On the last occasion I was referring in particular to the major pressures and requests from other Departments to the Office of Public Works. I have since for other reasons received a copy of the Devlin Report and looked up their study on the Office of Public Works. I discovered that some of the points I was making before the debate was adjourned are dealt with in the recommendations made in that report. Paragraph 34.3.1 on page 413 states:
The Office has experienced several difficulties in performing the work assigned to it. Work is not properly screened before it is made "active"; it arrives at short notice, operating groups have difficulty in forecasting their workload, and requisitions from user Departments are not well defined. A significant part of architectural
effort on new works does not come to fruition. Because the client relationship between Departments and the Office is unsatisfactory, the organisation is hindered in handling project type undertakings efficiently. Apart from experiments already referred to, the dual structure makes the task of agreeing detailed design brief unnecessarily difficult.
I was referring to that particular problem concerning the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Department of Education, in that they come forward with major schemes and expect the Office of Public Works to be capable of absorbing a crash programme and getting through achitectural and structural developments. We look forward to the situation where the present problem in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs will be resolved. There will be a need to get the telephone capital programme under way very rapidly. If the Office of Public Works are to be asked to undertake the requirements of that Department, some special arrangement must be worked out or, as I would suggest to the Minister, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs should get on with the work themselves.
Paragraph 34.3.2 of the Devlin Report states:
Long-term projects are subject to short-term allocation. New starts are often delayed; projects extended; overheads increased and completion dates are put back.
In that situation one can see that budget allocations for Departments such as Posts and Telegraphs and Education are of an annual nature, long-term investment is required and there is a complicating factor which does not help the Office of Public Works.
Paragraph 34.3.3 states:
The possibility has been considered recently of taking from the Office new work for Posts and Telegraphs, Agriculture and Education (Primary Schools), because of the difficulties referred to.
I believe that those recommendations should have been implemented. This is a very comprehensive report running to over 500 pages. It may not have been possible to date to achieve many of the recommendations, but while we are discussing funds for the Office of Public Works it is an ideal opportunity to look at the past ten years and the experiences gained which may show the need for structural changes.
A specific recommendation was that the Office of Public Works should maintain arterial drainage. This is an area in which they have achieved particular expertise because of the large amount of very heavy machinery they have acquired over the years. Their expertise and equipment would justify the carrying on of this type of activity.
Other work is called for by the Department of Agriculture, such as the provision of a milking parlour at Abbottstown Farm. The Agricultural Institute have an architectural design facility and I do not see why that organisation cannot deal with this type of development. This kind of enterprise complicates the administration procedures in the Department of Agriculture and in the Office of Public Works, and in the end the work is often given to a private practice. A tremendous number of procedures must be observed in the development of a small milking parlour and other facilities at Abbottstown Farm. I do not suggest that the Departments should not have to contact the Office of Public Works. The requirements of the Departments of Justice and Defence should be left with the Office of Public Works, but I feel that developments within the Departments of Agriculture, Posts and Telegraphs and Education should be dealt with by these Departments and not by the Office of Public Works.
There is special reference in a recommendation of the Devlin Report to the fact that marine work and Shannon navigation should be transferred to the Marine and Harbour Branch of the proposed Department of Transport and Communications as an executive office, the Marine Works Office. Since that report off-shore activity and marine work in general have taken on a new importance. The Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy have charge of granting licences and the Office of Public Works maintain the harbours. A large number of people are involved; and it would be better if this work were allocated to the Department of Fisheries, which was not in existence when the Devlin Report was published. Possibly the setting up of that Department was recommended somewhere else in the report. There is a need for rethinking in a number of areas.
There is nothing very special about the expertise needed in developing schools. I cannot understand why the Department of Education cannot give a brief to private practice to build a school or why it should be necessary to drag in the Office of Public Works, involving such a large amount of paper work. It should not be necessary for the Office of Public Works to oversee the professional integrity of the private practice carrying out the work. Surely the private practice selected would be of sufficient standing to be capable of carrying out the brief. If one hires an architect one must depend on his ability to produce the necessary design. When work is sublet to private practices, as it is in many cases, I do not see why the Office of Public Works should become involved.
The Devlin Report refers to parks and national monuments. I do not agree with the recommendation there that these should be transferred to a Department of National Culture. The Board of Works have expertise built up over the years and for that reason I suggest that modern architectural activities should be taken out of the workings of the Board of Works and dealt with in a normal straightforward way, but the Board of Works have the expertise needed to maintain the State's buildings such as Government Buildings, Dublin Castle and so on. The Board of Works have shown their ability over the years to maintain and even to restore some of the excellent workmanship which is part of our heritage.
In relation to the Phoenix Park for which the Board of Works are responsible, at a recent meeting of the Fianna Fáil Cumann in Castleknock, I and my colleague, the Minister for Fisheries, and Councillor Boland were asked for information regarding the road plan for that area. On receiving the information from Dublin County Council we discovered that it is intended to CPO the left-hand side of the main Castleknock Road which leads directly to the Castleknock entrance to the Phoenix Park. To suggest that the Phoenix Park should be improved to take more traffic is a very temperamental political suggestion. Yet unofficially people use the main road through the park as a highway. The Board of Works are responsible for this park and the park will either have to be developed in order to take more traffic or the traffic will have to be banned. The road is inadequate to cater for the amount of traffic using it and the lighting on the main road is insufficient; it is an old-fashioned type of gas lighting. Dublin County Council appear to be content to widen the road towards the gate of the park yet it is not intended to use the Phoenix Park as a main highway. If this main road is to be continually used by traffic it must be made safe. There are a number of intersections on it that are positively dangerous. To suggest that traffic lights should be put up there would be immediately frowned upon. However, cars are travelling in two and three different directions there and somebody will have to decide whether to put up traffic lights or to stop the traffic using the road. The rest of the park is kept in excellent condition and it is a wonderful amenity to the people although there is need to develop playing facilities for children. St. Stephen's Green is a good example in relation to the provision of playing facilities.
Deputy Mitchell referred to the Zoological Gardens taking over another area of the park. I do not know whether this is a reality or whether it is desirable. Close to the zoo there are facilities for band playing and these facilities would have to be relocated. I suppose there is adequate space for that if the zoo is to be extended. It would be an improvement of the amenities of the park and perhaps the Minister could give the suggestion detailed consideration.
In relation to the Department of Justice, which recommended that the Board of Works should continue doing the excellent work it has been doing for that Department, I note that the amount allocated is £1.256 million. The Departments of Justice and Defence have special significance in relation to the security aspects of work on these two Departments and the understanding that has developed between them and the Board of Works over the years is a link that should be maintained and strengthened. The Board of Works have more than adequate facilities for dealing with the requirements of these Departments. The other Departments needing major developments are probably creating a greater work load than it is possible to deal with. The Devlin Report suggested that the maintenance of Government buildings and other work associated with accommodation for Government organisations should be assigned to a central procurement office of the Department of the Public Service and responsibility for the purchasing of office furniture for Government organisations should also be transferred there. I disagree with that recommendation. The work presently being done by the Office of Public Works in this area should be continued.
The conversion of the former UCD building at Earlsfort Terrace into a concert hall is a major development which requires the type of architectural engineering expertise that the Board of Works have. I am glad to note that the Minister has dealt with that matter and that some real action is being taken. I fully agree that the type of work being undertaken in our embassies abroad should involve the Board of Works. There are references in the Minister's speech to the different activities that will be carried out in buildings throughout the world at a cost of £270,000.
In relation to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, in addition to the schemes covered by this Estimate the Office of Public Works are to carry out works in connection with the telephone services at an estimated cost of £4.5 million which will be met from the telephone capital account. That is too much of a burden on the Board of Works. The type of buildings required by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for new telephone exchanges does not warrant the complicating of the steps I mentioned earlier. In my constituency of Lucan, there is a great shortage of telephone cabling and need for new telephone exchanges. The sites are there. I know of no major reasons for a hold-up. I believe the bottleneck develops between the administration of Posts and Telegraphs and getting the initial plans approved, particularly when they have to go out to private practice, getting back architects' proposals, their scrutiny by the Board of Works architects and going back to Posts and Telegraphs for approval. It appears to be a very complex and complicated procedure. I urge the Minister to give the matter detailed consideration. Particularly in the aftermath of the labour problems we have had in Posts and Telegraphs this might be one area where the personnel concerned could have greater involvement in the expansion that is obviously necessary in that Department. It is an interesting and challenging opportunity and if the matter goes back to the people responsible for expanding the Department of P & T both the Board of Works and the Department would benefit.
It is worth referring to examples of what I suggest are the order of the day. Quoting the Devlin Report again, it says:
The Office functions as an agency for many Departments; in principle it is available to all. As a result it is involved in wide-ranging activities comprising:
Civil engineering for government projects on a national scale, involving design, procurement and execution. It is not concerned, however, with projects of the following type: Sanitary schemes, Highways, Airports, engineering . . .Local authority housing. . . Hospitals.
Here we have a number of other Government Departments getting on with their own building programmes and developments and not complicating the procedure by involving the Board of Works. There are proven examples of the suggestions I make and which I ask the Minister to consider in this area. When speaking previously in this debate I put a figure of £1.5 to £2 million on the type of project in which the Board of Works should involve itself and anything above that should be the responsibility of the Government Department concerned.
The Minister has informed us that increased usage of the Phoenix Park does create problems. He says:
The growing volume of motor car traffic in the Phoenix Park is a serious and pressing problem, not only because it detracts from the enjoyment of the amenities of the park by the general public but also because of the rising accident rate which is likely to follow from an increased volume of traffic unless restrictive measures are taken.
In recent years there was a small step forward when the introduction of speed limits was suggested but the Minister says:
I am sure that Deputies will agree that traffic lights, signs, road markings etc. are inappropriate to a public park and that we should endeavour to prevent the proliferation in the Phoenix Park of such trappings of an urban environment. I have asked that a comprehensive study be made of the problems and I propose shortly to invite representatives of the local authorities and of the Garda to a discussion on the matter. I hope that some proposals will emerge which will help to reconcile to some extent the preservation of the amenities of the Phoenix Park with a solution to the traffic problem.
The intentions are good and I hope something concrete will come out of these discussions.
In making representations to Dublin Corporation and County Council one finds that the solution of the problem of excessive traffic in the Phoenix Park does not appear to be forthcoming with the necessary urgency. Dublin County Council have recently reported that they are road-widening towards the Castleknock gate. This means that unofficially they intend directing more and more traffic through the park. This is a growing problem. It is causing concern in my constituency. It is inevitable that Dublin County Council should continually grant planning permissions for the building of houses which are very desirable. They have designated Blanchardstown as a new satellite town where they say there will be a population of 100,000 in five or seven years. All that appears to indicate that there is no comprehensive and agreed procedure for moving the volume of people daily to and from their places of employment and in the main they are employed in Dublin city.
Therefore, the park, for which the Minister is responsible, must bear the brunt of the traffic from these developments. The developments are desirable. I welcome the people from downtown Dublin to the areas where Dublin Corporation are building in county council areas. They are integrating into a first-class community. It must be considered and decided whether the Phoenix Park will be used for conveying these large numbers of people in motor vehicles particularly between 7.30 and 9 in the mornings, to a lesser extent at lunchtime and again in the evenings to and from the city. The main road is particularly dangerous as one approaches Castleknock gate at night. The lighting is inadequate. The Minister obviously recognises the problem because he has spoken of the anxiety about the rising accident rate likely to follow from an increased volume of traffic unless restrictive measures are taken. I do not know how this can be done without complicating the problem of getting people to and from their work.
The Devlin Report in section 34, 3-9 states that the Office of Public Works has no co-ordinating role among Departments; that each project is a separate entity. In particular, Posts and Telegraphs, Agriculture, Justice and Defence avail of it. There are also many other calls from its own umbrella organisation, the Department of Finance and some other Government agencies. The Minister might consider this position and establish the amount of work from different Departments that comes to the Office of Public Works to be carried out. One would probably find that there tends to be duplication and overlapping in the requirements of different Departments for the provision of facilities throughout the country.
Various Departments can be requesting facilities when rationalisation of their requirements would probably mean saving. I know that each Government Department operates independently but it is probably time that this area of activity was examined. I do not see why Government Departments and semi-State agencies cannot share accommodation. The ESB have gone about their own affairs, they have erected their own buildings and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs should be no exception. There is a tremendous amount of information and expertise accumulated in the Office of Public Works. The Minister would probably be able to make positive recommendations to other Departments regarding any development plans.
The report makes the following observation:
34.3.8. It is easy to theorise about the relative costs to the Government of employing private enterprise or undertaking projects through its own agency. It is sometimes difficult to establish the comparisons. In this case, however, there is no such difficulty. The system (described in paragraphs 34.3.1-2) giving rise to the large volume of abortive design work inhibits the efficient direction and setting of priorities and consequently gives rise to unnecessary costs. It is extremely doubtful whether one unit could adequately undertake the wide range of tasks of the Office.
That was in 1969 and the demands on the Office of Public Works have increased since then. The Report of the Public Service Organisation Review Group stated that it was doubtful if one unit could adequately undertake the wide range of tasks of the office. The Office of Public Works have no co-ordinating role but they have to meet the requirements of Government Departments. The Estimate before the House will absorb costs but I think in the dealings between the Office of Public Works and the various Departments as well as dealings with private enterprise there is a cost build-up that is unnecessary and which could be avoided.
The main consideration the Devlin Report dealt with at the time was that the problems might be solved by revised organisation and changed work procedures, but they state this was not recommended as the best solution to the many problems that face the Office of Public Works. They make the following comment:
34.3.5. The Office functions as an agency for many Departments; in principle it is available to all. As a result, it is involved in wide ranging activities. . . .
I would appreciate if the Minister would consider the points I have made in any future planning. Normally architectural and major engineering work is planned some years in advance and probably the Office of Public Works are committed to many projects for Government Departments, particularly for the Departments of Education and Posts and Telegraphs and an unwinding procedure may be necessary.
The Office of Public Works are a self-contained section in the Department of Finance. This has been recognised by the Government and they have taken positive action in appointing a Minister of State for that office. This is recognition of the growing importance of the Office of Public Works and the important part they play in providing office facilities for Government Departments and in many other cultural activities. The engineering matters with which they deal are of considerable importance and have long-term significance. In addition, they should continue to deal with drainage work, with work on harbours and so on.
The Devlin Report, in paragraph 34.3.2, deals with long-term projects. Probably it will be necessary to consider over a three-year period plans for rationalising and improving the efficiency of the board. They are to be commended on the building and maintenance work that they have carried out during the years. Their work on Muckross House in County Kerry is an indication of their expertise and knowledge. The Devlin Report makes the following comment in paragraph 34.2.6:
"Integration" has been effected for Schools, for Architectural Maintenance and for the Engineering Workshops. "Integration" means that the former two sections have been replaced by one comprehensive section staffed by administrative and professional officers, working as one unit. While each interest does its own work, responsibility rests with the unit as a whole, not on the separate interests. At the top, responsibility is shared by co-equal heads. The same pattern holds at the lower level. Output has been substantially increased.
The headquarters of the board at St. Stephen's Green is central and ideal. No doubt that centre city type accommodation for Government Departments will be expanded in line with the increasing workload of the Departments.
The Office of Public Works are also responsible for parks. The Estimate proves that the Minister is conscious of his responsibility to maintain some of the quality aspects of our environment. The Board of Works are to be complimented for their tremendous efforts in those areas over the years.
I would like to refer to the Botanic Gardens and the type of facilities the Board of Works intend providing in this year's Estimate to improve the gardens. There is a growing awareness of the need for that type of horticultural expertise and facilities particularly in the Dublin area. The board, by recognising this and allocating a sum of money for it, are to be complimented. I would like to refer briefly to the Bull island sanctuary and the fact that the board recognises that this is a problem area which requires attention. Unfortunately some of the facilities in that area have been destroyed.
