Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1988 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1984

APPENDIX 17

APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS 1984

December 1986

Clerk to the Public Accounts Committee,

Dáil Éireann,

Baile Átha Cliath 2.

A Chara,

I am to refer to the meeting of the Committee on Public Accounts held on 27 November, 1986 at which the Appropriation Accounts for 1984 in respect of the Department of Education Votes were examined.

The Committee expressed its intention of re-examining the Accounting Officer in respect of Paragraph 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. (Post-Primary Education, Subhead-G — Physical Education halls for four Community schools), and requested a briefing note for circulation to the Committee before the re-examination.

The Briefing note requested is now enclosed.

During the course of the meeting on 27 November, the Accounting Officer undertook to furnish the Committee with further information regarding the following:

Paragraph 33 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report:

The Committee asked whether

(i)when school buses were purchased initially, if the Department got an inventory from CIE.

(ii)whether the Department kept an up-to-date inventory.

(iii)how many buses are scrapped each year.

A note is attached which outlines the position.

Paragraph 35 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report

The Committee asked:

(i)why the Department did not insist on hardwood windows for this school (Kilbarrack) when it was first built in 1972,

(ii)what type of windows are being put into schools to-day—teak, or aluminium,

(iii)was the type of design and structure used in Kilbarrack, used in any other school,

(iv)if so, was it defective,

(v)if other schools of similar construction were not defective did it mean that poor quality materials were used in Kilbarrack,

(vi)were poor quality materials used instead of better quality materials as required,

(vii)has the builder who built this school been awarded the contract for any other schools.

A note of information on the queries raised is attached.

Paragraph 36 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report

The Committee required whether, if the unapproved extras to the contract were considered essential, why did the Building Unit not note that they were omitted from the original design

A note on the role of the Department’s Building Unit in contracts of this nature is enclosed.

Vote 30—Primary Education

Subhead E—School Building

The Committee enquired whether any facilities for physically handicapped children, such as lifts were being provided at present in primary schools.

A note on the present position is enclosed.

Vote 32—Residential Homes and Special Schools

Subhead A—Residential Homes

Subhead B—Special Schools

The Committee enquired the number of children in these schools at present, and also enquired what arrangements were made to look after the psychological and emotional needs of these children.

A note on the position is attached.

Mise, le meas,

M. Nic Uidhir

An Roinn Oideachais.

Appropriation Account 1984

Vote 29—OME, Subhead D.3

School Transport Services (par. 33 of Comptroller and Auditor General’s report)

1. Attached is an extract from the agreed accounting arrangements between CIE and the Department regarding capital for school buses. Prior to 1 April 1974, funds for the purchase of school buses were not provided by the Department. As the Department did not finance these buses until 1975, an inventory of them was not supplied until 1975.

In 1975, the Department paid CIE the written-down value of the 842 school buses which CIE had purchased. The inventory of these buses which was supplied in 1975 has been retained.

2. CIE has supplied the Department with an inventory of all buses financed by the Department since then. This inventory is in the form of invoices and contains information on the type and cost of each vehicle. However, details of the scrapping of buses were not requested and were not supplied on a regular basis. The buses financed by the Department are vested in CIE and it was not found necessary to have detailed information on buses withdrawn for scrapping supplied to the Department. However, records on scrapping are maintained by CIE and are available on request. The Department is periodically supplied with details of the number of buses in operation.

3. The number of buses withdrawn each year is not readily available. However, the number of buses purchased in a particular year and subsequently withdrawn has already been supplied in response to the Comptroller and Auditor General’s original query. Statements giving details of all vehicles financed by the Department, the number remaining in service and the number provided by CIE at no cost to the Department were also included in the reply to the original query.

CIE salvage all useful parts from school buses which are withdrawn for scrapping for use on the remaining school bus fleet. Because of this, only 28 school buses of the 117 buses withdrawn for scrapping up to 1984 have actually been scrapped. (Up to the time, 167 buses have been withdrawn).

The practice with regard to the inventory of school buses is comprehended in the above replies

Extract from the Summary of Accounting Arrangements between the Department of Education and CIE

Capital for School Buses

The arrangements for financing the fleet of special school buses will be as follows:

1. The Department of Education to undertake to provide non-repayable interest free grants to CIE as from 1st April, 1974 for the purpose of financing the acquisition of new school buses, either as additions to or replacements of existing school buses.

2. The Department of Education, in agreement with the Departments of Transport and Power, and Finance to take over the outstanding liability for the existing fleet of school buses which were acquired by funds provided by CIE from the commencement of the free transport scheme up to year ended 31st March, 1974.

3. The outstanding liability to be determined on the basis of the written-down value of the buses at 31st March, 1974 i.e., the original cost of the buses to CIE less the amount of the depreciation charged to the Department of Education.

Appropriation Account 1984

Vote 30—Primary Education Subhead E

Kilbarrack National School—Paragraph 35 of Comptroller and Auditor General’s report

The following are replies to the questions raised in minute of 28 November 1986 from M. Nic Uidhir PO:

1. The school design was in the hands of private consultants, and it is not usual to dictate to design teams in such circumstances as to the detail of building components, provided they are acceptable. Windows are one of a number of components of a building, and softwood windows, such as proposed in Kilbarrack, were quite acceptable in 1972.

2. The Department, subject to the constraints of cost limits settled from time to time favours hardwood, aluminium or PVC window frames for schemes which its own professional advisers design. Subject to the same cost limit constraints, the Department nowadays would encourage private design teams to use hardwood, aluminium or PVC, as giving a more favourable cost-in-use performance. However, in 1972 when the Kilbarrack scheme was proposed, it was not the practice to insist on the more durable type of frames. There is an equation involved here: low cost frames, high maintenance costs: high cost frames, low maintenance costs. The former approach is favoured to-day, having regard to experiences with the type of materials found to have been used for window frames in the late 60s and early 70s.

3. In the time available for enquiry, it is difficult to say how many national schools were designed on the same lines as the Kilbarrack structure. An adjoining school suffered from the same problems (i.e. Kilbarrack Boys’ national school) and improvements were grant-aided by the Department. The only other school which came to light in this context was the Rosbercon national school, County Wexford, where the Department grant-aided improvements works which cost £40,000.

4. See reply to No. 3.

5. The quality of materials used at Kilbarrack was generally acceptable.

6. There is no evidence to suggest that poor quality (i.e. substandard) materials were used in the Kilbarrack project instead of better quality materials. What was in question here, and is frequently in question in building schemes, is whether to use a dearer component, and therefore one likely to perform better, rather than a cheaper, but nevertheless acceptable, component with the objective of achieving a cost plan in line with the limits set by the Department from time to time.

7. Enquiries in this regard have not yet been completed. The only other grant-aided projects in which it is known for certain that the same contractor was involved were Scoil Lorcáin Boys’ national school also in Kilbarrack, and St. Benedict’s national school, Edenmore Parish, Dublin 5. Roof improvements have also been grant-aided in Scoil Lorcáin which displayed problems similar to those encountered in the Girls’ national school. No complaints have been received in relation to the Edenmore school, which was also built in the early 70s. The contractor in question went out of business in the 70s, according to the Department’s information.

Prepared by the

Primary Buildings Branch

Department of Education.

Appropriations Account 1984

Vote 33—Post Primary Education Subhead G.

Paragraph 36 of Comptroller and Auditor General’s report—(Rathmullen Community College)

Reply to query raised by the Public Accounts Committee with the Accounting Officer on 27th November, 1986.

For the benefit of the Committee it may be desirable to clarify the role of the Department’s Building Unit in relation to capital projects undertaken by Vocational Education Committees and by the authorities of voluntary secondary schools.

The Department is not the client body for such projects. Procedurally, therefore, and for practical reasons as well, the Building Unit’s role in the planning process must of necessity be confined to that of a monitoring agency; it seeks to ensure that cost and area limits are observed and certain design standards achieved. The number of such projects under construction or in course of planning at present is 434; it represents a capital programme amounting to over £300 million at current costs.

In this category of projects the onus is on the professional consultants employed by the client body in each case to ensure detailed design preplanning for the project is thorough and comprehensive. The responsibility of the consultants in this respect has always been emphasised at the Planning Briefing Meetings, held in the Building Unit’s offices, which formally initiate architectural planning. For projects undertaken more recently the consultants’ role in this regard has been further clarified and emphasised in writing by the inclusion in the preface to the Building Unit’s Design Team Procedures of the following paragraph:

“Approval, by the Building Unit, of Drawings, Specifications and Bills of Quantities is not to be regarded as an acceptance by the Department that these documents are correct, in all respects, for the purpose of executing the subsequent building contract, and does not relieve the Design Team of its responsibility to protect the Clients’ interests in this regard”.

Building Unit,

1 December, 1986.

Appropriation Account, 1984

Vote 30: Subhead E.

Facilities in National Schools for the physically handicapped.

In all new national schools projects or extensions, facilities for the physically handicapped are provided as follows: provision of a ramp and one toilet. In existing schools these facilities for the physically handicapped, where none exist, would be provided on the request of the school authorities.

The bulk of National Schools are one storied. In the case of schools which are not one storied, arrangements would be made by the school authorities to have classes for the handicapped person on the ground floor. The Department does not grant-aid the provision of lifts in National Schools as these could be hazardous for the children.

Prepared by the

Primary Buildings Branch

Department of Education.

Appropriations Account 1984

Vote 32—Residential Homes and Special Schools.

1. Residential Homes, with the exception of St. Anne’s, Kilmacud, were transferred by Statutory Order to the Department of Health on 1 January 1984. A record of the numbers of children in these homes during 1984 is not available in the Department of Education. All expenditure from Subhead A of this Vote was in respect of St. Anne’s, Kilmacud which was funded on a capitation grant basis and the Department does not have details of the staffing of this Centre. During 1984 there was an average of 10 young persons in residence at St. Anne’s and the Department of Health took over responsibility for this Home on 1 January 1985. The title of the Vote is now “Special Schools”.

2. Details of the average numbers of young persons in Special Schools during 1984 were as follows:

3. Finglas Children’s Centre and Cuan Mhuire had the services of several pychologists who attended on a sessional basis. St. Joseph’s, Clonmel and Scoil Ard Mhuire also had a psychologist attending on a sessional basis while Trinity House had a full-time psychologist.

The two components at Finglas, St. Joseph’s, Clonmel and Trinity House all have the services of full-time welfare officers seconded from the Department of Justice. Scoil Ard Mhuire also had the services of a welfare officer until it closed on 31 August, 1985.

Details of the staffing of these schools as paid from Vote 32 in 1984 are attached. The cost of teachers’ salaries was paid from Vote 30—Primary Education.

Staffing Establishment of Special Schools, 1984

Appropriations Account 1984—Paragraph 37 Brief for Public Accounts Committee

Re: P.E. Halls at four Community Schools.

1. The four Physical Education Halls which are the subject of query were constructed at Old Bawn, Cabinteely, Donahies and Springfield Community Schools as part of a programme of 11 halls, approved in 1980.

2. The halls were “package deals” i.e. the Department supplied a diagrammatic outline of the nature and extent and dimensions of the hall required and a performance specification. Contractors then tendered on the basis of the building which they proposed to erect to meet these outline requirements. The detailed design was by the contractor. (Proposals were checked by the consultants for conformity to the tender requirements).

3. Teams of consultants were appointed to make recommendations regarding the placing of the contracts and to supervise construction work. The consultants contract of service in the area of supervision is that of seeing that the building contracted for is provided to the contract specification. The final evidence of their performance is attested to by the issue of the final certificate, which is in itself a declaration “that the works have been properly carried out in accordance with the terms of this contract”. (As the contractor went into liquidation before the works were deemed properly carried out no final certificate issued).

The normal consultants fees at that time to design and supervise construction were 12.5% of total cost. In the cases involving package deals the overall fees payable were 7.04% of total cost.

4. Tenders were invited by public advertisement and contracts were awarded on the basis of the lowest tenders. At the time of tendering there was little interest by contractors in tendering for such projects. Two of the 11 halls had to be retendered due to lack of interest. (At present it is not unusual for up to 30 contractors to apply for tenders for projects of this size.)

The same contractor submitted the lowest tender for the four halls in question. This contractor was unable to produce a bond promptly. In any event the halls on an individual basis were not of such magnitude as to warrant bonding. The risk was not sufficient to warrant the cost of a bond in line with Department of Finance guidelines at the time. (The cost of a bond would increase the cost of the contract). If the Department had passed over the lowest tenderer and accepted the next lowest who might have been able to produce a bond the extra cost at the time was £129,000.

5. The contracts for the four halls were awarded to the same contractor who had the lowest tender for each of the four. The tenders being separate the contracts arising were separate. It was not possible to amalgamate them post tender as this would be a branch of tendering procedures and would necessitate re-tendering and would have delayed the implementation of the Ministers programme.

6. When the contracts were virtually completed it became apparent that the contractor was in difficulty. (The contractor, in financial difficulties was dilatory in attending to defects. His creditors put him into receivership. The Receiver in turn finding that it was not in the creditors’ interests to complete his contracts put the contractor into liquidation).

The Consultants on all four halls were using their best endeavours to have known defects made good by the contractor. Latent defects, i.e. defects not ascertainable by reasonable inspection, were also required to be made good when they came to notice.

The Department has no cause to fault the Consultants’ performance.

The contracts having been effectively terminated by liquidation, the subsequent works were the basis of separate contracts.

The overall cost of the post-liquidation contracts was £91,062 as opposed to an amount of £53,154 retained from the original contracts.

A claim has been lodged for the balance, i.e. the extra cost to the Department, against whatever assets are held by the liquidator. This claim is still being pursued.