Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 1927

Vol. 20 No. 5

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 11—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

I move:—

Go ndeantar suim ná raghaidh thar £586,041 chun slánuithe na suime is ga chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1928, chun caiteachais i dtaobh Foirgintí Puiblí; chun coinneáil-suas Páirceanna, agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; chun déanamh, agus coinneáil-suas Oibreacha Draeneála; agus chun Ildeontaisí i gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £586,041 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, 1928, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; for execution and maintenance of Drainage Works; and Sundry Grants in Aid.

On two successive occasions there was criticism levelled at this Vote on the grounds of a persistent tendency towards over-estimating on the part of our Department. One Deputy argued against this practice that it resulted in a very heavy loss to the Exchequer. That, of course, is not correct. It is a fallacy. That would be the case if the amount estimated for the spending Department remained at current account to the credit of the spending Department. But that is not the case. It remains to the credit of the Exchequer Account, and it only remains on current account so long as the credit balance is under £100,000. When it exceeds that amount it goes on to deposit. In the case of the Board of Works the demands on the Paymaster-General for issues on Votes administered by the Board are made about every alternative week so that the question of loss of interest scarcely arises. Even if the Votes were overestimated the issues would be restricted to the immediate needs of the Department, and no more would be drawn on the Paymaster-General or returned by him from the Exchequer Account than would be required to meet current commitments. I am not saying that as a plea in favour of the practice of overestimating, but it is just as well that we would have clear ideas on this particular point. It was the policy of the British Government, and I believe it still is, to favour the practice of over-estimating rather than take up parliamentary time with Supplementary Votes. That, of course, was an argument that counted for more in the British House of Commons, where the pressure on time is greater than it is here, than it does with us. It is now the policy of the Minister for Finance to lean against the practice of over-estimating, and an Order has been issued to the various Departments to that effect. So far as we can, we have fallen into line with the view expressed in that Order. I would like to point out in view of possible contingencies in the future that owing to the very nature of the work with which we are dealing in those Estimates it is a very difficult thing to estimate closely.

This Department deals largely with constructive work, and we are often at the mercy of third parties in the shape of contractors who have naturally a certain amount of discretion as to when their contracts will be fulfilled. In work of this character also, contingencies are continually arising which it is impossible to foresee. For instance, in the construction of the Post Office we were held up for a considerable length of time as a result of the coal strike. In the new plans for the Post Office a good deal of the work will entail the erection of steel framework. As a result of the coal strike, steel was held up. The same to a lesser degree is true of the work carried on in the Four Courts. Also in the case of the Post Office, the completion of the work is dependent on the carrying out of work under certain conditions of sub-lessees who had undertaken to construct shops on the Henry Street portion of the site, and it was necessary for those shops to be erected before the superstructure could be erected by the Board of Works.

Again in the case of the Four Courts, there were long discussions between the Board, the Benchers of King's Inns, and the Incorporated Law Society with regard to the accommodation of these bodies, and work was delayed until these matters were finally settled. We also have on hands a very big programme for the reconstruction of Civic Guard and other barracks. Often it is found that barracks which were estimated for become redundant or unnecessary, either because other barracks or alternative accommodation of a more suitable kind could be purchased or rented at a more economic figure than that at which the proposed buildings could be erected. These sort of difficulties continually arise and hamper the work of the Department. For that reason I would expect Deputies to be a little lenient in regard to this practice of over-estimating. We have the same thing in connection with the Arterial Drainage Act. The Department has lost no time in putting that Act into operation. We have made preliminary investigations in a great many cases, but the circumstances of the time are against us. The operation of that particular Act is to a great extent dependent on three factors which are not constant. To begin with, there is the factor of the immediate value of land to the occupier. It is easy to understand that it would be profitable for farmers to drain land which might be let at £10 an acre, but it would be a very uneconomic proposition if it could be let only at five or ten shillings an acre. Another important factor is the cost of drainage work. The cost at present of such work is two-and-a-half times what it was pre-war. A third factor is the high rate of interest. In our Estimates we are allowing £50,000 for this particular work.

If those factors remain constant it is not likely that we would be able to utilise that money in this particular scheme. We cannot be sure that they may alter to our advantage. If that were the case we would probably get ahead very rapidly with the work. These are the sort of difficulties with which we have to contend. I do not intend to delay any longer with this opening statement, but I thought it just as well to deal with this particular point, as it has been raised on two previous occasions.

I want to call attention to a matter which is of general interest, not to any particular area, but to the entire State, namely, the want of adequate school accommodation. I think that the Board of Works, who are responsible for the erection of these buildings, deserve to be criticised for their failure to grapple with this pressing problem, a problem to which their attention has been drawn repeatedly during the last three or four years. The operation of the School Attendance Act during the past year has made the problem more pressing than ever. On page 49 of the Estimates we have the usual sum of £75,000 provided. That, I understand, is the sum that has been granted year after year to provide new schools and to enlarge existing ones.

The Ministry seem to go ahead as if this problem did not exist, or as if their notice was not drawn to it here in the Dáil by people interested in education and in the welfare of children all over the country. The statement is sometimes made that the amount voted is sufficient to meet the demands put forward for the erection of new schools. I believe that the method of administration of these building grants is largely responsible for the lack of demand on the part of localities and managers of schools for the erection of new buildings, because, according to present arrangements, the Board of Works will in ordinary cases only provide two-thirds of the amount required to erect a new school.

I do not know what sanction there is for that arrangement, but I know it is a long standing arrangement. I know that it is a question of departmental policy, but, such as it is, I have no hesitation in saying that that arrangement has completely broken down. Under present conditions it is not possible to have anything like an adequate number of schools erected, because a locality without any machinery is not in a position to raise six or seven hundred pounds, as the case may be, as one-third of the amount necessary to erect a new school. The managers of schools have, as I say, no machinery. They must raise the money by loan. There is no machinery, however, by which a loan may be raised. It is not fair that the present generation should have to pay down this full capital sum required as one-third of the amount necessary to erect new schools. It should be the policy of the Department to give the whole grant for the erection of such schools. Where the money has to be spent as capital expenditure it should be forthcoming by the State, as it is in a better position to borrow than a locality which has no machinery to do so.

I put it to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that this is a very urgent question. Complaints are continually being made all over the country as to the want of adequate school accommodation, and no effort has been made to deal with the situation. It is not to any great extent a question for the Ministry of Education. Their duty in the matter, I take it, is to point out where the necessity arises for school buildings, but further they have nothing to do; unless the money is provided for them nothing can be done. I do not want to go into this matter at any great length. I just wish to point out that nothing appears to have been done this year any more than in previous years to deal with this urgent problem. I hope we will have a word from the Minister as to the possibility of abandoning this old-time custom of demanding from a locality one-third of the sum required for a new school. I see no reason why that should be done in the case of a school any more than in the case of a police barrack. This is in the nature of capital expenditure, and the State is in a better position to provide that than any other body.

Why did you not tell them that during the elections?

Mr. O'CONNELL

I would have no hesitation in telling that during the elections. I dealt with that point before the elections.

With regard to the question of arterial drainage, I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what stage has been reached in the discussion between the Government of Northern Ireland and his Department, or the Department of Finance, as to the drainage of the River Erne. On this Vote I wish to raise the question generally of the drainage of the River Erne. This may be said to be a question of public policy, because the drainage of the area affected by the Erne includes the greater portion of five counties. Certain action has been taken by citizens of Northern Ireland with regard to the drainage of this river. I have been trying to get information on the matter, and some time ago I was informed in this House that communications have passed between the Government of Northern Ireland and the particular Department here concerned. I do not know, nor can I know, the policy of the Government of Northern Ireland with regard to this drainage work. What takes place between the respective Governments as regards this particular drainage scheme affects drainage in Cavan, Longford, Leitrim, and Tirconaill in the Saorstát, as well as Fermanagh in Northern Ireland, and, in fact, drainage of the greater portion of the four counties I have mentioned hinges on the carrying out of this drainage work, discussions on which are proceeding between the two Governments. It is the duty of our Ministry to hasten these discussions and to have something done as soon as possible. I know the area concerned, and I know that the whole problem of drainage as affecting them cannot be fully or properly considered, nor can any drainage scheme in these areas be properly undertaken, unless this bigger scheme is first started.

I know quite well we will be told that we are going to flood thousands and thousands of acres if the Erne, the main river, and the lakes are not tackled. There is in existence the Lough Erne Drainage Board. This body is composed of ratepayers representative both of Northern Ireland and the Free State. There is danger of a certain policy being pursued with regard to this particular drainage scheme and there is a feeling that some of the people of Northern Ireland are desirous of having set up a kind of Commission to carry out this drainage work and to maintain it after. The feeling of our people is that that will not be satisfactory, and I want to know from the Ministry how far these discussions have proceeded, and along what lines, and has anything definite been decided? I wish also to impress how important it is that the Ministry on behalf of the people concerned in the Free State should do everything possible to get this work started at once, inasmuch as the drainage for the four counties is entirely dependent on what is done under this drainage scheme. We feel we are going to be held up not only in the counties mentioned but in the County Monaghan as well until the main work is undertaken. In saying that, we expect, even though certain interests, as we know, in Northern Ireland have put certain obstruction in the way of those anxious to carry out the scheme, that our people here in defence of our own citizens should press the point as strongly as they can. We recognise that there are difficulties, but if we are going to see anything done as regards drainage in the counties I have mentioned inside the next five or six years, then our Ministry will want to exercise all the pressure possible to get this done. I hope this evening to hear a statement of policy on the matter.

I rise merely to express disagreement with the appeal made by the Parliamentary Secretary as regards showing leniency to over-estimating by his Department, or departments in general. There is nothing more fatal in administration in this or any other country than to admit the doctrine of loose estimating by departments. It has been stated, and perhaps with a good deal of truth, that much of the over-taxation complained of has arisen from the fact that there has been loose estimating on the part of the departments. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that it did not matter whether or not they were over-estimating, because nothing would be issued except what is required. But we all know, and the Department knows, that when it has a balance of a Vote to play with it can afford to be generous in its demands, whereas if there was rigid estimating departments would be careful in their demands.

I notice the sum of £6,000 in connection with the Governor-General's Department; £1,000 for furniture and fittings, and £1,400 for light, water and cleaning. One would suppose that the Governor-General's establishment would be already sufficiently well furnished. We all read that quite recently there was a very large expenditure in providing new lighting. Having regard to the salary paid to the Governor-General, I think it is unfair for the Government to demand additions by way of maintenance and supplies. Everybody knows that the whole country is crying out against the expenditure of £27,000 in connection with the Governor-General.

I was much struck, and rather amused in reading the election speech of one of the Ministers—I think it was the Minister for Finance—who got heckled a little about this expenditure, and his defence was: "Oh, that salary is what they pay in Australia." That makes my case. To compare the Free State with Australia is to compare a fly with an elephant.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Deputy now addressing his remarks to the Vote for the Board of Works?

Yes, I am speaking with regard to this expenditure of £6,000 on the Governor-General's establishment, and I suggest that there is no necessity whatever for such expenditure. I say that the salary of the Governor-General should place him in a position to carry out any necessary maintenance, and I repeat that it is unfair to the country to try and supplement that salary by this allowance. The country at large is crying out for a reduction of this Estimate. I am pointing out that a great many references were made on the Government side to election promises. I now ask them what about their promises of economy? In this matter they may rest assured that I represent the feelings of the country, and if comparisons are to be made as to what would be proper expenditure on such a position, I would refer the Government Party to the expenditure in such a country as Switzerland, and not to Australia. I will not, on this occasion, move for a reduction in the Vote, but I certainly will hold, and the people of the country will hold, that the expenditure is unjustifiable.

With regard to the question raised by Deputy O'Connell and also by Deputy O'Gorman, both Deputies agree in this respect that it is scarcely a question for me to answer. It is a question of Government policy as to how much should be expended on national schools, and as to how much is to be expended in keeping up the Governor-General's establishment. I was rather surprised to hear Deputy O'Gorman coming out in this fashion. It is, perhaps, the first time in my experience that I have heard one gentleman hailing from the County Cork speaking so bitterly against another. As I have stated, the expenditure on the Governor-General's establishment is quite normal. At the time when the Lord Lieutenant was here it was very much higher. There are valuable buildings there to be preserved, and we cannot allow them to go into disrepair. With regard to the question of national schools, we have an estimate here for £75,000. As the Deputy has informed the House, we are prepared to contribute at the rate of two-thirds to the expense of erecting these schools, and one-third has to be found locally. The Deputy objects to this policy, and says it is very difficult to find money locally. I think the Deputy should regard that as an indication of how much can be expended by the National Exchequer. We are all part of the same financial unit, and this idea that when the country locally cannot afford to expend large sums of money the Central Government is in a position to do so, is entirely fallacious. I think if the Deputy looks at the amount in the Estimates for education he should be quite satisfied. It amounts to almost a quarter of a million pounds. Rome was not built in a day, and we cannot expect to deal with all the problems arising in connection with education and other matters in a minute.

Deputy Baxter raised the question of the Erne. I am glad to be able to inform him that we already have had conversations with representatives of the Northern Works Department. We have arranged that a scheme should be prepared by the engineers of the Northern Government and examined by our engineers, so that both Governments may be satisfied as to its feasibility. At this moment surveys are being carried out by the engineers of the Northern Government. It will, of course, require legislation by both Governments to put any scheme decided on into operation, but the Deputy may rest assured that we are not allowing any grass to grow under our feet in dealing with this important matter.

As regards the question of drainage generally, as the Deputy is aware, there are two Acts in operation at the present time, as well as some of the older Acts—the Drainage Maintenance Act of 1924, and the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925. Most of the work under the Arterial Drainage Act is already well under way. In fact, the greater part of it has been carried out. The expenditure under the Act at the 31st March, 1927, was, approximately, £120,000. In forty-nine districts work was started, and in forty-two of these work had been completed at the close of the financial year 1926-27. Of the 178 existing drainage districts 128 have now been inspected, and it would appear that the majority of these requiring restoration have already been dealt with. Consequently, in the present year it is expected that there will be a considerable falling off in the number to be dealt with, and that a sum of £30,000 should cover the expenditure on restoration work for that period. With regard to the Arterial Drainage Act, for the reasons that I have already stated, the prospects are not quite so rosy. Up to the present 448 petitions have been sent on by the county councils to the Commissioners of Public Works. Preliminary inspections by engineers have been made in 162 cases. Schemes hitherto examined have been disappointing in the financial sense. Not one has been found which appears likely to pay expenses in the sense that the money value benefit derived by the lands will be sufficient to pay the expenses of the scheme, and to pay for the necessary works of maintenance. That is due, of course, to the great cost of engineering works, and to the depression in agriculture, which makes it less profitable to expend money on the improvement of land. Any works that will be carried out in connection with this Act will probably require pretty substantial grants from the Exchequer. Under the Act, it is the policy to make a grant of one-third of the cost, and if the local people are satisfied, and the county council in the particular area is also satisfied that the work should go ahead, and are prepared to back up their opinion by making grants, we are also prepared to make additional grants to the same amount, provided that that additional grant does not amount to more than one half of the total cost. At the present time, our engineers are busily engaged in surveying these various drainage areas. At the moment we cannot say definitely that the prospects are rosy, but as we advance we may possibly be able to see a brighter future for this particular Act.

As Deputies are aware, a great deal of work has been carried out in connection with the Barrow drainage. The draft scheme has not yet come into operation, and until it does we have no compulsory powers for the acquisition of land and other rights in connection with that river, but although not having that power we have been able to get under way, and are doing some very important work along the river. The most important work, at the present time, is above and below the town of Athy, where there is some very heavy work being carried out in connection with the removal of sand reefs and rock reefs. It is expected that within the next few months we will have adequate power to carry out the more important work along this particular district.

I am entirely dissatisfied with the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary on the question of school buildings. I am quite prepared to make allowance for the fact that he has only been in his new post for a week or two, and that, probably, he is not acquainted with the subject very well. I would like, however, to ask the Minister for Finance whether the Government has any proposals to make to deal with this question in a big way. He must know that this question of school accommodation is a matter of very great urgency throughout the country. He surely must have had complaints and the matter must be brought to his knowledge by the Minister for Education. There is great complaint as to the inadequacy of school accommodation in the country. As to local expenditure, the point I make is this: there is no machinery at present available to the managers of schools whereby the amount to be raised can in fact be raised. There is no machinery; it is all a voluntary matter. According to the managers themselves that system has practically broken down. At a meeting called on the 15th February to deal with this matter they passed a resolution stating that they were of opinion that the funds necessary for the building and enlarging of schools should be supplied from Government sources.

This is a matter that the Government cannot afford to let drift in the manner in which it has been drifting for the past three years, especially owing to the operations of the School Attendance Act. Many of the schools are overcrowded. If schools were built where they should be built according to the modern ideas of education, it would be a very big programme. I am only urging that in cases where there is no accommodation for pupils at the present time something should be done.

I may say, in reply to the Deputy, that this matter has been the subject of conversations and conferences between myself and the Minister for Education. Perhaps if we had not the distraction of an election we might have got further with it, but the whole matter of schools, both the provision and maintenance of school buildings, is under consideration. I would just say this: I do not think it is a fair comparison that the Deputy makes when he says there is no more reason why the State should require local contributions for the erection of a school than for a police barrack. A police barrack is a Government building, housing actual Government servants. That is not the position in any primary school except the model school in this country. I would not like to indicate that we would adopt any plan that would mean the whole cost being defrayed by the State. As a matter of fact, it is not easy to get a satisfactory solution either in regard to the building cost or to maintenance. If the charges for meeting all school maintenance were made upon the Central Fund the Deputy would see it would be a very expensive matter.

I am not asking or urging that the maintenance charge should be made upon the Central Fund. It is purely the capital expenditure on building that I am urging should be made from the Central Fund.

With regard to the proposed expenditure of £2,000 on the maintenance of ancient monuments, I heartily approve of that expenditure. I want to call the attention of the Minister to Bridgetown Abbey, one of the most beautiful and interesting ruins in Ireland. It suffered cruelly last winter, and I am informed by persons who have visited it recently that unless some steps are taken at once it will suffer more. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that he will see that these ruins are visited and a report made that any necessary repairs to keep them from falling asunder will be made. It is the most beautiful thing in Ireland.

I am not aware of the particular ancient monument in which the Deputy is interested, but I know that the Department of Works takes a very great interest in the preservation of those monuments, and that there is no monument of first-class interest in the country at the present time that is not under the care of the Department. I believe there are over 200 of those monuments in charge at present. We realise that our powers are not altogether adequate for dealing with this situation. As a result of that there is a Bill on the tapis in reference to the subject, but I cannot deal with that on the Estimates.

With reference to what the Minister has said with regard to ancient monuments and the care bestowed on them by the Board of Works, is he aware that that office only deals with the scheduled monuments and that less than 20 per cent. of the ancient monuments in the country are scheduled?

Only the most important works are in our care, but our architects, as a kind of side line, are supposed to report on all monuments.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I am afraid it is only as a side line.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share