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, 27 Samhain, 1986

Thursday, 27 November, 1986

The Committee met at 10.00 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY D. FOLEY in the chair

Mr. N. J. McMahon called and examined.

VOTE 41 COMMUNICATIONS.

394. Chairman.—Paragraph 52 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead J.—Electronic Equipment

In February 1980 and June 1981 the Department of Finance sanctioned expenditure totalling £240,000 on the provision of four coastal VHF remote controlled stations as a pilot scheme for a national network. The cost of each station was estimated at £50,000 plus VAT and included the provision of radio equipment, permanent buildings and access roads, etc.

In 1981 the Department entered into contracts for the provision of a building at one location and for the supply, installation, testing and commissioning of radio and control equipment for all four stations. Between May 1982 and September 1983 the Department requested the Office of Public Works (OPW) to provide buildings at two locations together with a building for a communicating link station which had meantime been decided on as an additional requirement of the network.

It was noted in the course of audit that the total expenditure on buildings and equipment to March 1985 was £680,792. The cost of the building erected under contract was £37,083 and the cost of the three buildings provided by OPW was £464,511 (see paragraph 23). Work on the proposed fourth station has not yet commenced.

I have asked for information regarding the substantial increase in total cost and whether the increased expenditure has been sanctioned by the Department of Finance. I have also inquired whether OPW had been furnished with precise requirements including cost limits when the Department requested the provision of buildings and I have sought information regarding the wide variation in the unit cost of the buildings.

Mr. McDonnell.—Paragraph 52 relates to a matter which the committee will recall discussing recently with the Accounting Officer for the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works had been asked to provide some of the buildings in connection with this project and had done so, you will recall, by way of extras on an existing contract. This project, as undertaken by the Department of Communications, was for the building and equipping of four VHF stations. It was subsequently found necessary to provide a radio link station as well as that. What this paragraph points out is that three of the four stations and the radio link station have been built and equipped at a total cost of some £680,000, although the original estimate for building and equipping four VHF stations without any radio link station was £240,000. It also points to the difference between the cost of one building for which the Department of Communications placed a contract and the cost of three buildings, that is the two VHF stations and the radio link station, which were provided by the Office of Public Works. Since my report the Accounting Officer has told me that the estimated cost of the four VHF stations originally proposed was calculated on the assumption that two of them would be located at already developed sites. He explained that the increase and the variation in costs over the amount sanctioned in 1981 was due to the fact that alternative sites, which had to be chosen for technical reasons instead of the developed sites which they had originally intended to use, were remote, difficult of access, devoid of normal services and unsuited to economical building work. He also said that the provision of the radio link station required the acquisition and development of an additional site and an additional building and that, as well as that, two of the buildings had to be built to larger dimensions than originally envisaged in order to accommodate the requirements of Telecom, as Telecom provided the radio link facilities. He also said that, while the building required for the station in Donegal, was built for the Department under contract, it was considered more appropriate that the buildings required in the south-west, in the Cork-Kerry region, for the stations to operate to Valentia, should be provided by OPW for the reason that OPW was already engaged in renovating and extending the Valentia station. The cost of the renovation and extension work was being borne by OPW on its own Vote. You will recall that from the last day. As the building of the VHF station was being carried out as an extra on the contract, the Department of Communications formed what the Accounting Officer said was the mistaken impression that the expenditure on the VHF stations would also be borne on the OPW Vote. Through an oversight, apparently, the Office of Public Works did not become aware until May 1984 of the level of expenditure which had been sanctioned by the Department of Finance in June 1981. The Accounting Officer said that, while there was detailed on site liaison between officials of the Office of Public Works and his Department in relation to requirement, his Department did not monitor the expenditure on the project because of this mistaken impression that it would be borne on the Office of Public Works Vote. All I can add to that is to say that I understand the Department of Finance has since sanctioned all of the expenditure incurred.

395. Deputy M. Ahern.—As the Comptroller has already stated, we have gone through this subject in detail with regard to the Office of Public Works’ expenditure. There are a number of questions that I would like to raise with Mr. McMahon. The overrun on this project was substantial. Some of the reasons which have been given for this overrun seem less than convincing. One reason I believe that has been given is that the sites that were chosen, especially in the south, were not suitable. It would imply that a technical assessment that was done was not done to the fullest extent; and, also in that context, was the site in Donegal any more remote or more underdeveloped than the sites in Kerry? Secondly, I would like to ask: is the equipment that was purchased for the fourth station in mothballs or has it been kept in condition so that it can be used if the fourth station is ever going to be built? Due to the fact that the fourth station is not in operation, does this mean that the system is not fully operable and is it likely that the fourth station will be built? Finally, I would like if you would tell us whether the stations as they are are revenue earning?

Mr. McMahon.—I certainly will try to address each of these question which Deputy Ahern has posed. On the question of site selection, firstly, I ought to explain that there was a very strong demand for a national, VHF network arising from a variety of circumstances. There had been a number of fishing tragedies. There had been the Fastnet tragedy in 1979; and, while the absence of VHF may not have been the cause of these particular casualties, they highlighted the absence of VHF. There was considerable pressure on us to instal a VHF network which would give total national coverage. We were reluctant to go into a major project of that size without proceeding initially on a trial basis. The approach was to devise an initial VHF coverage in the areas in which it was most needed on the most economical basis. I mention “the most economical basis” because it brings me to the question of site selection. The initial intention was that as far as possible we would use sites which were already available within the public service for other reasons so that it would not be necessary to develop new sites. In particular we highlighted in the north-western area two RTE stations — they were Truskmore and Glencolmbkille — and in the south western area, Cahirciveen and Castletownbere, all of which were available to one or another agency associated with the Department of Communications. The estimates that were prepared were based on the assumption that it would be possible to site the VHF facilities in these areas, certainly at least some of them if not all. The initial station which was undertaken directly by the Department of Communications — when I say “directly” I mean through a contractor — was constructed at Crockalough more or less within budget and no special difficulties arose in that connection. As regards the selection and use of sites owned by RTE, a number of difficulties arose. For example, the unions which represent the riggers that attend to and maintain masts for RTE were not willing to allow employees of other agencies work on masts on their sites. This is one of the problems we encountered at the time. It caused some uncertainties as to whether we would be wise to place on those sites facilities which were necessary for the safety of life at sea if there was going to be any uncertainty about industrial relations. There were other problems such as the compatability of the activities of RTE and the VHF facilities which the Department of Communications were mainly concerned about. We became aware that RTE themselves were rather unhappy about their relations with other commercial organisations to whom they had given facilities on the site. The outcome of all of these difficulties was that RTE withdrew the offer of facilities on their sites for the VHF communications needs of the Department of Communications. The effect of this was to eliminate from our initial shopping list of sites four out of the six that had been identified in the north-west and the south-west. In the north-west the other site which we had identified at Crockalough went ahead and was completed under the direct supervision of the Department of Communications. My understanding is that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the committee do not have any special difficulties about that area. Deputies asked me whether there were significant differences between the circumstances and difficulties of the Crockalough site — that is, the Donegal site — and those which subsequently caused difficulties in the south-west. I am not in a position to give details on that because we were concerned directly only with the Crockalough site. It cost £37,000 or £38,000. We have provided the Office of Public Works with the breakdown of the various costs which comprised the £37,000 so that they can make a comparison between these costs and the costs incurred at the other sites in Kilkeaverage and Knockgour. I can only say that I am aware that the sites that were subsequently chosen and developed in the south-west were extremely remote, on very elevated positions and the site conditions were very difficult. I say that as a layman based on personal observation because I visited one of the sites. We in the Department of Communications do not maintain a building or construction capability ourselves. We have no architects, land surveyors, land valuers or quantity surveyors We make use of other agencies, particularly the Office of Public Works, in relation to activities of that kind. I am familiar with the great difficulty which arose in relation to the two stations and the link station in the south-west. If the committee wish to have a more detailed comparison of the reasons for variation between the two I would have to leave it to the Office of Public Works to provide that, because they have all the information.

Deputy Ahern asked me a further question about the fourth station. It is true that we acquired equipment for four stations and at present three stations are operational. The equipment for the fourth has been retained and we are now on the point of installing it in an existing building already owned and controlled by the Department at Knockanure near Ballybunion. We expect that to be operational by mid or late January 1987. This will complete the original four station chain envisaged when we commenced this operation a number of years ago.

The Deputy posed a further question in relation to revenue earning. These stations have a number of different functions, their main and primary function being for the safety of life at sea. Communications undertaken for that purpose are provided by the State free of charge and are not revenue earning. However, at the same time they also provide what is called a link-call service. In other words, they enable ships at sea and oil rigs to feed into the public telephone network through this link-call system. Incidently, that is where Bord Telecom became involved. This service is revenue earning and the revenue has increased since the extension of the service.

396. Chairman.—Just to make an observation in view of what has been said. The Donegal station cost £37,000 approximately with an outside contractor. The two other stations plus a link cost £464,000. There is an over-run of at least £300,000. You must be very concerned as a result of the work carried out by the Board of Works, especially if you compare the cost of the work carried out by the private contractor with the cost of the work carried out by the Board of Works. I accept you had problems, but surely not to the extent that there was an over-run of over £300,000 based on the original estimate.

Mr. McMahon.—Yes. I was going to make that latter point because the original estimate was based on the construction of these stations on a different basis. It did not assume that we would have to make use of entirely new undeveloped sites to which access was difficult and which involved a large amount of bog and rock excavation and other difficulties which affected construction. You commented that I must be unhappy. Of course I am unhappy about the final cost of these stations. The reason underlying the liaison between the Department of Communications and the Office of Public Works in the south-west and not in the north-west was that the officers involved at the time considered that the use of the Office of Public Works would be the most cost-effective and efficient way of having these works carried out. As the Comptroller mentioned, the Office of Public Works were already engaged in work on behalf of this Department of the Valentia Radio station. The original site at Geokaun, which is within about one-quarter or a half a mile of the Valentia station was one of the first VHF stations we had hoped to develop. It seemed both sensible and potentially more economical to request the Office of Public Works to undertake this in view of the fact that they already had adjacent to the site a contractor who had been successful as the lowest tenderer in relation to the Valentia operation and who, as far as we were aware, was providing a satisfactory service and also having regard to the view of the Office of Public Works that to have two contractors operating more or less on the same site, or at least on sites. which were contiguous to each other and had a relationship with each other, would not be desirable. This initial request to the Office of Public Works to undertake this work was made in the interest of efficiency and economy. In the event, that site had to be abandoned for technical reasons because it was found there would be a conflict between the VHF facility which was to be provided and the MF facilities which are also part of the general Valentia operation. Eventually other sites which were more remote from Valentia and which posed greater difficulties from the point of view of construction were selected and developed. These were the sites which incurred the costs which are of great concern both to us and to the committee.

397. Deputy M. Ahern.—You are unhappy with the total cost. Is that because the total cost was not value for money or because it was against the original estimate?

Mr. McMahon.—As far as we can judge — and we have to rely to a considerable extent on the assessment of the Office of Public Works in this regard — it appears that the costs incurred were inevitable in relation to the sites. I should have added, perhaps, that there were very special criteria which had to be met in relation to these sites. They had to be at elevated locations in order to provide

(Interruption due to technical fault.)

(Resumption: Mr. E. O’Sullivan (Finance) being examined by Deputy Naughten).

value for money was achieved and that the jobs were done as efficiently and as economically as could be done in the circumstances. On that basis we sanctioned the expenditure.

Deputy Naughten.—But you had absolutely no way of assessing whether it was or was not?

Mr. E. O’Sullivan.—We have no technical competence in the sense that we have no architects or engineers to assess the work. We obviously have to be guided, having gone into the matter with the Department of Communications and the Board of Works, by the certification of the Board of Works who are the technical people in this area.

398. Deputy Naughten.—I would like to ask Mr. McMahon what technical assessment was done on those sites and on the costing of this project before it was costed, or was there any?

Mr. McMahon.—At the time when the Department of Communications sought sanctions from the Department of Finance the individual sites on which the stations were finally constructed had not been surveyed or assessed because — I have been criticised for repeating myself but I have no option — we had plans to provide them on other sites with which our professional people were already familar. If it had proved possible to site them on those locations the job could finally have been implemented if not within the original estimate certainly at a comparable figure.

399. Deputy Naughten.—Your professional people, who earmarked the sites on which those projects were to go on at a cost of £240,000, must not be competent in their job when in fact it was proved afterwards that one could not build on those sites.

Mr. McMahon.—The professional people concerned were not only with the professional competence but also with the economy of construction and expenditure of public money. They had no reason to believe at that stage that we could not make use of RTE sites. Some of the reasons for which they could not be used were of a non-technical nature. I have mentioned some industrial relations problems. Also, in so far as there were technical problems, they would not have emerged until certain tests were carried out. It was important from our point of view to ensure that we have the authority to go ahead and embark on such a programme before we started to incur expenditure. The estimate that was made was a best estimate based on previous techncial experience, knowledge of certain sites which were assumed to be available on the basis that this was a pilot scheme which would provide a prototype for a more national system.

Deputy Naughten.—But your estimates were totally cockeyed.

Mr. McMahon.—I am sorry, I have to reject that. The station which was constructed under the direct jurisdiction of the Department of Communications was built within budget.

Deputy Naughten.—What you are saying is that if you built the other two you might have built them within budget.

Mr. McMahon.—I am not saying that, what I am saying is that there were particular problems encountered in relation to those sites in the south-west which were constructed by a contractor selected by the Office of Public Works which might possibly, I can only say possibly, and maybe probably have led to the same cost being incurred irrespective of who built them.

Deputy Naughten.—And he was there on a time and material basis.

Mr. McMahon.—He was there, according to the information given to me by the Office of Public Works initially because he was the lowest tenderer for the job which was put to tender.

Deputy Naughten.—Only £80,000 worth of the work was put to tender, which was not dealing with this contract at all.

Mr. McMahon.—Quite so. Again I can only relay to you what I was informed by the Office of Public Works, that is, that when additional work was assigned to him it was done because he was apparently regarded as satisfactory. They assigned a quantity surveyor of their own staff and an architect to supervise his work. I can only relay this to you. I do not know whether it was on a time and material basis or not, but I was assured that he operated under very tight supervision by the Office of Public Works. As I said already, we do not have a building, design or architectural capability within the Department of Communications.

400. Deputy Naughten.—Would you agree that the monitoring of this project and controls of expenditure on it was non-existent?

Mr. McMahon.—I would say there were procedural and administrative deficiencies in the manner in which it was handled. Specifically, and picking up the point which Mr. O’sullivan made, that a further approach should have been made to the Department of Finance at an earlier stage than it was, that arose because of the very unusual features of this case. The Department of Communications have three State airports, 30 harbours, and numerous other activities which have involved us in very major projects over many years, which have proceeded satisfactorily in accordance with Government contracts procedures and financial control. There were particular features about this which perhaps made it somewhat vulnerable. There were lapses and we have since taken measures, which I will outline to the committee, if you wish to ensure that this could not happen again. The lapses which took place were related to the procedures which were followed rather than the expenditure which was involved.

401. Deputy Naughten.—Would those deficiencies not have arisen as a result, basically of the Department of Communications being under the impression that this was going to be a charge to the Vote for the Office of Public Works, and the latter being under the impression that it was going to be a charge to Communications and that nobody was responsible and nobody cared?

Mr. McMahon.—No, with respect, I would have to correct you on that. It is correct that the technical officers in the Department of Communications who were dealing with the Office of Public Works were under the impression that the Office of Public Works were paying for it. My understanding is that it was also the impression of the officers of the Office of Public Works who were engaged. In other words, both of the services concerned were under the impression that the Office of Public Works were paying for this, mainly, I can assume, because it was given as an extra on a contract which had already been awarded and which was being borne by the Office of Public Works. That was an erroneous impression which should not have arisen. It is not a case of the Department of Communications assuming the Office of Public Works were paying for it and the Office of Public Works assuming that the Department of Communications were were paying for it. It was a common error by both sides that this fell within the delegated authority of the Office of Public Works. The unfortunate result of that, from my Department’s point of view, was that the officers in my Department who were concerned did not see it as their primary responsibility to engage in cost monitoring which they would have done and have always done in relation to other projects which are the responsibility of my Vote.

402. Deputy Naughten.—So your Department were under the impression that it would be a charge on the Office of Public Works Vote but, in fact, you had to pick up a bill of £680,000 for it. Is that correct?

Mr. McMahon.—Yes, the officers directly concerned who were engaging in on-site specification and dealing with it in a technical manner were certainly under that impression. That was an erroneous impression. The cost were and are a charge on the Vote of the Department of Communications and the £680,000 has been borne by the Department of Communications.

403. Deputy Naughten.—That would explain the lack of monitoring from your end of it, the fact that you were of the impression that it was the Office of Public Works who were going to pick up the tab for it?

Mr. McMahon.—I would have to say that it should not explain it but that is what happened.

Deputy Naughtan.—Just one further point. Deputy Ahern asked the question earlier — where was the equipment for the fourth station being stored? I do not believe that question was answered.

Mr. McMahon.—My colleague has reminded me that I failed to answer that question. It was stored in Malin Head, which is a radio station already in operation. A decision has been taken to instal it in a building — I think I have made this information available to the Committee — near Ballybunion which will help further to extend the coverage of the VHF system. As we have already acquired and paid for this equipment and as we own the building this fourth station can be affected at minimal cost.

Chairman.—You made a good choice in going to Knockanure.

404. Deputy Crotty.—Just a couple of points, maybe they have been covered by the Accounting Officer already. The Accounting Officer mentioned that tenders were not sought, that he had no accountability for this. Could he explain why he had no accountability? Is it because he thought it was the Office of Public Works—

Mr. McMahon.—Yes. The situation in relation to the station which was built in the north-west which was undertaken directly by the Department was that we went to tender and awarded a tender in accordance with normal Government contract procedures. In the south-west, because the Office of Public Works were already undertaking work on our behalf, the suggestion was made that they would take over the south-western part of this project on our behalf. Therefore, the question of whether to go to tender anew or whether to award it to an existing contractor is a matter on which they made the decision. They made it in good faith on the basis that this was the most cost effective way of doing it. We would have had no function in telling the Office of Public Works to which contractor this should be given. They undertook this on behalf of the Department. Just as — if I might cite an example — if the central heating in this building goes wrong and the Office of Public Works are asked to do something about it, it is the Office of Public Works which will determine how that is done, who is invited to tender and who gets the tender.

405. Deputy Crotty.—The Accounting Officer is accounting for expenditure from the Department of Communications and as such is responsible for the expenditure of funds. It seems rather odd that he can hand over the spending of Department of Communications funds to the Board of Works without any controls. Is that what you are saying — that the Office of Public Works have a free run and that there is no control over what it costs to do a job?

Mr. McMahon.—In answering that I would have to distinguish between different types of works. Where the Office of Public Works undertakes construction or other works on behalf of another Department, such as the maintenance of a building or the improvement of facilities within an office block, it is the primary function of the Office of Public Works to be concerned with the cost of doing that, with the tendering process, with the selection of the tenderer and the monitoring of the cost. That relates particularly to the improvement works which were carried out in Valentia. My understanding is that the Office of Public Works have delegated authority from the Department of Finance within certain overall limits to operate such services within their own discretion and subject to their own control. The VHF project was in a different category because it was one which we were undertaking on the basis of moneys provided in our Vote. As I mentioned, part of it was directly undertaken by the Department of Communications and for reasons of both convenience and assumed economy — I say “assumed” because in the end it did not work out that way — the Office of Public Works agreed to take this on on an agency basis on behalf of the Department of Communications. The main responsibility for monitoring the cost of that would normally rest with the client Department — in other words, the Department that is paying. In this case, because of an unfortunate misunderstanding to which the officers on both sides were party, there was a confusion about who was primarily concerned with cost monitoring. So, certainly there was a deficiency inh that area, which, as I say, has been followed up and rectified.

406. Deputy Crotty.—It is mentioned in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that the cost up to March 1985 was £680,000. Is that right? Was there any expenditure since or what is the up-to-date cost?

Mr. McMahon.—The total cost of the project came to £680,000. That would include the additional cost of the Knockanure station.

Deputy Crotty.—There has been no expenditure on this project since March 1985?

Mr. McMahon.—That is correct.

407. Deputy Crotty.—What is the situation regarding the fourth station?

Mr. McMahon.—The position regarding the fourth station is that we purchased equipment for four but up to now have provided only three, but the fourth station will be provided in the station in Knockanure near Ballybunion. The plans have already been prepared. The installation will take place during January. As the equipment has already been purchased and paid for and as we own the building there will only be expenditure of something around £5,000 to complete and bring into service the fourth station.

Deputy Crotty.—Will the Board of Works be spending this £5,000 for you?

Mr. McMahon.—No, that will be done directly by the Department of Communications.

Deputy Crotty.—That will be a relief anyway.

408. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Just before we move on, I would like to put a brief question to the officer of Department of Finance. The officer said that he issued a circular 1/83 outlining procedures to be followed thereafter. I presume that was issued in 1983.

Mr. E. O’Sullivan.—It was, yes.

409. Deputy G. Mitchell.—You said that the Office of Public Works presumably got value for money. Is the Office of Public Works not part of the Department of Finance and did not this work go on until June 1985, in other words, after the circular letter was issued on Valentia Island?

Mr. E. O’Sullivan.—That is correct. The circular 1/83 was issued early in 1983. I understand that the work was completed sometime during 1985. I can only suggest that at that stage the conditions which led to the overruns had existed because the more difficult sites had obviously been selected and were being worked upon.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—What I am trying to establish here is if the Office of Public Works heeded your circular of ‘83? Is it operating?

Mr. E. O’Sullivan.—We try to monitor the operation as closely as we can and we ask Departments to submit information. Obviously, in this case certain conditions existed which had probably gone beyond the stage of rectification, because I presume a lot of the construction costs had been incurred and the sites obviously were being worked upon at that stage. Might I just add that in the Government contracts procedures which we issued only two months ago we do emphasise, first of all, the need for one person to be held responsible for the operation of contracts, and, secondly, for that person and the engineering staff to report any likely cost overruns and, if they are excessive, to come back to the Department of Finance for sanction.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Could we find out if, in fact, your circular 1/83 was observed by the Office of Public Works in relation to this contract? Perhaps the committee could have a note on that.

Chairman.—We got a copy of it in actual fact.

Mr. E. O’Sullivan.—We sent a copy to the committee. It is the outline of Government contract procedures and it includes some paragraphs on cost overruns.

410. Deputy Naughten.—What is the change in that compared to the directive issued in 1983?

Mr. E. O’Sullivan.—The directive issued in 1983 was a general directive on the need for appraisal of all capital projects. This particular document refers specifically to projects going to contract and sets out the procedures for Government contracts and takes account of EEC obligations.

Deputy Naughten,—Was the document issued in 1983 found to be lacking in clarity that you had to issue another one this year?

Mr. E. O’Sullivan.—No, they are on two different subjects. This is really to set out in published form the procedures for Government contracts. The 1983 document was on a different subject. It was on the broader subject of capital appraisal. Therefore, they are two different questions.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Are we agreed to get the note I asked for?

411. Chairman.—Yes. Paragraph 53 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead P.—Regional/Local Airports

Reference was made in previous Reports to an agreement entered into by the Minister for Communications to provide grants for the construction of an airport by the Connaught Airport Development Company Limited.

During the year under review £564,229 was paid to the company bringing total payments to 31 December 1984 to £9,828,800 analysed as follows:

In December 1984 the Government approved the withdrawal by the Minister for Communications from further participation in the affairs of the company and to the waiver of the controls held by him over its activities.

Mr. McDonnell.—I have not anything to say about paragraph 53. It is just for information and it gives details in the table of expenditure on Connacht Regional Airport.

412. Deputy Naughten.—What was the total expenditure? Was £9.8 million the total expenditure by the Department on that project, or is there further expenditure?

Mr. Mc.Mahon.—No, £9.8 million approximately is the total expenditure from Exchequer funds on Knock Airport. Of course, additional moneys have been spent from other sources; but, as far as the Exchequer is concerned, that is the total for Knock.

Deputy Naughten.—The total for Knock is £9.8 million.

Mr. McMahon.—Correct.

413. Deputy Naughten.—Is there any ongoing expenditure?

Mr. McMahon.—The Government have decided not to provide any further funds for construction works at Knock.

414. Deputy Naughten.—What about current expenditure?

Mr. McMahon.—The Department of Communications are not engaged directly in any current expenditure in relation to Knock except, I should mention, that we have provided the services of three air traffic controllers to assist in the operation and control of the airport on a repayment basis.

415. Deputy Naughten.—Who pays this money?

Mr. McMahon.—This money is due to be repaid by the Connacht Airport Company to the Department of Communications.

416. Deputy Naughten.—What is the cost of that to the Department at the present time?

Mr. McMahon.—Up-to-date they have incurred a liability to us of about £38,000.

417. Deputy Naughten.—If memory serves me correctly the technical experts in your Department advised against the building of this project. Is that correct?

Mr. McMahon.—I am not quite sure if it is proper for me to deal with the advice which the officers of my Department might give to the Minister or Government in relation to particular projects.

418. Deputy Naughten.—But it was generally accepted that this was the advice given in any event. Now that the airport is operating, are your Department monitoring its progress and the number of flights, for example, which would have to be diverted for one reason or another? What are the views of the Department six months down the road?

Mr. McMahon.—Well, the airport is licensed by the Department of Communications, just as all airports need to be licensed to engage in certain types of flying operations so they have a licence. That means that the airport has had to be inspected and will be regularly inspected from the point of view of the adequacy of the facilities and the safety of the airport. Otherwise the Department are not directly involved in the operations of the airport which are the responsibility of the company who in turn have engaged a management company to provide a management service. We are involved in the question of the rights of airlines to operate to and from the airport, just as we are in control of landing rights for all airlines operating to and from Ireland. We have given rights to airlines to provide services to and from Knock. We would certainly get information on operations in Knock as part of the normal statistical service of monitoring travel to and from Ireland.

419. Deputy Naughten.—Is the information you are getting satisfactory, that the facilities at Knock are adequate and that it is safe for passenger traffic and for planes landing etc?

Mr. McMahon.—Yes. The technical officers of my Department have satisfied themselves about the adequacy and the safety of the airport for the operations for which it is licensed.

Deputy Naughten;—In other words, the advice that it was not suitable to build an airport there was unfounded?

Mr. McMahon.—As I say, I have some reservations about talking about advice.

Chairman.—It was a policy decision in any case to build it.

Deputy Naughten.—I appreciate that it was a policy decision but it is no secret that reservations were expresed by technical advisers in the Department.

Chairman.—That is a good point.

Deputy Naughten.—What I am asking is have these been found to have been justified, six months later, when the airport is in operation?

Mr. McMahon.—I can say, in response to the Deputy, that there was no advice that the airport could not be provided there and operated based on technical considerations. If there were questions about Connacht Airport it related to questions of economic feasibility.

Deputy Naughten.—So, in fact, technically you were satisfied all along that an airport could operate there but it was the financial viability of it that you were concerned about?

Mr. McMahon.—One can build an airport almost anywhere if one spends enough money.

420. Deputy G. Mitchell.—With regard to this £9.8 million of public expenditure by the Department on the development of the airport and coming back to the economic considerations, what is the percentage usage of the airport? How would it normally be measured? Is it in passenger numbers or cargo flights? Is the usage at 50 per cent or 10 per cent?

Mr. McMahon.—It is difficult to answer that in that sense because it is difficult to say what is the total capacity of an airport. If it operates 24 hours a day and has a flight every three minutes obviously it has a huge capacity and therefore its percentage usage would be fractional. For a local or a regional airport in Ireland one does not expect a very high volume of traffic and Connacht Airport is, as far as we are aware, not receiving a very high volume of traffic. It is also in its first year of operation. I think I would have to say that the traffic is very light at present.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Do you have any numbers for the passenger usage?

Mr. McMahon.—I am afraid I do not have numbers conveniently here but I am sure they are obtainable.

421. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Is the airport as safe as the Department of Communications would like it to be? Was the expenditure made in an area which is geographically safe for large aircraft?

Mr. McMahon.—The airport and its facilities, taking account of the runway which has been provided, the navigational facilities, including both electronic facilities and lighting facilities are certainly adequate to enable the technical officers of my Department to licence the airport as safe for operations.

422. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

“Subhead X. — Liabilities arising from the reorganisation of the Postal and Telecommunications Services

I referred in paragraph 57 of my previous Report to the negotiations which were taking place with An Post and Bord Telecom Eireann regarding the clearance of suspense account balances standing in the books of the Department of Posts and Telegarphs at 31 December 1983.

These included:—

(a) Cash balances totalling £5.9 million held by Post Offices on 31 December 1983 which, instead of being refunded to the Department, were retained by An Post as working capital in accordance with Section 31 of the Postal and Telecommunications Service Act, 1983, and

(b) accumulated cash deficiencies amounting to £2.2 million which had not been written off and which were due to robberies which had taken place prior to 1 January 1984.

In the year under review the amount required to clear these balances was provided by way of supplementary estimate which also included a sum of £0.6 million to provide for contingencies mainly relating to PRSI/PAYE deductions due to the Revenue Commissioners in respect of the period prior to 1 January 1984.

A small number of lesser balances on other accounts relating to the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs still remain to be cleared.”

Mr. McDonnell.—This paragraph also related to information. It just relates to some accounting procedures which were necessary in order to finalise the financial arrangements in connection with the take-over of the postal and telecommunications services by An Post and Telecom from January 1984. That whole operation has now been finalised and all outstanding balances have been cleared. So in effect the books of the old Department of Posts and Telegraphs have been closed, so to speak.

423. Deputy G. Mitchell.—When the Comptroller and Auditor General says they are cleared, was there any refund due to the Department or was the agreement made that they would retain these?

Mr. McDonnell.—As you will see there from the paragraph, the arrangements were that certain balances would be transferred to An Post. What was involved here was the voting of moneys which they were allowed to retain. The second item was writing off losses which had been incurred before the changeover.

424. Chairman.—I take it there are no further questions. We will go on to the Vote.

425. Deputy Crotty.—Consultancy services. What would the £225,000 cover? What consultants were employed by the Department of Communications?

Mr. McMahon.—There was a number of different consultancy assignments during the year in question. One of them related to the design of bus lanes to facilitate the movement of public transport through Dublin. A specialist firm with experience in this area was engaged to assist in the design of these bus lanes.

Deputy Crotty.—What were they paid for that?

Mr. McMahon.—They received £164,000 in the year.

Deputy Crotty.—Is it your opinion that it was money well spent?

Mr. McMahon.—Yes, I have no doubt that this was a very good investment having regard to the improved performance of bus transport in Dublin.

Deputy Crotty.—What were the other expenditures?

Mr. McMahon.—The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards were engaged by the Department to undertake the checking and incalibration of what are called tachographs. These are the instruments which are installed in lorries and buses to monitor the driving hours and other circumstances of public transport vehicles. That cost £15,000. This is a service which the Department are obliged to provide but the IIRS have better facilities so they do this on our behalf. There was also a survey of public attitudes towards CIE services which the Department commissioned at a time when consideration was being given to the future structure and policy of CIE. The cost of that was £6,000.

Deputy Crotty.—What did that involve? Did that involve an agency stopping people on the street?

Mr. McMahon.—Yes, it involved the use of a specialist firm which conducted a sample survey of the attitudes of public transport users.

Deputy Crotty.—What did that yield? What was the feedback into your Department?

Mr. McMahon.—I would have to reread it at this stage because it is almost three years since it was carried out. My recollection is that the general attitude towards CIE was more favourable than one might be led to believe by general public comment.

Deputy Crotty.—Is that a qualified reply?

426. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I am sure Mr. McMahon did not expect to leave this morning without being asked about shipwrecks. Is he satisfied that the amount of money spent by his Department on the protection of harbours and the coastline and generally——

427. Chairman.—Reference?

428. Deputy G. Mitchell.—There is expenditure here for wreck and salvage under subhead K.1. — Wreck and Salvage, Relief of Distressed Seamen etc. Is he happy that sufficient moneys are voted by the Dáil in the year in question and in general for dealing with the sort of emergency that arose in the last few days?

Mr. McMahon.—If I might just comment on subhead K.1 for a start, I am certainly not satisfied, nor would anybody be satisfied, that the moneys in subhead K.1 would make any impact on problems of distress; but, of course, that is not the purpose of subhead K.1. Subhead K.1 exists merely to deal with some minor problems that arise about the repatriation of seamen who may be stranded abroad or the expenses of receivers of wreck who might find some flotsam floating on the sea. That is not the point which Deputy Mitchell is referring to. The general question of safety of life at sea is one which involves the co-operation of quite a number of services in this country. The overall co-ordination is undertaken by the Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre at Shannon, which is staffed on a 24hour basis and has all the facilities which they need in terms of communications and so on. The actual services on the ground — perhaps I should not say “on the ground” but “on the sea” — include the services of the Naval Service, the Air Corps, the lifeboat institution, the coast Life-Saving Service and, of course, all other shipping, commercial, fishing and other vessels which may be available who invariably co-operate in a situation of that kind. In addition it is traditional to have international co-operation in this area. Therefore, just as we would go to the assistance of a vessel which may be in the UK area, similarly British services would provide assistance in relation to distress in our areas insofar as it might be needed. Am I satisfied? In regard to the area of protecting lives, I think one is always anxious to do as much as possible. We would like to do some more, but I would have to say in regard to recent events that no deficiencies have so far been identified which would have enabled the situation to be handled any differently through spending more money.

429. Deputy G. Mitchell.—One thing I might ask the Accounting Officer: salaries and wages for your Department amounted to £17 million. It may be more relevant to the Department of Defence and, if it is, perhaps I should hold off and ask the question there, but I noted that before the Kowloon Bridge got within the coastline at Bantry Bay emergency services were notified, indeed not only the Irish services but the RAF took part. An RAF helicopter was based at Cork, I understand, overnight. I do not understand why it is always necessary to bring in the RAF. Do we not spend enough money ourselves on coastal protection? As an island should we be taking this more seriously?

Mr. McMahon.—I can certainly join in the latter sentiment. We are an island nation and need to provide the best possible facilities we can. I hesitate somewhat to advance an explanation on behalf of the Department of Defence. The situation, as I understand it, is that the helicopters which have been in service in the Air Corps in recent years did not up to recently have the capability of operating at long distance and particularly in hours of darkness. They have since acquired a number of helicopters which have this capability and they are being brought into service very shortly. I believe the training and proving operation is at present in progress.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—They are not in service yet?

Mr. McMahon.—My understanding is that they are not fully operational so far, but they are there.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—When that happens we should be able to deal with these things ourselves, is that the idea?

Mr. McMahon.—As far as possible, but one must never exclude the possibility of international co-operation, which is a traditional feature.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—We might be able to help the British out a little bit?

Mr. McMahon.—We have done in many cases in the past.

430. Deputy Crotty.—On subhead A3 — Postal Users Council and Telecommunications Users Council — what are these councils and what function have they?

Mr. McMahon.—They were introduced in recent years to ensure that members of the public which had complaints against the quality of service provided by these particular State bodies would have a forum to whom they could address their problems if they failed to get adequate redress from the agencies themselves. In other words, a person who has a complaint against Telecom Éireann and feels that he has not had an adequate response can go to Telecommunications Users Council who will intervene on his behalf. In addition to this, the council itself monitors the performances of, say, the telephone service in that particular case and reports annually both publicly and to the Minister on the performance of these bodies. It is a consumer protection measure.

431. Deputy Crotty.—On the telecommunications side, is there many representations made to them?

Mr. McMahon.—The answer is, yes. They get a reasonable volume, but my understanding is that the numbers are not as great as they had been on previous occasions as the quality of service has been improving.

Deputy Crotty.—Does it deal with telephone account disputes?

Mr. McMahon.—Yes, that would be within their mandate?

Deputy Crotty.—Are the general public aware that there is a council there to intervene in disputes?

Mr. McMahon.—The availability of this users council is certainly covered in a full page of the telephone directory and from time to time through some public events it comes to public notice. It may very well be that the public are not as conscious of it as they might be, but through consumers’ associations and other voluntary agencies — perhaps Deputies’ “clinics” and so on — there are various ways in which they can be referred.

Deputy Crotty.—Who are the personnel of these councils?

Mr. McMahon.—I do not have the particular names with me.

Deputy Crotty.—Are they people from your Department?

Mr. McMahon.—No, they are people chosen from a broad cross-section of the public, both business and private users, and they act in a part-time capacity and are certainly not representative of the Department.

Deputy Crotty.—They are appointed by the Minister?

Mr. McMahon.—They are appointed by the Minister for Communications.

432. Chairman.—On subhead K.1 — Wreck and Salvage, Relief of Distressed Seamen, etc. — that covers a seaman stranded abroad, is that correct?

Mr. McMahon.—Yes, a situation may arise, for example, when a seaman is injured or ill and his ship sails and he is left destitute. In that situation normally he is looked after in the first instance by the local Consul or diplomat, but the final cost is borne on our Vote.

433. Deputy Crotty.—In relation to subhead B.I. — Travelling and Incidental Expenses — if the overall wage bill is £17 million and you have nearly a £1 million of travelling expenses. That appears to be a very substantial figure, a very high percentage in relation to wages. Is there any particular reason for this?

Mr. McMahon.—Yes, I could elaborate a little bit on that. Firstly, the Department of Communications have a lot of locations around the country: they have three State airports, about 30 meteorological stations, coast life saving stations at various places and ship surveyors who must visit various ports, so they have a lot of duty travel within the country to maintain their regulatory and safety functions. This also includes foreign travel to service international obligations, which are quite extensive in the case of the Department of Communications, because both in aviation and shipping it is very much an international business, as also are things like broadcasting, allocation of frequencies and telecommunications services. We need to maintain our presence at these organisations to ensure that the policies adopted are those which as far as possible suit our needs. I should say, in relation to the European Community and transport to and from meetings of the European Community, we do recover the travel costs from the Community, which is an offset which is in the appropriations-in-aid. In addition it is sometimes necessary, because of the very highly specialised nature of some of the aviation and technical services involved, to send people say to training courses in other countries, for example, a new aircraft is being introduced or a new electronic aid, and it is necessary that we have on our staff people who are familiar with it both for installation and maintenance purposes. There is a very wide range of services. I can give the Deputy a breakdown of some of these costs if he wishes.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 29—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Mr. D. Brennan called and examined.

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

Subhead D.1.—Publications in Irish

In 1971 a publisher proposing to publish an Encyclopaedia in Irish for children in the ten to fifteen age group sought direct financial aid towards the cost of the proposed publication from the Department of Education and also sought a guarantee that the Department would purchase a specified number of sets of the Encyclopaedia for use in primary schools. The total State aid sought for the 16 Volume Encyclopaedia, to be published at the rate of two volumes per year in the period 1974-1982, was estimated in 1971 at £382,962 including the cost of 6,000 sets for use in schools.

In August 1972 the Department of Finance sanctioned the proposal in principle. A series of meetings between the publisher and the Department took place in the period 1971 to 1974 but no contract was entered into. By 1974, after several cost revisions, it was estimated that the project would cost the Department £573,840 but in January 1975 the publisher was informed that no funds were available towards the cost and that no further commitments should be made by him. In December 1975, the publisher, dissatisfied with the Department’s refusal to proceed with the project, took legal proceedings for the recovery of the expenses incurred by him. Under a High Court judgement given in October 1982 the Department was required to pay £57,600 to the publisher in settlement of his claim. This was paid in 1982 and further sums totalling £57,360 were paid in 1983 and 1984 in respect of legal costs, etc.

435. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I would like to express the view that it is a pity that it did not go ahead. The idea of an Irish encyclopaedia was a very good one. I do not want to make any comment other than that.

Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. McDonnell.—I have nothing really to say about this paragraph, it is just for information. You will see what is involved there. It involved a cost resulting from the withdrawal by the Department from this project some years after it has been initiated. There apparently was not a formal contract with the publisher but nonetheless he sued the Department for certain expenses and recovered those as well as his costs. The whole lot came to something in the region of £115,000 altogether, between his expenses and costs.

436. Deputy Naughten.—I would like to ask the Accounting Officer what commitment was given to this publisher?

Mr. Brennan.—There were discussions with the publisher about this project which attracted considerable support in the Department in the early days. There was no question of any contract at all. The publisher made the approach, the Department considered it, were prepared to support the project if it could be kept within reasonable bounds. As time wore on, over a period of years, estimated cost escalated to such a degree that it was decided it was not really viable. What the Department was hoping for, at the outset, would have been that every school in the country would get an encyclopaedia free, 6,000 schools. The selling price of the encyclopaedia would have been £3 a volume for 16 volumes. This was regarded as well worth investing in but the project was not really getting anywhere, costs were escalating all the time, and the Department decided to pull out and to say that they had no longer an interest in it. The Department, of course, resisted the case that was taken in the High Court on the grounds that they had no contract. What was involved finally was more or less covering the costs actually incurred by Messrs. Folens.

Deputy Naughten.—Surely they would not be in a position to recover costs unless some commitment was given to them. Surely they would have to justify in court that there was some contract, verbal or written.

Mr. Brennan.—When I read the note in the Appropriations Accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General I assumed that this meant that you were simply wrapping up the issue for consideration, that we would not be hearing anything further about it. As I understand the case, it was not held in court that there was a contract, implied or otherwise, it was held that in equity the publisher had undertaken considerable expense on the basis of the likely prospect that the Department would co-operate and would be interested in pushing the project to a conclusion, no more than that. I cannot vouch for what actually happened in court.

437. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Does An Gúm come under your Department, Mr. Brennan, or is it the Department of Finance?

Mr. Brennan.—An Gúm is under the Department of Education.

438. Deputy G. Mitchell.—A very excellent body, indeed. I purchase some of their books for my children regularly. Were they consulted about this?

Mr. Brennan.—I cannot say to what extent An Gúm would have been involved. This is speculation on my part. It goes back a long period of time. I cannot imagine that An Gúm would not have been invited to deliver their observations at some stage because in so far as we have experts in the publishing field in the Department they are the experts, but it was not a Gúm project.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—I would like to express the hope that at some stage you will get this off the ground because it is an excellent idea.

Mr. Brennan.—I would be delighted to see it getting off the ground. When I read about it I thought it was a pity it had not materialised. It would be a most useful adjunct obviously to the teaching of Irish. Yet I have to say that in the present financial economic circumstances I would not see it as a very live prospect.

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

Subhead D.3. — Transport Services

From the inception of the school transport service in 1967 Córas Iompair Éireann (CIE) has, under a formal agreement, acted as agent for the Minister for Education in providing the service at both primary and post-primary level. On 1 January 1975 a revised agreement was concluded governing the basis on which payment would be made for providing, supervising and administering the service. This agreement provides, inter alia, for the submission to the Department of an audited annual account showing the cost of the service and for the payment to CIE of overhead costs calculated at 13 per cent of expenditure on specific direct costs. Any change in the agreed arrangements requires twelve months notice by either party. The 1983 account disclosed that CIE’s direct expenditure on the service was £24.4 million and overheads were accordingly calculated at £3.2 million. The direct expenditure included £6.9 million running costs of the bus fleet and £12.1 million paid to private bus operators. As it seemed to me that a substantial part of these amounts would be represented by fuel costs and as fuel costs had apparently increased in the period 1 January 1975 to 31 December 1984 at a considerably greater rate than other direct costs I asked whether the continued payment of overheads at the rate of 13 per cent in respect of the fuel cost element was justified.

Mr. McDonnell.—This paragraph deals with the method agreed in 1975 between the Department and CIE for calculating the amount to be paid to CIE in respect of their overhead costs incurred in running the school transport services. When the agreement with CIE was made in 1975 it was apparently accepted then that a 13 per cent allowance on certain direct costs of the system would, by and large, recoup CIE for overheads. As you will understand, under this formula the amount paid for overheads would automatically increase if the direct costs increased. That would seem reasonable enough, because the actual cost of overheads would probably be increasing also at or about the same level. My concern there was that, outside the ordinary run of price increases, there had been an inordinate price increase in one item of direct costs, that is to say fuel, and that increase could hardly have been said to be matched by an increase in overheads. Therefore, I was wondering whether the automatic application of the 13 per cent to the exceptional element of the increase in fuel prices might have caused some distortion in the formula? The Accounting Officer has told me that between 1975 and 1984 the total cost of fuel used in the school transport services increased by about 392 per cent, about 4 per cent in which was due to increased mileage, the rest being due to a price increase in fuel. In the same period the consumer price index increased by 248 per cent. In fact, when I raised the matter I used the figure of 260 per cent as the increase in labour costs based on public sector pay movements in that period. But, because the percentage for overheads was applied to the abnormal increase as well as the normal increases, the amount paid to CIE under this formula of adding a percentage to direct costs showed an increase of 333 per cent in that period. The Accounting Officer agreed that initially CIE had benefitted to some extent from the fact that fuel costs had increased at a higher rate than labour costs, but he felt that this was not a compelling reason for reviewing the arrangements which had been agreed. However, he did say that the question could be examined. He later said that he could not put a figure on the extra benefit derived by CIE in that period of five years arising from the application of the percentage increase to the total fuel costs. He said also that the question of reviewing the agreement was considered but it was decided not to review it because, according to information provided by CIE, it had transpired that total overheads calculated on the formula, including even the 13 per cent on the fuel element, equated more or less to the amount received under the agreement. I have only recently got sight of the details which the Accounting Officer received from CIE in connection with this and at the moment I am looking for clarification on some further points which arise on this more detailed information. I will be pursuing these in more detail in my 1986 audit. I only received them a very short time ago.

440. Deputy Crotty.—You did not receive these in time to comment on them and is there any reasonable explanation why not?

Mr. McDonnell.—We had been in correspondence with the Accounting Officer on this matter and at the time I published my report I had made my initial inquiries. I subsequently asked the Accounting Officer for information in this regard. I was suggesting that the formula might have become slightly distorted. I asked the Accounting Officer for futher information. He got further information from CIE. That information, I think I am right in saying, was received by the Accounting Officer in March 1986, but in fact I was not aware that he had received the further information until October, and I asked for it then and got it in October.

441. Deputy Crotty.—Would you have expected that it should have been supplied to you in March?

Mr. McDonnell.—Well, perhaps. . . .

(Interruption due to technical fault)

the logic of the formula. I think the Accounting Officer got it in March. I had asked him a number of questions in correspondence and in replying to them he said that he had got this information. His reply came to me on 14 October saying that he had this information. I then asked him for it and received it some time after 14 October. This is an on-going matter.

442. Deputy Crotty.—Why I referred to this was because this week we have received two notes from the office here, notes from the Accounting Officer, queries that were made on 2 May 1985 and we have received a reply this week. I think this requires a comment by the Accounting Officer.

Mr. Brennan.—I intend at the very outset to make a point about the difficulties we have experienced in providing information on time and the delays that have taken place for which I would express the deepest regret. I can only offer the assurance that it was not with any degree of malice aforethought that the information requested from time to time was not forthcoming as quickly as one would wish. There are cases other than the CIE one which Deputy Crotty has mentioned and which I will deal with at the same time, because there have been delays which frankly are out of conscience. In relation to CIE, there has been correspondence back and forth with CIE. The second last time I wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General was on 9 September giving a formal reply to some of his queries and indicating that we were awaiting further information from CIE. When that information was received we sent it “forthwith”, as quickly as we could, although that arrived only the other day with the Comptroller and Auditor General and we are still awaiting some further information from CIE. Regarding the general issue of delays in responding to queries from the Comptroller and Auditor General, I am very unhappy with the situation. In the case of Kilbarrack School—

Chairman.—That is coming up in another paragraph.

Mr. Brennan.—Yes, but I just want to talk about the delay factor. I am very unhappy about that delay. I got an explanation for it. I am not entirely happy with the explanation but I can say that the section concerned is under extreme pressure and, like almost every section in every area of the Civil Service, they are affected by the operation of the embargo. The embargo has been a very blunt weapon, and a very effective one from the point of view of controlling staff costs, but it has not been perhaps the greatest contribution to staff effectiveness or to effective operations. Certainly, in issues of this kind delays will take place and they can be attributed with some credibility largely to the operation of the embargo. The people concerned I assure you are under extreme pressure. I would prefer that they would give a greater measure of priority to these queries and I hope that you will not have this complaint next year.

443. Deputy Naughten.—I would like to ask the Accounting Officer if the total cost of school transport in 1984 was £27.6 million?

Mr. Brennan.—I have a figure here for 1983 — you must be very close to the mark — which totalled £27.6 million.

444. Deputy Naughten.—That is correct, that is the one I was referring to. Of that CIE get £3.2 million on this 13 per cent arrangement?

Mr. Brennan.—That is right.

Deputy Naughten.—Have you examined in any detail the implications of the gigantic increase in oil prices which has been referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General and if, in fact, the figure paid at the rate of 13 per cent is too high in your opinion?

Mr. Brennan.—In so far as an examination has been carried out within the Department — and that has been done — it was put to me that CIE could probably have been able to claim, if there was a detailed assessment of overheads, £3.446 million instead of £3.2 million. I would not stand absolutely over these figures, but it has been put to us by CIE that the cost of fuel and lubricants for CIE school buses represents no more than 5 to 6 per cent approximately of total direct cost. It is not by any means the main influential factor, it is a factor. When this issue was raised originally by the Comptroller it was investigated and the reply was sent out, as he has mentioned, indicating that it was felt that the game would not be worth a candle, that there was nothing worthwhile that would enable you to generate any savings that would ease the situation of the school transport service and the cost it gave rise to on the Exchequer. We have replied at different times to the Comptroller and Auditor General and we are awaiting further information from CIE on the issue of overheads. We have not closed our minds to the idea of having a review of the 13 per cent factor carried out. Up to now it has not appeared to us that it would be worthwhile, that there was so much at issue that it would make any considerable difference to the overall cost of the service. On the basis of the investigation carried out it was reported to me that where CIE got £3.2 million that year they might have got something more than that.

Mr. McDonnell.—It is that very point that I said at the beginning that I want to examine further because the Accounting Officer is quite right when he says that the information furnished by CIE suggests that the formula gave them £3.2 million and if you looked at the overheads in detail it would be £3.4 million, but it is that very detail, which built up to that £3.4 million which is being used as rationalising the formula that I would like to have a look at.

Mr. Brennan.—If I could make the observation that when CIE bring forward this information to us we will not delay sending it on to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

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

Prior to 1975 the school bus fleet was owned by CIE. At that time it was decided that ownership would be transferred to the Department for an agreed sum and that, thereafter, fleet renewal costs would be met from the Vote. It was noted that the Department does not maintain an inventory of the school bus fleet and I asked whether any record of the vehicles now constituting the Department’s fleet is available.

Mr. McDonnell.—This also deals with the school transport system. As the paragraph states, the Department own the school bus fleet and pay for replacements and additions. It draws attention to the fact that an inventory of the school bus fleet, at that stage at least, did not appear to be kept by the Department. I asked if any record of the vehicles now making up the fleet was available. The Accounting Officer in his reply has given me information which was since provided to him by CIE. That shows the details of the vehicles purchased, withdrawn for scrapping, vehicles remaining in service and additional vehicles supplied by CIE. On one small point I asked him if CIE had given him any credit for the salvage value of the vehicles withdrawn for scrapping. They had not, but he said they are going to give them credit for the salvage value which is a small figure at present. I do not know how many vehicles withdrawn for scrapping have been scrapped. Approximately 117 vehicles have been withdrawn and there is some credit due to the Department in respect of scrapped vehicles.

446. Deputy Naughten.—It would appear that when this fleet was bought from CIE there was no detailed inventory of stock purchased. Is that right?

Mr. McDonnell.—It seemed that CIE may have had it. I asked the Department had they got their inventory, since they were the owners, I am not sure what CIE had or who had it.

447. Deputy Naughten.—It is the Department I am interested in because they were the purchasers.

Mr. Brennan.—I just cannot say what the position was then, but I know that we have since been given a very detailed inventory. So I understand that we have sent this information on?

Mr. McDonnell.—Yes.

Mr. Brennan.—We also have a figure for the residual value to CIE of buses withdrawn for scrapping. We have only their word for it. It is a very small figure, something slightly in excess of £6,000.

448. Deputy Naughten.—Reading paragraph 33 one could not help but get the impression that you purchased a fleet without knowing the details of that fleet.

Mr. Brennan.—I honestly do not believe that that could have been the situation.

Deputy Naughten.—That is the clear implication in paragraph 33.

Mr. Brennan.—It is very difficult for me to respond to this. Perhaps I should have anticipated that question. What I have before me is that CIE kept records and we relied upon them to keep these records up-to-date and to furnish us with the information as we required them. The primary consideration when the scheme was worked out originally was not so much a question of cost as a question of service. CIE were the experts in this field. The Department would have to rely on CIE in regard to the nature of the service being provided, the drawing up of catchment areas, and so on. Early on there were some difficulties with CIE about miscalulating measuring distances. There was a monitoring system, an inspection system in the early days of the service, operated by the Department up to 1975. In the course of that inspection system it was established that CIE might have been slightly cavalier in measuring distances, slightly over-generous on their side, less generous on our side. These difficulties were resolved and it was decided as a result of the resolution of these difficulties that it would not be worth the Department’s while maintaining that inspection system. That question also has been raised with the Comptroller and Auditor General and I am not sure if he is satisfied with the reply. Maybe if you abandon a inspection system altogether there is a risk that things will slip again and we could look at it from that point of view. At the time the Department were satisfied that they had brought the situation under control and were paying only for the service they were getting.

449. Deputy Naughten.—How could the thing slip again if there were catchment areas? Were catchment areas not set down since the foundation of the school transport service?

Mr. Brennan.—In catchment areas, yes, but there could be different routes. The system depends upon the demand for service on the individual routes. There is nothing that the Minister and I get more queries about — second only to national school building — than the transport service. Parents are forever writing into us or to Deputies, and Deputies writing to us about having a service diverted here — it is only half a mile down the lane, and so on. In this kind of thing we may be regarded as being a bit harsh, that surely 1.8 miles is a long distance for young children to walk to school. However, the rules laid down for the operation of the service strive to strike a balance between economy and equity. A service will be terminated unless the service is called for by reference to a certain number. There is a minimum number of people to be transported. You are right for the most part. We should be right in relying upon the system that was checked out up to 1975, but there can be different routes from time to time. I would not entertain any unworthy suspicion that CIE would try to put one over us, but it might be worthwhile looking at the new routes that have developed in the meantime. It could be done on a random selection basis, I do not think it would be worthwhile touring the country.

Deputy Naughten.—All I would say of my experience of CIE in that matter is that they are absolutely rigorous in their measurements. I am sure, Chairman, you would probably agree with me on that as well.

Chairman.—That gives me great reassurance.

Deputy Naughten.—That still does not answer my earlier question about the purchase of a fleet without knowing the numbers of vehicles in it and what type. This would appear to be the situation.

Mr. Brennan.—There may be some appearance to justify that. I just cannot say. I would prefer to be able to answer your point here but I am willing to furnish further information.

450. Deputy Naughten.—With regard to the breakdown value, how many buses are scrapped each year?

Mr. Brennan.—I cannot say that offhand.

Deputy Naughten.—How are they replaced?

Mr. Brennan.—The whole issue of how the transport service can be most economically operated is forever under review. All sorts of ideas come into mind. At present it is divided between private bus operators and CIE. The proportion of the service undertaken by private bus operators has increased marginally but effectively and the proportion carried out by CIE has reduced. The Department generally feel that it is well to have two options, not to put all our eggs in one basket. We trust CIE, of course, but we might have problems with the private operators if they alone had the operation of the service. There is a case for the replacement of the service, but we are operating it on a rather—I suppose you could term it — frugal basis at present. We are able to use buses that might fall short of the standards required by CIE for their normal bus services, but they are still quite adequate for our purposes. Buses are only finally scrapped when they are literally scrap. On that issue I would prefer to come back to you rather than to mislead you in any way right now, if that is OK. We will find out exactly how many are scrapped each year.

Deputy Naughten.—We would like to have that.*

451. Chairman.—Paragraph 34 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead F.1.—Superannuation of Secondary Teachers

The superannuation schemes of both national and secondary teachers are provided for under the Teachers Superannuation Act, 1928 and statutory orders made under the provisions of that Act by the Minister for Education with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service.

It has been noted that a number of revised provisions regarding the superannuation of national and secondary teachers have been implemented by the Department of Education with effect from 1968 without the necessary statutory orders having been made. These include the introduction of a Spouses’ and Childrens’ Scheme, relaxation of certain conditions of the schemes with consequential improvements in benefits, admission of Community School teachers to the Secondary Teachers Scheme, charging of secondary teachers’ superannuation payments to the Vote for Post-Primary Education rather than the Secondary Teachers Pension Fund with effect from January 1984 and the winding up of that Fund.

I have asked the Department of Education on a number of occasions over the past six years to take steps to comply with the legislative requirements regarding the amendment of these schemes. Because of the continuing failure to do so I am bringing the matter to the attention of Dáil Éireann.

Mr. McDonnell.—I really have to say that I included this paragraph in my report because you will see there was a continuing delay on the part of the Department to validate the superannuation arrangements for the various categories of teachers. I had been asking about it for some time, so I eventually decided to include it in my report. The Accounting Officer has informed me — again this is some thing he has been touching on in connection with recent questions — that the staff in the section are unable to overtake the updating of the legislation while at the same time keeping their current work of making pension payments and keeping that up to date. However, he said the position was being reviewed; but, as far as I know, the amending legislation has not yet been introduced to validate these. The payments are being made in accordance with an arrangement but it is not covered by the legislation.

452. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Could I ask the Accounting Officer if he has taken steps to comply with the legislative requirement at this time?

Mr. Brennan.—The answer is, frankly, that to comply with the legislative requirements we need to make statutory orders which would have to be voted on by the House. The statutory orders would incorporate all the improvements that have been negotiated over the years, all the revisions that have taken place, in fact, all amendments to the original scheme. Sanction has been forthcoming from the Department of Finance and the Department of the Public Service, as required, for the maintenance of payments. You can imagine what a disaster it would be if, because of the absence of the statutory provisions, because of a failure to make these provisions, people’s pensions were placed in jeopardy. I am most unhappy with the present situation. I was alerted to this last year. I am now two years within the Department. We have to order our priorities. There are severe difficulties about staffing, about manning services in particular areas, and about furthering the aims and the objectives of the Department. Frankly, I found it difficult enough to persuade people to get the management generally to agree that this, which is “merely” a matter — I am not saying it is a mere matter — is merely a matter of regularising something which is happening properly and correctly in any event should have extra staff resources assigned to it. Latterly, we have achieved some improvement. As I said, we could not tolerate the present situation any longer, out of the respect we have to show to the Oireachtas, the PAC and the C. and A.G. We have had an arrangement made where an officer, a higher executive officer was assigned to the updating of legislation. He has completed the first draft of a national teachers’ superannuation amendment scheme which embodies all the agreed reports to date. He is now working on the first draft of a national teachers spouses and children’s contributory pension scheme. He has completed one and he is on the way to completing another. But that is not all of it. After that the matter has to be checked and examined to ensure that all amendments are in fact included and to settle the drafting and to investigate the possibility of a new consolidated scheme. I have one idea in mind too, that I might mention. I do not know how you might feel about it. We find, in relation to each individual scheme, that every improvement has to be the subject of an order where those schemes are concerned it is not the case that the order has to be merely laid before the House and left there for a period of days after which it is assumed it comes into effect unless someone finds something wrong with it. Rather the order has actually to be put before the House for voting on. I doubt that in a situation like this that requirement data would strictly be seen to be called for. I would hope that, when we come to you and are able to report that, finally, we are in the position of being able to say we have regularised the payment of pensions by making the necessary statutory provisions, perhaps, instead of maintaining the position that presently applies or that we are required to implement, that we would come to you and report that we had arranged for a simple amendment of the overriding Act, the basic Superannuation Act of 1928, to enable the matters to be disposed of simply by laying orders on the Table of the House. We are a long way short of that at the present time. Frankly, it has to be a worry to me, as Accounting Officer, that something might be discovered which was astray and which had not been rectified simply because people were happy to continue simply paying out pensions. I would be worried about that lest it might happen. I do not believe it has happened. I do not believe that there are any serious grounds for believing it has happened. I do not know if that gives you any satisfaction.

453. Deputy G. Mitchell.—The only thing I would like to say is that the C. & A.G. has been asking about this over the past six years. I would not be happy with any understanding that is made without the sanction of Dail Eireann. However, I accept in some cases it is necessary for the smooth working of a Department sometimes to do it in arrear. But to do it six years in arrear and still not to be up to date — it was six years in arrear in 1984; we are now in 1986. That is eight years that the C. & A.G. will have been asking; and yet we find it is still not up to date. I would really suggest to Mr. Brennan that he give some priority to this. It is not so much the amount of money or the fact that it might not be spent correctly. It is the question of the propriety of spending money at all without the sanction of the Dail. It is the principle that is wrong. Whereas it might be understandable for a year or 18 months or two years, but for it to go on for eight years without anybody writing up the instrument is going on a bit long now.

Mr. Brennan.—It is not as serious as you say in respect of the particular point you make about money being paid without the authority of the Dáil. In fact, the moneys are voted each year. They are covered in the annual Appropriations Acts.

454. Deputy G. Mitchell.—But they are not voted for this purpose? The legislation does not cover what it has been appropriated for?

Mr. Brennan.—I am not happy with the position either. When I wrote in February 1985 to Mr. Lawley of the C & AG’s office at that time it was arranged to have a general review of the duties of the Department carried out with a view to determining priorities to be catered for by the reduced staff we now have. Any arrangement that can possibly be made to clear the array of work on pensions schemes will be put into effect. I thought that might be indicated as a top priority for the Department at the time. It was pointed out to me that it could not be the absolutely top priority because of the various other responsibilities that devolve on the Department. I am unhappy about it and we will try to make as much headway as we can during the coming year.

455. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Could the committee endorse the Accounting Officer’s recommendation that, instead of having to vote on each of these instruments, it might be laid before the House, and then if anybody wants to raise the matter it can be raised. It would be a much more simple way of dealing with it. Secondly, I think we should also recommend that you bring the matter up to date as a matter of urgency.

Chairman.—Yes.

Mr. Brennan.—I should say one other point and perhaps get myself into trouble for saying too much. Where you have, say, pay revisions, there is no need for any special statutory provision to give effect to pay revisions. The pay revisions are negotiated and there are agreed reports of conciliation councils or arbitration boards or of Labour Courts. In the same way every improvement of this type has been negotiated with the staff side who would be alert to any possible imperfection in the implementation of what has been agreed. It just so happens that the Act calls for this particular arrangement to be made whereby orders are put before the House.

456. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Supposing the Dáil chose not to endorse one of these negotiated agreements?

Mr. Brennan.—As I said, perhaps I am saying too much.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—I take we have endorsed the recommendations and the change should be made in the instrument.

457. Chairman.—We have, yes. paragraph 35 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Subhead E. -Building, Equipment and Furnishing of National Schools

The grants provided under this subhead are paid to the Boards of Management of National Schools, the grant normally being two-thirds of the cost of approved works, but greater if the circumstances of the school locality are such that one-third of the cost cannot be met by local contribution. The Office of Public Works (OPW) acts as the Department’s agent in all technical matters relating to the construction and improvement of national schools. Schools of eight classrooms or more are usually designed by architects commissioned by the Boards of Management, subject to the plans being approved by OPW and the Department of Education. The placing of contracts is authorised by the Department of Education and arranged by OPW following its examination of tenders. The grants are paid to the Boards of Management in the first instance by OPW on the basis of architects’ certificates and are subsequently recovered from the Department of Education.

In late 1982 and early 1983 serious structural defects were discovered in a twentyfour classroom national school built in stages in the period 1970 to 1974. Consultants engaged by the Board of Management estimated the cost of the remedial works at £718,160. Following consultation between the Department, the Board of Management, its advisors and OPW, a revised cost plan amounting to £375,000 inclusive of professional fees was approved and a grant of nine-tenths of the approved cost was agreed by the Department. A contract for the remedial works was placed in June 1984 in the sum of £309,650 but has not yet, I understand, been completed. I inquired why such extensive remedial works became necessary within such a relatively short time of this school having been built. I also inquired as to the actual cost of the remedial works and whether any action for recovery was proposed since the need for the remedial works had apparently arisen from serious structural defects in the original construction.

Mr. McDonnell.—Paragraph 35 deals with serious structural defects in a large national school. The first part of the paragraph sets out the procedures for placing school building contracts and the payment of the Department’s contribution. As stated in the second part, my concern was that such extensive and costly repairs were necessary in a relatively new building and whether the Department had sought or was in a position to seek some redress. The Accounting Officer replied to me that the defects in this school, which were discovered in 1982 by the school authorities, mainly concerned, firstly, plaster coming away from the ceiling, which suggested that the roof slabs might be in danger of collapsing and, secondly, the poor condition of the window frames, which he said was due to the poor quality of timber available in the early 1970s. Subsequent tests he said, established that while the roof itself was structurally sound, the concrete cover for the roof slabs was faulty and could result in premature collapse of the slabs in the event of a fire. It was decided, therefore, that this condition should be rectified. Other remedial works, included the installation of replacement aluminium windows and the treatment of some flat roofs. The school authorities were authorised to place a contract for the sum of £310,000 and grants of £292,000 have been paid by the Department for this work. The Accounting Officer said that the Department were satisfied that the problems which developed were not caused by neglect to maintain the premises and that the particular feature which gave rise to the fears concerning the safety of the building — that is to say the type of roof slabs which were used — was an accepted form of construction at the time the school was designed and the roof was found, on inspection, to have adequate structural strength. The Department’s senior architect advised that it would not, in the circumstances, be open to the school to recover from either the design architects or the contractor, so the Department do not consider that any action to recover any of the cost charged to the Vote is possible.

458. Deputy Naughten.—One of the first things that amazes me about this is that the contract for the remedial work was placed in June 1984. At the time this report was published the work had not been finished. Has it been finished now and what was the overall cost?

Mr. Brennan.—Yes, my understanding is that the full account is now available. This is one of the cases that I had in mind when I apologised earlier on for the delay in replying. We had the query from the Comptroller and Author General on 10 June. He has been very generous not to comment upon the fact that he did not get the reply until 22 November. This was one of the cases where I got a fairly detailed explanation from the section responsible. All they, could say was in effect, that they were under extreme pressure, there was extreme difficulty, they had other priorities. I am not satisfied with that and I would hope that the Comptroller and yourselves will not have grounds for a similar complaint next year. Because of the pressures of the last few days, not all my notes have been translated into typing. If any of you had the experience of trying to read these notes you would realise why it has taken me some little time to understand them. The works have been completed. We paid £292,990 on the basis of nine-tenths grant. The contract was placed finally for £309,650. Some extras must have arisen because nine-tenths of that would not be £292,000. The work has been completed. The position is that where the replacement of aluminium windows was concerned and the treatment of flat roofs, that is due, I am told, simply to ordinary wear and tear. We installed replacement aluminium windows. The original windows were wooden windows. I can say from personal experience that every window in my house, I live in County Meath, is rotten and I am waiting for a grant scheme to be put into operation for my windows. They were not much older than the windows here and they are literally rotten. I have to accept what I am told by the top advisers on the architectural side of the Department about the treatment of the roofs, that at the time there was no reason to question the particular form of structure which was resorted to. Since then it has been discovered that this has certain flaws and creates certain problems. It was accepted that certain works had to be carried out to rectify these flaws. The main flaw apparently was that the roof structure as it was would present a very serious danger in the event of fire, the danger of the roof collapsing. It was felt that the remedial works had to be carried out.

Deputy Naughten.—The windows were rotting after 12 or 13 years approximately. That is a very short lifetime by any standards. It is surprising that in 1970, 1971, 1972 the Department had not got around to insisting on a hard wood window.

Mr Brennan.—That may be fair comment, I do not know. I believe that any of us who were trying to get jobs like this done in the House, and be relying upon hard wood that will stand up would be placed in a very uncertain situation. We cannot be absolutely sure of what we are getting nowadays. I am told that you can get timber that is treated. No one can guarantee me that wooden structures of this kind — doors, windows — are going to last, because they are not of the quality that used to be the case perhaps 80 years ago.

459. Deputy Naughten.—I am rather surprised that the Department were not using something in the form of teak which has a long life by any standards. Putting in a soft wood that was only able to last 12 years was obviously a major defect and prompts one to ask the question if that practice is continuing?

Mr. Brennan.—The Department have to monitor all building schemes. This is a scheme that would have been of such a dimension that the design etc., would have been the responsibility of the architects that would have been appointed by the board of management. That would not relieve the Department of the responsibility for ensuring that the scheme was sound and deserved to be approved. I cannot answer for what the standards were in the Department in 1970, 1972 and around that time. Your observations seem quite apt to me. Consideration of cost may have arisen. It may have been at the time that people did not realise how defective the wood then in supply was.

Deputy Naughten.—But every private individual building a house in the early seventies was using teak. This amazes me and I just wonder what are the Department using today.

Mr. Brennan.—I see they put in aluminium windows here. If they can manage, and remember we are subject to all sorts of constraints in regard to economy all the time, I would hope that is what is being done generally and that they are disposing of the problem for good and all.

Deputy Naughten.—If teak windows had been put in 1970 it would have been very cheap in the long run.

Mr. Brennan.—In the long run, yes.

460. Deputy Naughten.—Another thing I am rather surprised about is that the revised cost plan was £375,000. The first one was £718,000. How was such a huge gap between what was estimated first to be required to carry out remedial work to the building? It was first estimated at £718,000. It was later reduced to £375,000. As far as I can gather the contract was for £309,000. Is that correct?

Mr. Brennan.—I suppose when it went to tender it had gone down a bit. That is the only feature of this case that I am happy to talk to you about, that the Department at least ensured that the original extravagant demands of the board of management, prompted presumably by their own architect, were trimmed back to such an extent. Obviously they were grossly extravagant. It was fortunate that the Department had a hand in that.

461. Deputy Naughten.—But would it not be in the architects best interest to ensure that they were extravagant?

Mr. Brennan.—That is right. He would have been the school’s architect. The Department ensured that his extravagance was kept within bounds.

462. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Could I ask the Accounting Officer where this school is?

Mr. Brennan.—Kilbarrack.

Deputy Mitchell.—I did not get the total final cost.

Mr. Brennan.—The total cost to the Department was £292,990.

463. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Was this not brought about by a certain degree of incompetence by the architects concerned, who advised in the first place? Has any action been taken for recovery from the architects?

Mr. Brennan.—No. The original reply that the Comptroller read out answered that point. Our architects advised that the structure designed was more or less par for the course at that particular time. Since then it emerged that there were flaws in that structure. It would not be adopted now. Our architect tells us that since it was something that was quite in order to be used at the time we would have no claim.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Was that structure used for any other school — that type of design?

Mr. Brennan.—I do not have that information here. I said:

The particular feature which gave rise to the fears concerning the safety of the building.

—from the point of view of fire hazard—

was an accepted form of construction at the relevant time and was in the course of the investigation found to have adequate structural strength. The Department then was advised by the senior architect that it would not be up to the school to recover.

I cannot say whether this was of general use in other schools. It was designed by an outside private architect, but apparently it satisfied the architectural authorities in the Department and the Office of Public Works at the time. On these grounds they do not feel they can proceed against the outside architect.

464. Deputy G. Mitchell: What I am trying to establish is this. If this structure and design was used in some other school and if it was not found to be defective, then was the problem with this particular school the quality of the material used? Was somebody responsible for either (a) ordering poor quality materials or (b) using poor quality materials and charging us for better quality materials?

Mr. Brennan.—I think the point irrelevant frankly, but the questions are proper to be asked. I do not believe we will get beyond where we are when our architects advise us as they have done: that we have no grounds for a claim because it was a standard form of construction at the time. At the same time I would like, for my own personal information and for the information of the committee, to find out if there was any more general use of this type of structure in schools and was it free from the particular problems which have been accounted here.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—That is the point I am making.

Mr. Brennan.—I cannot answer it here and now.

465. Chairman.—Is the builder still around? Has he done any other work for the Department?

Mr. Brennan.—I have no word that the builder is not around. That is something that would be reported as a normal feature of a report of this kind, if the builder had gone into liquidation or left the country. I presume he is still around. I realise this is not entirely satisfactory, but I suggest that I come back to the committee on this, too, and let you know the answer to the particular points raised by Deputy Mitchell and by you, Chairman.

466. Chairman.—Paragraph 36 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:

Subhead G.—Secondary, Vocational, Comprehensive and Community Schools, Regional and other Technical and Specialist Colleges and Specialist Teacher Training Colleges — Building Grants and Capital Costs

The full capital cost of community colleges is met from this subhead.

It was noted that in November 1978 a contract for the construction of a community college in the sum of £848,555 was entered into by a Vocational Education Committee. The consultants engaged to design and supervise the project were appointed by the Committee. In order to ensure that the final account, excluding price variation clause increases, would not exceed the Department’s cost limit, the Committee was required to comply with cost control procedures specified by the Department’s Building Unit. These procedures provide for adherence to the Building Unit’s standard cost-control plan which requires, inter alia, that the Department be immediately notified of significant variations together with proposals as to how any additional expenditure could be met from savings elsewhere in the contract. The Department must also be given a detailed explanation of any other claims which might have a bearing on the final account. In January 1984, when the final account amounting to £1,259,809 was submitted, the Department expressed its concern to the Committee at the serious lack of regard on its part and on the part of its consultants for cost control procedures in that a twentyone week extension of time granted to the contractor led to extra costs of £40,000 under the price variation clause, an amount of £61,200 claimed by the contractor for extension of preliminaries was allowed by the consultants, unapproved extras of £70,000 were incurred and excess costs of loose furniture, equipment and fitted furniture which amounted to £74,267 had not been sanctioned by the Department. The Department considered that if there had been adequate pre-planning and effective post-contract cost control in accordance with established procedures substantial savings could have been achieved on this project but it was left in the position where it had no option but to accept the final account as submitted.

I inquired as to the circumstances in which these cost increases totalling £245,467 arose and what action the Department had taken which would ensure that cost-control procedures are adhered to in the future.

Mr. McDonnell.—Paragraph 36 deals with cost increases totalling £245,000 on a community college contract which were allowed by the VEC but apparently had not been submitted beforehand for the Department’s approval. It seems it only became apparent to the Department when the final account was submitted. You will see that the Department was very concerned at the design team’s apparent failure to comply with the cost control procedure specified by the Department’s building unit. I was also concerned at this apparent disregard for normal control requirements. In reply to the inquiries which I made at the time as to the circumstances in which the cost increases arose and what action the Department had taken to ensure that its cost control procedures are adhered to in the future, the Accounting Officer has explained that in this particular case there was a delay in delivering fitted furniture and that is why additional time was allowed on the contract. Then there were extras, most of which were essential to the project. He said that they occurred because of incomplete preplanning by the design team. He also told me that certain explanations relating to the control and monitoring of this expenditure on the project had been furnished to the Department by the CEO but that these were not considered to be satisfactory and that further responses from the CEO were awaited. He said that, arising out of this case, the Department had introduced revised procedures in February 1981, which required the submission of more detailed design proposals with a view to having complete and thorough preplanning — because preplanning apparently was a problem here — so that every foreseeable item of potential expenditure is identified and provided for before the tender stage. Now also, apparently, instead of the OPW making capital moneys available in advance from the Local Loans Fund, as they used to do, capital moneys are issued directly from the Department as and when required. They are strictly related to the cost of approved work carried out. This enables the Department to curtail or stop unapproved capital expenditure much more effectively. Also, specific instructions have now been issued to VECs, laying heavy emphasis on the need for prior approval by the Department where significant post contract variations arise. I think that is the essence of the Accounting Officer’s reply on this.

467. Deputy Naughten.—Could I ask the Accounting Officer what VEC was involved here?

Mr. Brennan.—It is the town of Drogheda VEC. The school was a community college in Rathmullen, Drogheda.

468. Deputy Naughten.—Did the Department discuss these overruns with the CEO and what was his attitude to it? What was his response?

Mr. Brennan.—The file reflects a kind of a saga. I have the files — they are very big — here. There have been repeated attempts to extract from the CEO in effect an admission that his action in this case was gravely contrary to the standards that would be expected of him. He has been dodging that issue to the extent that he has been giving answers which have not satisfied the Department. I do not want to separate myself from the Department — I belong to the Department as much as the Department belongs to me — but I doubt that the whole issue has been worth pursuing to the extent it has been pursued. What I believe finally has to be the result is simply that the CEO, whom I know personally — I have impressed upon him that all we want is a reasonable reply — would apologise and say it would not happen again. That would be nearly the best you could get from him. There is no question in this case, apart from the preplanning having gone astray and apart from the fact that he did not comply with regulations, of any misuse of public funds. There were four heads under which extra expenditure arose. Three of them were perfectly routine, as far as I can understand. One was an extension of contract time. That would have been allowed by the architect if the matter had been put to the Department on time. There was a question of extension of preliminaries which is directly related to the first one. These two, together, account for over £100,000. There was the extra cost of loose furniture and equipment. The excess finally sanctioned was only £8,179. There was one issue where there was a problem of unapproved extras. I am told that they would have been allowed if foreseen as absolutely essential. They should have been included in the original contract design drawings. It would be a more serious matter if we discovered that something had gone astray, that there had been any attempt to deceive. What simply happened here was that there was neglect of the ordinary rules. The rules may not have been as clear as can be because I now discover that there has been some change in the rules. That suggests that there was a loophole there. The CEO maintained that when he sent in these QS forms — I take it they are quantity survey forms — which had been completed by the architect he was giving prior notice. He is being slightly disingenuous there because in fact the QS forms came in, we discovered, after the completion of the contract. Where do we go from here? We are still asking for an adequate and proper explanation. Finally, he will have to say that he is sorry, that he does not have an adequate explanation because he simply does not.

469. Deputy Naughten.—From what you say there he went ahead with the building. Is it right that detailed drawings were not supplied until after the work had commenced?

Mr. Brennan.—No. The main contract was dealt with in the ordinary way. Then these improvements or amendments and revisions took place. This is what the Department took issue with, that they were not notified of these particular revisions in time.

470. Deputy Naughten.—These revisions and amendments were all found to be necessary and essential?

Mr. Brennan.—Yes, that is right.

Deputy Naughten.—Why did your building branch not note in the examination of the design that these requirements which were so essential were missing and were not included?

Mr. Brennan.—You have me stumped there. I do not know. If it was an essential part of the pre-planning operation, as it is now said to be, the Department may have discovered some loophole in their own operation and they are determined that this should not happen again.

Deputy Naughten.—This rather puzzles me. I have had some dealings with the building section of your Department and as a member of a vocational educational committee for 11 years and God knows they put us through the wringer in regard to every contract that went up. It amazes me? how this contract could have gone through with vital and essential equipment not included in the overall design of the scheme.

Mr. Brennan.—I would not worry so much about the equipment end of it. That was the furniture end of it. There was a very slight amount involved there. That is something that comes later in any event, but there is some flaw where they speak about the pre-planning of the design. I am very glad to accept your tribute to the building branch and I will pass it on to them.

Deputy Naughten.—It might not have been in tribute that I was making it. I have one further question. How could the delay in fitted furniture arise and how could it affect the contract?

Mr. Brennan.—The cost of equipment and fitted furniture exceeded by £74,000 the amount sanctioned for these items. The reply, signed by me last year, on 26 November 1985, was to the effect that this was not quite accurate. The cost of the furniture and equipment did not exceed the amount sanctioned by £74,000. An initial allocation of £250,000 was allowed for loose furniture on 19 June 1980. This allocation was later increased by £38,000 on 21 October 1981. In addition, the acceptonce of a tender for fitted furniture, amounting to £66,088, arose and that gave an overall total of £354,000 so that in effect the excess finally was only a matter of between £7,000 and £8,000.

Deputy Naughten.—Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Brennan, I thought you mentioned earlier that the delay in the supply of fitted furniture added to the delay in the completion of the contract.

Mr. Brennan.—No, I am afraid if I said that I must have gone a bit astray. I was reading from the notes here which identified for me four headings under which extra expenditure arose. The first one was an extension of contract time for the building contract. There was an extension of preliminaries.

Deputy Naughten.—As a matter of interest, why was an extension of the time required? It was fairly hefty.

Mr. Brennan.—There were 21 weeks. I am told that it would have been allowed by our architect because the works were delayed due to circumstances outside the contractor’s control. I do not know exactly what these circumstances were. The Department itself may have been at fault.

471. Chairman.—Paragraph 37 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Up to 1976 all commúnity schools built by the Department of Education were provided with physical education halls. In 1979 it was decided that 13 schools contracted for since 1976 without such facilities should be provided with them. A team of consultants was engaged to make recommendations regarding the placing of the contracts for such halls at four schools in the Dublin area and to supervise construction work. The halls were designed by the architectural staff of the Department’s Building Unit. All four contracts were placed in 1981 with one contractor in sums of £198,171, £189,717, £207,516 and £189,863, respectively, these being the lowest tenders received. When entering into the contracts the contractor indicated that provision by him of a performance bond would prove a lengthy process and he proposed, as an alternative, that, when making progress payments for work carried out, the Department should retain 11 per cent of the value of architects’ certificates instead of the normal 5 per cent. On the basis of an informal guideline given by the Department of Finance in 1980 that performance bonds were unnecessary for contracts in the region of £200,000 the Department of Education accepted the contractor’s proposal. By March 1983 sums amounting to £260,237, £255,217, £281,656 and £231,255 had been paid in respect of the four contracts. In April 1983, when the buildings were virtually completed, the contractor was put into receivership. In December 1983 the roofs of two of the halls suffered severe storm damage, due apparently to faulty construction, and emergency repairs were carried out by the Department. On inspection, the roofs of the other two halls were found to have similar defects. The receiver was requested to have remedial works carried out on all four and to complete all other outstanding work but, as he failed to do so and as the contractor went into liquidation in May 1984, other contractors were engaged by the Department to carry out this work at a cost of approximately £119,000. Consultants’ fees have been paid in respect of the original contract and have been claimed in respect of the remedial works.

I inquired why the Department of Finance guideline regarding the provision of bonds for contracts up to £200,000 was applied to four separate contracts totalling £785,000 awarded simultaneously to one contractor.

I also sought information regarding the final cost of the halls and I asked what recourse was available to the Department to recover the cost of the remedial works and any additional costs incurred on the completion of the original contracts.

Mr. McDonnell.—There is a number of points arising on this which relate to the construction of physical education halls at a number of community schools which had been originally built without physical education halls. Firstly, I was concerned that the Department did not obtain a performance bond from the contractor in respect of four contracts which totalled £785,000. I have to say immediately that I would accept that they were individually within the limit in respect of which guidelines have been laid down by the Department of Finance. They have suggested that for contracts in the region of about £200,000 perhaps it would be unreasonable to look for a performance bond but in total they came to the figure which you see there. Secondly, I was concerned that the Department have had to bear the cost of remedial works and, thirdly, they appeared to be paying additional consultants’ fees on the remedial works. In this case I have to say that in a reply received yesterday the Accounting Officer has told me that each of the four contracts had to be dealt with separately as regards the bond. As the four tenders for this contract were £130,000 or so lower in total than the next lowest tender and because of higher retention moneys, which you will see referred to there also, which the contractor had agreed to, it was considered that passing over the contractor just because of the lack of a performance bond would not be justified. He also said that the overall cost of the four P.E. halls, including the remedial works, was about £1.19 million and that it was in fact about £112,000 less than the total of the next lowest tender. With regard to the recovery of the cost of the remedial works, and these came to about £121,000, that is the reason I said that I got this reply yesterday because that is slightly more than the figure stated in the paragraph. The Accounting Officer in his reply given to me yesterday amended some of the earlier figures, but he stated that it was proposed to recover about £50,000 of the cost of the remedial works from retentions which the Department still have which are apparently about £60,000 and to seek to recover the balance from whatever assets might be available to the liquidator. Again I am referring to the amended reply from the Accounting Officer which he gave me yesterday. Following his earlier reply, I have to say this, essentially the changes in his later reply were changes in the figures. In replying to further inquiries which I had made earlier he stated, and this is something which concerned me, that the scope of the brief given to the consultants required them to supervise the work to completion and to certify payment. He said that the interpretation of this duty was in accordance with the normal conditions of engagement which allows a consultant to carry out such periodical inspection as he considered necessary and provided that constant superintendance of the work does not form part of his duties and is not covered by the scale of minimum charges. The employment of a clerk of works actually to do that would entail further expense and would not be normal in a contract of this size. Because of what I have just said in regard to the interpretation of the consultants’ brief, the Accounting Officer said that he was satisfied that the consultants had carried out their brief satisfactorily and in a manner which properly safeguarded the State’s interests.

472. Chairman.—I want to make just one point. The original contracts amounted to £785,000 and there was an overrun of over £200,000, approximately £220,000, possibly more. It was found that there was storm damage to the two roofs, they were blown off in 1983, and as a result of examination the other two roofs were found to be defective as well. The overall costs of that came to £119,000. That was approximately £400,000 in round figures. On top of that the consultants you engaged received fees as a result of the extra work that had to be done when in actual fact they had a responsibility to see that the original work was carried out in accordance with specifications laid down. They obviously failed in their duty, seeing that the other two roofs were found to be defective. Are these consultants still in the employment of the Department and what did they receive for this work?

Mr. Brennan.—I have a problem here and it is a fairly serious one from my standpoint, because I cannot speak to the original reply which was sent out in September 1985 in response to the query of 21 May. I was given a revised reply which incorporated these changes in the figures. I cannot speak to the original one very effectively and that is more than a little embarrassing. The consultants would have been the consultants again engaged by the schools. I cannot answer the point you raised about where the consultants stand and how they stood in relation to claiming for the remedial works etc. from the schools. The point you asked me about where the consultants stand, how they stood in relation to claiming for the remedial works, etc. I cannot answer here and now. I cannot answer even as to whether it is accepted by the Department that the roof damage was otherwise than an act of God or something that should not have happened if the structure had been property carried out. I was turning my attention mainly to the issue of the bond and I was satisfied on the basis of what I was informed that each contract is dealt with as a separate entity and it was just a coincidence that this particular contractor, who did four separate contracts and then went into liquidation at some stages got these four contracts. But each one was quite a separate contract and separate bonding had to be applied. There could have been four separate contractors.

473. Chairman.—The point is that there was still an overrun, a complete overrun from the original contract, even though you had consultants employed?

Mr. Brennan.—That is right. Frankly, I am at a complete loss here. It is not unusual for there to be an overrun on the cost of a contract the price variation clause alone would give rise to that. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I have to ask your indulgence I do not know whether you can give it to me. I will have to come back on this.

474. Deputy Naughten.—I am rather stunned at the statement of the Accounting Officer. First of all, could he clarify for the committee what he means by a “biased report”. I think that was the word you used when you were referring to a report?

Mr. Brennan.—No, I did not use that word. I cannot recall.

Deputy Naughten.—Well, you said that the report you had that you did not wish to discuss it based on the report that you had. Is that right?

Mr. Brennan.—No. I said I could not speak to the original reply which was sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General because I did not have it here in front of me. I understood that the subsequent reply was fully in substitution for the original report and that I had every detail here in front of me. Apparently, there are elements in the original reply which are quite valid but which I am afraid I cannot address myself to because I do not have it here in front of me I was expressing my regret and my apology to the committee for this.

475. Deputy Naughten.—With regard to the overrun on the contracts? There is a substantial overrun on each contract.

Mr. Brennan.—Yes. The original contract came to £791,000. There was a total overrun of £399,000 of which £276,000 was directly attributable to the price variation clause for wages, materials, alterations of flooring specifications and so on. The remedial works came to £120,000. Against the remedial works we are holding at the moment £59,000. That £59,000 is the global amount held in respect of four contracts. We cannot hold all of that amount back because £9,000 of it relates to one of the four and it is apparent that that cannot be withheld. The £50,000 will be withheld, so it will reduce the overall cost of the extra remedail works moneys to something like £70,000. I do not know whether this helps very much, but overall the position is that we are still, even with the cost of the remedial works included, doing better than would have done if we had gone to the next lowest tenderer in each case.

476. Deputy Naughten.—You refer to a situation where by March 1982 three sums amounting to £260,255, £281,000 and £231,000 — was that the sum paid or was it the sum with deductions, the 11 per cent deducted?

Mr. Brennan.—I am given here a statement for the breakdown of the moneys actually recommended to be paid to the contractor. The total comes to £1,068,000 in round figures. The remedial contract sum is £121,000 and the whole makes up the sum which was mentioned in the reply to the Comptroller and Auditor General, which only went to him the other day, £1,188,000.

477. Deputy Naughten.—With regard to the role played by the consultants; there were consultants employed and paid fees for drawing up plans and inspecting the work as it progressed, is that right?

Mr. Brennan.—Yes.

478. Deputy Naughten.—Was it the same consultants who inspected the storm damage on two of the halls and that the other two were found to have similar defects?

Mr. Brennan.—You should send me away and ask me to come back again. I simply do not have full information on this case at all at this time.

479. Deputy Naughten.—Could you tell me were there additional consultants’ fees paid the second time?

Mr. Brennan.—I will have to find out. This is what the Comptroller and Auditor General said, yes.

Chairman.—There were, yes.

480. Deputy Naughten.—Would you not accept, Mr. Brennan, that this is very serious situation: that your Department paid fees to consultants to draw up the contract and supervise the construction of four recreation halls and that some 12 months later major defects are found in the structure of those buildings? Would these people not be liable for failure to carry out their duties?

Mr. Brennan.—The question certainly arises. I know I am trespassing on your goodwill but I need to be able to look into this in a way which I have not managed to do.

Chairman.—In fairness to Deputy Naughten, that is the point, you see. They actually got fees for the work they did.

Mr. Brennan.—I cannot defend that because I do not have the details here before me, but I think it is a legitimate point to raise.

481. Deputy Naughten.—But, in fairness, Mr. Brennan, it is the whole nub of that paragraph. To me it is obnoxious to think that your Department would pay people to carry out a job for the Department and then, when that job is found defective, that you would come along and pay another set of consultants, which it would appear has been done, to carry out remedial work within a matter of a couple of years. What is even more worrying is this: are those people still in the employment of the Department of Education?

482. Chairman.—Could I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to repeat what he said with regard to that paragraph. I think it brings out the point very forcibly.

Mr. McDonnell.—As I understood it, and as I said at the beginning, my concern was that the Department not alone had to carry out the remedial works but that it apparently was paying the same consultants fees in respect of the remedial works, having paid the fees in respect of the original works. I had asked that of the Accounting Officer. What I said in my comment was this — I think this is what you want me to repeat, Chairman. The Accounting Officer stated in reply to one of my inquiries, while the scope of the brief given to the consultants required them to supervise the work to completion and certify payments, the interpretation of this duty was in accordance with the normal conditions of engagement which allowed the consultant to carry out such periodial inspection as he considers necessary and provided that constant superintendence of the work does not form part of his duties and is not covered by the scale of minimum charges. The Accounting Officer said that he was therefore satisfied that the consultants carried out their brief satisfactorily and in a manner which properly safeguarded the State’s interest. This is the matter that I was a little bit concerned about.

483. Deputy Naughten.—I must say to Mr. Brennan I am not satisfied that that was done. I am totally dissatisfied with the reply that you have given to the Comptroller and Auditor General in so far as I do not believe the consultants carried out their work in the way that they should have done it. If they did, those defects should have shown up before payment was made. If he was keeping proper supervision, of course, those defects would have been rectified at the building of the first hall, not when the four of them were completed. To think that he is how getting fees for repair work to those four recreation halls, I think it is unforgiveable, Chairman, and I think, in view of the fact that the Accounting Officer is not able to give us any more information today, that we should defer discussion on this and call back the Accounting Officer here again in two weeks’ time, that he will have all of the documentation relative to that particular paragraph here for the committee documented, so that it can be circulated to the committee beforehand. I do not think it is good enough that these people can still be on the payroll of the Department. If you or I, Chairman, employed somebody to do a job and they not carry out the works they were paid to do they certainly would not be retained in employment.

Chairman.—Are you happy with that, Mr. Brennan?

Mr. Brennan.—I would be very happy to have an opportunity of looking further into this case as I have suggested and to come back to you. I am very embarrassed by this.

Chairman.—I accept that.

Mr. Brennan.—I cannot say what the position is about the various points that have been made by Deputy Naughten. If the position is as he says, I can understand his annoyance and that of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I fully accept what has been suggested by him and I would be very happy to come back and clear the air.

484. Chairman.—Is it agreed to have Mr. Brennan back? I think it is the only thing to do.

485. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I would like to ask a question in regard to that matter. Perhaps the Accounting Officer would like to prepare for it as well. On what date were the contracts placed?

Mr. Brennan.—According to what I read here, they were placed in 1981. I would be happy to hear any questions you have to ask. I would hope that the clearing of the air in a fortnight’s time, or whenever it suits the committee to have me back, would enable us to dispose of all questions.

486. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I think we may be able to dispose of this this morning, but if not we certainly can come back to it. This contractor indicated that provision by him of a performance bond would prove a lengthy process. This was, perhaps, 16 or 18 months, at the most, before he went into receivership. Did it not occur to somebody in the Department that there was something wrong when he made excuses for not entering into a performance bond? Is that not peculiar? Obviously the man was on the way downhill at that stage.

Mr. Brennan.—Hindsight suggests that, indeed. Perhaps somebody might have wondered about that at the time and pursued questions. I can only answer for what appears to have been the line that is taken on performance bonds. You do not need to have a performance bond for a job costing under £200,000. I understand that this is agreed with the Department of Finance. There were four separate contracts which were dealt with separately. I think there is a lot relating to this that might be given an airing more effectively the next day.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—I will leave it until the next day.

487. Chairman.—We will move to the Vote.

488. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Is An Gúm provided for under this Vote?

Mr. Brennan.—Yes.

489. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I want to find out how much it costs to run An Gúm. How many staff are engaged there?

Mr. Brennan.—Not as many as they would wish. I do not mean to give you a facile answer but there are endless complaints from the management of An Gúm about their need for extra staff. They have a very small staff.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Are we talking about three, five, 20 or 50?

Mr. Brennan.—Not 50, somewhere around 20.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—What are their terms of reference?

Mr. Brennan.—They are civil servants.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—It seems to me that they keep very quiet about their work. Was an Gúm set up by Earnán de Blaghd? Could we not do more for them with regard to publicising what they are doing? They produce some excellent publications but many people seem not to know about them.

Mr. Brennan.—The way to generate publicity of that kind, in the case of selling Irish books, is not very likely to pay off by way of financial return. You advertise or go public with launches of books and so on. There have been two or three in the past year where Ministers have attended. They get a little publicity, not a lot.

Deputy G. Mitchell: They have a lot of wellillustrated fairytale story books for children in the Irish language which, for instance, most Members of the Dáil and Seanad would not be aware of. The vast majority of the public would not be aware of their existence either. They are excellent publications which people would be delighted to buy for Christmas and so on. It seems to be a very quiet operation. Could we not do something to improve their profile?

Mr. Brennan.—They deserve to be congratulated on their publications for younger children in particular. I got a load of publications from them the other day, ones that, presumably, they have produced over the past couple of years. They have straitened financial circumstances too. The embargo hits them as well as it hits anywhere else. If they lose an editor they may not be able to replace an editor. In fact they are short of staff from that standpoint. Publicity is an idea that might well be taken up. Unfortunately, it is not an area in which publicity reaps a material advantage of financial return.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Could I suggest to you that it might be a good idea to inform Members of the Oireachtas about the activities of An Gúm? I think they would be favourably impressed and it would help them to inform others. It is something you should consider.

Mr. Brennan.—We certainly will. The manager of An Gúm would be very happy to do that. He is a pretty good publicist in his own right.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—I am not bad at it myself on occasions.

VOTE 30—PRIMARY EDUCATION

Mr. D. Brennan further examined.

490. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Could I ask about the provision of facilities for handicapped children in primary schools and, indeed, in schools generally? I have in mind, for instance, the need for a lift in a school in my constituency where physcially handicapped children are being educated with other children but when the class moves upstairs the handicapped children have to be carried by the caretaker or some other person. This is embarrassing, for instance, in the case of one child who has to wear a bag. What consideration is given to facilities for physically handicapped children in primary schools and in schools generally?

Mr. Brennan.—For the most part the policy of the Department is to provide special schools for the handicapped. It must be very difficult for a handicapped child to be part of a class of children who are not handicapped. I understand there is a standard rule which applies to all public buildings that arrangements must be made now for access for people using wheelchairs.

491. Deputy G. Mitchell.—You may be aware that I have been pursuing the question of mildly mentally handicapped children being educated in the same school — not necessarily in the same class — as other children. I am anxious that a pilot scheme in this regard be started in the Templeogue area. I do not think it is a good idea that physically handicapped children be always educated in special schools. For example, in Walkinstown there are physically handicapped children in classes with other children. The problem is that when they move on to fifth or sixth class and the class goes upstairs, the class either stay downstairs because of the physically handicapped, which separates them from everybody else, or the physically handicapped have to be carried upstairs, which is embarrassing for female children wearing bags. Should we not try to provide facilities in our schools where there are physically handicapped children so that they can enjoy the facilities of the school like everybody else? It would probably save the State a lot of money in providing special schools.

Mr. Brennan.—It is certainly a very laudable aspiration. I have no doubt that if the particular amenities you have in mind had to be provided in the ordinary school as a matter of form it would add considerably to the expense involved. With all the restrictions that have been applied in recent times a very special effort has been made if there is any fat at all, and there has been no fat, to find moneys for this area.

492. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I am thinking of the provision of a lift in a school where the parents would raise half of the money and the Department might be asked to raise perhaps £6,000 or £7,000. That would not really be beyond the Department.

Mr. Brennan.—I cannot answer for the cost involved but I think the idea is well worth pursuing. We will refer it to the people responsible for special schools or/and to those responsible for ordinary national and secondary schools.

493. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I will be over at your door shortly looking for £6,000 or £7,000.

VOTE 31—POST PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mr. D. Brennan further examined.

494. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Publication of Irish textbooks, what does that cover?

Mr. Brennan.—They are textbooks in Irish for second level schools, preparation and publication by An Gúm in association with the Stationery Office. It is only one part of the Gúm’s programme. It is a counterpart of what we were talking about earlier.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—It is preparation costs?

Mr. Brennan.—Yes, preparation and publication.

495. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Could I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General why it is Comptroller and Auditor General why it is that the Education Vote is accounted for in a series of Votes in this way? We are going on to Residential Homes and Higher Education.

Mr. McDonnell.—I do not know. I think that they were seen as perhaps reasonable divisions of the service. In fact, some years ago there was a different series. They had Secondary and Vocational Education separate and they brought them together in PostPrimary. The formulation of the Estimates in that way — I do not want to appear to be passing the buck, but I think the Department of Finance would be involved in this issue.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—It occurs to me it is a format we might consider for other Departments?

Mr. McDonnell.—Are you suggesting that some other Departments are too much in the one. I know that Deputy Mitchell has been saying this on a number of occasions.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Yes.

Mr. Brennan.—The question of a consolidated Vote has been under review between ourselves and the Department of Finance.

496. Deputy G. Mitchell.—I think it is better to leave it broadly along the lines that it is because we can pick out the headings, but it makes it more difficult in other Departments where you have got only global headings.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—It is my view anyway.

497. Chairman.—Would Finance like to comment?

Mr. J. McCaffrey (Department of Finance).—As the Accounting Officer said there have been discussions between our Departments about amalgamating the Education Votes into one Vote. We were proposing to send a draft of the amalgamated Vote to the Committee for its views and its approval. Whether it will come over or not at this stage I do not know because it has been caught up in a larger effort to try and revamp the Estimates volume as a whole. The committee in fact may have a submission from us and from Education, a joint one, proposing amalgamation of the Education group of Votes. We are very interested to hear that the existing format is the one that you prefer. We will bear this in mind when considering the matter further.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—It is my view anyway.

VOTE 32—RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND SPECIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. D. Brennan further examined.

498. Deputy G. Mitchell.—On subhead A.1 — grants to Residential Homes—could I ask to whom the £50,000 went there? To which institution or which home did the £50,000 go? Would these be Loughan House type institutions?

Mr. Brennan.—That was a particular school, St. Anne’s Special School, Kilmacud.

499. Deputy G. Mitchell.— What do they do?

Mr. Brennan.—They are a certified reformatory school for girls. I have a notion that that one is no longer the responsibility of the Department; it has become the responsibility of the Department of Health.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—What sort of aged children would be there? What would they be there for? Would they be there for truancy?

Mr. Brennan.—The school is a very small school. It is paid capitation grants on the basis of a notional ten girls in care, which means that it never has more than ten girls. I think these are children of national school age level.

500. Deputy G. Mitchell.—Would they be children who are there for punishment? Are they there for truancy or are they there for protection, or what are they there for?

Mr. Brennan.—These used to be called reformatory or industrial schools. The special schools are the counterpart of the industrial schools, the residential homes are the counterpart of the reformatories. St. Anne’s was a certified reformatory school which corresponds to a residential home. It is not for truancy and it is not for anything savouring of criminal activity that they were there. I have the note here. During 1984 the school authorities resigned their certificate to operate as a reformatory industrial school and responsibility for financing the school was transferred to the Minister for Health with effect from 1 January 1985 — just outside the scope of your inquiry.

501. Deputy G. Mitchell.—What about the Special Schools under subhead B? What functions have the special schools? Are these special schools for the physically handicapped that you referred to earlier?

Mr. Brennan.—No, these are invariably special schools for children who would be normally accommodated either in reformatory or industrial schools. There are no special arrangements for mentally or physically handicapped.

502. Deputy G. Mitchell.—How many schools are there and how many occupants do they have?

Mr. Brennan.—Leaving St. Anne’s to one side, there were five others. One of those have since disappeared, Scoil Ard Mhuire, which was closed down. Now we are left with Trinity House, Finglas, St. Joseph’s, Clonmel, and I think Cuan Mhuire is also gone.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—How many occupants would they have on average in any given year?

Mr. Brennan.—I do not have that figure here but from my memory from the file very small numbers. Scoil Ard Mhuire was closed down for that reason, that the numbers were very low and that it did not justify the vast expense involved. It was felt they could be much better handled under the different arrangements that are now currently accepted as being most professionally advisable. Trinity House has been in the news frequently.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—How many are there?

Mr. Brennan.—30.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—30 in total between the three?

Mr. Brennan.—In Trinity House. There are roughly the same number in the other schools. Less than 100, 90 or something of that order?

I would prefer to come back with the exact figures in case I mislead you. Will I send you a note?

Deputy G. Mitchell.—As a member of the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism, I would like to have a note on both subheads A and B. It would be very useful to have.

Mr. Brennan.—A no longer applies, it is gone. The others certainly I will.

Deputy G. Mitchell.—Are you happy with the treatment that children receive in these institutions? Are they looked after? Are their psychological and emotional needs looked after or do they come out more marked than they want in?

Mr. Brennan.—In Trinity House I would not be too happy with the treatment the children give to their guardians. It is a pretty rough area. With every possible sympathy for the children concerned they are pretty rough; they are pretty hard to deal with. It is a tight security operation; it is a prison, in fact, in all but name. I have met the authorities concerned. Indeed I am going down to St. Joseph’s in Clonmel. I will see it for the first time tomorrow evening. I am very impressed with the people I meet who are in charge in this institution with their attitude and disposition. I think they are trying to do their best by the children. They are doing a job for which there are very few volunteers. From time to time I read, as anyone does, in the papers something that goes astray in a particular institution like that. But the record of these institutions seems to me to be pretty good. People are only too anxious to find out and criticise if something goes wrong, so if something was going wrong it would become public knowledge very quickly.

VOTE 33—HIGHER EDUCATION

Mr. D. Brennan called — no question.

Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Brennan.

Mr. Brennan.—I am sorry I have to go back to you for two reasons, but I will be happy to come back.

The witness withdrew.

The committee adjourned.