Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1970 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1967 - 1968

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 21 Bealtaine, 1970.

Thursday, 21st May, 1970.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY HOGAN In The Chair

Mr. E. F. Suttle (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. A. O’Beirne (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

Chairman.—I wish to welcome Deputies Barrett and MacSharry who have recently been appointed members of the Committee.

VOTE 25—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.

1544. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—What does this Vote cover?

Mr. Martin.—The Commissioners comprise 11 people who are not paid. They are appointed for life by the Government. Their functions are, firstly, to act as trustees for charitable funds. They have about £2¼ million invested the income from which is paid for various charitable purposes such as the poor, schools, masses, et cetera. In addition, they are authorised to appoint trustees of charitable property where there are no trustees. This function arises very frequently nowadays in connection with old national schools which have become redundant as a result of the new education plan and are being sold. Generally, no trustees would have been appointed as owners of the schools. The Commissioners have made in recent years an increasing number of these appointments. If you wish to sell charitable property you must get either the consent of the Commissioners or the court. If you wish to make a lease of charitable property, the same rules apply. The Commissioners also give opinions and advice to charity trustees in the case of difficulties and they have what might be called numerous other miscellaneous functions. They report to the Examiner of private Bills in the case of any Bills involving charities. As well as that, they have quite a number of other duties under the Charities Act, 1961. I have here a copy of our annual report if any of the Deputies would like to glance through it.

1545. Where do the funds come from?

—From various sources. Some are left to the Commissioners directly; others arise under court schemes where the courts direct the Commissioners to take the fund and administer it in accordance with rules and regulations drawn up by the courts. Another case is where the sale of charitable property occurs and the commissioners request that the proceeds of the sale be lodged with them, they to hold it in accordance with the terms of the particular trust.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 8—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. H. J. Mundow called and examined.

1546. Chairman.—Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“Subhead E.—New Works, Alterations and Additions

19. The charge to the subhead comprises £1,618,256 expended on general architectural and engineering works, and £3,510,154 in respect of grants towards the erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools, as compared with £1,765,975 and £2,818,664, respectively, in the previous year.

20. School grants amounting to £2,764,390 were paid to managers who undertook responsibility for having the works carried out and £745,764 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.”

21. Regulations made by the Minister for Education with the approval of the Minister for Finance set out the various headings of improvement works at vested national schools that qualify for grants. Improvements at one school included the provision of a car park, tennis courts and alterations to provide dressing rooms. The regulations do not specifically provide for improvements of this kind and in the circumstances I have asked whether the sanction of the Minister for Finance has been obtained for extending their scope.”

1547. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—These paragraphs go together and give information as to the make up of the expenditure charged to the subhead as between national school grants and other works.

1548. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—The grants are usually much higher than this.

Mr. Suttle.—Not less than two-thirds. That is the minimum grant.

1549. In most cases they are much higher?

Mr. Suttle.—They very often are. I am informed that planning authorities generally make the provision of off-road parking facilities a condition of the grant of planning permission. Grants may be paid towards the cost of “surfaced playspaces” and in recent years that term has been interpreted to cover paved areas for physical education in organised games such as tennis, netball, basketball, etc. The standard open playshelters normally provided are cold and draughty, but, when closed to make dressing rooms, they can be used for group activities in accordance with the new curriculum which is being gradually adopted. It seems to me that these interpretations were not contemplated when the regulations were agreed by the Department of Finance. I consider that in the interest of maintaining proper financial control, new interpretations involving increased expenditure should have the approval of that Department.

1550. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is it necessary for the Department of Education to get sanction from the Department of Finance for these purposes?

Mr. Mundow.—We corresponded with them in the matter and explained the situation, especially the facts mentioned by Mr. Suttle. They told us that they did not think sanction from the Department of Finance was necessary.

1551. Chairman.—Does that mean that the Department are in a position to sanction carparks, tennis courts, and things of that nature?

—They were experimenting to see if this was an economical way of providing other facilities in the particular case. They are experimenting to see whether this additional use of play shelters is good from the educational point of view.

1552. Has it taken place at only one place?

—So far as I know Dunleer is the only place up to now.

1553. A car park is in the process of being provided at one other school?

Mr. Mundow.—Car parks are often provided.

Mr. Suttle.—The original regulations made in 1965 laid down the facilities to be provided at schools. This point arises from the interpretation of these regulations and involves additional expenditure. We feel the Department of Education should have got approval from the Department of Finance for this wider interpretation of the regulations.

Deputy FitzGerald.—We have not got the regulations.

1554. Deputy Tunney.—Would there be any difficulty in getting approval from the Department of Finance?

Mr. Suttle.—I do not think so. The Department of Finance are the controlling Department on all financial matters. If a Department decide to do something new or additional that involves additional expenditure the Department of Finance should be aware of it.

1555. Deputy FitzGerald.—That would be so if the original provisions did not contemplate that. It was undesirable to have unnecessary reference back to the Department of Finance. Much depends on whether this is a reasonable interpretation of the regulations or not. It is hard to know when we do not know what the regulations are.

Mr. Suttle.—Grants are sanctioned by the Minister towards the cost of building, enlarging, or otherwise improving vested schools, enclosing sites and providing suitable furniture and fittings, teachers’ rooms, play-shelters, surfaced playspaces, paths, drains and sanitary accommodation, including a water-carriage system of sanitation where an adequate water supply and a public sewer are available or, if a public sewer is not available, a suitable septic tank system of sewage disposal, where such can be provided at a reasonable cost.

1556. With reference to the word “improvement” it is a question of whether the words which follow are to be read as an explanation of “improvement” or whether “improvement” is to be read generally and these other things are to be additions or extensions.

Mr. Suttle.—The way in which we interpret this is that there are three main items—there is the building of schools starting from scratch, there are schools in areas where it is possible to visualise an increase in population and then there is the improvement of schools. A considerable number of these schools are very old but some of the buildings are sound and require only a certain amount of improvement and modernisation. These are the three main types of work carried out.

1557. It is arguable whether the provision of car parks, tennis courts and so on would improve a school. There does not appear to be any limit as to how the schools are improved other than the long list of details which I am not sure are examples of improvements. It is very ambiguously worded.

Mr. Suttle.—There has been a certain standard in operation for a number of years. As Deputies will remember from their own school days, there used be a play shelter with a roof and possibly one wall. The playpitch was usually a patch of grass. That had been the pattern for, perhaps, a hundred years but it has now been changed. The playgrounds have been laid out to include tennis courts and other facilities. Of course, this involves considerable additional expenditure because in the case of a tennis court, for instance, the ground must first be levelled, whereas in the older days, a playground was considered to be all right as long as there were no rocks jutting up from it.

1558. The mere fact that standards have been raised after a century is scarcely objectionable. It is long overdue but the question is whether it is legitimate to carry out these works under that authority. I would have thought the word “improvement” covers all these details?

—That has been the interpretation of improvement up to this but there is now a breakaway from the old pattern.

1559. Deputy MacSharry.—Who is questioning all this?

Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General.

1560. Deputy MacSharry.—Is it the wish of the Comptroller and Auditor General that permission to carry out this type of work should be obtained from the Department of Finance?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes. In other words, the Department of Finance should be made aware of this additional expenditure being incurred in relation to schools.

1561. But at the moment the Comptroller and Auditor General is only questioning one specific experimental case?

Mr. Suttle.—Yes.

1562. Are there many more cases of this nature before the Department?

Mr. Suttle.—While this is experimental at the moment it is likely to be a general rule from now on because of the new school curriculum.

1563. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—On the question of grants for schools, in our own school eleven-thirteenths of a grant was given. Assuming that a tennis court and other amenities were added to the school, can I take it that the grant would not be in that proportion in the case of the tennis court?

Mr. Mundow.—Such matters are always discussed between the manager and the Department of Education so that a reasonable grant can be arrived at.

1564. Chairman.—Would the provision of gymnasia be covered by improvements?

Mr. Suttle.—I do not think they are provided in national schools. They are provided for secondary schools.

1565. Deputy Tunney.—With regard to the new curriculum will there not be an additional rule required?

Mr. Mundow.—Yes.

Deputy Tunney.—In that respect I would wish that the Comptroller and Auditor General would not be as vigilant as he otherwise might be. I am thinking now of a school out in Castleknock which was built per the old curriculum. This school was practically finished when it was realised that the building, in order to comply with the new curriculum, would have to have this particular room for extra curricular activities, I think it is called. In that type of case I should like to see the Department being able to suggest to the Board of Works that they go ahead with a building without having a lot of correspondence between one Department and another. On the other hand, I can appreciate that in a situation in which we are providing tennis courts for one school while in another there might not be even proper toilet facilities there would have to be regard to the amount of money available. However, I should not like to put anything in the way of the provision of these improvements which, in so far as education is concerned, are necessary.

1566. Deputy FitzGerald.—If the recent interpretation of the regulations enables standards to be raised, should we be trying to put a brake on this? I agree that there should be no case in which regulations are broken. It is our job to be vigilant about that but if it is a reasonable interpretation that they are entitled to raise standards, should it not be a question for the Department concerned as to how they employ their budget? I agree with Deputy Tunney on the question of providing tennis courts for one school while another may not have a lavatory, but surely that is a matter for the Department of Education and not the Department of Finance within any reasonable interpretation of the regulations?

Mr. Suttle.—I am not at all against improving the schools. I would wish all schools to be brought up to the highest possible standard. These regulations have been approved by the Minister for Finance working on interpretation of standards operating in 1965 without actually spelling them out. They are now being changed and this, of course, involves additional expenditure. On that basis I consider they should go back to the Department of Finance and say: “We are going to raise the standard of schools from now on and this will involve additional expenditure,” thereby bringing Finance into the picture from that angle.

1567. Should we not be working in the other direction towards Finance handing over a sum of money on a budgetary basis and leaving the maximum flexibility to the Departments? For Finance to be becoming involved in details of that nature must involve duplication. The Department of Education must, first of all, decide whether they wish to erect tennis courts at a particular school or schools and then must go back to Finance with the proposals.

Mr. Suttle.—It is not a question of going back to Finance for each individual school. It is usually on the basis of a once and for all transaction.

Deputy FitzGerald.—In order to prevent duplication, I would have thought that these regulations should be written and interpreted as widely as possible.

1568. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—The Accounting Officer has told us that the Department of Education are satisfied that they have the right to interpret the regulations.

Mr. Mundow.—When we asked the Department if they wished to go to Finance they said no because they considered their interpretation to be quite proper.

1569. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—So it is a matter between the Departments of Education and Finance?

—Yes.

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—I should not like to think that anything we do here would give the Department of Finance the opportunity of saying they must wait for a year or so in order to think about a particular proposal. Perhaps we could agree either to make some recommendation or make no recommendation.

1570. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is it not the case that Finance are aware that this situation exists? If they wish to insist on a narrower interpretation they can take the matter up with the Department of Education. Therefore, it does not require any further action on our part to alert Finance?

Mr. Suttle.—No. If the view of the Committee is that the Department’s interpretation is quite legitimate that is the end of the matter. I only bring this matter before the Committee. If the Committee agree with me they go back to Finance. If they do not agree that is the end of the matter.

Deputy FitzGerald.—It is quite right to bring it forward.

1571. Chairman.—Then we are agreed on a more liberal interpretation. 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. Approximately 450 houses have been provided under this scheme; there were no payments to the Agency in the year under review.”

1572. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This paragraph is for information. There was no expenditure during the year but I do not know if the project has finished.

1573. Deputy FitzGerald.—Were 1,000 houses to be built?

Mr. Suttle.—That was the original figure.

1574. Why is the scheme stopped with 550 houses remaining to be built?

Mr. Mundow.—It was a matter for the National Building Agency. We merely paid the amount they demanded. We felt it should not be on our Vote at all, and we had far less control of this than we have of our general building programme.

1575. —Deputy MacSharry.—Is it not true that some of these houses provided for the Garda are already vacant?

—I was not aware of that.

1576. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—In Ballintogher the barracks is closed. What else can be done but sell the houses?

Deputy FitzGerald.—This arises from the change in policy since the houses were built?

—Yes.

Deputy FitzGerald.—That does not mean more houses will not be needed in centres?

1577. Deputy MacSharry.—I agree building should be stopped until it is decided where the Garda will be?

Mr. Suttle.—Maybe that was the idea of stopping at 450 until the whole position is reviewed. As far as I am concerned, I am confined to the expenditure involved. I do not know what the policy is.

1578. Chairman.—Will they be available to a local authority if it turns out that they will not be used by the Garda?

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—In some cases there might not be anybody else to buy them?

Mr. Mundow.—They are very good houses.

1579. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“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 £932,033. In addition, the value of stores issued, charges for the use of plant and certain engineers’ salaries and travelling expenses were assessed at £400,798. The cost of each scheme to 31st March 1969 was:—

The balance of the charge to the subhead is made up of sums amounting to £84,329 in respect of intermediate or minor schemes and £6,347 being remanets of expenditure on completed schemes.”

1580. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—This year the paragraph shows both the original and latest (1969-70) estimates for each of the schemes. It seems a normal feature of these schemes that original estimates are found to be inadequate. Certificates of completion were issued in December, 1968, under section 13 of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, for the Inny and Killimor-Cappagh Drainage Schemes and under section 33 for the Blanket Nook Embankment and the figures of expenditure to 31st March 1969 exceed the original estimates by approximately 48 per cent; 34 per cent and 11 per cent respectively. In the case of the Deel however, for which a certificate of completion under section 13 of the Act was also issued in December, 1968, expenditure to 31/3/69 had not reached the original estimated figure.

1581. Chairman.—There was pretty gross underestimation.

Mr. Suttle.—These schemes take a number of years to complete. With the rise in costs it is inevitable that the estimate that was originally drawn up would be below the actual expenditure incurred after five or six years.

1582. Chairman.—Are estimates always based on current prices? Is no provision made for inflationary tendencies?

Mr. Mundow.—Nobody can foretell how much costs will increase. Wages always go up. In the case of the Inny scheme, wages more than doubled in relation to the original estimate of 1959.

1583. Surely a commercial firm would not operate on this basis but would take current prices into consideration in estimating costs?

—To some extent it is guessing rather than estimating.

Mr. Suttle.—In commercial contracts there is usually a variation clause which covers price increases.

1584. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Many of these schemes are finished now, the Inny and the Moy for example?

Mr. Mundow.—They are either finished or finishing. The Moy should be finished this year. The only major scheme we have in the near future is the Boyne. The others are finished or just tapering off.

1585. Deputy Barrett.—Is the Shannon Estuary scheme finished?

—That is being done in sections. There was one part of the embankment which was very bad and it was repaired. Then it was discovered that other sections needed to be done. As far as we are concerned it could be regarded as virtually finished.

1586. A survey was carried out on such embankments about four or five years ago. There are miles of embankments about which nothing has been done, yet. Is it not the intention to continue with them?

—There is nothing provided for any further extensive embankment work.

1587. Chairman.—Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead L.—Expense of Operation of the Asgard (Grant-in-Aid)

24. The yacht “Asgard” was purchased on behalf of the State in 1961 and was in use for training An Slua Muirí until 1967. In 1968 the Government decided that it should be used for training young sailors under the control and guidance of a committee of experienced yachtsmen. Issues from the grant-in-aid are made to that committee.”

1588. Paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead M.—Appropriations in Aid

25. It was noted that the use of portions of the premises comprising the Glencree former Reformatory was granted to a film company for a period of two years from September 1967. It appeared that a licence covering the arrangement had not been completed by February 1969 and that rent, payable monthly in advance, was in arrears to an amount of £1,576 at that date. I understand that £750 was received in June 1969 and I am in communication with the Accounting Officer.”

1589. Have you anything to add, Mr. Suttle?

Mr. Suttle.—Normally a licensee is not allowed into occupation of State property until all conditions have been agreed and the licence executed. I have been informed that there were unusual circumstances in this case and the draft licence was not submitted to the licensees for approval until May, 1968. Their failure to complete it and the accumulation of rent arrears may be attributed to the fact that, in June, 1968, the question of the purchase of the property was raised. These negotiations were delayed and it now appears that the Wicklow County Council will insist on the preservation of the buildings under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, because of their architectural interest. As a result the licensees are apparently no longer interested in the property. £3,600 has been paid in rent up to June, 1969, and the licensees now claim that the method of assessing the rent was unfair to them. The accounting officer has said he will report to me again when this matter has been resolved.

1590. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—I gather the county council decides that the premises cannot be interfered with?

Mr. Mundow.—Apparently this is the case.

1591. Deputy FitzGerald.—On item 10a— Furniture Production Unit—of the list of New Works, Alterations and Additions* what does that come under?

—This is a small place we set up at Inchicore to produce suitable units of office furniture, tables and chairs. We do not intend to go into mass production to compete with business firms. We often find it difficult to get tenders for items which would be particularly suitable for our own needs, particularly ones which have to be specially manufactured. This unit of ours is producing prototypes of such items.

1592. Chairman.—Where are those items used? Are they used in Government offices?

—Yes, and in agricultural colleges. It is very difficult to get a manufacturer to tender for laboratory equipment, particularly when only one piece is required.

1593. On Item No. 14—Carlow—New Government Offices—what type of offices are those?

—This in a number of towns would be a central office which would accommodate various Departments which are at present scattered through the town, such as the Department of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry, Social Welfare, all those small units which are dispersed around those towns at the moment. The policy is to bring them together in a single building for their own benefit and for the benefit of the public. This is one instance which is now complete.

1594. Is there any attempt made to correlate those new Government offices in a town with say, local government offices or something like that?

—We have been thinking about it but have not gone very far yet. It seems a desirable thing. The more people who are involved the slower things develop.

1595. Deputy FitzGerald.—On Item No. 21— State Memorial to the Late President J. F. Kennedy—at what stage is this? Why is there less money spent last year than in the year before?

—The position now is that the plans are complete. The next step normally would be to look for tenders for the building but we have no instructions about this. This is being considered by an all-Party Committee of the Dáil. We provided the architect who has been working with some staff. They have completed the plan. The next steps will be taken when the committee tell us to go ahead with it.

1596. Are the committee satisfied with the plans?

—They have not met for quite a long time.

1597. Do the committee know the plans are completed and ready for inspection?

—They have been in touch with us and with the architect but not in the last couple of years.

1598. When were the plans completed?

—About the end of March they were finally ready.

1599. If they have not met do they know the plans are complete?

—We are not very intimately acquainted with what goes on.

1600. If they have not met they cannot be very intimately acquainted?

—The architect has been working away. Of course the committee did approve his provisional plans quite a long time ago and had a model constructed. This was approved. The architect has been working from that on.

1601. Surely if the plans are complete and are ready for tender the committee should be brought together to approve them?

—Recently it was suggested that they should be brought together.

1602. Have those plans been sent to the secretary of the committee?

—In effect the architect is an officer of the committee as well as being the architect.

1603. Has he told the committee?

—He has been trying to get the thing moving.

1604. Who summons the committee?

—I think it is the Minister for Finance. He is chairman of the committee.

1605. He has notified the chairman of the committee that the plans are ready but the chairman has not called a meeting?

—He intended to have a meeting in the last session of the Dáil but was not able to get around to it.

1606. Can the committee not meet unless the chairman summons it?

—That would be the position.

1607. Deputy MacSharry.—A question was asked about this in the Dail recently and the Dail were informed, as far as I remember, that the plans were ready?

—That is true.

Deputy MacSharry.—It is up to the members of the Committee.

Deputy FitzGerald.—Not if they can only be called together by the Minister.

Deputy MacSharry.—They can make the Minister call them.

1608. Deputy FitzGerald.—On item 26a— Additional Accommodation—72-76 St. Stephen’s Green—I was wondering why the cost was over twice the estimate?

Mr. Mundow.—The estimate was for the partitioning and preparation of the building for occupation by the Departments of Justice and Finance. The estimate could not have been very accurate in any event because it was not certain at the time who was going into the building and what their requirements would be.

1609. This is £50,000 worth of partitioning?

—There was more than partitioning. There was decoration, furniture and fittings.

Mr. Suttle.—There was £80,000 under 3A for the same building.

1610. Deputy FitzGerald.—I thought I had seen it somewhere else. The Department of Finance seems to have been better at estimating than the Department of Justice. It was not clear who was going into those offices. Was the Department of Justice estimate for additional accommodation for their Department? Is it a question of which officers were going into the building?

Mr. Mundow.—It was not clear at the beginning who was going into the new office. Much accommodation was required by the Departments of Finance and Justice. We were not sure who would be going in there.

1611. Deputy MacSharry.—On No. 29— Garda Training Centre, Templemore—Adaptations—does “virtually completed” mean there will be no need for any estimate next year.

—I think that is the hope. The whole job is really finished. It has been going on much longer than it should have been. We have not yet finally satisfied ourselves that everything is as perfect as it ought to be. Generally it is acceptable now.

1612. Deputy MacSharry.—On item 30 I notice that there is a reference to County Sligo. The station at Curry is closed. I see it is “In Planning” here. Could we have this statement brought up to date in future? Then we will not have Garda stations about which nothing has been done brought before us.

—That was over a year ago. This was the financial position at the end of 1968/69.

Deputy MacSharry.—I am sure there were other barracks in the same position.

1613. Deputy FitzGerald.—With reference to the Central Detective Unit at Ship Street, these are old buildings backing onto Ship Street in the upper Castle Yard.

—They housed the Statistics Office at one time.

1614. Expenditure is small considering the condition of the building. I wonder would any expenditure have converted them into suitable offices? I cannot imagine what one could do with £2,513. Was there more expenditure?

—There was no estimate. Until the works are completed there will be expenditure each year.

Deputy FitzGerald.—It is a very small amount. It is quite a big building.

1615. Deputy MacSharry.—Do I understand from this that there was no vote at all for Skreen, County Sligo, in 1968/69 and yet this money was spent? Was it voted the year before?

—The vote was for the total of the service.

1616. No estimate was put in?

—In our own records we have estimates for each particular job.

Deputy FitzGerald.—You have a global estimate for small jobs?

—Yes.

1617. Could I ask a general question about Garda barracks and about procedure? In the evidence to the Conroy Commission there is a sharp conflict of evidence as to why these things were delayed for a very long time. I am not aware of whether this situation was ever resolved as between the Office of Public Works and the Department of Justice. What is the procedure? The question of where the delay occurred and who was responsible was very much in dispute between the Departments.

—The delay is caused to a small extent by a change of policy in the Garda as to where they will have stations and what accommodation they will provide and whether they will provide living accommodation or just station accommodation. There are so many stations to be improved or provided that there does not seem to be enough staff to deal with them all simultaneously.

1618. In the Office of Public Works?

—And possibly also in the Department of Justice and even in the Garda. There were delays which appear to be inevitable.

1619. The Department of Justice claimed that the work was requisitioned and that long delays occurred in the Office of Public Works and that they were unable to find out why.

—There was difficulty getting sites.

1620. What about repairs?

—I think the staff shortages are mostly in the Office of Public Works where we are short of maintenance staff. We are overcoming that problem to some extent. We cannot readily get architects but we have been employing highly skilled and experienced clerks of works and putting them on inspection work. They can do a substantial part of an architect’s work but they do not design. This has been in operation for the past two or three years in an experimental way but it is proving to be very successful. Unlike many architects who leave us when they find more attractive positions, these people stay with us. This should, I think, in the future leave us in a better position to deal with this kind of problem.

Delays are being reduced?

—Yes.

1621. Deputy MacSharry.—It is the Board’s architects who decide which stations should be improved or which ones should be replaced?

—The Commissioner of the Garda and the Department of Justice decide. They tell us what they want done and it is then up to us to carry out their wishes.

1622. Deputy Tunney.—Your architects design new stations?

—Yes.

1623. I have often wondered what aesthetic motivation accounts for the station on the Navan Road. This building is situated in an essentially redbrick area and about half a mile from the Deaf and Dumb Institute which is a rather bleak building but from which the barracks would seem to have taken its colour and height. At the time of building there was much criticism of the type of structure that was being put up?

—It is sometimes very difficult to know what motivates an architect.

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Variety, obviously.

1624. Deputy MacSharry.—On item 34— Land Registry, Additional Accommodation— can the accounting officer say if the staff have been recruited to fill the additional accommodation?

—I cannot say. That is a matter for the Department of Justice.

1625. Deputy FitzGerald.—I have no wish to re-open the national school question again, but the amount spent here as stated at item 39 is in excess of the Vote?

—It falls within the total of subhead E. The amount voted for the subhead was £5 million and we did not exceed the total amount provided. It includes new works of all sorts. Schools are the biggest item in that, of course. In fact, we did spend a good deal more than was allocated on schools. It is something we have been unable to control fully because of the amount of activity of managers as well as of the community at large. Although the amount has more than doubled within the past few years it is still not sufficient to provide all the services that are required.

1626. I do not quite follow. Why are you unable to control it?

—We have information from the Department of Education about all the schools to which they wish improvements to be carried out and the number of schools they wish to have built. We get estimates of the cost of the work. For the coming year, for instance, it may come to £X and when our estimates are being considered in the Department of Finance they find they cannot provide all the necessary money. We are told to manage with £X minus £Y. Some of the work must then be delayed because of insufficiency of funds. It has often been the case, though, that the work had gone so far ahead in planning that it would not be possible to confine ourselves to the lesser amount.

1627. So you spend X plus Z instead?

—Yes. Nobody has rebuked us for that up to now.

I am not rebuking you either. I am only making an inquiry.

1628. Deputy MacSharry.—In the event of that happening what work would be delayed?

—We submit lists to the Department and ask them to nominate their priorities. They send us a list of first priorities and we are told to go ahead with these. We then receive a list of second priorities with which we are to go ahead if we can get the money either from savings on other works or in some other way.

1629. Has the amount never been exceeded?

—Last year we had to get an addition to subhead E under new works.

1630. How does it work? Do Finance then relent to some extent or are the priorities dealt with regardless of Finance having to provide the money?

—We check each month on how the expenditure is going and if we find that it is running at too high a rate, we try to control the situation. This can only be done effectively early in the year, about this time, but if it gets out of hand later on it is not then easy to control it. We do not bother Finance too much unless it is quite clear that it will be necessary to seek a supplementary estimate on the subhead. Normally, we spend much less that what is allocated to new works because of the shortage of architectural staff. Anything we save on other works is spent on schools.

1631. Deputy FitzGerald.—On Item No. 63— Lansdowne House—Additional Accommodation—does this include furniture?

—The occupants are the Industrial Development Authority. The expenditure mainly arose out of the allocating of space, providing partitions, decoration and so on.

1632. In so far as this is allocation of space and partitioning, is there any reason why this could not be incorporated in the building itself? Is it economic that somebody should erect a general purpose building and that you should then play around with it afterwards? Why could not suitable accommodation be provided in the first place?

—That is what we would like.

1633. What is stopping you?

—We have not built for our own use since the Department of Industry and Commerce building in Kildare Street was erected. We now have the Stamping Branch at Dublin Castle being built to our own design. We obviously prefer to provide accommodation in the form in which it is required instead of having someone else provide the shell and having to finish it then ourselves.

1634. Is there any reason why even where someone else provides the shell there should not be collaboration from the beginning so that design and partitioning will suit the needs of the Department rather than wait until it is built?

—When we are asked to provide accommodation for a Department, whether it arises from expansion or transfer, we cannot wait for a new building to be built. We have to see what building is available and then adapt it to their needs.

1635. That suggests a remarkable lack of planning. In the ordinary way if a Department wanted accommodation they would have to plan years ahead to get it built. The suggestion that that is not being done because of lack of capital, that they cannot even plan far enough ahead to indicate their requirements before the building is completed, is puzzling?

—Nearly all demands for accommodation are urgent. They want to be accommodated within a week or a month.

1636. If they were carrying out the normal practice of providing their own accommodation they would have to plan years ahead?

—This has occurred in connection with the new Department of Agriculture building.

1637. If the Department of Agriculture can do that, why can other Departments not plan a few months ahead?

—The accommodation requirements of the Department of Agriculture are relatively static. Their needs are well known and it is possible to plan for them, but when a new Department is set up and has to be in operation in a week or a month—

1638. That is unusual?

—The Department of Labour is an instance.

1639. That is only one case. Surely the number of cases where a new Department or a new Mapping Branch is set up is only a minority of cases. Most of these buildings are occupied by staffs who were previously in existence and are doing work they were doing in another place. It should be possible to see normal expansion some years or some months ahead, long enough to ensure that in finishing off the building the developers would make provision for accommodation in the form required instead of having to do a second job on it after it is built. Is there any Finance control over this to ensure there is advance planning? Perhaps I could direct that to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I do not think it is the Accounting Officer’s responsibility.

Mr. Suttle.—I can see the point the Deputy is making about planning ahead, but it is the Commissioners’ policy not to rent until the actual requirements are known. Take, for instance, the St. Stephen’s Green building. A decision was taken to rent that whole building, but at that stage they did not know who would go into it. They said: “We need at least this much accommodation. We shall take the whole building. Now it is a question of allocating who will go into it.” It was decided that the Department of Justice would move in, part of the Department of Finance, part of the Revenue Commissioners, and eventually I was snuggled into a corner of it myself. However, it was a question of this building becoming available and it was decided it would be suitable for Government accommodation.

1640. Why wait until after it is built to decide who will go into it. Surely you can estimate the requirement of accommodation for a year or two ahead? You can see that so many extra square feet of space are necessary and you negotiate with the developers once they have made their plans?

Mr. Suttle.—It is not as easy as that. In that building you have four Departments. I had been looking for new accommodation myself for more than ten years to get out of one of the Georgian houses in Merrion Street. One bit of accommodation would be offered to me; I would examine it and find it was not suitable. It went on like that from year to year and eventually this building became vacant and they said: “We might be able to fit you into this if space is available.” We only required a small amount of space, five or six rooms.

1641. I can see that, but if you are going to rent a whole building why not take the decision before the building is completed?

Mr. Suttle.—Even when you have decided to take the whole building you still cannot decide who will go into it, because the priorities change from day to day. At one time the Department of Justice is in a complete state of chaos on account of lack of accommodation and must get first priority, but the Department of Finance might be that way next week. It is a question of knowing from day to day what accommodation is required. I think Mr. Mundow will agree with me it is a varying problem from day to day.

1642. If there is a shortage of accommodation in one Department this week and in another Department next week, it shows an incredible lack of planning?

Mr. Suttle.—It is impossible to plan accommodation ahead unless you are erecting your own buildings. Then it is quite easy. You can decide this building will be for the Department of Justice, but where you are not providing your own building and you are providing miscellaneous bits of accommodation you just have to look around. I do not know when the decision was taken to rent 72-76 St. Stephen’s Green, but I would say practically when the building was completed.

1643. That is my point. Why not negotiate with the developers from the beginning? You know how many square feet are needed for Government offices for years ahead. You do not wait until they have erected the building. I do not think any commerical organisation would operate in that way?

Mr. Suttle.—At this stage you cannot say who will go into the building because the priorities are changing.

1644. We are going around in circles. You do not plan ahead because your priorities are changing, but if you planned ahead you would not have to change your priorities. One new Department or branches of Department may be created over 20 years, but the great bulk of accommodation is occupied by Departments and by branches of Departments that have been in existence, whose staff is approximately the same size now as it was a couple of years ago and whose needs can be forseeen?

Mr. Suttle.—It is also a question of policy. The Department of Justice were carrying on in very bad accommodation. I was carrying on in very bad accommodation; the Department of Finance were scattered in various houses. The question was: will we leave these people where they are, let them struggle on for another ten years, or will we take this building and put them into it and give them proper accommodation? There is a certain amount of policy involved in it as well.

1645. There is no difficulty about that. If someone has to take a policy decision as to how much accommodation will be taken and for whom, that is not a reason for waiting until after the building is erected to decide what the policy is?

Mr. Mundow.—I would not like the Committee to get the impression that there is no planning. Seven or eight years ago we had a committee in the Board of Works and there were representatives from other Departments. It carried out a survey of all existing accommodation and graded it. There was some good accommodation, some bad accommodation and some very bad accommodation. Arising out of this it was discovered what the needs were, who required to be urgently reaccommodated, who could carry on for a limited period and who could stay where they were. A report was produced which would have been a plan from which to work in a static situation. Many things happened in the intervening seven to eight years. We have new services and we have not been able to follow the plan in the way one hopes to follow any plan, to take it as a reasonably helpful guide. We have now reached the situation where quite a good deal of the really bad accommodation has been abandoned. We are not using it any longer. A good deal more still has to be abandoned. The reasonable thing to do would be to say: “We know the kind of accommodation we want. This is where we think it might be built and this is what it would cost”. If one could get the capital required to put this into operation we would be proceeding in a very logical way. Unfortunately the capital was not available and that is why those buildings put up in St. Stephen’s Green, Lansdowne Road and other places had to be rented.

1646. Chairman.—Is there any planning unit to keep this matter under continuous survey? There is a huge amount of money involved so there should be a planning unit.

—We have a Division specially concerned with accommodation.

1647. Deputy FitzGerald.—Do you mean to say that over eight to nine years there was no review of this matter?

—No, their work is constantly interrupted with “crises” demands.

Chairman.—It is all the more reason why you should have a unit to keep this matter under continuous review.

1648. Deputy FitzGerald.—You wait eight or nine years while things were changing all the time. Is that logical?

Mr. Suttle.—There is another aspect of the matter to be considered. There was no additional expenditure incurred as a result of this type of planning in that office buildings which the Board of Works put up themselves would be of much the same type as new buildings being put up. They would be the open plan buildings which are so designed to be used for any purpose afterwards. All that is involved is additional partitions. Those buildings are all adaptable. If the Department of Justice were curtailed and only half the accommodation was required the other half could quite easily be adapted at the present time without much additional cost involved. As I said, the expenditure arising from those buildings is only partitions which is very little more than that involved in the original building.

1649. The sum we are talking about runs into thousands of pounds?

Mr. Suttle.—Those are large buildings and the amount of partitioning involved is tremendous.

Mr. Mundow.—We can do it more cheaply than the builders. We have had an opportunity to put that to the test where one building was being laid out. The owners wanted to do it themselves and rent it to us. They gave us an estimate of what it would cost to finish it and it was nearly twice what we were able to do it for.

1650. Deputy FitzGerald.—That is an important point which was not clear to me. I am still puzzled why your requirements were not reviewed over the past eight to nine years and also why you have not got the capital and therefore erect the buildings yourself. This gives you a little more time in which to make a decision. If you were building yourself you would have to decide what you wanted for three years ahead and make your plans accordingly. The fact you do not have to do that does not seem a good reason for waiting so long before making your plans?

Mr. Mundow.—Of course, we have been doing this in the case of Castlebar and Athlone where we know who is to occupy the buildings and the services required. Our plans have been worked out and the buildings have been designed specifically for those people who are to use them.

1651. Are they provided for here?

—They are. Athlone is at item 37 and Castlebar at item 45.

1652. There is no estimate for them?

—We are still at the planning and design stage.

1653. The amount then was £397. There cannot be much designing in that?

—There was expenditure earlier on on a site.

1654. Is the planning completed for Athlone?

—Not yet, but it is going ahead.

1655. On £397 per annum?

Mr. Suttle.—That is only the beginning. That is the initial expenditure up to 31st March, 1969.

Mr. Mundow.—Our architects are planning this so there would be no architects’ fees included in that sum.

1656. Deputy FitzGerald.—How far have the plans gone? When will they be finished?

Mr. Mundow.—I would have to find that out and send you a note.*

1657. Deputy Tunney.—Is it absolutely essential that in the matter of acquiring additional houses or buildings for the public services that they should all be in Deputy FitzGerald’s constituency? Have you thought of looking to the north side of Dublin for a suite of offices?

—Yes, we have. We have taken some in Phibsboro and the new Post Office building will be located in Marlboro Street which is north of the Liffey.

1658. It just struck me that we have an imbalance here?

—That is because those buildings were erected by the speculators in that part of the city. They did not move to the north side, although there are a few there now.

Deputy FitzGerald.—There is convenience in having them all together.

Deputy Tunney.—There is some diseconomy as well.

1659. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Do I take it that when the various Departments take over those buildings all they are concerned with is partitioning and laying them out to suit their own use?

—We like to meet them. They ought to know best what their requirements are.

1660. Deputy FitzGerald.—When you refer to open building what exactly do you mean?

—The walls, floors, roof, toilet accommodation and sanitary services.

1661. Do you put in the partitioning?

—We do.

1662. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—I understand there is a mobile type of unit?

—That is true.

This facilitates the redesigning of offices?

—Yes. The tendency today, although it has not reached us yet, is to have very large floors without partitioning, the staff of a branch being concentrated on one floor.

1663. This can be a very late decision to be made. If you have to take over some developer’s building this can be a very late decision where you are putting in those partitions?

—Yes, it depends on who is going to live there.

1664. Chairman.—On Items 61 and 62—new employment exchanges for Cahirciveen and Clifden—are those the first employment exchange buildings under the Department of Labour or are there others?

—Before the Department of Labour we had some under the Department of Social Welfare.

1665. Deputy FitzGerald.—Are those the new ones which are genuine employment exchanges with rooms for interviews and with placement services?

—Yes?

Chairman.—Most of the employment exchanges are rented places. They use any old room at all in some places?

—Yes.

1666. Deputy Tunney.—On item 65 (Minor New Works)—Phoenix Park—Cabra Gate, Cattle Grid—the grid was really necessary?

—There seemed to be differences of opinion about this. We decided as a matter of principle to instal these grids where there was danger of cattle escaping. Cattle had escaped and destroyed gardens in Castleknock. It was thought desirable to provide grids to keep the cattle from getting out. This was extended to three gates. Cabra Gate was one of them. Now it is intended to move back from that position.

1667. It is intended to have the gates manned?

—Yes.

1668. Deputy FitzGerald.—It is decided to shut the gates. There is no gate at all at Parkgate Street. Is there much point in having gates at some places and not at others?

—There are different views about this. Personally I do not see any point in having gates when there is a wide opening at the main entrance. This view is not universally accepted.

1669. What are the gates for?

Some of them are closed at night.

Deputy Tunney.—I can see some point in having gates and not a completely open park.

Deputy FitzGerald.—I can understand having gates everywhere but I cannot understand having them in some places and not in others.

Deputy Tunney.—The Parkgate Street opening is the only place where there is not a gate.

Deputy FitzGerald.—There could be a stampede of cattle through that.

1670. Deputy MacSharry.—The cattle are at the other end of the park?

Mr. Mundow.—These are private roads and are not designed for buses or heavy lorries. While they may be admitted they can be controlled because in an emergency the gates could be shut. There would be some control of traffic. There would be an opportunity of stopping a car or a lorry and taking its number. The control is very effective. People respect the bye-laws in this connection. Heavy lorries do not usually go through the park. I do not know whether that is due to the gate or to a sense of civic spirit.

Deputy Tunney.—I would welcome the idea of having gates manned. They could control human traffic also.

1671. Deputy FitzGerald.—On item 48 (Minor New Works) there is reference to the Papal Nunciature—Improvements. How are we involved? Do we own and rent it?

Mr. Mundow.—We rent it to the Nunciature.

1672. On items 82 (Minor New Works) there is reference to the Folk Museum. What is the position about that?

—There is a great deal of work to be done. This is a long-term project. First of all the buildings have to be restored. A great deal of that has been done but it is not completed. That work will take some years.

1673. There was only £10 4s. 2d. spent last year.

—Yes. I cannot tell you what the particular job was.

1674. No work has been done. There was a long gap?

—It may have been an adjustment of something or putting in some small fitting.

1675. Has there been other expenditure we have missed?

—I am not sure there has been any expenditure in that particular year. The work came in for a great deal of criticism as being very expensive.

Mr. Suttle.—The building was completely reconstructed. All the timbers had to be replaced. It was a very costly job. That was only one stage of the operation. The cost was so big it was decided not to progress any further for the moment. That was about five or six years ago.

1676. Deputy FitzGerald.—There is no prospect of the Folk Museum coming into existence at all?

Mr. Mundow.—It is still being planned and designed. The architects are working on it. When we will get the money to carry out the work, we just do not know.

1677. This is all very vague?

—About £1 million is needed.

Mr. Suttle.—The matter was raised in 1967. £180,000 had been spent at that stage.

1678. Deputy FitzGerald.—I understand there was dry rot in the roof?

Mr. Mundow.—Yes.

1679. Has that been corrected?

—Yes.

1680. Part of the dry rot is still there and it is being let deteriorate?

—The building has to be completely gutted and re-roofed. There is an enormous amount of work there. When this scheme was contemplated nobody expected there would be anything of this size involved.

Mr. Suttle.—It was originally estimated to cost only £20,000-£40,000. Due to the dry rot and other trouble the cost was £180,000 for one wing.

1681. Deputy FitzGerald.—Is there dry rot elsewhere?

Mr. Mundow.—If it is in that wing it is in the rest of the building. The other three wings are rotten.

1682. It will be let deteriorate. This is the criticism of Parliament, if anything. I thought the dry rot had been cleared?

—It has gone as far as it can go and there can be no further damage to the building.

1683. Can that part of the building that has been restored be put to any use now?

—It is being used to store some of the exhibits that will be in the Folk Museum.

1684. Deputy Tunney.—In relation to Nos. 45 and 114 (Minor New Works) relating to Abbotstown Farm—is there a subtle difference between alterations and adaptations?

—They are interchangeable.

1685. This takes us back to the point I was making about schools. Perhaps these provisions that now seem necessary would have been provided earlier but for the fact that somebody had to get approval?

Mr. Suttle.—This is not the same type of case at all. Abbotstown Farm is something that is developing year after year. According as alterations and improvements become necessary there is practically specific sanction from the Department of Finance for the work. It is not the same in relation to schools where there is general authority for what is to be done in relation to all schools.

Mr. Mundow.—The suggestion has been made that the difference between alterations and adaptations is that when something is adapted it is to be used for a different purpose but when it is altered it is changed and used for the same purpose.

Deputy FitzGerald.—So that an alteration is an improvement that does not improve.

1686. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—On the Vote itself, on subhead G.5—Arterial Drainage— Maintenance—is there a list of the surveys that have been carried out in relation to arterial drainage?

—In the year of account the expenditure on comprehensive surveys was mainly in respect of the Boyle, the Boyne, the Dunkellan, the Erne, the Mulcaire, the Shannon and Suir catchments. This expenditure included payments totalling £23,000 for the purposes of the Shannon survey. An initial payment of £3,000 on the contract had been made in the previous year.

1687. Deputy MacSharry.—On I—Coast Protection—I note that while £30,000 was granted, only a little more than £4,000 was spent. Was there any reason for this? In my area the coastline from Bundoran to Enniscrone would require millions of pounds in coastal protection?

—Certain schemes did not come to maturity in time for some work to be carried out. The procedure under the 1963 Act is rather complicated.

1688. It is difficult to get a scheme put into operation because of the involvement of the Departments of Finance and Transport and Power as well as the Board of Works and the local authorities?

—It is the local authorities who must take the initiative.

1689. Deputy Briscoe.—Under K—National Monuments—was there any specific large expenditure on any particular item?

—I have the amounts spent on each piece of work carried out and in each case the amount is between £2,000 and £5,000. There are only two amounts in excess of £5,000, one being an amount of £5,900. In addition, £33,000 was spent on the exploration work carried out at High Street. An amount of £1,500 was spent on Winetavern Street.

1690. Has the accounting officer any idea of what will be the eventual cost?

—It is difficult to know in the case of this type of work. It depends on what they find. If they make more and more discoveries they will want to continue.

1691. Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—On Appropriations-in-Aid—Note 8 refers to recoveries from county councils in respect of maintenance of arterial drainage works. The county councils pay this money to you and your staff maintain the works?

—Yes. We do the original construction work and then it is maintained by our engineers, and we recover the cost of maintenance from the local authorities.

1692. Deputy FitzGerald.—On Extra Remuneration—the amount for this is very large. Is this a reflection of shortage of staff?

—Yes. We have a scheme for several years past by which we allow architects to do some official work at home. It is a form of overtime. Only schools cases are concerned, the work is not very difficult and does not require a great deal of equipment. It is small work which would have been left waiting otherwise— improvement cases particularly.

1693. As a general principle it is undesirable?

—We do not like it because it is hard to believe a man can work extra hours a day without some effect on his ordinary work.

Deputy FitzGerald.—It is also a disincentive to work in office hours if you get paid overtime for doing it otherwise. I do not say the architects think that way, but it is a point.

1694. Deputy Briscoe.—I notice a man was paid £50 for damage to his car by a deer in the Phoenix Park. What is the story behind that?

—The deer was crossing the road and the man was coming along possibly too fast and was not able to avoid the deer. We denied liability and eventually ex-gratia we gave him this £50, which was only about half what it cost.

1695. Deputy FitzGerald.—Was the deer damaged?

—Yes.

You did not sue him for recovery of the damage?

—We like to get rid of them occasionally.

Deputy FitzGerald.—A new form of hunting by motorists.

1696. Deputy Briscoe.—Who is responsible for the deer?

—I think 80 is the number maintained in the Park and when it goes much in excess of that, a rifleman is sent to deal with them.

1697. Who benefits?

—The venison used to go to the President, Ministers and other public persons, who did not want them for their own use. They asked to have them presented to charities like Kilmainham or the Morning Star Hostel.

1698. Deputy MacSharry.—Would it not be an idea to offer them to people who would like to have them rather than shoot them. There are many parts of the country where people have never seen a deer.

Deputy FitzGerald.—That is a point.

1699. Deputy MacSharry.—In the west they would be delighted to have one. If I could have a deer I would bring it home with me this evening?

—I shall put this to the authorities to see if they have considered it. If they have considered it there may be some reason why it would not be practical. If they have not considered it I shall see if it is practical.

Deputy MacSharry.—It is not only for my area but all over the country.

Deputy Dr. Gibbons.—Where could you let them loose?

Deputy MacSharry.—They could be kept as pets. With all this tourism and farm holidays, people would be delighted with them?

Mr. Mundow.—I wonder if we have ever been asked to do this before. You will follow it up?

—Certainly.*

1700. Deputy Tunney.—There has been another development of horse riding in the Park on a commercial basis. I am not thinking merely of the despoliation to the Park involved in this but of what would happen in the case of an inexperienced rider of a horse if a child walked out under it. Who would be responsible? Would it be the owner of the horse, the rider, or the Board of Works?

—It would depend on the terms of the licence. I cannot quote it but I doubt if we would be liable. We always make sure to be free of liability as far as possible.

1701. Have you considered this question as regards the number of horses going in there now?

—I was not aware of any problem myself. I knew there had always been horse riding in the Park and there were people running the business of training people to ride horses. I was not aware of any abuse but if there is any—

1702. There must be about ten schools and at least 100 horses going into the Park every day, and a certain part of the Park which was formerly a nice green sward has become churned up?

—Our superintendent usually keeps us informed of any happening in the Park that may require action. He looks after minor things himself but anything of substance would be brought to our notice. I shall inquire about this.*

Deputy MacSharry.—If it is found that this land needs to be re-seeded, those who are responsible should be charged something for it.

Deputy Briscoe.—The Park is in beautiful condition. We are so used to seeing it like that, we do not think of complimenting the Board of Works. It is a great credit to them.

1703. Chairman.—Members have been supplied with copies of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Accounts† and the Compilation of Property Rental.‡

1704. Chairman.—I understand Mr. Mundow has paid us his last visit in his official capacity. We hope, of course, we will see him otherwise. We wish him every happiness in his future years.

Mr. Mundow.—Thank you very much. I also wish to thank the Committee for the courtesy I have always received. It made it very pleasant coming here.

Deputy Briscoe.—You are a very young looking man to be retiring.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix 41.

* See Appendix 42.

* See Appendix 43.

†See Appendix 44.

‡See Appendix 45.