Vol. 87 No. 11
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £95,485 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, 1943, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works (1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 33, secs. 5 and 6; 5 and 6 Vict., c. 89, secs. 1 and 2; 9 and 10 Vict., c. 86, secs, 2, 7 and 9, etc.).
It is proposed to discuss Votes 9, 10 and 11 together as usual, then the miscellaneous Votes 1 to 29, and finally, Votes 67 and 73 together. There was a motion to refer back Vote 9, which motion has now been transferred to Vote 67, which deals with turf production and cognate problems. The first three Votes, as the House will appreciate, cover the ordinary activities of the Commissioners of Public Works. All matters relating to employment, turf, and, I suppose, the old bog road, will come under Votes 67 and 73.
As in previous years, I propose to take Votes 9, 10 and 11 together. Vote 9 bears the salaries, wages and incidental expenses of the administrative and technical staffs of the Office of Public Works. The printed Estimates may cause misapprehension; they appear to indicate that the net cost of the service has increased by £21,630 since last year, but this is not so. There has, in fact, been a reduction of about £3,000. In previous years, the administrative expenses of the Special Works Division were provided for in this Vote which was recouped from the Vote for Employment Schemes. This year, these expenses have been transferred to Vote 73—Special Emergency Schemes— and, following the usual practice, the 1941-42 figures for the expenditure sub-heads have, for comparative purposes, been adjusted as explained in the footnotes (a) and (b) on page 29 of the Volume of Estimates. There is no Appropriations-in-Aid sub-head to Vote 73, to which a corresponding transfer could be made. The 1941-42 figure of £29,430 included £24,000 in respect of the recoupment from the Employment Schemes Vote, and, for comparative purposes, should accordingly be reduced to £5,430. The apparent net increase of £21,630 is thereby converted into a net reduction. The reduction is a casual variation due to normal staff changes.
Vote 10—Public Works and Buildings —at £1,088,105 is approximately £84,000 less than in 1941-42. I said last year that it was not easy, even in normal times, to forecast with accuracy the expenditure on this Vote, and the abnormal conditions now prevailing make it still more difficult. During the past year, the supply position in the building industry has deteriorated considerably; in particular, steel, timber, electrical and heating equipment have been progressively scarcer. Our works programme was naturally somewhat retarded as a result, but we were more fortunate than we expected, and by the introduction of new methods and the improvisation of substitute materials, we managed reasonably well. The shortage will, I fear, be more acutely felt in the coming 12 months but we shall do our best, in co-operation with the other Departments and interests concerned, to make the most of whatever supplies are available. The sub-head in this Vote which is most affected is that for new works, but, notwithstanding the difficulties, we hope to maintain a rate of progress not far short of that of 1941-42.
We are again providing £250,000 for grants for national schools. This service is affected, particularly in country districts, by transport difficulties as well as by the general situation in regard to building materials. Notwithstanding this, however, we managed to expend £211,000 in 1941-42. Defence requirements will take some £113,000. £145,000 is being provided for work on the airports. This is a reduction on last year's figure of about £55,000, but the work on the Dublin airport is now practically completed. The new headquarters for the Department of Industry and Commerce will, it is expected, be ready for occupation in the autumn and £40,000 is included for this item. An additional employment exchange for females and juveniles is being provided on the south side of the city and work is also in progress on the new exchange for men at Hoey's Court. The work on these exchanges is being pushed forward as rapidly as possible with a view to relieving the congestion at the existing exchanges.
The remaining sub-heads show little variation when compared with the previous year. The provision for fuel, light, water, etc., is up by £22,000. This is, of course, due to the increased cost of all fuel supplies. In view of the shortage and in order to conserve such stocks as we had been able to secure, we found it necessary to reduce drastically supplies of fuel to all Government Departments during the heating season which has just closed. A strict rationing system was introduced, and I am glad to say that the various Departments responded cordially and put up with the resultant inconveniences without undue complaint.
The provision for arterial drainage is only £7,000. This is due to the fact that we are closing down operations under the existing code, which has been found inadequate to the requirements of the situation. We have in preparation two Bills, one to provide for works on the River Fergus and the other a general measure of a comprehensive character arising out of the report of the Drainage Commission. I cannot anticipate the introduction of this legislation, other than to say that it is the intention to include remedies for certain anomalies and hardships which have arisen in connection with past activities. In order to clear the decks for this legislation, we propose to bring all outstanding works to award as soon as possible and to recondition, so far as available supplies permit, our existing excavating and other drainage plant. A provision of £11,000 is made for this latter purpose.
The Vote for Haulbowline Dockyard —Vote 11—is in the usual form. It shows a reduction of £425 on the Vote for 1941-42, mainly due to the fact that the portion of the island remaining under our control has been reduced in extent.
It is satisfactory to hear the Parliamentary Secretary stating that a start is being made with reference to the Drainage Commission's report. A very unsatisfactory state of affairs exists with regard to drainage generally, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make some kind of bold front in relation to it, even though in the circumstances that exist it is not so very likely that a good deal of attention will be devoted to that particular matter.
In my county we have what I may refer to as an old standing sore, the River Suck. It is in a very abandoned condition, a very unsatisfactory condition, from the administrative and other points of view. Nothing has been done with that river for years. It was given over to the Roscommon and Galway Country Councils. I am a member of the Roscommon County Council and for a considerable time we have been looking for a direction from the Board of Works, the Local Government Department or somebody. We are anxious that some authority would indicate the lines we should go upon. We have not an engineer and we do not seem to have any administrative machine with which to operate there. The Suck is in a very neglected condition and I hope, when the Parliamentary Secretary is endeavouring to carry out the wishes of the Drainage Commission, he will undertake that particular type of work at the earliest opportunity.
I submit that no purpose is served in attempting to drain bogs into rivers which flow into the Suck if the Suck has not been properly cleaned. The same would apply to drainage all over the country. For some years a lot of attention has been given to bog drainage. My experience is that in a great many cases there is no proper outlet for the water. A lot of money has been spent in an effort to drain the bogs into the rivers, but this drainage cannot be effective if the rivers are left choked with weeds and dirt. We have been waiting quite a long time for the Drainage Commission's report, and whatever work has been carried out in the meantime it will not, in my opinion, be very effective until the main rivers are dealt with under some national drainage scheme.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that a certain sum had been set apart for school repairs, and he indicated the amount expended last year. I raised this matter on the Education Vote. My attention was called quite recently to estimates for the repair of some of the older schools. During the emergency period it is difficult to get first-class repair work carried out. I understand that estimates were submitted for first-class repair work on old schools, and then it was found that the timber and other articles required were not procurable, and because they were not procurable the work was not carried out.
I think the Board of Works will have to alter its arrangements in that respect. If they cannot get the first-class material specified in the estimate, they ought to have the work carried out with second-class or even third-class material rather than postpone the repairing of the schools. I am aware that special mention was made of one school where the children were falling down through the floors and, because a certain type of timber which was mentioned in the estimate could not be procured, the faulty floor was left unrepaired. If that is true, I think that matter ought to be remedied immediately. A good cement floor would be much better than a boarded floor. We ought to have regard to the exigencies of the time; we ought to go with the times. If we cannot do first-class work in the way of repairs, we ought at least to do some type of repair work.
I will call attention to another hardy annual, a matter to which I have drawn attention on other occasions. I refer to the great need that exists for the erection of a Gárda barracks in Roscommon. I made an offer last year to the Parliamentary Secretary that, if it would help him in any way, I would get the medical officer of health to condemn as insanitary the existing Gárda barracks in Roscommon. I submit that that building is in an absolutely insanitary condition. I heard a rumour recently that some move was being made by the Board of Works. I do not know what truth there is in that. I know a search was made a short time ago in Roscommon for temporary premises for the Gárda. I understand the new chief superintendent has refused to live in the accommodation provided at the Roscommon barracks. I think he was quite right. He has a wife and family and he could not risk their health in the conditions under which they would have to live there. He had to get alternative accommodation. That incident alone should have brought the existing condition of affairs under the notice of the authorities. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will take some steps to see that the Gárda in Roscommon will be able to live in habitable conditions. The barracks they now occupy are not habitable; they are a positive danger and a menace to the health of the Gárda and their wives and families. As a matter of fact, there have been some casualties among them and the illness has been attributed to the conditions under which they are obliged to live there. That state of affairs is really disgraceful. The Parliamentary Secretary promised last year that he would do something, but I am sorry to say that he has not carried that promise into effect so far. There are premises in Roscommon which could be taken over temporarily. I think something ought to be done immediately to relieve the disgraceful situation that exists there.
I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that the river from Claremorris Lake through Carabeg Bog and Castlemacgarrett Wood to the River Robe needs to be drained. It appears that the only obstruction is in Castlemacgarrett Wood, where trees have fallen into the river and they have been allowed to remain there for a number of years. It is because of that that the Carabeg Bog has been subject to flooding. A petition was sent to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary by the people who cut turf in the bogs which have been affected by the overflow. I hope that he will have this matter attended to at the earliest opportunity.
When the Parliamentary Secretary was introducing a Vote on Account some time ago, he promised to give consideration to the River Erne drainage scheme. The committee, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, fell through some time ago owing to certain proceedings and nothing has been done since, with the result that a large part of the countryside was flooded during last winter. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has looked into the matter, but if anything has been done I should like to have some information with regard to it.
There is another matter about which I was speaking to him. He received a deputation in relation to it some time ago. I refer to the Ballyconnell river. The Ballyconnell river is in a disgraceful condition at the present time. Whether the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government are going to rest until some harm is done, until we have fever or something of that kind, I do not know. Something will have to be done. In ordinary justice to the people living in that town, some effort should be made by the Government to remedy the insanitary condition of the river. At the present time it is a receptacle for refuse, dirt, carcases and everything that people like to throw into it. It is a cause of great trouble in the town and likely to create fever at an early date. If we have a hot summer, there is sure to be trouble. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter and see if anything can be done. There is always some unemployment in the district and unemployed men could be very well employed in cleaning this river. It would be better than giving them the dole. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take up the matter.
I suppose I may ask questions dealing with No. 10?
Certainly—9, 10 and 11.
In connection with sub-head F—Fuel. Light, Water, Cleaning, etc.—£97,000—for the current year, which is an increase of £22,000 on last year's Estimate for these services, will the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply state the detailed amount for fuel, light, water and cleaning? I am anxious to get the figure for the cost of fuel as distinct from the other services provided for under this sub-head. I am extremely anxious to get that figure because in a reply given to a question to-day by the Minister for Defence, the House was informed that 5,270 soldiers, including members of the regular Army and the Construction Corps, will, he hopes, during the turf cutting season produce 53,000 tons of turf.
Will the Deputy allow me one moment? It was rather understood that we would confine questions on turf to Votes 73 and 69. Technically, I believe the Deputy is perfectly in order but that question would be dragging in the whole question. I suggest that he should leave that particular question and should raise it on the other Vote. No objection will be taken on the ground of his orderliness.
I do not want in any way to embarrass the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Deputy is not embarrassing me.
Perhaps that is not the most appropriate word that could be used, but I am anxious to know where this 53,000 tons is getting to. If it is going to cost anything like £3 or £3 4s. 0d. per ton, there is something radically wrong with the figure asked for by the Parliamentary Secretary for the provision of fuel during the current year. Are we to understand— and the Parliamentary Secretary can answer this question on this Vote— that the Army, including members of the regular Army and the Construction Corps—are employed cutting turf solely for the different State Departments?
No.
And if so, is that being done under cover of a figure provided for the Army services in the Estimates for the Department of Defence? I would like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the actual cost for providing fuel for the different State Departments is shown in the Estimates for the Office of Public Works.
I can tell the Deputy perfectly certainly that I am not able to answer any question on this Vote in relation to what the Army is cutting. It is quite out of the line of this Vote.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary be able to do so?
I will strain myself to help the Deputy on another Vote, but I could not possibly do it on this.
I have no objection to any section of the Army being employed in cutting turf to be supplied for different State Departments at the cheapest possible figure, but I certainly do not want the Army to be used for the purpose of cutting turf for sale to a commercial concern.
Would the Deputy please indicate on which item in Vote 10 the cutting of turf by the Army arises?
I asked that the Parliamentary Secretary should give me the figure covering the cost of fuel for the different State Departments as distinct from other services such as light, water and cleaning, covered by the figure of £97,000.
There is nothing in this Vote that touches any of this Army turf.
What is fuel? It is not the coal that we are not getting.
I have tried to help the Deputy. I will do no more.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give me the tonnage of coal and the cost of so many tons of coal, if any, provided under this sub-head of the Estimate? Is the Parliamentary Secretary able to answer that question?
I may be. I do not know. I can get that information for the Deputy, but I cannot tell him off-hand.
All right. There is another question I want to raise without going into any detailed discussion; that is the question of the reduction—it is a small figure, I admit—in the amount provided this year for drainage maintenance charges in the case of the River Barrow. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain the reason for the reduction under that sub-head? There has been a considerable amount of agitation associated with the recovery of the charges for this particular service. I certainly do not want to go into the merits or demerits of the case from that angle, but it is a coincidence that during the last few days I received a communication from the Secretary of the Barrow Drainage Ratepayers' Association, asking me to put certain matters before the Parliamentary Secretary. I would simply have for warded it in the ordinary way, but I only received it during the last few days. It is dated 13th June. The question is put forward by the secretary of that organisation as to whether it is possible to put a stay on the summonses that have been issued to certain leading members of this organisation for the recovery of arrears of maintenance charges due by them and all the other farmers in the Barrow drainage area. The letter goes on to say:—
"In view of the fact that the Drainage Commission has advised a reduction of these charges by one-third, and the matter is at present before the Government, I have been asked by our executive committee to ask you please to have this matter brought up in the Dáil as soon as possible with a view to having the proceedings stopped until the matter is adjusted, as the collection of the full amount of the seizures would be most unfair."
I would like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary could, even at this stage, intervene for the purpose of meeting the views of the people on whose behalf this gentleman writes? I think the gentleman in question is well known to the Parliamentary Secretary. He is responsible for the creation of a very big file in the Department. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter his careful consideration and, if it is possible— I am not sure whether it is or not—to put a stay on the proceedings that have been recently instituted, presumably under pressure of the Commissioners of Public Works.
Do not presume that. Do not presume anything.
The civil bills, I assume, have been issued by the local authority under the strong pressure brought to bear upon the commissioner by the Parliamentary Secretary or the Commissioners of Public Works.
The Deputy is again presuming.
The Parliamentary Secretary, if I may say so, cannot be too cocksure because only a few moments ago he could not give me the details under a certain sub-head.
There are a whole lot of things I do not remember. I do not pretend to remember them.
This is an occasion when Deputies are entitled to ask questions and get answers, if answers can be given.
If Deputies want answers to detailed questions out of the 800,000 files there are in my Department, it would be a very good idea if they let me know they did want the answers to these questions. I do not pretend to remember and I have no intention of trying to learn and keep in my mind the contents of these 800,000 files.
The Parliamentary Secretary, as he well knows, and as I know, has very able officials at his right-hand side, who can give him that information, if he is only willing to ask for it, but if the Parliamentary Secretary introduces an Estimate asking Deputies, on behalf of the taxpayers, to vote a sum for the provision of fuel for State Departments, and then tells us that he does not know whether it refers to turf or coal, or what quantity of either fuel is involved, he is asking me to believe too much in asking me to believe that he cannot give that information. I shall leave it at that.
These are a couple of the questions I want to put. They are not very awkward, and I am rather surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to answer them off-hand. His colleague, the Minister for Education, is beside him, and I think it is correct to say that he admitted, when introducing his Estimate, that 300 school buildings were in a very bad state of repair. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any information as to when these buildings, admitted to be in a deplorable state of repair, will be put into a habitable condition, or can he say what number of these school buildings will be covered by the expenditure provided in this Estimate for the current year? That is not a very awkward question, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not be very long in getting the information, so that it may be put on the records of the House.
There are a few matters which I have been asked to mention by the people of Killarney with regard to the National Park. There is very considerable dissatisfaction in respect of the tolls extracted from visitors who go to the various show places in the district. It appears that each visitor going to the Gap of Dunloe is charged 1/-, which is payable to the Board of Works. At the main gate of Muckross there is a toll of 1/-, and at Tore Waterfall, a toll of 6d. The Killarney Tourist Association is very anxious that the toll payable by visitors to the Gap of Dunloe should be abolished, and that there should be a combined toll of a small amount, payable at the main gate of the National Park, instead of visitors being compelled to put their hands in their pockets here, there and everywhere as they go along on the trips. It is not so much the amount of the tolls as the annoyance caused to visitors by these demands during their trips that matters.
I do not know whether the revenue derived from these tolls each year is very considerable. I see in item 7 of the Appropriations-in-Aid a sum of £850 for this year in respect of admission tickets to parks, piers, etc. I do not know what proportion of that sum comes from the tolls charged at Killarney. At any rate, they are very annoying, and the Killarney people are extremely anxious that they should be wiped out, so far, at any rate, as the Gap of Dunloe is concerned. They desire that a small toll should be payable at the main gate, which would protect the car owners of Killarney. If that toll were kept as a combined toll, either the car owners themselves or the hotel proprietors would arrange to pay it, or some sum in substitution for it, annually to the Board of Works. The Tourist Association have at various times put that up to the Board of Works. It is felt down there that it is not right that the Government should seek to get revenue from the National Park, when they see what happens here with regard to Phoenix Park and St. Stephen's Green. They think that the National Park should be in the same category. There is also the point that on the Kenmare estate, which is also a show place, there is one toll of 6d. at the main gate, and they feel that the Government should not be any less generous in this respect than the Kenmare estate people.
There is a point also with regard to the upkeep of the mansion and the rock gardens which, I understand, used to be kept very beautifully. The Parliamentary Secretary, I think, will agree with me that a Government Department is scarcely the best for looking after that type of thing. While there are botanists and very good horticulturists in the neighbourhood of Dublin available for the Phoenix Park and St. Stephen's Green, I do not think they have any such people for the National Park, and I understand that the rock gardens have deteriorated considerably in recent years. If some committee of experts with the æsthetic sense required in these matters were appointed and given a Grant-in-Aid, it would be an advantage, because the Parliamentary Secretary will understand that if they are in the charge of a horticulturist who has to write to the Board of Works, who in turn will have to get financial sanction, with all the delays necessitated by that procedure, the work is bound to suffer.
Another matter which has been mentioned to me at various times is that, prior to the handing over of this property as a national park to the Government, the poor of Killarney were allowed to take waste timber free. Since the Government took control, the timber has been sold, and this perquisite of the poor of Killarney has ceased. I think it a pity that the Government have not carried on the tradition they found there of allowing the poor of Killarney to take that waste timber for fuel. Finally, there is a netting property belonging to the Government in the lakes, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that the general policy of the Government, as set out in the 1939 Fishery Act, is to remove all netting from fresh waters eventually. The Parliamentary Secretary, so far as he has control in the matter, should make a start in carrying out that policy by lifting the nets on the lakes. It would be a very good example to the Kenmare estate people, who also have fishing rights there, because the lifting of the nets would be a very great asset to the town, in the sense that it would improve the angling on the lakes. These are matters which the people of Killarney have been raising continually. They feel very strongly about them, and especially about this matter of the tolls, and I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should have the toll at the Gap of Dunloe wiped out, and that a combined toll of, say, 6d. or 1/- should be substituted for the tolls at Muckross and Torc.
Not to disappoint the Parliamentary Secretary——
The Brick and Cashen rivers.
I am sorry I was not in for the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. Do I understand that he has at last committed himself in respect of the Brick and Cashen? I had intended to start on a slightly different matter, but, as he has introduced the subject, I may say that during the debate on the Finance Bill I raised this matter once more with the Minister for Finance, and he then stated, in reply to what I had stated, that at the present moment there was circulating between the Departments a Bill for arterial drainage that would involve an expenditure of at least £7,000,000; I do not know whether he put in the words "at least" or not, but £7,000,000 was the actual figure mentioned. Now, I do not know exactly the state of the circulation of the Departments at the present moment—whether it is a healthy, quick circulation or whether it is slow, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell me how long this process of circulation is likely to last and when we may expect the Bill. I gather that in his statement he did promise that some works were to be undertaken. Do I understand that these will be undertaken independent of the passage of the Bill?
No. The only ones, so far as I can see, would be small ones, in the way of clearing up, and so on, but there would certainly be no big undertaking like the Brick and Cashen scheme.
Therefore, the promise comes down to where we were last year except that now a couple of Departments have been introduced, I shall not say as barriers to future progress, but that is the way it may work out, whatever may be the intention. I should imagine that the more Departments have to be consulted the longer will be the time before anything comes forth from the consultations. I do not know whether that is the experience of the Parliamentary Secretary or not; perhaps it is, but I should be very much surprised if it is not.
The Deputy is aware that there has to be consultation in some cases.
Yes, but when I heard the word "circulating" I was very much afraid that although the sum seems generous we may have to wait a very long time for the spending of it.
It is £7,000,000.
However, there was one element of hope that I did get from the statement of the Minister for Finance, and that was that the Government, as I hope, were giving up the idea of judging schemes from one point of view only and that they were remembering that the Department is the spending branch of the Ministry of Finance and not the controlling side of it. I was once reminded when I was in the Board of Works that I belonged to the Department of Finance and I pointed out the difference between the spending and the controlling side. At any rate, I gather that the scheme is not to be judged strictly on its economic, or alleged economic value, because otherwise I do not see how the £7,000,000 could be spent. When I was giving evidence before the Drainage Commission I pointed out what I thought was necessary, and it seemed to be somewhat of a shock to them, but I pointed out that it was necessary for the Government to make up its mind about it. I do not say that the economic value should not be taken into account at all, but I do say that it would be a great mistake to take into account only the narrow, economic aspect, and not to take into account the employment side of it, the question of unemployment benefit, and matters of that kind. As far as I remember, all these things were left out of account as a rule—possibly, from the Department's point of view, quite comprehensibly—in assessing the economic value of a scheme. I know quite well the lines on which they went. Therefore, all I have got out of the vague reference of the Minister for Finance, and what seemed for the moment, until I questioned him, the very promising statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, is that at some time the Government will make up its mind to spend some money on this necessary work. Well, it is an advance, if not in action, at least in intention, and I am afraid that that is all I can get out of it.
A state of grace, passive if not active.
I am afraid that it is very much a state of grace without good works, or without good public works, at any rate. Now, when the Minister's colleague, who is sitting beside him, was dealing with his Estimate, on education, I put up a rather precise question, and I do not think that the Minister quite faced that particular question. It was a question in reference to school buildings, namely, whether the £200,000 that is put down yearly in the Estimate does anything more than keep us level with the existing bad state of schools as a whole. The reason I asked that question was because 12 years ago or so it was the view of the Department of Education, having got a survey of the condition of schools, that an expenditure of £200,000 a year would do no more than make up for the annual wastage and deterioration that goes on: that you would simply keep the same level. Now, I expect that building costs have gone up rather considerably since then, and therefore the conclusion would seem to be inevitable that £200,000 a year can do no more than, even if as much as, keep up the present bad level of the schools in the country. You may improve some, but that is about all you can do. It may be said that this is a theoretical question at the moment, because there may be the question of providing materials for building. Quite so, but has anything more in the last 14 years—and I do not want to make any Party capital out of this—been done than just keep us at the level at which we were when a large number of schools were condemned as very unfit, when a number of others were bad, and when; of course, a lot of schools were deteriorating and, in the meantime, a number of schools must have fallen from the comparatively bad into the bad state, and from the bad into the very bad state? I should like to have a rather definite answer from the Minister on that particular point. These are the only matters that I wanted to raise. I came in and, having heard that a statement had been made about works in the nature of arterial drainage being undertaken, my hopes were raised, and I am almost sorry now that I got up to speak, because these hopes have been dashed as a result of the answers given by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I suppose I am entitled to speak on Vote 11?
Yes, Votes 9, 10 and 11.
I am concerned only with the question of receipts in connection with Vote 11—Haulbowline Dockyard. The receipts are given as £3,030, and I want to know whether any portion of those receipts is from Irish Steel, Ltd. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether those moneys were paid last year or the year before, and if he will cast his mind back to previous lettings to Haulbowline Industries, Limited, will he say if those moneys have ever been collected? I presume they have not. I think it is a rather ridiculous thing, then, to have this estimate of receipt appearing here, whereas it never had any existence in reality. I would like to get some account of the letting to Irish Steel, whether any payment of rent was ever made and how much is due up to the present. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say if any of the unpaid rent was recovered from Haulbowline Industries, Limited?
The Parliamentary Secretary to conclude on three Votes—9, 10 and 11.
Deputy Myles asked a question in relation to the Erne drainage. For some time every effort possible has been made in that particular matter, but nothing can be done except as part of a very big scheme. The Erne drainage solution would be a scheme representing something in the nature of £750,000. At the moment progress, as between the two interests concerned in the matter, has not reached the stage in which any such proposal as that is likely immediately to eventuate. Deputy Cole asked in relation to Ballyconnel River. That matter does not concern the Board of Works at all. It is one for the local public health authority. Deputy Davin asked a question in relation to the Barrow drainage. The Board of Works, in this particular case, pays half of whatever the actual expenditure on maintenance is. In the year 1940-41 a certain amount of arrears was overtaken which swelled the amount. The Estimate for this year is only £6,000, and, therefore, that allows for the £3,000 which has been arranged by us. Deputy Brennan and Deputy O'Sullivan raised the question of drainage. As they know, circulation is of various routes and under various degrees of pressure and through channels of different degrees to tortuous difficulty. I can assure them that the circulation, with regard to this Bill, is under the largest possible pressure, through the shortest possible routes, and producing the largest volume of movement that is possible in these times. Not merely is the Bill under preparation, but everything that it is possible to do by way of preliminary preparation for the use of it, when it is available, is being done. They are aware that this is not a time during which things can be improvised. The main work which will be done under this drainage Bill will be the treatment of large outfall works which will have relatively very little labour content and probably very little immediate effect upon the result. It is merely a question of heavy, costly and largely mechanical digging out of channels into which water may eventually be led. The Deputies can take it that staffs are being put together for the preliminary work which, we know, we will not be in a position to do. We are preparing for that work in advance of the time at which it can be done. Every pressure that the Government can put on is being put on to hasten that forward. Every co-operation that can be given by the staffs, who are very deeply interested in the work, is being given. More than that I cannot say.
The question of schools and their development has been raised. Deputy O'Sullivan very fairly said that at the moment it is somewhat academic. We budgeted last year for an expenditure of £240,000 on schools. We spent £211,000. In my opinion that was a very considerable achievement, and was got by the improvisation, to any degree that was possible, of the use of materials and the rest of it. I doubt very much, indeed, whether that rate of expenditure can be kept up in this period. It is quite probable that during the emergency period what the Deputy said is quite true, that the most we can do is to maintain the status quo. I do not see any prospect of creating some sort of a new kind of building service or something which would get over actual physical limitations. When I come to deal with another matter, I will tell the House the extraordinary actions we had to take in order to get anything like rapid building in the case of something which had to be improvised. However, Deputies may take it that everything that can be done is being done to increase the rate of expenditure—in other words to bring up the backlash. It has existed for a long time, and I think has been reduced over the last years.
Deputy Brennan raised the question of Roscommon Gárda Barracks. I can tell him that this barracks has been sitting on my desk and on my head and on my conscience for a considerable time. The Deputy is not the only person who is very actively interested in seeing that it is not forgotten. A site is being sought. We are in communication with the local authorities in the matter. It is a question of either building a new building or of temporarily converting an old one which cannot be put into a condition in which we would be prepared to accept it as a solution. The mere fact that things are not being done does not mean that a great deal of effort is not being made to get them done in circumstances which are sometimes very difficult. Deputy Davin asked if anything could be done to put a stay on proceedings in relation to the Barrow drainage. These proceedings are somebody's else's business. I did not originate them; I did not press them and I have no intention of interfering as regards their withdrawal.
Deputy Lynch was interested in certain local questions in Killarney. The tolls there are the tolls that were originally charged when the place was taken over. This is a very expensive place and quite definitely not a financial asset to the State, whatever else it may be. The question of the tolls has been under review. I would like to see a composite toll. But the gravamen of the whole of the Deputy's story was that there shall be one toll and a small toll. It is simply a question of how much more expense of one kind or another is to be put on to the Exchequer in relation to that particular place. It has been considered very sympathetically and what can be done will be done in the matter.
What is the revenue from tolls?
I do not happen to have it before me, but I will find out.
It is a question of whether it is worth while.
It is a considerable sum of money, somewhere between £1,000 and £1,200.
The total shown in the Appropriations-in-Aid for admission tickets to parks, piers, etc., is £850.
That may be this particular year. In other years it has been higher. At any rate, if it is only £850, what is the Deputy grousing about?
I am speaking of the annoyance to visitors.
It is a great protection also for that particular place. The toll is one of the protections of that particular place. At any rate, that place has to supply portion of the total revenue against the cost. If it is providing anything between £850 and £1,000 per year, it is not providing too much.
I am pointing out that £850 is shown here for parks, piers, etc., and that may include other places.
It is all from Killarney, as far as I know. Dún Laoghaire may be included, but I hardly think it is included in that. The Deputy has some interest in the rock-gardens. I would be sorry to hear that he was speaking from knowledge and experience when he suggested that they were being neglected in any way. The rock-garden at Muckross is a very beautiful place. I was in it within the last two months and, unless a blight has fallen on it since, there is no warrant for the suggestion. If anything, I am critical of the amount which is being spent upon the maintenance. I think the highest possible skill, knowledge and experience are undoubtedly being put into that rock-garden. I have no reason to doubt that and I certainly speak with knowledge. The Deputy may take it, also, that all the horticultural knowledge which is possessed by the Department, and it is very considerable, as the Deputy knows, is employed in dealing with matters of that kind. If it were a question of dealing with the Phoenix Park or Stephen's Green or Muckross Park, and if it was a question which required technical knowledge, or there was better technical knowledge in some other portion of the establishment, it would be put at their disposal. I have an idea that I gave Deputy Davin last year the amount of coal, turf and other fuel used in Government Departments.
That was for last year. I was talking about the current year.
I cannot tell the Deputy at once, but I will give the information with pleasure. As to the particular point which the Deputy has in mind, there was no turf produced by the Army there. The Army is producing turf for itself.
I want to trace where the 53,000 tons of turf produced by the Army went.
Not on this Vote, surely. The 53,000 tons produced by the Army out of the Army Vote for Army purposes, you want to trace on this Vote?
I want to trace it to its destination.
The Deputy will have to trace it on some other Vote rather than on this Vote. If I knew, I would not tell him on this Vote, and, if I tried to tell him, I am sure the Ceann Comhairle would sit on me very heavily.
I will trace it.
I think that covers all the matters, except the suggestion of Deputy O'Sullivan that the horrible words "economic content" should be removed from the discussion of the matter he raised. Unfortunately, pounds, shillings and pence enter into the equation, but a great many imponderables are taken into account. As to the particular scheme which I think will be written on his heart, if at any time he does go to a place where any writing will remain on his heart, certainly its economic content is very low and the recommendation I think that was made in relation to it by the commission was based upon other considerations like public health and the rest. I should say that the strictly economic content of that particular scheme, especially having regard to the uncertainty of the maintenance of the work, would make it very desirable that some other considerations than merely pounds, shillings and pence should be regarded in the matter. However, he may take it that in this new report and in this new Bill there is a tendency to regard some of the imponderables as more important than pounds, shillings and pence.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary did not say that the Brick and Cashen would be burned into my heart when I proceed to another world. He nearly suggested it anyhow. I understood from the statement that the Bill will be limited in character. Possibly that was not meant.
No.
I think the suggestion was that this Bill would mainly have to do, or perhaps only the £7,000,000 would mainly have to do with the preparation of outfalls and big schemes.
The main purpose will be the big outfalls.
The Bill will be comprehensive?
Yes.
So far as this Bill is concerned and so far as it does not merely repeat existing legislation, the public expenditure of what I might call a non-contributory character will be mainly in connection with improvements of outfall?
I think that will be so.
Therefore I would be correct in saying that not merely have we to wait for the Bill before any improvement comes, but for the preparation of the scheme in connection with outfalls?
Before we get the water off the land we will have to provide some place for the water to go.
I am not disputing the engineering correctness of what has been stated. I understand that it will be mainly a question of machinery and therefore one of the reasons why we cannot get on at present is because we have not that type of machinery. Is that what was meant by the reference to present circumstances?
That is so.
As regards the other matter which I raised, namely, the condition of the schools, it was not quite so theoretical. Shall I put it this way to make it a little more practical? Is there any survey at the moment of the condition of the schools in the country? I know there was one made about 15 years ago. Is there a survey now? I did not suggest, and I think in the reply it was almost implied, that it was only during the emergency period that we could not do more than catch up on the deterioration. I think that was the normal condition. I do not think an expenditure of £200,000 a year, even in normal times, will do more than keep you at the present condition, if it will do that. As there is an effort to look forward so far as drainage is concerned, is there any effort on the part of the two Departments, Education and Public Works, to have a full scheme in connection with school buildings that will make them pretty tolerable? I think it was recognised a considerable time ago that the mere annual expenditure of a comparatively small amount will not bring you into a healthy condition. Just as in the case of drainage, so in the case of schools, you must have a scheme when we are in a position to start building again. I will always make full allowance for the present conditions. It will be necessary to have a scheme involving a capital expenditure on a much bigger scale. I know a number of excellent schools have been built, but other schools, big schools, have fallen into disrepair, the middle-sized schools particularly. There ought to be some effort on the part of the two Departments to consider a really big scheme in that particular way.
I agree with the Deputy in principle. I think it is quite probable, having regard to the fact that the expenditure is going into a better-class school, that the £200,000 which we are spending may do no more than maintain the balance and, having regard to the fact that there are 200 or 300 small schools, it may be necessary that the minds of everybody should be expanded to a larger vision in relation to a scheme of that kind. It is simply a question of what amount of money is available to be expended for that purpose. If more money is available to be spent on building, I know of no better place where it could go.
I do not want to be misunderstood in relation to the Drainage Bill. It will cover the whole of arterial drainage, but the first effort will have to be to leave a place for the water to go.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into the question of the disposal of the waste timber and see if the former practice could be resorted to?
That matter also is being carefully watched. It is a part of a system in which the Ministry of Supplies is watching the whole of the timber and where it goes, and it does not necessarily follow that the best result in any particular place means just allowing whatever loose timber there is to be disposed of locally. Local needs are sympathetically taken into account; they are not forgotten.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate the position in regard to Haulbowline Dockyard?
I assume that is the amount of money paid by a particular firm and its present financial relationship with the Government.
The point is whether moneys have ever been collected.
Some of them have been collected, where they were in arrear. I am not prepared to state anything in relation to any particular client of the State.
Even the clients who have gone altogether, who have left the place?
I think I made a very frank statement to the House in relation to a particular client there in the past. So far as I am aware, there are no clients there whose direct relations with the Government in the matter of their rents are matters which it would serve a useful public purpose to discuss here.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a report of the Drainage Commission, but apparently I got a wrong impression. I thought there was some activity about to be undertaken as a result of the report of the Drainage Commission. Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House what was the activity he referred to? I should like to have the matter cleared up. My mind is somewhat confused about it.
I will read the passage again:—
"The provision for arterial drainage is only £7,000. This is due to the fact that we are closing down operations under the existing code, which has been found inadequate to the requirements of the situation. We have in preparation two Bills, one to provide for works on the River Fergus and the other a general measure of a comprehensive character arising out of the report of the Drainage Commission. I cannot anticipate the introduction of this legislation other than to say that it is the intention to include remedies for certain anomalies and hardships which have arisen in connection with past activities. In order to clear the deeks for this legislation we propose to bring all outstanding works to an award as soon as possible and to recondition, so far as available supplies permit, our existing excavating and other drainage plant."
