Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1983 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1978 - 1979

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 4 Samhain, 1982

Thursday, 4th November, 1982

The Committee met at 11.30 a.m.

DEPUTY CROTTY in the chair.

Mr. P. L. McDonnell (An tArd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. Brian Murphy (Department of Finance) called and examined.

VOTE 9—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS

Mr. P. Scanlan called and examined.

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

“Subhead F.2.—Furniture, Fittings and Utensils

Furniture required in Government offices is provided by the Furniture Division of the Office of Public Works and may be issued from stocks held in stores by the Division or delivered to the offices by suppliers on order of the Furniture Division.

In the year under review it was noted that the control procedures for supply of furniture by the Furniture Division do not provide for formal acknowledgement by designated officers in the receiving offices that the furniture has been received. It was also noted that while these procedures require the completion of formal requisitions for furniture such requisitions were available in only 15 out of 148 cases examined by my officers.

I sought the observations of the Accounting Officer on the adequacy of the procedures for controlling the supply of furniture to Government offices. I also sought information regarding the procedures in operation for taking stock of the furniture supplied to these offices and for the maintenance of up-to-date inventories of this furniture.”

Mr. McDonnell.—This paragraph deals with the control of furniture deliveries made to Government offices and with the control of furniture stocks in those offices. The Accounting Officer has told me there would be difficulties in having a designated officer or a permanent officer in Government Departments responsible for the receipt of furniture and that the Office of Public Works relies on whoever is in charge of the delivery crew to hand over the furniture only when he has obtained the signature of a responsible officer whom he knows from experience is authorised to accept such furniture. He also said it had recently been decided to require each receiving Department to ensure that delivery dockets for furniture are signed on receipt by an officer authorised to do so and that the receiving Department is responsible for ensuring the validity of the signature in each case. He further said the Office of Public Works is satisfied that this procedure is adequate to ensure that furniture sent to Government Departments is properly delivered and that failure to do so would quickly come to light. He explained that furniture delivered to Government Departments comprises both replacement furniture, either requested by them or decided on by Office of Public Works officers, and furniture required for the initial fitting out of new premises and that, because of the desirability of ensuring that the fullest possible control is maintained in this area, arrangements to tighten up the procedures for requisition and receipting deliveries of furniture would be considered as soon as staff resources would permit. There is a second matter raised, that is to say the control of furniture stocks in the Departments. He told me that apart from embassies abroad there are no formal procedures whereby furniture in Departments is subject to such control and that the custody of such furniture is the responsibility of the Departments to which it is issued. He also said there was no evidence of any irregularities and no reason to suspect any existed and that the establishment and maintenance of inventories would create difficulties for the Office of Public Works and the Department out of all proportion to the extent of the problem or to any advantage which might accrue but consideration was being given to devising a method of achieving a greater degree of control in this area.

693. Deputy G. Mitchell.—May I ask what period the report covers?

Chairman.—We are dealing with the 1979 report.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—When are we likely to get some reports more up to date. The year 1979 is now three years ago.

Chairman.—This Committee did not sit for the last 18 months and the events which are likely to take place in the next few days may bring about another long delay in the examination of accounts by this Committee.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Would it not be possible when the next Committee meeting occurs to deal with a couple of periods together in order to get up to date?

Chairman.—I do not think that would be normal procedure because we would not have the Minutes of the Minister for Finance. The 1979 report is available but after that we have to wait for the Minute of the Minister for Finance on the next period before we can tackle 1980. The problem is the report is not available.

Mr. McDonnell.—I should like to clarify this. Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann provide that a Committee be appointed as soon as possible after the beginning of each year and the procedure is that the accounts for a particular year are referred to the Committee. The Committee’s brief, as prescribed in the Resolution setting it up, is simply to deal with that year’s accounts and after a Committee has done its work that Committee goes out of existence and, under procedures of the House, a new Committee has to be appointed to deal with the next year’s accounts. This Committee is dealing with the tag end of the 1979 Accounts because at the time of the dissolution of the Dáil in the Summer of 1981 it had not quite finished—the Committee which existed—dealing with the 1979 accounts. I would like to emphasise that the Report for both 1980 and 1981 are in the House. The 1981 Report was presented a few days ago. The question of the Committee getting around to dealing with them is the difficulty. My report for 1981, is as current as one can be, because the requirements are that the Appropriation Accounts be submitted to me for audit by 30 April of the following year and they have to be audited and published and reported on and the requirement is that they be presented to the House by 31 October or the next sitting day. In fact they were laid before the House last Friday.

Chairman.—On the point raised by Deputy Mitchell would it be possible to take 1980 and 1981 together? The two reports are available.

Mr. McDonnell.—I was suggesting this when this Committee first met but this Committee can deal only with 1979 as I understand it.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—If the Comptroller and Auditor General is correct we will have to wait until next year to look at the 1980 accounts and the following year to look at 1981. That could not be correct.

Chairman.—I do not think that is what he is saying. The Committee ceases to exist when they complete the present—i.e. 1979 accounts and a new Committee is appointed to deal with the next year.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—The Committee is appointed annually so that the Committee can examine what it has to examine within that year. Otherwise the Committee would be waiting for a very long period and you would never get back into the straight because the Committee would always be looking at accounts for only one year so there will have to come a day when we will deal with more than one year in order to get up to date.

Mr. McDonnell.—I agree. As I understand it—I am speaking now from memory—the Resolution passed by Dáil Éireann is to the effect that the accounts for a particular year and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report thereon be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts for examination and report. I am not an expert on the particular procedures of the House but, as long as the Resolution provides that the accounts for a particular year be referred to the Committee, it seems to me that is all they can do. If you want to have a different Resolution providing that more than one year be referred to the Committee for examination and report that is a matter for procedures within the House.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—I will not proceed any more on this since it is unlikely we will meet next week or the week after. This can be raised again on another occasion.

Mr. McDonnell.—I agree, it is not the time. Circumstances have overtaken us.

694. Chairman.—Are there any questions on this paragraph 18 the control of the issue of furniture and fittings for offices fitted out by the Office of Public Works? It would appear that the Comptroller and Auditor General is not happy about the controls in relation to the delivery, particularly of furniture, to offices. Is there any particular officer in any particular Department who is solely responsible for the receipt of furniture in that Department?

Mr. Scanlan.—This matter, as I understand, has been considered on a number of occasions over the years—the idea of designating individuals to have this responsibility—and it just has not proved workable from a practical point of view. If you designate particular officers to do it they may not be available at a particular time for one reason or another. What we have done since the Accounting Officer reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General is that, we have, in fact, circularised all Government Departments asking them to authorise officers to accept furniture, the distinction here being that you are not designating people by name, as long as we are satisfied that a certain officer of a certain grade has been authorised by his Department to assume responsibility for accepting or receiving furniture into the Department and that our delivery people ensure that these people have this responsibility. We feel that this is the furthest we should go without making the cost of the thing uneconomic, really. The basic thing is that we are now satisfied that some officers in various Departments of certain ranks will be authorised by their own Departments and it seems to be working satisfactorily. That is my information. The furniture, I might add, represents a fairly substantial sum. In 1979, £1.2 million of furniture was supplied and the majority of furniture would appear to have been supplied direct from the suppliers not from the Office of Public Work stores.

Yes. In this type of situation there could be discrepancies in what was delivered or situations could arise that the items were not delivered at all.

—Normally, certainly in the case of the fitting out of new buildings in recent years, the bulk of the furniture for new offices has been so supplied. The staff in charge of the fitting out of the offices, whether administrative or architectural, are monitoring this and are aware of what has been ordered and what should have been delivered and actually before the Department occupies the new accommodation they would have ensured that the furniture which has been ordered and which will be paid for has been delivered and has been properly authorised. In the case of furniture delivered to existing Departments, Departments already in occupation—replacement furniture— some difficulty might possibly arise or might give rise to disquiet. We certainly feel that the Departments concerned accept their responsibility in this matter.

695. Chairman.—Does the Office of Public Works check on the signatures for items? Is there a panel, say? Are there a number of names supplied to the Office of Public Works from the particular Department of persons who can sign for deliveries and, if not, is there a checkback from the Office of Public Works to the Department occasionally or regularly on the signatures received in the Office of Public Works?

—I am not aware of the exact details of how that operates. In view of the constant changes, staff movements and all the rest in Departments, this might give rise to a lot of paper work. Certainly I will check up on how effective this circular is proving. This went out early this year and I have not had an opportunity to verify how effective this is proving. I have been told that it has not presented any difficulties so far. Certainly I will be happy to look into it and will provide the Committee with a note on how it is working.*

Deputy G. Mitchell.—That is what I was going to suggest.

696. Chairman.—Just one general question in relation to the standards for furnishing offices: who decides the standards for furnishing offices and have there been any changes over recent years in the standards, and that type of thing?

Mr. Scanlan.—Normally, the architect who is planning, say, the fitting out of a new building does it in consultation with the Superintendent of the Furniture Division and they have recognised standards for the type of furniture, the type of tables and chairs, supplied for different grades. It is a type of pecking order. I do not think this has presented any difficulties that have come to my notice. There are very definite standards of furniture supplied to the different grades and offices.

697. What I am particularly thinking about is floor coverings in offices at the present time. It would appear that there is a change to carpeting very extensively in offices. Was this decision taken by the Office of Public Works or is it that it is more reasonable to provide carpets rather than the floorings that have been offered up to now?

—First of all, I think I could say that staff are expecting higher standards of accommodation generally in recent years. This has been a trend. What staff were prepared to accept years ago is no longer acceptable now. Where it is appropriate I imagine that hard solid flooring is provided in public places, public offices on ground floors. Elsewhere, carpeting is probably the most satis-factory type of floor covering to provide in most instances. I can assure you that we would be very conscious of the cost of the particular carpeting that is laid, and that hard wearing and long wearing carpeting would be selected as far as possible.

Deputy Wyse.—I realise that the Accounting Officer has just been appointed but could I ask him, where carpeting is concerned, if a Minister requests carpeting, who is there to dispute the matter? If, for instance, a Minister requests carpeting for a certain building who is there to say that it is too expensive? If the Office of Public Works are requested by higher authority, what happens in a case like that?

—I do not think this has presented any major difficulties. The architect involved in furnishing the office, in consultation with the Superintendent of the Furniture Division, would endeavour to provide carpeting appropriate to a Minister’s office. I am sure that if he were asked to provide excessively expensive covering and if he felt he should bring it to the notice of his superiors in the office, he would do so but I do not think this has presented any problems.

Mr. McDonnell.—To clarify the earlier points about designation of officers, my problem was that while it may be a good idea to have officers in a Department designated as those authorised to receive furniture, if the Office of Public Works does not know who those officers are, I saw the danger that they could accept a signature from anybody. It is not just a question of designating officers within a Department; it is a question of the authentication of the delivery docket and that the Office of Public Works knows that it is authentic.

Chairman.—That it has a particular signature. You could check on that?

Mr. Scanlan.—Normally it is the personnel division of most Departments who have general responsibility for liaising with the Office of Public Works for provision of accommodation. It may be possible, if it does not operate that way, to assign that type of responsibility to the Personnel Division solely, in the receiving Department.

Mr. McDonnell.—And that the Office of Public Works would know when they get back a signed delivery docket, in support of a supplier’s invoice, that the signature is an authorised signature and is, in fact, the signature of the officer who received the furniture.

—We will see what can be done about that.

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

“Subhead F.3.—Rents, Rates, etc.

Much of the office accommodation occupied by Government Departments and Offices is in premises leased by the Commissioners of Public Works for that purpose, rent and rates being payable from the date of leasing. In the course of audit it was noted that in a number of instances long periods had elapsed between the leasing of the premises and their occupation and I sought the observations of the Accounting Officer on the reasons for the delays in occupying the leased premises. I also sought information as to the amount of rent and rates paid in respect of premises leased before 31 December 1979 but remaining unoccupied at that date and, in regard to premises occupied for the first time during 1979, the amount of rent and rates paid for the period between the leasing and occupation of the premises.”

Mr. McDonnell.—This paragraph refers to delays in occupying leased accommodation and to expenditure in regard to rents and rates for unoccupied or partly occupied premises. The Accounting Officer has furnished the information requested by me which is referred to in this paragraph and the information is in the form of a number of schedules dealing with the properties, the dates of leasing and expenditure on rent and rates, and the reasons for the delay in each case. I gave the Members of the Committee a copy of these schedules because it would be impossible for me to summarise them. In regard to the properties unoccupied or partly occupied on 31 December 1979 the schedules show that leases in the 21 cases involved have commenced on various dates from February 1978 onwards and the total expenditure at 31 December 1979 was £1¼ million. This included one case where the amount involved was £333,000 approximately. In regard to properties occupied for the first time during 1979 the schedules show leases in the six cases involved had commenced on various dates from December 1976 and the total expenditure on rent and rates prior to occupation was £190,000. The Accounting Officer pointed out that the position is somewhat complex because some time is needed after acquisition to prepare the premises for occupation and normally once acquisition is established steps are put in train for fitting out works in practically all cases in advance of the completion of lease formalities. But between the time when its occupation requirement is agreed by a Department and the eventual transfer of staff to the new premises the fitting out process can involve as many as nine separate steps and the Accounting Officer also says that fitting out procedures are followed through as expeditiously as excessive workloads and inadequate staff levels allow but unforeseen factors arise which can cause further delay. For instance, you can have reallocation of space arising from Government decisions. You can have protracted negotiations with Departments regarding requirements and layout. You can have delays by contractors. You can have labour disputes. The Accounting Officer said the Commissioners have realised for some time that fitting out works have not proceeded in all cases as quickly as might be wished but they feel that two developments should contribute significantly to an improvement in the position. First, the Department of Finance issued an instruction to all Departments in 1980 to speed up the supply of information regarding the fitting out of accommodation leased for them and, secondly, additional posts were approved for the Building Division which deals with this fitting out work.

699. Deputy Wyse.—I was in the Office of Public Works and I have had some experience of this. I had and have certain reservations about renting accommodation. Indeed, I suggested we should have a very definite policy about renting accommodation and building directly ourselves. I still maintain we should have a very definite policy. I believe substantial savings could be made if we endeavoured as far as possible to erect the necessary buildings ourselves. I am looking here at 52 South Mall, Cork. Is that the AnCO premises?

—That is the Department of Transport. According to the schedule supplied to the Comptroller and Auditor General the Department of Transport are involved in that. I do not know which part of the Department.

I thought it was AnCO. My point is we should have a very definite policy on accommodation.

Chairman.—By way of lease?

Deputy Wyse.—It is my opinion we should build direct rather than lease premises and renovate them thereby running into substantial expenditure.

Deputy M. Cosgrave.—I would support that view certainly. We should be in a position to build our office accommodation. Some of these amounts frighten me. Take the Irish Life block with a review at five yearly intervals?

—Most of the modern leases provide for a five yearly review. That is the general trend at the moment.

Some decision should be taken to build our own premises and put a stop to these spiralling sums.

700. Chairman.—Who decides as between renting premises and the provision of own buildings? Is it Government policy?

—There is a programme of building office accommodation at a number of centres around the country. New offices are being built in Cork. As Deputy Wyse knows, new Government offices are being built which will enable us to surrender rather poor accommodation we have rented throughout the city. That is one case in which we will be able to discontinue the payment of rents. The same applies to other centres. Some are at contract stage. It is the general policy of the Commissioners with the general approval of successive Governments so far as possible and so far as capital can be made available to provide alternative accommodation. Frequently what happens is either very pressing demands arise suddenly which have to be met in a very short time for new services proposed or through staff dissatisfaction with their existing premises, overcrowding and so forth, and in such cases we have no option but to rent premises. I think it would be Government policy to provide their own if the capital were available.

701. Deputy M. Cosgrave.—In the case of the Irish Life block is that long-term or a short-term lease?

—Most of these would probably be 35 year leases.

So you are stuck to that extent?

—We are stuck to the extent we have the leases but that does not mean the Commissioners cannot put their leaseholds on the market.

702. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Surely someone somewhere does an economic examination of this to see if renting or purchasing through capital that had been borrowed is the more costly. The Committee should concern itself, obviously, that funds expended have been properly expended but we should also concern ourselves that they have been wisely expended. Policy is a matter for different Governments and different Ministers and these are perhaps matters to be raised in a general way in the House but we should concern ourselves. If there was an outrageous situation with regard to moneys being expended on rent, it is our duty to draw attention to that. It is very difficult to see whether it has been or not. We are looking at figures that are extremely high but taking the present interest repayments on capital to build any one of the buildings, it may not be comparatively high, so that the cost to the Exchequer may not be quite as enormous as it seems. It is very difficult for us to see whether it is or is not without having a set of comparisons in front of us. Perhaps that is something that the Accounting Officer might have something to say about.

—I am aware that the Department of Finance would normally do a cost benefit analysis on any proposal for capital expenditure put before them and building programmes are the same. Having regard to the demands on them for the use of capital for other more pressing purposes, they would be constantly conscious of this.

Could we satisfy ourselves that they are conscious, that this is not a decision taken loosely somewhere and pursued blindly? Can we satisfy ourselves that there is actually a policy and that somebody does this cost benefit analysis? We should be concerned that moneys are not being thrown away because somebody has not taken the care to make this sort of analysis. Maybe it is a long time since this policy was looked at.

—The question of renting as against building office accommodation has been very much under consideration by the Commissioners in consultation with the Department of Finance over the last five to ten years. It is an ongoing process and is very much under consideration at the moment but, as I said, the main reason why we in recent years have been forced into renting accommodation, and urgently, is that there were demands which needed to be met very quickly. Where we can plan on a long term basis, where we can plan for the replacement of existing buildings which are offering poor office accommodation, we do plan ahead like this.

Chairman.—Maybe officers from the Department of Finance might like to comment.

Mr. Brian Murphy (Department of Finance).—We have done studies recently on renting and building. The differences in costs are quite striking. Building is quite considerably cheaper, not just long term but even short term. The annual outgoings on offices built become cheaper than rentals after maybe eight to ten years in most cases. Really, the basic problem we have is in getting capital, first of all, and the second problem is, as the Chairman has said, the demands that arise at very short notice and that have to be met for new Government services. Where staff have to be moved somewhere quickly you can usually only do that through renting even though the value you are getting is much less than if you could build for yourself.

Chairman.—Could I comment on the statement about urgent requirements and that there has been a large number of urgent requirements in the last number of years? This would beg the question, was there no forward planning to cater for this type of situation? Why should there be such urgent requirements over a few years that were unforeseen and which had to be accommodated with this very expensive, speculative office accommodation?

—If I could give one instance of the type of situation that can happen. Arising out of the Supreme Court decision in regard to rented premises, the Government in the wake of the decision decided that tenants in poor circumstances should be subsidised to help to meet the increased rents which would fall due. The Government assigned the responsibility for dealing with the subsidies to the Department of Social Welfare and at very short notice we were asked to secure accommodation for the staff which would be assigned to this as a new scheme which might be coming into operation very shortly.

This is just a small example of the type of thing that can arise. On the security side, with the changing situation, sometimes something very pressing can arise. We had long term plans for building new headquarters for the Garda in Dublin Castle but with the deteriorating security situation the accommodation there became so overcrowded and congested that the Government took a decision that they had to be rehoused in suitable premises quickly. That was how we came to rent the large office block in Harcourt Street. These are two instances of the sort of thing that can arise out of the blue. Where we can we are planning, where we know, for instance that Departments will continue to have local staffs dealing with various schemes. We have accommodation rented for them. We have a programme to provide Government offices in most of these towns, apart from the decentralisation programme. I am talking about local staffs. We have a programme for that.

703. Deputy G. Mitchell.—It seems that there are two elements to this but I accept the explanation that there is short notice that obviously will affect the problem. I might put, on the other side of the coin, a question to Mr. Murphy. It seems from what he says that there would be a great saving to the State if capital could be made available for building. Is it that the State’s creditworthiness has run out, that we cannot borrow this capital, or is it a policy decision not to borrow?

Mr. Murphy.—No, it is a question that one has to borrow within certain limits and within those limits to decide on what we spend the capital moneys. As you know, there are endless demands, of which building is simply one and returns on some areas of capital expenditure may well be greater as far as the State is concerned than an Office of Public Works office building. For instance, capital expenditure through the Industrial Development Authority might be of longer term benefit as far as the country and the economy is concerned than putting it into building office blocks. One has to weigh that against the saving on rents.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—What is the argument against increasing the ceiling on capital borrowing?

Mr. Murphy.—Overall economic policy presents a limit to the borrowing that one should incur.

Chairman.—We are getting into policy matters.

Mr. Murphy.—I was going to plead that now. It is a question of policy how far you decide to borrow. It is not a question of creditworthiness.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Does it not seem a bit absurd that because this ceiling has been reached the State is now raising money by rental and income which, if it had the capital available, it would not be doing. It may well be a policy matter.

704. Chairman.—It is a policy matter. I think the Deputy has travelled the ground fairly well. The message has been received and I do not think we need travel that ground any further. There is a problem in relation to occupancy of buildings. We touched on it at our meeting last week particularly in relation to building for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We have a list of buildings here going back as far as 1976, buildings which were not occupied until the end of 1979. There seems to be a long delay in having buildings occupied and the notes which the Comptroller and Auditor General gave us as a result of his inquiries from the Accounting Officer noted a number of things that can delay this operation, such as negotiations on the layout and the furnishing of the offices. It would appear to me that this work should be undertaken before the building is signed up and payment of rent and services commences. It would appear there are large sums wasted and you are paying large rates which would seem to be wasteful. There is the question of £333,000 on one particular building which had not been occupied. We appreciate the problems you have but the question is should this be allowed to continue and could this not be operated on a commercial basis in the way commercial firms operate when they rent accommodation for a short time?

—I think any large organisation renting a modern office would be faced with exactly the same problem as we are faced with, with one difference. Let us say an insurance company rents a building. They will get the shell of the building just as we will and they will have to plan the layout and employ an architect to do that and go to tender and so on but, before committing themselves, they will probably have planned well ahead and decided what staff and everything else will go into the building before they change from one place to another. We are acting on behalf of many Government Departments and we have to be briefed by the Departments concerned. They have their difficulties, increasing difficulties, with the staff who will go, disturbance money and so on and, while we do our best we nevertheless understand their problems. If we were building the office ourselves then a stage would be reached in the contract where the building would be substantially completed and the final stage of the contract would be the fitting out, the equipment and furnishing of it. By that stage we will have paid considerable sums to the contractor so that the State has already paid out large sums and it could be argued that, having done that, they were not getting any benefit. The building is still underoccupied. The same applies to some extent to the developer because he invests his money and expects a return as soon as possible. Market conditions decide what you can achieve and the market has been such over the last five or six years at least that it was certainly a seller’s market and the State, through ourselves and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, have been in the market for accommodation, and there have been times when not moving quickly enough we lost very good accommodation because we were not able to wrap up the deal quickly enough and we have put it in the normal course of negotiations to the developer that time should be allowed for fitting out. Up to now they certainly used not agree to that because they could go to someone else and lease the premises. The market is changing at the moment. Our demands have fallen considerably. We have not any major demands on hands at present. Maybe this is also part of the general slump elsewhere in the economy. There does not seem to be as much demand from others and we are finding ourselves in a slightly stronger position now. In one case recently in a provincial town we succeeded in negotiating renting on the strict understanding that the rent would not come under payment for three months after the date of completion. That gives some time to study our brief and arrange our layouts. We do our best to limit the time in which the building will be taken. The situation has improved considerably since the report was sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General. As of now we have between 50,000 and 60,000 square feet waiting to be occupied. Buildings are in train. Contracts are in course and arrangements have been made to move staff in shortly so the situation is not at all as serious as it would appear to be when we furnished our report.

There were weaknesses. You were aware there was a problem and now the situation has improved substantially?

—Yes.

In regard to your comments as to the reasons for delays would it not be reasonable to suggest there should be forward planning? Could your architects not be engaged from the drawing board stage instead of when you start negotiating to take over a building?

—We endeavour to follow that course. In some cases where we get briefs early we are in a position to act when buildings are only in the course of construction. A lot of developers come to us in the early stages of planning because they know we are in the market. They come to us at a very early stage because they know what is happening. There is a decision in principle for a certain building and our architects are involved at an early stage in examining the detailed specifications of the developer and we try to monitor the work right through so that the final job will be in accordance with the standard set. What we have to try to avoid is an actual agreement. Sometimes a developer will seek to commit us by having a lease at a very early stage. This may enable him to raise the necessary capital with the bank if he has a guaranteed lessee. The danger in this is that if we were to commit ourselves to a lease at too early a stage the developer may then try to cut corners in regard to the final standards. That is something we have to guard against very carefully.

You have very competent architects and engineers?

—Yes, to watch.

705. So that you are conscious and you are operating in improving that. You mentioned that when you take a building for renting you do not have money to spend on it which you would have if you were building your own building. As against that, when you are leasing a building it will cost a lot more. One balances the other. I do not think that is a reasonable argument. I do not think we would accept that. In the Comptroller and Auditor General’s comments, the Department of Finance have requested Departments of State to speed up their requirements as regards the types of office they want provided for them. I feel that State offices are more or less built now to a pattern and that there should not be special consideration for special type of offices and special type of carpet and special type of furnishing. I do not think we are in that situation where we can afford to pander to the whims of different Departments as to what exactly they want. If we provide a good class office and good class furnishings this should be adequate?

—It is more in the field of the way staff operate within a particular Department. There is what we know as open space. Depending on the functions the Department exercises, you may have to supply a lot of individual rooms, where you might have a lot of senior staff or staff interviewing businessmen of one kind or another, having confidential discussions. On the other hand you may have a Department where you have large blocks of general staff doing general work. In a case like that it is largely a matter of open space. You may have a Department where laboratory facilities are required or other specialist requirements. That is the type of fitting out I am talking about. The standards of furnishing and so forth are well recognised.

I would accept that explanation but I would say that there is a certain amount of private accommodation required in most Departments so that the changes required should be very modest and should not delay the furnishing and occupation of the buildings for the lengthy periods given in this document. I think there would be extreme public disquiet about the amounts of money paid out where there is no use made of the buildings.

—You refer to the letter from the Department of Finance. The circular letter had some effect as I say but the Department and ourselves are having ongoing discussions at the moment to see can we further improve the procedures in relation to Departments’ and our own procedures for leasing premises. We hope we will be able to achieve further improvements in this regard.

706. Could you refer to the £333,000 in particular? I think the Comptroller and Auditor General informed us of the expenditure of £333,000.

Mr. McDonnell.—I did quote that figure. It is the Irish Life block. The first item on that schedule—rent, £278,000 and rates, £55,000 from 1 February 1978 to 31 December 1979.

Chairman.—It was partly occupied on 1 December 1979. When was it occupied?

—Could I send you a note on that?*

On the furnishings, there was dissatisfaction about the delivery of furniture, from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s remarks here. There seemed to have been delays also in providing furniture for the buildings and that that would cause some of the delay. Is there generally some problem in the Furniture Division of the Office of Public Works?

—There has been. We have been endeavouring for some years to provide centralised storage and administration for the Division. It is now distributed amongst a couple of centres. We have acquired suitable premises and are planning for the fitting out of it. It is mainly storage-warehouse type accommodation but certain offices and other facilities such as toilet facilities have to be provided and planning for this is advanced at the moment and we believe that as soon as this is provided it should help considerably to overcome these difficulties. There have been a number of trade disputes. In one of the centres our staff refused at one particular time to handle furniture in and out of these premises because it was in such poor condition but it was on the undertaking that we were planning to provide more suitable accommodation that the Union agreed not to hold things up.

707. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I want to ask about the improvements that have taken place in offices being left vacant and not being used for a period. Circular No. 2 of 1980 sent to us draws attention to this. In view of the high costs involved, I hope that was not the full extent of action taken. Could I ask, whether it is appropriate to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Accounting Officer, if there would be a definite and deliberate reference to this in the 1980-81 reports so that the matter can be further examined at that time?

Mr. McDonnell.—I will take that question. In my Report for 1981, certainly, there are also references to the question of unoccupied buildings. Indeed, in this Report for 1979, the Committee at its last meeting dealt with a particular case in relation to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. My staff are keeping a constant eye on the payment of rent for unoccupied buildings.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Thank you.

708. Chairman.—A final question in relation to the fragmentation of Departments. What is the Office of Public Works doing to bring about the centralisation of Departments? It is obvious that the cost of administering a Department which is fragmented is a lot higher than it would be if the Department were centralised?

—Departments are very conscious of this and are constantly pressing us to try to centralise their various units and this is our policy wherever it is feasible. For instance, we are reaching the stage of completing new headquarters for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in Leeson Street. It will mean that all the present staff needs will be met in this building and what we try to do in a new building like that is to learn from experience. In the past Departments have tended to expand a little with new services and we try to build in a little room for expansion. If the Department does not need the space right away we are in a position to put in small units of specialised staff. However, that means that if the headquarters Department expands we have to rehouse the small units to enable the major Department to expand. In view of current policy to keep matters within bounds and try to achieve reductions if possible we will probably not be faced with that kind of problem of unexpected enlargement of Departments. The same applies to other Departments—Foreign Affairs and Justice, for instance—we try if possible to bring them all together.

You are working on this situation?

—Yes.

709. Deputy M. Cosgrave.—The Department of Defence has a number of establishments within the city. Will that Department be moving out? Is there a possibility of sites being available?

—Those are military properties and they do not come under the Commissioners’ control. They come under the Minister for Defence.

710. Deputy Wyse.—What is the rent per square foot at the moment in Dublin?

—It is around £8 a square foot in good areas for good quality accommodation.

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

“Subhead J.2.—Conservation and Restoration of Holycross Abbey (Grant-in-Aid) Subhead K.—Appropriations in Aid

The Holycross Abbey (County Tipperary) Act, 1969 provided for the restoration by the Commissioners of Public Works of the Abbey Church for use for ecclesiastical purposes and for the granting by the Commissioners of a lease of the church for ecclesiastical use on condition that payment would be made to the Commissioners of an amount equal to the whole or part of the restoration costs. The ecclesiastical authorities were informed in 1971 that the State’s contribution to the cost must be limited to what could properly be regarded as expenditure on preservation work as distinct from restoration work. Arrangements for financing the project agreed between the Office of Public Works and the ecclesiastical authorities provided, inter alia, that the full cost of the work would be borne initially by the Office of Public Works and that quarterly recoupment of the restoration costs would be made to the Vote by the ecclesiastical authorities. Expenditure borne on the Vote for Public Works and Buildings amounted to £455,400 at 31 December 1979 towards which a sum of £153,500 was received from the ecclesiastical authorities.

The Accounting Officer has informed me that, while the ecclesiastical authorities” architect, in submitting certificates of expenditure for reimbursement purposes, gave a description of the work done and an apportionment of the expenditure between preservation and restoration and, while each such certificate had been monitored by the Office of Public Works, the total amount to be repaid from diocesan funds could not be established until the final account is received from the architect and the ultimate apportionment of cost agreed with the Office of Public Works. He added that pressure was being exerted to obtain the final account.”

Mr. McDonnell.—This paragraph details the position in regard to financing the restoration and preservation work of Holycross Abbey. As it is a national monument the Commissioners are responsible for its preservation but special legislation was enacted to provide for its restoration. Restoration naturally encompasses preservation. As I understand it, the difference between the total cost and what the Commissioners would normally have to meet on preservation was to be recovered from the ecclesiastical authorities. The final amount has been agreed and this shows the amount to be borne by the Office of Public Works as £196,000 and the amount to be recovered as £297,000. The recovery of £153,000 referred to in the paragraph has been increased to £193,500 so that there is something of the order of £100,000 still to be recovered.

Chairman.—What is the present position and what are the prospects of recouping the £100,000.

—It was intended the Archdiocese would refund this over a period of years. The present information is that we will grant the Archdiocese a five year lease and the outstanding money will be repaid over that period. The Archbishop has been faced with some difficulties. The fund raising campaign has been running a bit dry but he is continually making an effort to raise the money from local parish sources. The Commissioners could be pressing him to reduce the outstanding amount but it will be written formally into the lease when it is executed that he will be obliged to pay so much annually to clear this debt. The lease is held up at the moment because we are waiting for senior counsel’s opinion on some aspects. It has been with him for some time now and we are endeavouring to get an opinion from him about the lease. We are certainly very anxious to get this matter cleared as quickly as possible.

712. What rate of interest are you charging?

—It was never envisaged from the outset that the State would be charging interest on the outstanding money. It certainly did not arise when the Act was being passed and at no stage in the arrangements did the question of interest arise. It was probably hoped the fund raising campaign would be sufficiently buoyant to keep the money pouring in according as expenditure was incurred but that apparently was not possible. There are a number of points we can make in relation to the question of interest. Restoring the building and having it re-roofed helps to reduce maintenance costs. We would be faced with ongoing maintenance at our own expense and because this structure is now protected by a roof ongoing maintenance costs are considerably affected. The Archbishop and the local parish priest provided most of the on-the-spot overseeing of the contract itself. It was done through the Archbishop and I think he would have been entitled to claim some kind of fee from the Commissioners and, balancing one against the other, the State would not be justified therefore in charging interest.

Is the work completed?

—The work is completed. Our contract is closed. The works we undertook to do are finished but the Archbishop has plans, I believe, for the restoration of some adjoining sections. We have been pressing him to repay the State before he embarks on anything else.

713. Deputy M. Cosgrave.—Can you tell me if restoration work will start on Grange Abbey.

—It does not arise on the account but, if you wish, I will send you a note.*

714. Chairman.—We will turn now to the Vote on page 19. There is a note on subhead A.2—Consultancy Services—which says the expenditure for which provision was made does not arise. What consultancy was that?

—There was a proposal considered at that time to commission a particular firm, Group Design, which appeared to have certain expertise in evaluating the standards of office accommodation which existed at the time and the Commissioners commissioned them to undertake a survey in two stages. They furnished a preliminary report which was useful as background information but at that stage the Group decided to discontinue. I think they embarked on other work but we felt we got good value in the preliminary report they furnished.

You did not pursue this any further?

—There were no other firms offering this type of service. It was an unusual group they assembled and it just did not work out.

715. Under subhead A.3—President’s Household Staff: Wages and Allowances—the note says the Estimate for this new service was tentative. What is the arrangement here?

—There was a decision to take over responsibility for the President’s household staff. This was a special subhead introduced because this had not come within the ambit of the Vote up to that stage.

Deputy M. Cosgrave.—What was it for?

—For the payment of wages of the President’s household staff. Formerly the President met these out of his allowance but with the general all round increase in wages the Government decided that, rather than increase the President’s allowance, it would be more satisfactory for the Commissioners to take responsibility for the staff.

716. Deputy G. Mitchell.—What staff are involved and why is there such a discrepancy between what was the grant and what was expenditure?

—I could send the Committee details of the staff, if you wish. Basically in this account for 1979, the estimate we put in was very tentative. We had to make a provision and a very tentative estimate was made. Matters settled down in the following year’s account.

What was it for? Who was employed—additional staff or existing staff?

—No—housekeeping staff—housekeeper and domestic staff.

The President got £25,000 increase in his allowance for the existing staff, no new staff?

—It was a policy decision.

I want to find out what it was spent on. That is what we are here to find out.

—It was spent on wages and allowances, as stated in the subhead—Wages and Allowances for the staff.

Domestic staff?

—Domestic staff.

Were any additional staff taken on?

—Not that I am aware of. It was existing household staff. It was following a Government decision that remuneration of employees and insurance which up to then had been met by the President’s allowance would be paid from the Vote for Public Works and Buildings.

Could I ask why was there a £9,000 shortfall?

—It was a new service and we did not need as much as we thought originally.

A new service?

—A new service for the Vote for Public Works and Buildings.

Chairman.—Would you not imagine that there would have been consultation with the President’s Establishment as to what the cost might work out at?

—That would normally be the case and I am sure some consultation must have taken place. Could I send you a note, if you would like more details of this? I just do not know the background in detail.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—I would like to know what the expenditure was on and there does not seem to be a reply coming to that question. It is very vaguely descrived as “additional services”.

Chairman.—Domestic staff.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Just to cover the increase in the wages?

—Not the increase, to pay their wages which were previously paid for from the President’s allowance.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—In 1979 the President got a £15,000 increase.

Chairman.—Actually, £16,000.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—£15,809.

Chairman.—That is the net effect.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—No additional staff—a policy decision made by the Government?

—That is it, basically. The Government took a decision and it was up to the Commissioners to assume responsibility for the wages of the staff of the household of the President.*

717. Chairman.—On subhead D.—Purchase of Sites and Buildings—there is a note:

“It was not found possible to complete some large purchases for which provision had been made.”

There was only one-third of the Vote expended. Would you comment on that? I might add that there is a list under “Service” on page 19 of the sites that were purchased and on page 20 through to 21 of the expenditure actually made. Could you comment on the shortfall in the expenditure, which seems to be very substantial?

—One million pounds of that was earmarked for the purchase of a site from Dublin Corporation at Waterford Street. Agreement had been reached in principle on the purchase of that site but there were some legal difficulties about title and it dragged on and it was not possible to complete it by the end of that year. In fact, it has not been completed yet. It looks as if it may not be completed. There was a provision for another site being bought from the Corporation at Palace Street which was to provide for some extension in the Dublin Castle area. They were the two major ones. We had an offer to buy the Embassy in Rome. At the moment it is rented. The owner was anxious either to sell the premises or to get us out of it. If the State do not wish to buy it the owner was contemplating selling it to someone else. We made provision for the possible purchase of the Rome Embassy. That did not proceed either. That accounts for some of the major items there. In general, legal difficulties can hold up completion of purchases over a wide range.

718. Chairman.—On subhead E.—New Works, Alterations and Additions—there is a fairly substantial document.* I do not think at this stage we are going to go through them. There is an additional sum. How much of this work would be undertaken by your own employees and how much by contract?

—The majority of the works under subhead E would be undertaken by contract. Approximately 87 per cent was paid in respect of contract payments.

719. On subhead F.1—Maintenance and supplies—there is a note, as follows: “Mainly as a result of requirements generally being greater than expected and of pay increases not provided for in the estimate.” Details of the expenditure Department by Department are at page 27. The note says “mainly as a result of requirements generally being greater than expected.” It would appear that there was a delay in meeting a large amount of expenditure at all levels. This seems to conflict with the statement “mainly as a result of requirements generally being greater than expected”. Is there an imbalance there or how can you relate the delays in provision right through the account?

—The Commissioners are responsible for the maintenance under this subhead of a wide range of public property around the country. This is maintenance, painting, repairs et cetera, not new works. You would not normally charge a new improvements scheme to that, except a small amount. It relates to maintenance. Out of that £1.5 million there is approximately £428,000 in respect of pay increases which had not been provided for. Most of that was as a result of the national understanding in 1979. Most of our maintenance work in the Dublin area is carried out by direct labour. In the rest of the country it is done by contract. Maintenance is one aspect of our work to which the Commissioners have always endeavoured to give priority. Maintenance of the store of Government property is regarded as top priority. Without examining the details of the expenditure here I would not be able to say precisely what the balance arose on. You can take it that it would have been for very necessary work of maintenance.

720. Chairman.—Under subheads F.1, F.2, F.3 and F.4, there is a further breakdown on pages 27 and 28. Under Maintenance and Supplies all the Departments are mentioned there, the amount of the Vote and the amount of expenditure. Any question on subhead F.1?

Deputy G. Mitchell.—I should like to raise a couple of queries on subhead F.1. Expenditure in a couple of cases is far in excess of the Vote. I will not go through them separately. In some cases it is far in excess. In the case of the Office of the Taoiseach the Vote was £60,000 and expenditure was £110,000 and in the case of the Department of Finance the Vote was £227,000 and expenditure £406,000. What was the specific reason for that? Could we be told why expenditure is so much in excess of the Vote? Is this the way things are generally done or has he any comment to make on that?

—In regard to the two specific cases mentioned, may I send you a note and may I also send you a general comment on the point?

In the event of the Committee not reassembling may I request a copy of that note be sent to me personally.*

721. Chairman.—Under subhead F.3 — Rents, Rates, etc. — we have travelled this ground already fairly extensively. There appears to be a few discrepancies. On Agriculture there was less expenditure while on Labour there was substantially increased expenditure. On Industry, Commerce and Energy there was fairly substantial extra expenditure?

—What happens is that while we make provision and the Dáil votes money under F.3 the actual expenditure subsequently may be more than was originally intended because during the course of the year we may have to rent new accommodation for a particular Department which we did not anticipate and while it would appear there was over-expenditure some other Department may suffer as a result of it.

722. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Under subhead F.5—Compensation, etc., arising from Damage to the Property of External Governments—what is covered there?

—The expenditure referred to there was an amount outstanding to the Electricity Supply Board in respect of works they carried out on our behalf at the former British Embassy in Merrion Square. The subhead was opened on 31 March 1973 to provide the cost of compensation etc., arising from damage to the British Embassy, the British Passport Office and the Ministry of Health and Social Security in Cork and the German Embassy and payments were made over the years.

723. Chairman.—Under subhead G.1 — Arterial Drainage — Surveys — I suppose you have not undertaken a survey of the Nore?

—Not yet.

Deputy Wyse.—Is arterial drainage under the Board’s staff?

—Yes.

724. Chairman.—Under subhead G.2 — Arterial Drainage — Construction Works — Could you fill us in on the difficulties there?

—This was a bridge over the Boyne in Drogheda. There were considerable legal difficulties before we could undertake the work. Offhand I have not the details. We were dealing with Drogheda Corporation.

Has the situation been resolved?

—The legal difficulties were resolved in July 1979.

725. Under subhead H.—Purchase and Maintenance of Engineering Plant and Machinery and Stores—there was substantial over-expenditure there because more machinery had to be provided to meet the accelerated drainage programme?

—Yes. Sufficient provision was not made originally.

726. Deputy M. Cosgrave.—Under subhead I.—Coast Protection—where were most of these works carried out?

—In that particular accounting year the expenditure was in respect of works in progress at actually only one location at Enniscrone, Sligo, and the State contribution was 50 per cent of the expenditure. It came to £69,886. Maintenance works were also carried out at Rosslare Strand and the Murrough, Wicklow, and minor expenditure was incurred in Moville, Strandhill, Youghal and Portmarnock.

Chairman.—There are ongoing difficulties at Rosslare and continuing expenditure there. Can this be resolved?

—I do not know what the actual position is.

Deputy M. Cosgrave.—Are works still going on at Portmarnock?

—Once the initial works are undertaken the schemes need to be maintained and if a scheme needs regular attention you will have ongoing works and expenditure. If maintenance is not carried out the scheme will naturally deteriorate. The same would apply to Portmarnock. I do not know how frequently works would have to be undertaken in Portmarnock. Rosslare may be a difficult one.

Chairman.—Problems have been created in the harbour and large sums have to be expended each year to maintain the coastline.

—Yes.

727. Chairman.—I do not know whether you can come to grips with it. On subhead J.1—National Monuments—there was an over-expenditure there. The notes says:

“Partly as a result of requirements generally being greater than expected and partly as a result of pay increases not provided for in the estimate.”

728. On subhead J.2—Conservation and Restoration of Holycross Abbey (Grant-inAid)—we have dealt with that adequately.

729. In regard to the Appropriations in Aid, there are details on pages 22 and 23. We will go through them:

Item 1. Rents (including receipts from lettings of sporting and fishing rights. etc.) I wonder how are the Office of Public Works involved in sporting and fishing?

—It arises out of our administration of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park in Killarney. There are two stretches of river, one stretch being part of the park, a very good salmon river and as an amenity for visitors we let the salmon and trout fishery on either a seasonal or daily basis. A person can take out a seasonal licence or a visitor may spend a day there and get a permit for one day. We have rights on the Flesk, property we acquired some years ago from John MacShane, part of the Killarney estate. We are normally not in the sporting and fishing business but that is how it arose.

This is the total involvement in sporting and fishing?

—Yes.

Would it be a reasonable move from an economic point of view to realise these rights, in other words, to sell them?

—In the case of the Flesk it might be possible. In the case of the Bourn Vincent Park we are inhibited by the legislation which requires us to manage all the property gifted to the State as a national park and are not free to dispose of it outright. It is an amenity of the National Park. At one time it was the Commissioners’ practice to let the fishing to one individual. It would go out to tender and one person or synidcate would have it for a number of years. There was considerable controversy from the general public about not giving them an opportunity to enjoy the amenity. There was a change of policy in the 1960s. Since then the Commissioners have managed it in this way, which seems to be a satisfactory way and gives everyone the chance of enjoying the amenity.

What is the cost?

—Part of the overall management of the National Park. We probably have one man who acts as bailiff. There would be administrative costs in Head Office, but it would be part of the general park administration.

730. Item 2.—Charges at harbours, parks, etc. The estimate was over-realised. Would you have any idea of the cost of collection?

—I can speak for national parks and national monuments. The receipts we get from our national monuments is from admission charges to a small number of national monuments where we provide special visiting facilities, including a guided tour service. We employ temporary staff each summer to conduct people on tours of the monuments and to give them more understanding of the history of the monuments. The receipts which we get for admission, which are modest enough, more than pay for the wages of the staff that we employ during the summer. It is a selffinancing exercise as well as giving a very valuable amenity to visitors.

What controls have you over these receipts?

—They are very rigidly managed from Head Office. The Parks Section at Head Office have somebody in charge. We have a number of guides and a caretaker who is personally answerable to the Commissioners and who is supplied with numbered tickets and has to account for the tickets and account for cash receipts and our internal audit section keep a very close eye on expenditures and receipts.

731. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I asked a question about expenditure being greatly ahead of the Vote on some subheads. On the other hand, we have income being greatly ahead of the Estimate. It seems to indicate a certain conservative approach to the whole thing. If the control the Accounting Officer says is there is there, surely it should be possible, for instance, under Item 2, to forecast income very accurately rather than is the case here. The estimate was £520,000 and the amount realised was £733,000. If that sort of control exists, it should be possible to forecast the income.

—If I might relate that to the position of National Monuments and Parks, it is not always possible to forecast the number of visitors who will attend the monuments or visit the parks. It has been very gratifying, in fact, to find that despite the recession for some years in tourism, the numbers of people who have visited national monuments continue to increase steadily. Furthermore, we have found it possible to extend the number of monuments where the service is provided. We started in a small way 10 years ago with one or two monuments. Each year we have found it possible to extend this. As regards the harbours, I cannot say precisely where the excess arose, under which of the various headings. It must have been at Dún Laoghaire. If you wish me to furnish this information I shall do so.

Chairman.—There are explanations for 1, 2 and 3 on page 23.

—Receipts at Dún Laoghaire Harbour were greater than expected.

732. Item 3.—Sales of Property. There is no explanatory note. What property was sold?

—The only significant receipts in that year were from the sale of cottages at Rosslare Strand. The Commissioners inherited a lot of properties, stations, et cetera, over the years.

You realised them?

—We are realising them gradually. They were let at rents to people and people were given an opportunity of buying them out.

733. Under item 7—Recoveries from EEC in connection with certain arterial drainage operations—there is a token estimate for £10 and the amount realised was £480,000. The question is are Departments aware of their entitlements from the EEC and are they being claimed?

—In that particular case the £10 was just a token provision at that stage because, when the Estimate was being prepared the amount was just not known. In November 1978 the EEC sanctioned reimbursement of 50 per cent of the cost of arterial drainage operations in the West of Ireland over a period of 5 years. The Department of Finance instructed the Office of Public Works early in 1979 to make provision of £10 in connection with arterial drainage schemes. They also instructed us to pursue the question of certain advances from the EEC and a decision governing these specific advances was not made until 9 April 1979 following receipt of which we submitted our application for £480,000. This is an amount equivalent to 80 per cent at most of the amount of the Community contribution towards financing expenditure provided for during the year and that was received from the Department of Agriculture and was brought to account. The Department of Finance were aware this money would be becoming available and it was necessary to make a token provision but the EEC did not take a decision on the matter until after the Estimate had been printed. That accounts for the difference between the token and the actual.

734. Deputy Wyse.—Was there any grant from the EEC to enable the completion of the final report in regard to the drainage of the Shannon?

—A grant will be available if and when the Commissioners find themselves in a position to undertake the survey of the Shannon.

Is there any reason why the Commissioners should not do that now?

—We have to see how we can deploy the necessary staff. Basically that is the position at the moment.

735. Chairman.—Could you tell us if all the grants available from the EEC have been claimed? Is there substantial research into EEC grants generally?

—I think I can confidently say that, yes.

Deputy Wyse.—The final report on the Shannon is of vital importance and I think every effort should be made to get it finalised. Could the report be requested from private enterprise engineers if the Office of Public Works does not have sufficient staff to do it?

—That is not feasible because the field of arterial drainage is very specialised. Only the State would be interested in undertaking such extensive works and it is only under the Office of Public Works you get the necessary type of overall expertise. That is not to say there may be very expert specialists in other fields who could make a contribution and should the occasion arise the Commissioners would have no hesitation in calling on them. In one particular case a soil scientist was called in to give some special advice not available in our own Office but an overall approach to a private agency would not be satisfactory.

736. Chairman.—In the notes at number 4, is this agency free to the European Foundation?

—It is, yes. It was a Government decision to make the premises available and free for the European Foundation.

Is there an ongoing expenditure there?

—No. The Foundation has to pay any further costs such as rates or adaptation of the premises for their own use.

Deputy Wyse.—What kind of security is there there?

—That I do not know.

Have we anybody employed there?

—It is managed by the European Foundation and not by the Commissioners so it is they who would be answerable.

737. Chairman.—Note 5 says:

“Expenditure of approximately £173,000 (almost exclusively in respect of fees for professional services) was incurred on a building project which, following a Government decision, did not proceed.”

Could we have details?

—This was the abortive scheme to build a concert hall in memory of the late President Kennedy. It had advanced to quite a considerable stage when the Government decided not to proceed with it as it was getting very costly and, instead, to adapt the Aula Maxima at University College Dublin at Earlsfort Terrace as a concert hall. I can give you more details but that is the case in point. It was a Government decision to abandon the scheme as it was getting too costly.

Are there any other cases of this where large amounts are expended in professional fees?

—Not in the case of the year of account. This is the only case.

738. There have been in other accounts?

—Well, abortive planning can arise in the normal course of the Commissioners’ work where something has to be abandoned. This was the only major one, certainly in that year.

739. On Note 10—has the State acquired Richmond Harbour, Longford?

—No. This is held up pending transfer of the canals to either the Commissioners of Public Works or possibly the new National Heritage Council. Córas Iompair Éireann did not wish to proceed with the transfer of these until the whole question of canals was determined. A decision was taken that canals should be transferred to the Commissioners on similar lines to the Shannon Navigation but has not been completed yet.

740. Item 15 of the Notes says:

“A sum of £50 was paid, ex-gratia, in settlement of a claim for loss of profit arising from delays in receiving payment for services rendered.”

Could we get an explanation of that? It is a small sum?

—Yes. It was a small matter involving a firm of contractors, Chubb Alarm (Ireland) who undertook some work for us which gave rise to a lot of accounting difficulties. The firm in the end claimed £200 in compensation for what they called the outlay costs connected with this matter which they claimed turned the transaction into a loss-making situation. Without knowing all the details, the Commissioners did accept that there was some justification for their claim and we sought and obtained special sanction of the Department of Finance to make a payment of £50 in discharge of their claim.

What were the economics involved? Why was there a claim? Was it because of late payment?

—It arose because there was confusion in the processing of the accounts caused by the absence of one of our officers who had been ill in 1975 and his staff had difficulty in sorting out what exactly had been ordered. A large sum of about £1,400 had accrued due to Chubb Alarm over the period January 1973 to 1977. It took that long to clear the account with Chubb Alarm and because of that they claimed that it was through no fault of theirs that they were out of pocket in respect of this particular claim. As I say, they claimed £200 in compensation for this and when we examined it both ourselves and the Department of Finance accepted that there was justification for some payment to them.

It went from 1973 to 1977 and this firm would be expected to do further work for the Departments, so they must have been very aggrieved when they brought a claim against prospective customers.

—Yes.

741. Is there a problem about making payments to suppliers of goods to the Office of Public Works? Is there a delay generally?

—No. From time to time complaints are made but we have a pretty good record at the moment and there is no major complaint of arrears of claims. In this particular case this arose in connection with the extremely heavy work load in the Fire and Security Service. The question of security has become a major problem in recent years. We established a specialist unit to deal with it. Work was growing faster than we were able to cope with it. It led to these unfortunate difficulties in clearing the account.

You are satisfied that there is no difficulty in payment of suppliers at the moment?

742. Deputy Wyse.—You have sufficient staff in the accounts department, have you? That was not always the case.

—It was not and I certainly would not say that it is staffed to the strength we would like to have it to enable us to give a more perfect service.

743. Chairman.—On page 26 under Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, Maintenance Fund, there seems to be an increasing balance there. The deficit was £3,877. Is this a continuing situation? Will the Office of Public Works be able to deal with this or how are they dealing with it?

—It is a continuing situation and at the moment I cannot say how difficult it is but it is most intractable.

And the deficit is likely to increase?

—Yes.

744. The last item relates to the Barretstown Castle Trust. Are you happy with the progress there?

—It is a very involved legal problem. There are a number of trusts involved and we are in constant touch with the solicitors for the Juniper Trust, which is the holding trust at the moment, to see if we can resolve the situation and take it into trusteeship. But it is an involved legal and accounting matter thich we hope we can resolve, probably within the next 12 months.

745. Thank your for your attendance at short notice and for the full and detailed information you have given us.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix 18.

* See Appendix 19.

* See Appendix 20.

* See Appendix 21.

* See Appendix 22.

* See Appendix 23.