Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1968 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1967 - 1968

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 5 Nollaig, 1968

Thursday, 5th December, 1968

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tÁrd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Miss Breathnach, Mr. Mac Guill, and Mr. J. R. Whitty (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 39—LABOUR.

Mr. Tadhg Ó Cearbhaill called and examined.

135. Chairman.—Paragraph 61 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead H.1.—Special Redundancy Compensation

61. Provision was made by supplementary estimate for the payment of compensation to the former employees of John Rawson & Son (Ireland) Ltd., Dundalk, who were disemployed when the factory closed following a fire in August, 1967. The lump-sum compensation paid, £77,557 to 457 employees, was calculated at rates related generally to those subsequently provided for in the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, which came into operation on 1 January, 1968.”

136. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. Future payments of redundancy compensation will come out of a special Fund set up by the Redundancy Payments Act passed in 1967.

137. Chairman.—Paragraph 62 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead J.—An Chomhairle Oiliúna (Grant-in-Aid)

62. An Chomhairle Oiliúna was established on 15 May, 1967 to promote the training of persons for any activity of industry and to undertake the apprenticeship functions formerly carried out by An Cheard-Chomhairle. The assets, liabilities and other obligations of An Cheard-Chomhairle were transferred to the new authority. £135,000 was paid to An Chomhairle Oiliúna in the year under review as a grant-in-aid towards its administration and general expenses. The accounts of An Chomhairle are audited by me.”

Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Again this paragraph is for information.

138. Deputy Healy.—Has An Chomhairle Oiliúna officers permanently engaged in different parts of the country?

Mr. Ó Cearbhaill.—No, the headquarters of An Chomhairle Oiliúna are in Dublin. The staff are temporarily housed in the offices of the Department of Labour but it is the intention that they should have their own headquarters. There are some staff at the training centres which are operated at Shannon and Waterford and there will also be one at Galway.

139. Will there be any in Cork?—I do not think that is ruled out. That decision would be for An Chomhairle, of course.

140. What is the purpose of having officers in some places like Waterford, Galway and Shannon?—There are industrial training centres set up in these places.

141. They run the training centres?—Yes, they run the training centres. The question raised I think relates to the overall development of manpower policy which might involve the placing of officers in different parts of the country in future, with functions not confined to training alone. There are of course the staffs of the Employment Exchanges in the various centres throughout the country.

142. Deputy Molloy.—How many officers of An Chomhairle Oiliúna is it expected will be employed in these provincial centres that you mentioned?—About twelve in each.

143. Deputy Treacy.—On subhead G— Research—was the excess expenditure of £5,267 in respect of additional work? Was it not originally foreseen? Could I have some idea of the nature of the work involved?— The total expenditure during the year is made up of £15,561 expended on the manpower surveys in Waterford and Galway, a sum of £1,031 contribution to the expenses of the manpower survey in Drogheda which was carried out by University College, Dublin, but which could not be finished but for the subvention from this Vote, and a sum of £3,675 for the survey of the Employment Service carried out on commission by the Institute of Public Administration. That last amount was not included in the original Estimate which was, of course, prepared nearly two years ago.

144. Could I ask the nature of the training scheme at Drogheda for which research was carried out?—This was a manpower survey which had been instituted by a team from University College, Dublin and was well in progress. It was in order that that job could be finished satisfactorily that this contribution was made. In fact the report was finalised in the Department and the cost of reproducing it and other costs of that kind were borne by the Department.

145. It may not be within the ambit of the office concerned but may I take it that the research in Drogheda was worth while and will be acted on?—Yes, the findings have been published. They have been widely used and were the subject of public comment. I should say that there is an element of experimentation in this work. Our intention is, having completed the surveys in Waterford and Galway, not to undertake any further surveys of the same kind— because they are costly and take a long time—until we have seen what is the real value of those surveys. Of course, we could not know until we had carried out a few how valuable they might be.

146. Deputy P. J. Burke.—I suppose our industrialists who are extending their works or building new factories in Drogheda or Waterford, or even people coming in would go to you to find out where they could get the best pool of employment?—Yes, of course, they could. As a general rule a full report of a manpower survey is a very comprehensive document. It is of interest mainly to experts but there is also produced what might be called a summary of the main findings. This is at the disposal of anybody who wants to have it, as well as the full report.

147. Industrialists are anxious to go to industrial towns where there is a tradition of industry behind them. Is that not so?— Yes.

148. Deputy Andrews.—On subhead I— Career Information—the grant was £2,000 and the expenditure was £375. Why the small figure of £375? Why was the balance unused?—The payment of £375 represents payment for only 25 leaflets. Actually 76 were produced during the year but the bill for those had not come in. Some are prepared on a commission basis and these will appear in the accounts for the following year.

149. Are they the usual sort of information, leaflets on various careers?—There is a programme to cover a total of 360 occupations and careers. Those leaflets are produced originally in English and afterwards in Irish. This is a programme which is proceeding.

You will have 360 leaflets explaining 360 occupations?—Yes.

150. Deputy P. J. Burke.—I would like get a copy of those. It is interesting to know that?—Certainly, I will send representative samples to members. The whole 360 have not yet been produced. This is the target.

Deputy Andrews.—It is grand to note that this sort of thing is being done.

151. On subhead K—National Industrial Safety Organisation (Grant-in-Aid)—there is a big difference between the amount of the grant and the expenditure. What basically is the function of this Organisation? My point is that £2,000 seems a small sum of money for an Organisation of this nature. In addition to the National Industrial Safety Organisation, are there any other organisations engaged in industrial safety?—This Organisation was set up about five years ago. It is a voluntary body consisting of industrialists, trade unions, and others who are interested in industrial safety. The Organisation gets its funds from subscriptions, from industrialists mainly but also from trade unions. This grant is a matching £ for £ grant from the State. The thinking behind making it a £ for £ grant was that it was considered desirable to involve and commit employers and workers to this work of safety. There are, of course, obligations on factory occupiers, under the Factory Acts, in respect of safety. The job of this Organisation is to promote a campaign and to engage in publicity and propaganda to strengthen the work of the Factory Inspectorate. I should say that it is accepted that more money could usefully be expended on this work, and we have plans in that regard.

152. I am glad to hear that. In other words, you will have an additional section in your Department to cope with it?—We are strengthening the Factory Inspectorate.

Deputy Andrews.—I ask the question because I feel we have been a little backward in the matter of industrial safety. I am glad to hear the Accounting Officer assure us that we will become more up to date.

153. Deputy Molloy.—The work of the Organisation is voluntary and firms, trade unions and workers generally contribute towards the expenses of operating the Organisation. Is it not surprising then that the Grant-in-Aid was not fully taken up?—The Grant-in-Aid was confined to the exact amount the Organisation got by way of subscriptions. It is a matching of £ for £ grant. I should also say that the expenses of running this Organisation, including the Secretary and other staff required, are provided under subhead A—Salaries, Wages, and Allowances — without charge to this subhead.

Deputy Treacy.—I am glad this has been pointed out. It is misleading to note that a little over one-half of the Grant-in-Aid was, in fact, taken up. It has now been explained why the Grant-in-Aid has not been fully taken up.

Chairman.—The explanation given is that expenditure was less than anticipated. Do you wish to make further inquiries on it?

Deputy Treacy.—No, except there is any further explanation.

154. Deputy Andrews.—On subhead J.— An Chomhairle Oiliúna (Grant-in-Aid)—why was the grant not taken up?

Mr. Ó Cearbhaill.—In regard to the progress of An Chomhairle Oiliúna the organisation’s first Report and Accounts have been presented to the Dáil. This estimate was prepared nearly six months before An Chomhairle Oiliúna was set up. It was set up in May, 1967, and then it set about recruiting its key personnel. Indeed, it took about five months before the Chief Officer could be recruited. The post had to be advertised twice. The organisation then had to work out its plans. Later it started to build these training centres and order the equipment. Broadly, it was our intention in 1966 to press ahead as fast as possible with this development. However, these things take time and, in particular, the supply of machinery takes time. Indeed, there are some items of plant which had been delivered but which were not paid for during the year because it was necessary to have the machinery tested before settling the account.

155. Chairman.—In other words, you had the money before it was wanted?—Yes. We did not want the operation to be slowed down for want of money.

Deputy Treacy.—I take it that under-expenditure of this kind is unlikely to recur and that it would be taken up in full in future.—That is so.

156. Chairman.—Under Appropriations in Aid, could we have some explanation as to the figure of £401,000 shown as a receipt from the Social Insurance Fund?

Mr. Ó Cearbhaill.—The cost is included under subhead A. It is the cost of paying the staff who administer the Social Insurance scheme, as provided for in the Social Welfare Act, 1952.

157. Deputy Molloy.—On Extra Remuneration, I should like some information. The note says: “Five Staff Officers, five Clerical Officers and one Messenger received sums ranging from £105 to £160 for overtime. The total cost of overtime amounted to £29,077.” Were there a large number of people who received remuneration of under £100? There must have been a huge number?—The main explanation here is that in the Employment Exchanges there has been great difficulty for the past few years in getting staff. During the year there were something like 75 vacancies for Clerical Officers. These vacancies were there but the work had to be done. It was done by a combination of three things, namely, by engaging Clerk Typists who were paid less than Clerical Officers; by recruiting temporary staff; and by overtime. An additional reason was that on the 1st January this year the Redundancy Payments Scheme came into operation. This was a temporary factor but it involved heavy overtime for a short period. This would mean a large number of small sums.

158. Deputy Andrews.—Can you say whether this overtime figure will be as high again in the future?—There will be some overtime so long as we are unable to recruit the clerical staff but we do not expect it to be so high as that.

159. It was increased by the operation of the Redundancy Act payments in the first instance?—That is right.

Deputy Andrews.—This is really an excellent Act. We, as a Government, did not get enough credit for it.

160. Deputy Molloy.—Most of the overtime took place in the employment exchanges throughout the country?—That is right.

161. Have you any idea of the number of vacancies that exist in the Department of Labour at present?—We have about 100 vacancies for clerical officers in the employment service. Over 40 of these vacancies are blocked by clerk typists, who are a lower grade. Some others are filled by temporary clerks.

How many of these vacancies are officially vacant even though filled temporarily by somebody else?—Approximately 100.

All clerical officers?—Yes, and there is a very small number of vacancies in other grades.

162. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Is it hard to get such employees?—Yes, it has been difficult to recruit clerical officers over recent years.

163. Deputy Molloy.—There are better job opportunities?—One explanation is that the Public Service is not as attractive as it was in the past to people leaving school.

Deputy Andrews.—Perhaps if you reduce the number of jobs available and double the salary, you would get 50 people applying for these jobs.

164. Deputy P. J. Burke.—It is amazing that with all the boys and girls leaving school and getting their leaving certificate there are not more applying for such jobs.— An additional factor from now on will be the university scheme whereby certain people with four honours in the Leaving Certificate will get grants to go to the university.

165. Deputy Healy.—Could I ask Mr. Ó Cearbhaill whether girls are eligible for these positions as clerical officers?—Yes.

166. The university will take only people with four honours in the leaving certificate. There must be many with only two or three honours who would come into the Civil Service?—This is happening to a certain degree.

167. Chairman.—These appointments will have to be filled through the Civil Service Commission?—Yes.

168. Deputy Healy.—I should like to get the opinion of Mr. Ó Cearbhaill as to why people are not coming into the Civil Service. Are there more jobs available nowadays at that stage of education or is it that the Civil Service conditions have deteriorated?—More people are anxious to go on for post-secondary education. There are more opportunities outside the Public Service than there were. In any case, there is a tendency towards a shortage of girls on the labour market. I should not like to comment that the conditions in the Civil Service are inferior. I think that the attractions of the Civil Service are not now as great. We have evidence that girls are going into other jobs even though the pay is no better than it is in the Civil Service.

Is there more opportunity for young men in industry which, perhaps, offers a better challenge and variety?—That is a factor.

169. Deputy Molloy.—As Secretary of the Department of Labour, and arising out of this discussion, would you agree there are plenty of job opportunities for students leaving school with the leaving certificate?— I should not like to answer that directly. There are not enough opportunities to absorb all the people coming on to the labour market yet.

From the secondary schools?—Yes.

And yet there are these vacancies?—Yes.

Deputy Andrews.—They are not attractive.

Deputy Molloy.—We were told on television last night that people with the leaving certificate were going to England and handing up nails to carpenters.

Deputy Healy.—I do not know whether everybody with the leaving certificate could pass the examination for clerical officer.

170. Deputy Healy.—Is the standard of the test too high?

Deputy Briscoe.—I asked that question before. Is the standard to get into the Civil Service too high for a candidate who might not have all subjects in the leaving certificate?

Deputy P. J. Burke.—In other words, what is the standard? Is it that of the leaving certificate?—I understand that the Department of Finance are considering the standard of entry but it is a fact that people are being called to the Civil Service who have got quite low places in the examination.

Chairman.—I think that is all. Thank you very much, Mr. Ó Cearbhaill.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 8—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. H. J. Mundow called and examined.

171. Chairman.—Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“Subhead E.—New Works, Alterations and Additions

16. The charge to the subhead comprises £1,765,975 expended on general architectural and engineering works, and £2,818,664 in respect of grants towards the erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools, as compared with £1,498,478 and £2,772,039, respectively, in the previous year.

17. School grants amounting to £2,070,677 were paid to managers who undertook responsibility for having the works carried out, and £747,987 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.”

Mr. Suttle.—These give the make-up as between national school grants and other works.

172. Chairman.—Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“18. 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 1968, 438 houses were completed and a further 17 houses were in course of construction. The total amount charged to the vote, including £67,662 paid in the year of account, amounted to £1,097,938.”

173. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph gives information as to the number of houses completed or in course of construction for the Garda Síochána and of the charge to the vote in respect of this work. A comparison with the figures for last year shows that 41 of the 58 houses in course of construction at 31st March, 1967 were completed during the year and no new construction was undertaken.

174. What is the latest figure for the number of houses?

Mr. Mundow.—438 finished and 17 being built, that is 455 at the end of the financial year.

You have not got any more up-to-date figures?—We have not got any since.

175. I understand that a target of 1,000 houses by 1968 was laid down. This would seem to be falling short of that?—The difficulty is a capital problem and the matter has not progressed as fast as had been intended.

176. Deputy Briscoe.—Is it a capital problem or is it a lack of builders?—To some extent it is and also to some extent a scarcity of architects but that is not a very important part of the problem. We have a special section of architects who deal with this and they have been very busy.

177. Deputy Molloy.—Was the target one of 1,000 houses a year?

Mr. Suttle.—No, this scheme was started about four or five years ago. These houses to be built by the National Building Agency on behalf of the Board of Works were for the use of members of the Garda Síochána. Originally, it was intended to build 1,000 houses under this scheme by 1968.

Mr. Mundow.—I am afraid I confused you. I was thinking of stations. We design stations but the houses are erected by the National Building Agency. We supply the money.

178. Chairman.—You mentioned architects. The National Building Agency have their own architects?—Yes. They design the houses and we the stations.

179. The chief reason the target was not reached apparently is capital?—I think it is. We do not know a great deal about this; we merely pay the certified amount.

180. Deputy Briscoe.—It seems rather vague to me. I know one of the big problems today is a lack of skilled tradesmen. There is a tremendous shortage of them. The industry is stretched to the fullest and I wonder whether this is the reason rather than the shortage of capital. I should like some sort of clarification

Deputy Healy.—I think Deputy Briscoe could find that out on the Estimates for the Department of Justice.

181. Deputy Molloy.—I understood priority was being given to stations as against houses?—Yes. I think the smaller builders do not have the problem to the same extent. We get our schools built without much difficulty. We can always get tenders for any school we want built.

Mr. Suttle.—I think in this particular case the Agency have apparently no difficulty in getting either contractors or workers but they have to meet the demands of the Department of Justice and I think the Department of Justice have required them not to build any more houses at the moment so if we want any further information we will possibly have to ask the Department of Justice about it.

182. Deputy Treacy.—Would it be appropriate for me to ask where the houses have been provided for the gardaí and where leeway has yet to be made up?

Mr. Suttle.—They are scattered all over the country. They are not in any particular area.

Mr. Mundow.—The 455 houses are at 157 different sites.

183. Deputy Treacy.—May we take it then that it is not the erection of new Garda stations as such but rather individual houses for gardaí?—Yes.

Mr. Suttle.—Purely houses, not stations at all.

Deputy Andrews.—They are apart from the stations. I have seen a few of them and the newer ones particularly are really beautiful houses. As the Accounting Officer says, it would be difficult to get a detailed account of 157 sites.

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

“19. Trustees of vested national schools are required to keep the premises in good repair at local expense and except in special cases grants cannot be sanctioned for making good damage arising from neglect or misuse. It was noted that the cost of a scheme for enlarging and improving a vested school included approximately £1,000 for repairs to the roof because of damp penetration. As it appeared from departmental reports that the damage might have been due to lack of maintenance I inquired whether it was proposed to seek recovery of any of the cost from the manager. I was informed that the extent of maintenance neglect was doubtful, that the roof works included an element of improvement and that it was proposed to recommend to the Department of Education that an adjustment be made in the grant on the basis of the final cost which would include the cost of repairing the roof.”

185. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—In his reply the Accounting Officer indicated that the damp penetration might have been due to the use of a form of roof construction which in the exposed location of the school could have permitted rain to be blown under the slates, and to cracking of slates when the roof was badly shaken by winds in the 20 years since its construction.

186. Was there any final adjustment made?

Mr. Mundow.—We have just gone to the Department of Education and we are recommending a grant towards the cost of the roof because the neglect of maintenance is very doubtful. We have these cases occasionally and, where the manager normally maintains the schools in good condition, we lean towards favouring him in a difficulty of this sort, but if he is known to be negligent with regard to maintenance we would take a more severe view. This manager apparently is well known to be careful and we do not think he was responsible for the negligence. We understand the Department of Education will accept this and the manager will pay probably one-sixth.

187. Deputy Healy.—Is it not a bit unrealistic to expect you would get any of the money back from the Department of Education?—This is entirely Board of Works money. The Department of Education take the decision but we provide the money out of this vote.

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

“20. A detailed examination of the group of buildings comprising the Four Courts revealed that the stonework of the river facade and the dome structure had deteriorated and Department of Finance sanction was obtained in 1960 for the carrying out of the necessary repairs which were estimated to cost £45,000. Working drawings and a specification were prepared and in June, 1961 a quantity surveyor was engaged to prepare a Bill of Quantities. Although he undertook to furnish this within nine weeks it was not delivered until June, 1965. At this stage, because of price increases, the estimate was revised to £68,000. As no further progress had been made I asked for the observations of the Accounting Officer.

I was informed that the most urgent work had been carried out in the period 1958 to 1961; that the delay in undertaking the main conservation works was primarily due to the time taken by the quantity surveyor who had pleaded illness and other commitments and that it had not been deemed advisable to engage another surveyor as the one appointed had experience in work of this nature. After the Bill had been received restrictions on expenditure in 1965-66 and the pressure of urgent work on the architectural staff of the Office of Public Works had caused further delays. The extent to which further deterioration had taken place has, according to the Accounting Officer, been insignificant and it was hoped to place a contract before the end of this year.”

189. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I referred to this matter because there appeared to me to have been excessive delay in carrying out the repair works which were planned seven years ago. I understand that the work is now in hands.

190. Deputy Andrews.—What was the cause of the delay?

Mr. Mundow.—The quantity surveyor stated he could do his work in nine weeks but it took four years. That was the main cause of the delay. I understand he had been ill for quite a long part of this period.

191. It would appear to have been a very expensive illness from the point of view of the job. Would the Board of Works not have considered handing the job over to somebody else in view of the fact that he said he would take nine weeks, whereas, in fact, he took four years?—Nobody ever thought it would be four years. It is difficult dealing with professional organisations. You might not get someone else to take it from the man who has got it.

192. Chairman.—If something like this threatened again what would you do?—If a man said he could do a job in nine weeks and we knew he was ill or had a lot of other work to do and that this was too optimistic an estimate, I think we would not make an offer to him. We would look for somebody else.

193. Deputy Andrews.—Does the Board of Works employ a quantity surveyor?—We have none on our staff. We employ men in private practice.

194. In view of this problem and the cost of it, would you consider it worthwhile to employ a full-time quantity surveyor?— We have thought of it for several years. When we add up the pros and cons we find it would not pay us to employ quantity surveyors.

Deputy Healy.—The fact remains that if you wait that long it is hard for public representatives to justify any act like that although I can quite understand the quantity surveyor’s dilemma. I do not think the job should be put off by the fact that someone in the profession might think he should not take on that job.

195. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Would you not think the quantity surveyor would have had the courtesy of reporting to you and saying: “I am ill and I am not able to carry out this job”?—He may have reported he was ill.

It is not very fair to you or anyone else that he did not say: “I am not able to carry out the job in the time I stated I would be able to do it in.” That is what any of us would expect.

196. Deputy Andrews.—The original cost was £45,000 and now the revised estimate is £68,000?—Both those figures were wrong.

In what respect were they wrong?—The £45,000 was an idea of the costs, not strictly speaking an estimate. It was an idea that this would be the kind of expenditure involved. The £68,000 was based on detailed drawings and on the price by the quantity surveyor although the £45,000 was not a realistic cost. In fact the work will be done for a figure in between the two.

197. In fact it is not as high as £60,000?— The tender is for £57,000.

198. Will this job be finalised or will it be allowed to continue for a number of years?—The contract was placed on the 1st November subject to the production of a bond with an insurance company. This was delayed but work on the site is expected to start in a week.

Deputy Andrews.—It is very difficult for us as public representatives to justify this but at the same time no blame attaches to the accounting officer in this instance.

199. Deputy Molloy.—Could this matter have been brought to our notice last year?

Mr. Suttle.—It is a question of my staff getting around to all those things. It is impossible to examine every file. We pick some out at random. It could have been brought up last year but they just did not see it?

Mr. Mundow.—The delay has probably saved money because it happens now that this very favourable price we got would have not been available earlier. I have a note saying that the tendering for this was exceptionally keen due to shortage of work at this particular time.

200. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Do you have much difficulty in getting contractors? When you have accepted contractors do you have much difficulty with some of them who may not be able to get bonds for the whole amount?—It does not happen very often. We know the people and we would not give a contract to a man who was not financially sound. We find it happens sometimes. May I put it this way? In other jobs, say local authority jobs for building houses and various other things, you often have good contractors who have not just been able to get bonds and hence have lost the contracts and we have had to give them to others who might be £5,000 or £7,000 dearer. It is hard to get over that. I agree you have to have a bond and you have to have some security to see that this work is carried out.

201. Deputy Healy.—It is very fortunate that this happened because it now costs less due to the keen competition but generally speaking we all believe a delay means an extra cost. This brings a point up to me which I think is worth considering. At the outset I want to say that this is constructive criticism. Mr. Suttle cannot examine every file in every accounting officer’s Department but surely there must be some way in which matters like this would be drawn to his attention by the Department concerned? This is a matter of principle. Is there any way in which this can be done so that Mr. Suttle or his staff would not be looking at files at random? Could something like this be brought to his attention so that it would be shown there was an unexpected delay?

Mr. Suttle.—On the whole I must say that Departments are most co-operative but they do not go out of their way to actually throw me something I can report on. It would be a difficult problem to put to a Department that they should bring things to my notice which in effect I should criticise.

202. Deputy Healy.—How can we know when something like this happens? Have we any other machinery under which a matter like this can be brought to notice? It seems that this is a very small item but it could be for hundreds of thousands of pounds because we know our estimates in the past have not always been correct and sometimes the cost has worked out far in excess of what it was estimated to be. When we come before Dáil Éireann to vote a sum of, say, £150,000 for a job it very often happens it will cost as much as £250,000 by the time it is finished. We should take cognisance of this.

Deputy Molloy.—I agree with that.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—The accounting officer has given us his explanation. I suppose we are all wiser after the event but dealing with professional people is a different problem. I feel as a professional man and a gentleman he should not have left you in that position.

203. Deputy Treacy.—Having regard to the unfortunate position outlined in paragraph 20 of the Report, have steps now been taken to ensure that there will not be a recurrence of this kind so as to obviate the very steep increase in the cost?

Mr. Mundow.—The only figures which are readily valid are the £68,000 and the £57,000. The £45,000 was not an estimate. It was an informed guess, not a wild guess. It was the best guess they could give at the time that the works would cost this amount but that was always subject to the quantity surveyor giving his estimate. We have no reason to feel sure his estimate if he had given it within nine weeks would have been £45,000 or £68,000.

204. Deputy Andrews.—I would really like to come back to Deputy Healy’s excellent idea regarding files of this nature. As the Deputy pointed out this is a matter of principle and we must ensure that a file of this nature comes to the attention of the accounting officer. A file of this type came four years too late. Does this situation arise in other Departments, Mr. Suttle? This is giving us cause for worry. Is your Department sufficiently staffed? Where does the fault lie?

Mr. Suttle.—We have to deal with the question of the economics of the staffing for the work being carried out. If we could spend ad lib on staff and double or treble our staff we could look at practically every file in the Department. The economics of the position is that staffing should not cost more than a small fraction of general expenditure. At the present time the work of my Department costs £60,000 a year. If I were to put it up to £250,000 I do not think we would do better work. We would cover a wider field but we have enough accountants at present. On the question of auditing, it is by chance you pick on something that is obviously open for criticism. I do not think more staff would help much; we have sufficient to cover everything.

205. Deputy Andrews.—Are you the only accountant?

Mr. Suttle.—We have a number of accountants.

Qualified accountants?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. The Committee is given a list in the New Works statement of every single item each year and an account of progress. You are given details in this volume on every item voted and if you want to know anything you have only to look at this. It is available to every Member of the Committee.

Deputy Andrews.—Every Member of the House should be given a research assistant to go into matters of this kind. This is a great fault and we are not doing our job properly as public representatives if we are not doing work of this nature. However, I see your difficulty, Mr. Suttle.

206. Chairman.—Are there any problems similar to this one at present in your office, Mr. Mundow?—I should explain that the Auditor keeps a watchful eye on everything that is happening, especially anything that might give rise to audit queries. The Board do the same. Every month we get a report on each job that is in progress or planned and which might raise queries of this kind. In that way we do an internal audit. In answer to your specific question. I have no knowledge of any other case or anything similar to this at present.

207. Deputy Molloy.—A particular point strikes me. In 1960 it was agreed that the dome structure of the Four Courts had deteriorated. Approval was given to have this work carried out. It is strange that it is only now in 1968, a few weeks ago, a start has been made and that this had not been brought to our notice before now. Time and again we have estimates that are not final coming before us and when eventually the figure comes before us we see a big difference and it is always a big increase. If the job was decided as necessary, as in this instance, I think attention should have been drawn to it long before now because of the possibility of the increased cost in carrying out the work, which would arise if there continued to be delay.

Deputy Healy.—If you wait 20 years are you still going to wait? I should like to know what the procedure is.

208. Deputy Molloy.—You said, Mr. Suttle, that these matters did not always come to light, that it was a spot check you make. We feel that matters such as this should have been brought to your attention.

Mr. Suttle.—It is hard to get Departments to do this. You can understand their point of view; they will not publicly criticise themselves.

209. Why not?—Mr. Suttle.—In a report like this you would be publicly criticising Mr. Mundow and his job. They would have to be saints to come along and say mea culpa.

210. It is in the interests of the general public that these things become known. I do not think any great criticism could come to Mr. Mundow because of this?

Mr. Suttle.—One thing happens in these cases. A man might possibly say that in a few months’ time he will do the job. It frequently happens that from day to day there will be a change in the circumstances.

211. Deputy Molloy.—Supposing this happened outside the State service; supposing I were involved in having this work carried out, that I owned the Four Courts, would I allow this to happen if I had to pay for it. I would not. Why then should it happen to the State?

Mr. Suttle.—Although the work is necessary and it would be desirable to have it carried out as quickly as possible I am advised that the extent to which deterioration has taken place over the past seven years has been insignificant and that there has been no increase in the extent to which the stonework has to be renewed. That was possibly an aspect that would affect Mr. Mundow and he knew that delaying the job was not in effect making the job bigger than it was. He waited for this man whom he considered to be the best man to do the particular job there.

212. Is that the way you see it, Mr. Mundow?

Mr. Mundow.—We are compassionate when people get into trouble. If a person becomes ill we do not ask him to get out of bed and come in to do the job. First of all, it was not urgent; a year would not have made much difference.

Eight years have passed?—Yes.

213. Deputy Treacy.—As a follow-up to my previous question, could we have an assurance that as a result of this the organisation in the Board of Works has been improved, so as to ensure that there will not be a recurrence of this kind?—The organisation has been improved and controlled and we have many watchdogs. I cannot give an assurance that it will not happen again. It should not happen.

214. Deputy Healy.—If I could be assured that this is an isolated case and I could be quite sure that something like this will not happen again, I would accept that. My fear when it came to light was that it could happen in any Department, but if Mr. Mundow says that it might not happen I am happy with that.

Deputy Treacy.—If this looseness is not tightened up surely it can happen again.

Deputy Andrews.—It is not a question of looseness. The Chairman said that this is an isolated case and as far as Mr. Mundow is concerned it will not happen again, but it might happen.

Deputy Treacy.—We will differ on the question of looseness. After eight years you are promised completion of a job in a short time at an increase in cost of £48,000.

Deputy Andrews.—That is not the correct figure. That has been explained.

Deputy Molloy.—The actual estimate has been given by Mr. Suttle.

Deputy Healy.—Whatever sympathy I might have for a man who pleads illness I think that other commitments should not be taken as an excuse to delay work too protractedly. If a man is out somebody else should get the job.

215. Deputy Andrews.—We have an assurance now that the job is going ahead?

Mr. Mundow.—Yes.

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

“21. Sums totalling £1,100 were paid for the hire of a truck in the period from September 1967 to February 1968 for work at Dunmore East Major Fishery Station, the hire arrangement having been made by weekly orders issued by the local engineer. I inquired whether it is accepted practice to issue a series of orders to meet hireage requirements to the extent indicated.”

217. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that when conditions of hire have been agreed with the hirer it is accepted practice to issue white orders for the periods during which the plant is actually required. The repetitive issue of orders by the local engineer to the value indicated in the paragraph means in effect that the low limits set by the Board on such orders are heavily exceeded. In this way financial control by the Board is lost. I also think that the economics of long-term hiring as against purchase should have been considered.

218. Chairman.—Why do you not buy a truck?

Mr. Mundow.—I have asked that and got a satisfactory answer. In regard to what Mr. Suttle has been saying we have endeavoured to give our own professional and other people as much delegated authority as possible. That explains why they are able to do these things. When you give them delegated authority you have to take the consequences. There is nothing wrong, because at the time they were hiring a truck they could not say whether it was to be for a long time or not. They could not say whether it might be for a few weeks or for a month. I will read this: “When hire conditions have been agreed but when the precise period for which a vehicle may be needed is not known or when the need may not be continuous it is an economical practice to issue white orders. A hired truck might be required initially for say a fortnight. It might not be required for the next week but after that it might be required for another fortnight or three weeks and so on. It is economical to issue white orders for each of the periods during which it is used rather than try to cover the whole period with an omnibus order. Difficulty can arise if a local officer continues to issue white orders without enquiring from the Field Maintenance Officer if one of our own vehicles has become available. In order to improve co-ordination it has been agreed that the Administration Manager, Central Engineering Workshops, will in future arrange for the hiring of all items of plant.”

219. Deputy Healy.—That is a satisfactory answer, Mr. Chairman. I would like to know the amount of time the truck was engaged and for what period?

220. Deputy Andrews.—It was engaged for five months. This is approximately £200 a month during the period. May I ask were there weeks in which this truck was not actually in use?

Mr. Mundow.—Yes. There were no payments for those periods.

Mr. Suttle.—It was employed continuously for this period.

221. Deputy P. J. Burke.—If one of the delegated engineers that you have on a job down the country wants a truck in a hurry how quickly can he get the “green light” from the chief officer in charge of machinery? This is a practical thing when you delegate authority. In future will he, on a very urgent job where the truck has broken down, have to ring?—If he rings the Inchicore Workshop and says what he wants they will look at the records and see is that item available. If available they will tell him so and arrange for it to be delivered to him. It may be on another site or in the Central Workshops. They will arrange delivery to him. They are pretty efficient.

222. Deputy Briscoe.—If not available?— They will tell him he can hire one himself.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—That is all right. I would not like to hamper the man in the field by having him waiting for a week or a fortnight.

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

“22. In the course of local audit at the Moy Drainage Scheme it was noted that a tipper truck owned by the Office of Public Works had been idle from December 1966 until January 1968 and I asked if that truck could not have been made available for the work referred to in the previous paragraph. I also inquired as to the departmental system in operation to secure optimum use of vehicles in meeting transport requirements.”

224. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—On paragraph 22, I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that ground conditions at the Shannon Embankment, where the truck mentioned had been located from December 1966 until January 1968 were very bad and in order to replace or rescue vehicles that had become bogged down it was necessary to have a spare truck with a four-wheel drive available. Some of the area was affected by tides and rescue work had to be done quickly.

According to my information the truck was never actually used in the period mentioned. Batteries had to be fitted to the truck before it could be moved to the Moy.

I have also been informed that the Field Maintenance Officer is responsible for the allocation of plant to drainage works sites. On the basis of information obtained from formal advices of site requirements, from visits to the sites and from frequent telephone discussions with the site engineers, he tries to ensure that the best use is made of transport vehicles and other items of plant. With a view to greater co-ordination in the use of the Board’s plant and hired plant, arrangements for hiring have been centralised.

It appears that this system must have broken down in this case.

225. Chairman.—There were major works in operation there at that time?

Mr. Mundow.—Yes.

226. Would that not be the place for a truck?—At Shannon Embankment, it would yes. A particular type of spare one might suit for the particular job to be done.

227. How many vehicles have you down there?—I have been trying to find that out. There was an official truck with a four-wheel drive which had to be available there. My note says:—“The Field Maintenance Officer is responsible for the allocation of plant to drainage works and marine works. Up to the present it was the practice to consult him before an item of plant was hired. In fact in most cases he invited the tenders for the hiring. Difficulties have arisen because on marine works hirings were prolonged without further consultation with the Field Maintenance Officer or with inadequate consultation. We hope that by making the Administration Manager, Central Engineering Workshops responsible for hiring arrangements co-ordination will be improved.”

Mr. Suttle.—I have had an inquiry made as to what vehicles were employed on Shannon Works.

228. Deputy Molloy.—Why the Shannon Works?

Mr. Suttle.—It was on the Moy works that my men discovered this particular truck but the period we are dealing with this was on Shannon Embankment Works?

Mr. Mundow.—That information was sent to you last night. I have not got a copy of it yet.

Mr. Suttle.—That is right. The position is that there were at Shannon in the period on average a Landrover, four Bedford trucks and two tractors. Surely, having a Landrover, three Bedford trucks and two tractors, one of them could have been available at any time.

Mr. Mundow.—I have asked the same question of the engineer and I have not got an answer yet.

229. Chairman.—Perhaps you could send us a statement on it.*

230. Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

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

23. The charge to the subhead in respect of major construction works in progress during the year amounted to £990,474. In addition, the value of stores issued, charges for the use of plant and certain engineers’ salaries and travelling expenses were assessed at £438,159. The cost of each scheme to 31 March 1968 was:—

The balance of the charge to the subhead is made up of sums amounting to £28,373 in respect of intermediate or minor schemes and £5,270 being remanets of expenditure on completed major schemes.”

231. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is intended to give information as to the progress of the schemes showing the total expenditure to 31 March, 1968, against the estimated costs of the schemes.

232. Chairman.—I would ask the Accounting Officer to supply us with a statement of the original estimates for these schemes and the various revisions which have been made?—

Mr. Mundow.—In regard to the Moy when the original estimate was made the basic rate of wages for labourers was 2/5d an hour. The present rate is 4/8½ an hour so that accounts for a very large part of the increase. The latest estimate for the job is £5¼ million. It is 90 per cent completed. I can give you the information for the other rivers too if you wish.

Chairman.—Perhaps you would circulate the rest of the information on those lines.*

233. Deputy Molloy.—Surely it is unrealistic to base estimates on the existing pay rates when the job is about to start when all experience would amply illustrate that these rates are bound to increase before the job is concluded? Is it not giving a false impression to state that the estimate is so much when in actual fact you must know that this estimate will have to be revised and revised and revised?—That is why we put “to be revised” in the statement. That was the estimate at the time. If the thing could have been done at the time that is what it would have cost. Nobody could say in 1960 what the increase would be by 1968, so that any other estimate one made would be inaccurate. It would relate to no known figures. This relates to what was known at the time.

234. Deputy P. J. Burke.—In other words, this was a fairly accurate estimate at the time?

Deputy Molloy.—It was a rough guess?— No, this was based on the amount of work to be done, the machines required to do it and the number of men required and what they would earn at 2/5d an hour.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—That is a fair explanation. A lot of changes take place in eight years.

235. Deputy Treacy.—We have had an increase in labour costs as such at least in respect of manual labourers. Can the Accounting Officer say what the corresponding increase would have been from 1960 to 1968 in respect of materials generally?—I have not got that information.

I would like that information?—I am not sure it will be readily available. It involves an enormous mass of different things.

Deputy Molloy.—It might take a long time to get that information?—It would take a long time to produce it.

236. Deputy Treacy.—Could it be made available on a rough percentage basis?— I will send you a note covering the rest of this information as well as we can provide it.*

237. Chairman.—Under subhead D.— Purchase of Sites and Buildings—you mention Athlone and Castlebar. In the case of Athlone is this the full cost of the site?— Yes, that is the total cost. It covers 56½ acres. We got a favourable price there.

How many acres?—56½ at £242. 10. 0. an acre.

Deputy Molloy.—Very cheap.

238. Chairman.—What is the position in respect of Castlebar?—That is only a deposit, of course, but I have the full figures. This £2,300 is a deposit on a purchase price of just over £9,000 for 16¼ acres. We also bought 12 acres adjoining this for £5,000.

239. What is the total expenditure and total acreage?—The total acreage is about 28 acres and the price £14,500.

We turn now to the Statement of Expenditure on New Works, Alterations and Additions, 1967/68, Vote 8—Subhead E.†

240. Deputy Andrews.—In regard to item I—Leinster House—Extensions and Alterations—I do not know if this is a matter for you but there have been a considerable number of complaints about the heating system.

Deputy Treacy.—Hear, hear.

Deputy Andrews.—One finds in one room excess heat and in another room it may be quite cold; I do not avail of the excellent bar facilities myself but I have received a number of complaints from people who use the bar and they say that the Members’ Bar is like the middle of the Sahara Desert at times while the Visitors’ Bar is quite cold. What is the problem here? Has the matter been brought to your attention?—I have heard a number of complaints and they are being investigated. I do not think it is any fault of design. The design is right but it is the control the heat and it should be possible to have that dealt with.

Deputy Molloy.—It seems that Leinster House is blowing hot and cold.

Deputy Andrews.—That has always been the case.

241. Chairman.—On item 19—State Memorial to the late President J. F. Kennedy— there is an expenditure of £28,000. Could we have some explanation on that?—Some of that is for fees paid to consultants such as acoustic experts and others.

Was it purely professional fees?—Yes.

242. What is the present position regarding this memorial?—The position is that the architectural planning will be completed next summer. We have no decision yet on the provision of money for the construction of the memorial nor indeed as to where it is to be built.

243. Is there no specific site?—No.

I understood a site had been obtained?— The original site was to be at Haddington Road at Beggars Bush Barracks. We bought additional property to complete the site. Other sites have been suggested by various people since and they have been examined and reports made on them but we have got no decision. The Board of Works are in a bit of a difficult situation here. This project is really being sponsored by a Committee of the Dáil which takes the major decisions.

244. Deputy Molloy.—Has property been purchased at Haddington Road?—Yes, and Northumberland Road.

245. Who is maintaining that?—It was not intended to maintain it because it was bought for demolition. At the time it was purchased it was thought the work would begin sooner. The architects were pressed to get the work done more quickly. It was assumed the property acquired would be demolished at the first opportunity. As it turns out this has not been done. The property has been damaged very seriously by vandals and will have to be demolished.

246. Deputy P. J. Burke.—We had that matter discussed in the Dublin Corporation recently?—We offered it to the Corporation on a short lease to see if they could use it but I do not know if they can use it. We have locked it up well and we have informed the police when there was interference. In spite of the police and all our own defensive action it has still been damaged.

247. Deputy Treacy.—Could we have some information in regard to this expenditure of £38,695 which I understand in the main is in respect of fees? Could I ask how many professional fees would be involved in the payment of a sum of money of this kind? Could we have some breakdown as to the number of persons involved? What type of professional people are involved and how many?—The expenditure is for £38,695 but I think it would be better if I sent detailed figures as I have not got them with me.*

248. Deputy Molloy.—Who decides on the form of those memorials?—The Wolfe Tone one was sponsored by a committee who held a competition.

249. Who formed this committee?—They were a voluntary committee. All we had to do was to provide them with a site.

250. And the money?—Not all of it. They provided about £15,000 of their own. The Minister undertook to supply any excess expenditure over that amount.

251. Does the same thing apply to the Thomas Davis memorial?—It was commissioned by the State.

Who in the State?—It goes back to 1945. I think it was a Government expenditure. One of the decisions taken during the Centenary Year was to erect a memorial at College Green. A number of years elapsed before it was assigned to the Board of Works.

252. Are you satisfied that the Thomas Davis Memorial is structurally sound?—We are satisfied about the statue but the fountain and lighting have suffered at the hands of vandals. We have had to shut off the fountain and the lighting temporarily but we may have to shut them off permanently. Vandals are doing every conceivable damage to the floodlighting and to the fountain.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—We had soap and detergents thrown in?—We found beer bottles stuck down in all places where the water comes out.

253. Deputy Molloy.—It is a very unusual work. The minor figures do not seem to be very steady. We brought this up here before and you said you would be having a look at it?—Something has been done to stabilise them but I doubt if it is possible to do a wholly satisfactory job.

254. Deputy P. J. Burke.—It is a pity it could not be left as it was intended to be. I wonder if there was a protective railing put around it would it be better although it would not look the thing? If it was functioning as it was originally intended to be it would be very nice?—The fountain was idle, if I can use the word, for several months. We got our electricians to come in and repair it and it was put working again just before this year’s tourist season but I think it is as bad as ever now.

254A. Chairman.—On item 26, is the Dún Laoghaire Car Ferry Terminal very nearly completed?—It will be in operation next April.

Deputy Andrews.—Will it be in operation in April 1969?—Yes.

255. It is an excellent job and it is being done very well. We all welcome this development in Dún Laoghaire naturally enough, but I think there is one point the Accounting Officer may be able to help me on. This is in respect of the Coal Quay, The fishermen at Dún Laoghaire have been pressing for improvement at the Coal Quay. Have you got any information on it?—I inquired about this yesterday and I was told that some work is being done. I think resurfacing of the wharf is being done but there are one or two items which will give some difficulty.

256. I was just inquiring about what work had been done to help the fishermen. In fact, this might be a small tourist attraction for people who will go down to a civilised harbour during the summer. Are there any problems in relation to the traffic flow from existing temporary car ferry? This may not be a matter for Mr. Mundow. Does any congestion arise because of the car ferry at Dún Laoghaire? The traffic goes through Dún Laoghaire via Marine Road past the railway station?—There was a certain amount of congestion but not enough to disorganise the traffic. The main difficulty would arise from two ferries coming and going at short intervals, if one were going before the next one arrived.

257. Chairman.—With regard to item 30— New Garda Training Centre, Templemore, Adaptations etc.—in the Statement of Expenditure, there is a statement showing the original estimate, and the expenditure to 31st March last. Can you give us the latest figure?—The latest I have is the £637,000 at the end of March. There is very little beyond that. I inquired about this before I came here, whether there had been further complaints about the Training Depot and I am told there is nothing of any importance, nothing that is not relatively trivial. What these are I have not been told.

258. Accordingly, it is not completed?— It is virtually completed. There are small running-in difficulties, I think.

259. Deputy Molloy.—Have you the cost of the swimming pool?—I gave it last year.

Was that the final account?—I think it was. On page 209 of last year’s report of the Committee of Public Accounts it says: “The final cost of the swimming pool as certified by the Quantity Surveyor was £48,852, exclusive of fees.”

Thank you.

260. Chairman.—How many revisions of the estimate were made in respect of Templemore?—The original estimate was for a certain quantity of work. Certain works were to be done and at different stages additional works were added and the full estimate was more than double the original cost. There was more than double the work to be done.

261. How often was it revised?—Every time new work was added. When new work was estimated it led to a new estimate. I am sure that it was a dozen times.

262. Could we have a statement of the various revisions issued?—If I understand you correctly, Mr. Chairman, you want the original estimate and then each subsequent estimate whenever an item was added. I will do that.*

263. Deputy Treacy.—With regard to item 36—Office of National Education, Library and Documentation Centre—it is stated that it is deferred. Could we have an explanation?—It was not the Board of Works who deferred it.

Has the witness any knowledge of why the matter was deferred?—No.

264. Deputy Andrews.—In relation to item 43—Land Commission: Installation of Computer—what use is the computer put to? Is it available to other Departments?—Work on Departmental computers is organised so that if there were any spare time on a computer it would be allocated to another Department. This has been impossible because all the existing computers are running full time.

265. The computer in the Department of Lands would be programmed for Lands only? I am interested to know to what use it is put?—It is used for wages largely, I think.

Deputy Treacy.—It was paid for by the Department of Lands?—Yes.

266. Deputy Andrews.—Is there a fallacy in the matter of hiring, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Hiring charges would involve staff who look after the maintenance of the delicate instruments. In some countries they do not sell computers at all. They will only hire them.

267. Surely the State would be in a position to overcome that?—These are international companies and it is their policy not to sell. You cannot get over international policy.

268. Deputy Andrews.—Surely not all companies would have that policy?

Mr. Suttle.—Quite a number of them have. There is a question of dating. These computers go out of date very quickly. They are out of date within three or four years and then the computer is no longer “sophisticated”. In Revenue they hired the original one five years ago and then changed to another one.

269. Deputy Andrews.—The old computer is returned?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. In the case of Revenue they chose a different company altogether. They just surrendered the old one at the end of the hiring period and employed a completely different company.

270. Deputy P. J. Burke.—They have their own maintenance staff?

Mr. Suttle.—Maintenance is carried out by the hiring company staff.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—Is there one or two of the staff there permanently?

Mr. Suttle.—I would not know. It is all part of the maintenance charge.

271. Deputy Andrews.—Various Departments deal with different companies?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. They have a special group going round each Department.

Each company has its own maintenance staff?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

272. Chairman.—On subhead F.2—Furniture, Fittings and Utensils—when the offices of a Department are moved what happens to the old furniture?

Mr. Mundow.—If it is still usable it may be brought to the new place but if the office is going to one of the new buildings they usually try to get modern furniture and the old furniture is used in older buildings. It is not an invariable rule. A great deal depends on the amount of pressure brought to bear by the tenant.

273. Deputy P. J. Burke.—If you have the position that the furniture is old and affected by woodworm it would be very dangerous to bring it into new buildings?—Yes.

274. Chairman.—On the Explanation of the Causes of Variation between Expenditure and Grant—Department of External Affairs, Australia: Canberra — residence— the cost is shown as £36,449. Is that the full cost?—Speaking from recollection that is the total cost. We have also rented a chancellory.

275. Chairman.—The Explanation on subhead G.1—arterial drainage surveys—states that the volume of survey work was restricted because of difficulty in recruiting technical staff. Does this mean that the survey work in relation to arterial drainage services will be held up or slowed down? —We have not the same difficulty in relation to staff that we had a few years ago but we still have not all the staff that is on our authorised establishment. I am afraid the tendency is when there is a vacancy to fill it from the survey teams with the result that the survey teams fall behind whereas the designing and working of schemes is kept going at the highest possible pitch.

276. Deputy P. J. Burke.—Have you any top-class men, engineers or architects, leaving the service from time to time?—We would not use our top men on surveys.

277. If you had a good engineer on this job have you found that he might leave it?—Not so much as before. We have solved the problem by reducing considerably the number of engineers. We have recruited people who were trained as engineering technicians. They are able to do a great part of the survey and other simpler work of the engineers.

We have found in the local authority services that a number of our first class engineers and architects have left after some years and gone into private enterprise?—It happens. We suffer more from the loss of architects than of engineers. Our engineers seem to have settled down.

278. Deputy Molloy.—On the Notes could we have an explanation of Note No. 7 relating to the Embassy at Lagos?—Briefly what happened was that this site was leased from the Nigerian Government which undertook that the area would be confined to embassies and similar organisations, that it would not be used for ordinary residential purposes or office blocks. It was to be an embassy centre. We entered into an agreement on that basis but later the Nigerian Government allowed other buildings to be erected within this conclave adjacent to our site. The Ambassador on the spot recommended that we should not pursue this idea any further and that we should dispose of the site. When we had to sell it we got £10,000 for it, which we were assured was the very best figure that could be negotiated. There had been costs of course. In fact we lost £5,000 on the enterprise.

Deputy P. J. Burke.—I suppose you were lucky to get away with that?—Yes, if we had waited a bit longer we might not have got as much.

279. Deputy Molloy.—The £15,000 includes the purchase price?—Yes.

It does not state that?—Perhaps I had better read this note. A site was leased from the Nigerian Government in September, 1962 at £210 a year for the purpose of building residences for the Ambassador and the Secretary of the Embassy. In October, 1964 the plans were expanded to include the Embassy Office. The cost of the Embassy and Offices was estimated at £100,000. It became apparent about December, 1964 when some development works had already been carried out that the site was not suitable as a location for an Embassy. The surrounding area was being allocated to commercial development interests and large numbers of apartment blocks had already been built on adjacent sites. The then Ambassador was of opinion that an investment of £100,000 on a building in this area was most unwise. The Minister for External Affairs who inspected the site was also opposed to building an Embassy in this area. At this stage the rented house occupied by the Ambassador came on the market and following consultations between the various Departments concerned it was decided to purchase it and to dispose of our interest in the Embassy site. This realised £10,000.

280. Deputy Molloy.—You said you realised £10,000 from the sale but it was only leased?—We were renting a site at £210 a year.

281. How did you sell it, did you sell the lease?—We sold our rights in the lease.

You did not own the ground at any stage? —I am not familiar with land practices in Nigeria, I am afraid.

282. Deputy Treacy.—Are we proceeding with the idea of building a new Embassy or are we satisfied to renovate the Ambassador’s present dwelling or what are the proposals?—We are not doing anything further at the moment. The Embassy is carrying on from the two houses.

283. Deputy Andrews.—In Note No. 10 seven cases of losses by fire, not covered by insurance, are shown. What is the problem about covering these things by insurance?— The State never insures its property. We have so much property that it has always been regarded as a risk that the State ought to bear itself. The cost of these fires would not be anything like the cost of insurance premiums for a year.

284. Deputy Molloy.—Could I have an explanation of Note No. 4 regarding architectural fees?—It is so difficult to get architects that we employ some of our own architects in their own time at reduced fees to do smaller jobs for us. They had done these jobs which are mentioned here and they had earned their fees for them. Then the Department of Education changed its policy and decided to close down some smaller schools and have a central school in bigger centres. These were schools on which the Department told us not to proceed after the architectural work had been done.

285. Chairman.—Members have been supplied with the Accounts of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park.*

Mr. Suttle.—I received these accounts on 29th October, 1968 and, as a result of my examination of them I have raised with the Accounting Officer some matters regarding the sale of sheep. The Board has decided to discontinue sheep rearing and the flock of 908 sheep handed back by An Foras Talúntais when they vacated the Park in August, 1967 was sold over the following months at an average price of £2 2s. per animal. Having regard to prices obtained by the Board prior to the hand-over of the sheep to An Foras in 1964 and to published average prices for sheep at the time the flock was sold I asked for the Accounting Officer’s observations on the low prices obtained. I asked also regarding the method of sale and the settlement of accounts with An Foras. I think I mentioned to you, Mr. Mundow, that I would raise this matter at the meeting because it arose so late.

286. Chairman.—Could we have your observations on this, Mr. Mundow?

Mr. Mundow.—We have replied only this morning as follows:

“A policy decision was taken that black faced mountain sheep would not be retained in the Park because they might threaten the survival of the deer. In consequence of the change in policy An Foras Talúntais transferred a flock of 908 sheep to the Commissioners at the end of August, 1967. To maintain these throughout the winter would have entailed the incurring of heavy expenditure on the purchase of winter feed—because of the heavy stocking of the pasture land silage sufficient only for the Kerry herd had been made. Various methods of disposal of the sheep were considered and it was agreed that better results would accrue from piecemeal sale than from auction. There was no formal advertising but the Superintendent brought it to the notice of all likely buyers in the locality—sheep dealers, farmers, butchers. Between late September and early December he disposed of the entire flock which was a mixed one, in lots at prices which compare favourably with those paid locally for sheep of similar quality. Black faced mountain sheep are smaller and command substantially lower prices than lowland sheep—the prices quoted in the Irish Statistical Bulletin refer to lowland fat lambs and sheep. It has been confirmed in discussion with the Department of Agriculture that sheep prices fell in late 1967, that black faced mountain sheep were particularly cheap and that the prices obtained by the Superintendent were reasonable for the time.”

An Foras referred to August as being an unsuitable time of the year for holding an auction—it might have something to do with the harvest and buyers would not come to an auction—but the sheep were sold in late September which is a normal time for such sales. The figure of £1,000 claimed by An Foras to be the increased value of the sheep transferred was put forward for bargaining purposes and is probably too favourable. The fall in the prices of wool and sheep between 1964 and 1967 must have counteracted any increase in value. It is not proposed to make a specific claim in respect of the three rams which had been bought at Perth in 1964 through the Department of Agriculture and which had been transferred with the rest of the flock. The general adjustment with An Foras which is still being negotiated will take account of the overall position.

287. Mr. Suttle.—As I mentioned in the reference sheet on an average over the past five or six years before 1964 you were getting somewhere around £4 or £5 per animal on the sale of sheep. Two guineas was such a drop that I raised this matter with you. I wondered if the sheep you got from An Foras were not up to your usual standard.

287A. Mr. Mundow.—One would expect them to be better because they give them more attention than we can. In fact we found they sold for a relatively small amount.

288. Mr. Suttle.—On an average you had been getting £4 to £5 a head for years past.

288A. Mr. Mundow.—We have to depend on the Department of Agriculture’s advice that the black faced mountain sheep in late 1967 were particularly cheap and that the price obtained by the superintendent was reasonable for the time.

289. Chairman.—Members have received the Compilation of Property Rental 1967/68.*

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 17—STATIONERY OFFICE.

Mr. Ó Brolcháin called.

290. Chairman.—Members have been circulated with the accounts of the Government Publications Sale Office. †

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix 7.

* See Appendix 8.

* See Appendix 8.

† See Appendix 9.

* See Appendix 10.

* See Appendix 11.

* See Appendix 12.

* See Appendix 13.

† See Appendix 14.