Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1967 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1965 - 1966

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 16 Feabhra, 1967.

Thursday, 16th February, 1967.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY JONES in the chair.

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

VOTE 34—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Mr. J. White called and examined.

108. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead A—Salaries and Wages—there has been a very big advance in salaries and wages from £12,818 in 1964-65 to £17,446 this year. Does that mean increased staff or increased wages or is it both?

Mr. White.—A combination of both. Salaries and wages were raised by 16 per cent in January of last year. This accounts for a very considerable increase in the total amount. In addition, we have increased our staff in the Gallery. When I came there the administrative side of the staff was three and now it is six. It is extremely small compared with, for instance, the Museum where the administrative staff is 16. This increase of 16 per cent accounts for the rise. I give you that figure without being sure of its accuracy.

Mr. Suttle.—There were certain arrears there also.

Deputy P. Hogan.—I am sure this has been asked before. The increase is almost divided between Vote 51—Remuneration— and the Vote we are discussing?

Mr. Suttle.—That is a general provision. When there is a general increase in Civil Service rates of pay it takes place from a current date. The Estimates are passed a considerable time before that. Instead of revising each individual Estimate and having Supplementaries for each one, we take one Vote for the whole lot, in this year Vote 51 and pay out of that the increases necessary on each Vote.

Deputy P. Hogan.—Provided they are increases?

Mr. Suttle.—Instead of Supplementaries for each individual Vote, we take one Vote for the whole lot.

109. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead B— Purchase and Repair of Pictures (Grant-in-Aid)—the grant is £2,500. Is that sufficient, Mr. White?—No, I would not consider it sufficient at all. In fact, it is really a token. It compares, for instance, with the grants given in other countries in this way. The National Gallery in London receives £500,000 where we receive £2,500. I could give you figures for all over the world. This token figure has been given practically since the institution of the State. It is all we have from the State to purchase pictures and acquire works of art. If we were depending on such sums only and were not helped by the generosity of others, we would have no Gallery.

110. What I had in mind was the repair and maintenance of pictures. I was wondering if anything was suffering as a result of the lack of funds?—Since last year we have instituted a now fully operating Department of Restoration, which you will see at subhead E. When the Government gave us the funds to inaugurate this Department we were able to transfer some of the work that would have been done under that head. Not that we did much. Funds would not permit it. Now that we are coping ourselves with the pictures, there should be no occasion to fear any damage in the future.

111. Chairman.—Is there any difference between the repair of pictures and the conservation of them?—The word “conservation” is the general word used to cover the preservation of pictures. “Repair” is objected to by these gentlemen in the conservation world because it tends to imply that damage has necessarily been caused. To conserve is to preserve. Naturally, pictures suffer from the defects of time without any particular injury being attributable to any particular event. Of course, you can have a repair. When somebody hits a picture with an umbrella it has to be repaired. But where the canvas has just grown thin from time or the varnish has darkened and there is an accumulation of dust, this has to be removed and fresh varnish put on. They would regard the second as conservation and the first as repair.

112. In relation to the question Deputy Briscoe raised, what is the income from the Shaw Bequest now?—I regret, as I understand the situation, that I am not allowed to answer that question. The last time the Minister was asked that question in the Dáil he gave an approximate figure of £500,000 which had been received. I think that goes back about two years. Please do not take these figures to be accurate because I am speaking from memory. The funds from the Shaw Bequest have been coming in to some extent continuously, but at a less rapid rate. There is every indication now that the river is drying up. My Fair Lady has gone into the smaller places and the earnings are very low.

113. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead E. —Conservation of Works of Art—I notice that the expenditure of £2,000 was less than granted. Does that mean there was not sufficient staff to get around to doing the work?—No. The answer to that is a very tragic one for us. We have suffered greatly by it. The Department of Finance will not allow us to keep any money after 1st April. In this case we got a grant of over £2,500 for materials from the Department. Unfortunately, certain suppliers did not send forward our requirements in time and in fact some of the materials were on the quayside in Dublin and in spite of our impassioned appeals to the Department of Finance, they took back the money at the end of the year because it had not been spent. We had a great problem in the following year because this money had to be asked for again and it has not been given.

Had the materials to go back?—No, we were treated rather decently by the suppliers and we are pushing everything forward.

Mr. Suttle.—This is normal Government accounting and the only way to get over it would be to convert that grant into a grant-in-aid.

Mr. White.—If we had our whole Vote as a grant-in-aid, we could push it on to the next year.

Chairman.—That is material for Deputies for the House.

114. Deputy P. Hogan.—Would the Department object to a grant-in-aid?

Mr. Suttle.—Not really.

The Comptroller and Auditor General’s supervision, I presume, is the same in one case as in the other?—Yes. There would not be any real objection.

Mr. White, is the expenditure on salaries included in that—No, it is purely materials.

Mr. Suttle.—Inevitably between one year and another you will obviously have a carryover in materials that will not be paid for. But, in fact, you will get your full £2,500 from year to year.

Mr. White.—That is very consoling.

Deputy Briscoe.—Would the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Department of Finance object if the National Gallery preferred to have their money as a grant-in-aid in spite of the fact that they get the money anyway?

Mr. Suttle.—It would not be good policy or practice to put the whole Vote as a grant-in-aid but I do not think there would be any objection to putting that subhead as a grant-in-aid.

Mr. J. Whelan (Department of Finance). —I do not think there would be any objection to the subhead being made a grant-in-aid. After all, subhead B which is somewhat analogous is already a grant-in-aid. I think the Department of Finance would agree, if approached, to subhead E becoming a grant-in-aid.

Chairman.—I take it, if Deputies would pursue this matter in the House, the Department of Finance would not raise any objection to a grant-in-aid.

Deputy Briscoe.—And this is what the National Gallery would prefer?

Mr. White.—It would be, as a scientific Department needing a great amount of materials all the time, varnishes, solvents, canvas and stretchers etc. If it could be treated as a grant-in-aid the Department could order and keep up supplies. The money could only be spent on supplies and if there was a saving it could be reflected into the following year.

115. Deputy Healy.—Could I ask Mr. White what percentage of his total stock of pictures is actually on exhibition? How many pictures are not shown at all and are stored away because there is no available space?—The answer is not one I can give in percentages immediately but I can give it in approximate figures. We show approximately 700 paintings and roughly 300 drawings and water colours. Our stock is in the region of 7,000 so that approximately 15 per cent are on view.

116. Chairman.—Am I right in saying that the space problem is being solved, that the additions to the Gallery will mean extra space?—Yes, the extension now being built will undoubtedly provide us with an opportunity to show almost twice as many works. That will still mean we are showing only 30 per cent.

Deputy Healy.—I am naturally concerned —of course this is a matter of policy—to have some pictures shown at other centres. I have a question for the Minister on this matter next week.

Chairman.—We mentioned it in the last Report.

Deputy Healy.—We did. I understand the main objection is insurance.

117. Deputy Burke.—Do you alternate the pictures on show?—We do some alternating but it must, in general, be understood that in a National Gallery like ours we have a very large proportion of pictures which would not be shown in any case. People leave bequests of pictures and so on, works that would never need to be shown. We must preserve these as records, portraits of men and pictures of places which are useful for historical purposes just as books are useful to the National Library. There are many books which must be preserved even though nobody now wants to read them. So also we have many pictures that nobody wants to see.

What would be the percentage of pictures that you would normally not show even if you had accommodation?—Between 30 per cent and 40 per cent. We have a high percentage of works that would be interesting that we cannot show.

118. Chairman.—How are you getting on with the inventory?—I brought with me a sample of what we are doing. It means that every work of art has to be described, the artist has to be properly described and the dates given. Details are provided of every picture. Last year I think I said we would have it completed by the time I was called here again but I did not appreciate that I would be called within six months instead of a year. When we have these finished they will be printed and they will be used as the basis for a full catalogue which will give complete details of every work. We will be completely finished with the drawings by the end of the summer. We will have one catalogue of all the prints and then we have to deal with the engravings, the etchings and the sculpture. We have a woman employed all the time typing these cards.

Deputy Briscoe.—It will be interesting when you do not know who the artists are?—We have to consult experts in various fields. Sometimes we are fortunate enough to have visiting experts who can answer questions. No one is an expert in every field.

119. Deputy Molloy.—The note on Appropriations in Aid reads: “Increase in receipts due to greater sales of photographic reproductions”, and the note on subhead C refers to greatly increased photographic expenses due to a greater public demand for photographic prints. Is the cost of reproducing these borne by the people purchasing them?—Perhaps I might be able to explain this. This is a question of great expense to any art institute. We share a photographer with the Board of Works, the man who does the public monuments. Therefore we have him on a part-time basis and not on a full-time basis. We pay him for work done. When a work is being photographed for the first time he must set up his equipment in the Gallery. He does a number at a time. He supplies four prints and a negative for each work done and for this he charges between 35/- and £2 which is not expensive. We sell our prints to the public for 5/- each. We make a small profit. We really have to sell eight prints to make a profit on each picture. There is an extraordinary demand for them. We send out over 100 photographs a month.

Deputy Briscoe.—Do you get many requests for slides?—There are a number of requests for slides but we are rather bad about supplying them. We have now got a film strip which shows a group of pictures. In collaboration with the National Film Institute we have done a film strip of Dutch paintings and one of Italian paintings. These can be purchased for 25/- together with an explanatory book. We have transparencies. Some of them are mounted and they cost 2/6 each.

Deputy Molloy.—You said you are sending out 100 photographs a month at 5/- a picture?—How much have you realised through the sale of these pictures? Is that amount showing?—If we send out 100 photographs a month that does not necessarily mean that we get in £100. We often have to send photographs, for which we cannot charge, to other museums and Government Departments if they ask for a photograph as they frequently do. There is also Radio Éireann and Telefís Éireann and they ask us for photographs. In fact, Telefís Éireann are always asking us for photographs. Frequently they return them. This means, however, that we have a certain expenditure for which we do not get a satisfactory return.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 26—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.

120. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead B— Travelling and Incidental Expenses—the Estimates from last year have been increased from £56,400 to £81,500. Is that increased salaries or increased rates?

Mr. Suttle.—Increased rates.

Chairman.—Nobody wants to ask you any questions, Mr. Martin.—I am considerably relieved.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 8—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. H. J. Mundow called and examined.

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

“Subhead D—Purchase of Sites and Buildings

17. In 1961 the Commissioners sought to purchase half an acre of land in Galway as a site for a Fisheries Research Station but the matter fell through in 1963. At that stage the Fisheries Division suggested that 4½ acres near Merlin Park, Galway, might be considered and following protracted negotiation this site was purchased in 1966 for £9,000 plus fees. A deposit of £1,000 paid in the year under review was charged to this subhead.

I observed from the relevant papers that it had come to notice in 1964 that the Minister for Health had sold for £400 each three lots of land—containing 9, 10 and 11 acres approximately—on the Merlin Park estate not far from the 4½ acre site referred to above. I inquired whether the Commissioners had consulted other government departments in an effort to locate a site. I also inquired regarding the circumstances in which an area of 4½ acres was purchased when half an acre was originally considered sufficient.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—The Accounting Officer’s reply indicates that the sites referred to in the paragraph would not, for a number of reasons, have been suitable for the Research Station. To go back to the history of Merlin Park, 340 acres were originally purchased, of which 150 acres were transferred to the Health Authority. This area included land surplus to the sanatorium’s requirements. As this surplus land was on a road frontage, it was decided to transfer it to the sanatorium to prevent its undesirable development. The area required for the Research Station was finally assessed as approximately two acres, and it is possible that a suitable site could have been provided from the land transferred to the sanatorium.

122. Chairman.—Is it not the usual practice to consult other Departments when surplus lands are available for disposal?—

Mr. Mundow.—This was done. The Departments of Health and Defence were consulted when we were looking for land. Defence had no land to offer and Health told us about those properties in Merlin Park. They had been sold in 1961. When we were looking for land the purchasers were in possession. The agreement to sell was made in 1961 and so we were too late. Even if we had not been too late, the land would not have been suitable. There were no services in it and no access to it. It was rocky and would not be suitable for a research station.

Mr. Suttle.—The only difficulty I see is that in transferring the lands to the health authority for the sanatorium they gave them more than they required. This particular surplus land had road frontage. It had all facilities and was transferred purely to prevent other people developing it in an undesirable manner. I feel the site for the research station could have been obtained, with complete services, approach road and everything else out of this surplus land.

Mr. Mundow.—I have no information about that. I am told that a research station might be looked on very badly near a hospital.

Deputy Molloy.—It would not be near a hospital.—I do not know the lay-out.

Chairman.—When the Department of Health were attempting to dispose, did they inform other Departments that they had land for sale?—We always ask every Department when we have surplus property whether they have any use for it. I do not know that the Department of Health consulted us when they had surplus land but when we came to consult them the land was no longer available.

123. Have you any explanation of the vast difference in price when you were buying and when Health were selling; there is a big difference?—It is not unprecedented that when the Board of Works are looking for property the price goes up.

This is £9,000 as against £400?—Yes.

Deputy Briscoe.—When the Minister for Health sold, was the sale put up to public tender?

124. Deputy Molloy.—To whom was it sold—to a private individual or to another Department? There were three lots of 9, 10 and 11 acres each sold for £400.

Mr. Suttle.—I am informed that the plots of 9, 10 and 11 acres on the Merlin Park property which were sold by the Department of Health would be unsuitable for a Fisheries Research Station. They are rocky; they have no road frontage; they can be reached only by a right-of-way through adjoining property, and they have no water or sewerage services.

Deputy Molloy.—There is a water and sewerage service to the hospital. It would not be a great task to extend these services to any part of this site, which I am told is now 150 acres. Even if you took these three parcels out of the 150 acres, there would still be enough left for a research station.

Mr. Suttle.—The total amount of land purchased at Merlin Park was 340 acres and the land transferred to the Health Authority amounted to 150 acres.

Deputy Molloy.—Why was this more suitable than the land at Merlin Park? There is only a road dividing them.

Chairman.—Might I explain that Deputy Molloy knows the ground; Mr. Mundow does not. Deputy Molloy is from the spot and knows it.

125. Deputy Molloy.—I do not know exactly where the fisheries site is located but there is only a road dividing Murrough and Merlin Park. There is a vast amount of land belonging to the Department of Health on the Merlin Park side of the road. Surely today there is a site available there at a cost a lot less than £9,000?—Our architects searched for a long time trying to find a site in Galway. The original site of half an acre would not be enough. The opportunity of acquiring other land adjacent and reclaiming it would provide a reasonably large site for the project. When they could not get the half acre they had instructions to search the whole of Galway for a suitable site. This went on for a very long time. Only in the last resort did they find this piece of land. The owner was in a strong position to press for a very high price.

126. Chairman.—At that stage there was a half acre required for a research station. What is it proposed to do with the surplus land?—Half an acre was originally considered, and on the face of it four and a half acres looks a bit excessive. Any land not required for the Research Station is available for any other Government purpose. It might be a school, I do not know. It might be a Garda station or any Government office set up in Galway.

Deputy Healy.—The ideal solution would be to get rid of the four acres for £8,000 and keep the half acre we want.

Deputy P. Hogan.—The four and a half acres were bought from a private individual?—Yes.

Deputy Molloy.—If you were to sell that four and a half acres tomorrow you would not get £9,000 for it?—I would like to feel we would.

127. Deputy Kenny.—Were the three parcels of land sold to the one individual or to three different individuals?—I think they were different individuals.

Had any of those individuals rights of way to any of these parcels of land?—Apparently there were no rights of way except to adjoining properties.

That is what I mean. Did any of the purchasers own the rights of way?—I could not say.

That may have been the cause of the prices?—Yes.

128. Deputy Briscoe.—Were these put up for public tender?

Chairman.—Mr. Mundow is not responsible for Health. We will have to come back to Health to find out how this happened.

Deputy Healy.—I would like if you would take a note of it so that we could raise it.

Chairman.—We could bring back the Accounting Officer of the Department of Health.

Deputy Molloy.—I asked this question when the Health people were here and they said they were not responsible, that it was Galway County Council.

Mr. Suttle.—Merlin Park, as it stands at at the moment, is owned by the Department of Health with 150 acres of land. The rest of the land was sold by the Department of Health. This land was bought originally out of Hospitals Trust money. One hundred and ninety acres of the land originally purchased with Hospitals Trust money and sold to the Department of Health was found to be surplus to the requirements of the sanatorium. The moneys arising from that went back to the Hospitals Trust Fund.

129. Deputy P. Hogan.—Surely it received the sanction of the Department of Health?

Mr. Suttle.—It was under the Department of Health. They were handed over the sanatorium with 150 acres.

Deputy Healy.—Could Mr. Suttle tell us how did the local authority get in on it?

Mr. Suttle.—On the sale of the 150 acres? That would be with the sanction of the Minister.

Deputy Molloy.—I thought the lands mentioned in this were part of the hospital grounds. They are not?

Mr. Suttle.—No.

Deputy Briscoe.—From whom did the Commissioners purchase this four and a half acres for £9,000?

Chairman.—Generally we do not disclose names.

Deputy Briscoe.—Who set the valuation at £9,000?

130. Chairman.—Evidently, the owner set the valuation at £9,000 and the Office of Public Works bought it for that figure. Is that not correct, Mr. Mundow?—We tried very hard to get it at a lower price. We were under great pressure to get on with the fisheries research station. The pressure was coming from all quarters.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—When they knew you were interested in it?—It was bound to go up.

131. Deputy Molloy.—It is very difficult to accept the statement that this four and a half acre site was bought with a view to its being used by other Government Departments. The fisheries station required only half an acre and four acres would be available for any other Department who wished to build something. It is completely out of the way.

Mr. Suttle.—I understand that the fishery research station actually required approximately two acres. The half acre was only a basic thing. They intended extending from that.

Deputy Molloy.—It still leaves two and a half acre surplus which I do not think it was necessary to buy in this particular area? —Mr. Mundow.—The owner would not sell part. We tried to get him to sell only the amount required, but he refused. He was in a pretty strong position. He said selling a portion was no use to him, that he must have all or sell all.

132. Deputy Briscoe.—What would the valuation be by a property valuer?—We always get our own valuer to value these properties. He is bound by the ordinary rules and not by the opportunities of the moment.

Deputy Molloy.—These lands bought for the research station are actually outside the Galway Borough area. An Foras Tionscal recently bought land in Galway for the industrial estate and other factories. This land was very near Galway city and they paid only £1,200 per acre. The land we are discussing is two miles beyond that. I cannot see how it could have this value.

Chairman.—At the moment we are discussing this matter and may comment on it, but there is no question being addressed to Mr. Mundow.

Deputy Briscoe.—It seems an unnecessary loss of public money.

Chairman.—The Committee is quite free make any comment it wishes. All I am pointing out is that we are not addressing any specific question to Mr. Mundow at the moment.

133. Deputy Molloy.—Could compulsory purchase powers have been used to purchase a site?

Mr. Mundow.—No. We have not got them.

Deputy P. Hogan.—Could the county council not use its compulsory powers to facilitate the Department?

Chairman.—We are beginning to theorise at this stage. We shall leave that paragraph but we can come back to it later.

134. Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead E—New Works, Alterations and Additions

18. The charge to the subhead comprises £2,259,100 expended on general architectural and engineering works, and £3,122,470 in respect of grants towards the erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools, as compared with £1,738,062 and £2,928,914, respectively, in the previous year.”

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph was put in to show roughly how much was spent on national schools as against other works.

Chairman.—Have you any idea, Mr. Mundow, in regard to the erection of national schools, what is the cost of accommodation per pupil?

Mr. Mundow.—It used to be fairly steady at £100 but it has gone up in recent years and I think now it would be nearer to £120. It varies widely from that but it is roughly £115 to £120 for the schools we build.

135. Chairman.—Paragraph 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“19. School grants amounting to £1,837,190 were paid to managers who undertook responsibility for having the works carried out, and £1,285,280 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:—

”

Mr. Suttle.—That paragraph and the tabular statement provide somewhat more detailed information in relation to expenditure on school plans.

Deputy P. Hogan.—This table shows the expenditure sanctioned, I take it, not necessarily paid in that particular year?

Mr. Mundow.—Yes.

136. —Taking 1964-65 the total grant was £4,086,532; in 1965-66 it dropped to £2,518,239. Does that represent a change of policy?

No. The Department of Education authorises a new school or an improvement to an old school and we give an estimate of what that is going to cost. The sum of all those estimates is what you find in the first column. It may be several years before a particular school comes to be built, before the manager gets a site and plans are worked out and other arrangements made. There is very little connection between the figures in the first column and those in the second and fourth columns.

Mr. Suttle.—There is a relation but not in actual expenditure. These figures are for grants and not expenditure. They are directly related to estimated costs.

Deputy P. Hogan.—They are a declaration of intention?

Mr. Mundow.—Yes.

That shows that the intention in 1965-66 was less generous than in 1964-65?

Mr. Suttle.—That would be a matter for the Department of Education rather than for Mr. Mundow.

Mr. Mundow.—To some extent it was catching up on arrears. A lot of the grants allocated had not been spent. In 1965-66 we spent more money on school buildings than ever before. Costs were higher in 1965-66.

Deputy Healy.—That is borne out by 1961-62 where you see the same difference between the estimate and the expenditure. It is not a steady sum each year, naturally enough.

137. Chairman.—Could you give any basis on which additional grants are sanctioned?

Mr. Mundow.—The minimum grant is two-thirds. That is the normal. The additional grants depend on local circumstances. The manager has to make a case to the Department of Education. If he comes from a very poor parish where it is not easy to collect money, or perhaps not fair, then he can make a case for a much higher grant.

It is on the basis of representation?—Yes, to the Department of Education.

138. Chairman.—Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“20. Reference was made in paragraph 19 of my previous report to the prototype school erected at Ballyboghill, Co. Dublin, in an effort to devise a faster and more economical method of building national schools. As the experiment was considered to be generally successful tenders were sought from building contractors for the erection on a prefabricated basis, under one bulk contract, of twenty-one national schools in three counties. The result was disappointing. The tenders were unexpectedly high and consequently it was decided not to proceed with the proposal to build under bulk contract. The charge to the subhead includes £3,000 paid on account of fees for the preparation of bills of quantities for the project.”

Mr. Suttle.—I considered that it would be of interest to the Committee to learn the outcome of the experiment referred to in previous reports.

139. Chairman.—The tenders were unexpectedly high. Is there any explanation for that?

Mr. Mundow.—We were most disappointed by the outcome. We thought having got the prototype school built at Ballyboghill—which everybody, managers and teachers, regarded as successful and attractive—that we should try to get a considerable number of these built at the same time by a single contractor and that this would make it cheaper to build individual schools because the contractor could organise his workers better. He would not have idle periods for carpenters, plasterers and other workers. He could organise everything better. We expected that the total cost of the 21 schools would be less than that of 21 separate contracts. In fact, it was very different. Our own estimate was based on our normal experience of what it should have cost and the lowest tender was 50 per cent higher than that The highest tender was more than two and a half times our estimate. In view of that we could not accept the principle of bulk tenders. We had tried it in Donegal with similar results but we thought that the area was too small to warrant us coming to a final conclusion. We decided to experiment on a large scale and the outcome was very disappointing. It suggests that the small works contractor does as good a job as anybody else.

Deputy Molloy.—Hear, hear.

Mr. Mundow.—As far as our schools are concerned.

Deputy Briscoe.—To what did the Department attribute the higher cost?—Mainly overheads and profits. The smaller contractor may be less ambitious in those respects.

140. Chairman.—Linking this back with paragraphs 18 and 19, what level of control do you exercise over these individual schools to ensure uniformity in regard to range of prices?—We have standard plans which are used in all the smaller schools. They are adapted to the needs of a particular site and there is a good deal of variety. The manager who wants the school is given a plan. The architect keeps in touch with the job all the time from the moment the site is selected and approved. He then supervises along with a clerk of works who supervises the building in detail. They see that what has been decided on is built and the final account is not approved until they certify that everything is in order. There have been occasional exceptions where things have gone wrong but taken in the total context of thousands of schools, their number is small.

141. In regard to this particular paragraph which refers to the preparation of bills of quantities, can these bills of quantities be used again if you proceed again with those schools that were in the bulk tenders?—Yes, to a limited extent only. It was found possible to utilise sections of the bills of quantities referring to three and four roomed schools and it may be possible to use them for others. Up to date I think eight of the 21 schools have been finished or are on the way to being finished and the actual cost of those as compared with the bulk tender cost shows a reduction of nearly £50,000. That is in what they actually cost compared with what would have been paid under bulk tenders.

Chairman.—It says something for the small man?—That is our experience.

142. Deputy Molloy.—I should like to ask something about the regional technical colleges which I understand are being designed by consortium.

Chairman.—The Deputy is looking ahead.

Deputy Molloy.—This prefabrication has not been a success and how do we know this will be a success?

Chairman.—The time to raise that is in the Dáil on the Estimate for the Department of Education?—Did I mislead the Deputy about the failure of the bulk tenders? It was a tender failure, not a prefabrication failure.

Deputy Molloy.—We are only interested in the cost eventually.

Chairman.—I am sure we will have a lot to say to the Minister for Education on this matter when we get to the Estimate for the Department of Education. At a later stage we may ask Mr. Mundow to come back on this matter.

Deputy Molloy.—I hope in the not too distant future.

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

“21. The project for the conversion of Templemore Military Barracks into a training centre for Garda recruits was referred to in previous reports. Expenditure during the year amounted to £20,742 bringing the total to 31st March, 1966, to £617,634 including £57,906 for fees paid to architects, quantity surveyors, etc. I understand that the swimming pool has not been satisfactorily completed and that payments to the contractor have been withheld.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have nothing further to add.

144. Chairman.—Templemore has been on the map for a long time. Is the final cost available?—It is held up at the moment, because of the swimming pool problem. We decided to stop any further payments in the course of last year because we felt there might be a problem to be investigated—possibly the design or the works were defective. The pool leaked, as Deputies know. The leak has now been fixed and the pool is operating. We felt that possibly the leak might develop again. Some people think this is due to subsidence and in that event it could happen again. The Department of Justice got authority to get an independent consultant to report on the design and the work before any further payment was made. That is why there has been no expenditure in the past few months.

145. Deputy Molloy.—Do I understand that the fault has been rectified but the cause of the fault has not yet been determined?—It has been determined. We found what was causing it but we do not know whether that is the only thing causing it.—

What did you find?—There was subsidence, as I mentioned. Whether it should have been anticipated is something I am not competent to comment upon. The Department of Justice are in close touch with the details of this. They employed the contractor and the architect.

Chairman.—Mr. Berry will be coming in and we can ask him.

146. Deputy Briscoe.—Where will the liability lie if it is proved through the consultant that the design would never work?— In that event I think the Department of Justice would have a right of action against the architect and if he could prove that his design was not faulty I presume he could take action against the contractor. State funds will certainly not be used if we can show that the fault was due to some outside person.

Deputy Molloy.—There was a clause in the contract covering faults in the building, was there?—That is the normal thing.

For how many years?—Any structure must be accepted by the client before final payments are made. The contractor must produce the building that was specified.

Chairman.—The Office of Public Works is not responsible for the architect’s design.

Deputy P. Hogan.—I understand that the Department of Justice employed the architect and appointed the contractor. Is that a departure from established practice?

Chairman.—We had that here before and it was accepted as being a departure.

147. Deputy Molloy.—What supervision have the Board of Works over the pool and the other buildings?—This was an exceptional departure. At that time our architects could not have taken on this project. It would have had to be deferred for a couple of years because they had so much work on hands. The Department of Justice were not prepared to wait and got the authority to employ their own architect. He nominated a contractor after advertising for tenders. We have no responsibility but we were consulted and our architects helped when the problem in the swimming pool developed. Our architects saw it and made suggestions about what might be done. Normally we would have full responsibility for works we are doing ourselves.

Deputy P. Hogan.—The Board of Works have no supervisory function at all?

148. Deputy Molloy.—Should not the Board of Works have appointed a clerk of works?—We did.

You had supervision?—Day to day supervision of the work done by the clerk of works who by arrangement with the Department of Justice was appointed by the Office of Public Works but he was responsible and answerable to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Suttle.—You only paid him.

Chairman.—He was answerable to the architect who designed it.

149. Deputy Briscoe.—How much does the payment owing to the contractor amount to?

Chairman.—The withheld payments?—I have not got the exact figure. It was between £10,000 and £20,000.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is that contractor in the meantime carrying out other works or is he suspended temporarily?—He is working away. He is completing various jobs.

150. Deputy P. Hogan.—How much was the original tender?

Mr. Suttle.—£400,000, speaking from memory.

Chairman.—Do you mean the original estimate?—The original estimate was for less work than has been carried out. There were additional works which increased the cost well above the original tender.

Deputy P. Hogan.—How much were the original estimate and tender?

Mr. Mundow.—The original amount sanctioned by the Department of Finance for the project was £435,000.

151. Chairman.—Paragraph 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows.:

“22. 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 31st March, 1966, some 360 houses were completed and a further 90 houses were in course of construction. The total amount charged to the vote, including £245,000 paid in the year of account, amounted to £920,120. Some of the houses have been taken over recently by the Commissioners following completion of legal and other investigations.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph summarises the progress of the building programme to provide such houses.

Chairman.—Are all completed houses now occupied? I assume they are because they were badly needed.

152. Deputy P. Hogan.—They have not been taken over by the Commissioners?— We take them over for maintenance once the National Building Agency certifies they are completed. The legal transfer of title follows as opportunity offers. We are not rushing them because it is accepted that once the National Building Agency certifies a house is completed and they have made final payments to the contractor the house is then State property. The legal formalities of completing the title take time. The Finance solicitor is very busy and he says he can only do this as the opportunity presents itself. It does not give rise to any difficulty that we are aware of because the idea is to make sure the houses are properly maintained once they are handed over. We expect a minimum of maintenance before the title is transferred.

It is stated that some of the houses have been taken over recently by the Commissioners following investigations. What does “taken over” mean?—It means that we are responsible for maintenance, painting, repairs, and so on.

153. Deputy Molloy.—Does the Office of Public Works apply for planning permission when they intend to erect new buildings, the same as the ordinary individual? Are you bound to apply for planning permission to erect guards’ houses and other public buildings?—I am not certain. We always consult the local authorities.

This would not make the general public aware of your intentions. You do not put notice in the newspapers of your intention to build?—I believe we do not; we do not come under the obligation to do so.

154. Chairman.—Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:

“23. The installation of a passenger lift in the Office of Public Works was completed during the year at a cost of approximately £16,000. I noticed that the original estimate in 1962 was £4,000 and having regard to the importance, from the point of view of financial control, of realistic estimates as a basis for authorising expenditure, I invited the observations of the Accounting Officer. He informed me that the estimate was made on the assumption that certain walls were sound but when work started serious defects were discovered in them which necessitated drastic changes in the design of the lift shaft construction. He added that the risk of encountering structural and other defects is ever present in alterations to old buildings and estimates must accordingly be regarded as provisional; also that none of the work carried out could have been avoided and its cost was reasonable.

Subhead F.1—Maintenance and Supplies

24. Reference was made in paragraph 22 of my previous report to the time and materials contract for repair work to eradicate dry rot and woodworm at the North Wing of the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham. The cost of the project was originally estimated at from £20,000 to a maximum of £40,000. The work, which commenced in 1957 and is now nearing completion, has already cost about £180,000 and because of the excess of cost over estimate I invited the observations of the Accounting Officer. I was informed that estimates can be but provisional when eradication of dry rot or extensive adaptations and repair of old buildings is involved. Also that only minimal allowance had been made for restoration work on the 136 feet high tower and on an extensive area of moulded stone work 90 feet above ground level because from the visual inspections which had been made it seemed reasonable to assume that those parts did not require attention but, in the event, heavy expenditure on them was unavoidable. The Accounting Officer also stated that there was no doubt that all the work on the building was essential and the cost was considered reasonable.

25. In another case involving the eradication of dry rot in the Limerick Custom House, a building two hundred years old, the estimate was £7,000 and the final cost £28,600. Again I was informed that estimates of such work must be regarded as provisional, that the work was done in the most economical manner possible and that the building was now considered good for another hundred years.”

Have you anything further to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—In these paragraphs, one underlying principle is involved, namely, the necessity to ensure that original estimates for reconstruction work or work involving the eradication of dry rot or adaptations and repairs of old buildings, are realistic. Decisions to go ahead with such work must primarily have regard to the ultimate cost involved, apart from other possible considerations, and consequently faulty estimating can involve the State in heavy and unexpected outlay. A disturbing feature of the out-turn of the three projects covered by the paragraphs is that in each case expenditure was at least four times the amount of the original estimate.

155. Chairman.—In regard to the question raised in these three paragraphs, Mr. Mundow, is there evidence to suggest that the original surveys were superficial, particularly with regard to the tower at Kilmainham?—I do not think so. It is impossible to carry out a complete survey until you have stripped and exposed the timbers. It is only when you have exposed them right through the building that you realise the full extent of the dry rot.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is it the actual exposure of the timbers that costs money? You try to estimate, and when you have started the work and have discovered a lot more dry rot do you revise your estimate?—Only mentally; you could not revise it. When you find there is more dry rot, then there is no limit to the extent of dry rot there may be in the whole building.

You could never cut your losses, even though you have spent £70,000? — That might be the best thing to do.

156. Chairman.—In regard to Kilmainham, is the tower not over 100 feet high? What kind of survey was made of the tower at that stage. Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General says that only minimal allowance had been made for restoration work on the 136-feet-high tower. It is reasonable to assume that those parts did not require attention but that, in the event, heavy expenditure on them was unavoidable? — Work which involves the eradication of dry rot, or adaptation of old buildings can only be provisional. This is true even if the fabric of the structure is first opened up and a separate contract is placed for the restoration work. In the Royal Hospital, apart from the great extent of hidden dry rot infestation, factors such as restoration work on the 136 feet high Tower which is a feature of the building and the renewal of an extensive area of moulded stonework at a height of 90 feet over ground level added substantially to the cost. In the framing of the original estimate only minimal allowance was made for such contingencies because from the visual inspections which had been made it seemed reasonable to assume that those parts of the building did not require attention. In the event, heavy expenditure on them was unavoidable.

157. Did those carrying out the inspection climb this tower and inspect it?—They would have had to erect scaffolding to do that.

They did not do that?—No.

Was the inspection made from the ground?—They use binoculars when looking at heights, but they do not erect scaffolding at the site except in special circumstances.

158. I was wondering what the reaction is of a man who has given a certain estimated figure and he then finds he made a mistake; does it end there?—No, we harry him. We have had a number of such cases. There is the case of the lift in our own building. Shelton Abbey is another. We call for an explanation, and we impress on the architects that in future they must realise that it must not happen. They should in future cases warn the client that the estimate is the best they can make at the moment but that it is likely to be exceeded.

Deputy Kenny.—Do your architects estimate for other people?— They are our own architects. Occasionally we have done a job for outside people. Ballintubber Abbey was one case.

159. Chairman.—In paragraph 25 of the Report there is another case where the estimate was £7,000. The final cost was £28,000. Does this building accommodate all the customs staff in Limerick?—I am told the Limerick Custom House is a Georgian building. We could have knocked it down and built something more useful. But there is an atmosphere about Georgian buildings which one does not like to run against too often.

Deputy Briscoe.—The people who shout the most are the people who do not pay anything?—That was the last straw in the recent group of incidents. We will be very careful in future before taking on adaptations and renewals.

160. Chairman.—Was this point of Georgian buildings in Limerick raised in regard to it? Was it a factor?—Yes, I gather the architects felt they had a duty to preserve it. Apparently, there are not many buildings of this quality in Limerick. It was felt this one ought to be preserved.

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

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

26. The charge to the subhead in respect of major construction works in progress during the year amounted to £1,079,620. In addition, the value of stores issued, charges for the use of plant and certain Engineers’ salaries and travelling expenses were assessed at £671,161. The cost of each scheme to 31 March 1966 was:—

The balance of the charge to the subhead is made up of sums amounting to £49,755 in respect of intermediate or minor schemes and £4,837 being remanets of expenditure on completed major schemes.”

Mr. Suttle.—The paragraph shows the total cost of works in progress up to 31st March, 1966. From comparison with the figures of estimated cost the approximate progress position for each scheme is ascertainable.

162. Chairman.—In regard to the Inny I notice the expenditure to the 31st March exceeded the Estimate by over £100,000. Is this project nearly finished?

Mr. Mundow.—Very nearly finished. I do not think that is the present Estimate. That may have been the original estimate. Increased wages and other things have increased the estimates in all these cases. It is expected to finish this year.

163. Deputy Kenny.—Judging from the figures, is the work on the Moy almost completed?—Again, the estimate has to be revised because of wage increases. The Moy is not finished. It will hardly finish this year. Probably next year.

Chairman.—We turn now to the Vote itself.

164. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead A— Office of Public Works: Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is again a big increase from £750,000 last year to over £1 million this year. That represents chiefly salary and wage increases and staff increases?—Yes, salaries and wages entirely.

165. Deputy Briscoe.—On subhead B— Office of Public Works: Travelling and Incidental Expenses—how many officials would this sum of money represent?— Several hundred. All our architects and engineers are travelling officers as well as quite a number of other people, clerks of work and some of the staff of the secretariat too.

I see from the note that this is also due to increased subsistence rates. When were they last increased?—These are all fixed on a general basis by the Department of Finance. They vary the rates according as the cost of living rises.

Deputy Molloy.—Could we be given information as to the actual rate?—It varies with different grades. I think there are five different classes.

The highest?—I could not say. It is so long since I travelled myself I cannot remember.

Mr. Suttle.—Around £2. 10. 0. per night is the highest rate I think.

Deputy Molloy.—Deputies get only £2. 0. 0.

Mr. Suttle.—I am speaking only from memory.

166. Deputy Kenny.—On subhead D— Purchase of Sites and Buildings—I see a site was bought for £3,920 for the Department of Agriculture in Dublin. What size would that site be?—This was portion of the old Trinity Botanical Gardens, a very valuable site, very difficult to buy. We had a great deal of difficulty in getting it. It is not a very big area but it is a reasonably fair price for a Dublin site.

Deputy Briscoe.—How big was the plot of ground?—It is behind the Intercontinental Hotel.

You do not know the size of it? Is it a half acre or a quarter acre?—I could not really say. You could nearly calculate it. I think we paid at the same rate as the Intercontinental.

167. Deputy P. Hogan.—There has been a precipitate drop in the purchase of sites. You spent about £250,000 last year and it is down to £42,000 this year. Are there any arrears in that figure, any sites or buildings purchased that have not been paid for or are awaiting payment in the present year? —I do not think so. The big decline is due to the fact that we did not buy all the houses for which provision had been made. A number of houses were to be acquired in connection with the proposed Concert Hall at Haddington Road. Because that project is being delayed we have not bought all the houses yet. We bought a number of them, but not all.

168. Chairman.—In regard to the explanation given on this subhead that some major purchases were not completed, why were they not completed?—These are the ones to which I have been referring.

These were houses in Northumberland Road?—Yes.

Deputy P. Hogan.—I understand that in the previous year we paid £77,000 to purchase all the houses but one between 30 and 44 Northumberland Road?—No, there were other houses to be acquired.

You bought all from 30 to 44?—No, there were several others for which we had not completed negotiations.

169. Chairman.—May I ask in regard to No. 4 Kildare Street, what is this being used for?—That used be the Dublin Motor Tax Office and we made an exchange with Dublin Corporation for our old store at Coleraine Street which serves them better than Kildare Street. We paid them a sum of money and bought No. 4 Kildare Street from them. They bought Coleraine House from us.

Do I understand that No. 4 Kildare Street is to be used as a furniture store?— No. It is for An Foras Forbartha.

170. Deputy Molloy.—I see here that the Department of Finance in Galway purchased for £50 the former Coast Guard Station at Costello Bay. I should like to know what buildings and what acreage of ground is involved in this purchase?—I have not any note on that.

Mr. Suttle.—That probably would be a ground rent?

Mr. Mundow.—It looks more like a ground rent than buildings.

Deputy Molloy.—I should like to know definitely because it is up for sale now?— We shall send you a note on it.*

171. At Clifden a site was purchased by the Department of Justice—for what purpose?—It must be for Gárda barracks.

172. The Department of Lands made a purchase for £83 in connection with a major fishery harbour site?—This was probably a small bit of ground at Galway that will fit into the scheme.

Could you find out exactly?—I will let you know.*

173. Are we to assume that the fishery research station has been bought? I see a deposit of £1,000 has been paid?—Yes.

And that it will be built now? It has not been held up?—We are not aware of it being held up but we shall do whatever the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries requires.

When do you intend to complete the purchase?—The purchase has been completed I think in the last year.

174. Chairman.—On subhead E—New Works, Alterations and Additions—Deputies have been supplied with a statement.†

In regard to No. 6, Central Heating Station—Renewal of Plant, is this satisfactory?—Very satisfactory I believe.

What fuel is used in the boilers?—Turf.

175. On No. 10, Stamping Branch—new premises, I see this is deferred?—Yes, because the money is not available. It is not regarded as being as urgent as some projects that are provided for.

176. Deputy Molloy.—On No. 1, Leinster House, when will the work be completed? —We describe it as virtually completed. It should be completed at the end of next summer. They have had a number of setbacks, due to strikes and other causes.

Is there any date by which you intend to open the new restaurant?—I do not like prophesying in the case of Leinster House because there have been so many disappointments. I would say this year.

I am not asking you a question but just offering a comment. Comparing the cost of the job done here with the cost of Templemore, I think we had a better job done here. The one here seems to be a much better job at £526,000 as compared with £634,000 for Templemore.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is the figure for Leinster House likely to be a final figure?—It will not be much more. It will not be as much as Templemore.

177. Chairman.—In regard to No. 25, Dún Laoghaire Car Ferry Terminal, is progress satisfactory?——Progress is very satisfactory. We hope to have it completed next year.

178. Deputy Briscoe.—On No. 19, State Laboratory—College of Science—renewal of goods and passenger lift, I notice that it was £2,000 less than estimated. I am just curious to know how an estimate could be so much out?—I think there may be a misconception there. This may mislead you. The second column is the amount voted for the particular year we are dealing with. It was not expected that we could spend the whole amount. In fact, it has been completed now and the cost is something over £5,000. The original estimate was £6,000. Payments to date are £5,144 and there will be some retention money.

179. Chairman.—On No. 20, Stationery Office—new building, where will that be located?—We are searching for a site in Dublin and many possible sites have been looked at. We have looked north and south of the Liffey and one particular site is being considered at the moment in the Clonskeagh area.

Deputy Molloy.—You would not consider using the site at Galway for a stationery office? Decentralising?

180. Chairman.—In the items for the Department of Education I see that Nos. 42 and 43 have been deferred, the Dublin Preventive Centre and the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies—accommodation. What is the expenditure on these so far?— Fees, I think.

Is there any indication as to when the Dublin Preventive Centre will commence?— We hear about it frequently. It is intended to proceed with those projects but we are in the hands of the Department of Education.

181. Chairman.—On item No. 49—Major Fisheries Harbours—are these carried out by contract or by direct labour?—Both. Some parts are by contract and other parts by direct labour.

182. Deputy Molloy.—On No. 48— Galway Fisheries Research Station—Erection—we do not show the £1,000 deposited.

Mr. Suttle.—It is building work only.

183. Chairman.—On No. 62 (1)— Munster Institute—New Poultry Plant—the total estimate is £100,000. Having regard to the rate of progress this would seem to suggest that it will take roughly six years to complete. Has any completion date been set?—It is being done in stages, I gather. Part has been completed. Up to the moment they have spent about £35,000 of the estimate.

Do you propose to phase it over a number of years?—I think that is the intention of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries—they instruct us. They may change their mind in the light of developments of one sort or another on any of these projects.

They have not set any final date for completion?—Not that I am aware of.

184. Deputy Briscoe.—On No. 70, Dublin —New Central Sorting Office, when do you expect that work will be completed?—In about two months’ time it will be in operation. Some of the staffs are there already. The complete transfer will be carried out during the summer.

185. Chairman.—On No. 72, Dublin— New Warehousing etc. Accommodation, Where is this being located?—In John’s Road.

186. On the list of Minor Balances of Expenditure, new headquarters for the Department of Social Welfare have been deferred, but an expenditure of £79,723 is shown. What is the nature of the expenditure?—It is entirely on fees. It has been planned. We could go to tender at very short notice if we were told to go ahead with it. The quantity surveyors and the consulting engineers have done their work.

Chairman.—We will move back now to the subheads.

187. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead F.3 —Rents, Rates, etc.—there is a considerable increase there this year over last year. Does that signify increased rates or increased properties?—It is rents and rates. Our rents are increasing all the time because we are taking on more rented accommodation.

And rates are mounting?—It is largely additional rents for additional properties.

It is a big jump?—We have taken on some very big rentals.

188. Chairman.—The details are on page 22 of the Accounts. I notice in regard to subhead G.1—Arterial Drainage—Surveys— that it is stated in the explanation that the volume of survey work was restricted because of difficulty in recruiting technical staff. Would that restriction affect the overall drainage plans to any great extent?—I think not. We have enough surveys completed to enable our works to continue a the authorised pace. We have one or two big schemes which will come in soon. We will be carrying out new surveys also.

189. Deputy P. Hogan.—I am personally interested in the survey of the River Suir. How has it progressed?—The survey of the Suir has been going on for several years now. It is a big river. We cannot send as many men on the survey as would enable it to be done quickly. It is continuing each year.

Would you be able to give any estimate of when it is likely to be completed?—It would really depend on whether we could put more men on the surveys. If we had more engineers available for surveys we might put them on the Suir or we might be told to put them on some other river.

Would it be completed by 1970?—The survey ought to be completed by then.

190. Deputy Kenny.—At what stage is the survey of the Corrib-Mask?—The survey has been completed and the scheme has been designed for the Corrib-Headford section. We have the authority of the Department of Finance to go ahead with that. We hope to start work in the near future.

191. Chairman.—In regard to G.2— Arterial Drainage—Construction Works— the note says that the full amount of work provided for was not executed. Was that because of some difficulty that arose or because of any particular reason?—Normally we work overtime on drainage work. Last year for reasons of economy we had to decide to reduce expenditure on all schemes. The best value we could get was by cutting out overtime, rather than disemploying men.

192. Chairman.—On subhead G.3.— Barrow Drainage—Repayment of Advances —have you anything to say on this, Mr. Mundow?—This is an annual amount. An annual sum of £21,570 12s. 10d. payable by the County Councils of Kildare, Laois and Offaly in respect of Local Loans Fund advances towards the cost of the drainage scheme was reduced to £7,154 under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. The balance of £14,416 12s. 10d. is made good annually to the Local Loans Fund out of this subhead. The Barrow was drained before the Arterial Drainage Act was passed and it was a charge on the local authorities. The charge was reduced to approximately one-third.

193. Chairman.—On subhead H.—Purchase and Maintenance of Engineering, Plant and Machinery and Stores—I notice in regard to engineering plant that certain purchases have been deferred. What type were they?—This was part of an economy drive. We were directed not to buy anything that could be deferred. We went through our programme of purchasing in the Central Engineering Office and we were able to postpone purchases to that extent.

Deputy P. Hogan—You cut down by about £70,000 on the previous year.

Chairman.—Have purchases since been involved?—Certain purchases were deferred. They were, in fact, not purchases at all; they were intentions to purchase which were postponed.

Has it now been realised?—Not since. A lot depends on our future activities, and new machines are coming on the market. We may get better machines as a result of the delay. The other part about vacancies in the workshops stands.

194. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead J.— National Monuments.—there is increased expenditure. I take it this money was spent on maintaining and cleaning national monuments generally. How is it spent?—During the year £68,000 was spent. That related to maintenance work. We have 500 national monuments in our charge. Some of the monuments concerned were: Liscarroll Castle, Co. Cork; Carrigafoyle Castle, Kerry; Lislaughten Friary, Kerry; Aughanure Castle, Galway; Monasteranenagh Abbey, Limerick; Kilcooly Abbey, Tipperary; The Casino (Marino), Dublin; Derrynane Abbey, Kerry; Athenry Abbey, Galway; Kells Priory, Kilkenny; Pearse’s Cottage, Rosmuc. There were also exploration works carried out at Knowth and Newgrange.

Was there no money spent on monuments in the Aran Islands in County Galway?—I cannot say now but I can send a note.*

195. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to subhead K.—Appropriations-in-Aid.—what procedure do you adopt for the sale of produce and surplus property referred to at item 4 on this subhead?—We advertise the sales or we employ an auctioneer to make the sale for us.

On the site?—Yes, but occasionally we invite tenders if there is a small amount on offer. If the highest bid is anywhere near the estimate of what the articles were worth we accept it. If not, we write to bidder and ask him to advance his price.

196. Chairman.—In regard to item 1 on this subhead—Rents, including receipts from lettings of sporting and fishing rights, etc.— what unforeseen rents arose during the year?—I will have to let you have a note on that.*

197. In relation to item 3 regarding sales of property, could you give some details on this?—There was Coleraine House, which I mentioned earlier. That represents more than one-half the total. We received £3,000 out of Dundalk former military barracks. Those represented £13,000 between them.

198. Deputy Kenny.—With regard to item 10—Miscellaneous—the notes refer to a peculiar item—returned empties £1,949. Are they what we think they are?—These are not empties in the generally accepted sense. They are boxes or crates

Deputy Molloy.—What was in the crates? —Machinery, spare parts, oil drums, and so on. We got a credit when we sent them back.

There is a value on them and you get paid when you send them back.

199. Chairman.—On Extra Remuneration, did the photographer provide services outside official hours?—The understanding is that he undertakes work for the National Gallery in the main. He does this work during his lunch time and outside official hours.

Deputy Briscoe.—He is paid by the National Gallery on a part-time basis?

200. Chairman.—We were talking to Mr. White on this today. He said he had the services of an OPW photographer.—We try to restrict him within rules which give us control over his activities because we are paying his salary. We have an arrangement now, for which we have got approval, that should effectively restrict his activities outside because there is a limit placed on the amount he may earn from the National Gallery related to the size of his salary from his ordinary post. We raised this because we thought he might be working too hard outside and that that would reduce the value of his services to us.

201. Deputy Briscoe.—Mr. White told us they paid him roughly 35/- per photograph. Would you recover this money from him? I am at a loss to understand how he is employed by you?—He is a full-time employee of the Office of Public Works. For this he gets his salary. He was doing this other work for the National Gallery. When we became aware of it we raised some queries about whether it was impinging on his services and time in our office. We have had a good deal of discussion and correspondence with the Department of Education and the Department of Finance to try to regularise it and ensure he does not spend any of our time on work for other people.

I just wanted to understand this extra £670 he had received. That is quite a bit of overtime. Would that be travelling expenses going down photographing monuments?— The Gallery work would be mostly within the Gallery.

202. Deputy Molloy.—Would he get expenses from the Board of Works for travelling?— He does a good deal of travelling for us. The National Monuments work is one of his major preoccupations. He goes to the monuments and photographs them. A collection of photographs of all the monuments is being built up.

Would you know what moneys were paid to him by other Departments?—I think the National Gallery is the only other one. They are obliged to tell us so we can put this note to the Appropriation Account.

Mr. Suttle.—That £670 additional is what he gets from the National Gallery.

203. Mr. Molloy.—Did you say he was employed by the Department of Education, Mr. Mundow?—No. The National Gallery is under the Department of Education. These payments to him from the National Gallery would be subject to the approval of the Department of Education.

Deputy P. Hogan.—Does he supply his own equipment for the work outside the Board of Works?—We believe he does.

204. Deputy Molloy.—Fourteen assistant architects are also referred to under “Extra Remuneration”. Are they employed by the OPW?—This is an old arrangement which has now come to an end. When we were under pressure to produce plans for schools we could not recruit sufficient architects so we offered commissions to our own architects to do work outside the office at nights and weekends in their own homes. We paid them a fee which is less than the normal rate an architect would get in private practice. We got quite a considerable number of jobs done which would have been in arrear otherwise.

Deputy Molloy.—Why did you call them assistant architects?—We call them architects today. At that time here was a grade of assistant architect. They were fully qualified architects but they were called assistant architects because above them was the grade of architect we now call senior architect.

In fact, it was overtime payment?—Except that they were not paid at so much per hour but so much per piece of work.

205. Chairman.—We turn now to the accounts for the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park.* The Park is about as it usually is, Mr. Mundow?—It may be on the verge of great developments. For the moment it is being carried on as before. We had An Foras Talúntais using it for sheep experiments but that is coming to an end very soon now.

Chairman.—Members have also been supplied with the statement on Compilation of Property Rental 1965/66.*

We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Mundow.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 19—VALUATION AND ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. J. Mooney called and examined.

206. Chairman.—On subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—I notice you still have some vacancies. Are they on the professional and technical side?— We had about 14 vacancies for Technical Assistants, Grade III, in the Ordnance Survey. Nine were filled; we had not sufficient candidates eligible to fill them all. We hope to have another competition soon to fill those that have not been filled.

Deputy P. Hogan.—What qualifications are necessary to fill these?—Intermediate or technical education.

207. Chairman.—On subhead F.—Appropriations in Aid—I notice you have had a substantial increase in the sale of maps?— Yes, map sales have been vastly greater than we visualised. They are up by about £10,000, as you will see from item 4 on page 42. That has been a very pleasant feature of this service—the expansion in the sale of maps. They are up from about £6,000 nine or ten years ago to £33,000 now.

Would they be mainly of farm holdings? —The ones for farms are large scale maps and there is not a very large sale for those. The demand is for tourist maps, road maps, maps for town planning and that kind of thing.

208. In regard to item 6 of the Appropriations in Aid concerning the sale of old printing machines, did you succeed in selling them?—No, we have been offered only a scrap price for the main item. It is quite a good machine. We hope to sell it to advantage and to get something worth while for it.

209. Deputy Molloy.—May I go back to subhead E.—Equipment—I see you spent £24,700 and the grant was £16,000. Why was this increased expenditure necessary?— The explanation is given in the Notes. The excess was due to the fact that a number of accounts in respect of goods delivered in the pevious year were not furnished until 1965-66. That meant we had to meet them in the year with which we are concerned here and they inflated the expenditure. This excess was partly offset by the non-purchase of a number of items for which provision was made.

210. It is an excess of £8,800 on £16,110, an excess of about 50 per cent?—The principal accounts involved that were carried over into the year with which we are concerned were an account amounting to £5,600 for an instrument, a tellurometer, an instrument for measuring distances on the earth’s surface. There was also tachymetric equipment for quickly measuring distances in a survey. There was about £1,000 involved here, carried over from the previous year.

211. Last year I queried the expenditure of £27,000 on equipment and you said that expenditure would not be likely to continue at that high level?—There is a carry-over here. If you take off the £8,800 I have already mentioned, which does not belong to the year, you would have only £16,000 left. We have got the bulk of the equipment we required—quite a lot of expensive machines for surveying, and I do not foresee that we shall be buying a lot more later unless we start expanding or accelerating.

Deputy P. Hogan.—The grant last year was very high, £33,000, and £27,000 was spent. The grant this year was only £16,000 and £24,000 was spent. They both balance.

VOTE 20—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. Mooney called and examined.

212. Deputy P. Hogan.—On the Appropriations in Aid, can you explain the difference between beneficial and non-beneficial rates?—Beneficial rates represent portions of the rates which are related to services of benefit to the occupier. They would include the supply of water, removal of bins and so on. Non-beneficial rates would relate to things like health services that are of no direct benefit to these foreign people. We pay the non-beneficial part and the foreign legations pay the beneficial part, the part from which they get benefit.

Deputy Molloy.—Is this an international arrangement?—Perhaps “international” is not the right word. It is international in the sense that it applies both to Britain and Ireland. We more or less inherited it from the British regime.

213. Deputy P. Hogan.—I see that agreement with the USA has not been reached about non-beneficial rates. This seems to have been the position for a long time?— That is so. The Americans depend on a Convention of the year 1950 claiming they should not pay any rates at all. They argue that the Convention relieves them of any liability to pay rates. We took the view that it did not relieve them of liability to pay for actual services rendered, in other words for the beneficial element. Through External Affairs we have had negotiations with them over a number of years and we seem to be approaching the point of settlement at the moment.

214. Do we pay rates in the USA?—The position in the USA is that if you own a building you pay no rates. You have complete immunity from everything. On the other hand, if you are renting a building you pay the rent which may include rates and you get no relief at all. That is one of the reasons why the Americans feel they are at a disadvantage. They, of course, invariably own the premises and they feel that what applies in America should apply here and that they should not have to pay anything. Incidentally, a new definition of beneficial and non-beneficial rates more favourable to the American point of view, was approved recently by the Department of Finance but the US have not yet agreed to pay anything. We are hoping that they will see the light and pay on the basis of the new definition. We are applying the new definition to other countries as from the current year. We shall pay the non-beneficial element on a different calculation. It will mean we will pay somewhat more. I think the fraction of the total will be about two-thirds paid by the State and the foreign diplomats one-third. On the old system inherited from the British the division was approximately fifty-fifty.

Chairman.—We are very much obliged, Mr. Mooney.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 9—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Mr. M. Hawe called and examined.

215. Deputy P. Hogan.—On subhead A., Salaries, Wages and Allowances, there has been a substantial increase between this year and the previous year, from £100,000 approximately to £128,000.

Chairman.—The increase there, Mr. Hawe, was due to increased wages and salaries?— Yes. It is increased salaries. The staff numbers had not increased.

216. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead D.— Urban Employment Schemes—why is there a reduction in the amount spent of £6,346? —It is a large estimate and dealing with a lot of separate schemes it is not easy to calculate exactly how much will be spent. In that year we actually sanctioned £190,000 for new schemes with the object of reducing the very big carry forward of grants from year to year. What happened there was that the carry forward of grants was not reduced to the extent we expected.

I do not follow you. Are you saying you did not have enough work to spend money on? I would be surprised to hear that?— We have enough work. In these urban grants the amount paid in a year is not necessarily related entirely to the actual work carried out in the year. There is a carry forward from year to year. At the end of the year there is a carry forward to the following year.

217. Does that explain the similar situation in regard to the minor employment schemes at subhead F?—The minor employment schemes were rather different because they have not got this carry forward of unpaid grants. The saving arose mainly because we did not have as many schemes as we expected in the areas in which we had money available. There were not enough works which we thought were of sufficient utility to justify grants.

218. If you thought you did not have enough work of sufficient utility, as you put it, in one county would you transfer the money to another county where there was a big demand for this type of work?— Not necessarily. The money is earmarked for a particular electoral division, not a county. We would hope that before the end of the year a suitable scheme would turn up. We have from time to time transferred grants from one electoral division to an adjoining electoral division where there happened to be a scheme which we were particularly interested in doing, but not between counties.

219. Was the amount allocated to Connemara completely used up?—We allocated £17,385 to Galway and we actually sanctioned £14.910. That was for Galway as a whole but you can take it that these minor employment schemes were mainly in Connemara.

Are you saying you did not have enough work in Connemara to spend the rest of the money?—We did not have suitable schemes for certain areas.

220. Deputy P. Hogan.— The sum of £124,000 was spent the previous year. There has been a drop as between one year and another from £124,000 to £101,888. That seems a rather heavy drop?—On these minor employment schemes we always have what may be described as a pool of works inspected and examined for each different electoral division so that when we allocate grants for particular areas we can draw on these schemes. It turned out that the pool had dried up in certain areas.

Deputy Molloy.—Are you saying Galway was one?—Particular electoral divisions in Connemara.

221. Deputy P. Hogan.—Does the same apply to subhead G—Development Works in Bogs used by Landholders and other Private Producers—where there has been a drop of £13,000?—These are bog development schemes. When we came to allocate the grants we found that there were not enough works which we considered really deserving of grants.

222. Chairman.—In the main are these schemes really dependent on the number of unemployed you get from the various employment exchanges?—On minor employment schemes, yes. Grants are allocated to the different electoral divisions in proportion to the number of unemployment assistance recipients registered at the local employment offices.

223. Deputy Molloy.—On subhead H— Rural Improvement Schemes—is there a similar explanation?—The position there was rather different. These are contributory schemes. What happened there was that the rate of progress of the schemes towards the end of the year was rather less than we expected. In fact, in that year we sanctioned over £300,000 worth of schemes in the expectation that we would spend £297,000. At the end of the year the schemes did not go ahead as quickly as we thought.

224. On subhead I. — Miscellaneous Schemes—did the same thing happen here? —We had sanction or commitments for practically the full amount of the provision but, again, some marine works—which the Board of Works carry out—were not ready to be put in hands and were held over. Very often marine works depend on the sea conditions and the suitability of the weather at the time.

Chairman.—We are obliged to you, Mr. Hawe.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m.

*See Appendix XII.

†See Appendix XIII.

*See Appendix XIV.

*See Appendix XV.

*See Appendix XVI.

*See Appendix XVII.