Vol. 8 No. 1
I beg to move:—
That a sum, not exceeding £386,179 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings for the maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works for Maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon and sundry Grants in Aid.
I do not know what is the procedure that is to be adopted —whether we are to deal with the general question and with the general vote first, or whether we would go into details first and then come to the general question afterwards?
I think the usual procedure is to go on with the details first and come to the general question afterwards.
I thought there was no usual procedure, but I thought there was some variation. However, I want to deal with the vote for the setting up of official residences, and I am proposing to move a reduction in the vote on account of that. Perhaps we may as well go through the details first, and I can move a reduction afterwards.
Very well, the first item reads, "Sites and buildings"; then there follows "annuities, new works, alterations and additions."
I would like to know whether there is any change in the practice of the Department regarding contracts which have been entered into? For a long time back now there has been in all contracts entered into a provision regarding a fair wages clause. That is what it is known as. There was a decision to amend that slightly, a couple of years ago, and I would like to know whether the Department of Public Works still insists that that clause shall be embodied in every contract that is made. Perhaps the general question, if it is answered satisfactorily, would save some discussion on details. I will not pursue it just now.
Yes, I understand that a fair wages clause is inserted in contracts, and was agreed to definitely as a matter of policy by the Government shortly after the Dáil first met, and there has been no change in regard to the matter.
Would the Minister tell us on what principle are the ex-R.I.C. barracks throughout the country selected for reconstruction? I notice in these estimates that four or five barracks are being restored. I want to know on what principle these particular barracks are being selected? I know of cases where there is very strong local demand for the reconstruction of the barracks, and there does not seem to be any prospect of their being reconstructed this year. I want to know what is the reason for the selection of these particular barracks that have been selected?
The selection was made in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs. So far the policy in regard to the Civic Guard has been one of concentrating on getting them premises, and whatever staff was employed it was employed on getting premises and getting the Civic Guard in. We recognised that many premises in which they were put were unsuitable, and that it is bad for the morale and efficiency of the Civic Guard to have them unsatisfactorily housed. Seeing that with a comparatively small number of exceptions, the quota of stations for the Civic Guard throughout the State has been opened, we are now turning to the question of further buildings. We are anticipating that it will be possible to contemplate considerable extensions very shortly in the number of buildings. These particular cases were selected because they seemed to be the most satisfactory way of providing barracks there, and they were the most urgent from the point of view of re-building. For instance, take the Ennis barracks.
We are bound there by lease to rebuild Ennis Barracks. In that particular case it was satisfactory. Then some others are being rebuilt because it was not possible in the particular places to find any accommodation for the Gárda Síochána. In the case of one of those Gárda Síochána stations the men are actually housed at the moment four miles away from the place where it is intended to station them. We decided in that case, contrary to the general policy of hiring or commandeering premises, to proceed with the rebuilding at once. When further consideration has been given it will be decided to rebuild a great deal more than is indicated in this particular vote, and after some time a supplementary estimate will be brought before the Dáil in connection with the Gárda Síochána buildings.
There is a vote of £20,000 for the temporary accommodation of the Oireachtas. I wonder whether the Minister, in putting forward this estimate, had any definite plan in his mind. Is the £20,000 an estimate for the possible or shall I say the probable re-seating of this building? Or what else may it be for?
It is simply a rough figure put in. It was put in, in February last when the estimates were being prepared to provide, so far as we could, for the contingencies that would arise. It could be used for such purpose as the Deputy suggests, but it could be used also for structural alterations necessary if we stay here.
Does it not seem to the Minister that the very putting it in of this £20,000 is rather an inducement to the spending of money on something or other that might not be on the best lines? I would like to put it to the Minister that it is unsatisfactory to put in an estimate for something which does not represent anything.
Well, it is certain, I think, that some money will be spent during the year. I think that it may be accepted that a certain amount of money will have to be spent; if the Oireachtas is to stay here it will be necessary to make some changes. If a plan like Deputy Thrift's were to be adopted, a great deal more than that would be spent, as it is certain that some money will have to be spent in connection with the Oireachtas. It was thought desirable to make some provisions for it, and not to rely entirely on coming forward at a later stage with a supplementary estimate. I do not think that the putting in of the figure here will have really any great effect on the decision as to expenditure. But if it is within this figure it will prevent any further application to the Dáil.
My point is that in running through these Estimates I find a great many items like this, and it is only dangling money before people who may be inclined to be extravagant. Having that item here avoids any necessity for coming again to the Dáil. Now I say it is wrong to have something on your Estimate which does not represent something definite at all. The Minister says if Deputy Thrift's ideas of a temporary building were to be considered it would cost us considerably more. True, but in this way you have a sum of £20,000 down there on the Estimates, and that can be spent on anything and in any direction without coming before the Dáil at all. For instance, if Deputy Thrift's scheme could be carried out, that £20,000 item need not come before the Dáil at all, because the £20,000 would be already provided for in the Estimates that we are now considering.
It seems to me that the Deputy is making a mountain out of a molehill. If some sum were provided that we could see was absolutely certain to be required, some very trifling sum, and some decision were come to by the Dáil, for instance during the next week, as to what should be done in the way of temporary housing, it certainly would be necessary to go on and spend whatever money was required, and simply go for the covering Supplementary Estimate afterwards.
Under the Ministry of Agriculture, which, I take it, will now be under the Ministry of Education, a sum of £9,500 is provided for the extension of the National Library, and I would like to have from the Minister a statement as to the particular nature of that extension. Under the heading of the Ministry of Education there is, I am glad to say, an increased grant for the building of national schools. Perhaps the Minister would say a word as to whether it is the intention to engage in a scheme in a increased way for the rebuilding of schools. I would like to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that throughout the country many of the school buildings are in a very bad state, a very dangerous state, and new buildings are urgently required. I doubt very much if even this sum of £50,000 would go very far towards meeting the need that there is for the provision of new buildings. The Minister said a few moments ago that it was bad for the morale and the efficiency of the Guards to have them badly housed.
I think that that could be more aptly and more correctly applied in the case of schools, where the fact is that in some cases in the West there are insanitary buildings which are very much overcrowded. On the question of teachers' residences I would like to know what exactly is the position with regard to the special Act which was passed in 1875 or 1876, and under which special provision was made for the granting of loans for the provision of teachers' residences, especially in rural areas. Nothing has been done in this way since 1914. The provision was that a loan of 5 per cent. was provided; the locality paid half the interest on the loan, and the Commissioners of National Education paid the other half. The locality generally meant the teacher. There is one particular question with regard to these residences that I would like to draw the attention of the Government to. I am sorry the Minister for Education is not here. These houses have been built by the State for a particular purpose, that is for the accommodation of the teacher of a particular school, while he is the teacher. But as the law stands at the moment it is open to certain people, when the loan is paid off, to take over possession of those houses, and even sell them. It has been done, and that is a matter which the Government ought to look into at the earliest possible opportunity. As I say, the house is provided for a special purpose, that it should be the residence of the teacher while he is the teacher. That is the usual practice, but it has been abused in some cases, and as the law stands, the owner of a site on which the house was built, after the loan has been paid off, is at liberty to take possession of the house, sell it, and put the money in his own pocket. I would like, as I say, to hear from the Minister whether it is proposed to continue the work under that Act, which was discontinued during the war period, or what is the intention generally with regard to these residences.
I would like at this Stage to call attention to the fact that there is a very small House. We have hardly twelve Deputies present, and I think that the Minister should move to report progress. I do not think it is right that we should go on with such important business as the Estimates with such a small number present.
It is very difficult, especially on Fridays, at this time of the day, to keep a House. I think we probably will not finish this particular Estimate to-day, but we will have some of the discussion on it carried through, and Deputies who are not present will be able to say anything they wish to say later.
But the discussions, of course, should have some relation to the numbers present, and as the Minister is only supported by one of his Party, it seems to me to be practically an insult to the Minister, and not reasonable at all to the public, that we should be discussing an Estimate of £636,179 under these circumstances. If the Minister will not move to report progress, I am inclined to do so myself.
I think many Deputies will soon have finished their lunch and will be back.
The support of the Government has already been doubled.
There is a special Standing Order which contemplates that in Committee there may be less than 20 Deputies present.
I am aware of that.
A quorum is not necessary.
I suggest that if Deputy Johnson and Deputy Morrissey wish to fill the House they have only to challenge a division on this Vote.
A time will come. I realise that no quorum is necessary to carry on the business, but it is desirable that a Vote of this kind should be discussed when Deputies are present, and having regard to the fact that the Minister should have the support of his Party, I beg to move that we report progress.
Does the Deputy take into account that this is the luncheon hour, and that a good many of the Deputies who were sitting up last night should be taking advantage of it?
We are quite prepared to resume at 3.30 to allow them to get lunch.
I am afraid Deputy Johnson is rather optimistic if he expects that he will have a full House on any occasion on the Estimates.
I second Deputy Johnson's motion.
I think that we are really wasting time. If Deputies are not interested enough to attend on this particular matter the Standing Orders do not provide that you must have a quorum. I think that it would be rather ridiculous to report progress. I did once before, I think, consent, when I was appealed to, to leave over consideration of Estimates late at night, but I do not feel that there is any real reason for doing it now.
Does the Minister not realise that the circumstances are somewhat unusual; that we sat up until after midnight last night, and that, therefore, there is some excuse for Deputies not being present, and that it would be a misfortune if it were thought that Estimates had been rushed through under these circumstances?
Surely, nobody can say that the estimates are being rushed through. The Deputies who are here are getting a good opportunity of saying all they want to say about the Estimates, and I think I could guarantee Deputy Cooper that if there is a division on any of these Estimates we shall have a full House. If we are to get on with the business and not put back the adjournment for the holidays indefinitely I think we had better proceed. If we take an hour discussing matters of this kind we will be adding that to the time that we will have to be here in July, and we will have to be here in August. I suggest we should go on.
If the Deputy keeps talking much longer he will have a full House.
I suggest that we have wasted a certain amount of time.
