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

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of public Accounts)

Déardaoin, 5 Samhain, 1987

Thursday, 5 November, 1987

The Committee met at 11.30 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY GAY MITCHELL in the chair

VOTE 38 — AGRICULTURE (Resumed).

Mr. Sean Kelly, President, Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers’ Association; Mr. Donal Murphy, General Secretary; Mr. Ciaran Dolan, Economist; and Mr. Terry O’Connor, Council member, called.

1678. Chairman.—You are aware that we have considered the document which was supplied by the IFA, and we had a deputation in from the IFA, and we have also considered this matter and discussed it with the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The committee had in mind that the ICMSA might have observations to make, If not on the IFA document, certainly on the general question of brucellosis and tuberculosis. You might have your own observations which you would like to put forward. Perhaps Mr. Kelly might like to deal with any opening comment.

Mr. Kelly.—Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank you for receiving us here. We have a number of points we want to put before you. The Committee on Public Expenditure reported on the TB eradication scheme during October 1986. The Committee concluded that it was essential that the TB eradication scheme would be more effective as a matter of urgency. The ICMSA would agree with that view. It also concluded that in order to achieve greater effectiveness the following measures were required: tougher and more effective regulations with regard to the movement of cattle; a more realistic data bank to operate the scheme; that there would be a more supportive technical laboratory to identity the causes of the outbreak of TB and brucellosis; a more comprehensive auditing and monitoring of animal testing should be carried; and, above all, a clearly focussed, effective and properly equipped management system. We would agree with those. The overall aim should be that within a period of five years we should achieve the same level of disease control which now applies in the North of Ireland. Those are just a few of the things. The main issues we would see are: how to achieve a more effective management as soon as possible. The second point is in relation to the funding arrangements and how the old scheme would be funded. Our view would be that the management of the scheme is poor, if not totally inadequate. Just to give two examples, there is no real follow-up to attempt to establish the cause of the outbreaks; and, secondly, the apparent lax arrangements at meat factories, where animals can still be slaughtered without proper documentation. This situation is totally unacceptable, given that there is a widespread view that the inspection of meat factories at present is overmanned. The fact that a veterinary inspection of £3.25 per animal operates, which yields £4.5 million each year per animal slaughtered, apparently removes the pressure to ensure a cost efficient service. In summary, it is our view that this service, which is critically important in controlling disease, is neither cost efficient nor effective, and according to one meat processor a comparable but superior service operates in the United Kingdom with about half the resources which are employed here. Therefore, we would urge the committee to review this whole area. The level of veterinary inspection should be reduced to about £2 per animal in due course. Those are my opening remarks. Perhaps we will go into detail later on.

1679. Chairman.—Could I ask you if you are aware that we have been advised that at current cost terms, something approaching £1,000 million has been spent to date over a very long period on disease eradication? The IFA propose that each herd owner pays for his annual round test each for a four year period. What would your organisation’s view of that be?

Mr. Kelly.—Yes, I think if we were guaranteed that a full round would take place we would accept that the farmer would pay for one round per year.

1680. Deputy Naughten.—I take it your organisation has examined to some extent the IFA’s report on TB testing. What would your views be on that document?

Mr. Kelly.—I want to qualify what I said about paying for the one round: that is provided that the levies were done away with. We did not examine the IFA document as such. We had meetings with the Minister. We have no view on that as an overall document. We have our own views.

1681. Deputy Naughten.—The fact that you make the point that your association would be prepared to pay for one round of testing provided the disease levies were removed, is that correct?

Mr. Kelly.—That is right.

1682. Deputy Naughten.—There would appear to be a difference of opinion between both farming organisations on that point?

Mr. Kelly.—As regards that, people are paying milk levies through creameries which is unfair to some producers. It is too high. We would like to see that each individual would pay for one round of testing each year and that, if there were breakdowns, the Department would pay for the testing and see that it would be done in those areas.

1683. Deputy Naughten.—The approach of your association would be to remove the levies and the farmer would pay for one round of testing? Would that be fair?

Mr. Kelly.—That is right.

1684. Deputy Naughten.—The Department would be losing a substantial amount of revenue under that formula.

Mr. Kelly.—The revenue they would be losing would not be for disease eradication; it is going into the Exchequer. We would feel that there is no service being given, an epidemological service or any of those extra services. There is no follow-up. A vet comes and tests your cattle and there is no research into how this breakdown occurs. That should be covered by some of the money paid in.

1685. Deputy Naughten.—But the Department would argue that the levies collected, whether from milk or the slaughter of animals or levies on exports, are only 50 per cent of the overall cost of the scheme in any year.

Mr. Dolan.—I think, as our President said that we must approach this on two levels; first, the implementation of a proper management structure and, second, the funding of that scheme. I do not accept that the levies deducted from farmers will amount to only 50 per cent of the scheme next year. It is estimated that the total amount of levies next year, at current rates and with a projection for output of cattle and milk, will amount to £22 million. What we are saying is that farmers will carry the cost of one complete round. The best estimate that we can come up with is that one full round would cost about £9 million to £10 million. We believe there can be substantial cost efficiencies and a substantial improvement in the effectiveness of the management of the scheme. We believe that a rapid completion of computerisation will probably require somewhere in the region of £3 million in terms of additional hardware and software. You cannot and you will never achieve proper management without full computerisation. You have 183,000 live herds. It is nonsense to even attempt any kind of follow-up by using data on those herds that you try to assemble from brown folders. It is not possible. Since April of this year you had 6,000 new reactor herds and even to follow reactor herds is a major job. We are saying that in terms of the management there should be a rapid completion of computerisation even if that requires additional spending on computerisation next year than is envisaged in the Estimates, it should be done. It will pay off in the long term. Computerisation will not immediately reduce the requirement for staff. Once it is established it will take a considerable amount of servicing but it will provide, for the first time, a base to really find out why we are not making progress. So we are saying computerisation, backed up with removal of reactors directly from farms to factories. I gather that papers have been lodged in the High Court by an individual objecting to the scheme currently operating in Cork. Should there be any difficulty in that regard we would say that, as legislators, you should look at whether or not the law should be changed, to allow the Minister to introduce a scheme whereby reactors can be moved directly. If I may go finally to the funding arrangement. What we can see now is that — based on discussions with the Minister for Agriculture on the Book of Estimates — the Exchequer in future will make a fixed contribution and the farming community will have to carry the open-endedness of the scheme. It is a very unusual and probably unacceptable position for farmers to find themselves in — that they have a scheme over which they have no real effective control; they have a scheme which is vital to them in terms of their business. We do not accept that the establishment of an executive office, even with the appointment of a national director, superimposed on the existing structure, will achieve anything. Again, as legislators, you would want to look very closely at the actual form and line of command in this national office. One extreme would be the establishment of a totally independent office, nearly having the status of a semi—State body. That would probably require a lot of legislation and, indeed, negotiation with staff. But there may be some half-way house point — that you would have a national director appointed by open competition and, indeed, maybe regional and local managers also employed on a contractual basis, again, by open competition, who would report directly and who would be responsible to a national executive office for disease eradication, and the national executive office would report and be ultimately responsible to the Minister. The report of the Committee on Public Expenditure last October highlighted the need for a change in management and also highlighted the urgency of it. We would fully concur with that view.

1686. Deputy Naughten.—Just one final question to Mr. Kelly. In regard to this new change where the farming community would be requested to pay for a round of testing — in view of the information being available as a result of the numbers of stock in a person’s herd which is calculated when applying for services such as medical cards, unemployment assistance, taxation and a number of other things and the fact that he has to pay for this test — do you not see a far greater temptation on the farming community to retain and not test animals, say, under six months old?

Mr. Kelly.—No, I do not see that problem arising at all. I do not think it would arise. Most animals under six months old are not tested anyway. Dropped calves, for instance. Is that what you are talking about?

1687. Deputy Naughten.—Under six months old, yes. Are you suggesting that they would not be tested in the normal round of testing?

Mr. Kelly.—They would, yes. But I am saying what advantage would it have been to him not to test them.

1688. Deputy Naughten.—It would be keeping his numbers down, which could be very important to him in view of the services I have already outlined. Income is taken into consideration depending on the number of stock he had at his last herd test.

Mr. Kelly.— No, actually I would not see it happening. I think every farmer at present is so conscious of the importance of testing, he would be foolish even to contemplate that.

1689. Deputy Naughten.—I accept fully that the farmers are very aware of the importance of testing, but I am talking also about human nature and the fact that if he has an extra ten or fifteen weighlings he just may be inclined to hold them back if they are costing him £3 per head at present. He may also lose some of the benefits I have already outlined if he presents them.

Mr. Kelly.—Yes.

Deputy Naughten.—This is where I would have fears.

Mr. Murphy.—May I suggest that with the programme of computerisation or records that we are suggesting, that would keep track of some of the problem of which you are speaking. The main reason why we are suggesting that a farmer would pay for his one round of testing is that for the past number of years the Department of Agriculture, under the present system, have failed to carry out a full round of testing. We are saying that the full round of testing will te done in the following manner: (a) the Department would notify a farmer that he was required to do a test within a specified period, (b) that it would be done, (c) that he would pay the vet directly, and (d) that then the farmer would be issued with a licence to keep those cattle. If he did not do the round of testing, he would have no licence, he would be locked up and the ultimate would be that those stock would be confiscated, just as his television without a licence would be confiscated today. We are so serious about getting a full round done that that is the extent to which we would go in order to get it done.

Deputy Naughten.—But with all due respect, that system does not cater for the case I made. Just one final point—

Chairman.—We do have two other Deputies offering and we have the Secretary of the Department of Justice waiting—

1690. Deputy Naughten.—Have you discussed this and received the approval of the veterinary profession, for this particular programme?

Mr. Kelly.—No, we are suggesting a scheme to operate on cattle which farmers own. Mr. Terry O’Connor, who is a member of the Animal Health Council, would like to make a few points.

Mr. O’Connor.—Mr. Chairman, Members, we are sticking a long time with this particular point. It is a very important one. The real thinking on this one is that what we are looking for is a scheme that will work. My experience on the Animal Health Council is that they really did not give enough attention to all the necessary things that it should have. It spent most of its time examining figures on a monthly basis on the progress of eradication. I saw a scheme which after being set up was totally held up for lack of finance. I suggest that if you got a set figure to go and carry out a full round of testing in the coming year, you would run into problems like strikes. It is a long time ago since figures were agreed with the veterinary profession in the field and with the clerical staff and so on. You will find that in any programme that runs short of money the first thing to suffer is a full round of testing. We see over the past ten years that the eradication administration generally has become an institution and the administrative staff have survived totally unutilised. That would be a reasonable thing to say today. The staff are totally and completely unutilised. The only way to utilise these men, many of them very experienced men in the field, is to guarantee a full round of testing. There is enough legislation available to place a restriction order on any herd owner defaulter if he did not comply with the demand to account for his herd. Now we go along to the point made there about not disclosing the number of cattle in your herd — a very important one. I believe there are too many herd numbers around the country. The illegal movement of cattle, which is widespread, is primarily the cause of the high incidence of bovine tuberculosis at present. This is something that has to be tackled. Herd numbers are issued to herd owners, principally in the west and south, because if they have not a herd number they cannot qualify for suckler grants and for headage payments in the western counties. There should be enough personnel in the field to identify if a bona fide case exists between a father and son — that one man survives on a suckler herd possibly or on a farm that is a little bit away. The exchange of cattle between father and son is equally as upsetting to a disease eradication programme as two separate individuals altogether purchasing illegally without movement permits from one another. A disease eradication programme to be effective would have to identify the road it is going, separately from the other schemes that are operated through EC, or suckler schemes. This is a very important ingredient. Once they are identified for that purpose, there are pretty skilled people carried into five for social welfare payments and for milking calves and so on. They are pretty good at that job and the tax bracket is being extended fairly substantially now. I think it will be easy enough to identify and signpost that road.

Chairman.—We are going to run into time difficulties.

Mr. Kelly.—I will not take you very long more. I will just say that, if the scheme was working properly, the work was created for the administration staff that are there at present. The epidemological unit is not really working, principally for the want of work. There is no special measures to deal with it. It is a special Irish problem — the frequency of movement and unjustified members. The nomination of vets and the dispute over this would be totally removed if what we are suggesting was taken on. If there is a new approach and a new director appointed there should be targets set for it.

1691. Deputy Foley.—I certainly will not delay you. First of all, I would like to endorse your sentiments in welcoming Mr. Sean Kelly and his party. I would like to welcome in particular a fellow Kerryman, Mr. Terry O’Connor, who has just spoken. I just have a few small points to make to Mr. Kelly. The overall cost of the scheme up to 1984 was in the region of £227 million. Up to the end of December, 1985, it was £242 million. Of this, farmers contributed approximately £20 million under the levy scheme. In view of what Mr. Kelly said at the outset about being cost effective, does he think there has been wastage of money here over the years?

Mr. Kelly.—Yes, I would accept that.

1692. Deputy Foley.—That there would have been wastage of taxpayers money?

Mr. Kelly.—Yes.

1693. Deputy Foley.—Do you not think that that is a very small contribution of £20 million towards an overall cost of £242 million approximately.

Mr. Kelly.—This is a national scheme.

1694. Deputy Foley.—I would accept that. On the scheme what you are proposing now, do you think that this would be much more cost effective?

Mr. Kelly.—We were not asked really.

1695. Deputy Foley.—I know that. But have you gone into the overall cost of the scheme in depth?

Mr. Kelly.—Yes.

1696. Deputy Foley.—Are you concerned now?

Mr. Kelly.—£20 million is what the overall cost of the scheme per annum should be.

1697. Deputy Foley.—But in actual fact in 1985 it cost approximately £15 million. The discrepancy there between 1984 and 1985 would go from £227 million to £242 million. But under the bovine levy scheme I note there is only £20 million contributed through the farming organisations?

Mr. Kelly.—And £10 million is always contributed by the Government.

1698. Deputy Foley.—Overall, yes. The EC funding in that period of time was slightly over £12 million.

Mr. Dolan.—I think, Chairman, we are grossing figures over two or three decades. The more important comparison or figures would be that the estimate for 1988 is for £31.585 million. As I said before, unless the rates of levies are changed farmers will in fact be contributing next year during the full year £22 million. It serves no purpose to go back to the past—

1699. Deputy Foley.—You misunderstand me. I do not wish to make an issue of this. We are dealing with being cost effective here and you are just making the point has there been wastage over the years and Mr. Kelly has answered that point. I am satisfied with that. In view of what Mr. Kelly said at the outset — he made particular reference there to more support for a technical laboratory. I take it that it has not been effective. I take that point as it is a good point.

Mr. Kelly.—Yes.

1700. Deputy Foley.—You maintain, too, that there should be a stronger management system and you have made references to that as well?

Mr. Kelly.—Yes.

1701. Deputy Foley.—There has been no effort to establish the cause of the problem over the years. Do you think that has been the main cause of the cost?

Mr. Kelly.—I would, and I give an illustration of it. You have the family doctors. They have the history going back over the years of what the problems were with diseases. Vets do not have that. They come and test and they go away again until the next test. They have nothing built up as to why disease could come into a herd. That is really a very big problem. Even if they had a record of the pattern that has obtained in the herd.

1702. Deputy Foley.—I am just interested in one other point you made, Mr. Kelly. You said that the inspection of the meat factories is overmanned. Is that right?

Mr. Kelly.—That is right. At certain periods of the year, when there are not many cattle going through, it is completely overmanned, and not effective either.

1703. Deputy Kitt.—Just a brief question. I would like to join in welcoming the delegation. I am sorry I missed some of the earlier part of it. I did hear reference there to the early removal of reactors, which I would fully agree is very important. I wonder — you might have discussed this earlier— have you a particular recommendation in mind for the early removal of reactors.

Mr. Kelly.—Yes. I think the Cork scheme that is in operation at the present time is fairly effective. That should be all over the country. They are going fairly quickly to the factories.

Chairman.—Are there any other questions?

Mr. O’Connor.—Before I finish, I would like to say in reply to the point made by Deputy Kitt, that, while we do not want to be too strong, there is a court case pending on this Cork issue. What is a stake here is too serious to allow any legislation under any Department to be challenged in the private interests of any one or two individuals. If it cannot be seen after, in the meantime there should be legislation introduced immediately to sort that one out.

Chairman.—Fine. Is there anything you want to say in conclusion, Mr. Kelly?

Mr. Kelly.—No, I do not know if we made the point that compensation should be paid by the Government. That is a prerequisite of our paying for a test.

1704. Chairman.—Yes, that came through at the beginning. One of the points we have to make is this. Whereas Deputy Foley says that it cost £242 million, that is at historic cost. We are informed that, if you gross that up, it is nearer to a £1,000 million. It is in the interest of the farming community, obviously, and of other farming bodies and individual farmers; it is in the interest of the taxpayer and the Department, and it is in the national interest, that this problem be dealt with. What we propose to do is to send the observations of this committee to the Department of Agriculture and ask them what their up-to-date plans are to once and for all deal with this problem. People like former Senator Whitaker and others have expressed grave concern about this level of expenditure. Hopefully, together we can get to the stage where we can beat this problem. I want to thank you for coming in this morning and giving us your viewpoint which has been recorded and which we will be looking at and we hope that we can all make a contribution to solving the problem.

Mr. Kelly.—Thank you very much for receiving us. It is a very important issue for farmers. We have been very much concerned about it over the number of years. It has been a bigger cost to farmers than it has been to the taxpayer. The losses they have suffered are very serious. We did not really know what the programme was, but we will make a written submission to you immediately on our observations of today and our policy.

Chairman.—We would appreciate that.

The witnesses withdrew.

1705. Chairman.—Formally, for the record, what we will do with the ICMSA written submission, and the evidence they have given us this morning, together with the evidence we received from the IFA and indeed the section of the Department of Agriculture, is compile that and we will ask the Department to give us an estimate of the current gross cost of this £240 million expenditure over the years and we will ask what their recommendations to deal with this eradication problem. We will arrange for that to be done as soon as possible.

VOTE 24—PRISONS.

Mr. D. Mathews called and examined.

1706. Chairman.—The Committee is resuming its examination of the Secretary of the Department of Justice in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Department, Mr. Des Mathews. You are welcome back, Mr. Mathews.

Paragraph 27 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

In June 1980 the Department of Finance sanctioned expenditure of £3.8 million, the then estimated cost including fees, on a proposed building project to provide 60 three bedroom houses for married prison officers and a building to provide accommodation for 60 single officers. In September 1980 a contract in the sum of £3,661,440 to be completed by February 1983, was placed by the Office of Public Works (OPW) for the project. In May 1983 the total final cost was estimated at £6,161,000 of which £1,851,598 represented the estimated final cost of the single quarters. The estimated unit cost of each house was then £71,825 which included £12,730 for the heating system. Expenditure to 31 December 1984 amounted to £6,151,695 and the estimated total final cost is now £6.6 million including fees. The houses were taken over by the Department in November 1984 and the single quarters in February 1985.

It was noted that a significant change had been made to the heating system specification after the contract had commenced resulting in an extra cost of approximately £376,000.

It was also noted that 11 of the houses and all the single quarters remained unoccupied by June 1985.

The weekly rent for the houses was set at £9.50 together with a weekly contribution of £5 towards the capital cost and maintenance of the heating system. The weekly rent allowance being paid to married prison officers was £20.86 at 31 December 1984.

I asked the Accounting Officer what had caused the delay in the completion of the project, why the cost had increased from the original estimate of £3.8 million in 1980 to an estimated final cost of £6.6 million, and for information for regarding the costs of and authorisation for revisions and additional works, with particular regard to the extra capital costs of the heating system.

I also sought information regarding the basis on which the level of the accommodation provided and the rent set were determined, and I enquired what action was proposed in relation to the unoccupied accommodation.

In view of the increased cost of this project, the installation of a heating system at a cost of £12,730 per house, the exceptionally high cost, in excess of £71,000, for each of the houses provided and the fact that much of the accommodation is still unused I sought the observations of the Accounting Officer on the adequacy of the planning, monitoring and control of this project and I asked whether the sanction of the Department of Finance had been obtained for the final cost estimated at £6.6 million.

I have been informed by the Accounting Officer that the additional cost was mainly due to

(i) price variations and increases in prime cost sums (£1,375,266) arising from the substantial rate of inflation during the period of the contract, including the updating of figures for labour and materials in accordance with the standard provision for price variations incorporated in the original contract,

(ii) variations (£142,626) and extra requirements on the original specification (£535,590),

(iii) increased preliminaries due to extensions of the contract period (£62,000) together with the resultant increase in professional fees which were, until recently, based on the total cost of a completed project.

He stated that virtually all of the variations (£142,626) were of a technical nature and were considered necessary by the design team. The largest item (£87,231) arose from the strengthening of substructures owing to the boggy site conditions.

He itemised the extra requirements (£535,590) requested after commencement of this contract most of which were either decided on following consultation between OPW and the Department of Justice or sought by the Department for security reasons; £376,300 of this arose from the decision to alter the design of the heat distribution system from piping laid in shallow “ribbon ducts” in the ground to the construction of underground concrete “walkin” ducts. The decision to do so was taken by OPW, following visits outside the State by OPW professional personnel and the professional consultants, after which it was felt that there was an unacceptable risk that the original distribution system would give rise to serious problems. The change to “walk-in” ducts necessitated alterations to the substructures of both staff residence and houses, as well as trenching. The work was complicated by flooding and this, too, contributed to an extension of the contract period. It was understood from OPW that to change, at that stage, to a self contained heating system for each house would have been more expensive than modifying the system as originally designed.

He informed me that the site conditions, flooding and snow and the change in the heating system had also been the cause of delay in completion of the contract and that work on site was further prolonged due to deficiencies in work completed which were rectified at the contractor’s expense.

In regard to the rent he stated that there was an established link between rents and rent allowances in the Garda Síochána and the prison service and that the figure of £9.50 was a negotiated half-way figure above the standard three bedroom figure of £8.64 but below the four bedroom figure of £10.34 and reflected the quality of these houses.

With reference to the level of accommodation provided, the Accounting Officer explained that in 1978/79 the staff of the prison averaged 250 officers and a substantial increase was envisaged. About 25 per cent, equally divided between married and single officers, occupied official accommodation. It was thought likely that additional staff of 200 would have been required for the new prison of which similar proportions would require official accommodation. It was therefore considered reasonable to provide 60 houses for married staff and a staff residence to accommodate 60 unmarried staff. However, the construction of a new prison had been postponed indefinitely and, while the staff numbers for the existing prison did increase to 340, only about 15 per cent were single officers but circumstances at any time could so change as to lead to a significant alteration in that ratio. As only six had applied for accommodation in the single quarters, possible alternative uses for the quarters were being considered. He has informed me that 50 of the houses are occupied at present, that 2 more were expected to be allocated very soon and that current trends suggested that all the houses would be needed. Had the new prison in Portlaoise been built by 1985, as was envisaged in 1978/79, there was no reason to doubt that the official accommodation provided would now be fully needed.

He considered that additional monitoring and control by a Cost Control/Supervisory Committee could have had no substantial impact on the cost increases on this project as practically all were accounted for either by the standard price variation provisions of the contract itself to take account of increases in the cost of labour and materials, or by a need which emerged to change substantially the design for the ducting of the heating.

The Accounting Officer was of the opinion that the cost of the houses, excluding general site works, was not very high, being less than the cost of a Garda house. In both cases the costs would be higher than a typical three bedroom house produced by a speculative builder, but the standards of workmanship and materials were also higher and OPW had advised that the higher standards paid off in terms of subsequent maintenance. He stated that in this case the costs of the site preparation were very significant due to the nature of the soil which turned out to be much more difficult than preliminary tests had suggested but that all efforts to find a suitable site elsewhere had failed. He pointed out that it was no longer the policy to build houses for prison officers.

He also stated that, while the sanction of the Department of Finance was sought on 8 March 1984 for expenditure of £6,250,000 i.e an increase of £89,000 over the £161,000 already sanctioned, this had not yet been received and it was understood that sanction would not be given until a request for discussions, made by the Department of Finance to OPW, had been met. While details of a further increse of £350,000 had not been officially received from OPW, the Department of Finance had been informed that such an increase was anticipated, but sanction had not yet been sought.

1707. Chairman.—We go straight into Vote 22 and on to the Portlaoise question which is where we adjourned — the question of the cost of the housing units which were visited by members of the committee yesterday in Portlaoise. We have with us also representatives of the Office of Public Works. The Committee thought it as well to have both. Has that gentleman just distributed a document? Is some document being distributed at the end of the room? This is totally out of order. This is a Committee of Parliament and no document can be submitted in this room this morning until the evidence of this Committee has been received. Would you kindly desist from circulating any documents and would you get a copy of the document for the Committee, please?

I should make it clear from the outset, Mr. Mathews, that this Committee is not into any public relations exercise; we are into finding out why this money was spent in the way it was and we are determined to find that out.

Perhaps we could circulate a copy to the members of the Committee. Some of the Deputies who visited Portlaoise yesterday might like to comment on the report.

Deputy Foley.—I think in fairness, that document has already been circulated. We have a copy of that.

1708. Chairman.—No, not to all of us. Mr. Mathews there is no precedent for circulating any documents to the press at a meeting like this. What you do in the Department of Justice is your business, but let there be no repetition of that before this Committee again.

Mr. Mathews.—Mr. Chairman, I assure you that what was given out here this morning was intended to be helpful both to the Committee and to everybody else concerned.

1709. Chairman.—The document was circulated to the press and not to the Committee. The opening pages of that document were circulated to the Committee. What goes on in this room is a matter for this Committee and for me as Chairman, and I will not permit that to happen ever again. I make that very clear.

Mr. Mathews:—I accept what you are saying. I just wish to assure you that there was no impropriety intended here this morning. I regret if any wrong construction has been put on anything we did. I am very sorry.

Chairman.—Is there any Deputy who wants to offer on this particular paragraph?

1710. Deputy Crotty.—Is it normal practice to build prison houses for prison officers? To provide prison officers with accommodation?

Mr. Mathews.—At the time in question, when these houses were built, it was the policy to build prison officers houses, or rather to provide two types of accommodation, suitable single accommodation for unmarried officers and houses for married officers. I should say that some of these houses were in replacement for existing prison officers houses which were situated along side the road fronting Portlaoise Prison and which had to be demolished —for security reasons and because they were totally outdated. The answer to your questions is that at that stage it was policy. There is still a major security consideration involved in having prison officers available in close proximity to a prison. When the siren goes in a prison and there is an emergency, it is extremely valuable to have a very quick response, to have officers living in close proximity to the prison. The policy of providing official housing is no longer in being, partly because, as of now we have sufficient prison officers houses adjacent to prisons at the moment.

1711. Deputy Crotty.—If a new prison was provided would you provide prison officer houses beside the prison as was provided in Portlaoise?

Mr. Mathews.—I find it difficult to answer that question. If any new prison that is on the stocks at all, it would possibly be the one in Portlaoise adjacent to these houses. I would say that, if we’re talking about a green field situation, if we were talking about putting a new prison in some place where there was not one already, we would have to look at the policy. I am not sure that the policy would be discontinued. If this new mythical prison were to be in the midst of a country area, where there was no living accommodation close by, it might be decided to revert to the policy of providing prison accommodation close to the prison, for the reasons I have stated. I cannot answer your question any more accurately than that.

1712. Deputy Crotty.—It would appear to me from your answer that the Department of Justice have now decided it is not necessary as of now?

Mr. Mathews:—As of now.

1713. Deputy Crotty.—That is important from this committee’s point of view because it would appear that the site in question was unsuitable, for a number of reasons, for the building of houses. In that sort of a situation would it not have been more opportune to get another site in the Portlaoise area? I want to qualify that by saying that Portlaoise is not a large town. It is a country town with 9,000 or 10,000 people and I think the local authority have procured sites fairly freely for housing in the area. Would it not have been opportune for the Department of Justice to do like wise in the circumstances, seeing that from a security point of view that no matter where the site was, even if they had to go out a slight bit from the town, they could be at the prison in three, four, five or six minutes?

Mr. Mathews.—For a start our advisers in relation to sites and the procurement of sites, in the Office of Public Works, and in fact the actual procurement of sites is done for us through the agency of the Office of Public Works. But my understanding is that suitable sites were just not available within a reasonable distance. Sites might have been available and possibly it was the problem of the price. My information is that suitable sites were not available. The site on which we built was already in the possession of the Department and it was known from the beginning that it was a difficult site. But I do not think it was known how difficult it was until operations actually commenced there. There was an additional value seen in having the houses on that particular site because it provided a buffer between the ordinary housing and ordinary usage of land in the vicinity of the site where the new prison was to be situated.

1714. Deputy Crotty.—Are you saying then that, if the houses were not built there, it would pose a security problem in the prison?

Mr. Mathews.—It might be putting it a little bit strong to say it would be a security problem but certainly there was a security advantage in having them there.

1715. Deputy Crotty.—From what point of view?

Mr. Mathews.—From the point of view of preventing access through private lands, shall we say, to the perimeter of the new high security prison which was to go up where we indicated.

1716. Deputy Crotty.—But the lands were the property of the Department of Justice; they were not private lands?

Mr. Mathews.—There was — I am not an expert on this — a previous assault on the prison, as far as I know, across these lands, using a massive reinforced tractor or earth moving machinery. If you are talking about a high security prison you have to provide for all sorts of eventualities. I am not saying that it was essential to have the houses there; I am saying it was deemed to be a security advantage to have this buffer between private lands and the prison property.

1717. Deputy Crotty.—Would you not be causing problems may be for the occupants of these houses in that they could be used for attack on the prison. I am getting into security problems, which is not our business, but at the same time it needs to be mentioned when this fact was mentioned.

Mr. Mathews.—There are so many aspects to security that you cannot safeguard against every eventuality, but it was thought that we were improving security and lessening the chances of an attack being made on the prison from private property, by having these houses built there in the possession of the Department and housing prison staff; that we were reducing the element of risk. I am not saying we were eliminating it altogether.

1718. Deputy Foley.—Just a few points I would like to put to Mr. Mathews. It may be repetition of what we have said before. Just 60 houses in all. Is that right?

Mr. Mathews.—Correct.

1719. Deputy Foley.—How many are occupied at the moment?

Mr. Mathews.—At the moment, to-day, the number is 51. You will understand that can fluctuate. Normally it has been running at between 50 and 60. As of today it is 51. People are moving in and out of them all the time.

1720. Deputy Foley.—In actual fact in June of 1985 there were 11 unoccupied. Why are they moving so often?

Mr. Mathews.—Transfers of staff. We have a constant problem in the prisons accommodating offenders and, as I understand it, it becomes necessary to transfer staff to cater for fluctuating numbers of offenders in different prisons. It is just the ordinary rotation of staff that occurs.

1721. Deputy Foley.—The other point I would like to make, Mr. Mathews, is this: The weekly rent was set at £9.50 and a contribution towards heating of £5. That was a total of £14.50. The rent allowance to the personnel up to December of 1984 was £20.86. So in actual fact there would be a profit for the individual occupant of the house of over £6 per week.

Mr. Mathews.—It is possible to put it that way but that is really a distortion not of the figures but of the actual position. As I explained the last day, rent allowance over the past 20 or 30 years has been regarded as an allowance which has absolutely nothing got to do with rent at all. This is actually made very explicit in the Louden Ryan report, which is the last major report in which this matter was examined.

1722. Deputy Foley.—What is the rent allowance at the moment?

Mr. Mathews.—£25.93.

1723. Deputy Foley.—The rent at the moment?

Mr. Mathews.—It is made up of different elements. There is a charge of £11.80 for rent, £5.40 for heat-related costs and tenants then have to pay for actual usage of heat on top of that.

1724. Deputy Foley.—How do you arrive at a figure for the usage of heat? Is it on a meter system?

Mr. Mathews.—There is a meter system.

1725. Deputy Foley.—That is £17.20. That would be running cost. But in actual fact the disparity has increased over the years between the actual rent and the heating allowance. It has gone from £6 approximately to over £8 in a period of a year and a half?

Mr. Mathews.—I am a bit lost with those last figures you gave me.

1726. Deputy Foley.—The figure you gave me was £25.93, the rent allowance. The actual rent they are liable for was £11.80. plus £5.40 towards heat, that is £17.20. There is a discrepancy of £8.70. So in actual fact the gap is widening.

Mr. Mathews.—The gap between what they pay and the rent allowance.

1727. Deputy Foley.—Between the actual rent allowance and what the liabilities are?

Mr. Mathews.—That is the point that I am trying to get across. The rent allowance as such has nothing whatever——

1728. Deputy Foley.—I would accept that, but the very name of rent allowance has to have some bearing on the actual outgoings?

Mr. Mathews.—You would think so, but in actual fact it has not. This is made absolutely clear by the Louden Ryan Committee, which last reviewed these things. I am quoting from paragraph 5.34 of the Louden Ryan Report and it says “It is universally regarded” — they are talking about rent allowance — “as an integral part of basic pay within the Garda Síochána”. While I am talking here about the Garda Síochána, but I want to make it absolutely clear that what applies to the Garda Síochána in this area applies directly across the board to the prison officers. Rent allowance is regarded as part of basic pay and this interpretation is supported by the of raising it in line with pay. The Ryan Committee goes on to say “We do not accept that the rent allowance should approximate to the full market rent payable to houses of a standard suitable for occupation by members of the force”. The same thing applies to members of the prison service. Later on the Committee comes to a very precise recommendation where they say “We recommend that a member of the force” — and again this applies right across the board to prison officers — “should pay rent which is not greater than one half of the rent allowance”.

Deputy Foley.—I am not disputing that.

1729. Chairman.—Is not the point, Mr. Mathews, that they are recommending that they should not get the full rental value — in other words they should get less than the rental value? Is that the point they are making?

Mr. Mathews.—No, the point that they have made quite clear is that rent allowance is really a misnomer. Rent allowance is really a basic part of pay.

1730. Chairman.—Do they pay tax on it?

Deputy Foley.—No.

Mr. Mathews.—The Gardaí do. I cannot be explicit about the prison officers. I am not absolutely certain. I understand that they do.

1731. Deputy Foley.—I am not making an issue, but the comparison I am making is that when the contract was signed in 1980 it was £3.6 million, working out at approximately £33.000 per house. The overall cost is in the region of £78,000 per house. I am just taking the basic local authority house as costing between £20,000 and £23,000. It is costing the State between £70 and £100 per week to service those houses. On that basis, these houses must be costing in the region of £140 to £160 per week to service and review their cost, and we find that on comparison the rent is £17.20 at this point. You cannot do anything about it now. The original idea may have been a good idea but certainly in hindsight it has worked out very badly for the taxpayer.

Mr. Mathews.—I appreciate the point. The rent allowance for all these houses is fixed at conciliation and arbitration hearings.

1732. Deputy Foley.—I am not talking about the rent allowance. I am talking about the rent for the houses.

Mr. Mathews.—The rent also is fixed. The stock of houses is divided into different categories, ranging from excellent to poor, and the rent is agreed for each category of house.

1733. Deputy Foley.—The point I am making, and I do not want to make an issue of it, is that at the moment the rent allowance is £25.93. If these houses had never been built and if these people had to rent houses in Portlaoise they certainly would not get any houses in the region of £17 to £20 per week, they would be nearer to double that figure, based on my information of the locality. It is past tense at the moment, but it is something that certainly should never again happen and certainly we have to highlight the way the figures escalated over a period of time. The figure given for heating each houses is £12,730. It appears to be an extraordinary figure for a scheme of houses. If they were isolated houses——

Mr. Mathews.—Well, I accept what you say. However, I have gone into this in considerable detail. It was not something we set out to do. It is something that happened and I have explained how it happened.

1734. Deputy Foley.—I accept that. The only reason I am making the point is that we have to make an issue on the basis of it being cost effective. We have to report on it as a committee.

Chairman.—The final cost of the heating was actually £13,400.

1735. Deputy Foley.—Yes. That was a figure that was increased at a later stage. The original figure was given at £12,000 approximately, £12,730.

1736. Chairman.—The houses were built by the Board of Works, or were private contractors involved?

Mr. Mathews.—Private contractor. The Board of Works were involved in the architectural work and in the supervisory work, but the actual building was by a private contractor.

1737. Chairman.—But the original site was a boggy site that lead to extra costings. Is that right?

Mr. Mathews.—That is true.

1738. Chairman.—Who approved the various stages of these expenditures? Was it the Office of Public Works or your Department?

Mr. Mathews.—The details of what happens and what expenditure is necessary are supervised by the Office of Public Works but in the final analysis the Department of Justice have to get the sanction for this payment and pay it from our Vote.

1739. Chairman.—When you are making interim payments would you make them on foot of recommendations from the Office of Public Works or your own staff?

Mr. Mathews.—We rely very heavily on the Office of Public Works staff. We have no qualified architectural or engineering staff in our Department.

1740. Chairman.—The final cost of £78,300 does not include the cost of the site of the house because you owned the land already.

Mr. Mathews.—That is true.

1741. Chairman.—What is the site of each house? Is it a third of an acre or quarter of an acre or what is the site of the house?

Mr. Mathews.—I really could not give you——

Chairman.—Perhaps the Office of Public Works could tell us. The architect is here.

Mr. Griffith.—Approximately 12 houses to the acre.

1742. Chairman.—What would you estimate is the cost of a site of that size per house?

Mr. Griffith.—I could not given you a figure. You probably know that sites vary from location to location, depending on the actual location and also depending on demand.

1743. Chairman.—We are not taking about £10,000 a site and probably we are not talking about £1,000 per site.

Mr. Griffith.—I would imagine it would be some place in between. I could not put a figure on it.

Chairman.—Maybe £4,000 or something of that order. What I am getting at is that that price is not included in the £78,300.

Mr. Griffith.—Not, it is not.

1744. Deputy Naughten.—By way of clarification, first of all, in the C & A.G.’s report it states that the additional cost with regard to the heating system was £376,000. However, in a further document submitted it states the additional cost was £600,000. Which is the correct figure?

Mr. Griffith.—The £600,000 is the correct one.

1745. Deputy Naughten.—That is the overall cost?

Mr. Griffith.—That is based on the final account.

1746. Deputy Naughten.—So the original cost was approximately £150,000 and the additional cost was £450,000. Is that correct? The original estimated cost for the heating system was approximately £150,000. The final cost was £450,000. Is that correct?

Mr. Mathews.—I can give you the final figure. It could confirm that that was £600,000. I am not aware how or where the other figure that you——

Chairman.—I think the C. & A.G. can clear that up for us.

Mr. McDonnell.—In regard to the figures Deputy Naughten is concerned with, if you look at my paragraph, on the third page, you will see he is talking about the £535,000. That £535,000 is for additional items, not just the heating. The up-to-date of that figure is on the schedule, it comes out at £610,000. Included in the £535,000 was the £376,000 of which the up-date, looking at the schedule, is £456,000.

Deputy Naughten.—The up-date is £456,000 which means that the original cost was approximately £150,000, if the total cost is £610,000.

Mr. McDonnell.—No, the additional cost of the heating was originally stated to be £376,300. The additional cost comes out finally at £456,000. The difference is not the original cost. They are both an extra on the additional cost. I have not the figure for the original cost.

1747. Deputy Naughten.—That is what I am trying to establish. What was the original cost?

Mr. McDonnell.—Sorry, I thought——

1748. Chairman.—Have we the figure for the original cost?

Deputy Naughten.—This is very important.

Mr. McDonnell.—I am sorry, I have not got it at the moment. Unless my colleagues from the Office of Public Works have it.

Chairman.—Would the Office of Public Works have that figure?

Mr. Griffith.—Yes. as you will see the figures you have before you the final figure was £610,000.

Chairman.—The original figure is what we are trying to get back to.

Mr. Griffith.—Working back then, you will see there that we have included £456,000 for modification of the district heating system which, in essence, was the installation of the duct. If you take one from the other you will get your £150,000, which was the——

Deputy Naughten.—Which is the cost I mentioned.

Mr. Griffith.—The cost of the scheme with the ribbon circulation system.

1749. Deputy Naughten.—In other words, Chairman, what we had here was a scheme designed with a heating system costing about £3,300 which escalated to £13,400. That speaks for itself from the very word “go”. It was utter lunacy to put in that type of a heating system, whoever considered it first of all. Secondly, could I have the final and total cost of professional fees and whom were they paid to?

Mr. Mathews.—The final figure for fees is £540,000.

1750. Deputy Naughten.—Who received those fees?

Mr. Mathews.—The mechanical/electrical engineer, the structural engineers and the quantity surveyor. They would be the main people with the fees.

Deputy Naughten.—Who are those engineers employed by?

Mr. Mathews.—They are engaged by the Office of Public Works.

Deputy Naughten.—They received in excess of £500,000 out of this project?

Mr. Mathews.—That is right.

Deputy Naughten.—Very generous fees by any standards one would imagine?

Mr. Mathews.—They are the standard scale fees, which are the agreed fees arranged by the professional institute involved, which are payable for all contracts of this nature, not just ours.

Deputy Naughten.—Would that be approximately £9,000 per house?

Mr. Mathews.—You could work it out that way, but I do not think it is an appropriate way to do it.

Deputy Naughten.—Would that not be half the value of the house today?

Mr. Mathews.—No, apart from the houses the fees relate also to the staff residence, the whole lay-out of the estate.

1751. Chairman.—They would be worked out as a percentage of the gross value, so the higher the value the higher the fee?

1752. Deputy Naughten.—That is the point I was getting around to make. What was the original scale of fees envisaged to be?

Mr. Mathews.—That is the system in operation.

1753. Deputy Naughten.—So that those people, human nature being what it is, would have a vested interest in ensuring that this particular project cost as much as possible?

Mr. Mathews.—I would not comment on that. that.

Deputy Naughten.—But that is a fact of life?

Mr. Mathews.—The fees that applied in this contract are the same as apply in any other similar contract.

Deputy Naughten.—That does not necessarily say they are right?

Mr. Mathews.—I know.

Deputy Naughten.—The point there is that there is no reason whatsoever why anybody should be trying to get out of that contract at the original price?

Mr. Mathews.—The only point I would like to make is that it would be wrong to think that consultants on a contract of this nature have an absolute free hand just to do what they like. The whole contract was supervised by professional supervisory staff from the Office of Public Works.

1754. Deputy Naughten.—The Board of Works had consultants employed to carry out and supervise this who got professional fees of £540,000. They were also in turn supervised by the Board of Works. Is that correct?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes.

1755. Deputy Naughten.—We have already established that the site was free, in so far as that the site that the houses were built on cost nothing. What was the cost of the site development — the knocking of the houses already there, the diversification of the drains and other auxiliary works before the contractors went in on the site?

Mr. Mathews.—We have those figures. The site works in total amounted to £2.54 million.

1756. Deputy Naughten.—Now, are you quite clear about what I asked? What I asked was the cost of the demolition of the houses that had to be demolished and the diversification of the drain. Were they not a separate contract?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes. We have all those figures. The whole site works are made up of various components. There was a site drainage enclosure done in the period 1980 to 1984 and that cost £0.92 million. The site drainage and enclosure cost £0.92 million. That is in relation to whole site, all houses and the whole estate.

1757. Deputy Naughten.—That is the diversification of these drains, these rivers? I am not talking about the storm water. I am talking about the water courses that had to be changed and the demolition of the houses which had to be demolished.

Mr. Mathews.—Yes. The figure of £0.92 million includes all the diversion of waterways and all the other works that had to be done on the whole site, including the site for the prison, which we have not built on yet; and then the demolition of the old houses and the erection of a wall along the new road frontage, that was £0.27 million.

1758. Deputy Naughten.—That was in addition to the figures that we are talking about here for the construction of the houses, roadways, etc. heating systems?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes.

1759. Deputy Naughten.—One of the points made very forcibly on a number of occasions yesterday was the security aspect of those houses and of having people living adjacent to the prison. As I understand it, prison officers are free to come and go as they please. Although God knows, I do not know why they leave the accommodation, which is subsidised, with, by and large, free heating and repairs, water charges and all the other charges that a normal family would have. But they do not have to stay there; they are free to come and go?

Mr. Mathews.—That is true. There is no compunction on them to live right beside the prison; but it is in our interest to encourage them to do so to have them readily available when needed.

1760. Deputy Naughten.—In fact it is quite possible that in five years’ time those houses could all be lying idle?

Mr. Mathews.—It is possible, but given the fact that there is still a prison there and the prospect in future of another prison there is no real indication to think that that will happen.

1761. Deputy Naughten.—But you are finding it hard to keep them filled at the present?

Mr. Mathews.—No. Fifty-one of them are occupied at the moment. Occupancy has gone up as high as 55 and 57. These are people moving in and out at various times.

1762. Deputy Naughten.—Due to the cost of site works, which now has increased as a result of this extra £1.1 million that we see included for the diversification of drainage and that type of thing, would it not have been substantially cheaper and much safer to have built a similar type wall as is at the back around where those houses are to cut off that site and just leave it lying waste there?

Mr. Mathews.—There was a decision at the time that accommodation was to be provided for prison officers and they had to be accommodated somewhere. The information we had was that no other suitable site was available in the vicinity. We did not have the option of not building houses. Having to build them, it was decided that this was the most suitable location for them.

1763. Deputy Naughten.—But on my way into Portlaoise yesterday I saw thousands of acres of green fields within a couple of hundred yards of that particular site. Why not have bought a site there within a couple of hundred yards of the site that you built on?

Mr. Mathews.—The information I have is that the Office of Public Works searched the vicinity before the decision was taken to build on that particular site and their findings were that no suitable site was available. When you talk about suitable I imagine that cost and everything else much come into it. I just do not know. The information we had quite definitely was that no other suitable site was available adjacent to where it was required.

1764. Deputy Naughten.—Then surely they have built on the most unsuitable site in the country?

Mr. Mathews.—All I can say on that is what I said before. That it was known that the site was difficult. There was other considerations and it was not known that the site was actually as difficult as it transpired to be.

1765. Deputy Naughten.—Did your Department ever hear of a thing called a compulsory purchase order, which is available to local authorities? Had you gone to the local authority and asked them to make X acres of land available?

Mr. Mathews.—We have heard of it, but we do not acquire sites.

Deputy Naughten.—No, but the local authority do.

Mr. Mathews.—Yes, but the point I am making is that, for the acquisition of sites or building work, as I explained before, we rely on the agency of the Office of Public Works.

Deputy Naughten.—Which obviously were very unsuitable on this occasion? With regard to the single accommodation at how much per unit did that work out?

Mr. Mathews.—The total cost of the canteen is £2.04 million for the 60 residents which works out at £30,000 per occupancy.

Chairman.—Thirty three, is it not?

Mr. Mathews.—Sorry, £33,000, this includes the general and the other communal facilities.

1766. Deputy Naughten.—You will agree that this is a gigantic sum. Having visited that site yesterday, I am satisfied that if those houses were put up for sale tomorrow morning their sale price would be approximately £20,000. Despite the fact that we have discussed this on two occasions and visited the site I am not yet satisfied nor can I understand how £78,000 was spent per house. This is a very serious situation and we will have to consider the possibility of employing outside consultants to prepare a detailed report as to how this money could have been spent.

1767. Deputy Colley.—If I might begin at what I see as the beginning of the problem, which is the choosing of this site. Could I ask Mr. Mathews, in relation to the decision to build on this site, what site investigations were carried out before that decision was taken?

Mr. Mathews.—I would have to ask that that question be directed to the Office of Public Works.

Mr. Griffith.—Our consultants did a thorough site investigation, as we always do on every site before we commence design work.

1768. Deputy Colley.—While accepting that you say, it is the case that when the contractors moved on to the site it was discovered that there was a great number of very difficult problems that had to be contended with that had not been foreseen.

Mr. Griffith.—That is true. This is not the only site where that occurred. We can never be totally sure from a site investigation about what the total site conditions are. You will appreciate that a site investigation involves probing, digging trial holes at selected points around the site, and we find out what those probings and those trial holes reveal. That does not cover the whole site. When trenches were being cut to dig foundations on this site, we discovered we encountered springs that had not been revealed in the site investigation at all. The only way that one could possibly be sure of the state of the total site would be to bring in a bulldozer and scoop all the soil off down to the depth that you want to go, pile it to one side, go down and have a look and see exactly what the state of play is all over the site. That would be enormously costly and just would not be on.

1769. Deputy Colley.—Nevertheless, as a lay person who stood in the communal building yesterday and looked out the end window towards the main prison that there is obviously a difference between the land on which the accommodation was built and the land on which the proposed new prison is to be built. The difference is that the land on which the accommodation was built is marshy. There are still pools of water around the place in the access ground. One could see that there was a lot of underground water.

Mr. Griffith.—We knew that there was underground water. At least, we knew there was a great deal of water on the site, that it was a very damp site, but we did not know that there were springs on the site. What we could not have anticipated either was that the two winters of 1981-82 and 1982-83, were two of the wettest winters that were ever recorded. That can be confirmed from the Meteorological Office. Those conditions were totally against the contractor in his work.

1770. Deputy Colley.—Could Mr. Griffith tell the Committee what type of report he submitted to the Department of Justice having done the site investigation. Was it on the basis that building was possible but difficult or did he advise against building?

Mr. Griffith.—I cannot recall now the exact wording of any information we would have conveyed to the Department of Justice, but from my general knowledge of the case we would have said — and I would ask my architect colleague to confirm this — that the site was difficult and a site that one would prefer not to have to build on if one could avoid it.

1771. Deputy Colley.—Could Mr. Mathews confirm what advice the OPW gave the Department?

Mr. Mathews.—My understanding of the position is that we would not have got a report of that nature saying that this site could not be built on, or something to that effect. The idea was that the building was to take place on that site and that no other suitable site was available.

1772. Deputy Colley.—My understanding from Mr. Griffith is that before the decision to build was taken that site investigations were carried out. You are saying that the decision to build was taken first by the Department and then site investigations were carried out. That would seem to me to mean that the Department were getting themselves into a possibly bottomless pit of expense and they did not know and they still said they would go ahead.

Mr. Mathews.—My understanding is that there was no indication that the Department were getting themselves into a bottomless pit or into any serious difficulties at all. As far as the Department were concerned this site was suitable. What we were told was that there was no other suitable site available so the understanding from that was that this site was suitable. It was known to be difficult but not impossible.

1773. Deputy Colley.—On the issue of the security buffer between private housing and the proposed prison — I know this has been covered in some detail here this morning — but could I ask Mr. Mathews if he thinks it is fair to use prison officers as a buffer in that instance? As we were walking around yesterday it was pointed out that difficulties have emerged in the past because of infiltration of, for instance, deliveries to prison officers’ accommodation and the like. Is it fair that prison officers and their families should be seen as being the buffers?

Mr. Mathews.—I would not like the use of the word “buffer” to be taken too literally, or to give the impression that we are deliberately putting officers or their families at any risk. There is a security advantage in having houses of this nature, where we have some control over who goes in there instead of just having a private housing estate where you do not know who is there, who is overlooking the prison or what damage could be caused. I do not want it to be thought that we are placing prison officers and their families at some kind of risk. The purpose was to build accommodation for prison officers. It was thought that it was in the interests of everybody to have them near at hand, and to secure this area by having some control over its use. These were the considerations. We were not putting anybody at risk.

1774. Deputy Colley.—I would just like to make it clear that I am not trying to get into whether or not a policy decision is the right decision, but I think the policy decision taken in this case directly resulted in a huge overspending on this particular accommodation. Therefore, I think it is worthwhile looking at what exactly is behind that policy decision. The alternative was always there to leave the place unused or at least to secure it in other ways that other premises are. If I could move on to the heating system, which we viewed yesterday. My initial question is why — and this could possibly go to the Office of Public Works again — were investigations not carried out on the ribbon duct heating system, which was in existence for approximately ten years before it was incorporated in these plans. Why were investigations not carried out before it was specified rather than ten months into the building?

Mr. Mathews.—I think I would prefer if that question were directed to the Office of Public Works.

1775. Chairman.—Mr. Griffith, are you in a position to answer that question?

Mr. Griffith.—We were advised by our consultants initially that a district heating system was a very appropriate system to use in the particular circumstances. It is important to remember at this stage that at that time we were talking about not only building a scheme of houses for prison officers but of developing the adjoining site as a high security prison. The heating system to be installed was to heat the new prison and the existing prison and the recommendation we got was that there was sufficient capacity in the boiler house to heat the adjoining housing development as well. We must also remember that at that time we were all very conscious of conserving energy and cutting down on energy use. Here was an opportunity to use what you might term surplus heat from this new system which would otherwise have gone up the chimney to heat this housing development next door.

1776. Deputy Colley.—The point I am trying to get at is that when it got to ten months into the building the Office of Public Works decided to go and investigate this system for some reason, and we have not actually been told what alerted them to the problem. But they went to Northen Ireland and to a number of places in England to investigate and the results of those investigations were that there were serious faults in the system as it was to be maintained. What I want to know is why that kind of investigation could not have been carried out before this system was specified, because on the result of that specification there was apparently no choice but the go for the enormously costly alternative when the first one did not work out.

Mr. Griffith.—The concept of district heating was relatively new at that stage and it was regarded as a very efficient and cost effective system. It was the new thinking in this particular area. It had been adopted in many centres in Britain, in one or two in the North of Ireland, and quite extensively on the Continent, and quite successfully. I do not think it is correct to say that the ribbon system of distribution was totally unsatisfactory. It came to our notice through technical reports published that in some instances the ribbon system of distribution had caused problems, and when we discovered that we then said we had better look into this further. It was at that stage, and arising out of those technical reports that some systems had created problems, that we went ahead and carried out an investigation then. We did find that in a few cases there had been problems. In other cases there were no problems for some reason or other. We did get a recommendation where the problems had existed that these problems were possible — they would not necessarily always happen but they were possible. The recommendation made to us was that the safest system from the point of eliminating these problems and from the point of view of future maintenance was to have a duct.

Deputy Colley.—I believe it is true that one of the investigations that you made in Britain unearthed the fact that, on a district heating system for 1,100 houses, 70,000 gallons of water per day were being lost in that system and that the people who were running it did not know where it was going for a long time. That seems to me to be a fairly major basic fault in that particular system which, I am submitting, if the proper investigations were done before the specifications were laid down, some questions would have arisen about that system.

Mr. Griffith.—I do not think it would be correct to say that that was a basic fault. It was a fault that certainly occurred in that system. I cannot confirm or deny the figures in this report for the loss, but I know that there was a substantial loss in that particular system. But it would be unfair to say that it was a basic defect in that entire concept; nevertheless, that particular case indicated that it was a possibility. One of the things arising from that is that, if that sort of situation occurs, you do not know where exactly the fault is. You have to dig up the footpath or road, possibly for a long distance, in order to find the actual fault. Whereas with the duct system you can walk down underneath, you can see the drip and know exactly where the fault is.

Deputy Colley.—That brings me to my next point, which is that because that ribbon system was chosen first and was found to be unworkable in this situation, or not chosen to be taken on board because of the problems, we were left with what seems to me to be an unnecessary expensive system of a walk-in duct, which we walked through yesterday and which is certainly obviously up to the highest standard but seems quite unnecessary for ordinary three-bedroomed houses.

The point I am putting to the committee is that I think the initial decision to go for that particular system predestined the final expenditure. That is why I am questioning the initial decision. There are a couple of other points that I might bring up.

Chairman.—Deputy Noel Dempsey wants to contribute and then back to Deputy Crotty. We did deal with this at the previous meeting. I propose after that to deal with a recommendation and then move on to the next item.

1777. Deputy Colley.—I will be as short as I can. Relating to the cost controls which were in place during the building, I would like to ask Mr. Mathews, if he is the correct person to answer, how frequently were the cost control reports being made to the Office of Public Works and the Department of Justice during the building?

Mr. Mathews.—The progress report meetings on this project would have been held between officials from our Department and officials from the Office of Public Works approximately once a month.

Mr. Griffith.—We had regular meetings with the Department of Justice right through this project and indeed through all the projects we do for the Department of Justice. We also would get regular reports from our quantity surveyor. That is part of his job: to give us regular progress reports on expenditure.

Mr. Mathews.—My understanding from discussions I have had on this case is that in fact there were no reports on cost control on that regular a basis. I am not doubting what you say about having discussions and meetings, but that the cost controls were not discussed on as regular a basis as once a month and that that is the mechanism needed in order to keep the cost down. In fact it was not kept down in this case.

Mr. Griffith.—Maybe we are slightly at odds here. Could I ask the Deputy what exactly she means by cost control?

1778. Deputy Colley.—I mean a report on the costings. I know that at the moment in State contracts it is happening almost on a daily basis, certainly on a weekly basis. At the time that this building was going on it was going on on a monthly basis. That would have been the accepted practice. I would like it confirmed that the costs involved in this building were examined at least on a regular monthly basis.

Mr. Griffith.—I should mention on this particular point that there was not what you would call a regular fixed arrangement for reviewing expenditure or for examining costs. We did have regular meetings with the Department of Justice, as Mr. Mathews has said, to discuss the expenditure on the project. We did get regular reports from the quantity surveyor, not as often as once a month, but we would get regular reports from the quantity surveyor, approximately every three months, on the progress of the job and the costs involved. Should I explain something else on this particular point? In the past five or six years — actually before this job was completed — the Department of Finance issued instructions to us in regard to enforcing stricter controls on the execution of contracts. We also had recommendations from the Committee on Public Expenditure in regard not only to cost controls but also in regard to the method we use in preparing estimates and we have taken those instructions and those recommendations on board. We are now following a tighter estimating and cost controlling procedure than was the practice at the time this contract was carried out.

1779. Deputy Colley.—You would acknowledge then, Mr. Griffith, that the infrequency of cost control reports could contribute, and probably does contribute, to excessive costs in any building project?

Mr. Griffith.—No, I would not say that. We are not getting costings any more frequently now under the new rules that we are operating than we were then. It is normal practice, on a contract of this size that we get quarterly detailed costings from the quantity surveyor and that is about normal. That was being done on this contract and it is being done under the new rules now.

1780. Deputy Colley.—The quantity surveyor, it seems to me then, is the person who is in control of the situation on the ground. Was he given a brief? Was he told if it goes above a certain level, come back to us, or if it goes above a certain level, call a halt?

Mr. Griffith.—No. He has not got that authority as a quantity surveyor.

1781. Deputy Colley.—I mean, did you ask him as part of his contract to liaise with you if the costs went above a certain level?

Mr. Griffith.—No. In his cost reports he will give us details of every expenditure incurred on the contract and whether it is payable in accordance with the terms of the contract.

1782. Deputy Colley.—A last question on that particular point. I understand that £.58 million has not yet received Department of Finance sanction. Could Mr. Mathews confirm that in fact there is a sum of £.58 million still outstanding on this contract and if so who has not been paid?

Mr. Griffith.—I cannot answer in regard to who has not been paid but we have Department of Finance sanction for £6.16 million out of the total. Finance sanction is outstanding for the balance of £.58 million but we are still negotiating with the Department of Finance for that.

Chairman.—What is the problem?

Mr. Griffith.—Maybe the Department of Finance could answer that. It is mainly that discussions are still taking place between the Department of Finance and Office of Public Works people.

1783. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. John Smith or Mr. Colm Gallagher might be able to tell us.

Mr. Smith (Department of Finance).—As I said on the last day here, I think this is one of the most difficult cases ever to come before Department of Finance. Looking at it in retrospect, nobody can justify the type of expenditure that actually resulted at the end of the day. That is not to say that there was incompetence or that, it just happened that way. The Department of Justice and the Office of Public Works got into a situation where, as they went along, they discovered that it took more and more money to keep the show on the road. It is very difficult to justify expenditure of £78,000 on three-bedroomed houses. We spoke about this the last day. We did not rush off. We thought about it in the meantime all right but we did not want to decide before we would have the benefit of this review here today with the Office of Public Works and the Department of Justice. We will certainly have to decide one way or the other whether we are going to sanction it or not. I cannot say at the moment whether we will sanction it.

1784. Chairman.—On what basis do you have reservations about this?

Mr. Smith.—Just the final cost. It is very difficult to justify that.

1785. Deputy Foley.—Can I just ask one question, Chairman? What would happen if this outstanding money is not sanctioned? What will be the outcome if this £5 million is not sanctioned by the Department of Finance?

Mr. Smith.—I had some research done since the last day I was here and I will just summarise it. The Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924, sets down that the Department of Finance is responsible for the supervision and control of all purchases made by Government Departments and commodities supplied and that the expenses of each of the Departments, the outside Departments, may spend up to such an amount as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance. This requirement, that expenditure must have Department of Finance sanction, is confirmed by section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act, 1921, which provides that expenditure not having Department of Finance sanction may not be properly charged against a supply grant and must be reported to the Dáil by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Unfortunately, the law does not go on to say what happens subsequent to that and that is a rather grey area. In fact, we could not turn up any precedent where in the past Department of Finance sanction has been refused for money that was already charged up in an appropriate account.

1786. Deputy Foley.—Do I take it that there could always be a first time and does it mean that somebody will be surcharged?

Chairman.—Someone that has £0.5 million to spare.

Mr. Smith.—I think the surcharge in this case would be impracticable. The amount of money is too big. One could not even consider that as an option at all.

Deputy Foley.—I take it you could be creating a unique situation where the Department of Finance may not sanction this £0.57 million?

Mr. Smith.—It could happen, but I am not saying it is going to happen. It is just a possibility.

Chairman.—I am going to allow Deputy Colley one last question. Deputy Dempsey has been patiently waiting.

1787. Deputy Colley.—Would I be right in saying that the contractors and consultants involved have all been paid their final account, that the retention figure has been paid?

Mr. Mathews.—I would have to refer that question to the Office of Public Works. I think there are some outstanding accounts yet to be paid.

Mr. Griffith.—The final account has been paid to the contractor but all the fees have not been paid.

1788. Deputy Colley.—Have some of the consultants been fully paid?

Mr. Griffith.—I cannot answer that definitely. There may be some small balances for same. But I know that the fees have not been cleared in toto.

1789. Deputy Dempsey.—It appears that the kernel of the problem is the extra expenditure and how it arose. The finger seems to be pointing to the Office of Public Works at the moment, in my mind anyway. Mr. Griffith has said that a thorough survey of the site was carried out and later on, when the work started — I am quoting him again — in his recommendation he said that the Office of Public Works did not know that there were springs there. I do not think the two statements are compatible. If a thorough survey was done, something like that, that was obviously seen yesterday by members of this committee, that it was a very wet site, would it not be a basic minimum that some kind of a hydrological survey of the area would have been done before final recommendation would have been made?

Mr. Griffith.—In my experience we have never carried out a hydrological survey of a land site. It is interesting that you should mention that point about hydrological surveys. We have done surveys in water to see where rock was for the purpose of deepening works, and we have done probings. You do not carry out your examination every foot of the way; you take it at 15 or 20 foot intervals. There is a particular case which comes to my mind where we did that and yet our survey revealed no rock at the depth to which we wished to go, but when we came to do the work we encountered rock and it was in an incredible fashion. The rock was like corrugated paper and our soundings and probings all took place in the valleys and bypassed the humps. I am mentioning that as an indication of what can happen. As I said in reply to Deputy Colley’s question, the only way to be absolutely sure is to clear off the site totally and then see what is there and that is just not on.

1790. Deputy Dempsey.—Was the Office of Public Works asked to look elsewhere for a site, or were they told that this was to be the site and to do the survey there and find out what difficulties might arise? Or were they told to find a suitable site in the general area? What were the instructions to the Office of Public Works from the Department?

Mr. Griffith.—We were asked to investigate the possibility of acquiring a convenient, suitable site and we did not succeed in finding a convenient, suitable site. At that stage the Department and ourselves were forced back on to this site that we did eventually develop.

1791. Deputy Dempsey.—Could I briefly ask what efforts were made to find a convenient, suitable site? Can you tell me what different efforts were made?

Mr. Griffith.—I cannot tell you precisely what was done in this case but I can tell you that our normal procedure, when we are looking for a site in any area, is first of all to go around and see are there any “for sale” signs. Then we approach the estate agents in the vicinity and ask them are they aware of any sites, or have they any sites on their books. We would also approach the local authorities and ask them have they any sites available or do they know of any sites that are available.

1792. Deputy Dempsey.—Can you confirm that those procedures were followed in this case?

Mr. Griffith.—I cannot put my hand on my heart and say that all that was done. Whoever would have done it is not among us here, but I can say that that is our general procedure.

Mr. Mathews.—We do not have our records here either, but it is recollected that in fact we did get information of this nature from the Office of Public Works that they had gone through these procedures.

1793. Deputy Dempsey.—I would like confirmation of that if at all possible, of all the various efforts that were made, because I think it is crucial to the actual siting of this.

Chairman.—Would Mr. Griffith or Mr. Mathews send on a note about that please? Whoever has the relevant information.

1794. Deputy Dempsey.—It was not very clear to me, as a result of the questioning that took place earlier on, what exact recommendations were made by the Office of Public Works to the Department. I certainly think that before we would make any decision on this particular issue we would have to see the recommendations from the Office of the Public Works to the Department of Justice. As I say, the kernel of the whole problem is the extra expenditure. The extra expenditure occurred basically, apart from the heating, because of the nature of the site and the problems that arose. If the Office of Public Works recommended or said to the Department of Justice that this was not a suitable site or that it was going to cost more than was estimated, I think it is the Department of Justice that will have to answer. We cannot make a final decision until we know that.

1795. Chairman.—Would the committee agree that we should get a written note on that as well?

1796. Deputy Crotty.—I could not agree more with the previous speaker, Deputy Dempsey, about the site. I have no doubt whatsoever in a country area, which Portlaoise is, that if enough money is offered a site will be made available. I am speaking from knowledge of a similar town. It would appear to me — I do not want to be making statements; I should be asking questions — that it was decided to build on this site, full stop. This ended in a cost of £78,000 per house, which is not acceptable. I would say sincerely that I do not think that the Department of Justice or the Office of Public Works ever envisaged that they might get themselves into that type of a situation. But, as a committee, we must refer to it and certainly note it. There are a couple of items on which I would like clarification. It was mentioned that there was a change in the heating situation when it was discovered that the original system would not be suitable, that it had faults. A new system had to be adopted and this created a substantial extra cost. What would it have cost, or what problems would have arisen, if the design of the estate was changed at that stage to provide individual heating boilers, as we have in most houses of this kind? Why was this not undertaken when the problem arose? It was ridiculous, as Deputy Colley mentioned, to walk under tunnels. I have walked in similar tunnels under Kilkenny Castle and it was ridiculous to see this type of tunnel under three-bedroomed houses. It was mentioned yesterday that it was not a security risk, but I have my doubts. I think it could even be a security risk, because any tunnel is a security risk in the area of a prison. Getting back to the general question, why was the design not changed? What would it have cost to change the design at that stage, or need the design have been changed? In the existing system could individual heating units not have been installed?

Mr. Griffith.—If we had decided to do what the Deputy is suggesting the first thing that would have happened is that we would have had to stop work on the site. That would inevitably have led to a disruption claim from the contractor, and he would be perfectly justified in making such a claim. That would have cost us money. The amount of money would depend on the length of the stoppage. It is not possible to put a figure on it. The second thing we would have to do is completely redesign the lay-out of the estate. If we were to put in individual heating systems as Mr. Mathews has mentioned, the maintenance of these houses is a matter for the State, instead of having to maintain one heating system, as we do now, we would have to maintain 61 individual heating systems in the 61 buildings on the site. That would affect maintenance costs very significantly in the future. The redesign of the scheme would have cost money. We have not set out to attempt to cost what the extra expenditure would have been by reason of the change, but we are satisfied that it would have been at least as costly as what we did, if not even more costly. We are also satisfied that in the future, if we had made this change, maintenance costs would be significantly higher than they will be with the system that we now have.

1797. Deputy Crotty.—Are there problems with the present system? I am led to believe that there are.

Mr. Griffith.—My latest information on that is that there are some minor problems with valves or something in the meters. Most of the initial problems were taken care of by the contractor, under guarantee. Where other problems have occurred they are I am told of a very minor nature.

1798. Deputy Crotty.—I am led to believe that there is quite substantial maintenance on the present system.

Mr. Griffith.—That is not my information. My information is that there is some little problem caused by the mineral content of the water which caused jamming of valves or something like that. It affected 11 out of the total valves. Whatever remedial action is required is not very expensive.

1799. Chairman.—We have spent nearly an hour and a half on this one Vote and I do not want to get back into detail. We spent the previous day on the same issue and we have already visited the estate, so everybody had a good bite. It is time we started to wind up.

Deputy Crotty.—I just have one other question to put. What could be attributed to the development cost per house, development of the site? Could you break it down to cost per house? We arrived at something like £2.4 million with an addition of £1.19 million, whether you would put that down to houses or not.

Mr. Griffith.—The site works per house and the figures we have provided is £33,600. That includes £13,400 in respect of the whole heating system, so that the site works as a proportion per house work out at £20,000.

Deputy Crotty.—The clerical works worked out at £20,000 per house. I think that that is a darning figure. I made inquiries about the cost of houses recently built by the local authority in a similar town, which is Kilkenny. In 1983, which would be a similar time, we had first class houses provided for £21,300 per unit — a scheme of 40 houses. This document was circulated today. I do not think that should have been circulated. I would not have used these figures but for the fact that this document was circulated. I have figures here running from 1983 to 1986. The highest figure for a scheme of 62 houses, finished early this year, model houses which are attracting attention countrywide, from landscaping, from development generally, and the cost per unit was £26,000. We have a site development of £33,000 — that is not acceptable. Our investigation here has certainly not answered questions that need to be answered about this expenditure.

1800. Chairman.—I think we will have to bring this matter to a conclusion for today. It is very clear to everybody that it is the view of this Committee that this is an unmitigated fiasco without precedent.

1801. Deputy Naughten.—In regard to the document which Deputy Crotty refers to, which was circulated, I think it is an insult to this committee and a sleight of hand, may I hasten to add, to circulate a document which refers to inner city housing to try and justify the cost of housing in Portlaoise, which was a total fiasco. The cost of building a house in Roscommon at the time those houses were built by the local authority was £21 per square foot. I reckon your costs are somewhere in the region of £70 per square foot. That is disgraceful and an insult to this Committee that that document should be circulated.

Chairman.—I dealt with that at the beginning and I think I made my own anger very clear. The Accounting Officer has apologised for it.

1802. Deputy Crotty.—Were there any penalty clauses in this contract? The contract was to be delivered in February 1983 and it was not delivered until November 1984. That would have been a fairly substantial cost.

Chairman.—This would be a question for the Office of Public Works.

Mr. Griffith.—Yes, there was a delay. The time originally specified was overrun, but that was largely due to (1) weather conditions and (2) to the fact that we had this addition to the contract in the shape of the duct, which did take extra time. We did grant an extension to the contractor. He did not finish by the extended date but he did not get the terms of the price variation clause applied to any expenditure that he had subsequent to that extended date. To that extent, a penalty was imposed.

Chairman.—We are going to wrap it up now unless Mr. Mathews has come very brief comments he wants to make.

Mr. Mathews.—A very brief comment in relation to what Deputy Naughten and others have said. My whole approach here to this committee has been to provide you with the best and the fullest facts that I have available to me. At no stage have I attempted to justify what happened or to excuse it or to say that what happened was all right or that these houses were value for money. I have set out what we tried to do. Things went radically wrong. I have tried my best to explain what went wrong and to give you the facts. I have not tried to hide anything. I have tried to meet all your questions as openly and as frankly as I can.

1803. Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Mathews. It is, nonetheless, an unmitigated fiasco without precedent. We have never before seen three pages of an observation on some matter from the Comptroller and Auditor General, Certainly not in my time on the Committee since 1981. It is most unusual that that should happen. There is a question of confidence. It is very clear that there is no confidence around this table of members of this committee in what has happened here. I think the committee would have to be very specific where it places that lack of confidence if there is a repetition of this sort of thing with regard to spending taxpayers money. We have a situation where it cost £78,300 in 1984, without the cost of the site, in Portlaoise, not in Dublin. No matter what happens it is very clear that something is very seriously wrong. What I propose to do, if the committee is agreeable, is to send the minutes of this meeting and the documents we will be receiving and our observations to the Department of Finance and to ask them for a formal report in detail on this within one month so that we can decide then whether we need to make a special report to the Dáil on this matter or not.

Deputy Colley.—I am reminding you in case you have forgotten about Deputy Dempsey’s request.

Chairman.—No, I said together with the documents which we are expecting.

Deputy Crotty.—That is in relation to the site purchase. I think that is the most important thing.

Deputy Naughten.—And, of course, in addition to the fact that we discovered the £1.1 million for the clearing of the site, which I think is also relevant in this particular case. I would not rule out the possibility of contemplating employing outside consultants at a later stage.

1804. Chairman.—We will await the observations of the Department of Finance on this matter when we refer it to them. We will be looking for a written report within a month and we will consider further at that stage what we need to do: if we need to look for outside consultants or if we need to make a special report to the Dáil. We will thank the Board of Works for their assistance and continue with the Justice Vote.

Paragraphs 28-29 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:—

28. Reference was made in paragraph 40 of the 1983 Report to irregularities in accounting for fines collected by the Garda Síochána on foot of warrants issued by the Courts. Following the discovery of these irregularities an internal reorganisation had been carried out with a view to improving control in this area. Collection of fines is usually effected through Garda Stations but, in Dublin and Cork, Warrant Offices have been set up for this purpose.

It was noted that further irregularities perpetrated by a member of the Garda Síochana in the period October 1982 to September 1984 and involving a total of £14,500, approximately, came to light in the course of inspections carried out by departmental officers at the Cork Warrant Office between May 1984 and August 1984 and that the amount misappropriated was repaid in September 1984. These inspections also revealed deficiencies in the system of internal control. As it was noted that no such departmental inspections had taken place since 1976 and that, furthermore, no instructions or regulations were issued for the operation or supervision of this Office since it was set up in 1970, although revised regulations were issued to the Dublin Warrant Office in 1975, I sought the observations of the Accounting Officer.

He informed me that it had not been possible to visit Garda Stations (including the Warrant Offices) on a regular basis in the period 1976-1980 as only two Departmental Inspectors were available to inspect a total of 750 locations. As a result of increased staffing and reallocation of duties, an improved system for more regular inspection of the larger centres was put into operation in 1983, allowing for all major centres to be inspected at least once in every two years.

He stated that the major responsibility for the supervision of this Warrant Office rested with the various supervisory officers of the Garda Síochána. While the relevant Garda instructions from the Commissioner provide for the recording of inspections by such officers, he had been informed by the Commissioner that there were no records of inspections having been carried out at the Cork Office by Divisional Officers, District Officers or Inspectors since it was set up in 1970, but that occasional unrecorded checks had been carried out. The Garda authorities had no doubt that the irregularities would, in any event, have been discovered by a Garda examination of all warrants and records at this Office which had commenced in January 1984.

He also stated that the Commissioner was not in a position to put forward reasons why written instructions were not issued when this Warrant Office was set up in 1970 but that the Code of Regulations which applies in the Dublin Metropolitan Area would now be amended and implemented at this Office. Other steps had been taken by local management to improve controls and, in addition, a general review of accounting procedures relating to warrants was in progress.

The Accounting Officer stated that 13 further cases of irregularities involving members of the Garda Síochána came to light in 1984 involving a total of £5,200 approximately.

29. In paragraph 39 of my previous Report I referred to the delay by the Courts in issuing warrants for unpaid fines. It appears that there have been delays also on the part of the Gardaí in the execution of warrants which have been issued by the Courts. It was noted that in April 1984 the backlog of unexecuted warrants at the Cork Warrant Office was 16,905 with an estimated value of £500,000.

The Accounting Officer has informed me that the Commissioner had since reported that the number of unexecuted warrants at this office in mid 1985 was 10,360, a reduction of 4,500 since June 1984. However, the local District Court Office had not issued any warrants to the Gardaí in respect of traffic offences for over a year and the backlog of warrants at the District Court Office was greater than that at the Warrant Office. The Accounting Officer stated that this situation was related to staffing problems for which no immediate solution was in sight.

We are taking these paragraphs together since they deal with the same item.

Mr. McDonnell.—Yes, they do, Chairman, though with different aspects of it. The first one deals with the irregularities in the collection of fines. You see there that I referred to inadequacies about the Department’s supervision and the operation of the Cork warrant office and I was concerned that there had not been formalised regulations governing the operation of that office. The Accounting Officer has since given me an explanation of the Department’s difficulties in supervising the operation of the office. In regard to the formalising instructions, he since told me that that had been awaiting a decision as to whether the Cork warrant office should be decentralised and control given back to the local districts. Since that I understand there has been decisions to decentralise both the Cork and Dublin warrant offices and also I understand that some revised instructions have been issued to the Garda on that. I was dealing there, Chairman, with a specific office which we had to examine on a test basis in regard to the actual collection of fines.

Paragraph 29 is also dealing with the Cork office and the number of warrants outstanding. I think it raises a general question, because, as you know, when fines are imposed by the court and if they are not paid immediately there are two stages: a warrant must be issued by the court and the warrant must be executed by the Garda. The committee has been in the part concerned about the backlog of fines in the courts. What I was doing here was using this as an instance of the backlog of unexecuted warrants of the Garda in this particular office. The committee will see there that the number of warrants awaiting execution was fewer in 1985 than in mid-1984. The reduction was more apparent than real because no warrants for traffic offences had been issued for over a year. As I said, I think the problem of uncollected fines is one which must be examined in its totality, that is to say the arrears at the court stage and the arrears at the Garda stage in collecting the fines. There are two different aspects. One is an irregularity in the collecting of the fines, the other is the general question of the arrears of work in collecting the fines which the court imposes.

1805. Deputy Foley.—Just a few questions, Mr. Mathews, how many locations have you at the moment? You had 750 in 1983. The system has been updated?

1806. Mr. Mathews.—Sorry, you mean Garda stations where warrants are issued?

Deputy Foley.—It states here in the paragraph that you have a total of 750 locations?

Mr. Mathews.—That has not changed.

1807. Deputy Foley.—You actually have 750 locations, but in 1983 there was a staffing and reallocation of duties as a result of which you were carrying out a regular inspection, that would be once in every two years in the larger centres?

Mr. Mathews.—That is right.

1808. Deputy Foley.—What is the position in the smaller centres in regard to inspection?

Mr. Mathews.—They are inspected on a random system but more frequently than they have been. We are examining the position. We have two types of investigators, one on the Courts side and one on the Garda side, and we are looking at the possibility of combining them so that we can have a better integrated investigation system.

1809. Deputy Foley.—Between 1983 and 1984, 13 further cases came to light involving a sum of £5,200. What is the up to date position with regard to irregularities?

Mr. Mathews.—I have not got that information. There are occasional ones but nothing unduly alarming.

1810. Deputy Foley.—Would you not think that the whole system should be changed with regard to an acceptable system with regard to checking for security purposes? The number of 750 locations looks very high. Could it not be done on a county basis plus a city basis divided between rural and urban and rural and city?

Mr. Mathews.—The intitial control and supervision of these centres is carried out by the local Garda officers, usually of Superintendent rank, and a lot of responsibility can be expected from him. Imposed on that system is a further investigation system, which is done on a random basis generally but in such a way that each major centre is visited at least every two years. The whole checking system and the whole business of dealing with warrants is tied up inevitably with the availability of staff. We are all caught with the staffing embargoes and it is necessary to decide on priorities when it comes to allocating available staff. We are doing the best we can with the staff available for this work.

1811. Deputy Foley.—I am not making an issue of it. I will go to paragraph 29. There is a figure mentioned there about the Cork office again. You have it on both sides between the District Court office and the warrant office. The total was nearly £17,000. The figure mentioned there is £0.5 million. There is also the position where traffic warrants have not been issued over that period of time again due to staffing problems. Where the amount of money is so large would it not offset the actual staffing problem?

Mr. Mathews.—The position was alleviated to some extent by the availability over recent months of temporary clerical assistants. Due to judicious use of this additional staff we have succeded in improving the position considerably all over the country. In Cork, which you mentioned, in April 1984 the figure was almost 17,000. The latest figure I have is for the end of September when that figure had been reduced to 3,900 warrants. The value of these, at that stage, had not come down pro rata. You would think that, where you are talking about the quarter of the number quoted in 1984, their value would have come down correspondingly; this has not happened. Their value has come down to less than half of the value that was outstanding in 1984. The fact that they have not come down pro rata is because generally the level of fines has increased.

1812. Deputy Foley.—A point I would like to make is: do you find there is a lack of co-operation between the Garda and the District Court office? Have they come to the conclusion that there is so much work to be done that they leave these aside?

Mr. Mathews.—I think there was some indication that that was happening. I do not think it was a lack of co-operation; it might be better described as misguided co-operation. I am not quite sure. I do not think it is a problem.

1813. Deputy Foley.—Would it be due to lack of supervision in seeing that the work was done? Has that happened in some areas?

Mr. Mathews.—Not that I am aware of. Where this type of difficulty has arisen it is related directly to the unavailability of staff.

1814. Chairman.—With regard to this particular matter, where the misappropriated amounts repaid was there a prosecution?

Mr. Mathews.—It is policy. There would have been a prosecution in all cases.

1815. Chairman.—In regard to the deficiencies in control, were they dealt with?

Mr. Mathews.—They were. As the Comptroller and Auditor General said, we had introduced a centralised system in Cork. The idea was that this should be introduced also in Dublin. In the light of experience of the operation of the system in Cork it was decided that it was not really working all that effectively. It was decided to decentralise the central office and to restore responsibility to the individual Garda District Officers who are now responsible for the discharge of warrants and the accounting for all the moneys within their own Districts.

1816. Chairman.—Is this the 750 locations?

Mr. Mathews.—No, this is in each Garda District in Cork, and in each District in Dublin the same thing has been done.

1817. Chairman.—With regard to the locations would it be unreasonable to suggest that the reason it is being distributed is to minimise attention which can be paid to the backlog?

Mr. Mathews.—No, there is no connection between the two. The 750 centres are basically 700 Garda stations and some other places. People normally go to the nearest Garda station to discharge the warrant, that is where the warrant would have been issued.

1818. Chairman.—But has decentralisation not minimised the attention that would be paid to the backlog?

Mr. Mathews.—No, the direct opposite. Each man will now have to look after his own baliwick and see that the arrears in his own area are kept to a minimum. It is putting additional responsibility where it can be discharged.

1819. Chairman.—When I was on the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism we had a letter from a district justice who has written to your Department and, indeed, to the Taoiseach, about outstanding fines to the tune of £700,000, which he had applied in his court and which had remained uncollected. Would you prepare for the committee a short report, say at the 30 June this year, and what has happened to all the fines applied up to that date. I was alarmed that this particular district justice had to write to the crime committee before he got any exercise.

Mr. Mathews.—We will do that.

Deputy Naughten.—I was interested to know how much in fines is outstanding.

Chairman.—Any other matters under this heading? We will turn now to the Vote itself. We will note that reports are to follow on both No. 28 and 29.

1820. Deputy Naughten.—Subhead B.1 appears to be a very high figure. What type of travel is involved here?

Mr. Mathews.—This is the travel that was done mainly by a Probation and Welfare Service attached to the prison service.

1821. Deputy Naughten.—What percentage of the overall sum of £807,000 would be spent under that heading?

Mr. Mathews.—The home travel under that heading was £452,219. There are additional things included in B.1, such as contract cleaning of offices and materials for laboratories. But the travel is the main item.

1822. Deputy Naughten.—Cleaning and cleaning materials is included in that subhead?

Mr. Mathews.—Right, and also materials for the forensic science laboratory.

1823. Deputy Crotty.—There were ten ex gratia payments totalling £9,635 made to counsel and five solicitors. Could we have an explanation of what the problem was there, or how was it justified?

Mr. Mathews.—These arise from payments to solicitors under the Criminal Legal Aid scheme. These are solicitors who were appointed on the spot by a Court but who were not on the approved list of solicitors. In order to pay them the fees they are entitled to, we have to go to the Department of Finance to get approval to pay them ex gratia payments.

Deputy Crotty.—I see.

1824. Deputy Dempsey.—Could I just ask in relation to that, are they strictly fees or are there other expenses involved?

Mr. Mathews.—No, just fees. The fees are set. It is the appropriate fee for the number of attendances.

1825. Chairman.—Under subhead E— Commissions on Special Inquiries — perhaps Deputy Colley might like to ask a question on that first. I may want information sent on and perhaps you will get it.

1826. Deputy Colley.—I was going to ask what commissions and inquiries have been held, on what subjects?

Mr. Mathews.—Sorry, I am slightly lost. What exactly are we talking about?

1827. Deputy Colley.—Subhead E. There is a grant of £87,000 and only £40,017 was used.

Mr. Mathews.—I have it now. The Committee of Inquiry that was in operation at the time was the Committee of Inquiry into Prisons. The saving a arose because the expenditure by members of the Committee was less than expected. Also, savings arose because this heading votes fees paid to the members of the Criminal Inquiries Compensation Tribunal. They met less frequently than anticipated.

Chairman.—Would you send us on a note for 1984, 1985 and 1986 in regard to the full cost of the commissions and inquiries for those three years? It is something we should be looking at.

Mr. Mathews.—Certainly.

VOTE 23—GARDA SÍOCHÁNA

Mr. D. Mathews further examined.

1828. Deputy Naughten.—Two questions on Vote 23, B. 1: £921,000 was the expenditure over the amount granted, and under subhead H., more than £1.5 million was expended over the grant.

Mr. Mathews.—In addition to travelling and incidental expenses, subhead B1 includes expenses payable on Garda compensation cases, where a garda is injured in the course of duty. There were four major Garda compensation cases there which caused an additional unexpectedly high expenditure of £½ million under that subhead. Under subhead H — Radio and other Equipment — the allocation there was £1.684 million. The idea was that the radio equipment required within that year would be procured on a leasing arrangement. As the year progressed we were told by the Department of Finance that, if finance could be made available otherwise, leasing was not a very economic way of doing business and at the end of the year Finance were in a position to make cash available to us. We then got cash, which enabled us to buy the radio equipment outright instead of entering into a leasing agreement which would have cost us more ultimately. It also enabled us to have a reduced allocation for radio in the following year.

1829. Deputy Naughten.—What was the total cost of the new radio system for the country?

Mr. Mathews.—The installation of that is still in progress. At the moment I could not be exact but it is not far off £20 million — £18 or £19 million approximately.

1830. Deputy Naughten.—For the whole new communications network, upwards of £20 million?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes. This is for the installation of a very modern radio communications system in the 700 police stations around the country. That is up and running and proving to be exceedingly effective. At the moment the system in the DMA has been contracted for and actually has been installed and should be up and running within a few weeks.

1831. Deputy Naughten.—In one case quite recently that equipment seemed either not to be working or was it by way of human failure that it did not appear to work? Was it the equipment or a human failure?

Mr. Mathews.—I think I know the incident you are referring to. No radio system of this nature can give absolute total cover of a whole country and if you are operating within the fold of a mountain there is a possibility that you will be out of radio contact. We have tried to obliterate all these black spots where reception is not available. The incident you refer to may have happened in a particular “black spot”, but I am not absolutely sure that there was not some other cause involved too.

1832. Deputy Naughten.—You are not sure whether it was a human error or by way of a technical failure?

Mr. Mathews.—I would rather not comment any further.

1833. Deputy Naughten.—We are in Committee at this stage. It is a matter of grave concern, and must be a matter of concern, for this Committee that £20 million has been spent on a new communications network — and rightly so that we should have the best communications network — but it is unfortunate that an incident such as happened within the last number of days should happen for whatever reason.

Mr. Mathews.—I am beginning to have doubts about which operation we are talking about.

Deputy Naughten.—I think we are talking about the same thing?

1834. Deputy Colley.—A quick question on that subject. What amount of money, if any, has been devoted to the training of Garda officers in the use and the best possible use of this new system?

Mr. Mathews.—It would not be possible to say and I do not think it would be possible even to ascertain. Every garda in the force has got training. The man on the beat has been told how to use his radio equipment, his training might have lasted one day or he might have got a refresher course for a half a day. The people who are operating the system in the stations would have got a week or something of that nature. The people in the control room in Dublin may have got three or four weeks. None of this has been costed separately: it was part of normal Garda activity, that they would attend for this type of training. Therefore, it would not be possible to isolate what this training cost. All I can say is that everybody has been fully trained in the use of the system.

1835. Deputy Colley.—Everybody has?

Mr. Mathews.—Every member of the Garda Síochána.

1836. Deputy Dempsey.—Just a few quick questions. One of the items here refers to the contributions to the Garda Síochána Widows and Childrens Pension scheme, is that the contributions made by the Department?

Mr. Mathews.—They are deductions from Garda salaries towards their contribution.

1837. Deputy Dempsey.—Does the Department of Justice have any access to the books of the Garda Benevolent Society?

Mr. Mathews.—No, we do not have access to those.

1838. Deputy Dempsey.—You would not be aware then where contributions are coming from to that fund at any stage?

Mr. Mathews.—No, I have no information on that.

1839. Deputy Dempsey.—I notice here “Repayment for services rendered by the Garda Síochána, £151,910”. What kind of repayment for services is involved here?

Mr. Mathews.—It is what is described as service of non-public duty. If gardaí attend at some type of public event of a sporting activity — for example, a football match, but if they are retained for service inside, it is called service of non-public duty and we make a claim for Garda costs for that.

1840. Deputy Dempsey.—How is that calculated? Is it calculated on a real basis?

Mr. Mathews.—There are fixed rates which are realistically based on what it costs to put a garda into that position, and they are updated regularly to take account of movements in pay, etc.

1841. Deputy Dempsey.—We are all aware of sporting events but let us take a musical event. For instance, all the Garda duty in relation to, say, rock concerts at Slane — traffic control, sealing off the village and so on — that would all be paid for by the taxpayer? Is that correct?

Mr. Mathews.—That is the position. If the Garda are aware that there is going to be a major congregation of people and that this is going to create traffic problems and so on, they will have to take cognisance of that and be in attendance to take whatever course they consider necessary. That has to be done in the course of ordinary Garda activity. If they were engaged inside the grounds we could levy a payment, but that did not happen in the particular instance you mentioned.

1842. Deputy Dempsey.—There is no provision in the Acts for charging people that cause congregations of this kind and cause all these traffic problems, etc. for the amount of Grada time that is used and so on?

Mr. Mathews.—As of now, there is not. It would be exceedingly difficult to try to provide for a scheme of this nature. People congregate and create problems for all sorts of reasons, apart from rock concerts. Therefore it might be invidious to concentrate on those. But I appreciate the point you are making and it is one that has exercised certain minds. But a race meeting, anything, can cause a congregation of people which requires extra Garda effort and it would be difficult to know what to charge for and what not to charge for.

1843 Deputy Dempsey.—I appreciate that. I just used the example of the rock concert because it is the most obvious one. Would it be possible to get a breakdown of the Garda costs involved in an event such as a rock concert at Slane, which is essentially a three day event—people coming to the village the day before, actually on site or in the vicinity of the village on the second day and people going home on the third day? Would it be possible to get a breakdown of the total cost of that to the taxpayer?

Mr. Mathews.—I am sure it would be possible.

Deputy Dempsey.—Could I request that it would be provided?

Chairman.—Would you provide that information?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes, but it would be invidious to concentrate on a happening such as that when there could be a fleadh cheoil on the following weekend.

Chairman.—I think the Deputy has a particular interest in Slane.

Deputy Dempsey.—I have a particular interest, but I do not mind if the Accounting Officer wants to provide the information for race meetings and fleadh cheoils also.

Chairman.—Any other questions?

1844. Deputy Naughten.—There seems to be a sizeable amount paid out in overtime, £13.5 millions. How great is the control on overtime payments? Is it not a fact of life that overtime has become part and parcel of the recognised income of members of the Force?

Mr. Mathews.—If you look at the way overtime expenditure in the Force has moved in recent times you will see that it has come down dramatically. Overtime had reached £20 million in 1981, it came down steadily to £18 million, £13 million and £12 million. The provision for 1987 is down to £10 million and the provision for next year is down further. We have come from a position where it was £20 million and where it is now less than half of that. You can take it that there is very strict control of overtime. In the year in question there were a few major happenings and you must always provide for these. There was the visit by President Reagan and there was the Don Tidey kidnapping. Unfortunately we have no control over this type of situation. When a situation like this occurs you must have a bit of reserve where you can put extra men on the job.

1845. Deputy Crotty.—On the same question, there is seemingly a top overtime payment of nearly £11,000. Who would that relate to or what would it be for?

Mr. Mathews.—The top overtime earners were in the region of £10,000. They were attached to the Special Detective Unit in Dublin. Without knowing what operation they were involved in, there may have been a high level investigation that they had to concentrate on day and night. I have no other information beyond that it was a Garda attached to the Special Detective Unit.

1846. Deputy Crotty.—Were there many involved over the £10,000?

Mr. Mathew.—The figures I have show that there were two over £10,000 and three not far off it.

Deputy Crotty.—They were all with the detective branch?

Mr. Mathew.—Four out of five of them were from the Special Detective Unit.

Chairman.—I had a question for you under the Garda Vote but it is gone out of my mind. I will pass on to Vote 24, Prisons, and if it comes back to me I will ask it.

VOTE 24—PRISONS

Mr. D. Mathews further examined

Chairman.—We have already dealt with the Comptroller and Auditor General’s notes in this regard.

1847. Deputy Naughten.—With regard to overtime payments, we find substantial overtime payments here of £7 million to 1,400 members of the staff, payments ranging from £400 to £18,000.

Mr. Mathews.—The only comment I can make on this is that overtime is subject to very strict scrutiny. The duty which attracted this money must have been preformed and must have been necessary. One or the major causes of overtime is in relation to the escort of prisoners, where men are absent from their homes over long periods, travelling with prisoners to and from Courts. There are also problems relating to rostering. Action is being taken to try to improve the prison service and reduce overtime in prisons by the recruitment of additional prison staff, which would increase the number employed and reduce the overtime considerably.

1848. Deputy Naughten.—There seem to be substantial overtime payments. Would it not be more in the national interest that additional prison staff should be employed rather that paying substantial overtime to officers within the prison service?

Mr. Mathews.—This, in fact, is being done at present. We are in the process of recruiting and training 200 extra prison staff with the intention that overtime can be substantially decreased and that rosters can be introduced which will enable substantial savings in overtime.

1849. Deputy Naughten.—Is it not a fact that at a number of times over the last three years prison officers were not able to work the amount of overtime they were being offered?

Mr. Mathews.—I cannot really comment on that.

1850. Deputy Naughten.—It is may information, Mr Mathews, that that was the situation.

Mr. Mathews.—I know there has been a problem, that certain prison officers at times have objected to being asked to do overtime when they did not want to do it.

1851. Deputy Naughten.—Because they had done a substantial amount of it maybe that week already?

Mr. Mathews.—I would say that would be the position in some cases.

1852. Chairman.—There is constant overtime worked by most prison officers, is that not the case?

Mr. Mathews.—Certainly in one area there is a built-in element of overtime in the rostering system and this is something we are looking at and trying to correct.

1853. Deputy Naughten.—I think we should recommend that an effort should be made to try to phase that out if need be by the employment of additional staff. In a time of high unemployment it is grossly unfair, to put it mildly, that officers should be paid substantial amounts of overtime while at the same time people are walking around unemployed.

1854. Deputy Colley.—Just a factual point. How many prison officers are there all together?

Mr. Mathews.—Approximately 1,500 male prison officers and 75 female prison officers.

1855. Deputy Colley.—So in essence almost everybody was paid overtime if not everybody. Overtime was paid to 1,567 officers in all.

Mr. Mathews.—Yes.

1856. Chairman.—I understand that the original cost of Wheatfield prison was estimated to be £13.6 million, can you confirm that that has already exceeded £44 million? What is the current amount of expenditure which has been made on that prison?

Mr. Mathews.—The up to date expenditure on this prison, for the practically completed phase one is £39 million.

1857. Chairman.—A Magill article in April 1987 used a figure of £43.5 million. That figure is not correct?

Mr. Mathews.—This prison is being constructed in two phases.

1858. Chairman.—Does the £39 million include £4.1 million for design fees?

Mr. Mathews.—The only information I have on this is the global information in the note provided here.

Chairman.—What does that say?

Mr. Mathews.—£39,496 million.

Chairman.—Does that include the £4.1 million for design?

Mr. Mathews.—What is the £4.1 million figure?

1859. Chairman.—I am quoting from an article which was published in April 1987 which claimed that the total cost at that stage was £43.5 million, including £4.1 million in design costs. If you add £39.4 million to £4.1 million you get £43.5 million. Is that how they got the £43.5 million?

Mr. Mathews.—The Magill article apparently refers to two places, the prison and the place of detention. The figures I have given of £39.496 million includes fees relating to that part of the installation.

1860. Chairman.—It includes all fees. When will the first phase be open?

Mr. Mathews.—It will be ready in January/February of next year.

1861. Chairman.—What was the original estimate for that?

Mr. Mathews.—The only thing I can say about this is that it is on target and on budget from the point of view of money and time.

1862. Chairman.—That was the original estimate of £39 million? Would you let me have a note on that?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes.

1863. Chairman.—Is it still a women’s prison? Is it a juvenile prison? Is it now going to be a mixed prison? What sort of a prison is it going to be now?

Mr. Mathews.—It is intended to put into it from early next year 320 male offenders.

Chairman.—No women are going in there now?

Mr. Mathews.—No. That is not the intention.

Chairman.—You might let me have a note on the cost?

VOTE 25—COURTS

Mr. D. Mathews further examined.

No question.

VOTE 26—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS

Mr. D. Mathews further examined

1864. Deputy Colley.—I notice that the receipts payable to the Exchequer for fees more than cover the costs. Would I be correct in saying that?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes. That is correct.

Deputy Colley.—The staffing situation in the Land Registry, is that subject to the embargo?

Mr. Mathews.—Yes, it is.

1865. Deputy Colley.—Has any thought been given to improving the service in the Land Registry, which I believe is way behind in its work in many areas of the country, having regard to the fact that it is self-financing?

Mr. Mathews.—Despite the fact that it is self-financing the office is still involved in the embargo.

1866. Deputy Colley.—Would you have made any approaches to the Minister for Finance on the basis that it is self-financing and its in grave need of further staff.

Mr. Mathews.—I am not aware just at the moment what representations have been made looking for extra staff. I am sure it has been done from time to time. How recently it has been done, I just could not say. I do not have the record here.

Chairman.—Any remaining questions? Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Mathews.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.