IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 10—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS. – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Wednesday, 31 Oct 1928

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 10—OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I beg to move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £39,944 chun slámuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, 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 £39,944 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, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works. (1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 33, s.s. 5 and 6; 5 and 6 Vict., c. 89, s.s. 1 and 2; 9 and 10 Vict., c. 86, s.s. 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.).

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Bourke)

To some extent the matter dealt with in this Vote overlaps the matter dealt with in Vote 11—Public Works and Buildings. I expect that any discussions that are likely to take place will take place upon the latter Vote. The only matter that I intend to refer to here is the fact that there is a reduction in this Vote. The net total shows a decrease of £5,521 on last year. The total decrease, omitting Appropriations-in-Aid, is £6,021. The greater part of the decrease is in respect of Sub-heads A and E (1), which is less by £4,200 and £771 respectively. This decrease is largely accounted for, first of all, by the engineering branch. There has been a considerable reduction in the number of temporary engineers required in connection with the Barrow drainage. The preliminary work for the Barrow required a greater number of engineers than is now required for the work we are doing there. The next reduction is in connection with the architectural branch. There is a reduction in staff of one quantity surveyor and one temporary assistant to the furniture clerk. As a matter of fact, there are four reductions of temporary assistants to the furniture clerk at the present time, but we expect to fill two of the vacancies shortly. There is also a reduction in the staff of temporary inspectors in connection with land improvement, and the automatic decrease in bonus accounts for approximately £2,500 of a decrease. The difference between the other casual increases or decreases goes to make up the balance of the total decrease on last year's Vote.

Mr. MacENTEE

It seems to me that it is impossible to criticise this Vote without considering at the same time the services rendered in respect of the salaries and wages paid in the Office of Public Works. That is to say, we cannot dissociate the discussion on Vote No. 10 from a discussion on Vote No. 11. In that connection I think that in order adequately to discuss No. 10 we should compare it with the Votes in the preceding years, and particularly with the actual expenditure upon works for which the services of the engineering and architectural staffs in the Office of Public Works were retained. The last year for which I have been able to secure complete returns for the works done was the year 1926-27.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Might I suggest that as Vote 10 and Vote 11 are so closely related, it might be well to have them discussed together, if Deputies so desire?

Mr. DAVIN

On that point, is it not the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary, in a case of that kind, to make a statement on the other Vote? Would it not be well that he should make a statement on Vote No. 11 now if we are to discuss the two Votes together?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputies may find it difficult to discuss Vote 10 without making some references to the subject-matter of Vote 11. Perhaps it would suit the House better if the two Votes were taken together.

Mr. DAVIN

Are we to understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to make a statement regarding the operations of the Public Works Department on the question of arterial drainage and so on?

Mr. BOURKE

I prefer to wind up with a statement of that kind. I do not know what points are likely to arise. It is a very detailed Estimate. If I covered every point it might take two or three hours.

Mr. MacENTEE

I am perfectly prepared to give way to the Parliamentary Secretary. It would be to the advantage of the House if he made a statement on Vote 11 now and it would enable the discussion to proceed in a regular way.

Mr. BOURKE

I am quite prepared to take the two Votes together and let the discussion proceed on both of them. Afterwards, I can deal with whatever arguments are brought forward in the course of the debate.

Mr. DAVIN

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to make a statement in connection with the operations of his Department on the work of arterial drainage. He could tell us the number of schemes that have been carried out, the number in abeyance, the reasons they are held in abeyance, the amount of work provided, and how many more schemes they hope to be able to carry out under the Act now in existence. I expect the Parliamentary Secretary could make a statement on those matters.

Mr. BOURKE

Arterial drainage is only one of very many subjects that may arise. If the Deputy desires, I will make a statement on the subject of arterial drainage now, but there are many other points that will arise.

Mr. MacENTEE

We would like the Parliamentary Secretary to make a statement on that matter.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Then I may take it that it is agreed that Votes 10 and 11 should be discussed together.

Vote 11—Public Works and Buildings—moved accordingly:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £262,150 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun caiteachais i dtaobh Foirgintí Puiblí; chun coinneáil-suas Páirceanna agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; chun déanamh agus coinneáil-suas Oibreacha Dréineála; agus chun Ildeontaisí i gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £262,150 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, 1929, 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.— (The President.)

Mr. BOURKE

It seems to me that the principal item in this Vote that attention is being concentrated on is J2—Arterial Drainage. In order to enable Deputies to discuss the matter I will make a statement on the work of the Arterial Drainage Act to date. There has been a certain amount of criticism about the delay in putting this Act into operation. In that connection I would like to point out that this is not by any means the first attempt by Government to deal with the drainage of this country. We have had various legislative measures to deal with that matter beginning with the year 1840. We had active drainage operations carried out for a period over something like eighty-five years, so it is only reasonable to suppose that during that period most of the important schemes were dealt with, and any measure brought in by this Government or any succeeding Government may be looked upon largely as a gleaning measure. We are dealing with schemes that, in one way or another, happened to be overlooked, or schemes that happened to be uneconomic in former years, but owing to a new development in machinery and better methods of carrying out those operations they happen to be economic now.

The present Arterial Drainage Act depends for its success or failure, in the ultimate, upon the people who have land to be drained, the Government helping in the matter, and under the Act it is intended that county councils should help. In some cases the county councils have been very helpful, and in others they have not; but even where the county councils have been willing to give one hundred per cent. help we often find that the people whose land it is intended to benefit by drainage operations are not in favour of the schemes and accordingly we are powerless to put the Act into operation. One of the things that militates against putting this Act into force throughout the country is the fact that labour has increased very much in cost. The work carried out by manual labour costs very much more now than in former years. Most of the drainage operations were carried out in the period between 1840 and 1880. In the period between 1840 and 1860 it is estimated that the work carried out by manual labour was approximately one-fifth the cost that the same work could be carried out at to-day, and in the period between 1860 and 1880 it could be carried out at one-third the cost at which it can be carried out at the present time. That is an important factor. Another important point is that money could be borrowed at a much cheaper rate for those early schemes than now. The money was borrowed under a previous Act at 3½ per cent. We are paying 5½ per cent. under the present Act.

Notwithstanding those difficulties considerable progress has been made with the 1925 Act. A great many preliminary operations have to be carried out before the schemes can become effective. We have to ascertain when the proposal is made to see what works are required, what they will cost, what benefit to the land these works will produce, how that benefit and the proportionate payment will be divided among the farmers concerned, whether the Government or the county council are ready to pay part of the cost if it appears to be greater than the benefit to the farmers and, finally, whether the farmers concerned understand what they are prepared to do, what the scheme is expected to cost, and whether the majority of them are in favour of going on and are willing to bear their share of the charge. Naturally all these inquiries, calculations and plannings take a considerable time. After that, we have to deal with the owners of eel weirs and people with other interests, and this naturally delays operations still further.

At this date the position with regard to this Act is that we have received 576 petitions. That is up to the 30th of last month. Of these 49 were not recommended by the county councils, thus leaving only 527 for our examination. The stream of petitions has been slackening for some time past, and very likely the total may in the end not much exceed 600. Of the 527 petitions sent us for examination, 385, or 73 per cent., have formed the subject of preliminary inspection by our engineers. This is the first step in the examination. The 385 petitions were amalgamated on examination into 313 schemes. Of these 313 schemes, 111, or over one-third, are reported by the engineers as probably not exceeding £1,000 apiece in costs. They will, therefore, presumably drop out of the ken of this Act and be dealt with, if at all, under the Arterial Drainage (Minor Schemes) Act. Out of the 313 schemes 52 schemes, or one-sixth, have been rejected by us as uneconomic or for other reasons. That works out, we may take it, at 313 schemes (less 111, plus 52) equal to 163. Taking that 163 from 313 leaves 150. These 150 schemes represent the outcome from 385 petitions examined by the engineers, and are presumably to be brought before the Department of Finance if found suitable. Of these 150 schemes 70 have, so far, been submitted, either to the Department of Finance or the county councils, and 80 have not yet been submitted. The reasons why one scheme gets ahead of another are many, but one of them is a deliberate selection on our part of the more promising and the largest schemes to put forward. I should think it probable then that the 70 schemes which had been submitted to the Department of Finance or the county councils represent more than one half of the total number—that is, more than half of 150 which will be so submitted. But if we put it at one half it will be within the mark to say that of the mass of the 527 petitions sent us to examine between the passing of the Act and the 30th of September last, we have taken up the examination of practically three-fourths, and that of the schemes examined and not rejected we have brought one-half to the point where an estimate of the cost and value can be presented to the Department of Finance or to the county councils.

When we consider the amount of work that has to be done in every place between the presentation of petitions, which is a mere indication that works are desired, and the submission of a worked-out scheme and estimate, I think this is a record of achievement on which we may congratulate ourselves, and for which much credit is due to our staff of engineers responsible. Especially when we remember that while these engineers were doing their part of this work they were also carrying out restoration works in 61 drainage districts under the Act of 1924. I think we may consider the initial stage in the administration of the Act as completed. It is still necessary, of course, to carry on the examination of petitions and the preparation of preliminary estimates of cost and value, so as to submit new schemes to the Department of Finance. But that will, I think, be henceforth the less important part of our work. The more important for some time to come will be getting estimates before the occupiers of land and the actual execution of work in these schemes to which they assent. Up to the 30th of last month 20 schemes have been put before the occupiers of land. The works had actually begun in four cases. There were ten other cases in which the occupiers had assented, five cases in which they had refused assent, and one case in which the result had not then been known. If, accordingly, we look at the works before us and divide it into sections according to the several stages which the schemes have reached, we find them as follows:—There are four cases in which work had begun. These are Akeragh Lough, Co. Kerry; Awbeg, Co. Cork; Carrowreagh, Co. Roscommon, and Clonlish, Co. Offaly. There are ten cases in which the occupiers have assented, but we have to examine the objections and revise the schemes and submit them for confirmation to the Ministry of Finance, if suitable, before works can begin. These are Ballivor, Co. Meath; Bawn, Co. Monaghan; Cush, Cos. Laoghis and Offaly; Greese, Co. Kildare; Hurley River, Co. Meath; Lough Gill, Co. Kerry; Newmarket, Co. Clare; Rampart River, Co. Louth; Teermaclane, Co. Clare, and Tully, Co. Monaghan.

It is to be expected that several of these will be confirmed and ready for beginning work next spring. There is also the case in which the result of the voting is not known—Banna, Co. Kerry. Then there are four schemes needing a grant not exceeding one-third costs which have been approved by the Minister for Finance but not yet submitted to the occupiers. These are Ballymore, Co. Westmeath; Riverstown, Co. Westmeath; Rochford Bridge, Co. Westmeath, and Blackwater, Co. Louth. There are ten schemes for which the county councils have offered the necessary free grants, but which have not yet been brought before the occupiers of land. These are Lonnogs and Donnbane. Co. Cavan; Doonbeg, Co. Clare; River Graney (Scariff), Co. Clare; Sixmilebridge, Co. Clare; River Robe, Co. Mayo (not fully petitioned for yet); Derrycreevy, Co. Monaghan; Seloo, Co. Monaghan; Tyholland, Co. Monaghan; Blackwater, Co. Monaghan; Castlebernard, Co. Offaly.

In these 14 cases the preparation of schemes to bring before the occupiers of land is proceeding, or will proceed as staff is available. There are 80 cases in which schemes have not yet been submitted to the Department of Finance or the county councils. These have to be examined, and those which prove suitable submitted. There are 142 petitions for schemes which the engineers have not yet inspected. There is an unknown, but probably not a large, number of further petitions to come in.

That is the position under the Act to-day. It is only natural that the preliminary work should take a very considerable time. There is no doubt but that from this forward schemes will be brought to a point at which they can be voted upon at a much more rapid pace than in the first year or two years during which the Act was in operation.

Mr. MacENTEE

In opening the discussion on Votes No. 10 and 11 it would, I think, be well to remind the House of the amount involved in each case. The amount under Vote No. 10 is £117,944, and under Vote No. 11, £813,150, making together £931,094. I think, in the circumstances in which the Exchequer finds itself at the present moment, this House would be entitled seriously to consider whether it is getting value for the money which it is now proposed to expend. The cost of the Office of Public Works, which comes under Vote No. 10, is, as I have already said, estimated next year to be £117,944. We can only satisfy ourselves as to whether we are justified in expending that money by examining the record of that office in its relation to works carried through and completed in previous years. We cannot consider Vote No. 10 in its immediate relation to Vote No. 11 for the year 1928-29, because Vote No. 11 deals only with the estimated cost of certain projected undertakings which may not reach that figure, but which may, on the other hand, possibly exceed it. But we are entitled to go back to the latest returns submitted to this House in regard to the actual cost of works carried out in connection with the Votes for the previous years. If we do, and if we examine the cost of the Office of Public Works in relation to the cost of undertakings projected and carried out by them, we will reach, and are bound to reach, the conclusion that the Office is much too costly for the work that it undertakes and completes.

The work of the office may be divided into three divisions: architectural, maintenance and engineering. I have considered the salaries and the expenses of the architectural branch in detail, and I find that the total cost of the architectural work carried out by the Office of Public Works in the year 1926-27 amounted to something like £68,272. Of course, that is not apparent from a first reading of the Estimates, because we find that under sub-head A—Salaries and Wages—the total cost of the architectural salaries, as distinct from the cost of running the architectural office, is £20,870. It would be a mistake, therefore, to suppose that that is the actual net cost to the State of the architectural services rendered to it by the Office of Public Works. First of all, we have to add to that figure the bonus. Taking it at 30 per cent. of the total bonus figure of £25,291, it amounts to £6,245, so that the total for professional salaries alone works out at something like £27,061. As well as that, there is the expenditure under other sub-heads properly chargeable against the architectural branch. We have portion of the cost of the secretary's branch, and we have portion of the cost of the accountant's branch and other incidental expenses, as well as the cost of telegrams and telephones. The total cost of all these services is something like £65,462. It is true that that expenditure has to be divided over the three principal divisions of the office. Some portion of it has to be allocated to the cost of the architectural branch, some to the maintenance branch, and some portion of the cost to the engineering branch. But considering it in relation to the value of the works undertaken by each of those branches, we may say that, properly speaking, something like 60 per cent. of the total amount should be allocated to the architectural branch. And, proceeding upon that basis, we find that we have to add to the £27,000 odd for architectural salaries, expenditure under other sub-heads amounting to £41,211, making the total cost of the services rendered by the architectural branch of the Office of Public Works to the State something like £68,272.

We have to compare that with the total cost of the work carried out by the Office of Public Works and the work carried out under the supervision of the Office of Public Works. When we do that we find that the total amount expended on new works, alterations and additions, according to the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1926-27, was £494,613. Upon that you had to pay architectural costs amounting to £68,272. Every person knows that if you go to any architect's office in town that he will be quite content, and very well pleased indeed, to give you the very best of his service for something like 5 per cent. upon the completed cost of the works. For that 5 per cent. he has to carry on his office, he has to look after the accounts, he has to provide a drawing office staff, and has to pay for fuel, light, rent, rates and taxes, as well as all the other incidental expenses which are borne by the Office of Public Works. He does that, remember, for 5 per cent. upon the value of the completed works. The figures which I have just quoted in regard to the Office of Public Works show that it costs the State something like 13.8 per cent. upon the value of the completed works in order to secure those architectural services which a private citizen, fully qualified in this State, would be very glad indeed to give for a fee of 5 per cent. upon the value of the completed works.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. MacENTEE

I suggest that, considering all the circumstances, there is no reason whatsoever why the architectural services in the Office of Public Works should cost almost three times what it would cost if a private individual were carrying out that work for another private individual in the State. First of all, there is a good deal less time lost in discussions and negotiations in regard to details. Everything is there and is at hand. In most cases, when projects are decided upon there is very little difficulty about securing sites. In many cases the sites, owing to events of recent history, have been already provided. There is also very little trouble or difficulty in negotiating with local authorities. The whole staff, or at least practically all the architectural staff, is centralised here in Dublin, and discussions about points of detail can be carried through without any loss of time. That is not so in the case of any architect in private practice. The greater part of his time is devoted to interviews with his clients, discussing with them points of taste and of style with which, in a considerable number of cases, they are unfamiliar and about which they require often a great deal of persuasion.

Matters like that do not arise in the Office of Public Works, and, therefore, because there is not that loss of time which is incidental to carrying on a private practice, I suggest that, so far from costing more than this work would do if carried out by a private individual, architectural services given by the Office of Public Works should cost the State something less, but, as I have endeavoured to show, the actual total cost of the architectural branch of the Office of Public Works so far from being rather less than would be the case if a private individual were doing the work is almost three times as much. You have on the one hand five per cent. on the total value of the contract if carried out by an architect in private practice, and 13.8 per cent. on the completed value of works when carried out by the Office of Public Works. What is the explanation of that? There must be some explanation for it. We are told often by members of the Government that the public services are in many cases under-staffed and over-worked. We have heard pathetic stories about that, and I do not want to be cynical in the matter, but when one has the figures in these Estimates before him if he is not a cynic in regard to the stories he must be something of a fool. If he does not disbelieve them, then I am afraid that he is altogether too simple for this cruel and wicked world. But when we hear about officers in the public service being over-worked, and when we come in contact, as I have come in contact recently, with cases such as I am now about to refer to, then we must say that the political heads of the Departments who come here to this House and tell us that their permanent officials are over-worked must have forgotten the way to their offices. Otherwise I feel that they would not come into this Dáil and make a statement of that sort. The figures which I have given want a good deal of explanation, and I think we are entitled to have that. Would the Parliamentary Secretary like to have my explanation of these figures?

Mr. BURKE

Certainly.

Mr. MacENTEE

I have here in my hand a list of architectural commissions undertaken by architects employed at the Office of Public Works for private individuals. I am not going to read the names of the officers or of the individuals concerned, but if the Parliamentary Secretary would care to have particulars of the abuses that I am going to relate I am perfectly prepared to give them. I have here in this list the name of one architect and the names of six clients for whom he undertook eight or nine architectural commissions in one year. The total value of these architectural commissions was £29,900. The fees which he would have derived from these commissions, if he had carried them out in accordance with the usual professional scale, would have amounted to £1,495. That particular individual in one year carried out contracts amounting to £29,900 for one individual. If he charged for them, and I do not know whether he did or not, at the usual professional scale, he would have drawn in fees something amounting to almost £1,500. Many an architect in the City of Dublin would be very happy to maintain a staff and to devote the whole of his time to earning £1,500. The problem I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to solve is this: how did that gentleman earn £1,500 from private individuals and earn his salary from the State at the same time? That is enough of work for one man for one year, and if that individual rendered that service honestly to the clients from whom he took those fees, how was he in the position to give service to the State which, as a permanent whole-time official, he was bound by his contract of service to give?

That case is the most glaring of those which I have in the list, but there are others. There is another case of an architect who did work for a client, who built something like nineteen houses, at a cost of almost £10,000. There is another case of an architect in this Department who rendered architectural services to another person, and there is a fourth architect who has been doing the same sort of thing. Admittedly these things happened in 1926, but I know the practice has not ceased, although I believe representations were made by the professional Association here in Dublin to the head of the Department on the matter. Furthermore, it was quite patent to any person who knew the circumstances and who saw in the papers some little while ago a photograph of an official of the Board of Works standing side by side with the Minister for Local Government. That official of the Board of Works was photographed beside the Minister for Local Government in his capacity as an architect for a housing scheme that was being carried out somewhere in Drumcondra. I am not sure whether he presented the Minister with a silver trowel or not, but apparently the State has presented that particular gentleman with a good many silver pieces for services he is not rendering to the State.

I would suggest that the explanation of the fact that the architectural services under the Office of Public Works cost the State 13.8 per cent., as compared with 5 per cent. for which the private individual would be glad to do the work, will be found in the facts as I have recited them from this schedule.

I wonder if the practice that I know is common in the Office of Public Works of public officials doing work for private individuals, extends to the other departments of this Office. There is just the possibility that it does. I am not in this case able to furnish definite proof that it does, but the figures which I have extracted from the Estimates would seem to indicate that it does. The total amount expended on engineering works under Vote 11 in the year 1926-7 was £164,310. Of that, £120,000 was represented by work carried out under the Drainage Act of 1924; £17,000 by work carried out under the Barrow Drainage, and £26,000 by work carried out on the Owenmore Drainage. The total cost of the engineering services in the Office of Public Works for that particular year was something like £37,307. The services carried out by that engineering branch included not only the drainage works which I have recited but also the preliminary examination and the preparation of the preliminary report in the case of 116 applications under the Drainage Act of 1925. I do not know how detailed the reports made under that Act are, but from my own personal knowledge I should say that most engineers would make a very satisfactory report upon a proposal of that kind for a fee of about £50. If we take those 116 cases in which engineering reports have been made, and charge them at £50 per report, we have a sum of £5,800 to be deducted from the total cost of the engineering services in respect to these particular reports and services. That will leave the total cost of the engineering services at £31,507 upon works which, to carry out, cost £164,310. That is something like 19 per cent. on the value of the works.

The same criticism applies to this branch of the office as applies to the architectural branch, that any engineer in practice would render the services that this branch renders in respect of these public works for a fee of 5 per cent. on the total value of the completed work. You have that figure of 5 per cent. in this case to compare with the figure of 19 per cent., which is the actual cost of these engineering services to the State. As I said, in this particular instance I am not able to adduce any evidence that the abuses that I know to exist in regard to the architectural branch of the office exist in regard to the engineering branch. But the figures, as I have set them before the Dáil would indicate that there is in the case of the engineering branch good grounds for an inquiry into the operations of that branch, and good grounds for an inquiry into the operations of the whole office, because if these things are done in one branch, they are bound to be done in another. As you see, the consequence of them is that in each case the State is paying an altogether exorbitant charge for services rendered to it.

I feel, having set these facts before the Dáil, that the Dáil, which, we must remember, owes a duty to the people from whom this money is collected, that the Dáil, which, as I said on the Army Vote the other day, was asked to refuse even to contemplate providing a sum of £750,000 for pensions for widows and orphans, cannot allow the criticism that I have passed upon the office and cannot allow these instances of professional mal-practice—for that is what they amount to—to go unexamined, and because it cannot permit those things to be done, I submit that it cannot accept the proposal of the Minister for Finance and cannot grant the sums asked for in Votes 10 and 11.

Mr. DAVIN

The Minister for Finance is nominally, at any rate, the head of the Department for which in these two Votes a sum totalling £931,094 is being asked. The point I want to bring to the notice of the Dáil is that we are entitled to an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, if not from the Minister himself, that the amount asked for will, as far as the Department is concerned, be spent within the year for which the money is being asked. The reason I put that point before Deputies is that, looking over the Appropriation Accounts for 1925-6 and 1926-7, you find that there has been very loose estimating on the part of this particular Department. I feel perfectly satisfied from my experience on the Public Accounts Committee that no other Department is given the same latitude in regard to money as the Office of Public Works. In the year 1925-6 the Dáil voted £870,716 for this Department, and in that year a sum of £252,004 17s 9d. was returned to the Exchequer as unexpended. That shows, at any rate, that there was very loose estimating, or, on the other hand, that no real attempt was made to carry out the works for which the money was passed by the Dáil with the very best intentions. When we asked the Minister for Finance a few days ago, to bring in a scheme for the relief of unemployment, he told us that it would mean increased taxation and that he could not dream of doing it.

To come back to that particular Estimate, I must presume, for the sake of argument, that what has happened in the past two years will happen this year unless we get a very definite assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary. A good deal of the money asked for by the Office of Public Works, particularly under Vote 11, is for the erection of buildings, particularly barracks, schools, etc. In 1925-26 the sum of £420,965 was voted under the sub-head for new works, alterations, etc., and only £322,660 11s. 10d. was spent, leaving £98,904 8s. 2d. to be returned to the Exchequer, for items that could have given very valuable and useful employment to people out of work to-day. Coming to the years 1926-27, we find practically the same state of affairs. The sum of £1,013,906 for public works and buildings was voted by this House, and out of that sum the sum of £686,055 0s. 1d. was spent, leaving a total of £327,850 19s. 11d. to be returned to the Exchequer at the end of the financial year. In reality that figure was larger than shown here under the head of sums surrendered at the end of the financial year, and why? Because at the end of the Vote, sub-head M—Appropriations-in-Aid—we had an Estimate for £182,700, whereas the Vote realised £300,276 5s. 9d. Turning back to any other Vote on Account, we cannot see that there is any other Department dealt with in the very lenient way that this Department has been. It has shown bad estimation, to the disadvantage of the taxpayers of this country.

I did not, at the time, contest this Vote, believing when I voted for the amount that a genuine attempt was going to be made to spend the money for which the House was asked. Are we to have the same state of affairs in the present financial year? I ask the Minister to answer that question definitely and clearly, and if he does not do so I am not prepared to vote for loose estimating, as on a previous occasion.

In 1926-27, under sub-head B—New Works, Alterations and Additions— the sum of £673,790 was voted, and out of that the sum of £494,613 16s. 7d. was spent, leaving under this particular sub-head a sum of £179,176 3s. 5d. unexpended at the end of the financial year. We sometimes talk in millions, but this is a case of hundreds of thousands. Deputy M.J. Jordan is looking curiously at me, but I am sure the poor farmers of Wexford would feel annoyed if they knew that Deputy Jordan and others were prepared to pass amounts, for instance, for which there was no work to be done, or if the work was available that it was not to be done by the end of the financial year. I certainly protest against this loose estimating, and I am not prepared, without further explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, to allow the sum of £931,094 to be voted in the present financial year. I want to know definitely from the Parliamentary Secretary whether on item B—New Works, Alterations and Buildings—it is intended to carry out the work or to start the work for which this £561,500 is now asked. I think that is a fair and straightforward question, and if the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to give an assurance on that point, I do not think the House should agree to give him the sum of money he asks for. I have harped on sub-head B in the Estimate for the past three years, because I realise if the money were spent it would have been expended on the erection of barracks, Four Courts, schools, houses, and so on, and by being spent in that way would give very valuable and useful employment to skilled and unskilled workmen.

Coming to the question of the Arterial Drainage schemes and the work carried out so far under the 1925 Act, I candidly confess the figures that the Parliamentary Secretary read out to the House forced one to the conclusion that so far as the figures were concerned there was no answer, and that he does not deserve, from the point of view of the figures at any rate, to be criticised so far as the administration of the Act is concerned. Speaking of this Estimate and on the work of the Board of Works in general, I realise the present Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for what happened in 1925-26 and in 1926-27, and his responsibility only starts from a recent date. But I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will, at any rate, shake up the people at the Board of Works responsible for not having spent the money voted to them in the previous financial years. When I talk of the failure or the so-called failure of Arterial Drainage, I do so with knowledge at my disposal so far as the administration of that Act is concerned in my own constituency. The constituency of Leix and Offaly consists of two counties. Up to recently a Commissioner administered the affairs of Offaly county, whereas the affairs of Leix were administered by the elected body. The Parliamentary Secretary read out figures showing that one scheme has been carried out in Offaly and two others are on the way to be carried out.

The point I want to make is that while the Commissioner was administering the affairs of the Offaly County Council he was encouraged by every means—and he deserves credit so far as he is concerned—to devote the money of the County Council, in other words, the ratepayers' money, towards getting on with the work. One scheme has been carried out, and another, which partly affects both Leix and Offaly, is about to be started unless some slight objections which were lodged at a recent inquiry are going to hold it up. In Leix, nine schemes were submitted by the County Council to the Board of Works, but in none of these has an attempt been made to start the work. There is one case which I brought under the notice of the House several time, and I think Deputy Gorry mentioned it also, namely, the case of Erkina, in which a scheme was submitted by the County Council shortly after the passing of the Act in 1925, but up to the present I have been unable to get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the work will be started. It is one of the biggest schemes submitted by the County Council. As I say, not one of the schemes submitted from areas in which elected bodies are operating has been carried out, but where the Commissioner operated, the ratepayers' money, and rightly so, was devoted to carrying out the schemes.

The Parliamentary Secretary will, perhaps, deny that encouragement was given to the Commissioner to carry out schemes, or may say that the same encouragement was given to the local authorities, but let him give proof of that if he can. The Parliamentary Secretary also referred to the question of whether certain schemes were economical. It is hard for an ordinary layman like myself to understand the departmental meaning of the word "economical" so far as it affects drainage schemes. In my area there has been no case in which a local authority turned down any scheme submitted by the Board of Works. The one carried out in Offaly has been carried out under the direction of the Commissioner while he was operating in that area up to the last county council elections some time about last June. The Parliamentary Secretary also put up the case that the failure to go forward in the way originally intended was due to the fact that they found out that the labour cost was five times more than the cost of schemes in the year 1840. Do not go back to the year 1840 for a good example in such matters.

Mr. BOURKE

That is not our argument. It is the landowners' argument. They have to pay.

Mr. DAVIN

If the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary is wandering in the period of 1840 I am afraid that he will not carry out many drainage schemes. He also talked of a question which affects Deputy Flinn, the question of the interest which capital must get on its money. I suppose that is all right, as if we do not get money we cannot carry on any scheme, but with the help of Deputy Flinn and his democratic outlook I hope that the people who have money to lend will in future be prepared to take 3 instead of 5½ per cent. interest. I would like also to know whether it is intended to follow the procedure adopted during the last two financial years and to go slow in the way of carrying out works for which such large sums have been provided under sub-head (b). Unless the Parliamentary Secretary can give an assurance that there will be some shaking up in the section of the Department which has been responsible for surrendering hundreds of thousands of pounds each year which should have been devoted to drainage I will challenge the Vote and refuse to give him the sum he asks for.

Mr. G. BOLAND

I notice that in the accounts branch there are 67 officials. It strikes me that it is rather a big number for a department of that kind. It would, of course, be all right if all the accounting in the case of new buildings, such as barracks, etc, was done there, but I understand that that is done by the contractors who undertake the work. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will state the reason for having such a large number of officials. I have no idea as to what work is required to be done in the secretarial department, where there are 97 officials. That is also a big number. There is an opinion in our Party, and I think it is shared by members of the Government Party, that the time of the staff is taken up in doing inter-departmental work in regard to accounts. We believe, and it is fairly well known, that a good deal of that is due to having several supply departments in the State. There are three or four different departments which supply various articles for the public service. If, for instance, there is a requisition for certain articles sent to the Board of Works stores, and if every article on that requisition form is stocked in that department it will be all right. If, however, all the articles are not stocked there, there is what is called "extracting" done.

A clerk extracts from the list the various articles which are not stocked by that department, and that is sent on to another department, where it involves the time of more officials. I suggest that many of the staff have to devote their time to that work. I am told that there was an inquiry some time ago as to the advisability of amalgamating the three or four stores departments—the Post Office Stores, the Board of Works, and the Stationery Office, and also, I think, the Local Government Department. I understand it was practically decided to amalgamate them, but that a hitch occurred when it was found that certain indispensable favourites' sons had to be dispensed with. That may not, however, be the case. It seems ridiculous in a small country like this to have clerks going through forms extracting a list of articles not stocked, and having it sent to another department, which, in turn, sends it to some other department. I am not told what occurs when all the articles required have been obtained, whether the process has to be reversed and whether all the articles are sent back through the various departments or whether they are short-circuited and sent back direct. In the British time I know that they used to be sent back to the various departments through the same tortuous channel, but I do not know whether that is the system now, as it is kept a secret. I know that in the British days there was no short circuit back.

Then it will come on later. In connection with these buildings, I would like to know how the Estimate in each case has been arrived at. Is the figure mentioned opposite each Civic Guard building a tentative figure, or is it an indication to the contractor how much he may expect? Is it a guide to him as to the amount that is likely to be given, or is it arrived at as a result of tendering? There is an item here of £1,450 for an ex-R.I.C. barracks. How is that figure arrived at?

We next come to the Governor-General's establishment, and I find that there is an allowance of £1,000 for furniture, fittings and utensils. I would like to know what became of the old ones, or who is the lucky man who gets them. This is a big item for furniture, and should keep the place going for several years. I had not an opportunity of going over the Estimates for other years, but I would like to know whether a sum of £1,000 is necessary for furniture and fittings in a house which was so well fitted up for the ex-Governor-General a few years ago. Surely that amount is not required every year. The Executive Council wants £400 more. I can understand that that we are here now. On page 55 there is a total of £6,999 for coastguard stations. I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us what use the Government is making of coastguard stations, and if they are the property of the Government, to let us know what they are for. I asked a question some time ago about certain emergency holdings which are dealt with by the Board of Works. Of course, I realise that different Departments deal with them, but there was an attempt made to sidetrack this question. I put the question twice, and when I finally got an answer the Minister for Finance came back in half an hour and said that he gave me the wrong answer. These emergency holdings were handed over by the British when they were giving over their possessions in the Free State to the Government. I asked for information with regard to one of them about the 2nd May last. One of these holdings was referred to to-day. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for information with regard to one particular holding which the owner had been letting to the State for £400 a year and the State, in return, was reletting it to him for £100, giving this gentleman £300 a year for nothing. The Minister for Finance said on the 2nd May that the letting was only for one year. I asked the Minister "For one year?" and then he came round again and said he had given me a wrong answer. I expected that. For three years a particular gentleman was paid £400 per annum for his holding and it was re-let to him for £100.

I would like to know is that the position in regard to the aerodrome at Killeagh, Co. Cork. The net annual cost is £877 14s. 8d. It is let for grazing at present. Is it let on the same basis as the holding for which the Government was paying £400 a year? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would let us know how this Killeagh aerodrome which costs according to this Estimate £877 14s. 8d. is let for grazing. I understand that it is not proposed to retain this for military purposes, if I understood the Minister's answer. I would like to know why this sum has been paid out. I expect it has been an annual payment since 1922 or whatever year it was handed over. Is it being paid to the man from whom they got the farm? I do not know myself, but I did know the facts in the other case. It might be due to inertia on the part of the Board of Works that they have not got rid of it for the last three or four years, but surely in view of the demand for economy an item of £877 might well be taken into consideration. They were considering it on the 2nd May, and the costs are running up all the time. I understand that there are several of these holdings, but I only got information about four. I got a verbal promise when I last mentioned the matter. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would give me more information when he is replying. Seeing that the item for Civic Guard Barracks would be more appropriate under the Vote for the Gárda Síochána, I content myself at present with the points I have raised.

Mr. BRADY

When the Parliamentary Secretary is replying, I would be glad if he would inform the House if it is the intention of the Board of Works to do anything by way of the electrification of the pier at Dun Laoghaire. I understand the local council made a representation that it should be lighted, and, in any case, it is a matter that I would like to draw attention to. The council has gone to a great deal of expense in connection with the promenade, but the pier is rather dangerous. It is not lighted, and it has been brought to my notice recently that, at least, three people have fallen from the higher portion of the promenade. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform the House if it is the intention of the Board of Works to deal with the matter.

Dr. TUBRIDY

As under this Vote we are dealing with proposals to expend £20,000 for the purchase of sites and buildings, mostly for the erection of Civic Guard barracks, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would take the precaution of seeing that the buildings acquired are fit buildings, and that he is getting value for the money. In 1926-27, £32,891 was spent on the purchase of sites and buildings, mostly for Civic Guard barracks. In the area that I come from I know that one barrack was bought for £1,050. I heard since that the building is now condemned as unfit and unsuitable for a barracks, that the woodwork and the stonework are crumbling away. A sum of £1,050 should never have been paid for that building. In 1925-26, £28,638 was spent on the acquisition of barracks, and in that year a house in my area was acquired for £650. I know that that house, as well as the land attached to it, was offered for £400 some months before that. The individual who bought the house and land paid probably less than £400, and he has now sold the house for use as a barracks for £650, without the land, for which he probably got a good price also, as I believe he has sold it. A little more care should be taken in the expenditure of money in country districts before purchasing houses for Civic Guard barracks.

Considering that we cannot get money for housing in the Gaeltacht, and for the other pressing problems, I think too much money is spent on buildings to be used as Civic Guard stations. Over £322,000 was spent in 1925-26, and now £561,550 is to be spent. Looking over the Estimate, I find that most of that money is for Civic Guard stations. The time has come when large barracks for Civic Guards in different country districts are totally unnecessary. Complaint is made, when we ask for money for housing in the poorer areas, that no money is available, but I think a lot of these barracks are unnecessary, and I hope that never again will we be asked to spend so much money building barracks, in country districts where there is really no necessity for them. I see in the Estimate a sum of £3,000 for boat houses in connection with Civic Guard barracks. I would like to know for what purpose these boat houses are to be used, and in what areas they are to be built.

There is a large sum in the Vote, £4,250, for the Department of Defence for the provision of a military college. Surely a military college could be set up in any of the barracks that are not being used? It is rather extraordinary that so much money should have to be expended on a military college, considering that the Army policy has now been defined.

Coming to the expenditure on the Governor-General's establishment, I see that there is £8,000 estimated for supplies, and £1,400 for fuel, light, water and cleaning. That appears to be too much. That cannot be defended by anyone, I imagine. For my part, I do not see the necessity for that grant at all. I would like to know, as Deputy Boland has already asked, why it is necessary that £1,000 should be spent on furniture for the Governor-General's establishment every year, or am I to take it that Tim took it?

Mr. M. O'REILLY

I would like to draw attention to the question of preserving ancient monuments, the Estimate here being £2,000 for restoration work and £8 for rent. I presume that I am entitled to discuss the question under the heading of Ancient Monuments. It seems strange that only £2,000 should be devoted to the preservation of monuments of such great value from the educational and historic point of view. I suppose of all the countries in western Europe, we have the most valuable collection of ancient monuments, and for that reason I believe the time has come when we should take definite steps to preserve them, and not only to preserve them, but to look after others which have been left in a derelict condition. For that work, a certain number of experts are required, as otherwise serious injury might be done to the monuments. I understand it is not many months since very serious injury was done to one of these monuments in the South of Ireland, where a marble slab covering an ancient tomb was destroyed. It is not too much to ask that this matter should receive more attention. To-day it is impossible to get any definite information as to what Department is really in charge. If these monuments are left without some form of protection perhaps future generations will blame us. These monuments were preserved largely in the past owing to superstition, and it is not so many years since the Board of Works took whatever little action that has been taken. I take it that the superstition which existed is no longer in existence, and that it is necessary that we should take definite action for the preservation of the monuments. I do not believe £2,000 is sufficient to spend on work of such historic importance and of such great educational value. Something more should be done, and I believe that, at least, we should have legislative proposals for the preservation of these monuments. There does not exist any means by which foreigners could be prevented from removing such monuments from the country. That is a very sad state of affairs, and I hope that some action will be taken to preserve them. I wonder to whom the £8 rent is to be paid. I also wonder what is the arrangement between the Board of Works and the Land Commission in these matters. I know that the Land Commission is in the habit of setting the land surrounding these sites. If the Board of Works are in possession of the site, but not of the land surrounding it, a crux arises, because in the ground surrounding some of the monuments may be found other monuments of great value. I am not quite clear as to what is the position between the Board of Works and the Land Commission.

Mr. DERRIG

I rise to support Deputy Boland's suggestion, that as there is a Committee in existence for examining ways in which economies can be brought about in the public service, some effort should be made to amalgamate the different supply offices in the State. That question was raised here before, and the answers that were given have not shown that it has really been considered as it ought to have been. It has been said here that the economies which have been suggested are, in a great many cases, minor ones, that they only affect small sums of money, but, as Deputy Boland has pointed out, if all the small sums of money involved are put together they come to something big. In the case of the engineers, you have engineers in the Land Commission, you have engineers in the Board of Works, and you have engineers in the Local Government Department. We are told that in such cases these engineers have to concentrate on special work for which they are specially qualified, that, for example, the engineers in the Local Government Department would not be suitable for work under the Public Works Department. I think it is a fact which will not be contradicted that the majority of these engineers are young men out of the universities, and that they are qualified to work in any of these Departments. In any case, even if we assume that engineering work of a different character has to be pursued in each Department, why not bring them all together? Surely there must be a good deal of loss of time where two branches of the Engineering Department are brought into contact.

In the case of the Barrow drainage, for example, there is no proof, from what we have heard of the progress of the work up to the present, that the engineers are so well equipped and so experienced that they have been able to get anything wonderful done. I do not blame the engineers; I know that there are great difficulties in the way, but nevertheless we are inclined to believe that the work in all cases is not of such a highly technical character that an engineer in one Department could not be changed to another Department. Therefore I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that some economies might be brought about if these Departments could be amalgamated for such purposes.

There is also the question of the higher staff of the Board of Works. There is a Chairman and two Commissioners. I understand that one of the Commissioners has died. If these offices are essential, well and good, but we would like to know if they are essential. Is it absolutely necessary for us to have these three Commissioners, as well as having a Parliamentary Secretary, in charge of the Department? If the three offices could be abolished, even if you had to pay full pensions, it is estimated that a saving of nearly £2,000 could be effected. I desire to support Deputy Boland's remarks about estimating. This is one of the Departments where it is almost impossible for a Deputy, in going through the Estimate, to make out a case. He finds himself confronted with blocks of figures representing buildings that have to be erected, or work that is being done. We know that the amounts which are being made available are gradually increasing. We know that the overhead expenses in connection with the preparation of these schemes are also increasing at an appalling rate. We know, as Deputy Davin has pointed out, that very often the work has not been completed in the year for which the money was made available. If we take the cost of two very big schemes, for example—the Custom House and the Four Courts—we are inclined to ask: How exactly are the estimates arrived at? We are presented with a figure of, say, £200,000. How is that figure got? Not alone is that figure, to my mind, entirely tentative, but it is very often revised, and a figure that we had last year for the erection of a building or buildings is very often changed, so that this year we have something entirely different. I think, therefore, that in this case the question of Parliamentary control over expenditure practically amounts to nothing; it is merely a sham. We are presented with these figures; we have only a vague idea of what is meant by them, and in respect of one of the most important parts of the programme of the Board of Works, as far as I could understand from Deputy Davin, the Board of Works have not yet been able to make up their minds as to what schemes under the Arterial Drainage Act are to be considered uneconomic and what are to be considered economic. Of course, the "Irish Times" knows all about it, but we have not been furnished with copies. But I do agree with Deputy Davin that the principle of comparing the cost of a scheme now with the cost in 1840 is preposterous, and that we ought to have something more definite as to what the policy of the Board of Works is in regard to drainage as a whole. If it is not possible to go on with drainage schemes, well and good, but let us not be wasting the time of county councils and overburdening county surveyors with work in connection with the preparation of schemes which it is not intended to carry out; let us not be wasting the time of the Dáil in passing Drainage Acts which will never come to anything.

In regard to the preparation of estimates for buildings, as we have no definite grip of the situation here and as we do not know how these estimates are arrived at, I suggest to the Ministry that the only way to deal with this situation and to reduce expenditure is to have some committee—let them be representatives of the Department of Finance, representatives of the Executive in some other capacity, or representatives of this House—to go into the estimates of such a Department as the Board of Public Works, where you have very large sums of money spent on supplies. Let us see whether these supplies are actually necessary or not. Even if they are necessary, even if the work that is stipulated for will be performed, I have no doubt whatever but that an examination beforehand of these estimates by persons conversant with building construction, and so on, would mean a considerable reduction. When the Appropriation Accounts are published next year, if the amount of money voted has not been expended and the work has been completed at a lesser figure than that estimated, we will be told that it is a saving. It will not be a saving, because there is no proof that the estimating was correctly done in the first instance. I see no hope of an improvement in that situation unless the House is let into the secret of the programme which the Board of Works actually has before it, until we are allowed to discuss the programme which it is really meant to carry out, to discuss the cost of materials and the cost of labour in connection with which the expenditure is proposed.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney)

I will only deal with one question which was raised a few moments ago—the question of the housing of the Civic Guard.

Mr. G. BOLAND

Might I intervene? I was not allowed to proceed on that.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There are two questions. Deputy Boland's was a general question as to whether the Civic Guards could not be concentrated into fewer stations——

Mr. G. BOLAND

To reduce the number of buildings.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is a question of policy for the Minister for Justice. Deputy Boland himself was of that opinion. He made his point, and I agreed with him on that. But Deputy Tubridy made a couple of specific points not dealing with a particular point of policy at all.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

I was about to state that I apprehended when Deputy Boland, with that boyish enthusiasm of his, rose to his feet, the question of policy with reference to the Gárda would come up on the Gárda Síochána Vote, but the actual quality and the size of the house in which the Gárda ought to be asked to live, the size of the barracks, can only be debated upon this particular Vote, Deputy Dr. Tubridy has suggested that the houses in which the Gárda are being housed, the Gárda barracks, are too expensive. He says that, considering the difficulties that ordinary housing meets with, that buildings of such a nature should not be erected. With that view I cannot at all agree. The standard Gárda barrack, which gives accommodation for a married sergeant, or a married man at any rate, and four Gárda is as small a building as is consistent with the performance of the duties which the State owes to its servants. It is the duty of the State to see that its servants are housed under sanitary conditions. It is the duty of the State to see that the men who serve it loyally, serve it efficiently and serve it well are not allowed to live under insanitary conditions.

Mr. FLINN

Has it the same duty to the men who pay the taxes?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

No, sir.

Mr. SMITH

Some of them have to live in one room.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

The duty of this State, which erects these houses for its servants, is to see that these houses are sanitary, and that the persons who serve it are not to be left in insanitary surroundings. It would be an absolutely wrong thing if the State were to set an example by its erection of insanitary buildings—buildings which would be insanitary owing to the want of space for the persons who reside in them. If you go into any one of these standard barracks you will discover that there are married quarters, constituting, as it were, one house. In addition there is a dormitory, a small bedroom, and, what is necessary also, an office for the sergeant. That is not necessary in an ordinary house. But it is necessary in a barracks. There must also be a day-room, a kitchen and a lock-up. These are things which are necessary in a barracks, but which are not necessary in ordinary houses. What is necessary in these are living and sleeping accommodation. The living and sleeping accommodation in the barracks must be such that the Gárda will live under sanitary conditions.

Dr. RYAN

Will the Minister for Justice explain how a Deputy can consider estimates unless he considers the expenditure?

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Of course a Deputy can. I want to know what further thing a Deputy can get here except a list of what the estimated cost of the building will be? Everybody knows that one cannot say that such and such a building is going to cost £1,500. There may be difficulties in the site or in the foundations. In these, certain difficulties may crop up and there may be necessary extras. I do not suppose any house is ever calculated to within the shilling or the sixpence, or within £20 or £30 of the original estimate. The only way in which an estimate can be drawn up is as has been done. I think it is obviously common sense that a competent architect is required to draw up an estimate. It can never be anything than an estimate which may be justified to within a very short amount. But you never can explain a thing like a house. Even if you draw your plan and bills of quantities with the greatest care you never can expect that that will work out exactly to the penny. That is substantially the only intervention which I wished to make in the debate. The intervention has been made for the sole purpose of putting forward what I, at any rate, take to be a sound principle, and that is that in erecting a building in which its servants are going to live, it is the duty of the Government to see that its buildings are proper and sanitary. I think I may even go further than this and say that the Government, in building, should give a good example rather than a bad example to private builders.

I suppose we will have the pleasure of paying for it. I warn Deputies that if they are going to perpetrate that scandal here to-night and vote for this, the people in their constituencies will let them know about it. I consider that five rooms would be enough for four Civic Guards.

Mr. FITZGERALD-KENNEY

Including married quarters?

Mr. CORRY

The Minister, no doubt, when he considers his own salary, believes that men with salaries like the Civic Guards should have good houses. The Minister thinks in thousands instead of thinking along the lines of what the people are able to pay. I challenge any Deputy to show how the people of any small parish can pay £1,550 for a Civic Guard station. It is a scandal that should be put an end to by every Party in the House. If Deputies are prepared to vote £15,000 for a Civic Guard station, the sooner the people of the country get a chance to say something the better. It is a scandal, and there are right-minded men listening to me over there who will not tolerate it no matter what pressure may be brought to bear upon them by the official Whips. Every Deputy has a copy of the Estimates and he can see the portions that apply to his own constituency. He will notice the amount proposed to be spent on Civic Guard stations. Let him ask himself quietly if the people of the parish are able to pay. I know the people of my parish and I know that they are absolutely unable to do it. They are unable to spend these large sums in order to house four gentlemen who turn out on their bicycles and motor-bicycles in the morning to go off to the local dance. I think it is time that this kind of thing was put an end to definitely once and for all. We are about sick of it. It was bad enough to have any peaceable district plastered with four or five Garda who waltz about the place, without having to put up a mansion for them. I think in the present condition of the poor of our country, and especially in the present housing conditions of the poor of our country, that the £27,500 that I have mentioned and that is there in the Estimate would be very well spent in the slums of Cork instead of spending it on two Civic Guard barracks in the City of Cork.

I think it is an outrage that the Minister should introduce an Estimate for such a thing. In my opinion, he is guilty of impertinence in thinking that he is going to get the House to agree to the spending of £27,000 on two Civic Guard barracks in Cork city while the poor there are living in tenements. I hope when Deputies examine this Estimate and see what is going to be spent in their districts on Civic Guard stations, that they will not vote for it. It would be a scandal to do so. I am sure that Deputy Daly, who, I see, is anxious to speak, will not vote for it.

Mr. DALY

As one who represents the same Division as Deputy Corry, I must differ altogether from him. I will not go into the question of police barracks. I do not know very much about them, but I know that every human being is entitled to a sanitary house. I avail of this opportunity to thank publicly the Board of Works for assisting me and coming forward on my representations to improve the national schools in my district. They did so on every occasion that I put a case before them. There were a number of national schools in my district in a very unsanitary condition. When I made representations in connection with the matter at the Office of Public Works, they sent their engineers along promptly, and, I am happy to say, put those schools, which are the most important buildings in any district, into a sanitary condition, as well as comfortable, for the children. They also responded to representations that we made with regard to the Awbeg river. When the County Council put forward a scheme for that, they at once took up the matter, with the result that, within the past six months, hundreds of men have been employed on the scheme from Buttevant, Doneraile and other districts around. They have improved thousands of acres of land. That is due to the friendly co-operation that exists between the Cork County Council, of which Deputy Corry is a member, and the Office of Public Works. I do not think that I would be doing my duty if I did not stand up and give honour where honour is due.

Mr. CLERY

It is difficult to wedge oneself in between two Cork Deputies, but there are a few items to which I would like to refer in connection with this Vote. There is a sum of £3,000 mentioned in the Vote in connection with boats and boat-houses. I would like to have some information on that. I wonder if it is a fact, as has been stated in this House on more than one occasion, that boats which are in perfect working order and for the use of which applications have very often been lodged by competent fishermen, particularly along the western coast, are lying idle. I am aware that time and again these fishermen have lodged applications for some of those boats to be given to them with which to do some fishing. The boats, as I have said, are in perfectly good condition and still they are held up. Evidently, it is now costing the Board of Works the sum of £3,000 to keep them held up and prevent them doing any work. If that is the position, I think it is a scandalous state of affairs. Perhaps it is the Fishery Department that is in the wrong. If it is, the case is still worse when we find that it costs £3,000 to keep the boats stored away from the fishermen who require them. I would like, at any rate, to have from the Parliamentary Secretary some statement in regard to that £3,000. There is also an item of close on £7,000, as mentioned by Deputy Boland, for coastguard stations. I would like to know if those coastguard stations are to be the same as some of those mentioned in the West of Ireland and what useful purpose they serve.

I submit that instead of expending £7,000 on coastguard stations it would be much better to have some kind of defence system organised among the fishermen if better methods than those existing at present cannot be employed by the Departments concerned to protect the fishermen along our coasts from foreign trawlers. The £7,000 mentioned here for coastguard stations would go a long way in doing something in that direction. The foreign trawlers come in along the West Coast and take away the fish, while our local fishermen have no boats or nets to go out and fish themselves. I think that that sum of money could be better spent than in providing coastguard stations. There has been some talk about Civic Guard barracks. Perhaps enough has been said about them by Deputy Corry. I observe that there is a sum of over £9,000 to be voted for new Civic Guard barracks in County Mayo. There is one item of £1,500 for a new Civic Guard barracks in the town of Bangor-Erris. Deputy Daly has been speaking about the sanitary condition of the schools in his constituency. He said that he went to the Board of Works and that they obliged him by sending down engineers who put the schools in his district in a sanitary condition, and remarked that the schools should be the most important buildings in any district. It surely is as important that the schools in a district should be kept in as good sanitary condition as the Civic Guard barracks. In the case of the County Mayo one could not safely make a favourable comparison as between the sanitary conditions of the schools there and the class of buildings which the Minister for Justice proposes to provide for the Civic Guards. I think, at least, that the sanitary conditions of the schools should be looked after in the first instance. At least, the children are as much entitled to have healthy conditions provided in the schools as those occupying the Civic Guard barracks. In the Bangor-Erris area and all over the County Mayo, and I suppose the same thing applies in most other counties, the schools are in a most disgraceful condition.

Mr. DALY

I did not mention any schools but the schools in my own district. The work done in them by the Board of Works could not be improved upon, and they are now in a most sanitary condition.

Mr. CLERY

Of course we would not expect Deputy Daly to go outside his own constituency when talking about the schools. We know that if all the money that the Government collected were spent in his constituency that he would be glad, but he should at least agree that others would get a look in now and again. The expenditure of £1,500 on a new Civic Guard barracks in Bangor-Erris, which is in the Gaeltacht, should not, I think, be tolerated.

I agree with the Minister for Justice that when barracks are provided for the Civic Guards they should be in a good sanitary condition. No one would think of building new insanitary houses for anybody, not alone for those fine fellows in the Civic Guards, but I think the schools should get some little attention. In Bangor you have very good houses which would make fairly decent barracks, and these houses are a long way superior in sanitary matters and other respects to practically any school in the whole area. I think the £1,500 would be much better spent for the State as a whole in improving the sanitary condition of the schools. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give some information regarding the items I mentioned—the £7,000 for coastguard stations, and £3,000 for boat-houses.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

With regard to this Estimate of £100,000 for building, enlarging and enclosing schools, I would like to know the basis upon which that sum has been arrived at. It cannot have any reference to the necessities of the case, because we have it that there are at least 350 new schools required immediately, in addition to some 500 that require to be enlarged. Taking the average figure required to replace existing schools, something between eight and ten times the figures down here would be necessary to meet the requirements. I would like to know upon what basis the Parliamentary Secretary has worked in framing this Estimate. At what rate does he hope to proceed? In how many years does he hope to solve the problem of the existing necessities, not to speak of the necessities that may arise in the meantime? I would like, too, if he could tell us whether he has any hope that even the sum set out will be expended in the current year, or whether, as in former years, if we are to judge by the Appropriation Accounts, a very considerable sum, amounting in some cases to one-third, will be unexpended at the end of the year; and, also, if he would give us some particulars as to the average number of years, not weeks or months, it takes from the time an application is made for a new school in a particular district until the school is completed. I am sure the Minister has these particulars at his disposal, and it would be very interesting if he would disclose them.

Mr. MOORE

My reason for intervening in the debate is I have heard a rumour that one branch of the work that has hitherto been carried on by the Board of Works is shortly to be transferred to the new Agricultural Credit Corporation. I would like to know is that a fact. I understand that the land improvement loans for the improvement of farmhouses and offices are in the future to be operated through the Agricultural Credit Corporation. That would be very serious. I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary would state whether it is proposed to do that without asking the sanction of the Dáil. It would mean that so far as loans for that kind of work are concerned the Dáil will have no right to criticise the conditions, or even to get information about them. In fact, what it would mean is that that very useful work would be dropped by the State, or that it would possibly mean a considerable check on these activities. Those of us who are familiar with the working of the Agricultural Credit Corporation so far as it has gone are not optimistic about the great benefits that are likely to accrue in the immediate future. I do not want to criticise the Corporation unfavourably as it is a new department and has to be very careful in its work, but it seems to be operating slowly. If the valuable work the Board of Works has been doing with regard to land improvement loans is to pass into the hands of that Department, I think there are many Deputies here who would regret it very much.

There is nothing more required at the moment than that the Department should be encouraged as far as possible to improve all farm houses and farm buildings. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have an encouraging word to say on that matter. While I am speaking about it, I suggest that if the Board of Works is to continue to give loans for the improvement of farm houses they should insist on some little standard of appearance, and they should encourage artistic instinct in regard to buildings of that kind. It is a shocking thing to see a farm house built by the loan of public money presenting an appearance that is not creditable to the taste of the people, and that is not going to improve the taste of the younger folk. I suggest the Board of Works might insist upon a better standard of housing so far as appearance goes than they have been insisting on up to the present. I would like to inquire about one of two other matters that have not been touched upon. How soon will the various Government Departments be definitely settled in permanent offices? We have seen in recent years a constant change from place to place, and we have seen a very great expenditure of money in rents which might have been avoided. I think it would have been worth while for the Government to have purchased property, especially property in poor repair, and reconstruct it for Government purposes rather than have availed of makeshift buildings as they have done up to the present.

I think they might even at this hour take a leaf out of the book of the Fianna Fáil organisation, which instead of renting offices and paying very big money for them each year, purchased a more or less derelict house and transformed it into a substantial and valuable building. I think the Government should at least have had as much imagination as the Fianna Fáil organisation and might have done that in a good many cases with considerable advantage to certain districts, where the houses are gradually decaying and where reconstruction would have had an effect not only on the house immediately concerned, but on other houses adjoining. Certainly, I think it is time that the offices were more or less congregated in certain centres. The manner in which they have been distributed all over the city during recent years has not led to the convenience of the people, who often find it difficult to locate them. It does not seem a good advertisement that everywhere you go through the city you find Government departments.

In connection with the General Post Office we should like to know whether it is intended to locate in that building the Broadcasting Department, whether all branches of Post Office work are to be located in the one building, and whether the building is to be confined to the trade business of the Post Office.

I also wish to refer to the drainage work done by the Office of Public Works. I have heard a great many complaints as to the policy which has resulted in the most activity prevailing at a time when harvest work creates a demand for workers. In the Athy district there have been a great many complaints that it caused a considerable shortage of labour, and that the Government could easily have arranged that the drainage work could be done at a more convenient time. That is a point worth considering with regard to future schemes.

On the question of Civic Guard barracks, probably sufficient has been said, but it is worth while to bear in mind that there is a general feeling growing up that the State is merciless; that in everything the State is doing for its own immediate employees it is insisting upon a standard out of all proportion to the means of the people. It is creating a feeling that the only people who matter are those who are in the immediate service of the State, and that those who have to pay are looked upon with contempt. That is a very dangerous feeling. While it is easy to joke about this question of Civic Guard barracks, and perhaps to exaggerate the extent of the extravagance, I think the Government should bear in mind that there is a very great feeling, probably caused by the depression in agriculture and in industry, that the Government is quite unscrupulous with regard to its expenditure on the requirements of its own immediate employees. It would be a very dangerous thing if such a feeling were created, and probably it would not be very easy to remove. For that reason, the Office of Public Works might well bear in mind that, while sanitation and health requirements should be carefully attended to, simplicity in regard to buildings and to comfort generally is a thing that the people would very much appreciate. If the Government were to set that standard the people would respond to it, and it would rob the discontented, at least, of a weapon that they will perhaps tend to use more and more in future.

Mr. ESMONDE

I should like to support Deputy Moore in urging the Parliamentary Secretary to give further information as to the policy of his Department with regard to public buildings in Dublin. I am glad to see that progress is being made in the reconstruction of the three great buildings which were destroyed. But, in proportion as these three buildings are rebuilt, certain vacancies occur in other buildings. Perhaps the Secretary might tell us whether he has prepared a definite scheme as to the permanent housing of the great Departments of State, or whether he is living from hand to mouth in the matter. For instance, when the Four Courts are re-built, a large section of the Castle will become vacant, and in other parts of the city similar vacancies will occur. I note here that considerable sums are to be spent on the reconstruction of three houses in O'Connell Street, 14, 15 and 45. There is also the reconstruction of Maple's Hotel. There may have been, but I did not see any reference in the Press as to how that site is going to be used. These are very valuable sites, and I presume that, in the general scheme of reconstruction, the Department has decided upon a policy as to what are to be the final homes of the Departments of State.

I was not present when Deputy Corry was speaking, but I understand that he was referring to the Civic Guard Barracks. All I can see from the Estimates is that there is something undoubtedly wrong with Cork—that either the people of Cork need more policing than the people of other parts of the country, or else that they have succeeded in extracting, as usual, far greater grants from the Government than any other place. While in Wexford we are only getting a miserable £2,000 for this work, the people of Cork have succeeded in persuading the Department to spend fabulous sums in the reconstruction of barracks in that part of the country.

There is a small matter which, I think, would arise on the Oireachtas item in this Vote. There is a certain object in front of the main entrance of this building which I would like to see removed by the Office of Public Works. It is an object which is not in any way artistic and which is liable to give rise to misunderstanding on the part of distinguished strangers visiting this Parliament.

What object?

Mr. ESMONDE

There is a doubt as to exactly what it is. Some people say it is a statue of Dame Britannia sitting upon the Free State Government. Others say it is a statue of a well-known lady politician of this country sitting on Fianna Fáil. My theory is that it is a symbolical statue of the spirit of obstruction. In any case, if it does represent the lady that some people say it does represent, and who was no particular friend of this country, I do not think that it is fair for us to pursue that vendetta beyond the grave and insist upon showing such a horrible object as this as the official representation of that distinguished lady. I think the cost would not be very great. I urge upon the Board of Works to remove it.

Mr. B. MAGUIRE

In the various duties that the Board of Works undertakes, my objection is that they are not strong enough, or that they are not wide enough, in their views in the matter of drainage—I mean drainage on small farms or holdings in the West of Ireland. Some years ago the Department of Public Works did a good deal of useful work in that direction, but in latter years they ceased altogether to comply with that branch of their duty. I consider that this is the most important part of the duty of any public department that undertakes it, and that the continuation of it would be a very useful service. I urge very strongly that the Board of Works should undertake the work of ordinary drainage on ordinary holdings as part of their duty, and that they should develop it on lines suitable to the requirements of the individual farmer. To do that effectively the rate of interest payable would have to be reduced.

The small farmer cannot afford to pay the present rate of interest which is charged, nor can he afford to repay the money except the time is extended. That the work is practical work and shall ultimately be of benefit to the farmer is without question.

Now, in addition to that, I urge that the Board of Works might take a broader view, and that they might be more useful in devising schemes in the various localities if they took the local conditions more into account rather than the technical point of view as to how the work should be carried out. I have in mind various schemes that would be useful if carried out. But when the Department is advised of such schemes they send down their engineers, and their engineers draw plans and schemes, with the result that the estimate prepared makes the work prohibitive. I have in mind a case that occurred in Leitrim a few weeks ago, when a river overflowed its banks. Some years ago a suggestion was made that the river should be drained, but the cost was prohibitive for that poor area. The result was that the work was never carried out, and a few weeks ago the river burst its banks and utterly destroyed several farms. What I suggest is that in a case of that sort the local conditions should be taken into account, and the engineers responsible should first of all prepare their schemes, not based technically on what would be required as essential for carrying out a big drainage scheme, but a scheme the ordinary expenditure on which would be such that the people could bear.

Furthermore, I think that in applying their schemes for building and for improving houses a similar view should be taken. There is no use estimating for, or holding out for a standard in building a farmhouse or out-offices on a small farm of poor land in a poor district that might be justified in a better district with better quality land and where the people would be capable of bearing larger expenditure. The result is that you have farmers in the West and in the congested parts who can take little advantage, if indeed they can avail at all, of grants for building or improving houses from the Board of Works.

I would say that while it is desirable, as the Minister for Justice pointed out, that the State should provide sanitary and suitable accommodation for all its people, I am afraid he had in mind, and I think he said so, a certain class of people—namely, Civil Servants, Civic Guards and so on. If there is anxiety on the part of the Government to make improvements in farms and dwelling-houses in the West of Ireland there is no question of those farmers ever being able to build houses according to the suggestions of the Board of Works. A scheme should be specially prepared in connection with which the Board can lend money to such farmers to improve their houses according to their local requirements and according to their ability to meet such improvements. A scheme of that kind could be developed along the right lines, and these are the only lines on which the Board of Works can be of any practical use to a certain big section of the people. The Board of Works ought, to my mind, to be more flexible in their attitude.

I have here before me a case in which the Board of Works a good many years ago undertook a big drainage scheme in Leitrim. The works were known as the Black River Drainage Works, and portion of the scheme involved the setting up of a weir. The history of the thing is rather striking. The scheme was started in the year 1842. A big portion of the country was involved. The result of the drainage scheme would have been very effective, but it would mean drawing away a stretch of water or lake that had been useful to Lord Leitrim for the purposes of adornment in his demesne. Consequently the drainage scheme was altered so as to make provision that the lake should remain there. The result of that was the setting up of the weir, and the setting up of the weir meant that the drainage was practically useless, and a big tract of country is flooded ever since, year after year. This matter was taken up with the Board of Works, and within the last two years a good deal of correspondence took place with no result. We find now that the successor of Lord Leitrim still maintains the right to hold that weir there, notwithstanding that this drainage scheme was carried out at the expense of that part of the community and that the farmers still continue to pay tribute each year as a result of the drainage. Through the influence of Lord Leitrim and his successors that drainage scheme is of no benefit to them. I believe the Board of Works, if they are to serve any useful purpose, should be more flexible than they have been; they should see that that weir is removed, even if it means the removal of a certain part of the attractions of Lord Leitrim's demesne. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 31 Oct 1928