Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 May 1941

Vol. 83 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 9—Office of Public Works.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £97,158 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1942, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisi Oifig na nOibreacha poiblidhe (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, etc.).

That a sum, not exceeding £97,158, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1942, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 33, secs. 5 & 6; 5 & 6 Vict., c. 89, secs, 1 & 2; 9 & 10 Vict., c. 86 secs. 2, 7 & 9; etc.).

— It has been the practice to take the discussion on Votes 9, 10 and 11 together. Vote 9 bears the salaries, wages and incidental expenses of the Administrative staff of the Office of Public Works, including the Special Works Division which deals with works financed by the Vote for Employment Schemes—No. 67. The cost of the Special Works staff is ultimately recovered from the latter Vote. There are no unusual features in the Vote for the Office of Public Works. The estimate is less than that for last year by £1,066—a casual variation in a Vote of £145,000. I told you twelve months ago of the decision to close down the issue of loans formerly made under the Land Improvement and Land Law Acts. As a consequence, the administrative provision for this service, which for a number of years has been decreasing in importance, has disappeared. The Agricultural Credit Corporation now deals with applications for loans of this type.

Vote 10 (Public Works) at £1,141,615 is about £100,000 less than last year. In normal times some of the sub-heads of this Vote are difficult to forecast with any accuracy, as progress—and consequently expenditure — depends upon factors not wholly within our control. This is in particular the case with the largest item, that for new works which represents about two-thirds of the total expenditure. Last year I referred to the effect which a curtailment in the supply of building materials was likely to have on this service. We were fortunate enough, however, to be able to carry on without much interference save that costs were, of course, increased and there were some inevitable delays. The prospects for 1941-42 are not so hopeful. Stocks of certain classes of material are running very low, and although we have made and are making every effort to substitute native products, the substitution involves planning problems of a somewhat experimental character and can only meet in part the difficulties. However, as the figures show, we have made provision for expenditure on the necessary services on the basis that we shall be able to give employment in the building line almost to the same extent as in the preceding year. The number of token Votes of £10 appearing in the details of the New Works Sub-head represents the extent to which desirable works have had to be postponed in favour of more urgent requirements.

We are providing £250,000 for grants for National School buildings and improvements. Last year our estimate was £175,000 which, as I said then, was based on a pessimistic view of the difficulties with which school managers and building contractors might be confronted. In fact, we succeeded in spending £220,000, and as we have large commitments on our books, in respect of old and obsolete school-buildings, as well as in respect of very large schools in re-housing areas, we have—notwithstanding growing difficulties in the matter of materials—hopes of exceeding this expenditure in the current year.

Expenditure on Defence Requirements is naturally heavy, over £200,000 being provided for essential military works. The anticipated expenditure on airports is down by about £200,000 due to the fact that work on the Dublin Airport is drawing to a close and that the programme of sea-plane anchorage at the Shannon has, in consequence of war conditions, been modified. The new headquarters for the Department of Industry and Commerce is going ahead reasonably well. Work on the reconstruction and extension of the Veterinary College at Ballsbridge is in hand. The scheme will cost about £45,000 and will supply a much needed improvement in the accommodation of this important institution. Two other large projects connected with agricultural education appear this year for the first time—new buildings estimated to cost in the neighbourhood of £50,000 each for the agricultural stations at Clonakilty and Athenry. They are however, only in the preliminary stage at the moment and it will be some time before the detailed schemes are ready.

In the other subheads of this Vote Deputies will observe increases in the items for maintenance and fuel and light. By sundry savings we sought to keep the maintenance expenditure down to £175,000 last year. We were not wholly successful, and as the work which was held over last year is in some cases now necessary, the figure for 1941-42 has been increased to £200,000. Rises in the price of coal, turf, fuel, oil, etc., account for the increase under subhead F.

No new drainage works are in contemplation. Our commitments in the present year are confined to completion of the Kilmastulla district, and clean-up works on the five or six remaining cases awaiting final award.

The Vote for Haulbowline Dockyard is in the usual form. It shows a decrease of £970 in comparison with 1940-41, which is in great part due to the fact that no provision is required in the current year for submarine water-main, the renewal of which has been completed.

I move: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his rather brief review of the activities of his Department, has not furnished any information concerning the assistance which has been given—I know some has been given—in connection with the production of turf or fuel for the coming winter. The Parliamentary head of this Department has been taking a very active part in connection with the turf development scheme since it was initiated some months ago, and has made many statements throughout the country as to the possibility of doubling and, if possible, trebling the production of turf in order to meet the fuel requirements of the community during the coming winter.

Would the Deputy allow me for a moment? My interruption is intended to be helpful. I do not know whether he may be able to go as far as he wants on another Vote, but none of that comes under this Vote at the present moment. He may have a much better chance under Vote 67.

That is the Employment Schemes Vote, which will presumably be discussed to-day.

It crosses the trail there to a certain extent.

Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary will answer on Vote 67 for his activities in connection with the production of turf?

I should certainly be much more likely to do it on that Vote than I would on this Vote, because I could not do it on this Vote. My intention is to be helpful. There is some money, undoubtedly, under Vote 67 which has some relation to turf, and, within limits, I think the Deputy could probably get in all he wants.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to answer for directional authority, in connection with the production of turf, on Vote 67?

I am prepared to go as far as I can on Vote 67.

Industry and Commerce also comes into the matter. It does not come under this Vote, apparently.

The Parliamentary Secretary's salary is on this Vote.

But the Minister's salary is not.

Do we understand there is some other Department, say, Industry and Commerce, or Local Government, more concerned with turf production than the Parliamentary Secretary is?

Up to the present moment this service has been to some extent in commission. It is at the moment in process of transmission and I think that most of what any Deputy wants could be raised on Vote 67. My intention is to be helpful, if I can.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say in what direction the transmission is tending?

By the time that is raised on Vote 67 I may be able to answer it.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary make a statement on Vote 67 in connection with that matter?

I do intend at the earliest orderly date to make a statement generally on the turf position which might be a very much better time for the Deputy to raise some of the points. What I am concerned with is that there may be some ad interim points which the Deputy wants that he could get in on Vote 67 without waiting for that.

The time for cutting turf is running out.

I do not intend to dictate to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Government as to when a statement of that kind should be made but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary realises the urgency of the whole question——

I think so.

——and the necessity for giving directional instructions, if you like, or guidance to the people who are going to produce the turf or who can help to get a sufficient quantity of turf produced. I only want an opportunity for asking for that information and for getting it as soon as the person responsible can give it. I want to be helpful, too.

On No. 9, then. The Deputy has moved to refer back Vote 9.

That was my principal reason for proposing it.

It would obviously be more relevant on 67, to whatever extent it is relevant.

We are not losing anything by passing over it at this time.

Then the Deputy is not pressing his motion to refer back?

My principal reason for moving the reference back was to give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of dealing with the turf situation.

He will get his opportunity on Vote 67, in part at least.

There will be a much better opportunity then.

I take it then the Deputy is not persisting in his motion?

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share