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, 18 Eanáir, 1990

Thursday, 18 January, 1990

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY G. MITCHELL in the chair

Mr. P. L. McDonnell (An tÁrd Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 10 — OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. J. F. Mahony called and examined.

Chairman.—First, it is my pleasant duty to welcome Aileen McHugh, the new clerk to the committee, who is attending her first committee meeting today. Second, I welcome Mr. Mahony, Chairman of the Office of Public Works, in his capacity as Accounting Officer for that Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report for the year ended 31 December 1988.

Mr. Mahony.—Thank you.

Chairman.—What progress has been made on the special report of the committee, compiled with the assistance of ESB International, on the question of controlling capital programmes under the aegis of your Department?

Mr. Mahony.—The document we produced was submitted to the committee which subsequently passed it on to ESB International for their observations. It was welcomed by them as a document which afforded very good controls in relation to project working. That document has been implemented in the Office and the various project divisions are now under instructions from the Board to operate it in respect of each and every major project.

Chairman.—Have you been monitoring its implementation?

Mr. Mahony.—We have been monitoring its implementation in two ways; first, in relation to short duration projects which are nearing completion, and second, taking the long-term perspective, to see that the system is being operated. Most of the major projects are spread out over two to three years. It was only last year we implemented the system. It will be a number of years before we will be able to show a completed project management plan. I am quite happy that it is being implemented.

Chairman.—On the future of the Office of Public Works, a very large sum was provided in the Estimates for a consultants’ report on your office. Did they issue an interim report?

Mr. Mahony.—The report was commissioned by the Department of Finance on the instructions of Government. The Department of Finance are paying the consultants for the report. I understand the report has not been received as of today in the Department of Finance but its receipt is imminent.

Chairman.—Did you receive an interim report?

Mr. Mahony.—No, there was no interim report. I am a member of the steering committee who are working with the consultants. Apart from our regular meetings with the consultants, no report as such has issued.

Chairman.—Will this report be made available this month?

Mr. Mahony.—My understanding is that the chairman of the steering committee expects the report within the next week or two. I imagine that the Department of Finance will consider it before presenting it to Government.

Chairman.—With regard to No. 5 Kildare Street, on your last visit, you indicated it was thought that the final settlement would be in the region of £400,000 but there was an ongoing court case. Can you tell us what the final settlement was?

Mr. Mahony.—Can you allow me a moment to consult my records?

Chairman.—Certainly.

Mr. Mahony.—It will take about five minutes, so in the meantime can we pass on to another item?

Chairman.—Yes, we will pass on and we can come back to that in a moment.

Mr. Mahony.—All the works are completed and the scaffolding, as you may have noticed, has come down. The building, as far as I know, is being occupied on a phased basis by National Library personnel.

Chairman.—Incidentally, who decides on who occupies the building?

Mr. Mahony.—In our previous discussions in relation to the buildings in Kildare Street, I indicated that we were attempting to secure all of that block as accommodation for the National Library. It was a long-term project for them and therefore, it was proper that they be accommodated there.

Chairman.—Will additional accommodation be made available soon to relieve overcrowding in Leinster House?

Mr. Mahony.—On the question of accommodation for Members of the Oireachtas generally, we usually deal with the Clerk Administrator of the Dáil, the Superintendent of the Houses or, on occasion, with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We carried out a survey for the accommodation provided for Oireachtas Members in March 1989. Arising out of this it was obvious there was a need for additional space. Towards the end of last year 9,000 sq. ft. in the first floor of the Kildare Street Setanta block was made available. As of now, we have no requests from the Oireachtas area for additional space. Therefore, we have to assume for the moment they are satisfied.

Chairman.—While you are here, let me express my dissatisfaction. For instance, on behalf of this committee, I have to meet quite a number of people week in and week out. There simply is nowhere to bring them beyond the Dáil bar or restaurant. That is totally unacceptable. In fact, on one occasion this week, with a member of the staff of the committee, I had to leave a meeting with one person in the Dáil restaurant to meet another person in the Dáil bar. That is a very unsatisfactory way for the senior committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas to conduct its business. There is a problem.

Mr. Mahony.—Could I suggest that we either take it up with the Superintendent of the Houses or with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to try to resolve it? In any instance where we have received requests from the Houses of the Oireachtas for additional accommodation we have given them very prompt attention.

Chairman.—Perhaps we can talk about that later.

Deputy Connor.—You expressed satisfaction with the progress being made on projects. I take it you were talking about all the projects being carried out by the Office of Public Works. Let me speak to you for a little while about arterial drainage schemes. I happen to be familiar with one in particular, the Boyle-Bonet drainage scheme in County Roscommon and County Leitrim. To my knowledge, the only other one in progress is the Blackwater scheme in Ulster. Are you satisfied with progress on those projects? For instance, if I am correct the Boyle-Bonet drainage scheme started in 1982. At that time it was envisaged that the work would take about five years to complete. Five years have come and gone. I understand that that scheme is about 65 per cent complete. Would you outline the up-to-date position of that scheme, the expenditure to date, to what extent EC aid has been made available and if we will continue to get EC aid for the work? Originally, EC aid was provided under the western drainage scheme.

Mr. Mahony.—On the Boyle-Bonet drainage scheme, up to the end of 1989 we had spent about £13.5 million. On completion in 1993 we expect the final cost to be about £26 million, inclusive of all the engineers’ salaries and travelling expenses that will arise on the project. In relation to duration, progress on the ground, this is dictated by the terrain one has to deal with, and the amount of funds made available to us in any particular year. Over recent years the amount of funds made available to us for arterial drainage construction works in any particular year was limited. Effectively, we are getting about £4.3 million per annum. That amount has to cover the Boyle-Bonet scheme, which covers the Roscommon-Leitrim area, and the Monaghan-Blackwater scheme. If you are familiar with the Bonet in particular you will know that the terrain as it moves down towards Lough Gill is quite rocky and quite expensive to deal with.

Deputy Connor.—Are the schemes being carried out within cost as originally envisaged?

Mr. Mahony.—I understand that the final costs, will be well above estimate on completion. Because the schemes are being spread out over more years than was initially intended, the overheads will mount up as the years pass.

Deputy Connor.—Would that be twice as much as originally envisaged?

Mr. Mahony.—The current estimate for the Boyle-Bonet scheme is about £26 million. I cannot relate that to the original estimate. I have not got that before me.

Deputy Connor.—Will we have the same level of EC funding for the increased costs as we had been promised for the original cost way back in 1982 or 1979?

Mr. Mahony.—No, we will not get an increase. There was a certain sum of money under the western drainage package for these schemes and that has been exhausted.

Deputy Connor.—So now we are under full funding from the Exchequer.

Mr. Mahony.—We are under full funding from the Exchequer at the moment.

Deputy Connor.—Finally, there was quite an amount of money spent in 1988 on surveys, £259,000 approximately. Are these new surveys on new waterways or water systems with a view to future arterial drainage?

Mr. Mahony.—The breakdown on the figure for surveys is that about £200,000 related to the operation of gauges and other meters on rivers for ascertaining the extent and velocity of river flows. This is part of hydro metric survey work. The actual amount spent on specific schemes is fairly limited at the moment, about £50,000 in the year of account. At the moment there are five schemes at survey stage. This arises from a Government decision in 1986 followed by a subsequent decision in 1987. In order of priority we were to work to work on the Owenmore, the Mulcair, the Suir, the Dunkellin and in consultation with the Northern Ireland authorities, at the Finn-Lacky system. The cost benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment on the Owenmore scheme should be completed this year and we will then have to go back to Government to get a decision from them as to whether we would proceed to actual construction work on the river.

Chairman.—Mr. Mahony, you were looking up something. Do you have the information for me?

Mr. Mahony.—I have sent for the information.

Chairman.—I would like to ask another question in relation to the Insurance Corporation of Ireland. There was a dispute over an amount of £309,000 and there was a delay in the recovery of that amount. Has that now been recovered?

Mr. Mahony.—Moneys have not yet been recovered. There were two cases — one related to the meteorological offices in Glasnevin and the other to a contract in the Garda depot. We are waiting for a court case in relation to the meteorological offices. All the legal steps have been taken to bring that matter to court so it is in the hands of the court as to when the case will be called.

Chairman.—Are the insurance corporation disputing the amount due?

Mr. Mahony.—They are disputing liability for the amount claimed.

Chairman.—It is a matter for the courts to adjudicate?

Mr. Mahony.—In that case, yes. In the second case we have reviewed the amount of our claim. It would appear, having regard to a variety of circumstances, that the loss to the State would not now be the amount originally claimed and we may have to settle out of court for the loss that the State would actually sustain.

Deputy McGahon.—I note a sum of £3,778,000 for parks under subhead G. Where is that money spent? Is it spent in Dublin?

Mr. Mahony.—I will give you a list of the parks and the expenditure.

Deputy McGahon.—How much has been allocated for Dundalk where the park has all but disappeared?

Mr. Mahony.—I will give a quick run down of the parks properties on which the sum of £3,778,000 odd was spent — Garnish Island, the Glebe Gallery in Donegal, Glenveagh National Park, a small amount on Grangegorman Military Cemetery, Arbour Hill, the Garden of Remembrance, the former Papal Nunciature premises in the Phoenix Park, the Phoenix Park, St. Enda’s Park, St. Stephen’s Green, the Memorial Park Inchicore, Connemara National Park, Derrynane Abbey, Killarney National Park, Kilkenny National Park and small amounts for publications and research.

Deputy McGahon.—The other matter I wanted to ask about is State harbours. The amount of money allocated is very small — £1,700,000. While I realise that the airports in recent years have more glamorous and more urgent appeal, many of the harbours have been neglected and have not had money spent on them since the days of the British. How many harbours were helped in the last year? Can you give any indication when Clogherhead will get a new harbour?

Mr. Mahony.—I will deal first with subhead K for 1988. That subhead provided for our management of Dún Laoghaire, Howth and Dunmore East which are referred to as the three State harbours. From 1 January 1989 that service passed to Roinn na Mara so effectively it was not under my control in 1989. In the new works subhead for 1988, you will find provision and expenditure for a number of piers and harbours on the west coast. In 1988 we also did quite a number of jobs on a repayment basis for Roinn na Mara and that totalled about £1.18 million. I see nothing in that list for Clogherhead. Since January 1989 that service is no longer under the Office of Public Works but under Roinn na Mara.

Deputy McGahon.—Do you have a waiting list for harbours requiring attention?

Mr. Mahony.—At the moment I would not have that list; that is a matter for Roinn na Mara. Even when we were carrying out these projects Roinn na Mara determined priorities and we undertook the works on a repayment basis.

Deputy McGahon.—When was repair work last effected at Clogherhead?

Mr. Mahony.—I will ascertain that before the session is over.

Deputy Taylor.—I would like to raise a couple of questions on the subject of national monuments. The expenditure on national monuments in the relevant period was approximately £3,500,000. I would be interested to know first, how many national monuments are under the care of the Commissioners. I would like to compliment the Commissioners of Public Works on the work they do on the national monuments, their maintenance and the condition they are in. They and their staff do a very fine job.

On the question of security at some of the national monuments, I was very disturbed to read in the past few days about damage done at the Grianan of Aileach which, judging by the picture I saw in one of the papers, was very badly damaged. That I am sure was a source of concern to many people. What do the commissioners do? I realise it is a major problem but surely in the light of what happened at the grianan, which was a major national monument, something will have to be done to try to control these events and ensure that these monuments are not vandalised. On the question of information provided at many of these sites, maps and so on are provided at some of the sites, but from my travels around the country I note that all too often the only piece of information you will find at many of these sites — some of them important ones — is the simple bald statement that this site is under the care and control of the Commissioners of Public Works. It occured to me very often that both for our own people and for tourists looking at some of these important sites which are open to the public, there should be some basic information giving the history of the site, some explanatory comment by way of panels. This is done at some sites admittedly, but at very many it is not. That is a lack and I wonder have the commissioners any plans to deal with that.

Mr. Mahony.—With regard to the first point the Deputy made, in the year of account we spent £3.5 million on the maintenance of national monuments. Monuments are divided into a number of categories. We have about 700 monuments which the State owns or where we have guardianship deeds or guardianship orders — guardianship allows us to maintain the monuments as though we own them. In addition we have preservation orders or registrations under the 1987 Monuments (Amendment) Act which affords a certain element of protection without actually taking over ownership. The monuments which are State owned and those which are in guardianship are regularly inspected by our maintenance personnel who are spread over six regions with centres in Athenry, Killarney, Kilkenny, Mallow, Trim and Sligo. From those regional centres they carry out necessary maintenance and restoration works at those monuments which we own or have in guardianship. At some monuments which are under lock and key we retain caretakers who are keyholders who give access to members of the public.

In the case of the Griánan of Aileach, we are not certain damage was done to it by persons unknown. It may well be that there was a subsidence there — that is not clear yet. Our architects and archaeologists have looked at the site to determine what may have caused the problem. It was reported in a recent newspaper that there was a possibility that the collapse occurred because people were taking stones from the monument. We are not certain that that is the case. At the moment the site is fenced off and there are danger notices on the site to avoid a situation where the public might be injured.

The general position about information at sites, is that we have 17 sites around the country where we provide a guide service — Newgrange, Rock of Cashel, Clonmacnoise, Cahir Castle, Dunmore Cave, Charles Fort Kinsale, Mellifont Abbey, Jerpoint Abbey, Aughanmore Castle in Galway, Limerick Castle, the Casino Marino, Glendalough, Boyle Abbey, Carrick-on-Suir Castle, Ennis Friary and Parkes Castle. We also had a service in St. Mary’s Abbey in 1988. For information, those 17 sites with guides attracted 467,000 paying visitors in 1988. They paid £345,000. I take the Deputy’s point about lack of information at sites generally throughout the country. We have a programme which is part of the structural funds tourism heritage programme to provide public access and information at national monuments. A sum of £400,000 has been set aside for that between 1990 and 1993. Our view is that signposting and information plaques at about 500 monuments need to be upgraded and this is our programme for the next four years, but I take the point completely.

Deputy Connor.—Deputy Taylor referred to historic monuments and we have what we call national monuments and under the last National Monuments Bill, we have historic monuments. What is the procedure by which a historic monument, as defined under the 1987 Act becomes a national monument? There are several historic monuments in the country that are not national monuments under your care. You have, under the 1987 Act, a protective role, and it is rather indirect I am afraid. How do you graduate a monument from being what is called a historic one to a national one? There are many such monuments around the country which could well do with the greater care and attention of the Office of Public Works.

Mr. Mahony.—I would say the difference is very subtle. I would have to look at the Act to make the distinction between the two. When one thinks of a national monument one is thinking of the remains of our past, whether it dates to recorded history or prehistoric times like the monuments on the Boyne and other standing stones and field monuments. When we talk about national monuments we talk about those remains, whether they are historic or prehistoric, which are worthy of preservation by the State, in other words, that the State would always see it as its duty to see that these monuments survived in perpetuity. The Deputy’s definition of a historic monument obviously would relate to monuments which had a historic connotation.

Deputy Connor.—Literally anything that was built from the 18th century back to whenever dot was?

Mr. Mahony.—We have a cut off date of about 1700. Could I suggest, Chairman, that I would send a note to the Deputy on this point. Most of the monuments which we talk about are actually national monuments. There is a subtle distinction there and I would need to refer to the legislation to deal with that point.

Chairman.—You might send a note to the committee.

Mr. Mahony.—Yes, Chairman.

Deputy Connor.—On a point of clarification arising from what Deputy Taylor said about information and interpretation at these national monuments, do you hope to allocate something like £400,000 towards interpretation and information at such monuments?

Mr. Mahony.—Yes. There is £100,000 a year for the next four years set aside to both signpost and provide information plaques at about 500 monuments.

Deputy Connor.—Are the Office of Public Works amenable to co-operating with bodies like local authorities in the protection of monuments? I live in County Roscommon near one of the most historic monuments in the country, Gruachán Connacht, which is of course, grossly neglected, but Roscommon County Council for instance is one local authority who might be willing to help. Of course, the Office of Public Works would have a major role but we are not sure whether they would be willing to help or not.

Mr. Mahony.—We co-operate very closely with all the local authorities. An aspect of our work which we did not touch on and which is, of course, vital to the protection of monuments is the archaeological survey. That is proceeding at a great pace. We have published material in relation to all sites and monuments in 17 out of the 26 counties. We are working on six others at the moment. Roscommon is one of three counties on which we are not working at the moment, the other two are Tipperary and Clare. We intend to publish material on those three counties, which will include Roscommon, by 1992. This is a prerequisite to the protection and preservation of monuments in the country. Taking the Twenty-six Counties as a whole there are about 100,000 monuments and it is a difficult task to get them all recorded speedily.

Deputy McGahon.—What are the criteria for taking monuments in charge? Does the request have to come from the local authority? Given the tremendous success of the Newgrange site, which I understand attracts many European visitors to this country, have you given any consideration to the creation or the erection of a monument at the site of the Battle of the Boyne which has tremendous and very happy connotations for this country? This is the centenary year of the Battle of the Boyne and many people are dismayed at the lack of information about that event. Do you plan to erect any type of monument which would give information to any person visiting that site? There is an absolute dearth of information there at the moment. Also, do you plan to participate with the Unionists in any possible celebration this year?

Mr. Mahony.—Existing legislation does not encompass battle sites too, but we have legislation in train which will allow us to exercise wider powers in relation to such areas. We have no plans to erect a monument such as the Deputy refers to nor, indeed, to participate with the Unionists — we have not been asked to co-operate with them.

Deputy McGahon.—You will be aware that Mr. James Delaney, the Irish-American millionaire, bought the site some years ago with a very grandiose and laudible plan to create a national park there. That was a very big development which, unfortunately, had to be shelved, at least temporarily. Was Mr. Delaney in touch with the Office of Public Works about co-operating with them or participating?

Mr. Mahony.—Not in any formal or detailed way. The office has its own plans for the Boyne Valley area, plans which are the subject of a certain amount of controversy in County Meath at the moment. We plan to create an archaeological park which will contain all the major archaeological monuments of the Boyne Valley, taking in a wide area surrounding that triangle of monument at Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth. It is our plan to create an archaeological park in that area over the next four years and funds have been made available under the structural funds tourism related programme.

Deputy McGahon.—I welcome that, but I am sure you share my dismay at the granting of permission by An Bord Pleanáa to a company to carry out quarry excavations. Surely the whole country is suitable for quarrying excavations and that particular scenic area of the Boyne Valley should be exempt. I would call on the Taoiseach to intervene and to ensure that that does not happen. Is the Office of Public Works concerned that that permission has been given?

Chairman.—You are straying from public works.

Mr. Mahony.—When the planning application for that development was lodged initially we had no grounds under the National Monuments Acts to lodge an objection. We sought to protect the wider environment of the Boyne Valley through discussions with the developers and with the local authorities. In the end, as you are aware, the local authority refused planning permission and it was An Bord Pleanála that granted the permission. It would be wrong of me to comment on a decision of An Bord Pleanála which is a statutory body set up by Government.

Deputy McGahon.—It still was a crazy decision and should be rescinded.

Mr. Mahony.—You can take it that we are in touch with the developers now in relation to minimising, as far as our plans for the archaeological park are concerned, the effect of their development on the buffer zone to the archaeological park.

Chairman.—I was just about to ask you a question when Deputy McGahon wanted to continue on that line. In relation to E subhead — works, Alterations and Additions you spent £2.7 million on the reconstruction of blocks 8, 9 and 10 of Dublin Castle and £7.37 million on Dublin Castle’s Upper Yard Development, including a new conference centre, a total of £9.1 million which, if my arithmetic is correct, is £1 million over the estimated cost. Was that the total cost of the work carried out at the conference centre and in the Castle? Is any of this money recoverable from the EC? If so, how much?

Mr. Mahony.—None of the expenditure on Dublin Castle is recoverable from the EC. Taking the various projects which have been on-going in the Castle in recent years you recall that there was a Government decision that OPW should provide a major conference facility in the Castle. That conference facility included the creation of a new building the restoration and refurbishment of the old Genealogical Office and the provision of a new kitchen block and other ancillary buildings. We spent £17 million on that project and that was finished within budget and was very well controlled by a cost committee made up of representatives of OPW, the Department of Finance and the Department of Foreign affairs.

Chairman.—The total cost is £17 million.

Mr. Mahony.—We spent £17 million on that. On blocks 8, 9 and 10 project, which was the refurbishment of Civil Service accommodation, we spent £4 million.

Chairman.—You spent £21 million on Dublin Castle.

Mr. Mahony.—We spent £21 million on Dublin Castle, but £17 million related to the conference facilities and £4 million related to the provision of Government accommodation.

Chairman.—The committee intended visiting the conference centre. Indeed, it was suggested that we should have a meeting there, which never transpired, to see what this great amount of money had been spent on. I note since then that some European Parliament committee has met there. It would be very useful if we were to see it and also some of the more historic excavation work which I believe is preserved in situ.

Mr.Mahony.—That is correct. I do not think you would be disappointed at the extent of the work that was done.

Chairman.—The only disappointment I express is that we did not get the go ahead with the meeting as we said we would on the last occasion.

Mr. Mahony.—As you are aware, that is outside my control. That is a matter for the Department of the Taoiseach, the Government’s side of the Taoiseach’s office.

Chairman.—You are the Accounting Officer and we want to see what you spent £17 million on. You have produced the asset and you cannot bring it here so we will have to go there. Would you be good enough to make the arrangements?

Mr. Mahony.—As you request, I will endeavour to clear it through the Taoiseach’s Department and I will come back to you.

Deputy Taylor.—Do the Botanic Gardens come under the Commissioners of Public Works?

Mr. Mahony.—For management purposes, the Botanic Gardens come under the Department of Agriculture and Food but we have maintenance responsibilities in the Botanic Gardens. There is approval to a major restoration project on the curvilinear range starting this year. That will be carried out by the Office of Public Works and funding will be provided in subhead E of our Vote.

Deputy Taylor.—How much will that cost? Can you tell us exactly what is going to be done there? How much it will cost and how long it will take?

Mr. Mahony.—The curvilinear range project, which is in the initial stages of planning at the moment, should cost about £4.5 million. It was initially intended to fund it under the tourism heritage block of projects funded through the Structural Funds, but it is now being handled directly through subhead E of our Vote. It should take about three years to complete the project. It will involve the complete restoration, repair and replacement of the iron work and glass in the curvilinear range of glasshouses.

Deputy Taylor.—It is a very worthwhile project and I fully support it. It is essential that it should be preserved and the commissioners should be complimented for undertaking it. Could I raise a query on subhead E — New Works. Alterations and Additions — on page 34? A sum of over £4 million was provided for employment exchanges whereas the commissioners spent less than one-quarter of the amount which had been anticipated and provided for. What was the reason for that?

Mr. Mahony.—We had designed quite a large programme for 1988 but unfortunately a number of the projects on which we had planned to make major progress did not go ahead. There were two in particular, a major employment exchange in Cork and an employment exchange in Limerick. The reason these projects did not proceed as quickly as possible was that we had title difficulties with the sites. These were subsequently resolved. The work in Cork and Limerick is well under way at the moment. The shortfall arose as a result of those two exchanges being delayed.

Deputy Taylor.—In connection with the Registry of Deeds and the expenditure of £360,000 on stonework in Henrietta Street, is that the work that was done in connection with the Kings Inns project which was carried out on a joint basis? If so, was money not provided for that from the Funds of Suitors? How did this expenditure arise or what is the position?

Mr. Mahony.—The expenditure referred to related to work at the Registry of Deeds. Work was also done to the Kings Inns. Office of Public Works carried out all the work at that site. Part of the cost was charged to subhead E and quite a large amount was charged to a non-voted special works account which was funded from the Funds of Suitors. In other words, the expenditure shown here under subhead E is not the total expenditure on the project.

Deputy Taylor.—You called it the Registry of Deeds but in fact it was the Kings Inns. Is that right?

Mr. Mahony.—Works funded under subhead E related to works at the Registry of Deeds. The works to the Kings Inns were funded by the Funds of Suitors through a separate account.

Deputy Taylor.—How much was that?

Mr. Mahony.—I understand it was £600,000.

Deputy Taylor.—Was the work done by OPW?

Mr. Mahony.—All the work was done by OPW on a single contract.

Deputy Taylor: You do not show that figure in your accounts?

Mr. Mahony.—It is not voted expenditure. It is carried in a separate account described as a non-voted account.

Deputy Taylor.—It was voted by an Act of the Oireachtas, was it not?

Mr. Mahony.—As regards Vote 10 for the particular year, certain sums were voted as part of Vote 10 but the moneys that were available from the Funds of Suitors were not actually voted for Vote 10 purposes. There may be a note elsewhere in the Appropriation Accounts in relation to that expenditure.

Deputy Taylor.—As regards the sum of £360,000 under subhead E, was that spent exclusively on the Registry of Deeds? Can you assure the committee that none of that was spent on the King’s Inns premises?

Mr. Mahony.—It is my understanding that subhead E money was spent on the Registry of Deeds, but I can certainly check that.

Chairman: Is Deputy Taylor suggesting we get a note?

Deputy Taylor: Yes.

Deputy Dennehy: The Cork employment exchange has been Referred to. Who would actually decide on the location for that premises? Would it be the OPW or would they be given a site?

Mr. Mahony.—As regards the location of many Government buildings, the Office of Public Works would get a brief from the sponsoring Department and we would look for a suitable site which would have to be acceptable to the Department before we would actually acquire it. You can take it that the site on which the employment exchange is being erected is acceptable to the Department of Social Welfare.

Deputy Dennehy.—Were there reservations in anybody’s mind, particularly about the traffic in that area? This office is in a land-locked area, almost a cul de sac. Were there any reservations about the traffic aspect?

Mr. Mahony.—While we do not have to get planning permission for our projects we are required to consult with the planning authorities. There would have been full consultation with the planning authority in this case, Cork Corporation, and it would be a matter for them to satisfy themselves that we were not creating a hazard by putting the employment exchange in that particular location.

Deputy Dennehy.—It will be a fine building and will be highly acceptable from a visual point of view, but it is surrounded by a number of other buildings which certainly would not enhance the new building. Is there a possibility of clearing any of the land around it? I know you had problems with title previously but is it hoped to clear any further site immediately adjacent to it?

Mr. Mahony.—I think our ownership is limited to the site on which we are erecting the premises. The title difficulty we experienced related to the area required for a car park and pedestrian access and that was cleared up. Apart from that we do not own any property. It would be a matter for Cork Corporation to attempt to resolve the points you make.

Deputy Dennehy.—Are there any negotiations going on?

Mr. Mahony.—Not on that particular aspect. We have a very good relationship with the planning department in Cork Corporation. I am sure this is something they will be bearing in mind in terms of conservation and urban renewal in the city.

Deputy Dennehy.—I want to ask a question on the national lottery suspense account. Who would decide the projects on which that money would be spent? During the year in question, £1.7 million of the £1.8 million available was spent. As a rural Deputy, I notice that all five projects were based in Dublin. Who selected these projects?

Mr. Mahony.—The Government would decide. We are asked from time to time to propose lists of projects which might be funded from the lottery but the decisions are made at Government level.

Deputy Dennehy.—I assume they would only select from your submitted list. Is it possible for people in areas outside Dublin to put forward projects under this heading?

Mr. Mahony.—If they relate to Government property. If you have a list of such projects you could ask the Chairman to send it to me or send it direct and I will see what can be done.

Deputy Dennehy.—I am trying to establish what this list is. You will be aware that there is ongoing confilict between the members of various local authorities and central Government on, for example, the question of courthouses. There is an excellent building in Cork which is used as a courthouse but the maintenance of this building is the responsibility of Cork Corporation. I think this is the kind of building that could be funded by the national lottery. If there was a shortage of projects, now that we know the procedure and how to get onto the list, we could certainly suggest buildings outside Dublin.

Mr. Mahony.—You will notice that the list of projects on my side come under what would be called a cultural banner — the Custom House, National Library, Kilmainham Jail, Casino, Marino and the Holy Trinity Church. I am saying to the Deputy that if there are buildings in Cork of a heritage or a cultural nature which are maintained by Office of Public Works and which the Minister feels are worthy of attention let him by all means bring them to light, but local authority buildings are a matter for the Department of the Environment or in the case of courthouses the Department of Justice.

Deputy Connor.—I see that we spent £414,000 on the restoration of the north wing of Leinster House. I take it that that was spent on the restoration of the Seanad Chamber?

Mr. Mahony.—That was for the Seanad Chamber.

Deputy Connor.—We have to compliment the Office of Public Works on the very fine and sensitive work carried out there. Leinster House, aside from being the Parliament, is one of the finest Georgian stone mansions in this island. Everyone would agree that the Kildare Street facade is now deeply damaged, after a little more erosion it could be described as dilapidated. It obviously needs restoration. I know that would be a Government decision, but could you tell us if the Office of Public Works have noticed the serious damage which has been done to this very important facade and if any submissions on the restoration of the Kildare Street facade of Leinster House has been made to Government?

Mr. Mahony.—Is the Deputy talking about the National Museum facade?

Deputy Connor.—No, I am talking about the facade of Leinster House, the Parliament building itself, which has been deeply damaged by erosion. It is built from stone, and we must bear in mind that it is one of the most important Georgian stone facades in this island.

Mr. Mahony.—I am looking for funds for a stone restoration project on that group of buildings in Kildare Street, made up of Leinster House, the National Library and the National Museum. The Custom House is a major stone restoration project which will be finished at the end of this year. We would hope to move on the Kildare Street buildings following completion of that project. I am looking for funds. I would not like to say any more than that at the moment. I accept the Deputy’s point on the necessity of maintaining the facades and the internal areas of all these buildings.

Deputy Connor.—A Church of Ireland church in Thomas Street, a historical monument was recently vandalised. It has a very important facade from an architectural point of view. It also has a historical association with something that took place in 1803. Again, it is in the care of the Representative Church Body of the church of Ireland but they maintain that because the church is closed they do not have funds to protect it. That building needs to be protected from further vandalism. Is there any legislative provision for the OPW to do something in situations like that?

Mr. Mahony.—Our capacity to deal with any historical building is always limited by the resources at our disposal. I spoke about this last year when we were dealing with Rathfarnham Castle and other buildings like it in need of protection. We are aware of quite a number of Church of Ireland churches which will be vacated in the next few years because they no longer will be required for use for religious services. This is creating a major problem for people concerned about the preservation of architecturally important buildings. The Office of Public Works, the Department of Finance and the Government are very restricted by the resources at their disposal. I have only very recently discussed this problem with the Chairman of the National Heritage Council to ascertain if the National Heritage Council, ourselves and the Church of Ireland Representative Body could come up with some strategy whereby the most important of these building would be dealt with by the State in the future. I hope that in saying this I am not anticipating what the Government might decide at a future date in relation to funding our involvement in the matter. The funding is not here to allow the OPW to get involved in a major way with many of the Church of Ireland churches that are being vacated at present. I am aware of the situation in relation to the Thomas Street church. That is only one of a number around the city. The OPW are in touch with the National Heritage Council to ascertain if a strategy can be found.

Deputy Connor.—I would like to ask a question on wildlife, under subhead I — Wildlife Service. I understand this is a new area of activity which the OPW inherited from the former Department of Forestry Wildlife Service. The OPW are working on the designation of certain wetlands and boglands throughout Ireland into categories of scientific or other interest. This is causing controversy in certain parts of the country. For example, areas of bogland that became commercially usable and can be commercially exploited particularly because of the Bog Development Act, 1981, are now being designated as areas of scientific interest of international status, national status, regional status and local status. It has been pointed out that this has been done by the Wildlife Service of the Office of Public Works without any local consultation. People make an application to carry out a development even though there is already a development in situ, but they now find that new designations are being placed upon these areas — I am not saying that that is wrong — and the people with vital interests have not been informed or consulted.

Mr. Mahony.—Under the Wildlife Act, 1976, we are required to provide for the conservation of areas having specific wildlife values. This is to fulfil the terms of national legislation and we have international responsibilities to do the same in terms of our membership of the EC and the Council of Europe. In pursuance of these we have a long term objective to establish a network of reserves — peatland or bog — around the country. We have a target of owning and preserving 10,000 hectares of raised bogs, which are found mostly in the midlands, and 40,000 hectares of blanket bog, usually found in mountainous areas and in the west. Up to now we have about 1,000 hectares of raised bog and about 20,000 hectares of blanket bog in State care. As funds permit, we are acquiring additional areas of raised and blanket bog. Part of the process of giving potection is to acquire and manage the areas. Another form of protection under the Act is to designate areas of statutory reserves. There is another category of designation, that is, areas of scientific interest. Designating an area to be an area of scientific interest has no statutory standing as such. There is no provision for that in the Wildlife Act but it follows from the objectives of the Wildlife Act and from our EC responsibilities that we should designate areas which are of scientific interest. Having designated an area as an area of scientific interest, development in that area will not be grant aided by the EC. Nevertheless it remains a matter for the local planning authority to decide whether it will give planning permission for a development in such an area and not the Office of Public Works.

Deputy Connor.—Would you advise the planning authority in, say, the Clifden case——

Mr. Mahony.—In any case where we have designated an area as one of scientific interest, the local authority would ask us for our observations in relation to a proposed development. We would consider it in the light of advice from our experts in the Wildlife Service and having regard to whatever environmental impact assessment studies would have been carried out by the developers. We would then give the local authority our views on the situation. Having given our views, it would remain a matter for the local authority as the statutory body under the Planning Acts to make a decision, and not the Commissioners of Public Works.

Chairman.—I want to ask you a few questions in quick succession. To come back to the question raised by Deputy Taylor on the employment exchanges, I understood from the retired Accounting Officer of the Department of Social Welfare that there were plans to upgrade the employment exchange in Werburgh Street in order to make it more presentable for people who visit it on a regular basis. Is that work undertaken by your Department?

Mr. Mahony.—Yes, we have a programme for the upgrading of the city employment exchanges.

Chairman.—Would you agree that the employment exchange in Werburgh Street is a pretty drab place?

Mr. Mahony.—I will not comment on that.

Chairman: Do you have plans to make it anything other than a drab place? It is not really a very suitable place for people to go for payment on a regular basis.

Mr. Mahony.—As I stated earlier, it is a matter for the Department of Social Welfare to indicate their priorities to us. A sum of money is normally set aside each year for employment exchange purposes and the Department of Social Welfare indicate their priorities to us. If the Department of Social Welfare select Werburgh Street as one of the top priorities it will be dealt with speedily.

Chairman.—In your development of employment exchanges and renovations, do you take into account the need for privacy in certain cases?

Mr. Mahony.—A brief is given to us by the Department of Social Welfare and my understanding is that that is always part of the brief.

Chairman.—On the question of wildlife, from time to time I have inquired about the position of the fox.

Mr. Mahony.—It is a protected species.

Chairman.—Is the species endangered or on the increase? I think there was a bounty for foxes. Do we still provide funds for this bounty?

Mr. Mahony.—That is in the past. The fox is a protected species. I would have to get details on whether the numbers are increasing or decreasing.

Chairman.—Maybe you would let us have a note on that.

Mr. Mahony.—I will.

Chairman.—The question of the badger and the spread of TB has been raised from time to time and, in fact, was raised here during an examination on the spread on tuberculosis. Have your Department carried out any examination in this area?

Mr. Mahony.—Yes. The badger is a protected species under the Wildlife Act but we work very closely with Department of Agriculture and Food because it has been suggested that the badger is a source of the spread of TB infection in cattle. That has not been scientifically proven and we have a variety of scientific programmes in train with the Department of Agriculture and Food to try to establish if the badger is a major factor in the spread of TB. A major programme for the removal of badgers is being carried out in quite a number of veterinary districts throughout the country as part of that process. You will recall that in England they have stopped destroying badgers as part of their eradication programme and in the North of Ireland it is not accepted that the badger is a problem.

Chairman.—So the badger is not yet going to be targeted for destruction because there is not sufficient scientific information.

Mr. Mahony.—Under licences we have issued to the Department of Agriculture and Food, 1,311 badgers were captured and examined under post mortem conditions and of those 198, that is 15 per cent, were found to be TB positive. Effectively, that means that for every 100 badgers killed 85 did not have TB.

Chairman.—Is it not the case that badgers can pick up TB from the urine of cattle rather than the other way around?

Mr. Mahony.—It is not certain how the disease is transmitted from one to the other, if it is so transmitted.

Chairman.—When will you have your scientific examination carried out?

Mr. Mahony.—It could be one year or two years before there are any conclusions in regard to this problem but we are having discussions all the time with the Department of Agriculture and Food with a view to reaching agreement in relation to the eradication of TB black spots and how the badger might fit into that.

Deputy McGahon.—With regard to badgers and foxes being protected species they are not protected; they are killed in every parish in this country every day. Are you aware that a study which was carried out over a number of years in the North concluded that the badger was not responsible for the spread of TB in cattle? Do you work with the people from the North? What conclusions can you draw from that study?

Mr. Mahony.—We are aware of that report and it is being studied. There is contact between our wildlife people and their counterparts in the North. When we draw conclusions from the study carried out in the North obviously we will have to review our position, if that is necessary in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Food here.

Deputy McGahon.—You said that foxes are a protected species but what exactly does that protect them from? It does not protect them from huntsmen. Is there a time of the year when foxes can be hunted?

Mr. Mahony.—I would have to consult with some of my staff on that. My understanding is that because the fox is a protected species it is an offence to take or kill foxes.

Deputy McGahon.—What about the unspeakable animals who terrorise the unfortunate fox in organised hunts all over the country? Perhaps the bounty should be transferred to them. Who protects foxes from organised hunts, the pastime of the rich?

Mr. Mahony.—It may be that certain traditional activities have been exempted, but it is an area that I am not 100 per cent au fait with.

Deputy McGahon.—You should be aware of the terrible cruelty involved to little defenceless animals who are mauled to death for the pleasure of a group of barbarians. Something should be done about those people.

Mr. Mahony.—The Wildlife Service has been the responsibility of the Office of Public Works for the past two years. While it is integrated into the office, I do not have a total and full operational understanding of it at the moment. I will send you a note on that.

Chairman.—If you need extra special advice, Deputy McGahon is very experienced in the area of wildlife.

Mr. Mahony.—Some classes of animal are described as vermin and I am not certain into what category the fox fits.

Deputy McGahon.—They all suffer pain.

Mr. Mahony.—I accept that.

Deputy Dennehy.—I was going to make the point that Mr. Mahony made — the Office of Public Works have had responsibility for the Wildlife Service for two years. I would not like to see us going into the question of the badger at this committee meeting because it is an emotive topic at the moment but there is also the question of TB eradication in cattle which has cost the State £2 billion to date. Every avenue must be examined. I was very glad to see the Northern findings. I studied the case there very closely, but I still could not go back to the farmer in County Cork who lost a pedigree herd last week and say emphatically that the badger is not a carrier of the disease. I would be much happier if we could eliminate the badger from the programme, but I do not think it is our place here to start running with the fox or the badger at this stage. That is the responsibility of Mr. Mahony. He has a very difficult task because no matter what decision he makes at this time it may be said that he is wrong. One badger carrying TB is one too many, but obviously he does not know where the infection comes from. I do not think we should try to lead the discussion, but we will try to tighten up a lot of the finance involved, including that being spent on the agricultural programme.

Chairman.—We could come back to that question. May I take it you have the statistics?

Mr. Mahony.—Yes. Let me make two points. First, Deputy McGahon took the note on Clogher Head on his way out. Second, the out of court settlement with the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland concerning 5 Kildare Street was £250,000 with costs at £174,000; the total cost of that action was £424,000.

Chairman.—How much did it cost to make the building habitable?

Mr. Mahony.—The actual building cost has yet to be settled but it will be of the order of £600,000 cost to £1 million. There were other costs, as you may recall, arising from our aquisition of the building and dilapidation claim.

Chairman.—Will it be as much as £2.25 million?

Mr. Mahony.—No, it will not be above £2 million. The figure we talked about last year was just under £2 million.

Chairman.—Finally, let me ask you a few questions about the canals. You now have control of the canals and I am speaking specifically of the canals in Dublin of which I have some knowledge. How much was spent in the year in question developing the canals and what is the long term plan for the Grand Canal and the Royal Canal?

Mr. Mahony.—In the year in question we spent a little under 2.5 million pounds on what we call the inland waterways of the Grand Canal, Royal Canal, the Barrow Navigation, which is part of the Grand Canal, and fulfilling our responsibilities on the Shannon. I mentioned previously that Brady, Shipman and Martin, consultants, were given a brief a number of years ago. They have produced a report in which they outline the works they recommend should be done on the canals over a period of years. We have accepted that report. What we are talking about, so far as the Grand Canal and the Barrow Navigation are concerned is having them fuly open for navigational purposes so that people can take boats on them and to develop them for recreational purposes, such as fishing. In the case of the Royal Canal, we have encountered difficulties beyond Mullingar where bridges have been built across the canal. It is going to take time to open the Royal Canal from Dublin to the Shannon, but some time this year the Royal Canal will be open from, say, County Dublin to Mullingar. That will be a major achievement.

Under the tourism programme, we will have Structural Funds of the order of £3 million over the next four years for projects on both the Grand and Royal Canals. In 1989, several hundred yards of the Grand Canal at Edenderry actually floated away due to saturation of the bank, which is raised several meters above the surrounding countryside and is made entirely from peat. That section of the Grand Canal was closed last year. It is being fully restored and we hope it will be reopened for boating in March. There is a very active programme. I am sure if you visited the stretch of the Grand Canal from Ringsend to Inchicore you will have noticed that quite a lot of maintenance work is being done. Apart from one section, towards the Drimnagh/Crumlin end, which has yet to be reinstated, post works, the canal stretch is looking quite pleasant.

Chairman.—Would you let the committee have a note on the works you intend doing there?

Mr. Mahony.—I will.

Chairman.—The Grand Canal dockside could be the most beautiful waterway site in the whole country — there is the Dodder, the Grand Canal and the Liffey — and I understand the Office of Public Works own a lot of the vacant, derelict premises around that site. Are there any plans to develop it?

Mr. Mahony.—We own some of the property, but most of the property we own is let. I do not think we have control over quayside property, but we have made a number of proposals in relation to projects for the canal harbour and they are with Government at the moment. Again, we take your point that it is a tremendous area for development if the money was available.

Chairman.—I think that concludes the examination for now, Mr. Mahony. Thank you.

Witness withdrew.

Chairman.—There is one other matter I think we can deal with in public session since we are dealing with the question of meat fraud. I have received a letter from the Meat Group Association, Meat Marketing, Agriculture House, the chairman of which is Aidan Nevin. It states: “The representatives of the Meat Group Association wish to meet your committee which is looking into the meat area at the moment. We represent 300 officers in meat inspection, meat hygiene, meat marketing, stock control of all EC funding, for example, intervention beef purchase, beef premium scheme and other CAP areas, also, TB schemes, brucellosis and cross-Border movement of cattle. We believe our depth of knowledge in all those areas and our views to rationalise certain areas would be of interest and importance to your committee”. In view of the fact that a deputation from the committee is travelling to Luxembourg to meet the Court of Auditors next week and we are presenting a special report, would the committee see any point in receiving a deputation from this group? At least we would have the benefit of their knowledge.

Deputy Dennehy.—As I am new on this committee, I would like to be led on this matter. Is it normal practice to meet representative groups of other Departments?

Chairman.—If I recall correctly we have met people from the IFA and the ICSMA in the past. We also met people from the taxation unions at one stage. I propose that we give them the opportunity to put forward their point of view. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Committee adjourned at 12.20 p.m.