Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 8

ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 10—PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £73,600 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íochta an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig na nOibreacha Puiblí. (1 agus 2 Will. 4, c. 33, a. 5 agus 6; 5 agus 6 Vict., c. 89, a. 1 agus 2; 9 agus 10 Vict., c.86, a. 2, 7 agus 9; 10 Vict., c.32. a.3; 33 agus 34 Vict., c.46, a.42; 40 agus 41 Vict., c.27; 44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 31, etc.).

That a sum not exceeding £73,600 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, 1927, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Public Works. (1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 33, ss. 5 and 6; 5 and 6 Vict., c.89, ss. 1 and 2; 9 and 10 Vict., c. 86, ss. 2, 7 and 9; 10 Vict., c.32, s. 3; 33 and 34 Vict., c. 46, s. 42; 40 and 41 Vict., c. 27; 44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 31, etc.).

Mr. DUGGAN

This Estimate shows a net increase of £5,375 over last year. The increase of £11,628 on Sub-head A is made up in this way: There is a sum of £3,059 for the staff of engineers working on the Barrow scheme, which is a new service. There is a sum of £5,640 for 12 senior temporary engineers, and £1,500 for fees to land valuers for arterial drainage work. These are also new items. There is an increase of 6, from 4 to 10, in the staff of temporary architectural assistants, and an increase of three, 9 to 12, in the staff of temporary clerks of works to deal with the large new building works in Dublin and of Gárda Síochána barracks throughout the country. These two increases account for £2,385. There is £600 for an inspector of agricultural buildings taken over from the Department of Agriculture. These items make a total of £13,182, and there are other casual increases and decreases on the sub-head which account for the difference between £13,182 and the net increase of £11,628.

Mr. BAXTER

I desire to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is satisfied with the staff of the Board of Works for the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925. I can see that a question like this from me suggests that there should be an increase of staff, but I want to know what the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary is as to the capacity of the present staff to deal with the work that is before them and will come before them under the 1925 Drainage Act. If the position be, as it is likely to be, that the number of competent engineers in the Department is few and that the work they will have to face in the next few years is greater than any work they had to face in this country in our time, I think the Parliamentary Secretary should take steps to see that the Department is equipped in such a way as to ensure that these drainage works generally will be started and carried on as a whole over the country, and that we will not be in the position we are likely to be in if these arrangements are not made of having one particular district or county catered for to an extent out of all proportion to what the people in another district or county feel they are entitled to.

I hope we will not have the position, say, in a county of having schemes carried through in one part of it while other parts in an equally bad way are left entirely neglected. The Parliamentary Secretary can, I am sure, appreciate the position that will be created if anything such as I have suggested takes place. If there is to be general satisfaction in the manner in which these drainage schemes are carried out, I suggest that the Office of Public Works should be equipped in such a manner as to leave as little ground as possible for complaint. I recognise that even with the best of good will and the best effort possible it will be difficult for the Department, in facing these big problems under the Drainage Acts, to give satisfaction. Undoubtedly if we find that certain parts of a county are getting a preference over other parts in the carrying out of works, then there is going to be general dissatisfaction, and the possibilities are that in order to compensate people for the disappointments they will experience if such a thing happens, there will be demands on the finances of the State I urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that that is an aspect of the problem that deserves his very special consideration, because undoubtedly the administrative work as regards the carrying out of schemes under this Act is going to be a very big problem indeed.

Mr. C. HOGAN

I desire to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question with reference to the provision in the Estimates for two Commissioners. I want to know when we had two Commissioners, or whether it is or is not a fact that the office of one Commissioner has been vacant for quite a considerable time past. I want to know whether it is the intention of the Government to fill this office. If it is not the intention of the Government to do so, I suggest that the provision of £1.200 in the Estimate for the office inflates the Vote, and I contend that should not be. There is a further point I want to make with reference to the previous Vote. I do not know whether it is worth while renewing it or not.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Surely no point can be renewed.

Mr. C. HOGAN

This is with reference to the river Fergus. I submit it affects the whole policy of the Board of Works. Were they or were they not aware of the conditions that did exist, and still are alleged to exist, at Ennis?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is out of all reason and without any regard for order, that after the discussion we have had on Vote 11, the Deputy should, on another Vote twenty minutes later calmly say that he is going to renew the matter. It is purely unreasonable to do that.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I submit that the policy of the Department is under discussion on this Vote as well as on the previous one.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I have no doubt in my mind that a question which was adequately discussed on Vote 11 is not going to be discussed on Vote 10. Nothing that the Deputy can submit will alter that.

Mr. DUGGAN

In reply to Deputy Baxter's query with regard to the number of engineers available for work on arterial drainage, it is very difficult to increase a staff of that kind. It is not easy to get men who have the necessary qualifications for doing that class of work. On the other hand, it must not be assumed for a moment that all the drainage in Ireland is going to be done in one year. We are not going to work off the arrears of one hundred years in one year. If we find, in the course of time, that the engineering staff is not able to keep up with the amount of work we think should be done we will consider the matter. There is also this factor: According as we get rid of the old work under the 1924 Act, there will be several engineers and inspectors available for the work under this Act. In that way we may be able to speed up matters. Deputy Connor Hogan raised a question about the number of Commissioners. The Board was created by statute and it was provided that there should be a Chairman and two Commissioners. One of the Commissionerships has been vacant since the year 1923, and is still vacant. If Deputy Connor Hogan feels any grievance about that we can remedy it by appointing a man. I do not know whether he wants that.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

No.

Mr. DUGGAN

Then we will leave it so, and it will be all right.

Vote put and agreed to.