I do not think that comes within the bailiwick of the Parliamentary Secretary. There is a reference to recoveries from other Departments for services carried out on repayment terms. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary meant to refer to subhead C but he has not done so. He refers to subhead D which is for the purchase of sites and tells us that the additional sum required to meet the cost of purchasing additional premises is £63,000. That explanation is all right. Subhead E refers to new works, alterations and additions. Here, again, there is an explanation and the sum at £31,000 seems reasonable.
Under F.1 which covers maintenance and supplies we are told that the additional sum required is for increased wages and requirements. We are told that F.1 and F.2 arise partly from wage increases not provided for in the Estimate and partly from increased requirements. F.2 refers to furniture, fittings and utensils. What exactly is meant here? I cannot see any connection between the increased wages and the additional sum required for furniture, fittings and utensils. Why is the explanation for F.1 given in this particular way? Why did we not have wage and salary increases under one heading and increased requirements under another?
The additional sum required under F.4 for fuel, light, water and cleaning is £31,000. While that is a fairly substantial sum, I can understand that it is necessary. G.2 refers to arterial drainage construction works. The sum required to meet increases in wages in this case is £95,000. Does this mean that this is the sum that was not budgeted for last year but which is required now for the purpose of obtaining the increase granted under the 12th round to the employees of the Board of Works engaged on arterial drainage? It should be explained.
The next heading is K.1 which is not referred to in the Minister's brief but in the explanatory memorandum we are told that the additional sum of £61,500 is required to meet increases in wages and increased requirements. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what are the increased wages and what are the increased requirements. The sum is a substantial one. The number of people employed on national monuments is not very great compared with the number employed on arterial drainage but the increase required is two-thirds of that for arterial drainage. Is the increase for requirements to cover materials for certain construction works being carried out? If so, we should know what these works are.
We cannot complain about the sum of £3,500 in respect of the Asgard. Under appropriations-in-aid we see that the amount of rent, including receipts from letting of sporting and fishing rights, amounts to £40,000. We should have a breakdown of this sum. There need be no quarrel about the sale of property referred to. This was the St. Stephen's Green property and I do not know whether the sum concerned, £101,000, was a good or a bad price.
What is meant by the sale of produce and surplus stock for £11,000? Have the Board of Works got a garden somewhere from which they are selling cabbage? If so, it should be stated separately here. I presume that the surplus stores are tools which were not required but why should they be linked with produce?
I cannot understand item 10 on appropriations-in-aid which refers to £26,000 under "miscellaneous". This reminds one of a person running an office and putting down £3,000 for petty cash and hoping to get away with it. This sum is the third largest on the list under appropriations-in-aid. I do not believe that the House should be asked to vote a miscellaneous sum of £26,000. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the way the money is being spent but the House should have more details. The £38,000 for harbours and parks is a sizeable amount.
I note that recoveries from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for services carried out were £8,000. How does that relate to (c), which is Post Office Services, additional sum required to meet cost of services provided by the Post Office, £10,000? It seems to be the same item but with a different figure appearing under each of two headings. Recoveries from county councils in respect of arterial drainage works and protection works are put at a figure of £100,000. This sum, which is being made available by local authorities for the purpose of carrying out maintenance, is a demand made on them. They have no say in whether or not the amount of money they are providing is adequate or not, or how it is to be spent. On a number of occasions, I have queried the suggestion that a local authority should be asked for £X to do a certain amount of work. That money might not be spent in the area covered by that local authority. An estimate is made of the cost over the entire length of a particular river and the cost is allocated in a certain way. Local authorities along the area, and through them the ratepayers, have to pay a sum of money to the Office of Public Works. They spend that money in any way they consider suitable.
The Parliamentary Secretary might consider the question of having further co-operation between the engineering staff of the local authorities and his own staff when a decision is being made as to what exactly is to be done in regard to a particular portion of river. We all wish to ensure that when a big sum of money is spent on arterial drainage the position is not allowed to deteriorate again. I am disappointed that local authorities seem to be continuing the practice of letting go in mid-December people engaged on maintenance work. Why is it not possible, particularly as such people are now pensionable employees of the Office of Public Works, to have them employed over the year, do the job properly and employ the number of such people that are required for the work over a 12-month period rather than over an eight-month period as appears to be the case? Every time a wage increase is granted it is given to the people working on the job but they pay for it out of their own pockets because it appears that the system is to lay off such people so many weeks earlier so that the amount of the increase is saved on the particular job on which they are employed. This should not happen. It could be avoided if a Christian view were taken in dealing with employees.
We find the attitude of those in charge, who are employed for 52 weeks of the year, is that they do not seem to worry about people whom they require for eight or nine months of the year, but whom they could retain for the full year. They do not seem to worry what happens such employees. It can happen that a man who is laid off, and who has a big family, will go to the labour exchange and draw money for doing nothing. He will draw almost as much as he would earn if he was employed by the Office of Public Works. This matter should be dealt with. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that more attention should be given to the plight of the employees of the Office of Public Works who are not retained on a full-time basis although they are pensionable employees of that office.
The Parliamentary Secretary deals quickly and courteously with any matters raised. The same applies to the officials of the Office of Public Works. I have received a reply in a short time on any point which I have raised with him as a Member of the Dáil or as a trade union official. I am grateful for that.
