|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 4 Samhain, 1965.Thursday, 4th November, 1965.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY JONES in the chair. Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), and Miss Máire Bhreathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 8—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.Mr. H. J. Mundow called and examined.370. Chairman.—On subhead A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is the usual question of unfilled vacancies. Is there any improvement in the situation? —Yes. In the year of account there was no improvement but since then there has been a considerable improvement. 371. On subhead B.—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—I note that the excess was mainly due to an increased volume of travelling. Was there any particular item in that?—There was much extra travelling because we were doing much more work. Architects and engineers had to travel to a greater number of jobs. 372. On Appropriations in Aid, item No. 1 relates to penal interest on overdue loan repayments. Is this an exceptional thing?—It is not. When a borrower is late in making a payment, after a month’s delay penal interest is imposed so as to hasten the payment. It does not amount to very much as a rule. 373. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—No. 3 relates to administration expenses in connection with agency services. What is the nature of these agency services?—These are services for various authorities like CIE, the Incorporated Law Society and other bodies. We charge them for the work done by us plus a percentage. Is it for engineering services?—Not entirely. It could be architectural services also. 374. Chairman.—Item No. 2 of the Appropriations in Aid refers to fees under the Local Loans Fund (Fees and Expenses) Regulations 1946. There is a very big increase in the amount of fees received. Were there increased transactions or were the fees themselves increased?—Increased transactions. The estimate was £8 million but in fact they totalled £13 million. The fees went up roughly proportionately to that. Would the bulk of that be for housing? —I think it would. VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.Mr. H. J. Mundow further examined.375. Chairman.—Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions. 20. The charge to the subhead comprises £1,510,424 expended on general architectural and engineering works, and £2,325,993 in respect of grants towards the erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools as compared with £1,122,725 and £1,824,430 respectively in the previous year. School grants amounting to £1,242,000 were paid to managers who undertook responsibility for having the works carried out; and £1,083,993 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.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Suttle? Mr. Suttle.—No. This is purely for information regarding the architectural works carried out by the Commissioners. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to the erection and improvement of national schools, would these schools be in urban areas? Mr. Mundow.—They are in every part of the country. Rural and urban?—In every part. 376. Chairman.—How much of this sum would be spent on the larger schools in urban areas?—The larger schools are mainly in urban areas and they are called managers’ cases. The manager employs his own architect, subject to our general supervision. We pay the grant. Of the £2,300,000 spent on school grants, £1,242,000 was paid to managers who undertook responsibility for having the works carried out. 377. Deputy Kenny.—The school grants vary according to the location of schools? —In a sense they do. The minimum grant is two-thirds of the cost of the school but the Department of Education can vary that in accordance with the local conditions. 378. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “21. Reference was made in paragraph 14 of the previous report to expenditure on improvement and repair to the agricultural institutions at Johnstown Castle and Grange Farm after their transfer to An Foras Talúntais. As shown in the note to the account further expenditure amounting to £1,304 was incurred during the year bringing the total from the date of transfer in 1959-60 to a final figure of £32,644.” In regard to Johnstown Castle, is this the end of it?—I am afraid I told you twice before that it was. This time it definitely is. 379. Chairman.—Paragraph 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “22. In paragraph 15 of the previous report attention was drawn to the project for the conversion of Templemore Military Barracks into a training centre for Garda recruits under a schedule of rates contract supervised by an architect employed by the Minister for Justice. The total estimated cost has again been revised from £560,000 to £620,000 to provide for additional indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and increases in cost of labour and materials, etc. The cost of furnishing, estimated at £20,000, will be borne on the Garda Síochána Vote. Expenditure during the year amounted to £154,724 bringing the total at 31 March 1964 to £455,938, including £38,533 for fees paid to architects, quantity surveyors, etc.” 380. Deputy Kenny.—What is the reason for the increase in expenditure from £560,000 to £620,000?—A portion of it is due to increased costs, increased wages, and portion of it would be due to some additional facilities which have been provided, as the paragraph states. 381. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary.—What was the original estimate? —The original estimate was for reconstruction works costing £282,500 and new buildings costing £102,500. These, priced on an up to date estimate, would be £426,000. This particular reconstruction was put up for tender and estimates were received. Have you any record of the estimate which was received in the first instance? Chairman.—I think, Deputy, that in the Report of the Committee for 1962-63 you will find that it was revised to £426,000 at that stage. 382. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—I know, but this particular work was advertised, tenders were taken and as I understand it, no tender was accepted. Then it was put out to be done under different conditions. I should like to know what happened and why the system was altered. Chairman.—Would I be correct in saying that on the last occasion we were dealing with this matter the information given was that this was being done directly, that while the Office of Public Works had some supervisory function the work was handed over to the Department of Justice?—That is the position. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— Did the Office of Public Works hand it over to the Department of Justice?—The Department of Justice engaged the architect and the architect recommended the tender to be accepted. Is that usual?—It is most unusual. Normally we would have done this but there was so much work being done at the time that this would have had to wait longer than the Minister for Justice was prepared to wait. The architect accepted the tender?— The Department of Justice accepted the tender on their architect’s recommendation. 383. Deputy Cunningham.—Is it the position that during the course of the work, and even when the original plan had been completed or was near completion, they discovered work which they thought it was desirable to carry out?— I think the works were listed in a letter which I sent to the Committee (Appendix XXI of Report on Appropriation Accounts 1962-63). Chairman.—Yes, there were further works. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— What happened originally was that the contract was advertised and the lowest tender was not accepted; then it was given to other contractors, not by public tender, not in the same fashion. Chairman.—I think we had this matter last year. Deputy Cunningham.—And the year before, too, I think. 384. Chairman.—Could you say if we have reached finalisation, Mr. Mundow?— Yes, the Gardaí are in occupation and the works have been completed except for minor items. No work of any importance has still to be done. Your expenditure will not be completed until next year possibly?—It will be next year before we have final figures. I suppose there will be an increase on this figure before us?—I can give you the figures up to 30th September last. The total was £617,634. There will not be much more after that. 385. Deputy Healy.—If Deputy Hogan says that the lowest tender was not accepted, do I take it that the second or third lowest was not accepted either? Was the tender of anyone who tendered accepted? Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— It was all rather ambiguous and I am not clear about it. The man with the lowest tender was not accepted. An official was sent down to look at his business to see if he had out-offices which were sufficiently large, but after that it was dealt with in a different manner. Deputy Healy.—I would be interested to know if anybody who tendered was accepted. Chairman.—I think I should say at this stage for the information of the Committee that last year when we discussed this matter the information that became available then was that the tender accepted was on the basis of prices, a priced bill of quantities. Mr. Mundow.—That is correct. Deputy Healy.—Was one of those who tendered originally accepted eventually or was anybody who tendered accepted?— Eleven builders were invited to tender and one of those was accepted. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— On a different basis, not on the basis of the original tenders?—I am not familiar with the details. Mr. Suttle.—My recollection is that the job was a pretty awkward one, being partly reconstruction and partly new works. When you come to deal with reconstruction, it is impossible to plan accurately what will be required and the contract was placed on the basis of a priced bill of quantities, so much for opening works, so much for concrete works per cubic yard, etc., and it was on that basis that tenders were invited. They were not invited as a firm fixed price contract but as a priced bill of quantities, and it was on the recommendation of the architect that this contract was placed. Deputy Healy.—As long as I know that somebody fulfilled the conditions as advertised, I am satisfied. Deputy Burke.—That is a very satisfactory explanation. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— I am also satisfied. 386. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “23. Reference was made in paragraph 17 of the previous report to the arrangements made with the National Building Agency, Ltd. to provide houses for married members of the Garda Síochána. At 31 March 1964, 207 houses were in course of construction and 75 had been completed. The total amount charged to the Vote to 31 March 1964, including £300,000 paid in the year of account, amounted to £401,254.” Is the Agency meeting its target in regard to the provision of these houses?—I have the latest figures of expenditure. I have not got the numbers of houses but the expenditure up to last month was £830,422 since the beginning. 387. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—Could Mr. Mundow tell us what is the average cost per house on the number of houses built so far?—I have not got that figure but I have heard it stated that it is something around £2,500. I could find out. 388. Chairman.—There was an original estimate that 1,000 houses would be built by the Agency for the Garda Síochána. Could you tell us what number has been done at the moment?—No. We have figures here; up to March 1964, 107 were being built and at a guess I should say that probably 300 to 400 have been built, but that is only a guess. Deputy Cunningham.—On the amount of money expended, at an average of £2,500 per house— Mr. Mundow.—They would not all have been paid for yet, of course. Deputy Cunningham.—I see. 389. Chairman.—Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “24. In the course of audit it was observed that only £21,448 was paid in respect of a claim for £26,116 certified by the National Building Agency, Ltd., as having been expended by them in the period 2nd—23rd March 1964. I have inquired as to the circumstances in which the full amount of the claim was not met within the year in which it matured for payment.” Deputy Cunningham.—Is there any result of the inquiry as to why only £21,448 was paid? Mr. Suttle.—Might I add some information to this? The Accounting Officer has informed me that steps have been taken to ensure compliance with the rules in future. This was an odd lapse from the rules which will not occur again. 390. Chairman.—Paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead BB.—Coast Protection 25. The charge to the subhead includes £16,993 for coast protection works at Rosslare Strand. The total cost of this project to 31 March 1964 was £108,831 towards which the Wexford County Council had contributed £30,217 to 31 March 1963. It was decided, with the approval of the Department of Finance, that the County Council should not be required to make any further contribution towards the cost of completion of these works. Further instalments amounting to £5,500 were paid to Wicklow Urban District Council as portion of a grant not to exceed 80 per cent. of the cost of protection works at Wicklow estimated at £13,000. The total amount paid to 31 March, 1964 was £8,500.” Deputy Kenny.—Regarding the works at Rosslare, are any similar works contemplated around the coast?—Rosslare and Wicklow are the only two that have been done. I think both have been completed now. Rosslare was experimental to the extent that we wanted to find out what could be done in protecting a coast like that. Then the Coast Protection Act came along and that is our brief for the future. We work to that. 391. Deputy Cunningham.—Has there been any expenditure arising out of the terms of the Coast Protection Act other than in the year under review? Is there any expenditure at all by way of surveys or preliminary inspections outside the two places mentioned? Deputy Burke.—I understood that the coast at Skerries had been surveyed and that Dublin County Council had agreed to pay their portion of the cost of work when the scheme was finalised by the Department?—In fact about 36 applications have been made and they are at various stages of examination. A great deal of preliminary work has to be done under the Act before a scheme can actually start and none of them reached the work stage during the period covered by these accounts. Chairman.—These other schemes are contemplated?—Yes; any of them which prove to be justified will eventually be carried out. Deputy Cunningham.—But there was no expenditure in this particular year?— No. Deputy Burke.—Not even surveying —Surveying costs would not be shown here. 392. Chairman.—Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead I.2.—Arterial Drainage—Construction Works. 26. The charge to the subhead in respect of construction works in progress during the year amounted to £1,252,855. In addition, the value of stores issued and charges for the use of plant were assessed at £593,807. The cost of each scheme to 31 March, 1964 was:—
The balance of the charge to the subhead is made up of sums amounting to £2,872 being remanets of expenditure on completed schemes.” 393. Deputy Kenny.—In regard to the Corrib-Clare scheme, is that not now complete?—Yes, it is on maintenance now. 394. Deputy Cunningham.—I see that on the Swilly works the estimate was £93,000 and expenditure £95,507 and that for Swilly Lower, there is no estimate and an expenditure of £20,000. What is “Swilly Lower”? What is the difference between the two?—There are two separate schemes for our purposes. One has been completed. The Swilly as such has been qualified in some way. Swilly Lower is very nearly complete now. There was an estimate eventually of £111,000 and we have spent £103,000 of that. It is virtually completed. It strikes me that Swilly Lower should be Swilly Upper. I think it is the upper stretch. Why was there no estimate in the case of Swilly Lower?—It just had not been made at the time these accounts were being finished. It has been made since. 395. Chairman.—I see you have carried out the work on Broadmeadow?—That is completed. It was cheaper than you anticipated?— Yes, and quicker than we anticipated. We tried an experiment at Broadmeadow with incentive bonus and it was done more cheaply and sooner. Deputy Cunningham.—Is this the first scheme where you had incentive bonuses? —Yes. Deputy Burke.—And it has proved a success?—Yes. We have brought it on to Inny and Moy. They are both operating on incentive bonuses. Deputy Burke.—I am delighted that my constituents worked so well and set such a good example. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— There are two schemes in operation here— are there more now?—There are. Those two are both finished and there are three others in operation at the moment and others are at various stages of planning. 396. Chairman.—May I make one observation? Mr. Mundow spoke about some scheme being finished at a lower price because the incentive was offered?— Yes. Is this not done generally throughout the country, or was this an exception to the rule?—We were not sure whether we could operate an incentive bonus in the conditions under which our men worked. We got advice from a firm of consultants. We implemented their recommendations, and took Broadmeadow as a reasonably small and at the same time reasonably large scheme. As it happened to be coming up at the time, we operated the system there and everybody was very satisfied. Deputy Briscoe.—Are you going to operate it further?—We have it now at Inny and Moy, the two major schemes we are doing at the moment. We have just started on the Killimor. There is a great deal of preparation required. We have to provide additional engineering skill and we have to get skilled staff for the work of measurement. We train them ourselves. The numbers are limited but according as they are available, we hope to extend this to all our schemes. 397.—Deputy Healy.—Regarding the Moy, the expenditure is only about half the estimated cost. Is the scheme in course of completion?—There is a great deal of time to go yet. 398. Deputy Kenny.—In the case of embankments, is there a priority list similar to the one existing in the catchment drainage schemes?—No. Embankments are very often matters of urgency where, if you do not do the work soon, the whole thing may cost many times more later on. 399. Chairman.—Paragraph 27 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “27. Reference was made in paragraph 20 of the previous report to the undertaking of intermediate river drainage schemes by contract rather than by direct labour. During the year contracts were placed for the Duff River, Cos. Sligo/Leitrim, £74,500; the Matt River, Co. Dublin, £15,785; and the Abbey River, Co. Donegal, £43,823.” Deputy Kenny.—In regard to contract work and direct labour, have you assessed which is better and which is cheaper?—We have got a very indecisive result from our investigations. We have three schemes finished now which were done by contract and we have got different results from them. We have decided to get a very close analysis made of everything. We are getting our cost accountant to go into all the costs, visible, and hidden, and we hope when this is available to be able to say that contract is the better way in such-and-such circumstances. I do not think we will ever be able to say that contract is always cheaper or quicker or that direct labour is quicker or cheaper. Do contractors give an incentive bonus?—They give rather crude incentives. 400. Deputy Burke.—In regard to the Matt River, the drainage of which was estimated to cost £15,785, we have had a number of complaints?—There were some extras on it. The final cost was about £21,000. There were some extras amounting to £3,500. 401. Chairman.—On subhead A.—Purchase of Sites and Buildings—I notice that the Department of Finance have got premises at Pembroke Road. For what purpose are these premises to be used?— This came as a recommendation from consultants from whom we got some advice on our maintenance organisation. As a result of that, we decided to centralise the various workshops in Dublin. There are about a dozen different district workshops in Dublin and they are all pretty small. We were advised that it would be economical to centralise them into one big workshop which could take bigger jobs and use machines which would not be economical in the small workshops. We had to get premises for the central workshop and this is what we paid for them. They have been adapted since and the districts will gradually be brought into the workshop. They are not all there yet. 402. Deputy Kenny.—In regard to sites, referred to in the explanation on this subhead, are the areas of the sites in proportion to the amount of money paid for them? There seem to be big fluctuations between them, £98, £420, £175?—Sometimes we want a bigger site than at other times, but I would say there is no relation between the area of the site and price we have to pay. It depends on the value of land in various parts of the country. 403. Do you anticipate much further expenditure on the new embassy in Madrid?—Not a great deal. This was the house the Embassy occupied for some time. The owners were about to take it back but they offered us the opportunity of buying it at what we were advised was a reasonable price. It is not in the best condition and a certain amount of work has to be done to make it habitable. Chairman.—Is there an estimate for that work at the moment?—My far from clear recollection is that it was £3,000 to £4,000, but I would not like to be held to that. 404. On subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions—members have been supplied with a list* of these works and I shall go through them page by page. 405.—Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—With regard to Work No. 2 Leinster House—Extension—when is it hoped to complete this work?—Certainly next year and a large part of the premises will be available earlier in the year. Up to date we have spent £381,000 on the works. I am told that the Senate lift is complete, the carcase of the restaurant is complete and the sixth storey office block is being decorated; air conditioning is complete and the boilerhouse is erected. That is approximately the position at the moment. As a comparison with Templemore, how are the architects for this work appointed? —The Board of Works are doing that themselves. Deputy Healy.—I do not know whether this is a fair question or not. However, it is my experience that unless you fix a firm date by which the work must be completed, it is inclined to drag on. We have had this experience recently in regard to the Cork Opera House. Were it not for the fact that we said it would be opened by a certain date, whether there was a roof on it or not, I do not think it would be finished yet. Chairman.—I take it what you would like is a firm date on the finishing of this building. Deputy Healy.—I think it would be advisable to get a firm date as to when, for instance, the office block will be finished, the restaurant will be finished, and so on?—I would prefer to give you a note on that.* Deputy Cunningham.—In view of the celebrations which we will have to commemorate 1916, and in view of the fact that people will be visiting Dublin, including people from abroad, who had connections with the Rising, it would be very desirable and indeed very necessary that the maximum amount of this work should be completed. Chairman.—I think we may leave it to Mr. Mundow to give us details in his note. Deputy P. J. Burke.—And to use any pressure you can?—We are always doing that. 406. Deputy Kenny.—What is the function of the Stamping Branch of the Revenue Commissioners, which is mentioned at work No. 9?—They print all the postage stamps and stamp all documents for the courts. The embossed stamp on cheque books is also put on by this Branch. The cheque books are brought to the Stamping Branch and the stamps are embossed. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— There is an estimate of £525,000 for this work. What exactly is that for?—It has been deferred now. The Stamping Branch is in part of Dublin Castle which is no longer suitable, and for several years we have been trying to get them better premises. Eventually it was decided that they must get new premises but the matter is still deferred. 407. Chairman.—Work No. 10 refers to an estimate for £10,000 for adaptations for an electronic computer, the expenditure being £26,814. What was the reason for the big excess?—Because there was a great rush, because of the time factor, and of the necessity to have the alterations and adaptations undertaken while the Revenue staff remained in occupation, it was not possible to specify with any precision the extent of the work to be done. Moreover, it has been our experience that in the case of adaptations to premises it is almost invariably found necessary to do extra work which it is impossible to foresee until you open up the existing building. Might I ask if you have any later figures than those for the 31st March, 1964? It is still in progress, is it?—It is now complete and the final cost was £29,151. 408. Deputy Kenny.—In regard to the Dún Laoghaire mailboat pier—Work No. 20 (1)—do you anticipate that the £208,300 will cover the total cost when it is completed?—This is another case where new things to be done are always being discovered. It is possible that that will be enough. Most of it has been finished. I would say that there is more than £9,000 worth of work still to be done all the same. 409. In regard to work No. 20 (2)— Dún Laoghaire Harbour — Car Ferry Terminal—is the £300,000 for the permanent terminal?—At that time there was only one terminal in mind which would have been permanent, but for various reasons we had to build the temporary terminal until the permanent terminal would be ready. The permanent one would not have been ready in time to meet the requirements of the traffic. The temporary one was built and the present estimate for the permanent terminal is £730,000. Deputy Briscoe.—When will that be ready?—In 1967. Deputy P. J. Burke.—The temporary one is a great success. Mr. Mundow.—Yes, it handled a great deal of traffic. 410. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—There are two terminals involved, a temporary one and a permanent one. There is an estimate of £300,000 and the expenditure to 31st March, 1964 was over £6,000. Does that relate to the temporary terminal?— Originally there was only one terminal in mind and that was to be where the present temporary one is. The estimate was for £300,000. For local reasons an undertaking had to be given by the Minister for Transport and Power that the ferry would not be left in its present position and a site had to be found for a permanent terminal. That was selected and works and plans were specified and it was found that for the permanent terminal the cost would be £730,000. The expenditure on the temporary one would be additional to that. 411. What was the expenditure to date on the temporary one?—I have not got the separate figures. Of course that is outside the year of account but it would be something up to £200,000. Out of the £300,000?—Yes. Has work on the new one started?— Piling in preparation for building a pier from the wharf is in progress. The pier will be an essential part of the work. 412. Will the £200,000 be of any value afterwards?—That is debatable. Some of it will have to be written off and removed but not a very substantial part. We hope to find a use eventually for nearly everything on the temporary terminal. Deputy Healy.—That is the question I was going to ask, whether what has now been spent on the temporary terminal would be written off completely when the permanent one is in use. I am glad to know that it will not be all written off. Deputy Briscoe.—The traffic will more than pay for the cost. 413. Deputy Kenny.—In regard to Work No. 22—Garda Síochána Depot— Extension of Garage and Workshop Accommodation—I should like to know who services the Garda vehicles throughout the country? Mr. Suttle.—All minor repairs are carried out by local garages under contract. Any sort of major repair work is brought up to the central depot. 414. Deputy P. J. Burke—In regard to the Clondalkin Garda station listed under Work No. 24—Erection of new Garda Síochána Stations and major improvements to existing stations—there is a figure of £2,144. What will that station cost when it is completed?—It is completed now at a cost of just under £13,000. 415. Deputy Kenny.—Do you anticipate that some of these Garda barracks will be sold within the near future? We had this before at another session of the Committee? I asked a question about one or two Garda barracks that were under alteration or extension and they were sold later. Do you anticipate that out of this huge list many will be closed and sold?—We have no control over that situation. Deputy Kenny.—That was the same answer as I got before. Chairman.—You can always put down a question to the Minister. 416. Deputy Burke.—I understand that the old Crumlin station had been rented by the Board of Works from the landlord who owned it. Do you know the position there? Have you handed it over yet? I am asking this question because some sports clubs have been looking for it?— The old building has not yet been surrendered to the landlord. 417. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—In respect of Templemore barracks, would Mr. Mundow be in a position to give us the architects’ fees on the expenditure there up to date?—Up to a current date, the total fees are £57,906. Are architects employed by the Board of Works on a salary basis?— Our architects are paid on a salary basis. That figure was not all architects’ fees. Would you like it segregated? I would, please?—Architects’ fees £34,174; surveyors’, £13,930; consulting engineers’, £9,802. That is up to 21st of last month. Is there one or are there two swimming pools there? What was the price of the swimming pool?—I heard of only one swimming pool. The cost, I think, was of the order of £60,000. That was the estimate. 418. Chairman.—In regard to Work No. 33—Dublin Preventive Centre—Erection— this is to replace Marlborough House?— Yes, it is still being planned. 419. Regarding Work No. 34 (2)— National Gallery—Fire Precaution Works —what is the nature of the fire risk?— It is very severe. Our architect made a report on the building from the fire point of view and he said the fire risk there is one of the greatest in Dublin. Before the extension of the Gallery was planned, it had been decided to spend a good deal of money on improving the fire position. That is being amalgamated now with the work on the extension of the Gallery. Has there been progress in regard to fire prevention work?—Yes, some very good work has been done and more will be done according as the new building progresses. 420. Deputy Kenny.—In regard to No. 28—Land Registry, I see that stage 1 has been completed?—Yes. There is over-expenditure of £4.000. How many more stages are contemplated?—There is one more stage, which is a very substantial one, the building of two more storeys. The estimate is only £10,500?—There is an estimate for the two storeys also which is £150,000. I did not see it mentioned; that is why I asked. 421. How long is the major Fishery Harbours project, Work No. 38, expected to take?—It is impossible to say because great difficulties are experienced in acquiring sites and properties which are required for the development of the harbours. It may be that some of these will have to be acquired compulsorily. 422. Deputy Molloy.—In respect of Galway there is expenditure of £28,390 16s. 7d., up to 31st March 1964. Could we have any breakdown of how that money was spent?—I have not that information here. I can get it for you.* I should be very grateful if you would. 423. Deputy Kenny.—I am interested in Clare Island, referred to at Work No. 39—Works of Economic Development at other Fishery Harbours—which is off the coast of Mayo. There is an expenditure of £1,200 on trial borings. Could you tell us what you anticipate will be the total expenditure?—I have no estimate for that but it is within the total estimate of £81,400. 424. Deputy Molloy.—There is an estimate at Work No. 37, for Galway Fisheries Research Station of £150,000 and none of that has been spent yet. Is that because of site difficulties?—Yes. Have you any information on the site position up to date?—I think there has been some progress recently. I am not sure whether we have acquird one or are on the verge of getting one. 425. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—Work No. 42 (4) relates to the expenditure of £127,000 on a Veterinary Field Station. What is the nature of this project?—This is at Abbotstown Farm and is one of the many works the Department of Agriculture have asked us to do for them. It is concerned with the teaching of Veterinary Medicine. 426. Deputy Kenny.—In regard to Work No. 43 (1), (2), (3)—Athenry Agricultural School—we have now expended £152,000. Is the total scheme nearing completion?—Of these three works, the first two are finished and the third one is virtually finished. 427. Deputy Briscoe.—On Work No. 66 there is an estimate of £64,000 for residences for Ambassador and Secretary for the Irish Embassy to the Federation of Nigeria. Why is that so high?—It reflects the price of this kind of property in Lagos. I am told everything is very expensive. The cost of sites is sky high. We acquired a site originally to have the embassy erected. That is not being proceeded with because the diplomatic area there is now being built up and our embassy would have been surrounded by different buildings that would not have been attractive. At present rates for purchasing houses for embassies, the estimate is probably wrong. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).— I take it that these are not separate buildings in Lagos?—There may be two houses. We probably will not build. I think the present intention is to buy. Deputy Briscoe.—They did not take the first site, and this estimate was based on the original site. Is that correct?—We actually took the site. You are not going to build on it—? That appears to be the intention. We are in the hands of the Department of External Affairs. Deputy Molloy.—According to the figure here you have paid only £80?—The site is provided for in subhead E. 428. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—On Work No. 68 there is a large project in respect of a new headquarters for the Department of Social Welfare which is estimated at £1,788,000. Up to now £14,000 has been spent on planning. Has that project got off the ground yet? —No. What about the expenditure?—That is largely fees, not for architects, because we are doing it ourselves, but there are fees for quantity surveyors and engineers. When do you expect that work might start?—The site is now going to be used for other purposes and this office building is left in abeyance for the time being. Ultimately it may be built there but it would be difficult to say now that it will. There is an old building there?—That is the old Beggars Bush Barracks. 429. Deputy Kenny.—In regard to Work No. 74—Minor Balances of Expenditure (not provided for above) on works of prior years which may not be completed on 1st April, 1963—could you clarify this? There is a deduction of £215,000 in respect of works which may not be carried out during the year and then there is an addition of £450,000 in respect of a Supplementary Estimate. Is that only for book-keeping?—What happened was that normally there has been a saving on subhead B. of this Estimate, year after year for several years past. There was always a deduction made on the assumption that the saving would continue because architects would not get as far with the jobs as they had expected. In the light of experience, the provision is always made for a saving but in the year of account there was such an expansion of national school building that we not alone did not have a saving but incurred an excess and had to get a Supplementary Estimate. 430.—Chairman.—On subheads C.— Maintenance and Supplies—and D.— Furniture, Fittings and Utensils—E.— Rents, Rates, etc.—and F.—Fuel, Light, Water, Cleaning, etc.—there seems to be a large increase in respect of some of the Departments?—This expenditure is very largely on labour. After the estimate was framed, there were increases in wages which added considerably to the cost in almost every Department. This also covers a number of matters like the maintenance of national monuments, harbours, parks and so on. The increases in the main were due to increases in labour costs?—The cost of labour may be up to 75 or 80 per cent of the bulk of that. I notice that Social Welfare is practically double the Vote?—Yes. That would hardly be due to an increase in wages, from £17,000 to £30,000?—It certainly would not be due entirely to increased wages. It may have been a poor estimate. Chairman.—Posts and Telegraphs is another one where the expenditure is much above the estimate. 431. Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary).—There are some discrepancies in rent and rates. I presume that that is due to the fact that the estimates are sometimes struck before the rates are fixed?—To some extent, or it may be due to the surrender of some premises or taking on other premises. 432. Chairman.—With regard to Posts and Telegraphs, the Vote for furniture and fittings was £9,550 and the expenditure was £20,039?—Part of the reason was higher prices but that would not be the main part. Speaking from recollection, I think additional premises were taken over which had to be fitted. The Post Office also have a programme for improving furnishings in post offices. Perhaps it would be more convenient, Mr. Mundow, to send a note on some of these matters?—On the main discrepancies? Under subheads C. and D.? Chairman.—Yes* 433. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to subhead I.1—Arterial Drainage—Surveys —have you included the Corrib and Mask catchment areas in the surveys?—Yes, they have been fully surveyed. And the River Robe?—Yes, as far as my recollection goes. 434. Chairman.—In regard to subhead K., Appropriations-in-Aid, Item No. 9— Recoveries from other departments, etc., for Services carried out on Repayment Terms—I notice that you got £41,023 from the Department of Social Welfare. What services does your office render to that Department?—That is mainly in respect of refunds of social insurance expenditure. There is a social insurance fund out of which all our expenditure related to insurance is refunded. 435. In regard to Item No. 9—Sales of Property—Some sales were not completed because of protracted legal formalities. Have they since been completed?—Yes; there were four principal properties which we thought would have come into this account but they did not materialise by that time. They have all been furnished since. 436. Deputy Kenny.—I should like to know what “mesne rates” are?. They are referred to in the Notes at Item No. 9. —It is a rent, not a rate, where a person remains on in what might be called a demesne. It is an old rent that he should pay but there is no legal obligation on him to pay it. Deputy Kenny.—It depends on his conscience. 437. Chairman.—In regard to No. 10 in the notes claims for yacht tonnage dues, I take it that these are in respect of moorings in the harbour?—They are not moorings; they are dues which should have been paid. In the Schedule of Rates and Dues for Dún Laoghaire Harbour, revised with effect from 1st September, 1961, provision was made for charging up to 9½d. per ton on each entry into the harbour by yachts of 15 tons and over, the tonnage to be taken as the greater of the net register tonnage, or half the gross tonnage. In the year ended 31st August, 1962, there were 48 “entries” by such yachts for which a total of £80.10s.4d. was payable. In fact we were able to collect £54 5s. 11d. The balance, £26.4s.5d. comprised £2.13s. due by two English owners who ignored demands for payment, and £23.11s.5d. for 18 “entries” by yachts whose owners were unknown. We found that this charge was so easily evaded that we dropped it. It does not apply any longer. 438. In regard to the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park, we have the accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1964.* We are still losing money on it?—I think it was never expected that we would make anything on it. Are we losing more than we were?—To the extent that we charge nothing for entrance and all the costs are going up, wages and so on. 439. Members have also received a note on the Compilation of Property Rental 1963-64.† The witness withdrew. VOTE 20—STATIONERY OFFICE.Mr. B. O Brolchain called and examined.440. Chairman.—On subhead C.— Printing and Binding—are these carried out under contract?—Yes, under contract. And these contracts have a given period?—We have quite a number of long term contracts—five year contracts. Most of our contracts are on that basis. We have also individual jobs covered by individual contracts. 440a. On subhead D.—Paper—is this purchased by tender?—Yes, by tender. You have no difficulty with supplies?— No difficulty. Is the tendering confined to Irish sources?—No, but in general the Irish sources beat the foreign tenders in those cases where the paper is made here. Certain papers are not, of course, made here, such as hand-made papers. The quality of the paper is up to standard?—Yes, quite. 440b. In the Appropriations in Aid, in regard to Sales of Publications, I notice that your receipts increased. Is that due to greater demand or increase in prices? —Each year new titles come out and some of these titles sell very well. This changes the shape of the receipts. Basically, the increase is due to increased sales rather than increased prices. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
