Parliament Steet and could you tell me what purpose it is being acquired for?—It is the extension of the income tax premises. They have been rather compressed in the Castle owing to building works going on there. We had to find other premises for them. It used to be the Racing Board’s premises, I think, I cannot say offhand what the full price was.

You made a deposit of £10,500. You cannot tell me the total price?—Not offhand.*

100. Regarding the head rent at Birr (Crinkle) former Military Barracks, is it usual to buy out a military barracks? The sum seems large. What was the rent in that case. You can send a note.* Another query concerns a site at Morehampton Road?—Provisionally it is for the new National Library.

Deputy Belton.—Is that a very big site?

Chairman.—I am informed it is two acres.

Deputy Belton.—I gather from this it is just a site. There is not an existing building, is there?—It is part of the premises of the Bloomfield Private Mental Hospital. They wanted some money and they found they could part with two acres of their land. It is on Morehampton Road.

And no building? £20,000 an acre is a very nice price?—It was bought by auction.

101. Chairman.—Subhead B. concerns New Works, Alterations and Additions. I shall take this tabular statement † on new works, which had been circulated, page by page. In regard to item No. 1 on page 1—Aras an Uachtaráin (Improvement of Planthouse Accommodation)—there has been no expenditure on this project for some time now. Is there some reason for the delay?—Yes. We had not been able to get a suitable type of house for the accommodation they wanted. But that has been put right now and since then we have spent £2,500 on the work and it is progressing fairly quickly now.

102. On no. 10—Revenue Commissioners, Dublin Castle (Rebuilding of Cross Block)—are you building the cross block at Dublin Castle? It seems to be moving slowly. Is there any particular reason for that?—We have doubled the expenditure since. There was some difficulty with the foreman there, who got ill. That held up the work for a long time until they got another. He did not stay very long, either. That delayed it somewhat.

103. In regard to no. 2—Leinster House (Extension)—what is the contract date for the completion of that work?— It is towards the end of 1964.

104. Deputy Carter.—On no. 12— Bridgend Customs Frontier Post (Improvements)—and no. 12 A.—Cloghore Customs Post (Improvements)—are these items here for improvements or replacements?—They are improvements.

105. Deputy Clinton.—On work no. 18—Phoenix Park (Improvement of Water Supply)—there does not seem to be much expenditure on this item. Is there an explanation for that?—It was planning in the year under review. The expenditure there was mostly in respect of fees. The works have commenced now and we have spent something over £1,000 on them.

106. In respect of work no. 25—New Works, Alterations and Additions at specified Garda Síochána Stations—in regard to new divisional headquarters at Crumlin, is that again in respect of planning?—Yes.

There has been no progress beyond the planning stage?—It is coming very near the stage where the contract will be placed.

107. Deputy Kenny.—In respect of work no. 27/30—Cootehall (Alterations) —I understand that the Cootehall Garda Station, County Roscommon, is being closed. Is it advisable to spend money on alterations such as this when the station is being closed? I understand the premises will eventually be sold. What method have you of selling them?—When we are asked by the Department of Justice to carry out work on a building, we do not know whether it will be closed. I presume, in that case, we were asked to carry out these alterations and it was subsequently decided to close the place.

Chairman.—The works have been carried out?—Yes.

Chairman.—When Mr. Berry is here, Deputy, you might care to ask him a question on this matter.

Deputy Kenny.—All right.

108. Chairman.—On work no. 36— Major Fishery Harbours—only £11,000 has been spent. Is it moving slowly?— They were still planning then. That £10,000 is very largely fees for consultants and experts for trial borings and works of that sort. It has moved a good way since.

109. Deputy Clinton.—On work no. 38 (1)—Veterinary College, Ballsbridge (Improvements)—how is it it has not been possible to make an estimate of the work there?—It is because nobody knows yet what is the whole work that will be required to be done.

Yet we made a provision of £10,000 is 1961/62?—That was for works that were expected to be required to be done this year. It was known that other works would be required before the place was brought up to the standard the Department required.

110. In the case of work no. 40 (2)— Abbotstown Farm—Experimental Animals Farmyard—we do not seem to be making much progress there?—We have made a good deal since that date. We have spent about £31,000 in respect of that now and in respect of no. 40 (3)—Foundation Stock Farmyard—about £20,000.

111. Deputy Carter.—On no. 46— Johnstown Castle; Improvement of Water Supply—what was the nature of the improvement? Was it a new scheme?— It was a very extensive job. This had been a residence and then it became an institution. The supply suitable for the residence did not suit the institution.

Deputy Clinton.—This would include the putting in of a large main and all that sort of thing?—As far as I know, yes.

112. Chairman.—On work no. 74— Haulbowline: New Water Main—how did this credit of £894 arise?—These are some stores that were returned when the job was completed to our engineering workshop. We give the subhead a credit for the amount.

113. Deputy Belton.—On work no. 70 —School of Civil Defence: Improved Accommodation—is this in Pembroke Road?—No, this refers to Ratra House in the Phoenix Park. I think the Corporation operate the centre in Pembroke Road. This is the Department of Defence one. They have a school there in Ratra House.

114. Chairman.—We come now to the Notes on page 21. The first note states: “A total of £857 was paid ex-gratia to two contractors in recoupment of an unforeseen increase in the statutory employers’ contributions made by them under the Social Welfare Acts.” Why was that ex-gratia payment made to only two employers?—There were only two contractors affected. These were our periodical contractors, who get a contract to do all the painting and decoration work required in Dublin and Cork. One was in Dublin and the other in Cork. They pay the men—pay their insurance contributions and everything else. Under the contract they do all this for a stated figure. Obviously they could not have foreseen the increase in insurance contributions when they were submitting their tenders for the work. It was only fair they should be refunded the extra payments they had to make.

Deputy Clinton.—Was there a clause in the contract to that effect, that if unforeseen circumstances arose, they could claim?—I do not think there was. That is why it had to be ex-gratia.

115. Chairman.—Note no. 2 says: “A contractor was paid £1,100 in respect of preparatory work and loss of profits under a building contract not proceeded with; cost of advertisements and quantity surveyors’ fees amounted to £500.” Why was it not proceeded with?—This was a contract placed for a residence and new customs station at Carrickarnon, County Louth. It was suspended when some work had already been carried out. The contractor claimed compensation and accepted a reduced figure of compensation, after negotiations, on the understanding that his tender would be accepted for whatever revised building was going up. He actually submitted the lowest tender when we went to look for tenders again. Therefore, he got the contract.

116. Note no. 10 refers to a crankshaft purchased at £32 which was found to be unsuitable and written off. Why was it unsuitable, I wonder?—There is a long explanation. A fitter at the Central Engineering Workshop overhauling a compressor requisitioned a crankshaft which was bought from the Dublin agent of the American manufacturers. This was the usual procedure. The part delivered to the workshop was found to be for a type 1YC compressor and it was then discovered that the incorrect part number had been quoted in the requisition as the fitter had overlooked that the Parts Book in use covered both types of compressor. The manufacturers were asked to take back the crankshaft and allow credit for it. They agreed to do this, less the cost of handling, restocking, clearance charges and so on. This would have entailed a loss of about 50 per cent. of the value of the article. In that case we tried to find a purchaser in the country but did not succeed. That caused a delay of about three months. When we went to the manufacturers they had changed their minds and refused to accept the crankshaft back at all. When a tradesman prepares a requisition it is scrutinised by the foreman, but you could not have detailed checking of every requisition without interfering with their more important work. Errors in requisitioning are rare and it is considered practical to regard them as risks concomitant with a large industrial concern like the Workshop. Arising out of the case now in question, foremen were instructed to apply spot checks to requisitions and to advise all concerned of the need for accuracy and care in their preparation.

117. Deputy Clinton.—What premises are referred to in Note no. 3?—Grange Farm and Johnstown Castle.

118. Deputy Lalor.—Note no. 7 refers to the payment of £3,229 arising out of road accidents? Are State vehicles not insured in the normal way?—No, the State does not insure its vehicles.

119. Deputy Carter.—No. 15 of the Notes mentions losses by fire not covered by insurance. Do you carry your own insurance risks?—Yes.

Were all the fires in question accidental? —They were all investigated to see if there was anything malicious about them and they were all found to have been accidental. We could not find anybody to charge with malicious injury.

120. Chairman.—Members of the Committee have been supplied with copies of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park account.*

Deputy Clinton.—I should like to ask is this a continuing liability and is it similar from year to year? The Bourn Vincent Memorial Park account shows a considerable loss?—It is bound to show a loss because it is mainly an amenity. The items of revenue there are almost negligible in comparison with the expenditure. It is an amenity. I think all parks cost money to maintain.

121. Chairman.—Members of the Committee have been supplied with a note about the compilation of Property Rental.†

Deputy Lalor.—What is it all about?— We have an enormous amount of property in a very large number of different parcels. Some years back the Committee of Public Accounts thought that possibly we were not minding it properly, that it was not being properly perambulated. It is almost treating it like stores. You have to find out what you have and then see that you continue to have it, that somebody is not filching bits of it away. As a result of the Committee’s interest in the matter, we set up this property rental and perambulation and we have almost completed the survey. When I say, “almost completed”, it will take another two or three years, perhaps. The whole survey will be completed then. Following the survey we have perambulation and an opportunity to check on every piece of property once a year to make sure that it is what it should be, that the boundaries are correct, that no one has encroached on the boundaries, and so on.

Deputy Lalor.—These are buildings and land under the jurisdiction of the State?

Chairman.—Properties of the State— all the property of the State, here, there and elsewhere—buildings and lands. Previous Committees of Public Accounts put the most stringent obligation on the Office of Public Works to look into it and to see that the properties still existed.

The witness withdrew.

The committee adjourned.

*See Appendix XIII.

* See Appendix XIII.

† See Appendix XIV.

*See Appendix XV.

† See Appendix XVI.