Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1975 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1972 - 1973

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 13 Márta, 1975.

Thursday, 13th March, 1975.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DE VALERA in the chair.

Mr. M. Jacob (thar cheann an Ard-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 18—VALUATION AND ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. J. M. McNicholl called and examined.

280. Chairman.—On subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—there is an explanatory note. Does this delay in making appointments in any way reflect a slowing down of activity in the Ordnance Survey?

—No, it does not. There is a difficulty in recruiting the mapping people. Mapping people are common to the service and we find a reluctance, if they have a choice, to go to the Phoenix Park.

Are both the Valuation and the Ordnance Survey located there?

—No, just the Ordnance Survey.

281. How does this affect the valuation side?

—There is no shortage of recruitment in the Valuation Office in this particular account.

How does the shortage of mappers affect your work on the valuation side, or does it?

—It does not affect it. We have a separate staff.

But maps are important?

—Maps are important, yes, but we have had no shortage at all of maps.

282. Deputy Griffin.—Have these positions been filled in the meantime? Are there any vacancies at present in the Valuation Office and Ordnance Survey?

—There are vacancies in both offices at the moment.

How many?

—In the Valuation Office I think the number of vacancies is quite small. We are in process of filling the last Valuer posts that are vacant and we are expecting, in fact, an addition of four or five men next week. There are about 40 vacancies in the Ordnance Survey and the reason here is a delay between the date of the interview and the date of the appointment.

283. Deputy H. Gibbons.—What type of officer would be covered by that 40 vacancies?

—The main posts that were vacant—we are talking now about 1972-73—were mapping assistants, technician trainees and placenames officers. This year: mapping assistants, 16 and cartographical officers, 24.

284. This is probably not a matter for you but you may have an opinion on it: are there sufficient training facilities for the training of mapping people?

—I would not like to comment on that because some of the mapping people recruited are already trained and others are trained on the job. I think they are mainly trained people who have had some training in mapping.

285. I presume the reduction in subhead E— Equipment—is in respect of deliveries?

—The main items in subhead E are two machines, both of which were waiting for the printing building which is being erected at the moment.

286. On the Appropriations in Aid, there seems to be quite a good business involved in the selling of maps?

—Apparently, yes. We have not been successful in estimating the increase.

287. Deputy Griffin.—Would the maps which you give to institutions like museums and the Department of State in Washington be mostly historical?

—No. They are current ones.

288. Deputy H. Gibbons.—You were producing one-inch maps of the country. How far have you got with them?

—We have a programme. One-inch maps are being kept up-to-date. There are four main maps covering Dublin, Cork, Killarney and Wicklow. They are being kept up-to-date with the revision of the half-inch maps. There is no prospect of re-surveys of those areas before 1980.

What are the prospects of extending the one-inch maps to the rest of the country?

—They do cover the country but there is the question of re-survey, which will not be done before 1980.

Chairman.—With all the development that becomes a difficult problem?

—Yes.

289. Appendix B involves reciprocal arrangements. We get maps from other people which are not accounted for under this estimate?

—Yes.

We give the maps set out in Appendix B to the places stated. They are free of charge, but the State also gets maps from other sources in a corresponding way, and presumably from the USA?

—We give these maps to others under the Industrial and Commercial Property Protection Act, 1927. We give them to the National Library, the National Museum and the universities. Under the Copyrights Acts we must supply all new editions to the Cambridge National Library. Other people are entitled, on demand, to a free supply of maps within 12 months of publication.

Chairman.—In other words, if we give benefits we also benefit.

VOTE 19—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. M. McNicholl further examined.

290. Chairman.—On subhead A—Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc.—I take it that this is a book transaction and that money does not pass? Is it an accounting transaction in most cases?

—No. It is real money.

291. This is Government property?

—Yes. We contribute to the local authorities an amount equivalent to the rates which would be payable if the property were not exempt from rates.

292. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead B— Contributions towards Rates on Premises occupied by Representatives of External Governments—was there some difficulty about this matter? From previous discussions I understood that the embassies paid their rates but that some countries refused to do so?

—We had and, in fact, still have a difficulty with the American Embassy but I am told that the Department of Foreign Affairs are in the course of resolving the difficulty. The British Government have the same problem. I am told that the two Governments are in the process of settling this matter.

293. How does the contribution arise? Will the other embassies pay some contribution?

—We pay the rates on premises occupied by other Governments although there is a proportion of that rate which they pay. That is to say that where they receive some kind of services from the local authority they pay for them.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 26—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. G. A. Meagher called and examined.

294. Chairman.—Paragraph 32 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances

The charge to the subhead includes a payment of £9,433 made to a firm of consultants which carried out a review of the staff structures of local authorities. A sum of £20,000 had already been paid from this subhead to the consultants in 1971-72. In addition, payments of £10,000 and £4,717 were made to the consultants from the Road Fund in 1971-72 and 1972-73, respectively, in respect of the review. The total cost of the review was £44,150.”

Mr. Jacob: This paragraph summarises, for the information of the Committee, the total cost of a review of the staff structures of local authorities performed by a firm of consultants.

295. Chairman.—On Paragraph 32, is it always necessary to employ consultants for this work? Are the resources of the Department not sufficient for tasks of this nature? I know we are at a disadvantage in that we are dealing with a situation that arose some years ago but my question is directed more towards the present because there seems to be a tendency to call in consultants to do everything. Was it necessary to employ consultants to carry out a review of staff structures of local authorities having regard to the existence of the Department?

—It was because the resources of the Department were engaged on on-going work. None of the senior people could be diverted to this particular task. It was a big operation which involved a review of the whole staff structures in the light of the changes in organisation of the local authorities which were envisaged at that time. The staff in the Department undoubtedly would have the knowledge and the background to examine the staffing structures but it was felt that they could not be taken off their existing duties. It was felt also that somebody from outside would give a fresh look at the situation. In this case the project was initiated essentially because, firstly, the organisation of local authorities was being reviewed and, secondly, the health boards had been set up and the Minister for Health was reviewing the staffing structures and the organisations in the health authorities. It was felt that there should be a look at the staffing structures of local authorities at the same time because of the staffing affinities between the health boards and the local authorities and the implications for local authorities in the event of any radical change being made in the staffing structure of the health boards.

296. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Were the recommendations of the consultants made available to local authorities, the county councillors?

—Yes. The recommendations were published without commitment. The report is known as Strengthening of the Local Authority Service.

297. Deputy Moore.—Were any changes made in the Custom House in the Department staff in the light of this report?

—Yes, some of the recommendations have been implemented which would affect the internal workings of the Department. For example, one of the principal recommendations was that there should be an EDP or computer service established for the local authorities. For that purpose a director of EDP services was recruited by the Department of Local Government as recommended by the consultants. Another recommendation was that a manpower committee should be established to see in what way the best use could be made of the staffings in local authorities and that committee has been established. The recommendation was made that there should be a look at the fire service and that a working group should be established to report on it and that has been done.

298. Deputy Griffin.—Could these recommendations be used for any other Department or do the recommendations specifically apply to the Department of Local Government? Can other Departments avail of the advice?

—They are special to the Department of Local Government.

299. Chairman.—On what basis are consultants selected and employed? What procedure is adopted in choosing consultants?

—The proposal in principle to employ a consultant is raised with the Department of Finance or, as at present, with the Department of the Public Service. The Department of the Public Service maintains lists of consultants. When the proposal is put to them an indication is given in detail of the type of service required and the appropriate lists can then be drawn upon for the purpose. In the particular instance we are now discussing, McKinseys were the consultants employed. Actually, they were the consultants employed by the Department of Health for the review of the structures of the health boards. The Department of Finance sanctioned the proposal from our Department that they should survey the local authorities.

Without making a distinction between the change from the Department of Finance to the Department of the Public Service, I am just saying the Department as appropriate, the first procedure is that sanction must be obtained to do it?

—Yes, that is right.

Then do I understand that the choice is restricted to a panel that is maintained by that Department?

—No, I would say not. I would say the choice is not restricted to a panel but in order to provide a source from which names can be taken there is this what I might call a register or list of names.

There is a register of people?

—Yes.

300. How do you choose from the people who are on that register?

—As I say, in this particular instance the choice was made on the basis that this particular firm had a special expertise in the staff structures of local authorities because of what they had done in Britain and because of what they had done in the health services here.

301. Although you say you are not restricted would I be right in inferring that the very fact that there is an official register, so to speak, more or less operates automatically to indicate that the names are to come from there? I am trying to put it as fairly as I can.

—It is not my Department and I really do not know for certain what happens.

Would you be free to take a consultant from anywhere else?

—We would have been free, yes, to put forward the case for the employment of a specific consultant, backing it up with whatever arguments would support it.

302. Is there any element of competition? In other words, what I am trying to get at here, although you say it is not your function, is what is the basic principle behind employing consultants? This is a State employment in a State contract. What is the basic principle governing the placing of that employment or contract?

—I would think value for money with strong emphasis on the known capacity and expertise and experience of the firm.

It is therefore what I might call an administrative decision of choice?

—Yes.

303. Deputy Tunney.—In view of the currency of the review, is there any figure at all put on the extent to which the normal operations of the Department would be affected? We have a figure there for consultants but in their operations they do have the services of the resident staff of your Department?

—Yes.

To what extent do you think the civil servants in your Department contributed to this review?

—There was a steering committee operating with the consultants. My recollection is that there was one officer of Assistant Principal grade assigned for quite a lot of his time to the consultants. I could not put a figure on this.

304. The point I want to make is that there is hidden cost which does not appear here at all?

—There is.

And the difficult work on this, in my own experience, is done by civil servants.

305. Chairman.—I suppose even in a commercial firm if you bring in consultants you first of all have some committee of the management to correspond to your steering committee?

—Yes.

And inevitably employees or members of the firm are engaged in the work and I suppose one can account separately for them but the two elements go together. Deputy Tunney’s point is that this cost only represents a fraction of the total cost of the operation?

—Yes.

306. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Did they go down the country and interview the local authorities?

—They did. Initially, they intended to do a fairly limited survey but as things went on they found that they should involve themselves more and more and they went to 16 or 17 counties and they consulted the elected representatives as well as the staff.

307. Chairman.—Paragraph 33 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Motor Vehicle Duties

A test examination of the revenue from motor vehicle duties, etc., was carried out with satisfactory results. The reports of the Local Government auditors who examine the motor tax transactions of local authorities are made available to me.

The gross proceeds for the years 1972-73 and 1971-72 were:

£20,007,729 was paid into the Exchequer and £116,396 was refunded during the year leaving a balance of £288,248 compared with £454,701 at the end of the previous financial year.”

Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph analyses the proceeds of the revenue from motor vehicle duties, et cetera. The analysis is for information.

308. Deputy H. Gibbons.—May I ask what the test examination consists of? How much would be examined? Would every local authority have an examiner?

Mr. Jacob.—Our test examination would certainly not cover all the local authorities. We would take, say, 25 per cent. I am speaking roughly now. We would do it on a rota basis, covering perhaps all the local authorities over, say, three to four years. If we were to attempt to do an annual test of all the local authorities it would be unduly time consuming. I cannot put a percentage on it but I would say that over the years they are all covered.

309. Chairman.—It is a sampling operation?

Mr. Jacob.—A sampling operation, yes. We satisfy ourselves that the procedures of control for collection which the Department have initiated are operating satisfactorily. The mechanics of the procedures and of the remittance of the duties are examined and we confirm that the moneys find their way into the Exchequer.

310. Deputy Tunney.—In respect of motor tax and driving licence fees, have you any figures which would allow you to offer an estimate, which would give you an idea of the number of cars in respect of which tax is not being paid or the number of drivers in respect of whom a driving licence is not held?

—I would not have that. I can give the number of persons proceeded against by the Garda for non-payment of tax, for non-payment of driving licence fees. In the year 1972 the number of persons proceeded against was 28,000 for having an untaxed vehicle. In 1973 the number of persons proceeded against for having untaxed vehicles was 34,899. In the case of persons having no driving licence the number in 1972 proceeded against was 12,563 and in 1973 the figure was 16,489.

311. You are using the term “proceeded against”. That does not include the number of persons who for one reason or another were detected and were not proceeded against and it does not include the number who were not detected at all. It represents——

Chairman.—A very substantial sum.

Deputy Tunney.—The figures are rather alarming.

Chairman.—They are.

Deputy Tunney.—We are talking about distributing the burden of taxation. Some effort should be made to include these.

Deputy Moore.—A great number of heavy lorries are not taxed. A Residents’ Association brought this to my notice. I understand many of them are imported from England. There is some legal snag about taxing them. These people are driving without paying tax on the lorries.

—Temporary importation for temporary use means that the tax situation does not arise. If an imported lorry remains here for any period the payment of taxation is required.

Many lorries are liable for tax. My attention was drawn to a number of lorries held up by a road-block, many of which were untaxed. There is some snag about imported second hand lorries. They get away with it for a time.

Chairman.—There is an administrative problem. In certain areas in the city particularly there is quite a delay in getting a tax disc, especially for a commercial firm. Deputy Moore is also talking about private cars. The Garda often find expired discs on vehicles. I have had the experience myself of having paid my tax but the disc was not forthcoming. This is an ongoing problem.

Deputy Governey.—That is an astonishing figure of the number of people prosecuted for non-payment of taxation. We do not know the money values involved.

Chairman.—Does the Committee want a note on this point?

Deputy Governey.—If that would involve a lot of work it is not necessary.

Deputy Toal.—There would be “back-taxation” of cars also.

Chairman.—It is a matter for the Committee.

Deputy H. Gibbons.—It would put much work on Mr. Meagher and his Department.

312. Deputy Griffin.—Is the figure for State vehicles the same for two years, 1971-72 and 1972-73? Is this a static figure?

—Yes. It is agreed with the Department of Finance and operates for a number of years and then is reviewed.

313. Chairman.—A number of people have complained from time to time that driving tests seem to be conducted, particularly in Dublin city, on the principle that one automatically does not pass the first or even the second test, and that the test failure is not a reflection of driving capability or capacity but is something arising from a desire or temptation to increase revenue, and possibly to make work for the people concerned. I am not subscribing to that view or making that complaint. Complaints have been made to me as a Deputy that driving tests have nearly always to be repeated. I do not know whether that is true. In some cases I have reason to believe that the people were able to drive perfectly at the first test, but that they had to do the test two or three times, paying a fee in each case. Is there any supervision of the tests?

—There is. The rate of failure is about 50 per cent. That figure applies to the second and third tests, as well as to the initial tests. Sometimes it is said that a tester may be over-severe. Recently reference was made in the Dáil to the fact that one particular tester had been let go because he failed so many people. There are a number of supervisory testers. The testers are brought together at regular intervals in order to achieve uniformity of procedures. It is a fairly well-run operation.

There is supervision?

—Yes.

There are the questions of the public safety and proper testing. The maintenance of standards is appreciated. Nothing I have said should be used to lower standards or even to suggest any lowering of standards.

314. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Has a person the right to ask for a different tester or for a supervisory tester for his second or third test?

—Yes, but that does not often happen. As far as possible the Department try to accommodate people.

315. Would you change testers automatically on the second or third tests?

—Yes, especially if the person being tested asked if it would be possible to do so.

Would that mean that the applicant’s chance would be prejudiced?

—That is only a point of view.

Chairman.—I investigated closely the one case of unfairness that was referred to me in my constituency. I got every co-operation from the official personnel. I was fully satisfied that the official personnel were perfectly just and correct in their decision. It is only fair to put that on the record.

316. Deputy Tunney.—The tester who lost his employment because he was too severe has been mentioned. We can be happy that the result of that will not result in any lowering of standards?

—No. One does not wish to discuss the details but you can rest assured that that would not occur at all in this case.

Has any examiner ever been sacked for being too easy?

—I could not say.

317. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Would it be possible that where a person fails a test three times that he could be given a change of examiner for his fourth test? There are people who fail the test on as many as six occasions, maybe rightly so, but some of them feel that they suffer an injustice because they have had the same examiner all the time. Can anything be done about this situation?

—I am not entirely familiar enough with this matter but I understand that the practice is as far as practicable to assign a repeat test to a different tester.

Chairman.—I suppose it depends on the area? In Dublin, for instance, one’s chances of getting the same examiner are very remote. In a rural area where there is only one examiner the chances of a person having that examiner for all the tests are pretty high. Is that the problem?

—Yes.

Deputy H. Gibbons.—It would make the test more acceptable if automatically when a person failed a test for the third time he would be given a different examiner. I feel sure that people would not object to being sent to a different area and paying the expenses involved. It would also take some of the criticism off the examiners concerned.

318. Deputy Toal.—How many examiners are employed by the Department because I find that there is a great delay between the time a person applies and the time that person is called for the test?

—At present we have 50 driver-testers and six supervisors.

I would be obliged if that was broken between the metropolitan area of Dublin and the rest of the country?

—I have not that breakdown. At present the delay period is between eight and nine weeks. I should like to add that four additional drivertesters are being recruited. When these are trained and fully operational it is expected that we will be able to reduce the waiting period to six or seven weeks.

Chairman.—Our questions are an illustration of how important the information items supplied by the Comptroller and Auditor General are.

319. Deputy Griffin.—On subhead A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—do these vacancies still exist?

—Some do but others have been filled since.

Is the fact that these vacancies exist causing any delay?

—For example, there is difficulty in recruiting professional planning officers and, undoubtedly, if one could have more planning staff we could get through planning appeals more quickly.

320. Chairman.—On subhead F—Water Supply and Sewerage—would these be under local authorities directly?

—The subhead is made up of two elements, one the water supply and sewerage schemes carried out by the local authorities and the other grants.

Water supply, in the main, is the ultimate responsibility of the Department?

—That is so.

321. I am interested in the question of the water supply for the expanding city of Dublin and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. Is that question under active consideration?

—It is. There are major schemes in planning or in execution in the Dublin area at present.

It is appreciated that last year we were fortunate in so far as rainfall was concerned but it should be remembered that a year of drought could cause a serious problem in the city of Dublin and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. Is that borne in mind?

—It is.

Will every effort be made to see that the supply will meet any unforeseen drought?

—Every effort is being made. There are extensive works being planned and in progress.

Dublin representatives, and Deputy Murphy who represents the North Wicklow area, have been making a fuss about this matter. Is the Department aware that this matter is causing great concern and that public representatives would like to see more attention given to it?

—The Department is so concerned.

322. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Is local authority housing appropriate to the capital expenditure side?

—It is. The subsidies only come in the Department’s vote.

Does that include sewerage and water?

—Capital money for sewerage and water is on the capital side. What is here is contributions towards the loan charges incurred in repaying capital borrowings plus grants for water supply and sewerage.

That does not include the group water schemes?

—It does include grants for group water schemes.

323. Deputy Toal.—On subhead G—Grants in respect of Amenity Works, Derelict Sites and Dangerous Places—how much of that is in respect of amenity works?

—The great bulk of it. Only a small residual sum would relate to dangerous places. The amount relating to derelict sites would also be quite small.

Is the 50 per cent a constant figure every year?

—The figure of 50 per cent is constant but the amount changes with costs.

324. Deputy Griffin.—On item 1 of the Appropriations in Aid—Fees payable by local authorities, etc. for audit of their accounts— who conducts the audit?

—Auditors are employed by the Minister for Local Government. The local authorities pay fees in respect of the audits to the Department of Local Government.

They are private practitioners, so to speak?

—No. They are salaried people employed by the Minister for Local Government.

325. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Do you control or make any contribution to the Safety First Association?

—Yes. The position is that a new organisation has been set up called the National Road Safety Association and that gets its funds almost entirely from the Road Fund via the Department. The Safety First Association of Ireland is still in being but some of its staff are being taken over by the new association.

326. What is the purpose or objective of the organisation?

—Essentially it is to improve road safety awareness, especially at local level, to issue propaganda, to see that school children, in particular, are made aware of the importance of road safety, generally to improve the standard of driving, the awareness of the need for vehicle fitness, propaganda against drinking and driving, and so on.

327. From time to time drivers make mistakes on the road. One sees others making them and one feels like bringing that to the attention of the Garda. It is something one does not wish to do. It struck me from time to time that if there were an agency one could draw the attention of the agency to the fact that car number so and so was being driven carelessly and that agency would have the function of contacting the driver and informing him that somebody had drawn attention to the fact that the car had been driven carelessly and pointing out the dangers of it. Would that be possible? I can see a lot of objections on the point of interference with individual liberty and so on?

—I do not know what the Garda would say. I suppose their view of this is that if a person is seen to be driving dangerously the information should be conveyed to them rather than to some body or other.

People are not inclined to make reports to the Garda. We would not like it done on ourselves.

Deputy Griffin.—That system is in operation in England. If a person observes a motorist driving carelessly he reports it to the police. It is an accepted fact of life there.

328. Deputy Moore.—Do you pay a grant to any local authority in respect of the school warden service? I refer to the wardens on duty outside schools?

—The lollipop men—no.

No payment to any local authority?

—No.

We tried to twist your arm a few times in Dublin but did not succeed.

Chairman.—Thank you very much, Mr. Meagher, for the help and the readiness with which you had your information for us.

—Thank you.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 8—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. C. Farrell called and examined.

329. Chairman.—Paragraph 19 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead D.—Purchase of Sites and Buildings

The charge to the subhead includes £357,500 expended on the purchase of portion of Kenmare Estate, Killarney. The property consists of approximately 365 acres of farmlands and woodlands and some buildings. The charge to the subhead also includes £365,000 being the purchase price, including fees, of a site of approximately 2½ acres at Smithfield, Dublin, on which it is proposed to erect a new District Courts complex.”

Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph is for information.

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

“It was noted in the course of audit that premises were purchased, with Department of Finance approval, at a cost of £26,000 for use by Gael-Linn Teoranta for Irish Language courses. The premises are situated in a residential area and an application by the organisation for change of user has been refused by the planning authority and, on appeal, by the Minister for Local Government. I have asked for the observations of the Accounting Officer regarding the purchase of the premises before approval of change of user had been obtained from the planning authority. I have also asked for information in regard to the terms and conditions under which the premises are being occupied by Gael-Linn Teoranta. (See also paragraphs 12, 55 and 56).”

Mr. Jacob.—The Accounting Officer informed me that the premises were purchased by the Commissioners under a direction of the Minister for Finance and that, although the purchase was made in the absence of planning permission, it was considered on the basis of earlier correspondence with the planning authority that permission would be forthcoming for the use to which Gael-Linn proposed to put the premises. Gael-Linn went into occupation in February, 1973. The Office of Public Works normally charges an economic rent when it purchases premises for use by another body. In this case the Department of Finance approved the charging of a reduced rent pending the outcome of the planning appeal and I understand that no payment has yet been made by Gael-Linn.

331. Chairman.—How could it come about that premises were being purchased by one Department and planning permission refused by another Department—that the purchase would have been completed?

—I had better, perhaps, give a brief run-down of the history of the case. We came into the case in March, 1972, at a time when Gael-Linn, in response to an advertisement, had been offered another premises in the same area, in Northbrook Road actually, which is a few hundred yards away. After examining and advising on the property we were given authority by the Department of Finance to proceed with the purchase of the Northbrook Road premises subject to certain conditions, one of which was that the intention of Gael-Linn in regard to the use of the premises was consistent with the Dublin development plan. The matter of planning was examined by us in consultation with the Corporation’s Deputy Planning Officer who advised us in May, 1972, that while the primary use in this zone should be residential a permitted use would be for “a primary, secondary or post-primary school”. It was considered that the proposed use by Gael-Linn was in line with the zoning, but any other use such as offices would be prohibited. We were advised that Gael-Linn would have to apply for the permission. The negotiations for the Northbrook Road house broke down on the question of price but the premises at 7 Appian Way came on the market and Gael-Linn considered they would be well-suited to their purposes. At the time of negotiation the Northbrook Road premises were being used for residential purposes and were in the same area. We entered into negotiations with the owner of No. 7 Appian Way and reached agreement on price. We made the agreement subject to the condition that we would clear with the planning authority the condition in regard to the proposed user. There were then discussions with the Corporation Planning Department who told us that the same policy as they had advised earlier would be applied in regard to this property. On the strength of that advice we completed the purchase of the premises. Gael-Linn applied for change of user. In October, 1972, the Corporation wrote to Gael-Linn telling them permission was refused under section 4 of the Housing Act, 1969 which lays down the procedure for application to the Corporation or local authority for change of use of a residence. Gael-Linn appealed to the Minister for Local Government. The Minister allowed the appeal and gave permission for the premises being used other than for human habitation subject to payment of £100 to the Corporation. That was paid but the position under the Planning Act, 1963, had still to be cleared. The Corporation refused to grant permission when it was applied for, on the grounds that a language school would not be permissible in an area zoned for residential use. That was done in spite of the information already given in regard to the Northbrook Road premises. An appeal to the Minister for Local Government was turned down. Gael-Linn re-applied to the Corporation and have been turned down again. The matter is now awaiting a further appeal to the Minister for Local Government. In the meantime Gael-Linn went into possession and have been conducting Irish classes in the building on a limited scale. Because of the limitation of user it was considered that they should be charged a lesser rent than the full commercial rent of the premises which we were advised would be about £2,450 per year. A sum of £2,000 a year was decided upon, which Gael-Linn have been asked to pay. They think that this is too high and they asked that the matter be allowed to wait over until the outcome of the planning appeal to the Minister for Local Government is known. We have refused that request and asked Gael-Linn to pay but they still have not paid.

332. There was a reference to this whole activity in paragraph 12 earlier but naturally we shall not talk about that now. Roinn na Gaeltachta seem to come into it but you are concerned with your own Office. What is the status of Gael-Linn as far as you are concerned? Are they a commercial enterprise or a State organisation?

—We have to look on them as a commercial organisation with the object of promoting the national language.

333. Are you saying that in making decisions you take into account their main purposes?

—Yes.

334. Do they belong either to the Department of Finance or the Department of the Gaeltacht?

—They are an organisation for the promotion of the Irish language.

335. Have you reduced the rent in any other cases or given any particular preference to any other organisation on such a basis?

—Not that I can recall.

This is unique?

—Yes, so far as I remember. I do not remember any other case on these exact lines.

336. Three questions arise. The first is the question directly raised by the paragraph as to why premises were purchased by you when title was not perfect. That is what it amounts to. You purchased premises for a purpose and you were not sure that object could be fulfilled. This is merely a question and not a condemnation. The second question is: by what authority and on whose authority did you give preferential treatment to this organisation by giving them a lesser rent? The third question is: what is the answer to the fact that you have premises occupied by your tenant and yet you are not being paid your rent? These three questions arise. Can you answer them? Why were the premises purchased prematurely, as it would appear? Why was a lower rent charged? Why was the rent not collected?

—We purchased the premises on the strength of information which we got verbally from an officer of Dublin Corporation. We relied on the information we got from him that the use of the premises for the purposes of Irish classes would be permitted.

337. The Office of Public Works is part of the Department of Finance and I presume that your own Minister takes responsibility in the first instance?

—Yes, it was he who authorised the purchase of the premises.

338. Was there any connection, consultation or arrangement between your Department and Roinn na Gaeltachta in regard to this matter?

—We acquainted Roinn na Gaeltachta that we proposed to buy the premises. The details were not gone into with that Department but they were advised that we were going to negotiate for the purchase of the premises. We relied on the assurance, or whatever one likes to call it, from the officer of Dublin Corporation that it was in order to purchase them. That seemed reasonable in the light of the formal written information previously given in regard to the Northbrook Road premises in the same area. In retrospect we would possibly be wiser now and apply for it in writing but the trouble is that to apply in writing and go through the formalities could take several months and no vendor would wait for such a lengthy period.

339. When was this purchase completed?

—August, 1972.

340. When was the £26,000 paid?

—It was paid at the same time.

341. A total of £26,000 of State money has been expended in 1972 and there has been no return on it since?

—Not yet.

So the State is at the loss of that money?

—The State is at the loss of interest on the money. We are pressing Gael-Linn to pay——

342. That is not what we are dealing with now. That matter will arise later. What was the authority for you, as the responsible Accounting Officer, to accept less than the rent that should have been set on that premises for which you paid £26,000?

—The authority of the Minister for Finance.

Was it in writing?

—Yes. We reported formally to the Minister, gave the facts and obtained approval in writing.

343. What is the position in regard to the payment of rent?

—Gael-Linn suggested that the question of the payment of the £2,000 a year be held over until the planning appeal was decided on. We have rejected that and told Gael-Linn that, in effect, they should pay up. We are awaiting the outcome of that.

344. When did you first make a demand?

—In 1974. Gael-Linn, because there had been contact about the planning appeal, knew that they would be expected to pay rent. The formal demand on them was made on 1st November, 1974. That demand was for £2,000 per year.

345. From the point of view of the normal procedures and the normal standards observed in the service would you not consider that this whole transaction was somewhat irregular?

—I could hardly say it was irregular but it was exceptional.

And extraordinary?

—It was definitely exceptional and it could be termed extraordinary.

346. Deputy Toal.—Who approached you at the start? Who set the wheels in motion that this organisation should get preferential treatment in regard to these premises?

—It came from the Minister for Finance, who had been approached by Gael-Linn. We did not come into the picture or would not come into it of our own volition. We would be directed by the Minister for Finance even if Gael-Linn had approached us in the first instance. The Minister for Finance was approached by Gael-Linn, who had been offered the premises in Northbrook Road in response to an advertisement.

347. Chairman.—You mentioned that you had not looked for the permission in writing?

—Not in this case but we did in the case of Northbrook Road.

That is normally the cover for the Accounting Officer because you have responsibility in regard to procedures and you must observe proper accounting procedures?

—Ultimately, yes.

348. In a technical sense, under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, the responsibility for this irregularity can be placed at your door unless you have a proper direction from the Minister?

—Yes.

So that there is a technical difficulty for you here?

—Yes, not in regard to the authority for the purchase but in regard to the use in question. We relied, and I presume I would rely again tomorrow, on the verbal information given by an officer of Dublin Corporation. Regularly we have to rely on verbal information.

349. In taking that course you are incurring statutory responsibility in your own right under the Ministers and Secretaries Act and you are not covered by direction from the Minister unless you have that cover in writing?

—That is true.

It is a very important thing for an Accounting Officer to appreciate.

—I fully appreciate that but it was assumed to be logical that having been told we would get the permission in the case of the Northbrook Road premises we would get it also in the case of Appian Way which is in the same area.

350. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:

“Subhead E.—New Works, Alterations and Additions

The charge to the subhead comprises £2,193,843 expended on general architectural and engineering works and £3,831,804 in respect of grants towards the erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools, as compared with £1,782,729 and £3,665,142, respectively, in the previous year.

School grants amounting to £2,971,304 were paid to managers who undertook responsibility for having the works carried out and £860,500 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. Jacob.—These paragraphs give a breakdown of subhead expenditure as between general architectural and engineering works and the amount of grants made towards the erection, enlargement or improvement of national schools.

Chairman.—Does the witness wish to comment on that report?

—No, it is part of our regular work.

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

“In July, 1964 the Department of Finance approved the erection of a building at Burlington Road, Dublin to provide accommodation, stated to be urgently needed, for the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at an estimated cost of £65,000. A firm of architects was appointed in September, 1964 to supervise the construction of the new building but a contract, in the sum of £112,525, was not placed until August, 1969. The building was substantially completed in September, 1971 and payments totalling £168,000 have been made under the contract up to 31st March, 1973, including £29,766 in the year under review. In view of the stated urgency of the accommodation needs of the Institute I invited the observations of the Accounting Officer on the delay in placing the contract.

In his reply the Accounting Officer has stated that the firm of architects entrusted with this commission had brought it almost to the tendering stage by November 1965 when it became clear that funds would not be available to allow the building work to be commenced in 1966-67. While this absence of funds in itself would have precluded the invitation of tenders at that time, there were also design problems, mainly in relation to the heating system, which required further study. The Accounting Officer has also stated that the architects availed themselves of the enforced postponement to settle the design problems and that in the course of this work they revised their drawings and produced a better architectural solution than their original scheme. This did not involve any extra fees but it meant that it was not possible to proceed with the invitation of tenders until all the revised drawings and other documents became available. A fully satisfactory set of tendering documents was not received until February 1969 and tenders were then invited. The Accounting Officer has further stated that the final account for the contract has not yet been settled but that it is expected that there will be a total extra on the contract of, approximately, £58,000, largely accounted for by increases payable under the Price Variation Clause and by other increased costs necessarily incurred in carrying through the project as approved. He has added that additional works accounted for somewhat less than £5,000 of the total extra of £58,000.

An excess of almost fifty per cent on a contract of £113,000, substantially completed in a little over two years, would appear to be unduly high but, until the final account for the contract is settled, I will not be in a position to satisfy myself whether this is so.”

Mr. Jacob.—The paragraph refers to the erection of the building up to its completion in September 1971. In examining the final account of the contract we noticed that, apart from price variation, provisional sums and prime cost increases, extras arose which increased the cost by about £24,000. The Department of Finance was informed in regard to the final outturn and sanctioned the overall cost of the scheme.

352. Chairman.—Does the witness wish to comment on that report?

—We have dealt with this in reply to an audit query from the Comptroller and Auditor General. A firm of architects was engaged. It was a firm in private practice, because we have not a sufficient number of architects on our own staff. They were entrusted with the commission and began work in September, 1964, and had it almost brought to the tendering stage in November, 1965. At that point it became clear that funds would not be available to allow building work to be commenced, at any rate, in 1966-67. This in itself would have precluded the invitation of tenders at the time but there were also design problems, mainly in regard to the heating system, which manifested themselves and which required further study. The problem was that we were anxious to use solid fuel, preferably turf, but the limitations of the site precluded all efforts to get a solid fuel heating system there. We just could not do it and there was no hope of getting a site extension. The architects then, because of the enforced postponement of the scheme, availed themselves of the opportunity to settle the design problems and in the course of this work they revised their drawings and produced a better architectural solution than the original scheme. They did not get any extra fees for this. We eventually got, in February, 1969, the tendering documents and we proceeded from there to do the job. The project admittedly took longer to mature than would normally be expected but the delay was due to the unusual combination of circumstances which are most unlikely to recur and the ultimate scheme was in every way an improvement on the original one and we got good value. In that location, Burlington Road, good design is of prime importance. The Committee, I presume, will be concerned with the extras on the final cost of the job. The original contract figure was £112,525. The Price Variation Clause added to that roughly £22,500. Extras on prime cost sums or PC sums as they are generally known, and provisional sums accounted for another £12,500. The Institute for Advanced Studies, for whom the building was intended, requested a number of works which were necessary from their point of view but which were not foreseen at the design stage. It never happens, except in the case of the simplest of buildings, that you can get a full brief of all requirements before you start on a scheme and things like extra doors necessitated by changes in layout for example, nine professors’ rooms required instead of six as originally indicated and 12 scholars’ rooms instead of ten—all of those things gave rise to changes and as a result extra works asked for by the Institute amounted to roughly £4,300. Then, as in every contract, there were a number of variations, adjustment of preliminaries, adjustment of steel reinforcement etc. A problem arose in regard to steel reinforcement, which constitutes the biggest item of the extra involved in variations, because of a thing called “creep”. All of those variations totalled about £20,000. So, in the event the overall contract sum was of the order of £170,000.

353. First of all, the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies is in the nature of a State enterprise in the sense that it is at least to be classified as a State body?

—Yes.

So there is an essential difference between the basis of approach to paragraph 23 and paragraph 20—would you agree?

—Yes.

354. Secondly, the first contract was placed as early as 1969?

—August, 1969.

There has been considerable inflation in that period, has there not?

—There has been in building costs.

There has been considerable inflation in building costs?

—Yes.

355. It is not for me to express opinions but is it not true from general experience of buildings that initial building contracts, even when you are lucky enough to get a contractor now—being the State, I suppose you did—but you will agree that builders will not enter into firm contracts. These are really in plain language their target prices since 1970—with all builders?

—The Builders’ Federation will not do a contract without a Price Variation Clause.

356. I am personally aware of cases as late as 1968 and 1969 where this situation obtained and I am personally aware of a situation like this. It is quite appropriate for the Comptroller and Auditor General to draw attention to the amount of the sum but you are entitled to comment on the phrase “would appear to be unduly high”. I do not know how an auditor or anybody else can add “would appear to be unduly high”. You are entitled to comment on that. Do you wish to?

—Yes. The average cost of the building works out at less than £11 per square foot, which is an extremely reasonable figure for a fully fitted-out building of this kind. Nowadays for a shell of a similar building without floor covering and so on you can pay £20 per square foot.

357. Would you not agree that it has not been unusual that contracts entered into in 1968 and 1969 and which for some reason were not completed until 1973 have, by and large, generally increased by 100 per cent?

—Yes, that is quite possible.

Would you be surprised if evidence were produced to you that that is so?

—I would not. I have seen such cases. It arises on the Price Variation Clause and on the adjustment of prime cost sums and provisional sums.

358. Therefore, I do invite you and I have invited you to comment on the phrase in that paragraph “would appear to be unduly high”. It is perfectly correct that the comment should be made, that the Comptroller and Auditor General should point out that there is a big increase but I think it is your right to comment on the phrase “would appear to be unduly high”. I want you either to concur in that or to refute it.

—I refute it on the basis of the cost per square foot—£11 per square foot—which is very, very reasonable for a building of this kind, extremely reasonable by comparison with the present time when it would cost more than double the amount for a fully fitted-out building.

359. In addition to the explanation you have now given, you are aware, are you, that there has been this great inflation in building costs in that period?

—Yes. I saw the other day a return taking base 100 on 1st January, 1966. It is now 270— nearly three times the figure.

360. Deputy H. Gibbons.—I take it from you that at some stage the contract had to be revised, the design had to be revised because the staff made some representations as to accommodation?

—Yes, but to a limited degree only. The variations amounted to less than £5,000, which is small.

What I want to get at is the general principle. The general principle is that the architects consult with the people who would be using the buildings before they start designing them?

—They do, always. The brief is got from the person who will occupy the premises. I have yet, however, to meet an occupier who could fully visualise all his requirements except in a very small building. In buildings of any size even architects themselves can hardly produce a full brief that would not be subject to change before the contract is finished.

361. Chairman.—The procedure is essentially the same for you as for a commercial firm. The first procedure is a decision to build?

—Yes.

One must then decide what is wanted?

—Yes.

Then the architect is called in and briefed?

—Yes.

That brief is usually partially in writing and partially verbal?

—More often verbal.

As a result of that the architect provides a set of plans?

—A sketch scheme.

On the basis of that a set of drawings are produced?

—Yes, after examination by the client.

These drawings are examined by the client and by all concerned?

—Yes.

This is done in considerable detail and on that basis the contract is placed?

—That is right.

If you are fortunate to get a firm contract— which is out of the question now—at that stage the builder takes the work and the quantity surveyor would also be involved?

—The quantity surveyor comes in as soon as the working drawings have been prepared.

Then the builder comes in and the work starts?

—Yes.

Sometimes foundation difficulties arise?

—Yes.

Certain variations are sometimes required and the great problem is to resist the desire to change certain things?

—Yes.

Variations may be unforeseen. Difficulties may cause variations?

—Yes.

Every variation is charged for by the builder as it increases the costs?

—Yes, unless you have an omission, which is rare.

362. We all know about the costs of inflation. In this period there was a very strong element of cost inflation?

—Yes.

Wages inflation and materials’ cost inflation?

—That is right.

It would have been extremely unusual if a firm contract for that amount in 1969 could have been completed?

—That is so. It would be unusual or even impossible.

363. Have you said everything you feel justified in saying?

—Yes, I think so. The Price Variation Clause is common to every contract above £500. The British tried to get away with fixed prices contracts for a while provided the schemes were properly planned and were not estimated to take more than two years to complete. The result is that the builders have lost a colossal amount of money. Many firms lost heavily including at least one Irish firm with a contract in Britain.

364. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Is the architect expected to go back to the user in each case in which he proposes to build, for example, a local Garda barracks? Are the Garda consulted about what they want?

—Before the building is erected they are sent a sketch plan, through the Department of Justice, of the type of building intended to be built in each particular case.

At that stage the architect would have been involved in some cost?

—Very little cost. He would have been involved in preparing the drawings and the cost of his time. The Department of Justice send the sketch plans to the Garda Commissioner who sends them to the local Garda authorities for approval. If the Garda there want changes they say so. Changes can easily be made at that stage.

365. Does the same apply in the case of schools?

—The Manager has to get planning permission from the local authority. He must submit sketch plans to that authority.

I am concerned about the people using the building. The school should be designed so as to give the best facilities possible to the area. A stage could be reached where alterations would seem desirable, and the builder would be involved in further expense automatically.

—There are standard plans for schools. The Department of Education decide, in consultation with the local inspector and the manager, that a school of, say, three classrooms is required. There must be a general purposes room, teachers’ rooms and toilets. Basically it goes back to the number of square feet per pupil per classroom.

366. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General very properly raised a question here. I have invited you to give a full answer. The answer is not a simple accounting answer. Paragraph 23 made a judgment, which you have to answer. The answer depends on facts more often than on differences in figures. Would you be prepared to itemise for the Committee what you have told us here about the breakdown of this? You have given us an explanation. Perhaps you could give us a short résumé in writing to itemise the headings under which the increased costs occurred, together with the reasons for them?

—Do you want it in writing?

Just the figure. We do not want a memo because you have already given us a long explanation. I would be obliged if you would accompany these figures with any explanatory notes you feel are necessary. I suggest that you are in a position to obtain collateral information in regard to building during the same period?

—We can give the percentage increase in building costs.

You can get collateral information because there is a suggestion here that you have not been managing well and I want to give you the opportunity of answering that?

—I refute that completely and it is proved by the square footage costs.

I want to give you the opportunity. Would you mind providing a short explanatory note also?

—I will do so.*

367. Does the Comptroller and Auditor General wish to make any comment?

Mr. Jacob.—In regard to this paragraph and your feelings towards the phrase “would appear to be unduly high”—what we had in mind was that in view of the increase in what was regarded as a short period it was considered that we could not be in a position to pass a final comment without getting the final account. It was really a holding statement pending the examination of the final account. I should like to repeat my earlier comment at this stage in the light of the evidence:

“The paragraph refers to the erection of the building up to its completion in September, 1971. In examining the final account of the contract we noticed that, apart from price variation, provisional sums and prime cost increases, extras arose which increased the cost by about £24,000.

The Department of Finance was informed in regard to the final outturn and sanctioned the overall cost of the scheme.”

Since we have had the opportunity of examining the final account we are, in general terms, quite satisfied with the position; but at the time the paragraph was inserted in the Report we did not have the final account and we were not in a position to be fully satisfied.

368. Chairman.—While the phrase, “would appear to be unduly high”, was concerned with such a matter one must have the details or the reasons as to why it is unduly high. A phrase like that calls for a full answer from the Accounting Officer and a refutation if it is there.

—The refutation is there.

This is the point at issue, particularly by what standards, I am asking the Comptroller and Auditor General, a judgment of that nature was made. This has been answered now and when the whole thing is finalised it will undoubtedly come up again. We would like to be kept informed of the progress on this and I would be obliged if the witness would supply the Committee with a note of the extras.

—Yes.

369. Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead FF.1.—Compensation, etc., arising from Damage to the Property of External Governments

Compensation amounting to £24,456 was paid from the subhead in the year under review arising from damage caused to properties occupied by representatives of the British and German Governments and from incidental damage to adjoining premises. The total cost of compensation payable in respect of this damage is estimated at £200,000.”

Mr. Jacob.—I understand that compensation paid from voted moneys arising from damage to the properties has cost in the region of £174,000 to date.

370. Deputy H. Gibbons.—What does that cover?

—It covers damage mainly to foreign embassies. For example, the British Embassy at 39 Merrion Square, which was burned out; the German Embassy, which was the subject of a bomb attack; the British Passport Office, premises adjoining the British Embassy— 38 and 40 Merrion Square—the British Ministry of Health offices at Irish Life House in Cork; the French Embassy, which suffered damage at the same time as the German Embassy and from the same explosion; the Spanish Cultural Institute; and the Alliance Française at 1 Kildare Street. The total bill will run to something of the order of £220,000 by the time we have finished with all accounts.

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

“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 £803,381. In addition, the net 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 £286,199. The cost of each scheme to 31st March, 1973 was:

The balance of the charge to the subhead is made up of sums amounting to £68,853 in respect of a minor scheme and £25,153 being remanets of expenditure on completed schemes.”

Mr. Jacob.—This paragraph is for information and gives a general picture, in financial terms, of the progress of the schemes mentioned as at 31st March, 1973.

372. Deputy H. Gibbons.—This matter in relation to the existing embankments at the Shannon estuary appears every year. Is this an on-going thing?

—It is. We have finished the construction work on them but we have to maintain them.

373. Was that work to prevent flooding?

—That work does prevent flooding. It is a very effective protection against flooding. Were it not for that work huge areas of low-lying land which are below high water level would be subjected to flooding.

374. Deputy Toal.—Are these the only schemes that are going on?

—The embankments are finished now. There are two drainage schemes in operation, on the Boyne and the Maigue.

And that is the total work being done in the field of arterial drainage?

—In actual work on arterial drainage it is. The Maigue was the subject of the cost-benefit analysis.

375. Chairman.—On subhead E—New Works, Alterations and Additions—we have this big statement.* Deputies will have looked through it. There are one or two questions I should like to ask on that. Page 1—Oireachtas —Leinster House. Has the Office of Public Works any responsibility for or any participation in the works done at the entrance to the building? What is your relationship to all works in Leinster House?

—We are the executive agency of the Government. Do you refer to a particular item?

It does not come into this account. In plain language, the barriers and all these things at the entrance gates. Are you responsible?

—We are responsible for providing them at the request of the authorities of the House.

It does not enter into this account.

—We did provide them at the request of the authorities of the House following consideration by them of the security aspect.

This will undoubtedly come up on the proper year’s accounts. We must not anticipate.

—We have an executive function in it.

376. Department of An Taoiseach. Installation of mechanical equipment, say, the provision of computers and so forth—these always involve big building, alterations, heating and ventilation and all this kind of thing?

—Yes.

This computer that appears under item 4 on this list, where is that located?

—On Sarsfield Road, Inchicore, alongside the Con Colbert Road.

This is not the Revenue computer?

—No. This is a Department of Finance computer. It is on the south side of the main railway. The railway divides Con Colbert Road from Sarsfield Road and there is an entrance to the British War Memorial Park there and it is on the west side of that that this building is erected.

377. Item No. 7 is the new building in Dublin Castle.

—That is the new stamping branch of the Revenue Commissioners. They are the main occupiers of that.

378. Deputy Toal.—When you say new Government offices, what does that mean?

—Which item?

For example, Drogheda, Waterford, Letterkenny?

—In Letterkenny we have the Revenue Commissioners’ office, the Employment Exchange, our own district offices, Department of Agriculture staff, et cetera centralised. The same in Drogheda. The idea is to centralise the services in the town.

379. Is it your aim to do this work for every county?

—We hope so, eventually. It will take a long time, I am afraid, but that is the hope.

380. Is it not the practice of the Office of Public Works, instead of building completely new Garda stations in villages or small towns, to buy existing buildings and convert them?

—Occasionally yes, not very frequently, because generally those buildings were designed as residences and are not really very suitable; but it has happened.

381. I know one particular case where the Office of Public Works negotiated for the purchase of a particular building. The contract of sale was going on so long it was not closed with the result that the vendor sold to a third party.

—Is there a specific case, might I ask?

Yes. It is in Rockcorry, County Monaghan.

—I do not know to which house the Deputy refers. There are two houses involved, one a house which we were prepared to purchase but to which the owner could not produce satisfactory title; secondly, a house which we agreed to rent at a high figure, and were prepared to go on with it. We approved the draft agreement. In a very short time we discovered that the owner had sold. It was not our fault. We had approved the draft agreement. There was no delay whatsoever in it. We had a contractor ready to go in and the first thing we knew the contractor was prevented from going into the house.

382. Are you going to take any steps to provide a Garda station in that area?

—We hope so. We intend to.

Have you made any progress?

—We have a site there. The matter was a subject of a discussion in the past few days with the Department of Justice. What the details are I cannot say at the moment but the matter is being pursued.

Are you hopeful that there will be a Garda station?

—Presumably one is needed there.

Certainly, yes.

—We were quite prepared to go on with the renting of this house—Browne’s is it?

That is right.

—In between the submission of the draft agreement to us and the approval, which was a very short time, to our amazement we discovered the premises had been sold. We had agreed to rent.

383. Chairman.—Are there any further questions arising out of Statement of New Works? If the Accounting Officer’s information is as accurate and as detailed as he has shown, I do not think we need pursue the details. They are obviously well under control.

—Thank you very much.

384. On subhead G.4—Barrow Drainage, Repayment of Advances—this is the last time G.4 will appear?

—Yes.

385. Appropriations-in-aid are on Page 23. There are a large number of Notes on the expenditure on pages 21 and 22. The Comptroller and Auditor General is satisfied with the explanations.

Mr. Jacob.—Yes.

386. Deputy H. Gibbons.—As a general question, what about the heating of new buildings in view of the energy situation?

—Our policy is to use native fuel where possible. That may not always be possible, but we stick to that policy whenever we can.

It is your policy about all the buildings mentioned?

—Where possible we use native fuel. In some cases there is no supply of turf or Irish anthracite. Electricity has been classed as a native fuel.

Chairman.—Thank you very much.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix 10.