Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1990 > Committee of Public Accounts > Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1988

AN COISTE UM CHUNTAIS POIBLÍ

(Committee of Public Accounts)

Déardaoin, 1 Feabhra, 1990

Thursday, 1 February, 1990

The Committee met at 11.30 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY G. MITCHELL in the chair

Mr. P. L. McDonnell (An tArd Reachtaire Cúntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 16 — VALUATION AND ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. T. P. O’Connor called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee of Public Accounts is this morning examining Thomas P. O’Connor, Commissioner of Valuation, on the Valuation and Ordnance Survey Vote for the year 1988, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Vote. You are welcome, Mr. O’Connor. There are no paragraphs so we can go straight into the Vote itself.

I have received a note from Deputy Pat Rabbitte which I will read to the committee:

Dear Chairman,

Because I am the next contributor to the budget debate, I apologise for my inability to attend.

I wonder if you would be kind enough to put one question on my behalf to the Accounting Officer for the Ordnance Survey. Is he satisfied that no employee of the Ordnance Survey is engaged in private business in competition with the Ordnance Survey? Will he investigate this matter and respond to us in writing?

I regret being unable to attend.

Yours sincerely,

Pat Rabbitte, T.D.

Perhaps, Mr. O’Connor, you would like to respond to that.

Mr. O’Connor.—I am not aware of anyone operating in that capacity but I will be certainly quite happy to investigate it and provide a reply to the committee or to Deputy Rabbitte in particular.

Chairman.—Perhaps you will reply to the committee.

Deputy Flood.—I appreciate Deputy Rabitte’s problem and it is a pity he is not here to develop this matter further. By asking the question it probably impinges a bit on the integrity of all the employees in the Ordnance Survey and I am unhappy with that. That matter should have been taken up directly by the Deputy with the Ordnance Survey or through the appropriate Minister. It is not an appropriate question here and I am disappointed to some extent that it was asked because I believe it calls into question the integrity of all the employees. We should not be utilising this committee for that type of question.

Deputy M. Ahern.—It is a question that is completely outside the terms of reference of the committee. If this type of questioning continues it will throw this whole committee into complete disrepute.

Chairman.—Whatever about the wisdom of asking the question, it certainly is not outside the terms of reference of the committee. If the Valuation and Ordnance Survey are not getting appropriations-in-aid which they are due to get because they have been competed with by an employee who is carrying on in private practice it would certainly be a matter for this committee. If a person who is paid a salary to work for Ordnance Survey is not working for that office but is working in competition with them it would certainly be a matter for this committee.

Deputy M. Ahern.—I would dissagree with you on that point, Chairman. I believe the terms of reference of this committee refer to expenditure passed in the Dáil and our job is to see if it has been properly expended and accounted for.

Chairman.—It is very clear that £6.8 million has been voted in the year in question for salaries, wages and allowances. The Deputy who raised the question is not here but it is perfectly valid to raise it under that heading or under Subhead G—Appropriations-in-Aid. I accept Deputy Flood’s point on the wisdom of raising it but it certanly comes under this heading. Perhaps we might leave it at that. Deputy Rabbitte sent over the note just now by hand and I felt I should read it out.

Deputy Cullimore.—This casts a reflection on everyone working in the Valuation Office. It is unacceptable to have a letter read out without any evidence to back up the viewpoint. That is very unfair. My experience of people working in the Valuation Office is that they work very well and they are very sincere in their work.

Chairman.—I have read out Deputy Rabbitte’s letter and it is on the record. If any other member of the committee had written in I would be obliged to read out the letter. Otherwise I could be accused of not doing so. Most members do not have to send letters because they are always here. On the Vote itself, are valuations revised on a continual basis.

Mr. O’Connor.—Yes. Prior to 1989 there was an annual system of valuation. We got requests every February and we issued results in November. As from February 1989 we get lists in every month and we issue results on a quarterly basis.

Chairman.—References have been made to the inequities of the present valuation system. If the system was amended how long would it take for it to feed through the system? In other words, is the system reformable and, if so, how long would it take to bring that about?

Mr. O’Connor.—I take it you have in mind a full scale revaluation such as that being carried out in Britain at present. Nothing like that took place here on a national basis. We estimate that it would take roughly five years to do a complete revaluation of the country.

Deputy Connor.—Reference was made to the Farm Classification Office which carried out a revaluation of the land of the country. Is that office completely closed down now? Maybe you might let us know at this stage the amount of land throughout the country that was revalued or reclassified under that classification scheme, which was formed with a land tax in mind?

Mr. O’Connor.—Our connection with farm classification at the moment is almost for-tuitous. Our only connection is that we pay the salaries of three people who still work in the Farm Classification Office. Speaking from memory, the Farm Classification Office had surveyed about three-quarters of farms over 150 adjusted acres. I cannot recall what the acreage was. In March 1987 the Government decided to abolish farm tax and the survey was discontinued. In the meantime, the Farm Tax Act is still on the Statute Book and, as you are aware, there have been a number of judicial decisions in relation to it. There may be another one under appeal at present and for that reason it would be improper for me to comment further on farm tax legislation.

Deputy Connor.—I am referring not so much to farm tax legislation but to the information that that survey yielded up, obviously very valuable information. I am one of the people who would say that we must go ahead with a complete revaluation of the land of the country as is the case in Britain, but that is a different point because it is 130 years since Richard Griffith was around. Are there any plans to publish even the limited amount of valuable — and I underline “valuable” — information which that survey must have revealed, incomplete as it is?

Mr. O’Connor.—No. We have not been given any direction about publishing it. Again, it is a matter for the Government to decide whether or not they want to publish it. In general, because only a small amount of land was surveyed, it may be felt that this limited information would not be of great value. On the other hand, the general intention was to carry out a survey of the entire country, as you probably know. It was hoped at that time that over a period of five years all land over 20 adjusted acres would be converted into this new measure of adjusted acre which is roughly 0.6 of a conventional acre. In any event, the Government took a different view of this.

Deputy Connor.—Would you know how much money was spent on the survey, which proceeded for about two and a half to three years?

Mr. O’Connor.—Again, I can only give approximate figures but I would say it is in the order of £8 million.

Deputy Connor.—It is a great pity to spend £8 million on collecting information that may never be published and would now appear to be rendered useless.

Mr. O’Connor.—It is not my decision as to whether or not it should be published.

Deputy Flood.—On Vote 16, Subhead C, an additional expenditure of over £11,000 was incurred. This is explained as repairs to telephones. What exactly happened to bring about this additional expenditure and are you opposed to it?

Chairman.—Let us confine our discussion to the examination before us.

Mr. O’Connor.—This was mainly for repair work on our telephone system and it just happened to cost a bit more than we expected — not significantly more; 10 per cent on our original estimate.

Deputy Flood.—Under Subhead D — Stores and Equipment — there is a considerable increase in expenditure. Could this not have been foreseen?

Mr. O’Connor.—Yes. All of this expenditure relates to the Ordnance Survey. We spent a good deal on modernising the system and trying to get the best advantage from modern technology. There have been very rapid and extensive developments in mapping technology. The extra money there was to provide plotters and digitizers and other instruments of that kind to enable us to bring our mapping system up to date and to increase productivity. Naturally all these developments in technology have a direct impact on the working efficiency of the Ordnance Survey.

Deputy Flood.—The only point I would make here is that the grant was £875,000. Was the expenditure of £255,000 incurred almost on an ad hoc basis?

Mr. O’Connor.—Not quite. It is a rapidly developing area. We try to keep in touch with these developments and sometimes an opportunity comes up with regard to new technology and we must decide whether to avail of it quickly or defer it for another year. The decision at the time was that we would go ahead and avail of these developments and therefore the money was spent that year. It is not ad hoc, it is a question of spending it at the best time.

Deputy M. Ahern—In relation to Subhead B.2, the note states, “The continued computerisation of the Valuation Lists did not take place thus accounting for a regular saving in equipment.” Why did the computerisation not take place?

Mr. O’Connor.—This is a question of progress in the computerisation programme. We are engaged in quite a big computerisation programme in the Valuation Office. Those years, including 1988, were the early days and it was hard to forecast the pace of development. It did not mean that the programme was suspended or anything of that kind. On the contrary, in 1989 we made considerable advances and we will be making some more during the current year. It is part of a continuing programme. It is just that the incidence of expenditure happened at a different time.

Deputy Taylor.—Is the Valuation Office still located in Ely Place?

Mr. O’Connor.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—Is that an adequate premises for the needs of the Valuation Office, do you think?

Mr. O’Connor.—We are happy enough with the accommodation, if anybody is ever happy with accommodation.

Deputy Taylor.—Are there adequate facilities for the public when they have to have recourse to the Valuation Office to carry out inspections and that kind of thing?

Mr. O’Connor.—Yes. We have a public office and staff are on duty there daily. I do not think there is any serious problem. Perhaps at some times of the year there may be a certain amount of conjestion. It is the usual problem of coping with numbers. If there is congestion, it is for a very temporary period, maybe three or four days. We do our best to try to accommodate people.

Deputy Taylor.—You issue valuation certificates from that office?

Mr. O’Connor.—That is right.

Deputy Taylor.—Is there any delay in issuing those? How long does it take from the time one is requisitioned?

Mr. O’Connor.—It can vary. We had some arrears which I think we have virtually cleared off now. I would think we are in the position now where it may be a matter of two to three months. Very often it is only a matter of days, but sometimes the query will be more complicated; from time to time somebody wants a certificate going back perhaps over 20, 30 or 40 years so that those ones naturally will take longer. Also, we changed our system last autumn with a view to clearing them quickly because there was a difficulty previously which created a lot of delays. Some people applied for certificates and very often that was the last we heard of them. A great deal of time was spent preparing certificates which were never taken up. We have changed that system. Now one pays first and then we put people working on the certificate. That has saved a lot of time because we were spending valuable time on certificates which were never required afterwards.

Deputy Taylor.—How many people are employed in the field checking valuations?

Mr. O’Connor.—We have 70 people on valuation work overall and seven or eight would be at headquarters. We have roughly 60 to 65 people in the field.

Deputy Taylor.—How does that compare with a year ago, two years ago, five years ago? Have the numbers remained more or less static?

Mr. O’Connor.—They have not changed significantly in the past four or five years. We had a few people who took early retirement and so on, but there is no significant change.

Deputy Taylor.—Have you an adequate staff to meet the demands upon your office?

Mr. O’Connor.—It is the type of job where, in a sense, one will rarely have adequate staff. Ideally we should be doing revaluation of property almost on an annual basis, particularly in modern times when the market changes so quickly and is so volatile. At the moment we are coping reasonably well with the demand for revision. In an ideal situation one should be revising property much more frequently, but there is no country in the world able to do that.

Deputy Taylor.—The valuation on private domestic dwellings is no longer relevant now for practical purposes since the abolition of rates. Does that mean that you do not trouble to update those or deal with those in any way?

Mr. O’Connor.—In the main, it is not relevant except to the extent that a number of local authorities have a scale of service charges related to the valuation of houses. Over the past couple of years if a local authority wanted us to do so, we have revised valuations on domestic property for the purposes of service charges. In addition, we are now charging for revision work so if any domestic dweller wishes to have a property revalued he pays £20 like anybody else and we do those. It is a combination of dealing with the individual who personally wants to get a house revalued or a local authority who want it for the purpose of service charges.

Chairman.—I am anxious to make progress. There are two more Accounting Officers and we have a number of Deputies offering.

Deputy Taylor.—Is there a relationship between the valuation figure that you put on the value of the property? Is there a connection there?

Mr. O’Connor.—Between the valuation figure and the market value?

Deputy Taylor.—Yes.

Mr. O’Connor.—Basically the rateable valuation, as it is called, is supposed to be the annual rental value. The annual rental value of a block of offices may be £40,000 and, as you know, the valuation is much less than that. The explanation is as follows: because we have never had a revaluation and because existing valuation figures have not been updated, we apply a fraction to the current rent, a fraction which varies somewhat as between different areas. If the current annual rental were £40,000 we might reduce it by a fraction of 1/250, giving a rateable valuation of areas, but we might apply a figure of roughly say, £270. At present we are doing some experimental surveys on this whole area to ensure that, if in applying we have to apply a fraction we will apply a consistent one throughout the country. We began with a pilot scheme in Dublin this year.

Deputy Taylor.—I know little about the systems of valuation of farmlands and farms and so on, but so far as urban areas are concerned, and Dublin in particular, from what I have seen the overwhelming bulk of average domestic dwellings in this city have the same valautions now as they had 20 or 30 years ago, and have never been touched. Am I correct in that and, if so, do you say that valuations are kept on some kind of ongoing basis?

Mr. O’Connor.—Domestic dwellings are not being revised at present except, as I explained, at the request of a local authority, or a few individuals request a revision from time to time. In a sense, the valuations of domestic dwelings are not of great practical significance at present. We are concentrating our efforts on the industrial and commercial property, for example, shops, offices and factories on which people are paying rates at present. It is that area we are trying to promote consistency as between valuations.

Deputy Dennehy.—Does your office have a role to play in a proposed sale of land or property by local authorities?

Mr. O’Connor.—Yes. It is marginal. We have two functions in the Valuation Office. First, valuing property for rating purposes and, second, we have a consultancy function in so far as other public bodies like the Revenue Commissioners, or local authorities may want advice. They may be selling or buying property and they want to know if this figure is reasonable or otherwise. In that sense they will come to the Valuation Office from time to time and we will give them our view on what the valuation may be. It can apply to a variety of properties.

Deputy Dennehy.—It is purely advisory so there is no statutory requirement for anything like that?

Mr. O’Connor.—It is non-statutory but of long standing in so far as we operate a Government valuation service, a public valuation service if you like, which is available to the State and public authorities generally.

Deputy Dennehy.—I have had a fairly recent complaint in the Cork area of a major project which was held up because the local authority could not transfer the property until the Valuation Office gave a decision on it. I understood from that that it was a requirement in that area. Apparently the system was that so many properties would be valued on the one visit, or whatever. A £2 million investment was held up for quite a while but I understood it was because of a statutory requirement. It is purely at the discretion of the local authority to look for your advice.

Mr. O’Connor.—That is right.

Deputy Cullimore.—Is commercial property and industrial property re-valued after a particular period of time?

Mr. O’Connor.—As of now, there is not a fixed period. As I said earlier, we have never had a national re-valuation. Two things happen, the local authorities or, indeed, individuals from time to time, ask us to look at property and if necessary revise the valuation. That is what always happened until very recently. There is a new element since the Valuation Act, 1988, came into operation whereby the Valuation Office can take the initiative in listing properties for revision. We did not have that authority before. We have it since 1988 and we hope that over a period we can use that authority. In other words, if we are aware that in some particular town an individual property is totally out of line we now have authority to revise that property. One would hope, again depending on resources, that over a period by using that initiative we could do a regular revision, even probably a five-yearly one — we could not do it at present — but that would be our intention. We would see it as a very important function to try to revise frequently. Nonetheless the fact is that in all countries revision takes place at fairly long intervals. Even in Britain, as you will notice, the last revision took place in 1973.

Deputy Cullimore.—Do you automatically re-value a property when a person applies for planning permission? Do you automatically re-value the old property as well as valuing the new property?

Mr. O’Connor.—No, there is no direct link between planning permission and ourselves. The initiative mainly comes from the local authority. I am sure the local authority very often would be influenced by the fact that somebody had applied for planning permission to build a new shop or extend it. We have no direct link with the planning authorities and we do not want to have, but we may become aware of this information through some other channel, in the sense that our people are in the field all the time and therefore they become aware of anomalies, new buildings and so on.

Deputy Cullimore.—Small shopkeepers, in particular, are of the opinion that, if they carry out any extensions to their properties, there will be a massive hike in the valuation of their old properties. I must say that I have found that to be the case in Wexford town. It is an area we have to be particularly concerned about, given that we have urban renewal where we have rates remission. It is inclined to prevent small business people from expanding. There is that perception that, if you make any adjustments and apply for planning permission the Valuation Office will come down and re-value the old property and value the new one.

Mr. O’Connor.—That is not true. There is no connection at all between planning authorities, planning developments and ourselves.

Deputy Cullimore.—The rating of agricultural land was tested in the Supreme Court. Has the constitutionality of rating business premises or commercial premises ever been tested in court?

Mr. O’Connor.—No.

Deputy Cullimore.—Are you of the opinion, if that was the case, that it would be found to be unconstitutional to rate business properties?

Mr. O’Connor.—I would leave that question to the lawyers.

Deputy Connor.—Valuation on land succeeded in the courts because it was found that under a Victorian statute you cannot raise or lower valuations on lands; they must stay the same. The flexibility is there for buildings, you can raise and lower valuations on buildings.

Mr. O’Connor.—That is correct. That was an important feature in the winning of that case.

Chairman.—Thank you.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 6 — NATIONAL GALLERY.

Mr. R. Keaveney called and examined.

Chairman.—The committee are now resuming the examination of Mr. Raymond Keaveney, Director of the National Gallery, in his capacity as Accounting Officer, for Vote No. 6 of the National Gallery. You are welcome Mr. Keaveney.

Mr. Keaveney.—Good morning, Chairman.

Chairman.—The question of security arrangements for works of art has been cropping up a lot in recent times. The provision for expenditure you are making here, £834,000, in relative terms to other departmental Votes is small. I would expect that the actual stocks of art work you hold are substantial. Do you have a valuation of them?

Mr. Keaveney.—We do not have a valuation in monetary terms directly — in other words, cumulatively for the whole collection. We have approximately 12,000 items in the collection, just short of 3,000 oil paintings; about 4,000 water colours and about 5,000 prints.

Chairman.—Can you give the committee a guesstimate of the value?

Mr. Keaveney.—It runs into hundreds of millions of pounds.

Chairman.—Are you satisfied with the security arrangements, given recent occurrences?

Mr. Keaveney.—As I speak, I am certainly more satisfied than I was 12 months ago. I would certainly have to say that. With security, as you understand, even if you achieve the nirvana of having all the technical backup, there is always the problem of human error. Having said that, I am happier with the security arrangements at the Gallery now than I was 12 months ago.

Chairman.—I accept there is no such thing as absolute security but would you accept, given recent developments, that there seems to be a market for stolen works of art?

Mr. Keaveney.—Yes, and this is something we are very much more aware of. It actually worries us. We are very alert to the very real possibility of theft. As I say, though we have all this equipment, we have to make sure that our security staff appreciate the real and genuine danger which exists, and the fact that we have invested in equipment and devices is to assist them in doing their job. Ultimately, it is their responsibility and the most important factor in security is having bodies on the ground to manage the security system and the people who visit the National Gallery.

Chairman.—Of course, as Accounting Officer, it would be your responsibility to Dáil Éireann to ensure, in so far as possible, that the matters are kept under active review. Do you do that from time to time? Do you take the advice of the Garda Síochána.

Mr. Keaveney.—Yes, we do. We co-operate with the Garda. We seek their advice from time to time and have done so in the past and in the recent past with regard to certain aspects of security. We also seek the advice of outside experts. We also visit other institutions with the express purpose of examining their security set ups to see what we can learn from them and to see how we can implement such programmes if they are seen to be beneficial to the National Gallery.

Chairman.—Can you tell the committee the valuation of the single most valuable item you have?

Mr. Keaveney.—I think that expressing the valuation on paintings is actually one of the problems which excites the prurient interest of certain people who have not the best intentions for the gallery. In fact, one of my problems, as somebody who is trying to promote the cultural value and benefits of the collection, is to try to move away from the rather intense interest in the purely monetary value of the collection. For instance, the press are always very keen to know the valuation of paintings on exhibition or which have been purchased, but actually we try to express the fact that the cultural value is the more important and we would prefer not to speak about the actual financial value.

Chairman.—Presumably, somebody who intends to steal a painting or a work of art would already know the value of it or have some good idea what the marketability of such a work of art before they steal it would be?

Mr. Keaveney.—That is a fair comment. In many instances they would have a fair idea of what a work of art would be valued at.

Chairman.—In the case of some of the activities which have gone on in recent years in relation to the theft of works of art, would it be fair to say that people who are experts, in the valuation of these works are somehow involved in this? Do you take that into account in making your security arrangements?

Mr. Keaveney.—Yes. We are cognisant of which paintings would be commercially more valuable. We make special efforts to protect those; we single them out, as the more valuable works would be the ones most at risk.

Deputy Allen.—I notice that the 1968 wing of the building is presently being refurbished with improvements in lighting, air conditioning and the security system. Why does that wing, which is just 22 years old, need refurbishing so quickly? Second, I would like to know what consultants are brought in to carry out work on the National Gallery? I would like to ensure that the reconstruction work tones in with the works of art within the Gallery — for example, the thing that annoys me is the entrance with the low ceiling. It has been described to me recently as a garden shed at the entrance to the National Gallery. I would like to know what consultants are brought in to ensure that the building itself is kept in line with the works of art within the Gallery so that we do not have the philistine influence coming into the Gallery.

Mr. Keaveney.—I take the Deputy’s point. With regard to the 1968 extension, one reason that we are progressing with the renovation of that part of the building is that certain of the plant, the equipment and the ducting is already installed. However, in that part of the building at present we do not have full air conditioning or full pollution control, which is highly desirable. It is our intention to, first of all, in some way complete the job started 20 years ago in the new wing and to make it fully air conditioned with pollution control as well as all the other aspects, installations and facilities that one would desire in a modern gallery. In many ways that will acquaint us with the new technology and possibly help us assess how we can best implement such utilities in the older part of the building, which is not just a house for storing paintings but is in itself an architectural monument. We are very conscious of the architectural merit of the 1864 wing and the 1900 wing. We are very keen to preserve the architectural integrity of these parts of the building, which more and more we come to appreciate as being very beautiful buildings in their own right regardless of the fact that they house a priceless collection. We have just completed a major programme to improve and renovate this part of the building. One of our greatest priorities in this work was to try to introduce new lighting systems, new security systems and other services and at the same time maintain the architectural integrity, retain the period aspects of the building so that the public could enjoy this and see the paintings in what are in actual fact very beautiful and sympathetic surroundings.

Deputy Allen.—As a result of some of the renovations that will be carried out, will some of the major works of art be on view throughout the 12 months of the year? For example, the Turner exhibition is only on view in the month of January because of the lighting factors. Will that now be available to the public throughout the year? Second, the question of the entrance, could I ask who was involved in planning the entrance which lowered the ceilings and which is in my opinion, out of context with the rest of the building? Were external consultants involved? What was the price of the reconstruction?

Mr. Keaveney.—A number of points have been raised and I will try to deal with them one by one. First of all, with regard to the recent work which has been done and specifically the reception area, which is now painted a beautiful yellow, we have put down stone or marble floor where previously we had linoleum. We have also tried to make the area not only look better but actually function more efficiently as well. We are conscious of the low height of the ceiling in that part of the building. In fact, if anything the height of the ceiling has been raised ever so slightly. We have used every spare inch we have available without going into major structural works. In this we have a problem because to achieve the ambition of possibly having a very lofty ceiling in that area would mean that we would have to undermine the architectural integrity of what we have inherited. That is a very tricky problem to resolve and at this point in time we have decided that this is the optimum solution which can be achieved within the budget available to us. The actual design of this part of the Gallery was taken on board by architects from the Office of Public Works who did the design work. Outside consultants were employed in regard to the engineering and electrical works which needed to be done. They were also employed in regard to security work.

With regard to what parts of the collection will be available to the public in future, I will refer first to the Turner gift, the Vaughan bequest. It is actually stipulated in the bequest, fortunately or unfortunately, that the works may only go on display during the month of January. To date this has actually proved to be a very good decision and has meant that our Turners are among the most brilliant and best preserved. They have the most intense colours and give a better impression of Turner’s actual output to the viewer than many of the faded works one can see in other museums which have been over-exposed and exhibited for too long a period of time.

With regard to the work which has been done and the other aspects of the collection, it is our intention to open the Gallery to the public in early March. At that time two-thirds of the building will have been re-decorated and renovated to a very respectable degree. This is something we can actually be proud of. In the not too distant past we were actually embarrassed by the building in which we worked and the state of the collection. It is our intention when hanging the collection to put the Irish paintings on view in the downstairs room in the Milltown Wing — we propose to rearrange the collection so that the presentation will be better — and to exhibit the Old Master collection upstairs in the Milltown Rooms. It will be a somewhat pruned collection. There will not be as many pictures on display as there have been in the past. There are two aspects to this. The paintings which will be on display will give a very good impression of the quality of the collection. Paintings which will not be on display will no longer be deposited in a dungeon area in the basement where we would be embarrassed to take people to view them if they requested it. The storage area has been completely over-hauled. It has been properly lit, properly secured and totally cleaned out. If members of the public wish to gain access to paintings which are not on display due to a shortage of actual display space, then they will be able to gain access to the paintings in the storage area.

Deputy Allen.—I would like to thank Mr. Keaveney for his detailed reply and to ask him the overall cost of the reconstruction at the entrance?

Mr. Keaveney.—The Milltown Wing, of which the entrance forms a part, has been renovated at a cost of £800,000 plus.

Deputy M. Ahern.—Have there been any thefts from the Gallery in recent years?

Mr. Keaveney.—Since I joined the Gallery in 1979 there have been two thefts. I think one was in 1980 and one last year, when a small painting with a diameter of about six inches was removed from the collection. The painting which was exhibited in the German Room was not taken off the wall but was actually prised through the frame. This theft is under investigation by the Garda and we are awaiting the result of their inquiries.

Deputy Taylor.—Is it correct to say that the Government provided no money at all in 1988 for new acquisitions?

Mr. Keaveney.—No, that is incorrect. We get a grant — it has been for the same amount for virtually the past six years, and certainly for the past four years — of £62,000 for the purchase of pictures.

Deputy Taylor.—Is that a grant from the Vote?

Mr. Keaveney.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—It has remained unchanged for the past four years.

Mr. Keaveney.—Except in regard to the manner in which it is given now. The practice had always been to give it directly from Exchequer funds but it is now part of the lottery funding which the Gallery has access to.

Deputy Taylor.—What new acquisitions were purchased in 1988?

Mr. Keaveney.—In 1988 we purchased a painting by Moynan which actually represents the Gallery as it appeared in 1987 and showing the entrance hall. It shows the artist sketching in the entrance hall of the Gallery. We have also purchased a few other works. In 1988 we purchased a portrait of Sir John Rogerson by Stephen Slaughter and a number of drawings by Joseph Malachy Kavanagh.

Deputy Taylor.—Do you have funds on hands at present in your new acquisitions fund?

Mr. Keaveney.—We have modest funds, but the situation now is rather difficult for the Gallery. As you may be aware, the art market has gone ahead and there has been tremendous inflation in the art market. This has made it very difficult for the Gallery to acquire the paintings which it deems necessary to ensure that the National Gallery has the finest collection of Irish paintings available.

Deputy Taylor.—What is the financial position in regard to the George Bernard Shaw bequest? Does the Gallery still receive money from that bequest?

Mr. Keaveney.—Yes, we are still benefiting from one-third of the royalties of the Shaw estate and we will continue to do so until the year 2000 at which time the royalties run out.

Deputy Taylor.—How much does that amount to approximately?

Mr. Keaveney.—It varies. It can range from anywhere between £150,000 to £250,000 per annum.

Deputy Taylor.—What was it in 1988 and 1989.

Mr. Keaveney.—It was approximately £200,000.

Deputy Taylor.—Was it the same in each of those two years?

Mr. Keaveney.—Yes. The amount depends on the number of books by Shaw sold, the number of performances of Shaw’s plays and the number of benefits from other aspects of Shaw’s estate.

Deputy Taylor.—Where is that shown in the accounts here? I do not see any reference to that money.

Mr. Keaveney.—It is a private fund.

Chairman.—Does it not come into your appropriations-in-aid?

Mr. Keaveney.—No, it never has.

Deputy Taylor.—Should there not be some reference to it? £200,000 a year comes into a national institution, should there not at least be some reference to it in the accounts?

Mr. Keaveney.—The fund was given to the board of the National Gallery for the use of the Gallery. It was given directly to the board for them to use as best they saw fit to benefit the collection.

Deputy Taylor.—Surely it should be noted or at least a reference made to it in the accounts. The National Gallery is not a private institution and the board are not private people. They are a part of the Civil Service institution. If that money is coming in to the board of the National Gallery I would have thought that the Committee of Public Accounts ought to be made aware in the documents submitted to them that it is there and is in its circulation. I am not questioning the way in which the money is used, I am perfectly happy about it all, but I would have thought it should at least have been noted.

Chairman.—Is that not a fair point, Mr. Keaveney? Was it not the intention of the trust to leave the money to the nation? Should the nation not be accounted to?

Mr. Keaveney.—We are accountable as to how we manage it. Technically the Gallery is a public body; it is not a Government agency. The funds given by George Bernard Shaw and the other people who give benefits to the Gallery are given expressly to the board of governors and guardians of the Gallery who are actually entrusted with the management of the Gallery’s affairs. The Gallery is not a direct instrument of the Government.

Deputy Taylor.—Do you think you should answer questions to this committee as to how that money was expended or dealt with?

Mr. Keaveney.—Yes.

Deputy Taylor.—Do you think that that would be inappropriate?

Mr. Keaveney.—To a degree, yes, because how we manage our private affairs is our business technically. If we were to go public on every aspect of our affairs it would actually militate against our best interests and also against the best interests of visitors to the Gallery.

Chairman.—What do the Department of Finance think about this?

Deputy Taylor.—I find that rather strange. Here we have a public institution making reference to a private fund and not being answerable to the Dáil Committee of Public Accounts as to the disposition of those funds. I do not understand how that could be.

Chairman.—What does Mr. McSweeney think about this?

Mr. McSweeney (Department of Finance).—This is a long standing arrangement which has been accepted for a number of years with the funds being audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It has worked well in practice.

Chairman.—It is not reported on, though they are audited.

Mr. Keaveney.—They are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Deputy Taylor.—The Comptroller and Auditor General surely does not audit private funds; he only audits public funds.

Mr. McDonnell.—My audit of this fund, Chairman, is simply by arrangement at their request. It is not an audit which I am obliged to undertake statutorily. I do it by arrangement.

Mr. Keaveney.—Technically, they are not public funds.

Chairman.—Who appoints the members of your board?

Mr. Keaveney.—The Taoiseach appoints them. There are some ex officio members who are on the board because of the offices they hold. The balance are appointed by the Taoiseach.

Chairman.—I think it might be——

Mr. Keaveney.—Let me make a point just to put the matter in a more reasonable perspective. The Gallery buys pictures on the open market. In order to make the best deal possible it is in the public interest to keep the amount of funds we have available confidential. It is fair knowledge that if anybody knows how much money you are worth then they will mark up their prices to clean you out of the available funds you have. If you go into a deal and everybody knows at that particular point every single penny you have, then they will take you for every single penny you have. It is not in the public interest or in interest of building up a collection to make our funds public knowledge.

Deputy Taylor.—I think this degree of secretiveness is unacceptable. I must admit that I have yet, in my relatively short experience on this committee, to come across any public institution that took that position. I cannot say I am entirely happy about it. I suggest we may have to consider the matter. The amount of money, in national terms, certainly is not enormous. Nonetheless, there ought to be a degree of answerability in the public domain. I do not think it should be open to someone to say that these are private funds to be administered without a public institution being answerable in the public eye. However, I will leave that point.

Chairman.—This is something we need to reflect on. I find it hard to understand why it does not come in under appropriations-in-aid or some such note like that; but on reflection there may well be a reason for this. I suggest that we ask the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Department of Finance and the Accounting Officer to consult and perhaps come up with a position note taking into account the observations made here this morning. We could then reflect on the matter.

Mr. Keaveney.—When the Gallery was established it was noted that the Gallery had the right to receive funds from outside sources independently of Government.

Chairman.—We may decide to recommend a change in the statutes, but I think it is something that we might just look at.

Deputy Taylor.—There would be no objection of course — far from it — to the Gallery receiving such funds or receiving donations of pictures. The only question is whether they should be noted as part of public funds. If part of that money, for argument sake, was used to purchase a picture, would that picture fall into a different category to any other picture in the National Gallery because it came through the Shaw Bequest? Would that then be a private picture of the board and would one draw a distinction? If one were to start drawing distinctions with the ultimate items purchased, it obviously would not tie in with the actual original moneys.

Chairman.—We will conclude at that. The Accounting Officer, the Department of Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor General might consult to draw up a note for the committee. We could then see how we should proceed.

Deputy Taylor.—Turning to a different matter, when was the last time the Gallery mounted a major exhibition and are there any in the pipeline?

Mr. Keaveney.—The last major exhibition we mounted was actually an exhibition we put together towards the end of 1988. This exhibition, comprising 50 paintings, toured France for nine months during the French Bicentennial celebrations, visiting Calais and Quimper, at a total cost of about £38,000. We published a catalogue for that exhibition also. We are currently in the process of putting together two major exhibitions to travel abroad in 1991 and 1992 and are negotiating to have a major exhibition come to Dublin next year as part of the celebrations of the Cultural Capital. Other exhibitions which have been put together and which have been exhibited in the recent past at the National Gallery include the Russian icons from Irish collections. The national self-portrait collection was exhibited at the Gallery last year.

Deputy Taylor.—Do you know what grants are given to galleries of the calibre of the National Gallery by governments in other countries? What moneys are given for acquisitions and how do they compare with our own?

Mr. Keaveney.—It is very difficult to make exact comparisons. To my knowledge the National Galleries of Scotland — not the National Gallery, but the National Galleries which involves the National Gallery of Modern Art and The Portrait Collection — have access to approximately £3 million per annum. Not all of these funds are direct government voted funds. They include funds promised by other bodies as well.

Deputy Taylor.—Would it be correct to say that our Gallery is the Cinderella of comparable galleries around Europe?

Mr. Keaveney.—As I said, it is very difficult to make direct comparisons. We have actually managed very well over the past number of years — despite possibly not having access to the kind of funding we would desire — to match the growth in collections elsewhere, either through direct acquisitions, through funding or through benefactions, such as the Beit gift or the Máire MacNeill Sweeney Bequest.

Deputy Taylor.—Are you doing anything to encourage visits to the Gallery by, perhaps, schools? Do you approach schools at all to arrange for groups of children to come in? Do you approach them to bring them in on a regular basis? Are there regular visits along those lines by schools in Dublin and around the country?

Mr. Keaveney.—Yes. It is part of the programme of activities we promote. At the moment we have a slight problem because, thanks to support from the Government, in many ways there is a lot happening. This goes back to the last question about exhibitions. Just to put things in perspective, because we have been granted moneys to renovate the Gallery certain activities have to be run down temporarily to accommodate the building work. For instance, the exhibitions programme is not as ambitious or as intensive as it might be due to the works in progress and the lack of available exhibition space. This in fact will become more evident over the next couple of years than it actually is at the moment.

Chairman.—I am sorry to interrupt you, but could you keep the replies brief as we have another Accounting Officer to examine?

Mr. Keaveney.—This also reflects on education. We have an education programme and an education office. We provide a service to schools, both on a tour basis and on a visitor basis. We also provide in-service courses periodically throughout the year whereby teachers are invited to the Gallery to partake in certain seminars and conferences with regard to the promotion of art and collection.

Deputy Taylor.—In conclusion, I should like to compliment the director, and his staff, on the excellent facilities provided. The nation is proud of them.

Deputy Flood.—Did the witness refer to the number of visitors? Has that number increased in recent years?

Mr. Keaveney.—The number of visitors was just more than 500,000. It is interesting to note that in 1989, when a lot of work was taking place in the building, our attendance figures were up on the previous year. There were 505,000 or 510,000, which is a very good figure.

Deputy Flood.—I notice under the heading Extra Remuneration, sums varying between £463 and £7,292 were paid. The figure of £7,292 seems an extraordinary amount to pay on overtime

Mr. Keaveney.—It seems extraordinary out of context but one must appreciate how the Gallery is managed. There is a certain aspect of built-in compulsory overtime in that figure, for a start. The individual involved in the payment of £7,000 in overtime is the person who arrives first in the morning to switch on all the systems and is the person who departs last in the evening. He ensures that everything has been turned down and properly taken care of before the building is handed over to night security.

Deputy Flood.—I am concerned about security arrangements. Do you have access to specialist advice in this area? Is it of a commercial nature or is it drawn from a professional concern?

Mr. Keaveney.—We have a smorgasbord of advice and we seek advice from various people who can contribute to the security arrangements at the Gallery, including the Garda, institutions abroad, associations of museums and other museum security advisers. We receive technical advice from concerns which have systems which can be used profitably at the Gallery.

Deputy Flood.—With regard to the appreciation in value that you referred to, I should like to know if the Gallery ever dispose of any of its items. Is the Gallery entitled to do that?

Mr. Keaveney.—No, we do not deaccession from the collection. Some of the museums in the United States sell off items from collections but that is not the common practice in European museums. As things stand, our statutes do not allow for that.

Deputy Flood.—My final point relates to theft. Another Deputy referred to one theft and in response you said there were others. Was there a theft during your term?

Mr. Keaveney.—Yes, about 1980. A small painting was taken from the collection and was recovered one week later, having been placed in a post box in St. Stephen’s Green, addressed to the Gallery.

Deputy Flood.—And the most recent theft has not been solved?

Mr. Keaveney.—That is under Garda investigation and we have not had any contact from them recently about any new information in regard to it.

Deputy Flood.—What was the value of the items stolen?

Mr. Keaveney.—The valuation in that case was very modest indeed, which makes one think that conceivably, it could not have been done for financial gain. The valuation was somewhere in the region of £2,500.

Deputy Flood.—Does this mean that somebody simply walked up to a wall and took the painting out of the frame? Is that how close people can get to the paintings? Can they get to where one is hanging?

Mr. Keaveney.—In this instance, apparently that is what happened. I am pleased to say — I hope I am not tempting fate — that that would not be possible now with the devices we have installed and the routines we have implemented in recent months.

Deputy Cullimore.—What is the estimated financial value of the paintings in the Gallery?

Mr. Keaveney.—We do not have a list of paintings with values but, as I mentioned earlier, the total valuation must be somewhere in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds.

Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. Keaveney.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 31 — MARINE.

Mr. F. Ó Muircheartaigh called and examined.

Chairman.—The Committee are continuing their examination of Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh, Secretary of the Department of the Marine, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Department, on the accounts for the year ending December 1988. Tá fáilte romhat, Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh. At our last meeting we raised with the witness the question of the MV Kowloon Bridge which ran into difficulties in November 1986. I understood from the last examination that the Department were offered £1 million in compensation from the insurers of the owners and that that was turned down. What progress has been made to date? What is the current state of play and when will the State realise compensation and in what amount

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—When the offer was made it was considererd by the Minister but he felt that since it did not cover the costs legitimately incurred by the State in relation to the incident, the matter should be pursued on a legal basis. On 3 May last year the State’s legal services issued proceedings in the High Court against four defendants, including the first owners, Helinger Ltd. and the operators, Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd. As those proceedings have issued I have been advised that the matter should be treated as being sub judice and that I should not comment further on it.

Chairman.—For the information of the witness, I should like to tell him that the Committee decide what is and what is not sub judice. This Committee are not subject to the courts, just as the courts are not subject to this Committee but normally we facilitate witnesses in regard to such matters. I must put down that marker because should the Committee decide to examine on the matter they will do so. Will the witness tell the Committee when the court case will be heard?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—I do not have any information on the date of the hearing but I will approach the State’s legal services and furnish the Committee with a note on the matter.

Deputy Taylor.—Are there insurers involved?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—There are insurers involved. I do not have their name with me but I think I gave the name at the last hearing. I will include the name of the insurers in the note. It is one of the mutual clubs in London who deal with insurance of this type of vessel.

Deputy Taylor.—How much is the State claiming?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—The State is claiming £1.7 million.

Deputy Taylor.—Did further negotiations take place to try to settle the matter, or was £1 million the maximum figure offered?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—That was the maximum amount they were prepared to offer. The view of the Minister at the time was that costs that are legitimately incurred in dealing with a marine casualty should be recoverable. He felt that the correct course of action was to pursue that to the maximum extent.

Deputy Taylor.—Was that opinion backed up by the State’s legal advisers or was an opinion taken on the matter?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—I cannot recall that, but I will include that in the note.

Chairman.—On the question of licences for fish farms, do your Department derive income from licensing fish farms? If so, how many licences were issued in the year in question and what was the income derived from them?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—On the general question in the course of 1989 the Department derived a significant income from fish farms. At the time the Department of the Marine were established no fish farming licences had been issued. The bulk of fish farming licences granted were issued in the year 1989 on the basis of work done in 1988. In the year in question, 1988, aquaculture licence fees amounted to £5,275. Output of licences improved markedly so that in 1989 the amount received was of the order of £50,000.

Chairman.—What about the pollution caused by certain fish farms? Do your Department have a role in controlling that pollution? Could the Accounting Officer give the Committee an estimate of the number of illegal fish farms in existence?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—In relation to pollution, I should like to give the Committee some indication of the process involved. When somebody wishes to engage in fish farming he is required by the Department to submit information under a wide series of headings before he will be considered for the issue of a licence. That involves information on hydrology, hydrography, on the site, on the currents in the area, on the other marine life, the life on the ocean floor and so on. That information is considered by a licence vetting committee who specify the conditions under which the Minister would issue a fish farm licence. As part of that exercise samples of the water are taken. A number of surveys have been carried out in specific areas in relation to any fall-out there might be from these cages. This information is collated by the Fisheries Research Centre, which is part of the Department, in Abbotstown. I am bound to say that the ability of the Department to deal with this kind of question will be greatly enhanced by the £200,000 being allocated to the Department in 1990, as part of the Government’s Environmental Action Programme.

Chairman.—Have any licences been revoked for environmental reasons?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—No licences have been revoked for environmental reasons. The reason is that, contrary to speculation to that effect, no serious pollution problems have been encountered vis-à-vis the aquaculture projects under way. Aquaculture projects seem to attract a much higher degree of attention and critique than other forms of economic activity. My concern in that regard is that the Department of the Marine, the Fisheries Research Centre, the people investing in aquaculture development, the people who work on it, are trying to establish forms of economic activity in disadvantaged areas where it is very difficult to establish self-sustaining and resource based activities. Many of the criticisms voiced about these activities are voiced without any substantive evidence by people, many of whom do not live in these areas, who do not recognise the inherent developmental difficulties encountered in these areas. They seem to us to apply standards not required in respect of any other form of economic activity.

Deputy Allen.—I sympathise with the Accounting Officer in some of his comments, which are relevant to other issues that have arisen in recent times in regard to environmental protection. For example, I have been involved in the Merrell Dow and Sandoz issues. As the Accounting Officer said, people who do not live in such areas, who have very little knowledge, can exploit circumstances like these because there are, first, inadequate controls available to the statutory authorities and, second, because there is a certain lack of confidence in the statutory authorities ability to control potential damage to the environment caused by pollution. In that context I might ask the Accounting Officer what controls are available to ensure that pollution does not occur, who is responsible for the reporting of pollution incidents and whether he is satisfied that the ten or 11 different bodies responsible for pollution control can cover the whole spectrum of environmental protection? Are there serious deficiencies and/or overlapping in the monitoring of these activities? In his opinion, what would be the best way to rectify matters if these deficiencies exist? My belief is that people who know very little about the subject, who have no direct interest, can exploit these new cult issues — as they might be described — because of the lack of confidence on the part of the general public in the relevant statutory authorities.

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—A number of important points have been raised. First — as the licensing authority — the Department of the Marine see themselves as having primary responsibility for the monitoring and supervision of the aquaculture industry. Second, the Department of the Marine in pursuing that responsibility apply their resources as effectively as possible in the monitoring and supervision of these activities. Of course these activities have grown dramatically over the last four or five years so that we now have an industry worth £50 million or £60 million, rather than one worth £2 million or £4 million, at the beginning of the eighties. That has been a period of very great constraint on resources for broader, micro-economic, objectives because of the state of the national finance reasons. Here I should like to pay tribute to the staff in the Department of the Marine — previously the Department of Fisheries — who have been involved in getting this industry off the ground in an effective way which has created that activity, employment and exports. Clearly additional resources were needed. The resources that will be made available to us in 1990 are essential to meet the kinds of points Deputy Allen has raised. People responsible for the provision of any public service will know that we could provide a better public service had they more resources. I think the question which must seriously be asked is: “Has there been catastrophic environmental impact of these projects?” The answer to that to the best of my knowledge is, “No, there has not been.” That is a myth, a misrepresentation. But, with the application of resources the Deputy is talking about, and in a way I will outline in a moment, it should be possible to strengthen the confidence of those concerned and well meaning people to whom the Deputy has referred. We intend to draw up a comprehensive system of inspection on the sites of these facilities in 1990 and on a regular basis in subsequent years and that will provide support and assurance of the kind the Deputy quite rightly seeks.

Mr. Allen.—It is grand to have hindsight, but could the Department have foresen the problems that have arisen, for example, with the ESB hatchery in Wicklow and subsequently the closure of the one on the upper reaches of the Lee, both on the upstream water supplies? Surely there should have been some forecast that these problems would arise in the absence of proper monitoring. What is the cost involved now, because of the closure of these? What public moneys are involved arising from the closures? Were the closures premature in view of the checks that the Accounting Officer has told us are being implemented?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—The Department of the Marine was established in March 1987 and since that time one of our priority tasks has been to put the emerging aquaculture industry on a proper regulatory footing. In that context we have been in liasion with the ESB in relation to the licensing of all their activities, as we have been in touch with all people engaged in aquaculture who had not been on a proper footing previously. There are two issues really involved in the case of the ESB. We have required of the ESB, in the periods since 1987 and now, information in relation to the quality of their water tests. Last summer we required certain tests to be done in relation to the water to see if traces of any deleterious matter could be found in the water supplies. I am happy to say that there were no such traces, nor have Dublin Corporation, as I understand it, produced any evidence of such fallout. On the other hand, if there is public concern about something it should be attended to. In the intervening period, the kind of issues that are involved in the cultivation of fish in lake cages, are going to be examined in great detail to see precisely in what circumstances this should be allowed or should not be allowed. There is no evidence that in any of the areas where it has been allowed it has caused any damage. However, it depends on the degree to which one should put caution to the fore. The trouble about caution is that if put to an extreme level it would bring everything to a halt. Taking cages out of lakes does not necessarily bring this activity to a halt because there are tank facilities on shore where both the intake of water and the outfall of water are filtered and otherwise treated. Therefore, this kind of farming activity can continue without such cages but at a higher cost and therefore, presumably, it can actually reduce the rate of growth of the industry.

Deputy Allen.—I understand that under present legislation the onus for any pollution outbreak rests with the licence holder. Is there any proposal to change that condition? I asked another question which I did not get an answer to in relation to the closure of the ESB hatcheries. Does it seem now that the hatcheries were closed not because of any scientific doubts as to their operations but because of the inadequacy of the present structures which have brought about fears? Could the Accounting Officer also respond to a major report that has been done recently by the South-Western Regional Fisheries Board called The Greening of the Lee? Have his Department carried out any investigation? Has he responded in any way to that report?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—The onus for pollution control measures is with the licence holder, but water samples are reviewed by the Department. As and from this year a system of regular inspection by departmental officials of facilities and sites is being undertaken. That is my answer to the first question. The second question in relation to the closure of ESB hatcheries, where you cross over the line from caution to proof of something is a matter of judgement. The Government have decided that it would be better that at this stage, cage rearing should not take place in public reservoirs. On the final question, I understand that the report is with the Department but we have not as yet to my knowledge responded to it, but I would like to check that and revert if it is the case.

Deputy Flood.—Why under subhead B.1 — Travelling and Incidental Expenses — was there a considerable increase in expenditure? I know there is an explanation note there, but I thought there was some attempt in that year to curtail the cost of travelling and subsistence. Was that a question of simply ignoring a directive, or what was the position then? I also note that in subhead B.2 — Postal and Telecommunications Services — there was a considerable increase and the same on subheads B.3 and K. I would imagine that when a grant is made it is intended that they be kept to the level of the grant made. Maybe the Comptroller and Auditor General will have something to say about that.

Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor General might explain within the Vote.

Mr. McDonnell.—Within the Vote the exercise of virement between subheads is at the discretion of the Department of Finance once there is not an excess in the Vote as a whole.

Chairman.—So, they can do that with the permission of the Department of Finance; that is the technical procedure for it.

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—Let me deal with subheads B.1, B.2 and B.3 together and subhead K separately because it is a different issue. In relation to subheads B.1, B.2 and B.3 it should be realised that this Department is a new Department in the course of development; 1988 was the first full year of the Department of the Marine. As I said, we were established in March 1987. There was a general policy in relation to travelling expenses that year. The travelling expenses were set at the level the Department had in the previous year, which in our case was not a full year at all. That is the first issue. The second issue was that we were set up to establish services, to get the licensing system for aquaculture that we have been discussing underway, to get proper fish quality programmes underway. Putting these things on the road cost money, money which was approved by the Department of Finance under the travelling subhead. I wish to touch very briefly on subhead B.2 — Postal and Telecommunications Services and subhead B.3 — Office Machinery and Supplies. While I would be happy to supply details of, say, the office machinery and supplies situation, in the case of a new Department such as ours we did not have our own switchboard, we did not have our own telephones, we did not have our own computers, and all these things had to be bought both in 1988 and in 1989. That is the explanation for these figures being of a higher order than the figures that were put into the original Estimate, based largely on what was in the year before.

Under subhead K — Electronic Equipment for Coastal Radio Stations — I am rather glad you mentioned this item because when I was last here subhead K was one of the ones on which we underspent. This has to do with the VHF marine radio network around the coast which was basically put in place in the course of the years 1988 and 1989. This is a system by which people in small boats with quite cheap equipment, within say a 50 mile radius of the coast, can phone home through Valentia and Malin Head. This scheme had been in abeyance for about six years. We had the support of the Department of Finance in accelerating it. They allowed us to put more money into it to bring it from almost nothing right up to a system which in 1989 and since covers virtually the entire coast. That is the reason for the excess under subhead K.

Chairman.—I notice there is expenditure here to do with coast life saving services and the Irish lifeboat service. During the last 48 hours we had one tragedy and one incident which could have been a terrible tragedy. Given that we are an island, are you happy that the moneys we are spending here are used constantly to review sea safety? In other words, if, for instance, the fire on board the St. Columba yesterday had been worse, could we have got 250 people off that ship? Is the facility there, is it kept constantly under review? Is it possible to lift so many people from such a ship?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—I think this is the most important question, both now and even in the context of the 1988 accounts. I am bound to say that anything to do with the marine environment, as President Bush and Gorbachev noticed in the Mediterranean, is just a little bit unpredictable. You have no absolute assurance that you can do anything. Nobody can actually ever put their hands on their hearts and say that they can carry out an operation at sea in any weather conditions. With that proviso, I would answer “yes” to your question.

Chairman.—As it happens, I think there actually was within the last six months a fire safety drill carried out on the ship. It was certainly on one of the ships.

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—That is true. I want to give you a concrete assurance in one respect. In November 1987 the Minister decided, on the advice of the Department, that a Ferry Safety Committee should be established for Irish ferries, that is, ferries carrying an Irish flag, which are the ferries that we regulate as distinct from the Sealink ferry which is a British flagged ferry. That Ferry Safety Committee is chaired by the Chief Marine Surveyor and it has the technical officers of Irish Ferries and B & I on it. They discuss all incidents that relate to ferry accidents. They discuss regulations for the improvement of ferry safety. Only last week, under the auspices of the Ferry Safety Committee, 56 officers and men from the two operating Irish ferry companies were at a special seminar in Kilmainham, the entire afternoon of which was spent dealing with fires on ferries, which potentially is the most dangerous area.

Chairman.—As I understand it, there was a joint RAF-Irish Air Corps Holyhead/Dún Laoghaire exercise, which I think was televised, on that very ship showing what would be done in the event of a fire. You are happy then that the moneys provided are being used to train people to prevent fire happening and, secondly, should it happen, to ensure that the people on board can be taken off safely? It is vitally important when we are living on an island.

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—I am happy that the relevant resources are being organised and people trained in the best possible fashion to try to respond to these situations. In this regard I would like to pay tribute to Sealink who are customers of the Department in Dún Laoghaire harbour in fact. It is with their co-operation that those exercises have taken place. No doubt it has stood them in very good stead in this particular incident.

Deputy Allen.—I am sure we cannot go away without asking something about the rod licence. Could I ask the Accounting Officer what moneys have been lost to the Department because of the ongoing dispute and if there are ongoing discussions between his own Department and the Department of Tourism in relation to the net loss to the Exchequer because of the ongoing dispute? What moneys have been taken in for licences to date? What moneys have been spent on public relations dealing with the whole affair?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—First of all, there is no revenue to the Exchequer from rod licences. I do not mean that in the sense that rod licences were not sold. I mean it in the sense that the revenue that comes from the sale of licences goes directly to the Fisheries Boards. In that regard it would probably be fair of me to say that there was no loss of revenue to the Fisheries Boards from this exercise. In fact, the purpose of the exercise was to increase the Fisheries Boards own resources. In 1987, the figure which I recall for all licences sold was £174,000. In 1988 which was the first year of the rod licences, the total revenue was £396,303.

Deputy Allen.—What was the first figure?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—I was speaking from memory. I think the figure was £170,874. That increased to almost £400,000, as I say, in 1988. You may say how was there revenue in 1987 since the rod licence only came in in 1988, but there were salmon rod licences prior to 1988 and that was the figure of £174,000.

Deputy Allen.—What is the figure for 1989?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—I have the figure for 1989 here. This would be a provisional figure as yet. Our estimate for 1989 is £394,559. However, I would say that there were substantial decreases in the average price of licences in 1989 over 1988. The number of licences increased by about 30 per cent. I would be happy to supply you with the exact number.

Chairman.—You might just put it in a note.

Deputy Allen.—In relation to consultancy fees in dealing with the dispute, what has it cost the Department to date in public relations? What companies have been employed?

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—The Department have spent nothing at all directly on public relations in relation to this matter. But, in order to give you complete information on the wider question of consultants, in case there would be any room for misinterpretation of that last remark, I can give you a breakdown of A.2 — Consultancy Services. The Department recruited in 1988 three consultancy firms and the total expenditure was £34,933. The first of these was payments to the special adviser to the Minister, which was £5,400. The second was for Carr Communications, which was £24,923; and the third was for an environmental scientist from Eolas, who gave us advice on some marine environment issues, and Eolas were paid £4,593.

Deputy Allen.—That was a 60 per cent increase over the previous year in fees.

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—I do not have the actual figures for the previous years.

Deputy Allen.—A sum of £22,000 was granted for 1987. You spent £35,000 almost.

Mr. Ó Muircheartaigh.—If we did, we did so with the full approval of the Department of Finance.

Chairman.—That concludes the examination for today. Thank you very much. For the information of the Committee, the Bundestag Financial Committee will be visiting Ireland from 3 to 5 April of this year and they want to meet the committee. A time has provisionally been set for 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 April. Thank you all very much. That concludes the meeting.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.