Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1966 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1964 - 1965

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 26 Bealtaine, 1966.

Thursday, 26th May, 1966.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Miss M. Bhreathnach and Mr. J. McGartoll (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

3. Deputy F. Crowley.—The Chairman is unavoidably absent today. I move that Deputy Healy take the Chair for this meeting.

Deputy Briscoe.—I second the motion.

Question put, and agreed to. Deputy Healy took the Chair accordingly.

VOTE 27—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.

4. Deputy Briscoe.—Could you tell us something about the work of this Commission?—The Commission are a corporate body established in the year 1844. They comprise 11 Commissioners who are unpaid. Their duties, roughly, are that they act as trustees of charity funds. They give opinions and advice to trustees who need it on matters relating to charity. They sanction sales or leases of charity lands. In brief, they carry out quite a number of duties such as supervisory court schemes relating to charity trusts. When the court sets up a scheme, rules or regulations for the administration of a particular charity, duties are given to the Commissioners to examine the accounts of the charity, in some cases to invite people to become trustees and various duties of that nature. In addition to that, we also have a duty, under the Standing Orders of the Dáil and Seanad relating to Private Business, to examine all private Bills and to report to the Examiner of Private Bills.

5. Chairman.—Could you tell us the extent of the funds?—What happens is that the Vote provides a sum of money for the upkeep and administration of the office. No charge of any sort is made for the administration of the charities. Funds entrusted to us by the courts for administration are free of expense. In other words, the Government provide the machinery for the Commissioners to exercise their functions.

So, if somebody wants to set up a charity of some sort, he can come to you?—They are not legally obliged to do so but, very often, they say: “We wish to endow or to leave a particular sum for a particular object” and we say: “We will take it, invest it and pay the interest to whatever particular object you have in mind and administer it generally.”

6. Chairman.—Mr. Martin, you have not answered, as far as I know, the question about the extent of the funds at your disposal.—The funds vested in the Commissioners. The precise figure is £1,969,887 in cash value.

Almost £2 million?—That is the cash value of the securities held by the Commissioners on trust for various charitable purposes.

How many charities would that cover, roughly?—Roughly 5,000.

7. Deputy Briscoe.—Are efforts made to inform the public about the Commission’s activities?—We publish an annual report and invariably mention that we are most anxious to help the public. We are fairly well known, I am glad to say, perhaps too well known in some circumstances. We certainly do not hide our light under a bushel, so to speak, and we are always anxious to assist the public in any way we can.

Chairman.—The Commissioners are very worthy representatives of our society.

8. Deputy F. Crowley.—Regarding subhead A.—Salaries and Wages—the explanation states that a sum of £2,530 was received from Vote No. 51 to meet increases in remuneration. What increases are represented there?

Mr. Suttle.—This sum was for the purpose of meeting the general increase given to all civil servants. The moneys provided originally were not sufficient to meet these increases and, instead of taking several Supplementary Votes, one Vote was passed by Dáil Éireann. It was called “Remuneration” and every Department drew out of that the moneys necessary to meet the increased cost of salaries and wages. You will find that comment in every Vote right through the whole volume.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 35—NATIONAL GALLERY (EXCESS VOTE)

Mr. J. White called and examined.

9. Chairman.—Paragraph 2 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to a number of cases in which expenditure over and above the provision made by the Oireachtas was incurred. One of these was the Vote for the National Gallery about which the Report states that the excess expenditure was mainly due to expenditure arising out of the exhibition held in connection with the centenary of the Gallery.

Mr. Suttle.—This arose, I am afraid, through inexperience on the part of the Accounting Officer in dealing with Government accounting. This expenditure arose as a result of the big exhibition held last year and the Accounting Officer did not understand that he could not exceed the total Vote involved. It was only discovered at the end of the year that he had done so. It was due mainly to inexperience in Government accounting matters. There is a Vote of the Dáil necessary to provide authority for the excess expenditure, but that can be dealt with later because there are a number of other cases and they can all be dealt with together.

Chairman.—Was the exhibition a success and worth the money?—From what I hear it was very well worth it.

VOTE 35.—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Mr. J. White further examined.

10. Chairman.—We will pass now to the Vote. From the Grant-in-Aid, Mr. White, a sum of £1,169 was expended. Could you tell us on what that was spent?—That was spent on the purchase of pictures and the repair of frames and the transport of pictures being brought to Dublin for examination with a view to possible purchase.

You bring pictures to Dublin for the purpose of examining them?—Yes.

But you do not necessarily purchase them? —If we thought we would like to buy a picture that was, say, in Paris we could see it first. The Board has to pay for the transport of the picture over.

11. Deputy Briscoe.—Do you get many tourists coming into the Gallery? Would you say the bulk of the visitors are tourists?— Not by any means the bulk, but we do get tourists in considerable numbers from now until October. In the wintertime we get a specific tourist of our own, that is to say, gallery experts, art historians and students who are studying branches of art. They come even in January and February and spend perhaps a week or a fortnight working, actually studying.

12. When I was in Amsterdam in the Rijks museum I noticed they had a tremendous sales department for reproductions. Are we doing anything like that?— We are in fact working towards that. We are at a tremendous disadvantage. We have no proper sales desk. We have a little lobby at the entrance where an attendant sells catalogues and postcards and transparencies under great difficulty because, unless you can display your wares over a satisfactory circular counter, there is really not much advantage. I have applied for this on a number of occasions and I feel that it may be granted ultimately.

13. Deputy Briscoe.—What about the possibility of the provision of a cafeteria? Will it be included in the new building?— The new extension at a cost of £300,000 will be finished in less than a year. We are very conscious of the fact that if we had a cafeteria it would cater not only for visitors to the Gallery but for visitors to the National Museum, to the College of Art and to the National Library. I hope that it may be possible to provide it.

Chairman.—The extension will be finished in less than a year?—We expect it to be finished in August or September, 1967. The builder has kept right up to schedule. At the moment, he sees no reason why it should not be finished in time and open to the public in the autumn.

14. Deputy F. Crowley.—With regard to the insurance of the contents of the National Gallery, is this done in the normal way?— Following Government practice, we do not insure all the property. We bear our own insurance. We do not pay any insurance on the contents of the Gallery but when a picture leaves the premises we insist on its being insured by whoever is borrowing it.

15. Deputy Treacy.—May I take it, now, that there is a detailed catalogue of all important items under your charge?—No. I am afraid we cannot say that there is. Six months ago, I was asked this question by this Committee. On that occasion, I said I hoped I would have it by the next time I should be called before the Committee. In fact, I have been called after six months rather than, as I had expected, twelve months. However, we are working on it. We have a catalogue of existing oil paintings. As well as that, we have 2,000 drawings and 2,000 engravings and prints. We have a collection of sculpture and antique furniture. I hope to have it ready the next time I am called before this Committee.

16. Chairman.—You are not in a position at the present time, I would imagine, in your confined premises, to display all your pictures? I take it that you do lend some to provincial centres such as Cork and other places?—This is actually in course of being carried out. Cork and Galway applied to us for a loan. By arrangement with the Chief Executive Officer, we made a list of Italian paintings and it was agreed by my board that we would lend these to Cork. However, Cork pressed very hard for high quality paintings. Personally, I back them in this because I do not see any point in sending poor quality pictures. The value was high: it would have cost £700 to insure the pictures to be shown in Cork. This was a slight crisis because they could not afford the money. My board, which is an autonomous body set up under Act of Parliament, felt they could not let the property out of the Gallery without having it insured at its full value. We have had consultations with the insurance companies and they are endeavouring to see if they can secure a much more advantageous policy on the grounds that the pictures will be twelve months in Cork in very secure premises. Unless we can get a very big reduction on the cost of insurance, it is an obstacle.

If there are valuable works that, for one reason or another, you cannot display here or if you have to alternate them, the provinces could be given the opportunity of displaying them and enjoying the same conditions of insurance and privileges as you do here in the National Gallery.

17. Deputy F. Crowley.—Have many pictures been lent to the National Gallery?— We have very few pictures from people outside. In most cases, pictures lent from outside belong to what I would regard as an unsatisfactory arrangement in the past and I would not repeat them. In general, a gallery such as ours, which is one of the world’s great galleries, although it is not appreciated, does not require loans from private collectors in Ireland. There is very little to be obtained. If the picture is sufficiently valuable, you will not get a loan, apart from collectors like Sir Alfred Beit, who lent pictures.

Deputy F. Crowley.—I happened to go to the Gallery on one of the days when they were on display.

18. Deputy Treacy.—In respect of the task of cataloguing, that is going on now, have you been able to make an assessment of the possible losses due to lack of care in respect of valuables in your charge or from possible theft in the Gallery?—Until an inventory is complete, the possibility of theft cannot be established. The job we are carrying out now is aimed to secure for all time an inventory which will prove theft but, if such has occurred, it has not yet come to light. I think it is unlikely. A considerable amount of damage was done because the pictures are stored in very thick groups. The Committee can visualise groups of pictures, one against the other, and imagine what a store with 6,000 works is like. I set up a restoration department and, until then, we never had a person responsible for the repair of a picture. We now have a resident restorer and, if a piece of paint swells and falls off, he is there and can put it back again straight away. There has been an enormous loss of value, I would say, over the past 50 years, but this will become right from now on.

19. Is this due to lack of accommodation and lack of staff or to lack of finance?— Mainly, lack of staff and space. The staff question is enormous. We have four supervisory staff. We would like to have very many more. In a Gallery like ours, one requires a Keeper of Paintings. His function would be just to look after the pictures. He would be responsible to see to it that the pictures are kept in good condition. There has been only a Director and a Registrar in the past who had to do everything, from every kind of administration, and he could give very little time to see that the pictures were properly kept. We are trying to cope with the problem as well as we can.

Deputy Briscoe.—How many staff are you authorised? Are you authorised to have only four or can you not get them?—When I went in, there was a Registrar and Assistant Director. I obtained permission to have a man in charge of cataloguing, that is, the specific day to day work of writing the catalogue, and an Assistant Restorer. Unfortunately, shortly after I went in, the Assistant Director moved to the Municipal Gallery and I have been waiting twelve months now for permission to replace her.

In other words, then, you have got authority to have only the number of people you have. It is not a matter of difficulty in getting staff?—No, the problem is not in getting staff. The problem is getting permission to pay them.

20. Deputy F. Crowley.—Where do you get money to buy paintings?—We have three sources of income; the Grant-in-Aid of £2,500 is mainly intended for purchasing pictures. It is the same amount as we received in the middle of the 19th Century. It has never been increased. On the other hand, Sir Hugh Lane died in 1915 and left a sum of money to the Gallery. The interest on that has provided a fund which is known as the Lane Fund out of which we have bought pictures over the years. Then, four or five years ago, the Shaw Bequest came to the National Gallery. This is a very much bigger fund. The last time the Minister was asked in the Dáil he said it amounted to approximately £500,000 and it is due to that that we have been able to enter the market and buy important pictures. There was another fund but it was a very small fund. It has since been exhausted.

Chairman.—Are these funds still active?— Yes, the Shaw Bequest and the Lane Bequest are active.

21. Deputy F. Crowley.—Have you access to the £500,000 of the Shaw Bequest if you want to buy pictures?—Yes. The terms of the Bequest were that the money was for the acquisition of pictures and, by law, it may not be spent on anything else.

You have that £500,000 invested?—Oh, not in the sense of it being all there. We have spent quite a lot of it. It was the source through which we bought our most important pictures in recent times. But the fund is in fact an active fund. That is to say we are still receiving funds. The policy I have followed since going into the Gallery is to purchase Exchequer Bills because they provide us with a source of income. The interest is approximately 6 per cent. At the same time they are easily cashed if one needs money quickly.

I must say the Gallery is a credit to you. —I hope to do a lot better.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 20—VALUATION AND ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. J. Mooney called and examined.

22. Chairman.—Mr. Mooney, could you tell me why Stores and Equipment are in separate subheads? In what way do these differ?—Stores are simply goods while Equipment would represent plant, machines and that kind of thing. The amounts are fairly big. I suppose that might be one reason for dividing them up, but I think the principal reason is that Stores are expendible and Equipment is more or less a permanent feature.

23. Deputy Molloy.—What type of equipment is included in this?—Theodolites, tellurometers, things for measuring, survey and printing machines. The really big item would be the machine for printing maps which was very expensive.

Would you be purchasing this every year? —We got a very big new machine a few years ago and we will probably have it for a very long time before buying another one.

Chairman.—What would the total value of your equipment be at the present time?— I should say something in the region of £70,000 to £100,000.

Is that not a very small total if you have spent £26,944 in this year alone? Is not the total figure then very small by comparison?— I mentioned a printing machine. It cost £22,000. It is included in that. This will not be repeated for a long time.

The only comment I want to make is that, if you spent £26,000 this year and the total value of the equipment is only £70,000 to £100,000, it does not seem to me that you have a great deal of valuable equipment. Was the equipment old?—The other equipment was old and obsolete.

Deputy Molloy.—The figure would not be as high every year?—Oh, no.

24. Deputy Crowley.—On the Appropriations in Aid for the Valuation office, under “Miscellaneous,” there was an underestimation of receipt?—The estimated figure was £650 and we realised £1,293. It covers professional valuations, applotments and special valuations for the purposes of the Betting and Licensing Acts. It is very difficult to estimate what the expenditure is there. It is a difficult sort of thing to estimate and provide for.

25. Chairman.—I notice, under the “Miscellaneous” heading for Ordnance, Survey, a sum of £592 in respect of the sale of scrap copper printing plates?—Yes. We got £592 for the sale of copper plates to the Hammond Lane Company. It is a sort of bonus really. As you know, copper is at a high price at the moment and anyone who has copper for sale gets big money for it. We happened to have these copper printing plates and they were sold by tender to the Hammond Lane Company.

Deputy Briscoe.—How did you arrive at the price? Was it by public tender?—We invited a tender.

Deputy Molloy.—What quantity of copper was involved?—Old printing plates that were not of any use any more.

What quantity and what weight?—The price seems to indicate something in the region of one ton. In fact, about 30 cwts. would be nearer.

Chairman.—That I take it, is not a normally recurring income?

Deputy F. Crowley.—Not unless you go into the copper-mining business?—We do not use copper plates any more. We use zinc plates now.

26. Deputy Molloy.—I am not too clear about the Ordnance Survey maps, referred to at item 4 of the Appropriations in Aid. In what year were the Ordnance Survey maps drawn up that you are using now? All the maps I see there seem to be dated back to the beginning of the century.

Mr. Mooney.—1914, and they are being revised ever since.

Do you think they are sufficiently meeting the demand?—More or less. We are never satisfied. We have great ambitions to improve them on a more modern and up-to-date basis. In the future, a big matter of policy will be involved which I should rather not comment on.

There are not any great difficulties arising because of the fact that the maps are based on the original survey of 1914?—Some of them are just as good as even the current survey: for instance, a map of mountains, and so on, where there are no changes. On the other hand, a map of a place like Dublin, where there is continuous change, would represent a special problem. The County Meath map is based on a very recent survey and maps for Laois and Carlow are in preparation. Inevitably, they would be a bit out of date for some counties. When I say “out-of-date,” I mean that they would be out-of-date for certain purposes. For other purposes, they would be good enough.

Chairman. I take it that your staff are continually engaged in revising the maps?— That is so.

27. Deputy F. Crowley.—There is mention in the notes of authority to write off a deficiency following a burglary. How much was the burglary?

Mr. Suttle.—It was not very big.

Mr. Mooney.—About £75 was involved.

28. Deputy Molloy.—Have you made any use of aerial surveys?—We are starting them for Dublin City now.

Deputy F. Crowley.—You have not actually started yet?—No.

Deputy Molloy.—Do you think there will be any saving involved?—In built-up areas, aerial surveys are fairly good, but, for other places, they are not so attractive.

It will not disemploy anybody?—I would not say so.

29. Deputy Treacy.—Have you been embarking on a national ordnance map or plan, as such, a modern national plan? You are doing counties. You mentioned a number of counties where ordnance plans are in preparation?—You mean a complete new survey? Some years ago we started a retriangulation of the whole country. We dovetailed with the British, and the Northern Ireland one. That is known as the primary triangulation. Subsequent stages will follow— secondary, tertiary, and so on—for the purpose of large-scale mapping. We move on, then, at a particular point, to the large-scale surveying and mapping of an area like Dublin City. We are actually engaged on that at the moment but it will take, in all, about five years. We have been working on Dublin for six months. It is the most pressing part of the programme because of the immense expansion in Dublin in recent years. When Dublin is done, we shall probably go on to Cork. The answer, then, to your query is that we have started on Dublin on this national basis, as you visualise, and, with the staff we have at the moment, it will take up to another four and a half years to do Dublin alone. If those in charge of policy decided that we should quicken it up, we should have to get extra staff, and so on. We have not a very big staff.

So, it will be a long number of years before we shall have a national ordnance map prepared in that way?—With the present organisation, it would be an immense period of time—100 years.

Deputy Briscoe.—Why are you embarking on it, then, when things will have to be changed again because, by the time it is finished, we shall be ready to start all over again?—It is a cyclical type of thing.

Chairman.—Is there no speedier way or have things not been invented or discovered to speed up the matter?—We have all the best instrumentation. We have things that can measure distances without touching them—by flashing light between points. We use all kinds of things—aeroplanes and contouring apparatus. You can contour by flying over a place. Even with all that, it will take a long time.

It is a tremendously intricate job in view of the amount of data you require?—Yes, considering the surfaces of ground and the measurement involved in it, which could be done only by a lot of equipment and a lot of staff which we have not got, but, for the equipment and the staff we have got, we render very good service.

Chairman.—I hope that those who will be here in 100 years’ time will be as pleased with it as we are about the prospect of it.

30. Deputy Treacy.—Are the services of the Valuation and Ordnance Survey departments being availed of more so now than ever before by reason of the planning regulations? —The sales of maps have jumped up enormously over the past six, seven or eight years. That does not take account of all we give away for nothing to Government Departments. To some extent, the increase in sales is due to the new interest in planning because once there is mention of planning or any movement in that direction, maps are called for.

31. Deputy Briscoe.—Maps, as you say, are given to Government Departments free of charge. Those maps which are sold to commercial enterprises, are they sold at a profit or at cost and who calculates the profit on them?—We charge them for the cost of printing them. We work out the cost and add a percentage for profit, if you like. We give the usual discounts to shops, and so on, for selling them. You could say there is a profit and particularly there would be a profit on the small-scale ones, road maps, and so on, which do not cost very much to print.

Deputy Molloy.—You say you add a percentage for profit. What is the percentage? —I could not really say that. Perhaps it would be a mistake to say we work primarily for profit: this is really a service industry. Inevitably there must be some element of profit. In some cases it would be high. It would be high on the small scale maps, touring maps and so on. On the other hand in the case of a map on a big scale for a farmer, for example, there would not be very much profit. You could not charge him an economic price because, if you did, he would not buy the map. If you charged him more than 10/-, or so, he would not be interested. It might be worth £5 or £6 but he would not look at it that way.

32. Deputy F. Crowley.—Appendix A shows the face value of maps and special work done for Departments. Is this just an inventory or is it the actual income?—The actual number of maps multiplied by the price of them.

Did you actually get money for them?— Oh, no. I explained earlier this is done by way of service free of charge. If you were to take account of all the revenue we have or what comes to us by way of credit for our work you have to add that on to the scales shown in the Appropriations in Aid— something over £20,000+£30,000 which represents something in the region of £50,000.

33. I see in this Appendix a sum of £369 for special services in relation to Garda Síochána maps? Are they more intricate and comprehensive?—The special service there would be a survey on the Phoenix Park for taxi metering and map mounting also. What is shown there comes under the heading of what are known as “Allied Services” in the annual Estimates. Immediately after the first part showing expenditure related to the Vote and also receipts related to the Vote or credits, that is a feature in a number of Votes.

34. Deputy Molloy.—One of the Notes says: “This Account includes an expenditure of £537 in respect of remuneration of an officer on loan, without repayment, to another Office.” I thought it was standard practice that where an officer was loaned to another Office there would be some charge for that?— The standard rule is that, where an officer is loaned temporarily, they do not pay you. You carry the cost on your Vote. This particular officer was loaned to Forestry. She has since been definitively transferred to Forestry.

Mr. Suttle.—Normally the Office carries the salary for six months. If the transfer goes beyond six months the other Department takes responsibility.

VOTE 21—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (EXCESS VOTE).

Mr. J. Mooney further examined.

35. Chairman.—An excess of £19,438 arose on this Vote. It is referred to in paragraph 2 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. To what was that excess due, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The position was that, due to the election which was held in March, 1965, the Dáil dissolved before Supplementary Estimates could be taken in a number of cases and the Dáil did not resume until after the close of the financial year. These Excess Votes arose as a result of that. It is just purely an accident as a result of the dissolution of the Dáil.

Chairman.—Does that occur in other Votes too?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

VOTE 21—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. Mooney further examined.

36. Deputy Briscoe.—Under subhead B.— Contributions towards Rates on Premises occupied by Representatives of External Governments—are negotiations still taking place between the USA Government and the Department of External Affairs?—That is so.

They have not come to any solution yet?— It is still not finalised.

Is it near solution?—We have had conferences with the Department of External Affairs and they have had discussions with the American authorities. It is still going on.

The Americans are arguing on the basis that the embassy is part of the United States?—They argue that under a Consular Convention signed in 1950 which makes people like these immune from taxation they should not have to pay any rates at all. Our attitude is that this is payment for services rendered in the same way as one pays the ESB or the Gas Company. These are direct services rendered—the removal of bins, the provision of water, and a number of things like that, and they should pay at least some portion of the rates. We describe the portion as beneficial rates. It has been the traditional practice—we inherited it from the British— that these should pay beneficial rates. In the old days they represented approximately 50 per cent. of the total. It is now probably nearer a quarter or one-third, but they even wanted to get out of paying that. They felt they should not even have to pay that. However they seem to be coming around to the view that they ought to pay some portion and we hope that soon they will agree to something definitive.

I understand that in the USA we pay a rent for our embassy in which the rates are incorporated. There are no extras. That is why they are arguing about this?—If you own a building in the USA you pay no rates at all. You are exempt. On the other hand, if you rent part of a building, you get no benefit; you pay a rent which probably includes all kinds of charges, rates among others. They, of course, own the building here and they feel that, because they do, they should get the same exemption as exists in the USA.

Deputy Treacy.—Are the other embassies paying beneficial rates?—Yes. The others all pay the beneficial rates. We have had no difficulty with them for years. In my early days in the Department of Finance we had some trouble with the French authorities, but they eventually saw the light, and they paid. There has been no trouble ever since.

37. The Appropriations in Aid at item 2, show a non-realisation of receipts of £980 from the Post Office Savings Bank for premises occupied in connection therewith. Is there any special reason for this?—These receipts are collected by sending a receivable order, which is part of the means of getting payment in. We sent the receivable order but the Post Office did not lodge it in time. It did not come in until April. There is no sum shown in the “Realised” column. That would mean that the receipt would come in the following year and would reflect itself in the account for the year after.

Is the Comptroller and Auditor-General satisfied with that type of procedure?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. This is quite accidental.

One would imagine that they would pay the money on time. It would not have been a very big sum of money?

Mr. Suttle.—This inevitably happens from time to time due to the system of Government accounting. There is no question of debtors and creditors in regard to the accounts. These are purely cash accounts.

VOTE 8.—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. H. J. Mundow called and examined.

38. Chairman.—Paragraph 14 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:—

“Shannon Navigation

14. To simplify accounting it was decided to wind up on 31 March, 1965 the Shannon Navigation Account of which a statement of receipts and payments was customarily appended to this Account. Deficits in recent years on the Navigation have been met from a grant-in-aid provided in the vote for Public Works and Buildings. The cost of maintaining the Navigation will in future be charged to the general maintenance subheads of that vote and receipts from tolls, rents, etc., will be treated as appropriations in aid.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for the information of the Committee. It is a change of accounting procedure this year.

39. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—have you filled the vacancies yet?—Not all of them. We filled a considerable number but we are not in so great a hurry now because the Vote has been cut. We have not as much money to spend this year as we had. It is not so important as it was.

You are coping all right with what you have?—Yes.

VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. H. J. Mundow further examined.

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

“Subhead B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions

15. The charge to the subhead comprises £1,738,062 expended on general architectural and engineering works, and £2,928,914 in respect of grants towards the erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools, as compared with £1,510,424 and £2,325,993, respectively, in the previous year.”

Mr. Suttle.—That is for the information of the Committee.

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

“16. School grants amounting to £1,670,070 were paid to managers who undertook responsibility for having the works carried out, and £1,258,844 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.

The following table shows the grants sanctioned in recent years—

Deputy Briscoe.—Do I take it that the school grant is not fixed at two-thirds?— Two-thirds is a minimum.

Depending on local circumstances?—Yes, the Manager can apply for a bigger grant, and if he makes a case for that he can get it.

Chairman.—We should draw attention to the fact that in 1959-60 the total grant was £1,499,999 and in the year under review it is £4,086,352.

Deputy Briscoe.—A very substantial increase.

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

“17. I noticed some cases of delay in effecting recovery of outstanding amounts of local contributions due by school managers in respect of completed works. I have asked the Accounting Officer for an explanation.”

Deputy F. Crowley.—You have asked for an explanation in regard to the recovery of outstanding amounts of local contributions?

Mr. Mundow.—In the system for reviewing outstanding accounts a revised procedure has been put into operation which should ensure that they will not be overlooked.

Deputy Molloy.—Was there much involved in the amount outstanding?—There were three amounts.

Deputy F. Crowley.—You have recovered them?—They have all been recovered.

43. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:

“18. Early in 1961 the accommodation needs for a proposed new school building were assessed by the Department of Education at five classrooms for 240 pupils. Tenders were invited in October 1962 and a contract was placed in February 1963. In July 1963 the contractor was requested to provide four extra classrooms and other works at his Bill of Quantities prices. The original and revised estimates of cost were £22,000 and £35,000, respectively. I observed from the relevant papers that in March 1963 it was brought to notice that there was a substantial scheme of housing development in the locality and I formed the opinion that with closer co-ordination between the Office of Public Works and the Department of Education it should have been possible to anticipate the additional accommodation needs before placing the contract. I accordingly asked whether the local planning authorities were consulted and I was informed that the Department of Education standing instructions to their inspectors require that the local authority be consulted in regard to prospective housing development when accommodation requirements for new schools are being investigated and that the Divisional Inspector is stated to have consulted the local authority accordingly in connection with the requirements for this new school.”

Deputy Molloy. Could we know where this school is?—It is in Cork-Douglas, Cork city.

Deputy F. Crowley.—What went wrong?— The development at Douglas came rather unexpectedly. The building of 300 houses was not expected at the time the grant was sanctioned for the school. The scheme for 320 additional houses was approved and obviously school accommodation had to be enlarged.

Was this Grange, Douglas?—Douglas.

Chairman.—Was there not a breakdown between the Department of Education and the Department of Local Government? Would you not think that the local authority would have made the Department of Education aware of the proposed development in the area before a school would be sanctioned, especially when the size of the school would have to be taken into account? Is there any liaison between the Department of Education and the Department of Local Government?— There is to this extent that it is part of the duty of the school inspector to consult the local authority to see what plans there are for extension in the local authority area that the school serves. He did in this case consult the local authority. The accommodation which was asked for was provided, and it was some rather sudden development, I take it, which upset the matter.

Chairman.—You know what happened: the borough boundary was extended and there was an immediate flurry to get out of it again because the rateable valuation outside was lower than in the city, and there is a big development there, so that it was not so much a general breakdown as an isolated incident?—Normally it operates satisfactorily.

Deputy F. Crowley.—What is the present position?—I shall let you know*.

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

“19. In an effort to devise a faster and more economical method of building national schools it was decided to adopt, for the erection of a three roomed prototype school at Ballyboghill, Co. Dublin, modular principles involving a substantial amount of off site prefabrication. The work was entrusted to a firm of contractors with a particular skill and aptitude for this type of construction. In the circumstances competitive tendering was dispensed with and the contract price was negotiated. I understand that the experiment was considered to be generally successful.”

Mr. Suttle.—The type of construction in this case was new to the building industry and the Commissioners considered that this school should be built by a selected contractor.

Chairman.—It has been built and completed, I take it?—Mr. Mundow.—Yes.

Is it satisfactory?—It is in full operation and we have heard no complaints. Many people have gone out to see it and the same type of building has been built in other places.

Deputy Briscoe.—And the cost?—The principal advantage was that the school could be built soon and took less time. We are also quite satisfied that it did not cost any more and probably cost a little less than the traditional kind of building.

Deputy Molloy.—It is a concrete building —it is not timber?—It is not temporary. It is constructed with slabs prefabricated in a factory so that there is no loss of time on the site.

Was there only one firm in the country engaged in this type of construction?—In fact we hadn’t any. Our architects asked if these people were prepared to make up this model for them.

45. Chairman.—Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“20. The project for the conversion of Templemore Military Barracks into a training centre for Garda recruits was referred to in previous reports. A revised estimate of the cost is £634,000. Expenditure during the year amounted to £140,954 bringing the total to 31 March 1965 to £596,892 including £52,304 for fees paid to architects, quantity surveyors, etc.”

46. Deputy Briscoe.—What is the position regarding the defect in the swimming pool?— I think they found the cause of the leak. Our architect went down with the Department’s architect recently and I have a note here which says that tests which are still in progress have disclosed one obvious weak joint in the floor of the pool. This is possibly the main fault. We expect to have a report as the tests proceed and we are waiting to hear whether they have found the solution of this leak.

Deputy Molloy.—Who designed this pool? —The architect responsible for the whole design.

Who was the architect? Was it a private architect?—A private architect employed by the Department of Justice.

And the contract was given to a firm of builders? You did not consider employing the package deal system in the erection of the pool under which you could have employed swimming pool specialists, people who design and build these pools?—I am in the difficulty that while we advised the Department of Justice about how to proceed in this matter, they made the contract and selected the builder. We were available to advise them but I cannot recollect having been asked about this matter by them.

Deputy F. Crowley.—Did they take your advice?—I hope so.

Deputy Molloy.—This is completely the responsibility of the Department of Justice?— The money is on our Vote and to that extent it is the responsibility of the Board of Works in that we provide the money.

Mr. Suttle.—The Committee has already commented on this matter of the dual responsibility in regard to this job last year.

47. Deputy Molloy.—My reason for raising the point is that in paragraph 19 which we have just discussed, you said that the “work was entrusted to a firm of contractors with a particular skill and aptitude for this type of construction,” and that you more or less negotiated this modern construction method in the erection of the school. I feel that something similar could have been used in the erection of this swimming pool, which is a highly technical job. I understand that contractors will build exactly to architect’s specifications and will not accept responsibility for any faults in the building when it is finished because it was not built to their own design. There are people who will design and construct pools and who have specialised in this work, and a lot of local authorities are anxious to erect these pools. This is holding up the erection of these pools—the question whether to employ firms who use the package deal method or to use the conventional method of getting an architect to design a pool and submit it for tender. Would it not be better for local authorities interested in erecting such pools to employ the package deal method because there is less chance of this type of fault appearing later on?

Chairman.—I agree with much of what Deputy Molloy says. I think this experiment has done a lot to deter and frighten local authorities because they feel that if a Government Department cannot build a satisfactory pool, with unlimited money, to them, they have very much less resources and are afraid to undertake this work in view of what has happened. Is it true that the Department will not be responsible for any alterations that may have to be made in the pool to make it watertight?—We have stopped all payments to the contractor until the pool can be certified as being in proper working order.

48. Chairman.—While your Department was responsible for the money, the actual spending of the money was taken out of your hands. I am not certain that this is a wise departure at all.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is this a regular procedure?

Chairman.—Last year’s Committee referred to this.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is the contractor being held responsible?—He is.

Deputy Molloy.—We have been informed that payment of the moneys has been stopped to the contractor and it may not be the contractor who was liable for the fault. If he built to specifications, why should he be responsible? He did the job he was asked to do?—It is very difficult to make any comment until we know what the architects find.

And in the meantime the contractor suffers?—He is not suffering.

He is not being paid?—He has got a great deal of money.

But he is not being paid for work completed?—It is not completed to our satisfaction because it is not working. It cannot be certified until it is working properly.

You do not know who will be held responsible?—It depends on what happens to be wrong.

Deputy Briscoe.—It was not designed by the contractors’ own architect. It was another architect who actually designed this and the plans given to the contractor to fill out?— I assume that is what happened.

This architect was not attached to the firm of contractors?—No.

Deputy Molloy.—This firm actually have a specialised department, a separate firm, who design the pools for them and they erect them. That was my whole point in raising this matter. If these contractors had built to their own design, this would not have happened. Therefore, the fault would lie with the architect.

Chairman.—That is a little bit outside our scope. The Deputy is bringing in policy. We are only discussing how the money is spent. Mr. Mundow is accounting for his end of it. We are to have a note from the Department of Finance in their minute on our last Report.

49. Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“21. Reference was made in previous reports to the arrangements with the National Building Agency, Limited, for the provision of houses for married members of the Garda Síochána. I understand that at 31 March 1965 277 houses had been completed or substantially so and 150 houses were in course of construction. The total amount charged to the vote to that date, including £273,866 paid in the year of account, amounted to £675,120.

In reply to my inquiry regarding the take over and maintenance by the Commissioners of completed houses I was informed that none of the houses had yet been taken over. Legal and other investigations are being undertaken and transfers will be expedited as much as possible.”

Mr. Suttle.—I understand that the position remains unchanged regarding the handover of the houses to the Office of Public Works. None has been handed over yet.

Mr. Mundow.—I have got some later information only last month. I am told that 113 houses have been taken over for maintenance and the title deeds for 17 have been sent in and these have to be examined. That will be a slow process. The take-over has begun.

50. Chairman.—Paragraph 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“Subhead C.—Maintenance and Supplies

22. I observed that a time and materials contract was adopted by the Commissioners for repair work to eradicate dry rot and woodworm at the North Wing of the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham. The building was declared unsafe in 1950 and vacated. Following a decision to restore and adapt it to provide accommodation for the National Museum the contract for the first stage of the work (viz. the North Wing) was placed in 1957 and was estimated to cost between £20,000 and £40,000. The work was still in progress at 31 March 1965 when payments amounted to £145,000 including £30,000 for hire of non-mechanical plant— scaffolding, planks, etc. Having regard to the length of time this project has been in progress I communicated with the Accounting Officer in regard to the nature of the supervision of the work and whether it is being carried out expeditiously and I invited his observations on the economy of the procedure of hiring plant over long periods.”

Mr. Suttle.—I have a note to read out to the Committee on this question. The Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, is the earliest surviving secular public building in Ireland. The buildings form a quadrangle with Chapel, Great Hall, Tower and Master’s Quarters on the North Side and three hundred rooms opening into wall galleries on the other sides. During the early 1950s the fate of the building was in doubt but in 1957 restoration was begun under the direction of the Office of Public Works.

Restoration is in two stages, the first, referred to in the paragraph, includes restoration of the Chapel, Great Hall and Tower complete with timber spire, Work on the second stage—taking in the other three wings—is in planning.

The general clauses of specification defined the nature of the work to be undertaken as: “The work consists of erecting scaffolding, cutting out and removing defective portions of the structure, protecting the building during operations, eradicating dry rot and wood-worm and restoring or otherwise repairing the parts disturbed. The amount of work and the time it will take, are not exactly foreseeable and will depend primarily upon the extent to which the rot has spread.”

The lowest tender was approved by G.C.C. and accepted on 21st October, 1957. Contract was signed 10th December, 1957.

The basis of payment to the contractor is (a) the net cost of materials, labour and other charges involved in the work and (b) a percentage addition to the above net costs to cover profit overheads and certain other expenses and risks.

Chartered Quantity Surveyors were engaged to certify the vouchers, time sheets, etc. of the contractor and were paid a fee on the amount certified.

The estimate was increased to £52,000 in 1959, £69,000 in 1960, £85,000 in 1961 and £117,000 in 1963. In 1964 the whole job was estimated to cost £500,000.

I inquired regarding the hire charge paid to the contractor and the Accounting Officer in his reply states: “It is the normal practice for a builder to provide all his own plant and to charge for its use. In the case of lump sum contracts such charges are not specifically shown in the tender. The cost of plant hire can be extracted from the gross payments because the contract is on a Time and Material basis. The economics of the hire arrangements cannot be fairly assessed apart from the remainder of the contract. In isolation they could not be regarded as an economic proposition but, considered in the context of the whole contract they assume a materially different aspect. The contract provides that the contractor will be paid a fee in respect of overheads, profit, clerical and establishment charges and the use of small items of plant, etc. The successful tenderer quoted a fee of two per cent. Even at the time of placing the contract this was very low and, because of the general increases that have taken place in costs in the meantime, it could be maintained only by subvention from the contractor’s profit on the hire of plant. I am advised that, having regard to the nature, the size, and the difficulties of the work involved, the arrangements made for its execution were the best and most economical possible, and that those arrangements, despite the unexpected extent of the work which was found to be necessary, have resulted in a satisfactory job at a reasonable price.”

I wish to say that it was the Board who fixed the hireage rates for scaffolding, planks, etc. in the Articles of Agreement when the job was estimated to take two years. I consider that it would have been prudent to provide for a scaling down of the unit hireage charges on an extension of the contract period which is now in its ninth year.

51. Deputy Briscoe.—I merely want to clear up a point. When this job was undertaken nine years ago what was the estimated cost?

Mr. Suttle.—£20,000 to £40,000 originally in 1957.

To be completed in two years, and now nine years later work is still in progress. How long will it be now before it is completed?

Mr. Mundow.—The first stage will be finished next month.

What will the total cost have been?— £180,000.

As against £20,000 to £40,000 originally?— An estimate of £20,000 to £40,000 is no estimate.

No?—The architects had no idea what they were going to find when they started to look for the dry rot. They found there was a vast amount of it. That explains the vast expenditure compared with the estimated expenditure.

Chairman.—I suppose it would be true to say that the £30,000 in respect of hiring the plant is probably in excess of what it would cost to buy it outright?—Yes, it was never intended that this would go on for so long.

52. Deputy Molloy.—Is there no way in which you could cover yourself against this happening again?—In future we would try to see that it would not happen again. Sometime there will be extensions of this work. They have only done one wing. The other wings remain to be done sometime. When contracts are being placed for those works I have no doubt but that we will have learned from our experience.

Chairman.—You are getting something done for the money we are expending now.

53. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

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

23. The charge to the subhead in respect of major construction works in progress during the year amounted to £1,274,042. In addition, the value of stores issued, charges for the use of plant and certain Engineers’ salaries and travelling expenses were assessed at £752,716. The cost of each scheme to 31 March 1965 was:

The balance of the charge to the subhead is made up of sums amounting to £92,868 in respect of intermediate or minor schemes and £5,619 being remanets of expenditure on completed major schemes.”

54. Chairman.—Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead K.—Appropriations in Aid

24. A rent of £400 per annum inclusive of all rates, taxes and external maintenance charges is receivable by the Commissioners in respect of a letting of ground floor offices in a premises acquired in 1941. As the outgoings from the Vote in the year under review in respect of these offices exceeded the rent receivable I asked for information on the matter and was informed that the Commissioners are unable to impose revised terms on the lessees but that the position generally will continue to be given close attention.”

Mr. Suttle.—I am afraid that I must go into a lengthy explanation. This is the Commissioners’ reply to my inquiry:

“The purchase of the premises by the Commissioners was subject to a lease of the greater part of the ground floor for a term of seven years from 6th August, 1940, at a rent of £400 per annum, inclusive of rates and external maintenance. That lease contained a provision which gave the lessees the right to a further lease, at the same rent and on similar conditions to those in the lease of 1940, including the right to further renewals. The lessees, in effect, had been given under the lease of 1940 the legal right to an indefinite number of renewals without any alteration in conditions. They have continued to exercise that right and their current lease runs to August 1966. When that lease was being arranged an effort was made to have excluded from it the provision for continued renewal but the lessees insisted on its inclusion.

In view of the exceptionally strong position in which the lessees were placed by the lease of 1940 the Commissioners are unable to impose on them revised lease terms. If the lessees should fail to give six months notice which they are required to give in February, 1966, in order to obtain a further renewal advantage would be taken of that failure to serve a revision of the letting terms.” They have, I believe, submitted an application.

Mr. Mundow.—Yes.

Mr. Suttle.—Should the lessees serve the notice in good time consideration will be given to the effects of refusing to grant a renewal except on revised terms but having regard to the legal position little hope seems to lie in that direction. The position generally will continue to be given close attention so that advantage may be taken of any opportunity to secure more favourable terms. If vacant possession of the premises had been available in 1961 when the current lease was being arranged a rent in the region of £1,000 per annum exclusive of rates and internal maintenance could have been expected. In accordance with normal practice, however, a lessee in occupation would have been given a new lease at a rent below that figure. I must add that the Accounting Officer has failed to bring out that in the sub-lease the lessees covenanted not to assign, underlet or part with the possession of the said premises or any part thereof without the written consent of the lessors. In 1946, the sub-tenants sought to assign their interest to another party. The Finance Solicitor was asked to advise “whether the Office of Public Works could object to assignment of the sub-tenants’ interest as proposed.” He advised: “Strictly, you probably could but it would, I think, be contrary to your usual practice and would certainly be against the spirit of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, to do so.” The assignment was then permitted and fresh leases were granted in 1947 for 14 years and, in 1961, for five years. Rent and other conditions remain the same as in the original lease. The present position is that the sub-tenants have, in effect, a right of occupation in perpetuity subject to the fixed rent of £400 per year irrespective of increases in rates, maintenance and other outgoings. Rates repayments in 1965/66 were £439 7s. 6d. apart from maintenance and the rent is only £400.

55. Deputy Briscoe.—Is there any likelihood that that kind of agreement could be made with anyone ever again?

Mr. Suttle.—The Commissioners had an opportunity in 1946 of getting out of this agreement and they did not take it.

Deputy Briscoe.—My point is this: is there any likelihood that the Commissioners would make that kind of agreement again which I think is a bad sort of agreement? It is good for the tenants but it is bad for the Commissioners. Are the Office of Public Works taking care not to let themselves in for this type of agreement again?—I think we are now fully aware of the dangers.

Chairman.—The new Landlord and Tenant Act does not affect it in any way, does it?

Deputy Briscoe.—No.

Deputy Molloy.—Where is this building?

Chairman.—O’Connell Street.

Deputy Molloy.—Who is in it at the moment?—An airline company.

Deputy Molloy.—It is not an Irish airline company?

Mr. Mundow.—No.

Mr. Suttle.—The Department of Defence are in a similar position, but the other way around. They have a right that was handed over to them in 1922, though it was originally obtained in 1809, to exercise the troops in Fermoy. The position is very different now from what it was in 1809. They never used it but they still have to pay rent for it in perpetuity. The reverse position obtains in regard to the Office of Public Works. The Army are paying rent but the Office of Public Works are receiving a rent which is uneconomic.

56. Deputy Molloy.—With regard to subhead AA—Trustees of the Republican Plot in Prospect Cemetery, Glasnevin, Dublin (Grant-in-Aid)—I note that £2,447 was expended. Can the witness give us any idea of how this money was spent?—Yes. This was to enable the Republican Plot in Glasnevin Cemetery to be acquired in the name of certain trustees. The plot was first used, I think, in 1868 when a space was leased in Prospect Cemetery for the erection of a Cenotaph in memory of the Manchester Martyrs, Allen, Larkin and O’Brien. I understand that the first burial in the plot was that of the Fenian Leader James Stephens in 1901. At various times since then, there have been burials in the plot, mostly of persons actively connected with the Independence movement. Five grave spaces were acquired by Mr. John R. Reynolds (the first in 1917 for the interment of Thomas Ashe) and two spaces were acquired by An tUachtarán, Mr. de Valera, in 1925. In 1922, Mr. Reynolds obtained an option to purchase additional ground adjacent to the spaces he had previously purchased. He did not exercise this option but in October 1963 the Dublin Cemeteries Committee gave a fresh option in respect of this area to Trustees who had taken over the interests of Mr. do Valera and Mr. Reynolds (then deceased). The grant of £2,500 was to enable the Trustees to take up the option and acquire the plot in perpetuity.

Who is entitled to be buried in this? Maybe this is outside your scope?—I should think it is a matter for the trustees.

57. Deputy Briscoe.—In the Statement of Expenditure on New Works, Alterations and Additions, 1964-65 relating to subhead B,* there is a reference to the Leinster House extension at item 2. When is that work expected to be completed?—Five office floors are ready for occupation. The boilerhouse is complete. The lift is in and the lodges around the buildings are finished. The press block and the car park have been completed—they are in use. The link gallery to the Chamber is half finished. The furniture of the office block, which is the main thing outstanding now, will I think be finished within a week or two.

When will people be able to move in?— Ministers and Party Committees will be moving in before the end of the month.

Chairman.—The week after next.

Deputy Briscoe.—I understand that there will be interviewing rooms for Deputies?— Yes.

Are rooms being assigned to Deputies, such as two Deputies to a room, or what is the plan there? Do you know anything about that? —I do not know anything about that. It will be arranged, I think, by a House Committee.

58. Deputy Molloy.—Shall I wait until we come to subhead D to discuss Furniture and Fittings in Leinster House? In what manner did you advertise for tenders for the supplying of the furniture?

Mr. Suttle.—That would be included in the costs. You do not have to wait for subhead D.

Deputy Molloy.—I understand that people were invited to tender for the supplying of the furniture. Is that correct?—That is correct. There was no expenditure in this year of course. It will appear next year.

But what is done now determines to whom the money will go? Am I in order in inquiring about the manner in which this furniture was purchased?

Chairman.—This Committee is entitled to deal only with expenditure, to see that it is not misused.

Deputy Molloy.—This is very important.

Chairman.—You can raise it in the Dáil.

59. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to the statue of Thomas Davis, item 5, which is now completed, I note that the total estimate was for £15,000 and that this in fact has been expended?—Yes, a little more, in fact. The whole memorial cost about £18,000.

Are we allowed to ask what the sculptor’s fee was?—I can tell you. First of all there was a good deal of building work and excavation, preparation of site, and so on. That cost about £10,500. There were other works, such as the four statues around the fountain. The main piece had to be cast in Milan. That cost £1,200. Then there were the costs of transport, insurance, and customs charges. They were about £500 and I take it the balance of £6,000, or thereabouts, went to the sculptor.

Who prepared the site?—It was done by a contractor.

I am rather surprised at that figure of £10,000 when one considers the kind of building one could get for £10,000. Yet the preparation of the site for a statute cost as much?—There was a pedestal. There was the foundation. There was the pool. These are expensive.

Deputy Molloy.—It did not cost that much to remove Nelson?—I did not hear the figure for that.

Deputy Briscoe.—Despite Mr. Mundow’s explanation of the expenditure and the work involved I still feel £10,000 is a lot of money for this work.

Deputy Molloy.—Could we have a breakdown of that?—I have not got it broken down, but it covers everything except the actual statue.

It includes erection?—Yes.

Deputy Briscoe.—Was this put to public tender?—Yes.

And this was the lowest tender received?— Yes. There were other works, but that includes everything. The main contract was for the clearing of the site, the laying of the paving stones, the erection of the pedestal and the erection of the other parts of the monument.

Deputy Molloy.—The concrete parts?— Yes.

Deputy Briscoe.—The heralds?—All that had to be included.

Deputy Molloy.—This was the lowest tender?—I am not familiar with the tenders received but I should be surprised if it were not. There was no reason why it should be given to any but the lowest tender.

You did not feel that the figure was excessive?—No, not when one looks at the kind of work that had to be done and the volume of it.

Deputy Briscoe.—How long did it take to prepare the site?—It is about a year ago since we went out to look at the site. I suppose it took from Christmas on to do the work. I think the hoarding was erected some time after Christmas and you could take it that from that on the work was going on there.

Deputy Molloy.—Apart from the statue itself I do not think the rest of the structure will last very long. It seems to be a very light material. It shakes with every bus that passes?—I have heard that said.

Deputy Briscoe.—Has any examination been made?—I think our architects will probably look at it. They will not express any concern until they have some ground for it.

60. Chairman.—Has there been any advance in the Kennedy Memorial Concert Hall, item 19A?—The planning has advanced very far and it is believed we can look for tenders early in 1968, if the money can be made available then.

Of course, even if tenders were sent out in 1968, the money would not come until some time after that?—It would want to be coming in to pay the contractors.

61. Deputy Briscoe.—The Garden of Remembrance, item 19, which is a credit to all who had anything to do with it, was originally estimated to cost £157,000. Was this the actual cost—The latest figure we have is £159,000 and I think that is all for the architectural work. The sculpture, of course, has still to come.

Did the original estimate include this?— There was a separate estimate.

Do they have any estimated figure as yet? —We have a provisional figure of £30,000, but it is very provisional.

62. Deputy Molloy.—There is an item here for the erection of a new glasshouse in the Phoenix Park, item 18 (2). I should like to inquire if the Office of Public Works consulted with the Department of the Gaeltacht in relation to the glasshouses which have been left standing in Connemara and which could be dismantled and re-erected elsewhere. They are left now to rot and we spend £4,000 on the erection of a new glasshouse in the Phoenix Park.

Mr. Suttle.—The cost of dismantling and removing these glasshouses to Dublin would scarcely be an economic proposition.

Deputy Molloy.—I do not agree.

Mr. Mundow.—I believe all the people whose glasshouses were damaged were invited to have them rebuilt.

Deputy Molloy.—But they would not have anything to do with tomatoes. It had nothing to do with glasshouses. There was no money out of tomatoes. I know people who have re-erected these and, if we are spending £4,500 on a new glasshouse in the Phoenix Park, I think an economy could have been effected by using these structures which are still standing in Connemara.

Chairman.—It is said that dismantling them and re-erecting them would cost much more. It would not be a feasible proposition at all.

Deputy Molloy.—When it pays private individuals to do it I do not see why it should not pay the State. It would be an economy.

63. Deputy Briscoe.—It is expected that the car ferry at Dún Laoghaire Harbour, item 20 (2) will be completed fairly soon?— This is the permanent ferry. It is due to be completed in July next year, but I think that may be a bit optimistic.

What about the total estimate?—The total estimate now is £950,000. That includes the temporary terminal which is completed. The permanent one is being built at the moment.

Deputy Molloy.—I take it the figure here is not the original estimate. Is this revised each year?—The figures are revised each year in the light of experience.

Chairman.—And in the light of rising costs?—Yes.

64. Deputy Molloy.—I see an item for the erection of an intruder alarm system in the National Museum, item 33. Is there a similar system in the National Library?— Offhand I could not say. If there is not, I am sure there will be one very soon because we are tending towards this in all our buildings now.

65. Deputy Molloy.—There is a reference to major fishery harbours, item 41. Can you give me any information on progress to date in relation to Galway or up to the time which we are discussing here?—I have a note here saying that Galway and Howth are awaiting decisions. The work is not going on at either of these centres at present. They are both awaiting some major decisions that have to be taken. Killybegs, Dunmore East and Castletownbere are going ahead.

Are these policy decisions?—Yes.

66. Deputy Molloy.—I see that you have extended the Meteorological Station at Clones, item 54. Can you tell me, offhand, whether there is a new station going up in the west of Ireland?—If so, if it were at that period, it would be under the Department of Transport and Power. As there is nothing entered, I can only assume that there was not.

67. Deputy Briscoe.—Item 55 refers to a new general sorting office in Dublin. When will that be completed?—It is 95 per cent. completed now. They are now putting in the mechanical equipment. It is situated near Amiens Street Station.

And we shall have the latest machinery?— Yes, everything.

That is fine. And it will be completed within the next few months?—By the end of this year.

68. Deputy Briscoe.—Item 72 refers to the Irish Embassy to the Federation of Nigeria. You may recall that last year we had some comments to make on the building involved. At that stage, I believe there was a possibility that this might not be continued. What is the latest situation?—They are renting accommodation now for the Ambassador and staff. The proposal to erect a new embassy is not being proceeded with at present.

69. Deputy Molloy.—There is a reference to heating in Galway Custom House (details of Work No. 76, item 10). Can you tell me what exactly that was? I am interested in the heating system there. Have you any information?—It says that the job was completed. I take it that—

Chairman.—I am sure it is very much appreciated.

Mr. Suttle.—You would not get very much for £500.

Deputy Molloy.—Was it actually in the distribution or the creation of heat? Was it something to do with the boilerhouse or with the radiators?—Would you like me to find out?

You do not know? We shall leave it, so.

70. Chairman.—There is a reference to the acoustics in the Dáil Chamber (minor balances of expenditure, item 2A of 1963/64) Is the amplification in the Chamber now working satisfactorily?

Deputy Molloy.—We should be the best judges of that ourselves.

71. With regard to subhead D, I should like to ask about the tenders for furniture. Could the witness explain the procedure adopted by the Office?—Normally, we advertise in the usual way when we want so many chairs, or tables, and we have standard designs. We advertise in the newspapers and it is dealt with in the ordinary way. The lowest acceptable tender is accepted and the contract is given to the tenderer.

That is in the ordinary way. What other ways are used?—Once, I think there was an adviser on furniture who was employed to advise on the design of special furniture. A relatively small part of our total of furniture comes under what is known as “specials”. He advised on how this special furniture should be procured. I think, in that case, a limited list of firms was recommended as being suitable for making these particular pieces. That was after this account, of course.

Was the ordinary method af advertising for tenders for furniture used when you were looking for furniture for the new Dáil building?—For the bulk of it, yes, but, for the specials I mentioned, which is a small part of the whole requirement, this other procedure was adopted.

For special furniture: what type of furniture would that be? As I understand it, it would be desks and chairs, and so on, which would not be very special?—Special quality furniture.

Chairman.—Maybe I would be right in assuming that it is furniture intended for a reception room, some period furniture of the kind that would not ordinarily be supplied?— Not ordinary work-a-day furniture.

Deputy Molloy.—Do I take it that the bulk of the furniture required for the new Leinster House building was advertised in the normal way?—It can be supplied from our own resources.

May we take it that any new items you wanted to purchase was advertised in the normal way?—Yes, the bulk of it.

Deputy Molloy.—I am satisfied with that.

72. Chairman.—Now let us turn to the notes on page 22 of the Appropriation Accounts.

Mr. Suttle.—I have no further information about note No. 1 at the top of the page concerning compensation of £450 which was paid to the owners of a motor launch which was damaged beyond repair by a State-owned dredger berthing at Arklow.

Deputy Briscoe.—How did that accident happen?

Mr. Mundow.—There were three vessels moored at the dockside and the stern anchor of our dredger struck the side of these boats and caused considerable damage. The damaged vessel was used by Messrs. Roadstone as a pilot vessel. Economically it was found not worth repairing. They made a claim for £500 plus £100 for loss of service. We negotiated for £450 which they accepted. We thought it reasonable.

73. Deputy Molloy.—With regard to note No. 7 which relates to diesel oil to the value of £66, including £42 duty, which was lost when a storage tank burst while being filled, did you actually pay the duty on the oil?—Yes.

74. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to the stores that were lost (item 9 of the notes), what were they?—I have a list. They were lost on drainage schemes and, in the main, they were tools, hammers, shovels, odd items.

75. Deputy Molloy.—In the statement regarding the National Development Fund, a sum of £85 is mentioned in relation to Inishere Pier.

Mr. Suttle.—This is a balance due to the Commissioners for works that are now completed. It is only a balance.

Deputy Molloy.—You could not give me any information about this pier?—Mr. Mundow.—No.

Mr. Suttle.—The total expenditure on this appears in a previous volume published about three years ago.

76. Chairman.—The members have got the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park account*. If there are any questions Mr. Mundow will answer them.

Deputy Briscoe.—Could you tell me what precisely is the purpose of this park? I see it is connected with agriculture and horticulture? —It was left to the nation by a philanthropist —Senator Bourn Vincent.

Deputy Molloy.—Is this in Kerry?—Yes. It was given over to the Commissioners to maintain as they maintain the Phoenix Park. There is a farm which accounts for a good part of the expenditure here but, in the main, it is gardens and pleasure walks and a big expanse of field and forest. Our main job is to try to keep it in the sort of condition in which we got it and to improve it as opportunity offers. On the whole, if we fail in that we hear about it. There are a great many local interests all very anxious to have the place maintained as it should be and they show a very keen interest in what we do.

Chairman.—It is a very important tourist amenity?—It is. It is a tremendous tourist amenity.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is there any value on this park?

Mr. Suttle.—No.

Deputy Briscoe.—How many acres?— 10,550 acres. We have let 3,000 acres to the Forestry Branch and we maintain the 7,500.

Chairman.—It is one of the showplaces of the country?—Yes.

Deputy Molloy.—Am I in order in inquiring why Foras Talúntais are transferring from this park elsewhere?—It is not for financial reasons. There was a good deal of local opposition to their activities on the ground that they were turning the place into a big sheep farm instead of preserving it as an amenity park. Local interests agitated to such an extent that it has been agreed now that they will withdraw within about a year. I am not sure how final that is.

Deputy Molloy.—I understand it will be a big loss in employment locally.

77. Chairman.—Members have also received the Compilation of Property Rental 1964-65†.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 10—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Mr. M. Hawe called and examined.

78. Deputy Molloy.—We will not be able to ask very many questions, I take it, on this next year. It would not be fair, I suppose, to ask what you are doing with your minor employment schemes application forms in view of the change?—I do not know, Mr. Chairman, if I can say anything about rural improvement schemes or minor employment schemes in relation to this 1964-65 Vote.

Chairman.—These are outside your control. We shall not ask you to account for them.

Deputy Molloy.—I understand, in regard to money subscribed, that some time elapses before the work is actually done. Would there be much money held by you? What would be the average length of time you would hold the local contributions before the work would be carried out? Would it be one, two or three years?—It would never be as long as that. Normally when a contribution is received immediate authority is given to proceed with the work: the instruction to proceed is given within a matter of days of the receipt of the contribution. Any delay would normally arise in arranging gangs and in the general organisation for doing the work. There may be delay occasionally at the end of the year; for instance, if contributions come in towards the end of February or in March, if the allocation for the year is filled and we are not issuing further authorisations at that time. In that case the contribution may be held up for a matter of a month or so until the commencement of the next financial year. In cases of that kind, we usually tell applicants when we are making the offers of grant, that there is a possibility that the authorisation may be delayed.

Deputy Molloy.—When does your year start?—1st April.

Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Hawe.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m.

* See Appendix IV.

* See Appendix V.

* See Appendix VI.

† See Appendix VII.