Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1967 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Reports of the Committee - Appropriation Accounts 1966 - 1967

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 7 Nollaig, 1967

Thursday, 7th December, 1967

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

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

VOTE 26—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called.

No question.

VOTE 8—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. H. J. Mundow called and examined.

128. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead E.—New Works, Alterations and Additions

21. The charge to the subhead comprises £1,498,478 expended on general architectural and engineering works, and £2,772,039 in respect of grants towards the erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools, as compared with £2,259,100 and £3,122,470, respectively, in the previous year.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Paragraphs 21 and 22 go together. These paragraphs are intended for information. They show the make-up of the subhead expenditure as between national school grants and other works.

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

“22. School grants amounting to £1,991,531 were paid to managers who undertook responsibility for having the works carried out, and £780,508 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.”

130. Do Office of Public Works architects supervise the construction for managers of schools?

Mr. Mundow.—Not to the same extent as they do our own schools. The plans have to be submitted for approval to our architects and they examine the final accounts.

131. Deputy Crowley.—Is there a minimum acreage required for the building of a school?—No, schools vary in size, of course. There are small schools and very large schools.

For a small school?—I have never heard of a minimum standard but in practice we try to get the manager to take a big enough area. Sometimes he cannot get it.

132. Deputy Molloy.—Do you have to comply with the Planning Act?—It does not apply to us, but we always keep it in mind. We do not advertise but short of that we observe all the provisions.

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

“23. 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. At 31 March 1967, 397 houses were completed and a further 58 houses were in course of construction. The total amount charged to the vote, including £110,156 paid in the year of account, amounted to £1,030,276.”

134. Perhaps the accounting officer could give us a resumé of the present position about the number of houses?—The latest figure I have is more than the 397 mentioned there. In November last 440 houses had been built.

135. Chairman.—Is there an economic rent charged for these houses?—The Gardaí at one time had a rent allowance. That is now consolidated in their pay and a deduction is made if they get one of these official residences.

Mr. Suttle.—They get a rent allowance normally where they have to provide their own houses but where they are supplied with a house, as in this case, the rent allowance is deducted from their pay and it just means that there is a reduced charge on the Garda Vote in respect of it.

Deputy Cluskey.—Does this include the total expenditure of the National Building Agency?

Mr. Suttle.—No. This is only one aspect of their work.

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

“Subhead F.1.—Maintenance and Supplies

24. It was observed in the course of audit that the dredger ‘Sisyphus’ worked for less than ten weeks in each of the years 1963-64 to 1965-66 and a scrutiny of pay sheets suggested that it was fully manned throughout those years. In reply to my inquiry I was informed that during lying up time about half the crew of twelve was employed on rountine maintenance works. The full crew was required to prepare the vessel for dredging operations and to clean up afterwards. I have been assured that in future, when crew members are working on other dredgers or ashore, the paysheets will show clearly the nature of the work on which they are employed.”

137. Have you anything to add, Mr Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I will read out the accounting officer’s reply, as I think it would be of interest to the Committee to learn the nature of the works on which half of the crew were engaged during the 42 weeks of each year when the dredger was idle. The reply is:—

“The full crew of the ‘Sisyphus’ is normally eleven men with the addition of a boatman when dredging is in hands. Before commencing dredging the full crew are employed in preparing the vessel and when dredging work is completed cleaning up is done by the full crew.

When the ‘Sisyphus’ is lying up, mooring ropes are checked and adjusted daily and replaced, if necessary. Bilges and buoyancy tanks are pumped out. All deck machinery is cleaned, oiled and greased. Engines and boilers are cleaned down and tested. Boiler tubes are scaled and replaced if necessary. Fire bars are checked and replaced, if found defective. All valves are opened up, examined and reground, if necessary. The hull is scraped and painted. The deck fittings and superstructure are washed, scraped and painted. Life boats and rafts are examined and repaired or replaced as necessary. About half of the crew are employed on these works. Other members of the crew are employed on the other dredgers or on work ashore.”

138. Deputy Kenny.—How many dredgers has the Office of Public Works?

Mr. Mundow.—There are three—really only two. The third is used as a harbour boat. They are all very old and coming to the end of their life.

139. Chairman.—Paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“25. I noted that the ‘Fag an Bealach’ a suction dredger designed to handle sand and gravel, had worked for a total of only 12½ weeks in the three years 1962-63 to 1964-65, and had not worked at all in 1965-66 or 1966-67. This dredger had operated from time to time in Arklow harbour on a hireage basis and in the five-year period referred to receipts from hireage were £1,900 as against expenses totalling £19,500 which included £16,000 for labour. In reply to my inquiry I was informed that, in the opinion of the Commissioners, some considerations, the outcome of which was awaited, made it worthwhile to retain this vessel for the present but that the position would be kept under review and as soon as future dredging requirements could be assessed a decision would be taken on its retention.”

140. Chairman.—Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The paragraph sets out the up to date position in this case. I have been informed that the cost of maintenance of this vessel in the last two years was £2,060 in 1965-66 and £2,508 in 1966-67. It did not work at all for those two years.

141. Deputy Kenny.—I see a reference to a hireage basis. Is it to a private concern you hire it?

Mr. Mundow.—All the work recently has been at Arklow. There is a great deal of dredging necessary in the harbour there and the Fág is able to work in that kind of material. We believe that in future she can be profitably employed at Arklow. The reason why we lost money on it was that the rate of hireage was far too low—it was hardly more than one-fifth of the current commercial rate. If we had charged the commercial rates, we would have come much nearer to meeting the expenditure on the boat.

142. Chairman.—What precludes us from doing that—charging the full commercial rate, or near it?—The rate had not been revised in time. It was an old rate.

143. I take it that at the moment this dredger is an insolvent proposition?—She is very old. She has been completely depreciated but she is still able to work and the engineers believe that for the next five or ten years she will be able to do any dredging that may be required in Arklow, if the Arklow Harbour Authority wants her. In any event, she can be operated without any loss.

We are losing money on her at the moment?—Yes.

144. Is there any means by which we could redress that situation?—We will charge the economic rate if she is hired. If she is not hired for Arklow, she probably will not be required anywhere else and we should dispose of her then. If she can be at work in Arklow, she will be cheaper for the Arklow Harbour Commissioners than having to hire a vessel abroad.

She is only suitable for harbour work?— Yes.

Deputy Molloy.—It looks like we are subsidising the dredging of Arklow Harbour.

145. Deputy Kenny.—Does she ever work in any other harbour?—She has done but not in recent years.

Is she the same dredger as was in West-port Harbour about 1955?—I am not certain —she probably is.

146. Deputy Cluskey.—Apart from this particular vessel, the only other one available would be from abroad?—We have the “Sisyphus” and the “Fág-an-Bealach”.

Apart from these?—We have no others. Some of the local authorities have their own dredgers.

147. Are you aware of any local authorities hiring from abroad instead of availing of this vessel?—Yes, we have not lost sight of the possibilities here. We have been thinking along the line of pooling all the dredging requirements. That would involve negotiations with many different authorities and it would be a slow process. It seems to be a more promising solution of this dredging problem than for each authority to be hiring very expensive equipment from abroad even where it needs a very short period of dredging.

148. Could all local authorities avail of the two dredgers the Board of Works have? —Those two dredgers alone would not have the capacity.

They could be worked to full capacity by local authorities if they were available?— I could not assert that that is true because they are not suitable for all classes of dredging.

149. Chairman.—Have local authorities been circularised as to the position?—I understand this was taken up a couple of years ago by a large harbour authority. We were approached about it. We expressed very keen interest but when I inquired recently I found that it has not progressed far enough to justify my saying anything will come of it.

150. Deputy Molloy.—When you say “local authority”, whom do you mean?— The county council or a harbour board.

There are Harbour Commissioners in Arklow?—Yes.

Is it the county council that is responsible?—I should regard the Harbour Commissioners as a local authority in a broad sense. They have authority in the locality in that sense.

151. Could it be sold to the Arklow Harbour Commissioners?—I suppose we could give it as a present to them. It is a liability to us. I put it to them semi-officially. I do not know whether or not they will. I think it would be our simplest way out.

Deputy Cluskey.—It might not be for them?—They would otherwise have to hire it from us, or hire from abroad at considerable expense.

152. Can they hire it when they require it at a far lower rate than to maintain it?— Up to now, yes.

153. Deputy Molloy.—Will further efforts be made to try to dispose of this dredger to the Arklow Harbour Commissioners?

Deputy Cluskey.—I personally think some effort should be made to have local authorities hire her when they need a dredger.

Deputy Molloy.—She is very old. She would not be able to travel far.

Mr. Mundow.—She has done some small work in Howth, which is a State harbour, but I do not think she would be able to go to the West.

154. Chairman.—Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“26. Overtime payments amounting to approximately £2,300 were made to 80 out of the Labour force of 130 workers at Dun Laoghaire harbour during the five-week period ended 21 December 1966. I inquired regarding the nature of the overtime work and whether the productivity of the labour force was regularly assessed. I was informed that the work related to the replacement in concrete of the substructure of the Mail Boat pier, that it was carried out in sections and it was found that one section could not without overtime be made ready for the heavy Christmas traffic. No formal system was then in use for measuring the productivity of the labour force but, I am informed, a system was introduced in April 1967 on a trial basis for selected categories of work and it will be extended to all categories.”

155. Chairman.—Have you any further comment, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Pending a review of the measures mentioned in the paragraph, I have nothing further to add.

156. Chairman.—To what categories of work has this measure of productivity been applicable?

Mr. Mundow.—Up to now, we have extended it to cover most categories of work —workshop practice, carpentry work, etc. The outdoor maintenance work on the piers and on the harbour generally has not yet been included. We have an engineer being trained in work study who will examine that, when his training is completed. We are very satisfied with results so far. There has been a very considerable increase in productivity.

157. Deputy Molloy.—What were these 80 men doing? Were they loading concrete? —The old pier was being reconstructed and the berths had to remain operational. The engineers had to work while the pier was being used. They had to do so in order that there would not be any interruption of the services. At the Christmas period, there are extra boats and sailings at unusual times. They found that this was the only way to keep the work going and to avoid interruption of services.

158. Chairman.—The daytime workers did overtime?—They did daytime work and they also had to do late hours and, of course, work in the dark. The only real control we had there was supervision. I am assured it was very good supervision. We are satisfied the overtime was necessary in the circumstances.

159. Chairman.—Paragraph 27 of the Report of the Comptoller and Auditor General reads:

“27. I observed that in the course of the work mentioned in the previous paragraph extra manpower costs were incurred in mixing and transporting concrete by inefficient methods. Authority sought in July 1965 for the purchase of a mixer and two dumpers at a cost of some £3.400 for the effective and economical execution of the work had been refused. I was informed that contracts for new items of plant were not being placed at that time in accordance with a decision that expenditure on capital services should be curtailed and that no expenditure unprovided for in the reduced programme should be incurred in the financial year 1965-66.”

160. Chairman.—Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The reconstruction work required the preparation and transporting of concrete to the site. Apparently an unsuitable type of concrete mixer was used in the absence of a type which the engineer considered more economical. Extra labour costs arose as a result. The concrete was prepared about half a mile away and transported by lorry to the pier but had to be hand-barrowed to the actual point of reconstruction as it was impossible to manoeuvre the lorry to that point. It was considered that suitable dumpers were necessary for this work because of their mobility and to secure economical execution of the work.

161. Deputy Kenny.—From what Department was authority sought to buy the dumpers? Was it the Department of Finance?

Mr. Mundow.—It was within the Office of Public Works. We had an instruction from the Department of Finance to keep our expenditure down to a relatively small figure. We had exceeded this by the time the request for this equipment was sent and the decision was taken that we ought to carry on with what we had until capital was available again for this purchase.

162. Chairman.—Was any attempt made to hire a dumper?—I was told that this lorry was a dumper of sorts. It is not really a dumper because the material had to be put into wheel-barrows. There was double handling of material. The engineers felt they did the best they could. At the time, it would have taken a long time to arrange a hiring.

163. Deputy Molloy.—How much money was involved in extra man-power costs which were incurred?—I have no figure for that but it would be some hundreds of pounds.

Mr. Suttle.—It was for a considerable period.

Mr. Mundow.—It was longer certainly than we thought.

Mr. Suttle.—We do not know the costs. The engineer in his opinion estimated that three men were necessary for a period on the mixing of the concrete alone. I would say that was only his opinion. My man on the job went out and had a look at the works. We thought that was the best way to see what was going on. He discussed the position on the site with the engineer. It was the engineer’s opinion that he was losing three men on the mixing alone. The job started in 1965 and it is still going on.

164. Deputy Kenny.—With the three extra men?

Mr. Suttle.—I think they have a suitable mixer now since some time early last year. I do not know about the dumpers and hand-barrows.

Mr. Mundow.—It is only recently that the ban on purchasing was relaxed. I am prepared to believe that this went on for quite a long time but I am not told here that it did.

165. Deputy Molloy.—Why did you say that it was only a couple of hundred pounds and not what the dumpers would cost?—I said some hundreds of pounds. Three labouring men, at that time, would be about £25 to £30 a week.

If it did not cost more, why did you refer to it?

Mr. Suttle.—We had no information. All we knew was that a possible three extra men were engaged on the mixing. If you continue on this basis for a long period and include the lorry, hand-barrows in bringing it to the site, as against filling a dumper with concrete where it was mixed, the cost would undoubtedly be higher.

Deputy Molloy.—Depreciation on the dumper would not be that much. You would still have an asset.

166. Deputy Cluskey.—In relation to the overall cost of the job, would this not be fairly marginal? If you had purchased the dumper and mixer, would it have involved redundancy?

Mr. Mundow.—Very likely.

Deputy Cluskey.—There, then, is another consideration apart from expenditure.

Deputy Molloy.—The jobs would not have been there for them.

Deputy Cluskey.—Then you would have redundancy.

Deputy Molloy.—Not necessarily.

167. Deputy Cluskey.—Why not?

Mr. Mundow.—We always have more people looking for work in Dún Laoghaire than we have work for. If this had been available, the extra men would not have been employed. There usually has to be redundancy and we have to accept it. The efficiency of the works organisation at Dún Laoghaire Harbour is being examined. The Harbour was constructed over 100 years ago and maintenance has been going on all that time. The operations were never adequately costed. There was good supervision and therefore it could be assumed the work was being done economically. Incidents like this bring to notice that a review might be required. That is now taking place. We have a productivity examination going on. Whatever about the past, I think this kind of thing will not happen in the future.

168. —Chairman.—Paragraph 28 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

28. The charge to the subhead in respect of major construction works in progress during the year amounted to £930,388. In addition, the value of stores issued, charges for the use of plant and certain engineers’ salaries and travelling expenses were assessed at £483,706. The cost of each scheme to 31 March 1967 was:—

The balance of the charge to the subhead is made up of sums amounting to £46,896 in respect of intermediate or minor schemes and £4,177 being remanets of expenditure on completed major schemes.”

169. Chairman.—Some of the estimated costs are subject to revision. Why is that?

Mr. Mundow.—The original estimate was framed several years ago and was based on existing costs and wage rates. Since then, wages have gone up several times. The costs will have to be revised to make allowance for that.

170. Deputy Cluskey.—With regard to subhead D.—Purchase of Sites and Buildings—would the acquisition of land in anticipation of decentralisation of Departments be included?

Chairman.—Hardly. This deals with last year.

Deputy Cluskey.—It is not included in anticipation? Did you acquire any land in Castlebar or Athlone?

Mr. Mundow.—There is nothing included for the Departments of Lands or Education —they are the two Departments mentioned in connection with decentralisation.

171. Chairman.—A breakdown of the expenditure on this subhead follows the Account. With regard to the sites at Clough-jordan and Holycross, what is the purpose of the purchases?—These are for Garda stations.

172. And St. Enda’s, Rathfarnham?— That is a rather long story. St. Enda’s is intended to vest in the State when Senator Miss Pearse dies. Her mother made a will which left it to the State but the will was not valid because it was made too short a time before her death. Senator Miss Pearse in her turn made a will leaving it to the State also when she died. Recently she came to an arrangement with the Minister. She executed a deed of conveyance last January transferring to the Minister for Finance about 11 acres of the land surrounding St. Enda’s for £22,000. She also under the same deed of settlement settled the remainder of the property which includes about 29 acres, and the house and contents, and all the outbuildings on two trustees, with the provision that she will have sole use and control of the property for her lifetime, and at her death, it will pass to the State. She is in her ninetieth year now.

173. Deputy Kenny.—What type of work is carried out by the Board of Works at Knowth, Co. Meath?—That is the site where Dr. Eogan has been doing very interesting work. The local farmer who owned it naturally resented seeing his land sterilised or frozen for as long as the work was going to take. It was agreed in the end that the best thing was to buy the number of acres required from him. After a good deal of negotiation we agreed on a price and this is the payment.

174. Deputy Molloy.—What is the position of the site for the Fishery Research Station in Galway?—The architect is planning the Research Station now. He will not require the whole of the site. You will remember that last year we found that two acres would be adequate—roughly two acres will be enough for the Fishery Station and that will leave us with a balance of land which we propose to keep against future requirements.

175. Was any investigation made into the possibility of purchasing land from the Department of Health? The Auditor General had a reference last year to land being available on the other side of the road?—This all happened before we went into the market for land. It was in 1961 that the Department of Health sold three lots to various people and shortly after, we went looking for land. We went to the Departments of Health and Defence and neither could give us any. That is what drove us into the open market.

176. You did not approach Galway Corporation for land?—Not to my knowledge but I cannot say for certain.

You do not have to get planning permission to erect this station?—No.

You can first go in and build, even if it is against the wishes of the planning officer?—We would not do it without full consultation with them in accordance with section 84 of the Planning and Development Act. We will naturally take account of anything the planning authority has to say.

Chairman.—Would the Deputy want a note on this?

Deputy Molloy.—No. It was fully threshed out last year.

177. —Chairman.—On subhead E.—New Works, Alterations and Additions—we have been supplied with an itemised list of the works involved.* On item 2—Dublin Castle —there is a saving in the amount provided. How did that arise?—This is a saving on the £165,000 provided. The contractor is a very careful man and he has not been able to move as fast as we had expected or hoped. But that is not the only factor. On several occasions during the year, his work was completely interrupted because of functions held in the State apartments. He had to seal off his work for perhaps a week at a time. They are the principal causes.

178. Deputy Crowley.—Who actually makes the decision to carry out this work? —The Department of the Taoiseach are responsible for the State Apartments. Our architects may have to inform them that certain works require to be done from the point of view of maintenance. If they say no they will not be done, but if they say: “We would like them done,” the architects proceed to arrange for a contractor to do them.

179. Chairman.—As regards item No. 13 —State Memorial to the late President J. F. Kennedy—could the accounting officer tell us what the present position is?—The planning of this project is nearly complete. Within a year or so, all the planning will be finished. Working drawings will be available and the next stage will be to ask for authority to look for tenders for the building work.

180. Deputy Kenny.—Have they finally decided on the site?—The original site was in Haddington Road.

Chairman.—Has that been acquired?— It is our own property. The Park property is ours too. We also purchased a number of houses in Northumberland Road, and some small properties in Haddington Road. There has been some second thinking about where the Hall should be sited. It has been suggested it might be in Phoenix Park, and various other suggestions were made, including Marlboro St., and the Blue Coat School.

181. In respect of item 20—New Garda Training Centre, Templemore—have the swimming pool and the ball alley been corrected?—Yes; all is well, I think. Last year the Department of Justice employed a consultant to report on the leak in the swimming pool and the consultant reported that there was nothing wrong with the design, and that the fault was due to quite a small error by one of the contractor’s men. He was also satisfied that the fault had been put right and that the pool would continue to be all right. We are considering what we should do next. There are questions like the fee of the consultant—who should pay it—which have prevented this being finally wound up. There have been no payments since last year and between £15,000 and £20,000 has still to be paid. It will be paid when all these defects have been corrected. We do not anticipate any further difficulties.

182. Deputy Molloy.—Could you tell us the nature of the mistake made?—The defect responsible for the water leakage arose from lack of care on the part of an employee of the building contractor within a very limited area. The defect has been effectively made good by the contractor without expense to the State. The likelihood of further similar leakage in future is negligible and the general prognosis is good.

They do not know what caused the leakage?—They do, but I have not the information at the moment.

Could we have a note on it?—Yes.*

183. Chairman.—The provisional amount for the project was £635.000. Could you tell us what was the original tender for Templemore?—It was not a tender for the same work. That was the difficulty. There were a great number of additional works, and as the project went on, there were more and more works added. I have not got the figure here. This was all reported in a note I sent to the Committee two years ago, and it is on record in the Report. I cannot recollect the figure at the moment.

184. Deputy Cluskey.—Were additional works undertaken without tenders being sought?—Yes.

Were they just given to the original contractor?—The Department of Justice looked after this contract. They employed the architect and they appointed the contractor. We have to pay the money. Apart from that, we have had very little effective control of it.

185. As you were paying the money, did you offer any opinion?—We put all the questions to them in correspondence. Our architects have inspected the site and the works over and over again and they will make a final inspection with the other architect before we pay the final amount.

Up to now there has been no difference of opinion between them and your people? —I do not think so: not that I am aware of.

186. Deputy Molloy.—Is it possible to get the exact cost of the swimming pool or is it incorporated with a lot of other buildings?—I think it is separate. It is probably in the report I mentioned.

It could not very well be if the pool was not finished?—I was thinking of the estimate. The Deputy wants the cost. I shall get it for him.*

Deputy Cluskey.—Would it be possible to get the original tender and each additional item that was added to it and the itemised cost?—We have the estimates for each work. I think there should be no difficulty in getting the actual cost of them also.

Deputy Cluskey.—I mean any additional work requested after the original.

187. Chairman.—Is it the practice of the Board of Works to advertise their work publicly?—When we have work to offer, we always advertise.

188. Have you ever had the practice of submitting a proposed work to a panel of contractors?—That was done once or twice within the past ten years where there was a big job. We invite people to apply to be considered. When we get the applications, the architect advises whether all of them would be competent to do a job of this size. Very often, some of them would not. They are either too small or they have not the equipment or resources of one sort or another.

Was that the position in this case of Templemore?—I think so.

189. On what basis does the architect decide?—The architect would make a report on each of them. He would point out any reason why he thought they would not be competent to undertake a job of this magnitude.

Is he the sole arbiter?—No. Whoever would finally accept the tender would determine whether applicant A or applicant B was not acceptable in the light of what they say in their application and on the architect’s report of their standing.

190. How does the architect judge whether a particular firm should be excluded or otherwise?—Take a man who builds small schools and perhaps small housing schemes. If the architect finds that this man has never done a job before which cost more than, say, £50,000 he would probably recommend that he should not be invited to tender for a job estimated to cost £500,000. It would be rather beyond his experience. That would be one factor. We also get reports on the financial position of people. We have reports on every contractor who has ever worked for us—his financial stability and the amount of work he has in hand for other people. Looking at all these things, the architect can say whether he can take this without danger to himself and without danger to us.

191. In the case of Templemore, it was not one of your own architects that would be making such a report to you. He was appointed by the Department of Justice. It was not an architect who handled this kind of problem previously?—Not for us. He stood in the same position, in relation to the Minister for Justice, as our architects stand in relation to the Office of Public Works.

Your architects would be permanent architects?—Yes.

192. In this case, I understand he was employed in the same capacity by the Department of Justice?—He is not a salaried architect. He is in private practice. We also employ architects in private practice when we get urgent work which our ordinary staff will not be able to do within a reasonable time.

193. Was he in a position to judge?—We must assume he would be as well informed as our own architects.

Are the same means open to him to find out about the standing of people wanting to tender?

194. Deputy Cluskey.—Would the Accounting Officer know the reason for not availing of the architects of the Office of Public Works?—The Department of Justice had asked us to do this for them but they said they must have it within a certain time. Our architects simply could not have done it within the time because they had so many other projects.

195. Chairman.—Could the Accounting Officer give us a breakdown of the professional fees up to date accruing to the staff engaged in the Templemore Barracks? —I have not got it at hand. I can get it and will send a note.*

196. Deputy Cluskey.—You said the architect would make recommendations but would not necessarily decide on the accepting of a particular tender?—The client always has the right in the long run.

In this particular case, that was the Minister for Justice?—Or his advisers. Normally, a Minister would not come in on the acceptance of contracts at all.

Who would?—Normally the Secretary of his Department but it might be somebody down the line. If there is a Contracts Branch in the Department, the Contracts Officer usually has the final say in these matters.

Deputy Molloy.—In your Department, it would be yourself?—Theoretically. We have a Contracts Branch. The authority is delegated to whoever is best competent to discharge it within the organisation.

197. Chairman.—On item 24—Courts of Justice: Renewal of Defective Stonework— has this work begun?—There is a great deal of defective stonework in the Four Courts. Some of it had to be replaced urgently because it was dangerous. The rest is not dangerous but it will have to be replaced. It will not last forever. It will be done as opportunity offers. It will be very slow. All the work required has been identified. It is a question of finding the resources now to get it done.

198. Deputy Kenny.—On item 25A— Additional Accommodation: O’Connell Bridge House, Dublin—I thought that this was a private concern and was rented?—It is. What is provided for here is partitioning, adaptations, and so on. When these people build office buildings they provide a shell with ceilings. Anything else one may require—large rooms, small rooms—one adapts to one’s own requirements. That is what is provided for there.

199. Chairman.—On item 30—Dublin Preventive Centre—what is the nature of that?—That is brought to the stage where we actually have a tender to do the job. We are awaiting final sanction to accept a tender and to go ahead with the project.

What is it?—This is an attempt to deal with some of the problems of juvenile delinquency. The Department of Education have responsibility. They intend to have this centre for dealing with difficult boys who might benefit by going there. It is not a reformatory or anything of that sort. It is a place where their special problems will be stated and they will be helped.

Is it a place of detention, a school?—Yes.

Deputy Cluskey.—Where is it to be situated?—I am not sure. I have an idea but I am not sure and I might mislead you.

200. Deputy Molloy.—The money grant for item 26—Additional Accommodation (Dublin)—Liberty Hall—I presume that is for the same purpose as you explained under item 25A?—That is right.

201. Chairman.—With regard to item 35 (1), (2) and (3)—Veterinary College, Ballsbridge—is there any overlap in the services provided there and the services provided in the veterinary parts of the two universities? —No. 35 (2) has been suspended because of the re-organisation of veterinary services that is going on, and this extension of the Veterinary College at Ballsbridge probably will not be carried out at all now. It has been suspended during the year and very likely it will not go ahead.

202. Deputy Cluskey.—There has been a certain amount of expenditure on it already? —Yes. There is an outside architect employed there and this would be to some extent his fees. Item 35 (1)—New Radiography Unit and Extension of Operating Theatre—is going on. There was some difficulty there; the contractor has not been able to finish it and we are making other arrangements to have it finished.

203. Chairman.—With regard to item 38— Regional Veterinary and Dairy Produce Laboratories—where is that site and what type of work is involved?—There are a number of these. They deal locally with the kind of work that up to now might have been done in Dublin all the time— testing samples and carrying out experiments. One has been finished in Sligo and there are two others at the stage where tenders are being sought in Limerick and Cork, and another one is being planned in Kilkenny.

And where was the work being done heretofore?—Probably a good deal of it was not being done. It is additional work which can be best done in local centres but any that had to be done presumably was sent to Dublin.

204. Deputy Cluskey.—With regard to item 41—Ballyhaise Agricultural School— Sewage Disposal Scheme—is that experimental?—It is still being planned and the architect doing this has also got the Castle on his hands so he can only fit this in in his spare time. It will probably be a bit slow in maturing.

Is it an experimental body?—It is necessary work that has to be done at the agricultural school.

205. Chairman.—With regard to item 45A —Waterford BTE Offices—is this intended to cover the entire county in relation to brucellosis?—No, it is the only one we have here but wherever they have a brucellosis scheme office, they will need accommodation for these other services.

206. Deputy Molloy.—With regard to item 46—Major Fishery Harbours—no estimate has been made in respect of the Galway major fishery harbour or any of the others?—No, because they have not got to this, stage yet. Mr. Bjuke, the fisheries expert, has been there again but the final scheme has not yet been evolved.

So that no estimate is made: does that mean that if a scheme is devised, there will be money available or will they have to wait until the subsequent year?—No, we would not be restricted because there is enough in the work as a whole to cover expenditure on the five during the year.

207. Chairman.—The expenditure on Dunmore East is much higher than on the others—could you say why?—That is getting on very well and should be finished next year. It will be the first one to be completed. Killybegs is going on well also.

208. Deputy Molloy.—Is there any reason why Dunmore East and Killybegs are at such an advanced stage while Galway is the only one in planning?—Howth is also in planning. Dunmore East and Killybegs happened to be the two to get going quickest; we met fewer difficulties. There were tremendous problems in acquiring land in Castletownbere and in Killybegs, and there were other problems.

209. Any of the money contributed by the Department of the Gaeltacht—the work seems to be carried out by the Board of Works—would not be included here? If the Gaeltacht Department are involved in doing work on Kilronan, Aran pier, it would be included in the Gaeltacht Estimate?—We do all these works for them. They have no technical staff of their own.

Mr. Suttle.—The work is done by the Board of Works and the money recovered from the Gaeltacht Vote.

Deputy Molloy.—So it should be here?

Mr. Suttle.—The work is carried out by the Board of Works and the costings recovered from the Gaeltacht Services Vote and charged there.

210. Chairman.—In item 55—Dún Laoghaire Post Office—Improvements—this has been suspended. Is there any special reason?

Mr. Mundow.—The Post Office changed their mind about this and are thinking on some other lines, so this work can be regarded as dropped completely.

211. On item 56—Carlow Post Office and Telephone Exchange—I see that the Estimate is £114,000, while the Estimate for Killarney telephone exchange, which seems to be an equally important town, is only £35,000. Is there a special reason for this? —We do not determine these matters. The Post Office tell us what they want. They tell us the accommodation they require and the services we have to provide for.

Miss Bhreathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais).—There is a new post office in Killarney so a new one would not be wanted. The other is quite a new building.

Mr. Mundow.—Carlow is a complete new office building and telephone exchange, while Killarney is only a telephone exchange and a few additional offices.

212. Deputy Cluskey.—With regard to item 60—Irish Embassy in Washington: Ambassador’s Residence—do the Office of Public Works actually inspect on the spot? —For big works like these, we always send an architect out. He reports on what requires to be done and he supervises it.

213. Deputy Kenny.—Do you do the same thing for all embassies?—If the work is substantial, always.

The embassy in Lagos?—Yes. Our architect was out there. We have been looking for accommodation in Lagos for a number of years, and I know the architect paid one visit there and surveyed the situation. He found out what kind of accommodation he could hope to get and he had negotiations with the Government authorities there. They had a special area set aside for this kind of occupation, by embassies. We got a site there eventually, but the character of this district changed and it was found unsuitable. We had to think again, and buy this residence in another part of the city.

214. Deputy Cluskey.—Who determines the suitability of a particular premises? Would it be the ambassador or the architect?—It should be the Department of External Affairs, with the advice of our architect. Our architect, wherever possible, if it were a question of buying a house, would visit it and give a report on its condition and an estimate of its value, but it is the Minister for External Affairs who decides finally whether it is what he needs. Then, of course, he has to get the sanction of the Minister for Finance for the expenditure.

And your department have no say?—We are advisory. We first get the information and advise.

215. I am trying to relate it to a criticism in the Dáil last week where the point was made that in buying these very large premises, the maintenance and staffing of them creates an internal problem?—It is true that expensive premises require big staffs but that is a matter for External Affairs. The maintenance is ours: we have to provide for maintenance.

This is taken into consideration by the Office of Public Works when advising?— When giving their advice, they should, of course, draw attention to what it will cost to maintain these buildings.

216. On item 31 of Minor New Works— St. Stephen’s Green Park: Site for Fianna Memorial—does the recent memorial to Wolfe Tone actually cut a lump out of St. Stephen’s Green?—It did. The Fianna Memorial is already there.

Is it established as a practice for the future?—I think we now have all or nearly all the memorials that St. Stephen’s Green can justify. There should not be many, if any, more.

217. Your Department are aware that this is a problem?—Very much so. The site is given by the Minister or by the Government.

But the Office of Public Works is responsible for St. Stephen’s Green, as such. Surely you would have a say?—Yes, we are always consulted to see if we can make a site available for a particular project.

The acreage in St. Stephen’s Green is not great?—The Fianna Memorial is a small thing in the new children’s playground.

218. Deputy Kenny.—On item 17 Minor New Works—Castlebar Government Offices: Adaptations, to what Department does that relate? Is it the Garda Barracks?—These are small offices of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Lands and, I think, the Inspector of Taxes. They have been there for many years.

219. Chairman.—Let us now come back to the Vote. Under the Appropriations in Aid, item 3—Sales of property—were estimated at £20,000 and realised £5,703—what sales of property had you in mind that did not eventuate?—That has to be very conjectural. It is very hard to know really what you may have to sell. When preparing the estimates, even for sales which can be foreseen, the legal formalities often make it uncertain when proceeds will come in. Therefore, it is probably the most difficult of all to estimate accurately.

220. Chairman.—Members have received the accounts of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park for the year ended 31st March 1967,* and the Compilation of Property Rentals 1966/67†.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix 4.

* See Appendix 5.

* See Appendix 5.

* See Appendix 5.

* See Appendix 6.

† See Appendix 7.