asked the Minister for Local Government for what purpose the National Building Advisory Council was set up; whether it has achieved this purpose; and at what cost to the State.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Building Advisory Council.
28.
The objects of the National Building Advisory Council are stated in Article 2 of their memorandum of association dated 15th December, 1964. In brief, they are to survey the volume of work in the building and construction industry, to suggest measures to equate resources and demand and to promote stability, efficiency and productivity in the industry.
The Council submitted two reports of surveys of the building and construction industry in June and November, 1965, to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who was at that time the Minister responsible for the Council. The recommendations in the larger of these reports are summarised in the reply to Question No. 20 of 16th March, 1966. The Council have also been responsible for compiling and revising a register of contractors engaged in the industry.
While I am satisfied that the Council, in the relatively short period of its existence as a separate body has done some quite useful work, I feel that the steps taken for the merger between the Council and An Foras Forbartha, to which I referred in reply to question No. 16 on 14th November, 1967, will lead to a more co-ordinated approach to the problems involved.
The amount advanced from State funds to the Council to meet its expenses from its incorporation up to about the end of November, 1967, is £47,600. In addition, the cost of providing part-time staff for the Council prior to its incorporation was approximately £430.
Does the Minister not agree this has been a most disappointing and a most expensive experiment?
I would not agree. It is the larger and more comprehensive body in which the two now propose to be merged which would be following along the pattern outlined for the original, the National Building Advisory Council.
I think the Minister himself is satisfied we got very poor value for the £40,000 odd. Is it not a fact that they have actually produced nothing for the building industry in their period of existence?
On re-reading a reply to a question in March, 1966, summarising the lengthier of two reports furnished by this body in the relatively short time since they were set up, I think the Deputy will agree that these people were very busily and usefully employed.
It was a waste of money. The present decision to disband them is an indication of that.
It is not a disbanding: it is a merger.
It is a convenient way of keeping jobs for some of the boys.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.