Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1924

Vol. 6 No. 31

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £9,300 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year, ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works (1 & 2 Will. IV., c. 33, ss. 5 & 6; 5 & 6 Vict., c. 89, ss. 1 & 2; 9 & 10 Vict., c. 86, ss. 2, 7 and 9; 10 Vict., c. 32, s. 3; 33 & 34 Vict., c. 46, s. 42; 40 & 41 Vict., c. 27; 44 & 45, c. 49, s. 31; 59 & 60 Vict., c. 34, &c.).

The increase in the sum required for this service is due mainly to expenditure on travelling in excess of the amount anticipated when the Estimate was originally framed, and secondly to the non-realisation of the expenditure anticipated and the appropriations-in-aid. The increased travelling on the part of the officials of the Board of Works is directly due to the period of hostilities, the destruction of military buildings on a large scale, and the occupation by the Army of non-military premises, resulting in the presentation to the Government of an immense number of claims for injury and damage done by the troops during occupation. These claims have had to be examined in detail and on the spot. An estimate of the actual cost of occupation, and the result of damage, is being presented in the supplementary estimate for public works.

As regards the decrease in the appropriations-in-aid, the effect of which is to swell the net total for this service, the original estimate of £16,218 represents the percentage charged on the expenditure incurred by the Board of Works, acting as agents for the British Government service. The greater portion of this sum represents the charge on an anticipated expenditure of £6,000 on the erection of cottages for British ex-Service men. When the estimate was prepared in January, 1923, it was expected that the Trust which would be established to complete these schemes would be set up, and would function at an early date. This was not realised, and the Trust did not actually start to function until the 1st January, 1924. A number of schemes was held up for consideration by the Trust, but in view of the delay, no contracts could be entered into during the year. The expenditure was further curtailed by reason of the fact that in connection with 200 of these cottages, building operations were suspended. Instead, therefore, of an expenditure of £600,000 in connection with this service, as would have been the case but for the unexpected delay, the actual expenditure was very much less.

Major COOPER

With regard to the vote for travelling expenses, this supplementary estimate has already reached the extraordinarily high figure of £7,000, which represents an increase of £1,250 on the year 1923. Now we are faced in the current year with a total of £11,500 for travelling expenses for the Board of Works. How many people are there engaged in this particular class of work? If the figures in the Estimate are correct, and I presume they are, there are forty architects and three engineers in the Department, so that forty-three people spend £11,500 on travelling. I should like to compare that with the travelling expenses of members of the Dáil. We have about 75 members who claim travelling expenses. They travel on an average one day a week, but a good many come from distant parts of the country. The 75 members of the Dáil spend altogether £5,500 in the year, less than half of what the 43 officials of the Board of Works spend. I cannot help thinking that the sooner there is re-organisation or decentralisation of the staff that causes this enormous expenditure the better. I know the Minister has a good deal to do, and has not much time to attend to the Board of Works, but I would point out to him that the Board of Works is spending £1 in travelling expenses for every £10 in salaries. This is an excessive scale, and I hope something will be done either by putting the architects out into the country, or by a system of checking, which is absolutely necessary to bring down this Estimate in the future.

Mr. BLYTHE

The account is very large, I admit, but the situation in which it was incurred was abnormal. A scheme is actually under consideration in regard to the re-organisation of the Board of Works, and one or two other departments which it is hoped will result in considerable economies. But for very urgent matters that have arisen in the past month or so, these matters would have been advanced further than they are at the present time. I feel, however, that a conclusion should not be drawn too rigidly from the expenditure of the past year. I know myself that that inspection by the Board of Works officials in the way in which it was done resulted in very considerable reductions of claims, and in the amounts that had to be paid by the Government for buildings of various kinds, both commandeered and damaged. I understand that the public purse benefited substantially by the effective way in which claims were considered by the architects of the Board of Works, and I do not think that in any future time, apart altogether from re-organisation, we could have had any such expenditure on travelling, or anything approaching it, as we have had in the past.

Mr. DAVIN

Can the Minister say if the revised estimate for travelling expenses includes the expenses of the engineers or architects engaged at considerable expenditure on the inspection of railway bridges and the repair of railway bridges, or are the travelling expenses of the engineers engaged in that particular work, included in any other estimate?

Mr. BLYTHE

No. They are included here.

Mr. GOREY

The question of the engineers or the architects doing their work is not under consideration at all. This is a matter dealing with the expenses incurred. Travelling expenses, as instanced by Deputy Bryan Cooper, have not the same relation to the estimate as he makes out. The travelling expenses of Deputies mean their rail expenses only. But I take it that the expenses of the officials of the Board of Works mean travelling expenses in the country and hotel expenses as well. I should like to know what is this estimate based upon. Surely there are some figures placed before the Department so far as this £11,500 is concerned? I do not know how many people people are engaged in incurring this total expenditure, or how many people are sent out. It seems to me extraordinary the way in which the account is set down here for travelling expenses. I think we should have fuller and more detailed explanation. The information given at present seems to me to be simply ridiculous.

Mr. WILSON

Are these travelling expenses that we are now asked to vote vouched for by any members of the Department? When they come before the Minister are they based upon a certain scale of allowance to persons engaged in the Board of Works on a fixed basis of allowance?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I want to speak in reference to item C. Incidentally, I may say I notice that the expenses here are increased by a heavy item for advertising uniform clothing and survey instruments. On that item of advertising for uniform clothing, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that early this week a contract was given away to a contractor in Dublin for uniform clothing. An order was given for 1,000 suits of clothes to this individual. And, in passing, may I draw attention to the fact that a question was asked last week on the matter of unemployment, and the Minister replied that contracts would be given to firms that would give full consideration to applications for employment by ex-National Army men. Now, how has that promise been carried out? This week, as I say, a contractor got an order for 1,000 suits of clothes for the Army, and he straight away proceeded to Leeds. While our clothing industry in Dublin is practically paralysed and half our workshops closed down, and those working, working on half time in the tailoring industry, this particular contractor proceeds to Leeds to spend £3,000 or £4,000 of Free State money to bring home Leeds manufactured suits for demobilised soldiers. That is not carrying out the intention of the Dáil, nor carrying out the promise made by the Minister last week, that the work as far as possible would be kept at home. I ask the Minister will he see in future that, when a contractor in Dublin sends in a tender for clothing for the Army, he is going to manufacture these goods in Dublin. I will give to the Minister later on the name of the contractor who sent this work to Leeds for the thousand suits of clothes for our ex-National Army men. I do not think the advertising has been properly done in this matter. It should contain a clause that these clothes should be made in Dublin. I would be satisfied if the Minister would give me some assurance that those engaged in the tailoring industry would not be given contracts under the pretext of carrying out the work in Dublin and then importing shoddy suits from Leeds.

Mr. WILSON

I should like to ask how a contract for Dublin went to Leeds.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think we might get back to the matter of the Estimate.

Mr. WILSON

In other departments we have allowed a 20 per cent. differentiation for Irish inefficiency, in the Post Office, for example.

Mr. GOREY

This is a very interesting question that Deputy Byrne has raised.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It is not the question under item F.

Professor ALTON

I suppose the increase in the cost of the surveyor's instruments is due to the increase in the tax on scientific instruments?

Mr. BLYTHE

It might be due to more instruments having been purchased.

Question put and agreed to.