Vol. 259 No. 12
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £100,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1972, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Public Works; for expenditure in respect of public buildings; for the maintenance of certain parks and public works; for the execution and maintenance of drainage and other engineering works; and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.
This Supplementary Estimate is necessary to meet increases in the cost of some of the services rendered by the Office of Public Works. The gross additional amount required, viz., £654,000, is offset partly by an expected increase in Appropriations-in-Aid and partly by estimated savings on certain other subheads of the Vote, leaving a net requirement of £100,000.
For the information of Deputies I should like to make the following comments on the more important items:
The excess on subhead A arises from salary increases not provided for in the original Estimate. Pay increases are an important factor too in the increased requirements of many of the other subheads.
The excess on subhead D arises principally from the purchase of a site for a new Garda station in Limerick to replace the existing station at William Street. This purchase had not been foreseen when the amount provided in subhead D in the original Estimate was settled.
The excess on subhead E arises principally from the additional allocation of £500,000 for national school building, including special schools for handicapped children, to which I made a passing reference when introducing the main Estimate last November. The additional expenditure on schools is partly offset within the subhead by savings, due to unexpected difficulties encountered in connection with the acquisition of land for the major fishery harbour construction works at Killybegs and Castletownbere and the unavoidable temporary postponement of some works at Dunmore East Harbour.
The excesses on subheads F1 and F2 arise partly from wage increases not provided for in the Estimate and partly from increased requirements.
The excess on subhead F4 is due to the steep rise in the cost of fuel and electricity.
The excess on subhead G2 is due to wage increases not provided for in the Estimate.
The excess on subhead K1 arises partly from additional work being undertaken and partly from increases in wages.
The original grant-in-aid, subhead L, to the committee appointed for the operation and maintenance of the Asgard is being increased to meet rising expenses and the cost of alterations needed to enable her to fulfil her present purposes.
In regard to subhead M—Appropriations-in-Aid—many of these receipts are difficult to estimate closely and in some cases it is not possible to forecast accurately when payments will be received. The bulk of the forecast increase for this year arises from the sale, which was completed at the end of February, of the State's interests in Nos. 1 Hume Street and 46 St. Stephen's Green.
On this Supplementary Estimate I have a comment to make about Supplementary Estimates in general. If Department officials had a better concept of managerial techniques I believe that Supplementary Estimates would not come to £100,000. I cannot understand why an additional sum of £120,000 is required under subhead A. This may seem a small sum of money but it is quite a sizeable amount to people who have to budget on small accounts. When endeavouring to assess their expenditure for the coming year, the Office of Public Works should try to save unnecessary expenditure on many of the subheads.
In the details of this Supplementary Estimate reference is made to increases and costs—an indication that we are living, under this Government, much beyond our means. We want a thrifty economy. I am confined to certain limits in discussing this Supplementary Estimate but there are a few matters on which I should like to comment. We can understand the reason for increases under subheads A, B and C but under subhead D— Purchase of Sites and Buildings—it is hard to understand the reason for the increased expenditure.
A deputation from Mayo came to me insisting that something be done about south Mayo in regard to arterial drainage. Those people resent the fact that the Minister for Finance would not give the required sum of money to continue the Corrib-Mask-Robe drainage which began at Headford. When the Parliamentary Secretary is replying, I hope he will give an explanation to the people of Mayo for allowing this fertile land to become waste. I know the Parliamentary Secretary and his officials are doing their best but the people of south Mayo, who have the most fertile land in that county, resent the fact that they are not getting fair play. One acre of land in County Mayo means more than ten acres of land in the Boyne valley both from a social and economic point of view. We must have some explanation about the arterial drainage in south Mayo and north Galway.
