Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Apr 1925

Vol. 11 No. 5

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE—ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 11—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

I move:—

11.--“Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £590,706 chun slanuithe na suime is gá chun iochta an Muirir a thiocfidh chun bheithiníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun caitheachais i dtaobh Tithe Puiblí chun coinneáil-suas Páirceanna agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; chun coinneáil-suas Oibreacha Draeneála ar Abhainn na Sionainne agus chun Ildeontaisí i gCabhair.”

11.—“That a sum not exceeding £590,706 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of paymentduring the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; for the maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon; and Sundry Grants in Aid.”

I do not propose to say anything, at this stage, in reference to the Vote, but I would like to repeat a remark which I made last year, at the opening of the consideration of Estimates. I think that Deputies should recognise that no Minister, or Parliamentary Secretary, who may be defending an Estimate, can possibly be aware of all the points of detail that may be raised. Consequently, if points that have not previously been brought to notice, either by way of parliamentary question or of previous discussion, are raised, it is unlikely that they can be satisfactorily dealt with in reply, and the discussion on the Estimates will not be so satisfactory as it would if members gave notice that they wished to raise points of detail, or if in the discussion they confined themselves to matters of general interest, inasmuch as the Minister, or Parliamentary Secretary, defending the Estimates, may be conversant with them and able to answer.

I remember on the first Vote last year—I think it was the Public Works Vote—I was asked about a number of matters which were really points of detail and which, in fact, I never heard of before and could not be expected to have knowledge of, and consequently the discussion was not such as would inform or help the Dáil in coming to a decision to vote the money. As we are now about to take the estimates up, I think it would be a desirable practice if any Deputy who wishes to raise a matter of detail wrote to the Minister, or to the Department concerned, intimating his intention of doing so. Then when he raised the matter, he would be able to get a complete reply.

Perhaps it might shorten the discussion, to some extent, if I gave a brief resume of the principal points on which the Estimates presented this year differ from those presented last year, especially by way of increase. In doing so, I think I am more or less following the desire expressed from several quarters of the House that such an explanation might be of some use in subsequent discussion. Taking the different sub-heads in Vote 11, we have sub-head (a), that is, the "Purchase of Sites and Buildings," for which a Vote is asked of £30,000, an increase of £20,000 on last year. This, as you can easily gather if you look at the sub-head (b), will be mainly for the purchase of sites for Civic Guard barracks. In all, it is calculated that 820 barracks will be required for the Gárda. Of that number there are at present 822 acquired, but in about 330 cases there are no premises acquired, or else the accommodation is altogether insufficient and not satisfactory. It is with a view to meet that that it will be necessary to purchase sites, and the Estimate for the present year is £30,000.

Coming to sub-head (b)—"New Works, Alterations and Additions"— you have, as a first item, the re-vote of £3,300 from the Vote of last year, in connection with the supply of electric light from the city main to the Governor-General's premises. The situation at present is that the Governor-General's residence is partly lighted by gas and partly by electricity. In the case of electricity, the plant is on the premises and is worked by a gas engine. Now, the proposal is to lay a main up from Parkgate Street, North Circular Road, to the Park main road, and then branch off into the Governor-General's residence. It is calculated in that way that we will be able to make an annual saving of about £500 a year. When it is laid it will be possible to use it in the future for the extension of the electric lighting system to the Park in general.

The Vote for the Oireachtas is purely provisional, that is, we put down £5,000 in connection with some works which will have to be undertaken in Leinster House for the use of the Seanad and other requirements.

Coming to the Revenue Department, "Dublin Customs House partial Reconstruction," it is proposed to spend altogether in restoring the framework of the Customs House, that is, the four portions of the Custom House that look towards the four corners, north, south, east and west, leaving the southern portion of the courtyard undisturbed, existing walls remaining, a sum of £76,000. This year about £30,000 is to be spent. For office space we are gaining about 50,000 square feet. For an ordinary house, such as you have in the Land Commission in Merrion Street, the space is 2,000 square feet. At present we have various private houses scattered over the residential districts, such as Upper Mount Street. By restoring the Customs House to the limited extent I have indicated we will be able to concentrate the offices, bringing them close together, and making better provision for carrying out the work and getting rid of the scattered houses.

In the case of a Vote for Cork City, "Inland Revenue," at present we have to rent premises. They are not sufficient and we will have to rent more. That will be a rental of about £700 a year. We think it is better to get a site and build at a cost of £7,500, and in that way save a rent of £600 or £700 a year.

In the Depôt at the Phoenix Park, under the Department of Justice, you have gas at present, and the cost of supplying electric light under the Estimate is £2,800, which includes the cost of a cable from the Corporation supply. That would be the most suitable way of lighting offices like the Depôt. We also expect it will be more economical. By far the greater number of items under this particular Vote this year is the provision of Gárda Síochána barracks. There are about 330 cases to be met altogether. This year we propose to make a start and go on with about 120 in various counties. Of the 850 barracks required, in the majority of these 330 cases you will have to build or restore the old R.I.C. barracks. The idea is, as far as possible, that the most urgent cases, as indicated to us by the Minister for Justice, will be gone on with, that is, if we can come to an arrangement about the site, and so on, The estimate of the total cost will be almost £200,000. We calculate to spend this year £86,000, according to the urgency of the particular cases in each county. You will notice also in this particular Vote that if we take the total Vote for any barrack that there is a difference between the amount to be spent this year and the proportion we expect to have to give for next year. By that time we expect to be able to deal with the different barracks—I was going to say attack the different barracks, but it might not be a happy expression. In a good many cases the provision of suitable barracks in these 330 cases can be dealt with in the most economic and suitable way by getting the old R.I.C. barracks restored. In some cases the owners are willing, if they receive compensation, to re-build and then let them to us. In other cases the owners prefer we should purchase from them the site, ruins, and claim for compensation.

There is another point, and it is a very little one; that is that in connection with County Cork you have Rathmore given. I thought that that was another instance of the well-known acquisitiveness of the people of Cork, but I understand it is only a misprint. It is not Rathmore, which is one of the most loyal districts in County Kerry, but it is Rathduff, which is in the County of Cork. The Cork people, therefore, are free from any blame in the matter. Then there are minor works, coming to the end of the list, of Civic Guard Barracks, £10,000.

What is a Civic Guard?

I am reading what is in the Estimates.

Are these works all in the County Wicklow? They are all under the heading County Wicklow.

No, they are not. There is simply a little more space between County Wicklow and the rest of the Estimates. These are simply minor works that we expect will be called for; they are not maintenance works, but works, say, under a cost of £1,000, that may have to be undertaken in the various Civic Guard barracks during the year, for instance, an existing station that we do not exactly re-build but that we lease. The increase of the expenditure of £1,500 on the Dublin Metropolitan Police District Courts is due largely to the increased jurisdiction of these courts, and to the necessity for finding proper accommodation. The total estimate for the Four Courts is £61,000. You will notice that a certain amount was spent last year and is included in this Estimate. That is mainly to clear the space, removing certain dangerous portions, and so on. We intend to build the two pavilions—that is, those two portions of the Four Courts whose gables, so to speak, abut on the Liffey, and to roof over the portion round the dome. That will cost £61,000 altogether, and we expect to be able to spend £32,000 this year. We are not proposing in this Estimate, either for this year or next year, to rebuild the connecting portion between the two pavilions and the central main block of buildings which is concentrated around the dome.

I am not quite sure whether the Deputy has made quite clear what is in my mind. Is the £5,500 included in this Estimate money that has been spent?

I think so. In connection with the Department of Lands and Agriculture, the offices in Merrion Street are partly lit by gas and partly by electricity. From the point of view of cleanliness, the proper keeping of the documents, and the working and amenities of the offices, it is thought better to have electric light all through. A sum of £50,000 is down for the building of National schools. This, it will easily be understood, is only an estimate, and it is meant to cover the more urgent things where, through lack of accommodation, sanitation, or for other reasons, it is necessary to go on with the work this year. The normal procedure is that the Government finds two-thirds of the amount; one-third has to be subscribed locally. In that case the manager carries out the work. But there is a number of cases, especially in necessitous areas, where the Government may find more than two-thirds, and in these cases the Board carries out the work. You will easily recognise that the carrying out of the work in normal circumstances is not a matter for the Board but for the manager, and this must in certain instances, be the case. It is founded, so to speak, on past experience. The only point I wish to make about the vested schools is that we are limited by statute to a grant of £100 in each particular case. The necessity for the extension of the National Library at the back of the School of Art was, I think, explained last year. For several years the Trustees of the National Library have been complaining about the great congestion. Last year it was decided that this work would be undertaken. A certain portion of the work was actually done before the 31st March.

Before leaving that other subject, will the Deputy make the clear statement he made regarding the limitation of the £100? What exactly is the head under which we are limited to £100?

That is in the case of these vested schools; that is, vested in the Department of Education.

Mr. O'CONNELL

For what purpose? For repairs during the year?

No, in connection with teachers' residences. It is a statutory limitation, and we cannot go beyond it. Coming to the Department of Defence, the question of the Michael Collins Barracks, in Cork, was discussed last year. The next item is the provision of a military hospital for Cork. There is no proper provision for surgical cases in the Southern Command, and it is to meet that particular lack that it is proposed to restore the military hospital in Cork. At present the only military hospital they have is at Haulbowline, and from every point of view that is not a suitable situation. The restoration of the old military hospital was considered the best and most economical way of dealing with this matter. The expenditure of £8,500 on Griffith Barracks is due to the fact that that barracks is now to be the General Headquarters; Army Finance and the Secretariat are to be housed there. The heating at present is altogether unsatisfactory, and it has been proposed to make provision for permanent heating. The estimate for the Limerick Barracks is to provide roofs, floors, stairs, doors, windows, and so on, to restore the barracks so that they can be used when the concentration of the troops, which is envisaged by the heads of the Army, is carried out.

The principal item in connection with the Post Office is the rebuilding of what was known as the General Post Office. Three different portions are to be built, the front facing Henry Street, the front, or central, block, and the block at the back of the courtyard. So far as the Henry Street facing is concerned, the idea is that there will be an arcade between Henry Street and Prince's Street, that the lower portion between that arcade and the corner of O'Connell Street will be taken up with shops, which will be leased, and arrangements have been made for leasing. A pretty considerable amount of money will actually come in in connection with this leasing. Then we propose to build, as I say, on Henry Street, the front block that is facing O'Connell Street and the other block. That would provide accommodation for the Secretariat and, to a certain extent, for the clerical branches of the service. Of course, a Post Office in the ordinary sense is included in the building. It is probably not the busiest Post Office in Dublin by any means; that would be the one in College Green. But the question of building the central telegraph office is not included in the Estimates, either for this year, or in the total estimate that is to cover this year and next year. In connection with the Cork Post Office the space is very cramped, and this proposal is not so much an enlargement as a re-accommodation, so as to make the most use of the space at our disposal and relieve the congestion that undoubtedly gave justifiable grounds for complaint. The small sum for the Fisheries Office is due to the fact that unless we deal with it the walls, and also the roof, may fall. There is a small provision for workshops in Dublin Castle. The old stables there are used now as a kind of chance stores for furniture. It was found that if an effort were made to convert these into offices it would be altogether too expensive and it would not repay the conversion. It was found that with an expenditure of £500 it would be possible to convert the stables into suitable workshops and at the same time to provide better storage for furniture. For Stephen's Green there is £1,000 provided. Of that £500 is for this year and £500 for next year. That is for the purpose of building two hot-houses in Stephen's Green Park. Probably most of the Deputies may have noticed that for a number of years past there has been a tendency to have a much better show of flowers in Stephen's Green than heretofore. I think the citizens of Dublin take more pleasure in the Park than they did before. It may surprise the bulk of Deputies to know that the flowers that are put into Stephen's Green are produced and propagated in Stephen's Green itself, and that as a park it makes one of the best shows anywhere. The London parks, I understand, have to purchase or get from exhibitors most of their flowers. In the case of Stephen's Green the flowers are produced there in an extremely difficult and cramped position. Probably most of the Deputies have not seen where the hothouses are. The idea in the past was to conceal them as much as possible. The idea now is to give a further opportunity for better expansion, and I am sure nobody will grudge that to the citizens of Dublin.

At present the water supply for the Phoenix Park is very costly and unsatisfactory. The pressure is not sufficient to supply the important houses in the Park, and consequently the pump has to be used, and that costs a great amount annually. The whole system leads to considerable waste of water as well. The idea now is to build a water tower under what was known as the Under-Secretary's Lodge. At night when there will not be so much demand for water, this tank can be filled and the important houses in the Park can be supplied from that during the day. There will be also a necessity for laying down pipes and taking up the old pipes. The total cost is estimated at £3,000. Most of that sum will be spent this year.

I now come to Howth Harbour. The fishing in Howth Harbour, so far as landing and curing is concerned, is confined practically to the end of the Western Pier. There the space is very confined. Supposing there is a considerable catch, a portion of the catch is sent off immediately by train to the different quarters, and a portion is freshly cured on the spot. Now, when a catch comes in, the unloading takes place. You have twenty or thirty lorries, or more, continually going along the quay, and they have to manoeuvre, turn, and bring up empty cases, and wait until the cases are filled and then bring away the filled cases. In addition to that, you have about 40 men and 50 women working there curing. It is thought that the space is altogether too confined. It does not give a fair chance to Howth Harbour as a fishing centre. The suggestion is that we do away with the existing coastguard station there, or that we level part of it to the level of the ordinary wharf. That would provide much greater space for conducting the fishing business. In addition, we intend to convert some of the coastguard station into a restaurant and a lavatory for the women working on the spot. The total cost is about £2,500.

What is intended to be done with that—is it to be let?

There are some offices there. At present the congestion is increased by the fact that there are temporary offices often put up by merchants. We can provide accommodation for some of these offices in connection with the building of the restaurant, and that will give still more accommodation. Does the Deputy mean that we are to let the restaurant?

No. Is it intended to make any selection of the merchants who will be utilising those stations, and how will that selection be made?

It is rather a matter for the Minister for Fisheries than for me. I am only dealing with supply at the moment.

Are the plans such as would make the spaces available only to the persons that are to occupy them? It would give me an opportunity of seeing how it is to be utilised if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell me what the plans are.

I could show the plans to the Deputy, if he wishes. That is as far as I can go. A certain number of buildings will be removed, and there will be more space after. Is the Deputy referring to the offices that I have referred to now or to the whole space?

My point is: there may be competition for that space. It may be allocated to a particular curer, as the office may be allocated. If there is to be merely an open space, then the allocation of that space is out of your hands and I cannot expect you to answer that question, but if there is to be any segregation of any part of that space by any structural alterations I would expect that there would be a definite purpose in mind. With respect to the offices, I expect they will be allocated on some basis of letting, allocation for particular merchants who are curing—"splitters," as they call them, or packers. I want to know whether this is to be a kind of public affair, or is it to be a building set apart by letting to particular curers?

The curers will use the open space. The offices will be let to individuals. However, that is a matter mainly for the Minister for Fisheries and I would not care to answer in that respect. We are simply dealing with the provision of space for the industry at present. There is in addition this year £10,000 asked for in connection with urgent and unforeseen works. That is not an unreasonable demand considering the large number of Civic Guard barracks that we may have to deal with. There may be barracks not included to be added, and these may require to be dealt with urgently during the year.

On the question of maintenance, in most of these cases where there is a difference between the amount asked for this year and last year it is mainly a question of casual variation, a question, for instance, in the case of public buildings where internal painting or external painting is to be done. Roughly speaking, external painting is done every four years and internal painting every eight years. In other cases it is rather explainable by the expanding nature of the department, by changes which take place when a department is moved from one place to another, say, out of Government Buildings from the old College of Science, and so on to another building.

Owing to the amount of difference, a certain number of these may call for a few remarks. In some cases it is purely a casual variation that will occur from year to year. In some cases the estimate is smaller than it was last year, and in other cases it is larger. The Revenue Department is larger by £3,000. Whether we like it or not, this is an expanding department and entails more expense in the upkeep. The considerable decrease in the case of the Gárda Síochána is casual, due to the expense of things like painting. In the case of the Botanic Gardens, the increase is due to the muffing of the glass houses, the renewing of defective floors and the provision of a new weighing machine, the present one having gone out of use. On page 52, in the case of Stephen's Green, there is a slight increase. That is due to the fact that under the management of Stephen's Green you have included a number of gardens taken on when various public buildings were taken over. The old mowing machine has served its day, and it is considered cheaper now to get a new motor mowing machine. It is more efficient and more economical. There are two other matters that call for mention—sub-heads (J) and (JJ). (J) is, to a certain extent, a simpler matter. It is £25,000. It is not a loan; it is a grant. At all events, it is something for the farmer. A number of drainage districts will be taken in hands this year in order to get them back to their proper state of maintenance. They have been allowed to get out of control. £3,000,000 has been spent on arterial drainage. In most cases, however, so far as the outward effect is concerned, the result is very nearly as bad as it was before the drainage work was undertaken. That is due to neglect on the part of land owners. I do not say whether the blame is on past land owners or present land owners living along these streams. The result is, it is necessary to undertake the task of putting those rivers into a proper state. When I say that the rivers have gone back to their original state, I mean only as regards portion of the work. When you blast rocks out of a river, at considerable cost, the rocks do not come back but if you remove weeds a lot of them come back causing considerable flooding. A number of those matters have to be undertaken this year. We realise that with the present prices and value of agricultural produce, it would not be fair to adopt the older system, which was that the people in the district should pay the expenses. We propose this year that the State should contribute a certain amount by way of free grant in all the districts we undertake to drain.

Will the Secretary read the Drainage Act of 1924?

I have read it. I am not for a moment saying that we have not power to do this.

Of course not.

Then, what is the trouble? I am suggesting that we give a grant of £25,000 to the farmers. Legally we have power to do that. Before the Act I have referred to was passed the riparian owners bore the whole expense for the carrying out of the works.

Is there any provision in this estimate for new Drainage Act expenditure?

Not yet. That can be brought in by way of supplementary estimate, if necessary. In the new Drainage Act there may be similar power given to the Government to make a State contribution to the cost of new drainage works.

May I ask whether the phrase used here, "grant-in-aid," is the technical term? The expenditure under this heading will be subjected to audit. When you say "free grant-in-aid" the term, I take it, is not to be interpreted as the technical term "grant-in-aid."

No. It means only what it conveys to the ordinary layman.

What is the total expenditure in respect of which these grants-in-aid are to be made?

The works will be carried out by means of money supplied, in the first instance, by the Government. The amount of money the Government supplies, namely, £25,000, will not be demanded back. The rest will be given by way of loan. The County Councils can also contribute something. Otherwise it will be paid back in yearly instalments. The grants-in-aid represent a total expenditure of £75,000 to £90,000. That is the cost of the works.

Has this grant been allocated to any particular schemes, or is it available for drainage schemes that may arise?

Any drainage scheme undertaken this year. I am speaking of maintenance and restoration. The present idea is in every case to make a recommendation to the Ministry of Finance to give a grant. In the case of the Owenmore things are much more advanced than in the case of the Barrow. In cases under the old Act still in existence, where we had a new drainage system, the following procedure, more or less, had to be adopted. People who were disgusted with the flooding of their lands came together and made a proposal that a drainage district should be set up. They were called the promoters. They got an engineer at their own expense and asked him to draw up a scheme. He drew up a detailed scheme of the works proposed to be undertaken. He indicated in that scheme each plot of land which was expected to be improved, how much of each man's land was expected to be improved, and also the proportion of the total cost each plot should bear. That was sent to the Board of Works, who appointed an independent engineer—not necessarily one of their own men—to examine this scheme. If they thought it should not be rejected outright an independent engineer went down and made investigations and heard objections on the spot. The engineer went back to the Board, and if the Board approved of the scheme, the work could be gone on with. A plebiscite was taken of the people whose lands were to be affected, each man voting according to the amount of his land to be affected. If ten acres were affected in the case of one man and half an acre in the case of another man, it would not be fair that the one who had only half an acre should have as much voice in the decision as the person affected to the extent of ten acres. The Owenmore was a peculiar case. It was taken up by the Congested Districts Board and they themselves acted, to a large extent, as the promoters. They got the consent of most of the people, and a bargain was entered into. Though a provisional order was never issued, a certain amount of money was spent by the Congested Districts Board at their own risk and responsibility.

The idea is to promote a special Bill to deal with that. This is an urgent case. It is different from the other cases, because, practically speaking, the whole of the preliminary work has been actually done. The actual division of the lands and the proportions for which the parties are liable have been all settled.

Where is this Owenmore?

Deputy Cooper could give you a much more detailed description of it than I can. There are many Owenmores, but this particular Owenmore is in Sligo. So far as this Vote is concerned, I do not think there is any necessity for further preliminary explanation. So far as subsequent explanation is concerned, I would remind the Dáil of what the Minister for Finance said, that I am not a political vade mecum of all the police barracks, bridewells, and commandeered premises in the country.

I would remind Deputies that it has been the practice to take the estimates by sub-heads. The only point in that is that if a Deputy goes into, say, sub-head E, it prevents other Deputies from dealing with the sub-heads before that.

I want to ask, with reference to sub-head A, "Purchase of Premises for Civic Guards, etc.," which should, I think, be "Gárda Síochána——"

I want to ask if there is any change in policy as regards the purchase of premises, as against the hiring of premises. In the old days, the Royal Irish Constabulary usually hired their barracks and paid rent for them. I gather from the fact that we are asked to vote £30,000 under this sub-head that the present policy is to purchase rather than to hire. If that is so, we are placing a burden on the taxpayer of the present as against the taxpayer of the future. In view of our present financial position, I think it would be wiser, where possible, to hire premises rather than to purchase. I know that it is not possible everywhere to hire barracks for the Gárda, but where it is possible that should be done rather than adopt a policy of purchasing outright. In the long run, it might be to the advantage of the State that the Gárda should not be dependent on a yearly tenancy but, having regard to the financial stringency of the present time, and to the fact that we are voting large sums for compensation, pensions, and other items of non-recurrent expenditure, I think it would be well to hire rather than to buy wherever possible. While congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary on the portion of his exposition of the Vote, which I heard, I would like to ask whether he can give us any light or leading on the point I have raised.

It is not a question of policy one way or another. Each case will be considered on its merits. In some cases you can get a site and premises which are suitable, and you can hire them. In other cases you cannot get that. You must, in that case, either buy a site and build yourself or buy out the old R.I.C. barrack. Each case will be considered on its merits in order to determine which is the more economical method to adopt.

If there is an alteration of policy in this regard, ought there not be a special means of financing? If you are going to pay a capital sum for a site and build out of revenue, it is obviously a hardship on the year you are dealing with to have that revenue charge as against capitalising.

I cannot find where the rents for those buildings are accounted for. I find that there is an appropriation in aid of £9,000. Would that represent the rents of these premises?

Does the Deputy mean: are the rents we get in represented by the appropriations in aid?

Would those rentals of the Gárda barracks be accounted for in a way similar to appropriations in aid in respect of rent?

I do not understand what the Deputy means by bringing in appropriations in aid.

If you build the barracks, there is a capital sum invested. Surely there should be some record of the interest on that money, and I cannot find any trace of it in the Gárda Síochána vote. I want to know where it is. I want to know why you do not make them account to you for that rent.

I think what the Deputy is suggesting is that, in addition to these Estimates, there should be a capital account or balance sheet.

I think the Deputy's suggestion is that one Department should pay the other—that the Board of Works should be paid by every Department; for instance, that the Oireachtas should pay us so much and every other Department as well as the Gárda Síochána.

Those would not be exactly the same as this Vote. This is a big amount. You have reduced the Estimates for next year by £200,000 in respect of this building, and you say you are going to charge this amount against posterity. This particular item constitutes portion of the reduction made by the Minister for Finance in the Estimates. Is not that so?

The Deputy is referring to the statement made by the Minister for Finance, in introducing his Budget, about not charging this as ordinary recurrent expenditure. Something like that, I suppose, will have to be done, but that does not affect the Estimate we are discussing.

The point I desired to make has been already covered by the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to Deputy Wilson: that is, that the criticism made by Deputies Cooper and Hewat hardly arises in view of the fact that if capital expenditure is incurred in respect of these cases the Minister for Finance has said he is going to place it to debt. I presume, in that case, only the charges on that debt will be dealt with, as in the case of buildings rented. Is not that the case? What I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say was that, in the case of restorations, in some instances the Government itself is incurring the cost of the restoration and the Minister for Finance says that that cost is being charged to debt as a non-recurrent item, whereas in the other cases the proprietor is rebuilding and the State is renting. The effect in both cases is more or less the same.

That would be right if Deputy Figgis is right in saying that this amount is to be capitalised. But that is the question I wish to ask.

I take it the position is somewhat like this: whatever might be done is not yet done. We are dealing with the Estimates, as presented, and if the Dáil decides that there shall be capitalisation of the cost of new buildings, that would appear in next year's returns, rather than in this year's Estimates. If there is any difference between the amount estimated as capital expenditure and the amount charged against this year's revenue for rent against that capital expenditure—interest, if you like to put it that way—it would appear in next year's return rather than in this year's Estimate. I would like to have some more assurances from the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter as to the probabilities of the actual expenditure during the coming year of this sum of £419,000 as against £197,000 last year. In the case of some barracks, for instance——

We are dealing with sub-head A at present. The point the Deputy is raising comes, I think, under sub-head B.

I am sorry. I will refer to the matter again when we come to sub-head B.

On the point of capitalising, it is possible that we might put it in another way. We may be able to put it in a more clear light to the Parliamentary Secretary who, I am sure, is most anxious to give us every information. We had expenditure of a similar character last year to what is proposed to be made this year, and what I want to know is, what was the policy with regard to that expenditure last year. It is non-recurring expenditure, and we understood it from the statement of the Minister it was proposed to capitalise that. I take it that that is a question of policy which should have been considered and decided upon before this. There was expenditure, as I say, of a similar character last year, and what I want to know is if the expenditure of last year and this year is going to be met out of capital or is it going to be paid out of revenue.

So far as these Estimates are concerned, a question of policy does not arise.

I would like to go a long way with the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am afraid I am not going to go that far with him.

Does the Minister mean to say that the Government have no settled policy at all on this matter?

Is not the question of the capitalisation of certain charges a matter of policy for the Minister for Finance?

What we want to know is, whether this non-recurrent expenditure is going to be capitalised, or whether it is going to be met out of revenue?

I think the points that have been raised emphasise the necessity for having two classes of accounts kept dealing with non-recurrent and with recurrent expenditure. As I understand the matter, there is only the one set of accounts kept, and everything appears in that. There is no distinction made between recurrent and non-recurrent expenditure.

But the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned in his statement non-recurrent expenditure, and I thought that this was one of the items he had in his mind.

I think there is a misapprehension about this. Surely we are not deciding at this stage more than this: Whether we will or will not authorise an expenditure of £30,000 for the purchase of sites and buildings for Civic Guard premises.

That is exactly what the Estimate means.

With all respect, this is a matter that would affect our decision, whether the £30,000 is going to be spent at all, or, if it is, how it is going to be dealt with.

That still leaves Deputy Thrift's expression of what the Estimate means as being quite correct. When this Estimate has been gone through in detail, the question of policy will arise, and, with the Minister for Finance present, it might be possible to take this matter further.

I notice that the Minister for Finance went out when this problem came up.

He thought perhaps it was settled.

Under sub-head AA —Annuities, I notice that a sum of over £40,000 is estimated for under Military Works Acts. What I want to know is, how long will that expenditure continue? There is no date given here. As regards another item under the same sub-head for an estimated expenditure of over £13,000, there is a date given, but as regards this other sum of £40,000 there is no date given.

The reason you have a date in the one case is, that you have one particular site and one particular thing to deal with. You could not have a date in the other case because you are there dealing with a number of different items, and you would have to have a different date for each item.

Could you give any idea as to how long this expenditure will continue?

I can find out if the Deputy is anxious to know.

I frankly admit that I was looking at this Estimate yesterday, and endeavoured to find out what exactly the phrase "Military Works Acts Annuity" meant. I was unable to put my hand on any text that would elucidate the matter, and I should not be surprised if there were a number of other Deputies who found themselves in the same difficulty as I did. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be a practicable and a desirable thing, now that we are conducting the affairs of this country in a Parliament of our own, that we should repeal these Acts, and let any expenditure that arises under them come into the Estimates in the ordinary way.

Does the Deputy want me to promise legislation?

Possibly he is not in a position to do that. In any case, before we pass from this sub-head AA, I would ask him to inform the Dáil how long this is going to continue, and in respect of what particular works this sum is going to be expended. In other words, I would ask him to give a further exposition of the Military Works Acts. I venture to say that there is hardly a Deputy here who knows what these Military Works Acts are.

I desire to know how it comes that the sum is £40,000 this year and was £40,000 last year, and that the year before it was £56,000. That is to say, it is a varying sum. In the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1923-24 it is explained that the sum spent that year was £2,657 11s. 6d. less than what was voted, and the explanation given for that is: "A larger amount was provided for the Military Works Annuity than afterwards proved necessary." That suggests that this is not a fixed annual sum against particular works, but that it is a varying sum. I think a little explanation on this matter would be helpful.

So far as the variation in the sums is concerned, that is as between £40,000 this year and £56,000 in the year 1923-24, that, I think, is covered by the explanation I gave on the point raised by Deputy Wilson. A certain number of these annuities drop out in the regular course of time. As regards the point raised by Deputy Figgis, in some cases public buildings are built by means of a loan that has to be paid back in the way of annuities. A case in point, for instance, would be the College of Science and the plot on which both the College of Science and Government Buildings stand. The Government buildings themselves were not built out of a loan but from revenue voted year after year.

We are asked to vote £419,715 towards new works, alterations and additions. I do not think the request I am going to make will add very much to that account. Numerous complaints have been made to me by members of the Independent Group that they have no room in this building in which to meet, or to interview friends who may come to see them on business, or in which to hold their meetings. We had a meeting this morning and I chased about looking for a room. I felt very much like Noah's dove looking for a place to land, but could find no rest for the soles of my feet. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Finance if they would be good enough to set aside some little place where our very modest group—we do not require gorgeous premises and would be content with some small place—could meet to interview friends and transact business.

I think this is an opportunity that the Minister could perhaps take to give us some outline of the plans and proposals regarding the utilisation of this building. We have read a good deal in the newspapers and we see something has happened, but we have had no real or full explanation of what is happening; what rooms will be allocated, or whether there will be rooms allocated or not. Generally, we would like to know what are the plans of the Department regarding the accommodation for the Oireachtas.

And also we would like to know something with regard to the adornment of the buildings. They were adorned before with certain statues of allegorical character and now we have statutes of real importance. But joking apart, there are certain national monuments that I think might have been brought into this building and kept here. I am not going to mention them at large, because I know some are in certain places where I imagine the present keepers of them think they have made a capture that properly belongs to the State, but I will intimate to the Parliamentary Secretary where certain of them are that I think might be brought into this building. I join my voice to that of Deputy Johnson, and say that I think it is desirable that a statement should be made as to what is being done as to the allocation as between the Seanad and the Dáil, and I support what Deputy Sir James Craig has said also.

Is it the suggestion that the Board of Works should allocate rooms as between the Seanad and the Dáil? I would like to have something to say upon that suggestion.

With regard to the Governor-General's residence, it is to he assumed from the fact that you are installing electric light that that residence is to be a permanent one. However, judging from the number of buildings and the number of lights to be installed, it would seem from this provision that the Department was making provision for customers of the Shannon scheme. When the question of £300,000 is being put forward for the future would it not be right that we should know exactly where we stand? The Civic Guard barracks, mainly, and the cost of the Custom House are responsible. But are we to understand that these sums of money would be portion of loans that will be issued in the future? I think we might force the Parliamentary Secretary to reply by moving a reduction of this Vote, but I do not want to create opposition and I will move that the Vote be referred back for further consideration and more information.

I think there is a little more in this case than Deputy Wilson has stated. It is a fact that the Vote for new works has been increased by £200,000, but it is also the case, and it is much more serious, that the Vote for maintenance and supplies is increased by £3,000. Practically the whole of the increase of £200,000 has to do with the rebuilding of the Custom House and the Four Courts. At any rate, the sum of £100,000 of it is for the Four Courts, the Custom House and the Post Office, but I would like to know why there is an increase in the cost of maintenance. That Vote should be cut down instead of increased.

That arises on the next Vote.

I apologise, but let us at all events know about the increase on Item B.

There is just one small point I would like to deal with. Deputy Sir James Craig made a remark about a meeting of the Independent Group this morning; that they could not find a place whereon to lay their heads, or rest their feet. I am very sorry for that. If I had known, even at half-past eight last evening, that any group wanted a room they certainly could have had it, and a fire and an attendant.

We held the meeting. What I would like is that we would have some little place that we could more or less lay claim to.

That is a more difficult question which has often been considered by Committees. It is difficult to provide a room with our present limited accommodation, specifically, for each party. It is not possible at the moment. But when the Seanad has moved from the Museum into this building here, and when all the rooms are completed, it may be possible to do something of that nature. It may be done, of course, in this way: A Joint Committee of the Dáil and the Seanad would examine the rooms and allocate them, and, if it is possible to have a room for each party or group, that will be done, but it may not be possible. At present a room for a meeting is always obtainable on notice to the Captain of the Guard.

Who allocates the accommodation?

As a matter of fact, the accommodation in this building has been allocated by me up to the present, but there is also a House Committee. The question of allocating the rooms generally, when the whole building is properly completed and taken over, will be one for the consideration of the Dáil itself.

That is if the accommodation has not been absorbed in the meantime.

By what process could it be absorbed?

There is a committee room, where we thought we could hold our meeting. We found that rooms occupied by a typist, writing letters for members of the Government, I presume, and the typist had to be removed from the room while we were holding our meeting.

I think the important point raised is, who will be responsible in the future for the allocation of the accommodation? Hitherto the Ceann Comhairle has been the supreme ruler. Now that the Seanad is being removed from the Museum into this building there will be two kings in Brentford. Already the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has suffered the fate of the bird in whose nest the cuckoo has installed himself. We could not find him in the room that we were accustomed to find him when the Dáil was sitting. I think there is need of some machinery, if not by the Board of Works, then by a Joint Committee, whereby we would know what rooms are at our disposal and what rooms are at the disposal of the Seanad. We should have some definite ruling on the matter.

That of course can be done by the Dáil itself. I do not know what is meant by saying we may find rooms taken up. I do not know who could possibly take up rooms that we want. It is to be presumed that it will be quite possible to come to an amicable arrangement with the Seanad. I do not presume anything else. When that is done, we will see what rooms are available. We cannot do it until we get the whole thing completed, but when it has been completed it will all belong to us, Dáil and Seanad combined.

May I explain. I understood there were two committee rooms here in which parties might meet. When we arrived this morning we found one was appropriated and in the occupation of the Labour Party, and I understand they look upon that room as their own property.

Without any authority.

Might I explain that if the Deputies from the Independent Benches had wished to hold their meeting we would not have objected. It is one of the little accommodations that parties get, and that any body that is trying to carry on its business will accustom itself to. It has been the practice for Deputies belonging to this group to meet in Committee Room No. 1. They make no special claim to it, and they cannot prevent any other Deputies going into it, unless they are prepared to accommodate themselves as we have accommodated ourselves. We occupy very little room other than that committee room, and it is a matter of accommodation. If Deputies who wished to attend this meeting had suggested to us that they were short of a resting place we would have been glad to receive them hospitably and leave the room to them.

I want to make it clear that the Board of Works never took upon itself to allocate any rooms to any body or party in the Oireachtas. They never attempted anything of the kind, and they have no intention of attempting it.

I think we might now get back to the Board of Works Vote.

It has been indicated to me that I am out of order, under Standing Order 93, but I submit that I am in order under No. 94, in moving the postponement of this Vote until the remainder of the Estimates have been disposed of, and until we get a declaration of policy in this matter.

What exactly is the Deputy moving?

That this Vote under sub-head B, be postponed.

Deputy Wilson seems to have raised some point as to whether a particular item in the Estimates was to be provided for out of borrowing or not. There is no intention of borrowing for particular items. What I did lay down in the Budget statement as the policy of the Executive Council was, that we would endeavour to estimate what was recurring expenditure and what were the sums in the Estimates that were abnormal and non-recurrent, and that so far as the abnormal and non-recurrent part of our expenditure was concerned we did not propose to impose taxation for the purpose of raising money to meet it, but that we would borrow for it. You could not go into the Estimates and say: "We are building this Gárda Síochána barracks, which will stand for 100 years. It is abnormal and non-recurrent, and we propose to borrow for that." There will always be new buildings to be provided every year as long as there is a State in existence. For some reason or other new buildings will be required.

What we did say was, that out of this total provided for new buildings some sum is certainly abnormal. There is at present an abnormal expenditure on new buildings. We have more Gárda Síochána barracks to erect than we would have in normal times. We have work to do in connection with the Four Courts and the Post Office that we would not have to do in normal times. Consequently, when we are considering what taxation we will levy, it is safe for us to say that a certain sum—I have put it at £320,000—is abnormal. We do not propose to take that into account as expenditure when we are deciding on the imposition of taxation. We will borrow for that, and we will proceed to raise taxation for the remainder.

We have no intention of complicating our accounts and creating difficulties that would be created by trying to decide in the case of particular items whether they were recurrent or non-recurrent, or whether they should be provided out of taxation or borrowing. You can only take a broad and general view and lay down some general line that will serve you. You cannot deal with the matter from the point of view of the Estimates. So far as the Estimates are concerned, the money has to be paid out of the Exchequer. The money is required and has to be paid out and voted, and at the present stage the question of whether it will be borrowed or provided out of revenue does not arise. That arises when we are deciding what our taxation will be.

In view of the explanation, which might have been given in the beginning, with the leave of the Dáil, I beg to withdraw the motion.

Amendment not moved.

I notice it is proposed to erect or reconstruct about half-a-dozen Gárda Síochána barracks in Clare. Possibly we require that many or more. What I am interested in is the material that is being used—for instance, the slates. Some barracks have been reconstructed, and I am told that Irish slates were not used, but that slates were imported. We have at least one slate quarry in Clare which was formerly worked by an English firm, but is closed down now. Possibly that firm have an interest in keeping it closed down and utilising material from across the water. I should like to know whether the Board of Works have any policy in that matter, or any power to see that only Irish materials are used.

Sub-head B is a very comprehensive one, and covers a very considerable number of buildings. I do not know whether all the works that are embodied in it are to be undertaken in the current year. Under the head of "Revenue Department" we have got "The Dublin Custom House— partial reconstruction," and a round sum of £30,000 is put down for that. I would like to know if it is intended to proceed with the expenditure of £30,000 during the year under review. I know that some work has been done, and I should like an assurance that this sum is intended to be expended. On page 46 you have got an item under the heading of Co. Wicklow, "Minor Works at Civic Guard Barracks."

That has been already explained. That is under the Co. Wicklow on the Paper, but not under the Co. Wicklow in the Estimates, so to speak. It refers to minor works in connection with Gárda Síochána barracks all over the country. I explained that in my introductory statement.

I am sure if the Parliamentary Secretary has explained it he has done so to the satisfaction of the Dáil. I will pass from that. You have got the Four Courts in the same position as the Custom House, as a sum of £32,000 is put down for expenditure during the current year. Is that a general sum, or is it to be considered as the amount of money that will be spent on the building during the year? On page 47 you have got the G.P.O. and an expenditure of £39,000. These are very considerable items, and I would like to have an assurance that they are not put down haphazard but will be undertaken under ordinary circumstances.

On page 48 you have £2,500 for the provision of a fish-curing station at Howth. I do not know if that embodies a new departure, or a progressive policy in connection with the fishing industry or whether it is put down haphazard. Putting down £2,500 in the Estimates for a fish-curing station seems to imply that the matter has been considered and approved of by the Dáil. I do not remember that matter having come before the Dáil, and I do not know whether it is part of a greater scheme or merely an incidental thing in connection with the fishing industry.

A sum of £10,000 is put down for urgent and unforeseen works. I would like to take exception to that item. Within the range of an expenditure of £469,000, there ought to be sufficient margin for all the unforeseen items that are likely to occur. As a matter of principle, I think estimates put before us should be considered estimates and that we should not be required to provide for unforeseen circumstances in this way.

Will the Deputy allow us to take the money from the Custom House and give it to the Gárda Síochána barracks?

There is such a thing as Supplementary Estimates. If the £10,000 is for urgent unforeseen works in connection with any of the specified items I think it can come out of these estimates when the other money is spent. If it is something not embodied in the long range of works to be done I think we ought to know what it is for. If it is something in connection with any of the items here; in other words, errors and omissions excepted, we ought to know that. If it is for something not covered in these we ought also to know it.

I am surprised at Deputy Hewat. The Vote for urgent and unforeseen works is £5,000 more than last year. I think Deputy Hewat is mistaken in his view of the procedure that should be adopted. Certain items are set forth and the maximum amount allowed to be spent is set out against these items. We are setting it out here that that is the maximum amount. If Deputy Hewat had said that before anything beyond that amount shall be spent in respect of these particular items the Minister should come for powers that I think would have been right. I wanted to raise that point on certain items in the list. In respect of unforeseen items, we are asked to vote a sum limited to £10,000. It was £5,000 last year. Because they are unforeseen no item can be set against them. I do not think it is an unreasonable provision to allow a margin of £5,000 or £10,000 to a Department like this for works that they cannot foresee. I demur from the view of Deputy Hewat that in respect of any of the items set forth the Department may spend more than we vote and then come back for sanction for money already spent. Of all men that is a doctrine that should not come from Deputy Hewat, because he knows that once it is spent the chance of recovering it is very small indeed. If the Ministry is bound to come to us for further sanction before spending more than is estimated, then we have a check.

Did Deputy Johnson ever find the Government doing that before?

I did, and we tried to curtail them. Deputy Hewat is rather inviting them to go on with that bad habit. For instance, take page 47, "Department of Defence, Cork, Micheal Collins' Barracks—Reconstruction," a sum of £20,000 was voted against that item, and up to the 31st March last £25,000 was spent. That is to say, £5,000 was spent more than we sanctioned. It may be said that that £5,000 was covered by unforeseen works, but I do not think that was contemplated when we voted £5,000 for unforeseen works. It was not in excess of expenditure on works that were foreseen. This item of £5,000 was spent over and above what we sanctioned. I think it requires some sanction. It is not an item like the Four Courts, where £5,500 was spent, though not voted. That was clearly marked as "relief," and it was voted for relief. In the case of the Collins' Barracks expenditure, there was no suggestion that that was part of relief expenditure.

I want to support Deputy Hewat's plea for a very definite statement in regard to the amount of these moneys to be spent in the current year. For instance, take the Post Office. The Parliamentary Secretary gave some information regarding proposals in respect of Post Office buildings, but I did not gather that it is the intention, or the definite expectation, that £110,000 will be spent in the current year. I would like to have a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary as to whether there has been a fairly close estimate of the amount it is intended to spend during the current year. Quite a number of Votes were passed last year for sums that were not expended. For instance, in certain items re-Votes are included in this year's Estimates. I suggest that it is better that we should not vote them unless there is a real anticipation that they will be expended. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would help us in that respect.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is the practice in connection with these large contracts? I can understand if they were carried out by the Department that he would not know exactly what the expenditure would be, but where there are specific contracts there cannot be any difficulty in giving the figures. I would like to know what is the position in regard to the Four Courts, the Post Office, and the large buildings in Cork. Are they being done by contract or by Departmental staffs?

I would like to get some more information on the lines suggested by Deputy Hewat and Deputy Johnson. I do not agree with Deputy Hewat that a margin of £10,000 on a Vote of this size for unforeseen works is excessive, especially in view of the fact that a reduction has been made from the Vote of £50,000 for works which may not be carried out this year. There is one large item of which we have no details at all. That is under the sub-head of the Department of Defence—Miscellaneous New Works, £28,000. That is a very large item to be put in as a miscellaneous item. I do not know whether the Board of Works is responsible for it, or the Department of Defence. From past experience of the laxity with which some persons connected with that Department treat large sums of money, I am inclined to think that that Department is responsible. When we are given details of the smallest sums to be expended on the barracks of the Gárda Síochána, we might ask for a few more details in regard to this sum of £28,000; whether it is to be used in new buildings or repairs, or what it is required for.

I, too, should like to call attention to the very considerable sum of £110,000 for the Post Office; the considerable sum for the Custom House, and the sum of £32,000 for the Four Courts. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear the whole of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, and if I am raising points that he dealt with already, I hope he will forgive me. What is to be the future function of those buildings? Is it contemplated that the Courts of Justice will leave the Castle and return to the Four Courts? If not, what function is the Four Courts going to fulfil in the metropolitan life? There is apparently a mania at the present moment for removing the cattle market somewhere. Is there any danger that the cattle will instal themselves where lawyers once perorated? As regards the Post Office, to what extent has the work of the Central Post Office near O'Connell Street been superseded by the installation of the new sorting office? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something of that. Is the full accommodation there likely to be acquired? Is it necessary to restore the whole building? To what extent shall we make a saving by this new building? What temporary premises shall we be able to surrender? We ought to know those things and put them all against this almost enormous capital expenditure of £110,000.

The last point I would like to raise is one which I expected would have been raised already. How far does this rebuilding programme, which, personally, I am glad of, prejudice the Commission sitting on the question of the future government of Dublin? How far does it rule out of consideration what is called the Greater Dublin Movement? I am not myself an advocate of that. It seems to me that a great deal of it consisted in moving every place around and calling it by a different name and leaving us very much as we were before. Still, it has had serious advocacy and it has come under the notice of a Commission now sitting. Ought we to vote these sums without some knowledge, without some statement, as to the way in which that Commission will be affected?

I am in somewhat of a difficulty with regard to this question under the heading of "Department of Education, National School Buildings." I would like to draw attention to the grave necessity existing for a renewal of many of the buildings which do duty at the present time for schools. I am not quite sure whether it is the function of the Board of Works to look after the provision of school buildings, other than the buildings that are approved of by the Minister for Education. I will reserve what I have to say on that matter until the Education Vote comes under discussion. It is the function of the Board of Works to see there is no undue delay in dealing with these claims. I have reason to think, and believe, from facts which have come under my notice, that there is great delay in dealing with schemes for new buildings that have come forward. The position in a great many cases is that grants for the building of new schools were applied for, and in some cases almost sanctioned, in 1914, or before the grants were finally stopped owing to the outbreak of the war. There are some cases in which decisions are still outstanding. I would like to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the fact that complaint is being made in regard to delay on the part of the Board of Works in giving final sanction to these cases and so have the buildings commenced.

With regard to this small item of Teachers' Residences, at vested schools, grant for building, £200, I take it this grant is intended to be made in two cases under the Teachers' Residence Act of 1875. I do not know whether it is under this Vote or under the Local Loans Vote that attention should be called to the present position with regard to the non-operation of the Teachers' Residence Act of 1875. I think it would more properly arise under the Local Loans Act, and I will reserve what I have to say on that matter until the Vote comes forward. I would like to ask a question in connection with the grant for the Gárda Síochána Barracks. Is it the practice, when contracts are declared for those barracks, to publish the contract price? Say that the building or the restoration of the local barracks is put up for contract. Several contractors tender and send in estimates. The contract is finally given to someone. In some parts of the country there is a general belief that no contract is given on the merits; it always depends on the way the particular contractor is able to use some kind of influence. I sincerely hope and believe that is not the case; but in order to remove that impression, it would be advisable, if it is not done already, that when a contract is declared, even when it is a small one, the actual amount of it should be publicly made known, so that the contractors who were disappointed would know that the contractor appointed was under their estimates, and that the contract was given on its merits and not because of undue influence.

I wish to ask is it possible to have provision made under the heading of new works for opening up an entrance to the Phoenix Park near Knockmaroon Gates? Applications have been made on two occasions to have this work undertaken, but it was turned down because it appeared it was not provided for in the Estimates. There is a number of private owners in the district who have access to the Park between Chapelizod and Knockmaroon. There is a fairly large population and there is a considerable number of children playing in and around the area. If they had access to the Park, it would be a great addition generally, and it would certainly be a boon to the workers there. The distance between Chapelizod and Knockmaroon Hill is rather far. The work, I suggest, could be undertaken for a couple of hundred pounds. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate if it could be undertaken.

There is a number of questions that arise out of these estimates, and we, Deputies, look forward to the occasion when these estimates come up as an opportunity of raising different matters that arise. I do not know whether it is exactly fair to put these questions to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am not so sure that when estimates of the importance and the character of the one which we have before us, the different Ministers should not be here in order to explain to Deputies questions of policy that may arise. We have here on page 46 "Improved Accommodation at the District Police Courts." We have been urging both inside and outside the House that additional accommodation is necessary, first of all, in connection with the Children's Court. I do not know whether that is a matter with which we can expect the Parliamentary Secretary to deal, but nevertheless it is an exceedingly urgent matter. All of us will agree, who have had the misfortune to be called to the police courts at any time, that its associations are not ideal for children or parents, particularly female parents. Therefore, it has been strongly urged that a place, separate and distinct from the police court, should be provided for what is now known as the Children's Court. The practice at present is to set aside a day in one of the courts, if possible, to hear children's cases. The other court is functioning on that particular day, and we know that the surroundings of the court on the occasions that children are brought there, have all these objectionable features that we do not like to bring children into contact with. I want to know when this question of the reconstruction of the courts is given consideration, whether that aspect of the matter has been considered by the Minister.

Another point put before the Minister is that for very much the same reasons it is undesirable that those engaged in commercial cases should be brought into contact with the associations of these courts. Commercial cases, as we understand them, are now under the new regime being tried at the police courts. A number of typists and young people from the different commercial houses are brought down to the police courts to prove these different cases. There, again, it has been frequently urged by those who hold responsible positions in connection with trade and commerce that the associations of these courts are not associations that should be identified with commercial cases. It is particularly unfortunate, when claimants come from the other side, as they have to come in many instances, to prove these cases in our courts here, that we have to bring them into contact with the surroundings of the police courts here. It is not necessary to press these points. Every Deputy recognises the importance of them in the two cases I have given. Therefore we would like to know, when this Vote is under consideration, what is the intention with regard to these two proposals.

I pass on from that to the question of the National schools. We find on page 46: "National Schools—grants for building, enlarging, enclosing, etc." I am sorry that the Minister for Education is not here, as the question I have to raise is possibly one that would more properly come under his Department. We have had under consideration, and we have been promised legislation dealing with school attendance, which it was intended should embrace—and it would meet the wishes of the Dáil, I am sure—the raising of the school age. One of the difficulties I am told that confronts the Ministry in connection with this very important matter is the question of school accommodation. Therefore we want to know, when this grant is under consideration, whether that aspect of the question has been considered, and if so, to what extent. There is another question that arises here very appropriately, that is, the question of the provision of school meals in necessitous cases. There, again, there has been the difficulty of the want of accommodation in the different schools for this necessary provision in certain areas. That is a matter that has been stressed on the Ministry, and we would like to know what the intention is with regard to it and what efforts are being made to meet it.

On this point there is one other question I would like to raise, if it is possible to raise it under B. It would, perhaps, come more properly under another letter. That is, why the Phoenix Park National School is set out separately and distinctly from the other items of the Department of Education. That is one of the matters I would like a little information about.

There is just one other point I would like to raise in connection with Howth Harbour. It is proposed to expend a sum of £2,000 on a fish curing station. The necessity for this has been expressed on a great many occasions. Many Deputies in this House are exceedingly anxious that something more should be done than has been done to encourage the further development of the deep-sea fishing industry, and this is the first step in that direction. If this step is to be successful, other steps in that connection will be necessary. I may again be going outside the letter we have under consideration, but the point arises more in connection with the fish curing station, and the latter we have under consideration here. There is not the smallest use in expending a considerable sum of money in erecting a fish curing station if the particular harbour in which you establish the fish curing station is filled up and sifted up for a considerable portion of the tide, so that the boats with fish practically cannot get into it. That is the position at the moment, very largely with regard to Howth Harbour, and it is growing worse. There is no use in spending money in one Department except you are prepared to follow up that expenditure in other Departments. If the question has been under consideration and it has been decided that it would be for the benefit of the industry—and I am quite sure that decision is a wise one from what I know of it—I think consequently on that, the other expenditure should not be overlooked and that it should be undertaken as part and parcel of the proposal. These are matters that one would like some information about. They are important matters, matters affecting large industries, and I am anxious, if we are not asking too much of the Parliamentary Secretary, who has already given us most lucid and useful information in connection with this Vote, that he would supplement that in connection with the information I have asked for.

I would like to add my plea to that of Deputy Hogan in urging on the Minister the use of local or home manufactured building materials. I do not see why the slates, cement, and bricks of the country should not be used in preference to those of foreign manufacture. We have a considerable number of Civic Guard stations to be reconstructed in Kildare and adjacent counties, and I would urge on him the necessity of getting his department to specify Athy bricks in the restoration of these barracks. The quality and durability of that brick is beyond question and it has been recommended by architects for a great many years.

Why should we confine ourselves to Athy? Bricks are manufactured in other places.

The reason is because Athy at the moment is not working, and so far as Dolphin's Barn is concerned——

It is in the same condition exactly.

It has a monopoly of supplies for the Dublin trade. I would also urge on the Minister to have the Athy brick specified for a good deal of the work in Dublin, so as to give Kildare a chance.

You must take me as opposing that.

I think that cement manufactured in this country should also be specified. The general tendency of this Department is to buy foreign cement, but if the Parliamentary Secretary inquires from the officials of his Department he will find that so far as Wexford cement is concerned it is just as good as English Portland, but, unfortunately, there may be other interests at work to prevent the Wexford people getting the trade they should get. I strongly urge the necessity of trying to get the Athy brick works going again. We have a large number of unemployed there and it is only fair that this old-established works should be assisted by the Government by specifying that Athy brick be used in contracts throughout the country.

I would like to get a little further information from the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the expenditure of the £50,000 in connection with National schools. I am not objecting to this expenditure, but I would like to know if there is any further expenditure in the way of local grants to be accounted for from local sources. I would like to see this money properly expended. My experience of National schools is that a great many of them are in a very inferior condition, and that any money expended on improving these schools would be well spent. We find the schools throughout the country over-crowded, badly ventilated, and with bad sanitation. I would like to know if all this is regarded as non-recurrent expenditure, and if it has been capitalised. I think that that is a thing that should be done. I think that perhaps even more money than is specified here might be well spent on improving the National schools, and that such sums might be regarded as capital or non-recurrent expenditure, and might be included in a loan to be obtained by the Government.

There are a few questions arising in connection with the votes for Civic Guard barracks to which I would like to draw attention. I notice, under "New Buildings," that for rural barracks a sum of from £1,700 to £2,000 is included in the Estimate. That seems very excessive for barracks where there is established a post of four or five Guards under a sergeant. It is true that only a certain fraction of that sum is being voted this year, but, even so, it is scarcely a good principle to put up a very large estimate of that kind. Take County Clare, for instance. I see that for the restoration of the Ennistymon R.I.C. barracks a sum of £1,750 is estimated, and that for Morris's Mills new barracks a sum of £1,700 is mentioned. There is no village in Morris's Mills. There is a rural post there of four or five Guards under a sergeant, and it seems an extraordinary figure to set up a new barracks for £1,700. I would like to know on what basis that amount is estimated. I would like to know the cost of wages and material and whether this work will be given by contract or carried out by the Board of Works directly. If by contract, I submit that such a proceeding will increase the expense against the Government. Anyone, by paying a sum of 5/-, can obtain these Estimates and can see that £1,700 is the sum estimated by the Government engineers. Is there not a natural tendency, therefore, to base prices on the Government figures? Undoubtedly there is. I am certain that if a farmer, or any business man, were putting up a house with the same floor space as these barracks have, he would not contemplate the expenditure of a sum of £1,700, nor in making any restoration would he estimate for £1,750.

These estimates do not include Athy bricks.

With regard to the questions raised as to the use of Irish materials, so far as possible, we put in a clause to get Irish materials. It is not always possible to get Irish slate, but wherever we can we try to get it. I do not think that there is much trouble about Irish bricks, as I doubt if it would pay, in competition with Irish bricks, to import English ones. We put in a clause that so far as possible they must be of Irish material. As to Deputy Hogan's point as to whether these works are let to contract, they are let to contract. In regard to the suggestion that we should make a special protective barrier around Athy in our contracts, I doubt if it would be possible. Deputy Hewat, and, I think, Deputy Johnson, asked us in connection with the expenditure which we are putting down this year, whether we have done it more or less in a light-hearted spirit or whether we did it seriously.

We intend, if the Dáil allows us, to spend the money this year, except in particular cases there may be exceptional circumstances. There may be in one or two instances difficulties that may make it impossible to go on with any particular work before the end of the year, but so far as possible the estimate is a serious attempt on our part to make out what is the likely expenditure we shall be called upon to meet in connection with the new works in the twelve months we are now providing estimates for. That is the answer to Deputy Hewat's question on that point. Deputy Hewat was not here when I explained the position. I made it clear, I think, in my opening statement, explaining the principal items of expenditure, that we do intend to spend the money in order to develop the fishery station at Howth, and it is a serious attempt to develop it. I explained, more or less, in detail how that is to be done. If Deputy Hewat wishes the matter gone into again I will do so.

I will not trespass on you to do so. I am sure it has been done effectively.

With regard to unforeseen works, one of the difficulties is that I cannot say what the unforeseen works are to be; therefore, the only question is whether the £10,000 is a reasonable sum. Considering that there is a total sum of over £400,000 it seems to me reasonable. Deputy Johnson raised a point as to the expenditure last year in connection with the Micheal barracks in Cork, £25,000 being spent before the 31st March, 1925. The explanation is: before 31st March last year £10,000 of that was spent, and we did not in this case outstep the permission given to us by the Dáil. The £111,000 in reference to the G.P.O. represents a fairly close estimate, as close as under the circumstances we are likely to go.

So far as re-votes are concerned, undoubtedly there is a number of re-votes this year, but there is an explanation in each individual case. For instance, with regard to Cork City Bridewell, we found after having put down the sum we should also have possibly to get the courthouse adjoining. That modified our outlook in that particular matter. Negotiations were proceeded with in this connection, and the approval of the Minister for Finance was sought and obtained. That is the reason for the delay there. Similarly with regard to Tralee barracks, it was due to the fact that when the work was going on there were certain out-premises that had to be dealt with. There was a difficulty in preparing the plans for the Cork City Union Quay barracks, and there were difficulties in regard to inspection of bills of quantities of contractors, and that meant that the contract was not entered into until September, 1924. In all cases there is a reasonable explanation. Deputy Wilson raised the question, and I think more or less argued the point, that if we let out these works in contract where was the difficulty in estimating?

No, I suggested if they were let out in contracts you would know what amount you were going to spend.

The difficulty is, before we let them out in contract we have to get the permission of the Dáil. We do not know what the tenders will be until we let them out in contracts after permission has been given for the estimates. The contracts come after. Deputy Cooper raised an important point about the question of unforeseen works—in connection with the Ministry of Finance, £28,000. I think the policy of the Minister for Finance is to concentrate troops and not to leave them in scattered detachments all over the country. There are still in some cases detachments in out-of-the-way places, and will be so until such time as the barracks are conditioned for them. At the time these estimates were prepared the works had not been fully sanctioned by the Minister for Finance. Roughly speaking, the necessity of finding accommodation at Tralee, reconditioning the barracks at Kilkenny, making some slight alterations in the McKee Barracks for officers' quarters, and providing better sewerage accommodation at the Curragh, are the items that were before the Ministry of Finance that would be likely to be undertaken during the year, and that is why these sums were put down.

As I explained in my opening statement, the present condition of Government offices in Dublin is exceedingly unsatisfactory. You have the same Department scattered over 12 or 15 houses in different parts of the city. So far as the Custom House is concerned, we are providing accommodation of 50,000 cubic square feet. The accommodation in one of the blocks of the Government Buildings is about 20,000 square feet. That will give an idea of the amount of accommodation we are getting that will enable the Government to concentrate offices at the Custom House. With regard to the future of the Four Courts, that is a matter for the Government. The Government, as I understand, has made no decision in the matter, but there is a strong opinion that the Courts ought to go back to the Four Courts, and to be separated from the administrative offices. That is not a matter on which I can pronounce, for it is a question primarily for the Executive Council. I do not think that the rebuilding programme, so far as it is outlined in this estimate, will in any way prejudice the proceedings of the Greater Dublin Committee. We are only dealing with the outer walls, so to speak, of the Custom House. In the Four Courts we are restoring the dome and the two pavilions. That work of restoration would be likely to be undertaken in any case at the Four Courts. Deputy O'Connell mentioned the question of grants for national schools. I do not know that the Board of Works are concerned with that. We do not decide where the schools have to be built, or grants given. The decision in the matter rests with the Department of Education. When they have pronounced on it we supply the plans, and we supply the grants, but it is not our function to decide what accommodation is necessary in a particular district. That is for the Department of Education. As regards the Gárda barracks, I am afraid there is a difficulty about publishing contracts. Contractors, as a rule, do not like their prices published, but that is a matter for further consideration. Similarly, as regards the point raised by Deputy Doyle as to a new entrance to the Phoenix Park, no evidence has been brought before me on that matter, and I cannot give any judgment on the question on its merits. Deputy Good was, by inforence, exceedingly complimentary to me. Undoubtedly what he says about the Children's Court is admitted by everybody. I have had to go there myself, not as a child——

We will not ask the circumstances.

Undoubtedly it was most objectionable, and everybody who has ever been there will admit that. One of the matters that I am sure will be considered, and considered very carefully, by the Executive Council when they are dealing with the question of accommodation for the different courts in Dublin will be this matter of segregating the Children's Court at least from the Police Courts. There are various suggestions put forward as to where it ought to be, but, naturally, until the whole question of the allocation of court accommodation is considered, the Executive Council will not decide on this matter. Similarly with the other point raised by Deputy Good in connection with the courts.

So far as school accommodation is concerned we can only, as I say, deal with the actual numbers that are put before us. The decision in that matter rests with the Ministry of Education; they tell us the size of the school that is necessary, and we provide the plans. But as far as the general policy is concerned, that will rest with the Minister for Education. I can hardly indicate the policy of different Ministers. As far as Howth Harbour is concerned, undoubtedly there is provision for it, and it will receive consideration with other harbours. On page 52 of the Estimates you will find provision for dredging under the heading of "Harbours," and I have not the slightest doubt that Howth Harbour will be attended to.

I notice a reduction of £500 in that particular Estimate. I hope that dredging is not to be reduced in consequence of that.

Deputy Heffernan raised some question about schools that I did not quite follow. As I explained, there is £50,000 for that, and normally we give two-thirds of the cost of building the schools. Deputy Connor Hogan raised the question about barracks and suggested that £1,700 was too much for the building of a barrack that would contain four or five people, including a sergeant. But you have to provide for the sergeant being a married man and make provision for him and his family. The barrack may contain from eight to ten rooms, and that seems to me a reasonable sum for such a building. The point that the Deputy raised about not publishing the Estimates for works of that kind may be a perfectly sound one, but if the Dáil wants us to withhold information that is a matter for the Dáil. We will be, not too ready, but ready to follow the wishes of the Dáil in that matter, if they think in future that instead of giving these Estimates we should give the lump sums.

Does the Minister suggest an anxiety on the part of the Departments for that?

Oh no, not at all; it would be simply a matter of obedience. I am sure that when the Minister for Industry and Commerce hears of the anxiety of Deputy Connor Hogan regarding the inadvisability of publishing Estimates of this kind— possibly he has the Shannon before his mind at the moment——

Might I make clear what I meant in regard to the schools? I wanted to get information as to whether any fund is available for building and improving schools except a grant from this Vote. I had an idea that some other funds were available.

Public or private.

Local subscriptions are available.

Is it customary to combine local subscriptions with a grant?

Top
Share