Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1973 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1970 - 1971

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 26 Iúil, 1973.

Thursday, 26th July, 1973.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY de VALERA in the chair

Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 8—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. C. Farrell called and examined.

232. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

“Subhead D—Purchase of Sites and Buildings.

The charge to this subhead includes £250,000 being the final instalment of a sum of £500,000 paid to a development company as a contribution towards the cost of a site and office building being erected by the company. Under agreements with the company the property is being leased to the Commissioners of Public Works at an annual rent which is subject to periodic reviews up to the year 2072 when the Commissioners will become the owners of the property. Under the terms of the lease a rent may not be reduced on any such review.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The purchase procedure adopted in this case represents a new departure for the Commissioners of Public Works. The first instalment of the capital contribution was paid in 1969-70 and the second and final instalment was paid in the year under review as stated in this paragraph. The Commissioners will be responsible for costs of fittings and some internal alterations as well as the related professional fees. I understand that the building has not yet been occupied but we may know the total capital expenditure from State funds when we examine the accounts for the current year, 1973-74. As indicated in the paragraph, the payment of £500,000 represents a contribution towards the cost of the site and the building which will be subject to annual rent payment by the Commissioners up to the year 2072.

233. Chairman.—What was the total cost of the building?

—The actual cost of the building construction will be at least £1½ million over and above site costs, professional fees, et cetera.

234. Could we have an estimate under these heads—site costs first?

—Site costs, approximately £500,000.

Erection cost then is £1½ million?

—Erection costs would be approximately £1½ million.

And fees?

—A rough estimate for fees would be £200,000 or thereabouts if you take 13 per cent or 14 per cent of the cost of building to represent fees, et cetera. There is also the matter of bridging finance—the interest rate—which is very difficult to determine.

235. There is a purchase over, roughly, 100 years?

—About 100 years, yes.

236. During that period rent can be reviewed upwards?

—Either static or upwards, not downwards. The rent could, conceivably, remain at the previous figure, that is the figure prior to review, but not go down.

237. In the event—I am not suggesting it is probable—of change of currency values which would bring general rents nominally down you will be at a disadvantage with this clause?

—Theoretically, we would be at a loss but property developers assume that, on experience, rents will not go down and they will not agree in any case to a downward revision.

238. Will this represent—except for matters like undetermined interest and determination of fees and servicing charges —the complete capital commitment of the Board of Works?

—Apart from internal alterations, partitions, floor coverings, et cetera which are the common liability of a lessee or tenant to provide in any building. In effect, a modern developer will provide the shell of a building and it is a matter then for the tenant to partition it, provide light fittings, floor coverings, et cetera.

239. Deputy H. Gibbons.—In 2072 this becomes the complete property of the developer?

—Yes. It will become the property of the State in fee simple.

It will become the property of the State?

—Yes, of the Commissioners of Public Works, in 2072.

And the developer will have no further interest in it after that?

—It becomes our absolute property after that.

240. Chairman.—As the Comptroller and Auditor General said, this was a completely new departure?

—Yes.

241. Is any further application of this policy envisaged?

—Not immediately. The developers let a building to you without giving you, as a rule, the opportunity to buy out the fee simple interest. They are more concerned with getting a continuing investment.

242. Apart from securing a site and having the construction done yourselves, is there any other alternative method available to you for securing accommodation?

—Either a straight simple renting or a system like this, which is very rare, or acquiring a site ourselves and building, which is the ideal solution.

243. No doubt you have examined the economics of all three. What conditioned the decision to adopt this course in this case?

—At the time capital was needed for other purposes. It was a rather attractive proposition to get this on this basis instead of spending large sums of capital on site acquisition and building.

244. Do you expect to have more large demands for office space?

—Yes, we have them, unfortunately, at the moment and they are continuing. Services are created and we have to meet the demand for space at short notice. We can have expansions of Departments at short notice and we have to meet their requirements quickly.

245. You mentioned earlier that securing a site and building on it was one alternative and, I gathered from your remark, a desirable one from your point of view. Why could not this procedure be adopted for the provision of such accommodation? Why cannot sites be acquired and built on?

—We are heading in that direction. This year, you may have noticed, there is a provision of £500,000 under subhead E for the erection of new offices in Dublin. That will be the start of a programme for providing our own accommodation.

And you would consider that more satisfactory?

—Yes.

246. Is it possible to get the sites at proper locations?

—Yes, it is. We have a number of sites, of course. There is space for development at Dublin Castle. The former Beggar’s Bush Barracks is a possibility and there are possibilities in other property owned by us. In co-operation with Dublin Corporation we are hoping to get other sites.

247. Deputy Tunney.—In the matter of these properties which you say the State owns in the city or in this area in which we are, has the economics of your selling those properties and buying sites on the perimeter of the city presented itself to the board at all?

—Not specifically but it is a matter we would consider when our programme comes to be developed properly.

248. Deputy Crotty.—Is the business of providing your own office building an ideal situation when we look at industry capitalising their buildings and leasing them back and the fact that we borrow money at a very heavy interest rate? I am just looking for an explanation on that situation. It seems to be in the reverse: if this is the most suitable thing to industry. They are in it for what is in it for them.

—They are profit-making concerns and we are not.

We should run our affairs in a businesslike manner, too.

—It is my own personal opinion that it would be better for the State to build its own accommodation. It has been stated in the Dáil on several occasions, on discussions on our Estimates, that it would be the ideal solution to our accommodation problems.

It goes against the grain of business situations where they think the other is the proper type of development.

Chairman.—That is a matter of Ministerial policy I should imagine.

—That is right.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—One of the considerations that weigh with industrial concerns in selling and leasing back property would probably be the tax concessions which, of course, the Board of Works would not be entitled to?

—Yes, we are not concerned with those.

249. Chairman.—We move on now to Paragraph 22 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report which reads as follows:

“Subhead E—New Works, Alterations and Additions.

The charge to the subhead comprises £1,785,824 expended on general architectural and engineering works and £3,358,446 in respect of grants towards the erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools, as compared with £1,584,494 and £3,761,809, respectively, in the previous year.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph shows the division of the total subhead charge of £5.1 million between expenditure on general architectural and engineering works, £1.8 million, and grants for the erection, enlargement and improvement of national schools, £3.3 million, together with the comparative figures for the previous year. The allocation of the total subhead charge between Departments is shown on page 28 of the volume of Appropriation Accounts and the details are given in the New Works Statement which has been supplied to members of the Committee.

250. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads:

“School grants amounting to £2,643,574 were paid to managers who undertook responsibility of having the works carried out and £714,872 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. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph shows the division of the expenditure of £3.3 million on national schools between works for which the school managers took responsibility and works carried out directly by the Commissioners of Public Works.

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

“In the course of audit I observed that in the case of a number of national schools under erection supplementary grants towards the cost of additional accommodation were made subsequent to the placing of the building contracts. In December, 1969 the Commissioners of Public Works had informed the Department of Education that belated changes in accommodation requirements necessitated a revision of plans and bills of quantities with resultant delays, and they asked that steps be taken to have these requirements finally settled when the grant is being sanctioned.

By September, 1970 there had been an increase in the number of applications for the approval of additional accommodation in national schools under erection and I asked the Accounting Officer for his observations. He has informed me that the procedures for assessing accommodation requirements in national schools are determined by the Department of Education and that in March, 1971 an arrangement was made whereby the Commissioners would be furnished with up-to-date information on changes in accommodation requirements before the relevant drawings were prepared. The Accounting Officer states that this arrangement, and the procedures already being followed in the Department of Education, will help to obviate late changes.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Changes in accommodation requirements in national schools which were being notified belatedly to the Commissioners by the Department of Education resulted in delays in the completion of the works and, no doubt, in additional expenditure on the revision of plans and bills of quantities. This paragraph draws attention to an unsatisfactory position, and to steps taken to rectify it.

252. Chairman.—Is the relationship between the Department of Education and the Board of Works administratively unsatisfactory?

—I would not say that. There is very close liaison now. These changes in plans are probably forced on the Department.

In what way?

—Say they want to centralise in one particular school and there is pressure from the locality that it should be another school, or that schools should not be closed down and matters like that.

253. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s investigation it involves additional expenditure. It is wasteful?

—Because of requests for additions coming at a late stage.

254. Can procedures not be adjusted to eliminate such waste?

—We go to the Department of Education before we put the preparation of working drawings in hands to check that their requirements are as stated already. That is the procedure. Generally, it works all right. There are exceptions still, of course, but it is working satisfactorily now.

255. Deputy Tunney.—I think it is an area that needs very close examination, maybe not so much with the Department of Education and yourselves, but between, say, Dublin County Council and yourselves. I am thinking now of Dublin areas such as Clonsilla and Castleknock where, in the last couple of years, new schools have been built and within a year of their being opened it was necessary to put prefabricated classrooms on the site. That to me is indicative of there being an absence of understanding between yourselves and somebody else?

—Really it is the Department of Education. We are the executive agency. We do what we are told, in effect. We get directions from the Department as to what amount of accommodation is to be provided and we have to provide it. They try to assess it in the best way possible. They carry out a survey which includes a listing of the school-going children in the particular area according to yearly age groups from four to 12 years, a listing of preschool children and school leavers, likely average enrolment, local development, housing, factories, et cetera, after consultation with local authorities. These are factors which they take into account when they are assessing the extent of the accommodation required or likely to be required.

256. The existing position would seem to indicate that, in quite a few areas, there is some weakness in the survey?

—I accept that; but there may possibly be a greater number of school children going into an area than had been expected.

257. Chairman.—You are merely the executive arm for the Department?

—We are the executive arm of the Department of Education. They are the policy makers.

258. We come now to Paragraph 25 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which reads as follows:

“From 1962 onwards urgently needed accommodation at national schools has been generally provided by the use of prefabricated wooden classroom units which qualify for grants on the same basis as permanent school buildings. The conditions governing the payment of grants provide that surplus units may be transferred from one school to another and that grants are refundable in part on the disposal of such units. In the course of audit I noted that units located at some national schools were not being used. In reply to my inquiry the Accounting Officer states that he has been informed by the Department of Education that some of these surplus units have been transferred to other national schools, some are being used for secondary school purposes, others have been sold and proposals regarding the disposal of the remainder are being considered. I have also been informed that the attention of the Department of Education is being drawn to the importance of making an early decision in regard to the utilisation of surplus prefabricated units and to the desirability of their being re-used as far as practicable at other schools where there is a need for additional temporary accommodation.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to the fact that some prefabricated classroom units which had been provided with the aid of State grants to supply additional accommodation required at national schools were being allowed to remain idle. Our concern is to secure that the surplus units on which public moneys had been expended should be used as fully as possible by being transferred to other schools where there is need for additional accommodation. Otherwise State funds might be expended unnecessarily.

259. Deputy Bermingham.—Does this mean that there would be a local contribution? If so, how would the local people and the school manager come out of it with regard to the contribution they had put into the building?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This is a matter, of course, for decision between the Department and the manager.

—If the manager sold the prefabricated building or buildings for, say, £1,000 he would be required to surrender part of that sum to the Department or to us.

260. Deputy Bermingham.—He would actually do the selling?

—He would do the selling. Legally speaking, a prefabricated building is part of the site; the manager would do the selling and surrender part of the proceeds to us.

261. Deputy Crotty.—Is it not the position that it is not possible to move those buildings once they are installed and secondly that it costs as much as they are worth to move them anyway?

—In some cases they can be moved. The residual value is, admittedly, small and their life is not long, approximately ten to 15 years.

The cost of moving them wipes out the value of the building anyway?

—That is probably true.

262. Deputy MacSharry.—What is the value of a new prefab erected at a particular school? How long, in your opinion, is the life span of it?

—Ten to 15 years.

That is the maximum?

—Yes, 15 years is generally assumed to be the life of those prefabs.

Yet some of the people who sell those prefabs would have you believe that they could last up to 40 years?

—Not the timber prefabs. We have been advised that 15 years is the likely life of them.

263. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Was any refund, in fact, made to you during this particular year?

—We have asked for one refund which we are told is coming to us. It will amount to approximately £533. There are a number of those prefabs vacant at present but, with the changes in the school curriculum, there is likely to be a demand for them after next September.

264. Chairman.—Paragraph 26 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“In 1964 it was decided to provide for the group of State buildings in Upper Merrion Street and Kildare Street, Dublin, a new electrical distribution system involving bulk metering which was expected to result in a reduction of £3,000 per annum in electricity charges. Tenders for the work were received in July 1965, and a tender of £30,500 was withdrawn, while under consideration, in August 1966. Reinvited tenders were received in September 1967 and a contract in the sum of £29,500 was placed in August 1968. The work was completed in 1970 at a cost, including fees, of £40,000, approximately. I have invited the observations of the Accounting Officer on the delay in having this work completed.

The College of Science is within the group of buildings serviced by the new system and I have inquired whether University College, Dublin, as lessee of the College, is liable for a contribution towards this expenditure.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Since the date of this report the Accounting Officer has furnished his observations on the delay in completing this work. It appears that initially delay occurred when it was found necessary to re-examine details of the work as the tenders received in July, 1965, considerably exceeded the approved estimate. It was possible to reduce the lowest tender by about £4,000 but subsequently this tender was withdrawn. As the next lowest tender was too high it was decided to re-invite tenders. Further delay occurred when it was decided, on grounds of economy, to exclude the National Gallery from the main scheme and, at a later stage, to consider the substitution of aluminium for copper cables, a proposal which, while it was not eventually accepted, had to be examined fully. The contract was finally placed in August, 1968, and was largely completed by April, 1970. As regards the second part of the paragraph, the Accounting Officer states that University College, Dublin, has been put on notice regarding its liability for a contribution towards the capital cost of the new electrical distribution system.

265. Chairman.—It would appear from this that, owing to delays in finalising the first proposal some years ago, there has been a considerable increase in cost due to inflation? Would that be right?

—The amount of the tender that was accepted was something less than the tender we originally proposed to accept. The final cost was higher than either of them but part of that was due to wage increases under the price variation clause and part of it to extensions.

266. Would it be a valid comment to say that civil service procedures and concentration on the paper work of tenders resulted in inadequate attention being given to the likely trend of costs so that, in the end, more money had to be spent than might have been spent if a business-like decision had been made? Is that an unfair comment?

—In taking into account the position of the civil service, we have to watch everything, we have to follow procedures.

267. I meant procedures. I was not commenting on the service.

—Compared with business. Business has a much freer hand, and can take snap decisions and as a result can do things more cheaply.

Yes, but this gets into the grey area of policy, I presume?

—Yes, of procedures, policy, et cetera.

268. Would your Department welcome a little more flexibility of decision in such matters?

—Yes, we would.

Without prejudice to proper accounting?

—Yes. We have quite a lot of delegation from the Department of Finance but it would be always well to have it extended.

269. Deputy Bermingham.—Would it have made much difference if, without re-advertising, which would have caused delay, you had to accept the contract that you thought was too high?

—What we did was cheaper than acceptting the other one.

In that case it is successful enough. Sometimes you find the opposite happening.

270. Chairman.—We will now move on to Paragraph 27 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which reads:

“The Fishery Harbour Centres Act, 1968, provides for the setting up of the Fishery Harbour Centres Fund under the control of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who is responsible under the Act for development and maintenance works at fishery harbour centres. The charge to the subhead includes £125,134 paid to the Fund to meet the cost of such works carried out by the Commissioners of Public Works on behalf of the Minister. The accounts of the Fund and the accounts of the harbour centres will be audited by me.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The Fishery Harbour Centres Fund, mentioned in this paragraph, was set up in the year 1969-70. The expenditure of £125,134 was incurred on works at the Killybegs and Castletownbere harbours which had been declared to be Fishery Harbour Centres by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries under the Fishery Harbour Centres Act, 1968. The first acounts of the fund and of these two harbour centres, i.e. the accounts for the period to March 1971, have been audited by my office and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

271. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Arising out of the auditing of accounts, is this the everyday working of the harbour centres?

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The vouchers that would be available in the Department would be in relation to the expenditure of these moneys.

It would be purely in relation to the expenditure of State moneys on the harbours and not on the everyday running of them?

—Yes.

272. Chairman.—Paragraph 28 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads:

“A gift of property comprising about twenty-two acres of pleasure ground and parkland at Kilkenny Castle was offered to the State in 1967 for development as a public park. Under Section 19 (3) (a) of the State Property Act, 1954, the Government accepted the offer and determined that the property should vest in the Commissioners. Expenditure on a scheme for the development of the park, including £9,449 charged to this subhead in the year under review, amounted to £27,706 at 31 March 1971. The total cost of development has been estimated at £33,000.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information only. It shows the Vote expenditure during the year and the accumulated expenditure to 31st March, 1971 on the development of certain grounds at Kilkenny Castle as a public park.

273. Chairman.—Are you able to maintain it in what you would consider a proper condition?

—Yes, it is being very attractively maintained.

Deputy Crotty.—A top class job.

—Thanks.

274. Chairman.—Paragraph 29 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead F.1—Maintenance and Supplies

During the year under review it was decided to terminate a contract system which had been in operation for the employment of building trade workers engaged on the maintenance of public buildings in the Dublin area. Under the system approximately 300 of these workers were employed by commercial firms who contracted annually with the Commissioners of Public Works for the supply of workmen as required and who were responsible for the payment of wages. The firms were recouped their outlay on wages and received a commission which covered social insurance payments, holiday pay, etc., and profit. As from August 1970, the workers concerned are employed by the Commissioners.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph is for information. It brings to notice the end of a contract system which has been a long standing one in the Office of Public Works. The men, who were formerly employees of private contractors, are now employed directly by the Commissioners.

275. Deputy MacSharry.—A streamlining affair?

—Yes, and more satisfactory. We had to deal through a third party, so to speak, pay them a fee which covered social welfare stamps, holiday money, et cetera. The contractors acted as a kind of buffer between ourselves and the men, but the men regarded us as their employers and they came to us when any trouble arose. We decided it was better to take on the men directly and manage them directly. It has worked very satisfactorily so far.

276. Chairman.—Paragraph 30 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:

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

The charge to the subhead in respect of major construction works in progress during the year amounted to £1,034,365. In addition, the value of stores issued, charges for the use of plant and certain engineers’ salaries and travelling expenses in respect of these works were assessed at £400,790. The cost of each scheme to 31 March, 1971 was:—

The balance of the charge to the subhead is made up of sums amounting to £137,013 in respect of intermediate or minor schemes and £17,398 being remanents of expenditure on completed schemes.

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This is the usual paragraph giving the estimates of costs and expenditure to 31st March, 1971 on major construction works on arterial drainage schemes. The latest estimates of costs given are those which were available at the date of the report, i.e. 31st January, 1972.

277. Deputy H. Gibbons.—This arterial drainage is now mixed up with the cost/ benefit investigation?

—Yes.

Had the cost/benefit analysis started in the year 1970-71.

—Yes.

278. The two areas you took for investigation were, in fact, in the south of Ireland?

—Yes.

Would it be in order to ask why you took no area in the west of Ireland?

—The reason was that we wanted a scheme that was in progress and a scheme that was nearly in progress. The River Groody was in progress and the Maigue scheme was nearly ready to start. The scheme had been prepared and drawn up. It was just fortuitous that the two schemes were in the same county and that one was in progress and the other almost ready. That does not mean to imply that cost/ benefit analysis will not be applied to other schemes. When we come to do a scheme in the west the analysis will have to be applied to that too.

279. Deputy MacSharry.—You have other Departments involved in the cost of the analysis?

—Yes, mainly the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Department of Finance and An Foras Talúntais. It is a scientific assessment of the benefits of drainage.

280. Do we have to wait until the actual thing is completed before the cost/benefit analysis of any scheme will be known?

—No. In the Maigue scheme we will know it in September, I think. The scheme has not started yet.

You will know the cost/benefit analysis then?

—We will know the results of the cost/ benefit analysis in September. We have a general idea of it already.

Do you expect to get a fright?

—No.

281. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The Accounting Officer has stated that they must wait until they have a scheme going in the west to do this cost/benefit analysis?

—Not in operation. Designed, with estimates of cost, et cetera.

282. This brings me to another point. Can you, in fact, do a cost/benefit analysis without having done some of the work on the river concerned? Is there any alternative to arterial drainage, a less thorough drainage involving less capital cost, perhaps creating less immediate benefit but, in fact, overall, more benefit?

—The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second one is possibly. It is possible that a cost/benefit analysis may show up that instead of doing every small tributary stream, et cetera, it might be better to do the main stem, say, of the catchment and leave it to the local landowners to do the tributaries. That is a possibility.

283. In what would be called intermediate drainage, it has been suggested that in many of those by just removing what were shoals in the old days and not interfering with the pools it would involve less capital expenditure and that the benefit would be reasonably good—the overall cost/benefit would be acceptable. I understand that in arterial drainage there is a certain amount of scouring of perhaps the whole river. It has been suggested that this is not necessary at all and that, in fact, it could damage the fishing pools?

—The basis of the 1945 Act was to do the whole catchment. You have views that fishing may be damaged and that it would be better to do a partial job. That is possible, of course.

284. I do not seem to have made my point. I am talking about the river that you would elect to be the main river. Instead of doing a complete arterial drainage job on it, it has been suggested that you can get a large amount of benefit by doing only parts of it which are the old shoals. That is number one. Number two would be where silting would occur on the main river. This is away altogether from the rest of the catchment area?

—It is possible, but that would have to be the subject of an engineering investigation.

285. But to have it as the subject of an engineering investigation some work must be done along those lines? In theory, you could not just say that it would work. You would have to set out, bring in your machinery or your men, do a particular river and then estimate your benefit?

—I doubt if that would be necessary. I think the engineers would be able to judge the feasibilities and effects of clearing certain areas of a river.

286. Chairman.—How far are matters which Deputy Gibbons has mentioned within your direct purview, administration-wise? How far is it your responsibility to decide how much or how little is done on a particular scheme and how far is it a matter of Ministerial policy?

—The Ministerial policy is embodied in the Act of 1945. What is to be done is planned by the engineering teams who survey the river, prepare their channel plans, have an evaluation done of the effects of the drainage on the land, et cetera. We have to depend on the professional advice.

287. Following Deputy Gibbons’s line of thought, it is notorious that when experts, particularly engineers, are let loose to do a plan, they do it and look at it from their own point of view. Take, for instance, roads, a subject away from this. An engineer who wants to do a good road will not think very much about conservation. In the same way an engineer who is on drainage is going to do an overall plan from the engineering point of view. There are other considerations which Deputy Gibbons has outlined here. Is it within your administrative and executive purview to decide how much or how little of a plan of that nature will be done?

—It is within our province to make the recommendation to the Minister for Finance, but still you have to depend on the engineers.

288. You have to depend on the engineers but, in making the recommendation to the Minister for Finance, it is your responsibility to say how much will be done. As well as being responsible for the cost and accounting of the recommendation, you are also responsible, so to speak, for the social aspects subject to policy. Would that be right?

—That is true. It would be a matter of policy as to how far we would go with drainage schemes. We have done a number of intermediate schemes or so-called intermediate schemes. Those were small rivers that were not listed in the arterial drainage programme but we found that by doing those we were taking away resources from the bigger schemes.

289. So that in the first instance it would be your responsibility to see the thing was not unduly extravagant?

—Yes.

Or disproportionate?

—Yes.

290. Deputy MacSharry.—I cannot understand why, when this cost/benefit analysis was talked about or introduced, you did not do a scheme that was already completed where some benefits could be seen. A cost/benefit analysis on a scheme that is about to go ahead or going ahead cannot be taken as being in any way factual because there are no benefits to be seen?

—They can be assessed.

291. Yes, but is it not better to have the proof of one that has been done where benefits can not only be assessed but are there to be seen?

—That will be seen on the Groody. The trouble in taking one that has been done already is the difficulty of assessing the conditions as they were, pre-drainage.

292. Are you taking into account in this cost/benefit analysis the continued maintenance of these schemes?

—Maintenance will be a factor. That will be an estimate for the cost of maintenance of the completed scheme.

293. Maintenance is an on-going and increasing thing.

—Yes, but if it is not done the river goes back to its original condition.

294. I accept that, but I was wondering if it was included in the cost/benefit analysis.

—That is taken into account. The cost of maintenance is estimated when we are preparing our estimate of the cost of the drainage scheme.

295. And we do not intend to have one of these surveys completed until September?

—The Groody/Maigue will, we hope, be ready in September but we have a fair idea already of the answer.

296. Deputy Bermingham.—With regard to maintenance, have we a proper policy of maintenance at all? It seems to me that some of the older rivers are under local drainage boards.

—We are not responsible for those. Under the 1945 Act we are only responsible for the maintenance of arterial drainage schemes that we carry out.

I am speaking about schemes which the board did originally carry out?

—They are the responsibility of local authorities or local drainage boards. We do not enter into those until we enter on them as part of a major drainage scheme. For example, on the Boyne there are a number of drainage areas already. They will be captured by the major scheme and we will come in then for maintaining them. Outside that area we do not enter at all.

297. This sometimes does away, in a few years, with the real benefit of the scheme that you have originally done, does it not?

—If maintenance is not attended to, yes. The benefit is lost.

298. Have you any way of knowing if the local authorities, whom you give this over to, carry out the maintenance job?

—No, we have no way of knowing. Presumably, you would want new legislation to deal with that aspect of the matter.

299. Deputy MacSharry.—Would you accept that it is possibly better, in so far as maintenance costs and the provision of staff from the Board of Works in each individual scheme is concerned, to hand the maintenance over to the various local authorities who have already an engineering staff of their own?

—That was considered when the 1945 Act was being prepared and when the Drainage Commission sat and examined the whole arterial drainage problem in 1938 to 1940. I think their experience was that local authorities were not maintaining drainage schemes properly and, on that account, it was considered much better that the State should maintain the drainage schemes.

300. Why then are there still some boards in existence?

—Because we have not done arterial drainage schemes in the areas where those boards are operating. It is only in areas where these drainage boards are involved in an arterial drainage scheme, for example the Boyne scheme which is being carried out by us, that we take over from them.

301. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The Brosna scheme is one that has been completed. Is not that correct?

—The Brosna scheme was the first one to be done.

Do your staff do the maintenance on that?

—Yes.

At what intervals?

—It is an on-going thing and involves recleaning, silt removal, et cetera. There may be stretches where you may have a bank slip or some such thing that may not be done the following day or the following week but it is an on-going operation.

302. As a matter of interest, has any work been done on the amount of silting the Brosna would cause in the Shannon below it?

—As to the amount of siltation?

Yes?

—That was considered before the Brosna drainage scheme was put into operation and it was decided that it would not interfere with the Shannon to any appreciable extent.

303. Has any investigation been carried out on this since?

—I do not think so. I am not aware there was any reason for one.

The only reason I give is that a man who has lands on both sides of the Shannon informs me that there is a large amount of silting in that particular place?

—Where the Brosna enters the Shannon?

Below the Brosna. Would it be possible to have a report made to the Committee?

—On the siltation of the river Shannon below the Brosna?

On the siltation caused by the Brosna, because this is what brings in the accounting side of it?

—We can have it investigated. Would the Committee like a report on it?

Yes, please.*

304. Deputy Bermingham.—I seem to have misunderstood you. Where you do a major scheme you do the maintenance?

—Yes.

It seems to me that in the scheme I am particularly interested in this has not happened. It may be a very old scheme. I am referring to the Barrow drainage scheme. There is a board there who are supposed to look after the maintenance, the Barrow Drainage Board. Am I correct in saying that it does not apply in this case?

—No, not on the Barrow. That scheme was carried out under the 1927 Act I think. We maintain all of the schemes under the 1945 Act.

305. A lot of good that was done by the Barrow scheme, as old as it is, was lost by three counties being involved in the maintenance?

—That confirms the view of the Drainage Commission in 1938-40 that it was better for the State to maintain the drainage schemes.

306. Deputy MacSharry.—Are there many—I only know of one—of these old boards in existence?

—There is a very large number of them.

Has the take-over of them by the Board of Works been considered?

—No, the occasion has not arisen.

307. Chairman.—Paragraph 31 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead M.—Appropriations in Aid

The agreement governing the lease of the College of Science to University College, Dublin provides for the payment to the Commissioners of Public Works of a proportion of the repair, replacement and operating costs of the installation at the Central Heating Station which services Government Buildings and other adjacent State buildings including the College of Science. A contract for the replacement of the boilers in the Station was completed in 1967 at a cost of £65,248. I have inquired regarding the amount assessed as payable by University College, Dublin towards the capital expenditure incurred and also towards the operating costs.”

Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph deals with the liability of University College, Dublin for a contribution towards the capital cost of replacing the boilers at the central heating station which serves the College of Science and also for a payment towards their operating cost. I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that the College authorities have been put on notice that a capital contribution will be required and I understand that provisional payments have been received towards the cost of operating the installation for 1968-69 and subsequent years.

308. Chairman.—The College of Science is only occupied by the Engineering Department now, is not that right?

—Engineering and, I think, physiology.

There is also the State Laboratory there?

—Yes, but that is not connected with University College at all. University College occupy the greater part of the College of Science. It is expected that they will vacate it sometime and there is a problem in connection with the assessment of the amount which they will have to pay. We have told them that they should pay a contribution of £11,146 towards boiler replacements but they are pleading that it should be a lot less because of the likelihood that they will vacate the College of Science some time. In the circumstances, I think the best thing to do is to fix an annual charge based on the capital cost and get them to pay that for the length of time they will be there.

309. Has that been agreed?

—No. I have given directions that the cost should be assessed now. We have told them that we want £11,146 from them. As an alternative to getting the capital, the only thing to do is to charge them an annual sum.

310. On the other hand, in another Vote this University College is getting a grant from the State. Is not that so?

—Yes.

311. Is this particular form of accounting the most economic way of dealing with a problem like that?

—Getting it from one pocket and putting it into another, so to speak?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul?

—That is a very debatable point.

312. I presume University College’s accounting and grants will be accounted for under the educational subhead?

—Under a separate Vote.

Under a separate Vote, but the Department of Education will be the people responsible to us?

—Yes.

313. Because the Department of Education are responsible, has there been any contact with that Department about this matter?

—Not yet. We have not consulted them but if difficulties arise we would consult them.

314. If University College have not agreed, do you take that up with the Department of Education?

—If they refused to agree we would take it up with the Department.

315. When the college pointed out to you that their remaining sojourn in Merrion Street was problematical, was that not an indicator to go immediately to the Department of Education and see what should be the financial policy adopted?

—We have been in touch with the Higher Education Authority on the likely length of their stay. The College have not refused to make a payment. It is a question of the reasonableness of the amount that we want from them and we have been in touch with the Higher Education Authority on that point.

316. Chairman.—That concludes that paragraph. We move on to the Vote itself. On subhead E—New Works, Alterations and Additions—Members have before them a long list of expenditure on new works.*

Deputy MacSharry.—On the notes on Subhead E we read: “Expenditure under this subhead is affected by factors outside the control of the Office of the Public Works.” I accept that but is not there some way, with the involvement of your personnel in these types of projects, to ensure that there is some control by your personnel of costs? Expenditure keeps going up because of increased costs?

—Yes.

The note says that expenditure on this subhead is affected by factors outside the control of the Office of Public Works.

Chairman.—What factors?

—That refers to changes in policy of other Departments and requirements of other Departments, not rising costs. Again, we come back to our position as agents and the varying requirements of other Departments. This is new work, apart from schools. In the preliminary stages a new work is subject to the difficulties and delays involved in site acquisition, consultations with the interested Departments, preparation of plans, specifications and, perhaps, bills of quantities, invitation and consideration of tenders and placing of the contracts. All those factors enter into it but not the control of costs.

317. Deputy MacSharry.—At all times are your architects and engineers involved in this process of agreement on costs?

—Yes. The general policy is to build as economically as possible. That is the desire of everybody.

318. These factors, as such, are not outside your control? Your staff and your personnel are involved in them?

—They are involved in them but there are so many other factors involved such as difficulty in concluding negotiations for a site, the possible changes in the requirements of the Department who require the project, weather conditions, supply of materials, availability of labour and the type of contractor required.

319. Chairman.—We have a big statement of expenditure in detail here. Is it possible to add to that a reference, where the requiring Department have an afterthought that has involved an increase in the cost, noting that fact in the same way as we have noted the other particulars in this long document?

—It would be possible but it would take a considerable amount of administrative time.

You do not think it would be feasible?

—It would be feasible but at a high cost in staff time.

Any higher than in producing this document?

—It would add to it another little box.

320. Under “Observations” possibly; but there is £140,000 of an increase overall in the subhead. The expenditure exceeds the grant by £140,000. I take it from what you have said that second thoughts by the requiring Departments may have substantially contributed to that increase?

—No, I am sorry. I may have given the wrong impression. I was dealing with factors outside our control. Changes of mind would be minimal in increased costs.

321. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On page 2 of the Statement, Work No. 15—State Memorial to the late President J. F. Kennedy— there was an expenditure of £73,441.65 in planning. I take it that this involves the architects more than anybody else?

—Not the architects. They would not appear under this subhead. It involves quantity surveyors, engineering consultants and electrical and mechanical consultants. The architects were paid out of a different subhead.

Those people would not be included in Subhead A under Salaries, Wages and Allowances?

—Not the mechanical and electrical consultants or the quantity surveyors. They are included in this figure here.

322. Deputy MacSharry.—On page 6, I see that £6.50 was spent on the former Taoiseach’s residence. What was this sum for?

—It is part of the cost within that year in respect of the provision of protection at the former Taoiseach’s private residence.

£6.50 sounded like part of the cost?

—It could be the case in many works that the work would start, say, in the last couple of days in March and there would be a small expenditure involved. The bulk of it would fall into the following year. That is just the initial cost.

323. Deputy Bermingham.—You have works on page 10 for Athy, County Kildare, for a substantial sum. What was that spent on?

—That was spent on the adaptation of a model school residence for the Garda Síochána station.

Is it still going on?

—It is finished and the Gardaí are in occupation.

324. I know they are but it seems a high cost for the conversion?

—I would not agree at all with that having regard to the amount of work that had to be done. It was not designed originally as a Garda station and any alterations can be very costly.

325. Would it not have been better to have built a new station?

—It would if there had not been a question of time involved. In the circumstances, this was the most practical solution to the problem even as a short-term one. I have no doubt that in due course a new station will be provided there but this was an interim solution, if you like, to a problem.

326. Deputy Crotty.—These interim solutions often push the final solution further away.

—That is true but this interim solution was accepted by the Gardaí as a satisfactory solution.

Deputy Bermingham.—It seems a terrible amount of money to spend on an interim solution.

327. Deputy Dowling.—On page 13— Land Registry, Additional Accommodation, Stage II—one hears a great deal of criticism about the lack of facilities in the Land Registry?

—I think we have gone as far as we can in the way of building for the Land Registry. I have not heard of any complaints about drawbacks in the building.

There are no demands for further accommodation there?

—No, not that I am aware of. This refers to an extension of the building over the Public Record Office. I have heard of complaints about delays there but we have not had any request for an extension of the building.

328. Deputy MacSharry.—On page 14 there is the question of the new offices at Castlebar and Athlone. Has the amount of money that had been expended gone towards the provision of new offices?

—At Castlebar?

Yes, on page 14. It is the same as the one on page 13 for the Department of Education at Athlone.

—In relation to Castlebar, the expenditure here relates, in the main, to fees. There was a certain amount of work included, I am not quite sure whether it was included in this year or in another year, on site works, tree planting et cetera. We have placed a contract for the building in Castlebar and we have invited tenders for the building in Athlone.

329. Is it proposed to go ahead with these buildings?

—We are committed to a contractor to build in Castlebar and we have invited tenders for the offices in Athlone.

330. What accommodation are you providing in Castlebar in terms of numbers of people?

—There is only a section of the Department involved and it will accommodate 100 or 150 people approximately.

331. Chairman.—Is it certain that these offices will be occupied when built?

—Yes, we would be very disappointed if they were not.

332. Deputy H. Gibbons.—A general question on page 17 arising out of the building of those offices and equipping them for heating: has any thought been given to the announcements and the attention drawn to the energy situation in ten or 15 years’ time from the point of view of heating? I presume all those buildings will be heated by oil?

—I cannot say offhand what the method of heating will be. I cannot recall what the method of heating will be but we know, of course, about the warnings that have been sounded regarding the likelihood of oil prices going up.

333. My question on heating does not apply solely to Castlebar or Athlone. It applies generally. I just wondered if any thought had been given to the matter.

Deputy MacSharry.—On the attitude of the Board of Works in relation to this matter, have the officers concerned with this type of operation in the Board of Works opted out of accepting or even recommending the use of native fuel?

—No, we have not opted out of it at all. Government policy still is the use of native fuel. We have installed quite a lot of turf-burning installations including the one that heats this place. That is still our policy. There may be unavoidable exceptions to it but the use of native fuel as far as possible is still the policy.

334. I thought we burned coal here?

—In the central heating station here we use briceens—small briquettes. Turf-burning boilers were installed here and they use those small briquettes.

335. Nevertheless, when there are changes of heating systems in institutions, equipment for burning native fuel is very rarely installed. I was wondering if there is a change of attitude so far as your office is concerned?

—No, there is no change of attitude at all. The policy is still there and we respect it.

I know the policy is still there.

—And we respect it but there may be occasions where, for very good technical reasons, the use of native fuel is not possible.

336. That is the point. The technical people in your Department, or in any Department or in the private sector seem to be recommending, on technical or other grounds, that native fuel should not be used in many cases while the Government policy still remains the same?

—Our policy is, as far as possible, to use native fuel.

Except where technical reasons do not allow it. When you are given advice, either inside or outside, on technical or other grounds you may change from native fuel to some other type of fuel?

—Yes, we may be forced to change from native fuel but our anxiety and our wish is to use native fuel. However, on technical grounds it may not be feasible.

337. Could we ask the Accounting Officer, on the works in progress and some of the ones that were recently completed where heating and this type of installation was involved, if he could give us a breakdown of the number of places where native fuel was used?

—Very well.

If there is too much work involved you need not do it but if it is possible we would be glad of it.

—We will try to get the information.*

338. Chairman.—On page 19 of the Statement on New Works et cetera, there is provision for a waiting room in Aras an Uachtaráin Gardens. Where is that located?

—At the entrance gate. There were complaints about people having to stand out in the cold.

339. Deputy Dowling.—On Beggar’s Bush improvements—on page 21—there was some talk recently of disposing of Beggar’s Bush. Are there many improvements being undertaken there?

—The position in Beggar’s Bush is that apart from three blocks of married quarters which are leased to Dublin Corporation, the bulk of the buildings are occupied by the Stationery Office. They are old military buildings. At present there is no major scheme being contemplated or planned. The expenditure referred to here is for minor improvements to the existing accommodation in the Stationery Office. There is no proposal to dispose of the property.

340. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I would like to place on record the local appreciation of the new quay at Lanesboro.

—Thank you, Deputy.

341. Deputy Dowling.—In relation to page 22, Ordnance Survey, provision of general stores office, I had anticipated that the married quarters at the Ordnance Survey would have been disposed of?

—No, they are not being disposed of. As a matter of fact some of them are let on ordinary tenancies and others as a perquisite to the job.

342. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On page 23, National Museum—Adaptations, there has been some criticism of the museum. I take it that the position is that is not a matter for you. You will do whatever work you are requested to do?

—That is true. There are difficulties there. We are concentrating on the possibility of providing increased accommodation within the existing structure. It is a highly complex business.

It is a matter for the Department of Education?

—Yes, they are the people who decide the policy. We act as executive agents.

343. Chairman.—It is a question of space, I suppose?

—Space is the problem. At the moment we are undertaking an examination of the possibility of getting more space within the existing complex.

344. I know this is a policy matter and a high one, but if this building were vacated has it ever been considered that the Leinster House complex with the Museum and the National Library could be made into a composite cultural centre.

—I would not say that has been considered but it has been mentioned.

It is a policy matter?

—It is.

345. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Arising out of subhead F.4—Fuel, Light, Water, Cleaning, et cetera—are your Department responsible for the cleaning of all Government offices.

—The occupying Department are responsible for domestic cleaning. We are responsible, of course, for the domestic cleaning of our own offices. Cleaning of external walls and so forth would be our responsibility but domestic cleaning is the responsibility of the occupying Department in all cases.

346. On what basis is it done? Is it contracted out to a company?

—In some cases, yes. In some cases women are employed directly by the Department. That is what happens in our own office. We employ a number of women cleaners.

347. On looking through some of the other accounts I did not see the heading of cleaning in them. I was just wondering if the Office of Public Works were responsible for domestic cleaning in any offices outside their own?

—This may be misleading. Cleaning materials are covered here. We supply cleaning materials for domestic cleaning to Departments. This does not cover the physical cleaning; it only covers cleaning materials.

348. It does not include the labour?

—No.

Chairman.—That comes under salaries and wages of the various Departments. This is the cleaning materials the same as fuel, light and water?

—Yes.

349. Deputy H. Gibbons.—In your Department you employ the cleaners?

—We employ the cleaners directly. In other cases it is done by contract.

But not in your Department?

—Not in our Department. It is becoming difficult to get cleaners to do this work.

350. Deputy MacSharry.—On subhead I —Coast Protection—there is a note saying that there were some difficulties in recruiting certain staff. This seems to be a problem throughout the Board of Works?

—Yes. At the moment we have 20 engineering vacancies.

351. Can anything be done about this because it, apparently, puts many surveys off schedule?

—It is a very difficult situation. In brief, the position seems to be that we cannot compete with the demands from the private sector or, even now, with local authorities.

What is the solution to it or are there any suggested solutions?

—I suppose the solution is increased pay.

It is a very important problem. One finds it in every sphere of activity. It is one that will have to be corrected or the system will grind to a halt?

—Yes.

352. On Subhead L—Expense of Operation of the ASGARD (Grant-in-Aid)—is this sufficient?

—It is a grant-in-aid.

It costs more than that, I presume, to run it?

—Within this year they represented that the £6,000 was not sufficient. I know they have got increases in the grant-in-aid. They have got increases when they found they had not got sufficient.

353. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Before we go away from the main accounting, we find “supplementary” under some headings and in other headings “less supplementary”. What is the explanation for that? For example, under subheads A and B you have “supplementary” and under subhead E you have “less supplementary”.

—“Less supplementary” is where savings occurred. Take, for example, G5—Arterial Drainage, Maintenance—£398,000 less supplementary £75,000, which means a saving of £75,000, and that was deducted.

354. Deputy MacSharry.—Is that an accumulation over the years?

—Within one year. Weather can affect the operation. You can have high water on land for some time and you cannot do all you have planned to do.

When you put in this item “Less Supplementary” it means that the work was not done?

—It means the work was not done, or maybe the schemes had not reached maintenance. Where we add “Supplementary” that is where we over-spend.

It is not a saving as such? It just means that work was not done?

—It has to be caught up on later. It is a saving for the particular year, if you like, but the next year it comes up again.

It is a postponement rather than a saving?

—Yes.

355. On the Appropriations in Aid, where it states the rents from fishing rights, are they fishing rights the Board of Works hold?

—We have only one fishing right. It came to us with the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park, Killarney. It is on part of the River Laune. It is leased to a group of local trustees who pay us a rent and operate the fishery for themselves and for visitors to the locality.

356. How often is it reviewed?

—It was let for a period of five years and it will be coming up for review shortly.

357. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have a number of fishing rights as well. If the Board of Works have only one of them would it not seem reasonable to say that it should be handed over to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries?

—There you come up against problems of legislation. This right is governed by the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act, 1932 which saddles us with the responsibility for the administration of the park, including the fishery. I am not sure whether we could legally transfer it to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In fact, I do not think we could.

I thought it peculiar to see it emerging here?

—Yes, it is a purely exceptional matter.

358. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On the Notes on Page 26, No. 1, we read that staff were lent, without repayment, to other offices. That is an internal accountancy business, is it not?

—Yes.

359. Deputy MacSharry.—A general question, do they still shoot off some of the deer in the Phoenix Park every year?

—Only ones that happen to be diseased. We are trying to bring up the herd. At the moment I think it is somewhere over the 200 mark.

360. Some years ago you were thinning it out?

—It was brought down to about 80 during the War. The number of births is 34 and the number of natural deaths is 16 on average. You have to shoot off a few but there is no regular shooting.

361. No annual shoot? I was wondering if there was because there are other parks around the country that would be glad of them.

—It is difficult to transfer them from one place to another. They can only be transferred as fawns. We have given some away a few times but the transferring of some of the fawns completely upsets the herd psychologically.

362. Chairman.—On marine works, page 27, we had a full statement last year on the Marine Works (Ireland) Act Maintenance Fund.

—This is the 1902 Act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Farrell.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix 5.

* See Appendix 6.

* See Appendix 7.