Votes Nos. 1 and 2 and 7 to 18, inclusive.
Estimates, 1985. - Vote 1: President's Establishment.
With your permission, it is proposed to take all these Estimates together.
Then I suggest that the Minister would move Vote 1 and the other Votes can be discussed with it and separate decisions may be taken on each Vote.
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £240,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1985, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary to the President, and for certain other expenses of the President's Establishment.
This is an increase of £76,000 on the 1984 outturn. The main item giving rise to this increase is subhead B for travelling and incidental expenses——
Do I take it that the Minister has not a speech?
I have not a speech. This is for travelling and incidental expenses for which a provision of £87,000 is made for this year. The increase in the provision over last year's level is to provide for two State visits abroad by the President during the course of this year. The first of these was to New Zealand and Australia last month and earlier this month and the second will be to Austria later in the year.
On Vote 2 for the Houses of the Oireachtas, the provision for this year is £11,931,000. In relation to the items where there is an increase on that Vote, I would draw attention particularly to subhead F.4 which covers expenses of delegates to the Council of Europe, where the Estimate for 1985 is £110,000 — an increase of £33,000 over 1984. The increased provision is necessary to provide for increased travel costs and for subsistence expenses of Members — that is, air fares and hotel charges — in connection with Council of Europe meetings, due to the fact that an increased number of these meetings are being held outside Strasbourg. Were the meetings all in Strasbourg, the provision could be a little less than that, but that is a matter, of course, for the Council of Europe to decide.
I mention also an increase in subhead G which is the grant-in-aid provision for inter-parliamentary activities, where the increase is £30,000 over last year's outturn of £70,000. Again, the increase there is necessitated by increased costs of travel and subsistence expenses of Members in connection with these activities. In relation both to the Council of Europe and the activities of Members of this House in the context of inter-parliamentary activities, the provisions that have been made are reasonable. They are for a purpose which Members of this House might on occasion defend rather more vigorously. I would take the view, which I think would be shared by all Members that, as a sovereign Parliament, it is right and proper that this House as an institution should have the proper inter-parliamentary relationships with parliaments and parliamentarians in other countries and that it is a necessary and, indeed, desirable part of the activities of Members of this House that they should be so involved. I make those remarks in the context of discussions some months ago where a number of critical remarks were made about the fact that Members of this House were involved in those activities. None of those criticisms is well founded.
On subhead D.1 there is an increase in the provision this year. This is in order to provide for additional secretarial assistance for Seanadóirí who are not office holders. There again, we have now provided one secretary for every three Senators instead of one for every five as had been the case before that, a ratio that was causing some difficulties for the proper organisation of the work of the Members of Seanad Éireann.
On subhead L, the increase this year over the the outturn for last year is £109,000 and that is the subhead which covers the employment of consultants for special assignments with committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The increase this year appears rather large because expenditure under that subhead in 1984 turned out to be less than half of the amount originally provided for. There was a delay in the employment of consultants for a number of assignments, which led to an underspend on that provision during 1984.
Vote 7 is the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance, where we are providing for a sum of £20,592,000. As I think is always found to be the case, the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance has traditionally been one of the most tightly drawn Votes in the nature of things. This year, of course, is no exception. In relation to some of the changes and the increases by comparison with last year's provisions, I make the following remarks. On subhead A.2 which covers consultancy services, there is a provision for 1985 of £95,000, compared with the 1984 outturn of £48,000. That subhead provides for the payment of consultancy fees to the ICC for the services of two accountants on loan to my Department, an arrangement which has turned out to be a very useful one, particularly in relation to assisting my Department at looking at some of the more commercial aspects of the activities of semi-State bodies.
It includes also a small amount — £5,300 — for the installation of financial modelling packages and contract programming for the Estimates in respect of which there was no expenditure during the course of 1984. The total increase over last year on that subhead is £47,000. I picked it for a particular remark because there is a very generalised tendency to criticise subheads which cover consultancies. I should like to make it clear to the House in respect of this Vote that the total expenditure is modest and, secondly, it covers activities that have a particular value in relation to the proper operation of my Department and their contribution to the process of government. Otherwise, the increases under the various subheads are moderate and have been kept to the tightest limits.
Subhead J provides for payments under the special Border areas programme. We have provided for £5.5 million in 1985, as we did in 1984. To date just under £21 million has been allocated to this programme, including the £5.5 million provided for during this year. That will bring us almost to the total amount of expenditure required under the programme to draw down fully the non-quota section allocation to this country from the Regional Fund. The total required is £23 million to draw down the total amount made available to us. This year's provision will bring our total to £20.7 million so that there will be a small balance remaining and I expect this will be taken up during 1986. In relation to the other subheads, the increases have been kept within the strictest limits that can be operated. Generally, they are in the region of 6 per cent to 8 per cent.
Vote 8 covers the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. On all the subheads we have kept the increased allocation to very low levels with the exception of subhead C. dealing with post office services. While the increase was high in percentage terms — 50 per cent — it was very small in money terms at £2,000.
Vote 9 covers the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. The estimate for this year is £80,831,000 which is £4,583,000 higher than the 1984 outturn. This is an increase of 6 per cent on the total Vote over 1984. Again, the subheads where the increases are greater than the average are the following: subhead B.1. for travelling and incidental expenses where the increase is 16 per cent over the provisional outturn for 1984. That covers the cost of various sanctioned increases in allowances. There will be an unusually high level of expenditure during this year on uniforms because a substantial proportion of more expensive items fall to be replaced during this year. There is an increase of £777,000, or 19 per cent, on subhead B.2. The principal item of expenditure under that subhead is the computer installation. That accounts for just over £4.1 million out of £4.948 million on that subhead. The other increases on that Vote are not of great magnitude in the context of the total sum.
Vote 11 covers the State Laboratory. Again, the overall increase in the Vote this year has been kept to a fairly low level. The particular item to which I would draw attention is subhead D. where there is an increase of £240,000 over the 1984 outturn. That subhead covers apparatus and chemical equipment. The extra provision this year is for the purchase and installation of essential and expensive laboratory equipment, the purchase of which had been deferred while the laboratory was in inadequate and overcrowded premises in Merrion Street. Some months ago I had the pleasure of opening the new premises. I am sure the laboratory staff will be able to carry out their work in more comfort and in better circumstances than has been the case up to now.
In Vote 12 which deals with the Secret Service we are providing £170,000. Vote 13 covers the Office of the Attorney General. The only notable increase over last year occurs on subhead C., namely, a 49 per cent increase for postal and telecommunications services to cover anticipated increased post office charges and an increase in the general volume of post, telex and telephone use. On subhead F. there is an increase of 400 per cent over last year's provision of £1,000. That is the subhead that provides for defence of civil servants. In 1984 the cost was extremely low and we have been prudent in providing for the costs that may occur during this year.
Vote 14 is for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Again, the main increases here are in relation to subhead B. for travelling and incidental expenses and subhead C. for post office services. The increases under those two headings amount to only £11,000 for both items. Vote 15 covers miscellaneous expenses. Here we are providing for a smaller sum than last year. We are providing £333,000 which is a reduction of £243,405 on the provisional outturn for 1984. This is the Vote from which State entertainment costs are paid. Last year we had to provide for extra expenditure arising from the fact that we held the Presidency of the European Community in the second half of last year. In addition, last December we had the EC summit and we had the visit of President Reagan of America in June last year. We do not have to cover such events this year, hence the reduction in the provision.
Vote 16 is the vote for the Stationery Office. This year the Estimate is £9.3 million, an increase of £861,000 or approximately 10 per cent on the 1984 provisional outturn. There are no single notable increases on the subheads in this Vote apart from a 600 per cent increase in the provision for consultancy services where we are providing £6,000 this year as against £1,000 last year. These are expenses which will be incurred in connection with the planning of the layout of the proposed new accommodation for the Stationery Office. The other changes are not in themselves remarkable except in relation to subhead B.2. where there is a 25 per cent reduction in the provision for this year compared with last year, that is, the provision for office machinery and other office supplies. The reduction is due to an anticipated reduction in the procurement of office machinery.
Vote No. 17 covers the Valuation and Ordnance Survey offices. The total increase under the provision is a fairly modest one. There is a substantial increase under subhead B.2. of 120 per cent which is accounted for by the purchase of a system for organising and controlling flexi-time arrangements in the office. There is an increase of £47,000 or 64 per cent in the provision for post office services due to the proposed installation this year of a new PABX telephone system.
Vote No. 18 covers rates on Government property. On subhead A. there is a reduction of £876,000. That arises from the fact that payments in respect of property of the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs are no longer a charge on this Vote. The other provisions on the Vote give rise to no particular comment.
The Minister has dealt with the range of Votes covered in this Estimate. They range from areas which for the purposes of the debate would not be relevant to him, for example, the Office of the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Stationery Office, and so on. For that reason I propose to confine my remarks to the Office of the Minister for Finance and the Commission on Taxation. Deputy McEllistrim will deal with the Office of Public Works in greater detail.
When one listens to the Minister introducing in a calm and detached fashion the Votes for which he is responsible, one gets the impression that we have a very calm and happy atmosphere in the nation but the reality is quite different. The Minister who presides over the distressed nation at present is introducing these Votes. I regret to say that the greatest contribution which the Minister for Finance could make to the economy would be to submit his resignation forthwith to the Taoiseach.
The Deputy did not sound very excited about that.
Some of his parliamentary colleagues have called on him to do this. The fact is that the Minister who is directly responsible for the management of the economy has depressed not only the economy but the people to a level from which it will be very difficult to raise them. The continuous level of unemployment is a direct consequence of the Minister's uncaring policies and is causing distress and anger throughout the country. The very deep, serious impact of this is aggravated by the cold and what sometimes appears to be arrogant insistence by the Minister in public statements on the radio and television that the Government are managing the economy in a consistent and disciplined fashion.
The Minister persists in making that point in face of the facts. That further aggravates the reaction of the public to the Minister and the Government. This is a blatant distortion of the reality. That it is a distortion is underlined by a number of objective findings and reports from both within the country and externally.
In recent times established reputable economists, some of whom were closely associated with the Minister's party, were seriously canvassing the likelihood for the first time of the IMF taking control of our economy. That has appeared in a number of articles and in financial magazines and is being canvassed seriously as a possibility. It is clear that the Minister has presided over the most serious deterioration in our finances since the foundation of the State. I will refer to some of the economic indicators, leaving aside the experience of the people in the home and the work place, or rather dole queues.
The recent OECD report, April 1985, disclosed that the Government debt now stands at 128 per cent of GNP, by far the highest of the 24 member states of the OECD. Our external public sector indebtedness is 70 per cent of GNP and interest payments on this account for 10 per cent of export earnings. Interest payments on this debt now absorb over one third of total Exchequer tax revenue. We have reached a point where our economic activity is so depressed due to lack of imagination, real planning, an awareness of the wealth of the nation and how we should promote that through our economic policies, that one third of our total tax revenue is taken up by foreign interest payments. The interest payments on the external public debt pre-empt over 6 per cent of total national output.
These are chilling figures when one recognises that in any comparable economy figures of that kind do not exist. Let me underline the deterioration since the Minister took office. Our total national debt was £12.8 billion. As we address the issue now, that figure has soared to £20 billion in two and a half years. On current trends it will reach at least £21 billion at the end of the year. That is an increase of almost 55 per cent in little over two and a half years. That is the state of the nation at this time in terms of our national debt. We also have the highest level of taxation in the OECD area. This is underlined by the fact that there is now a dramatic 15 per cent decline in real wages after taxation since 1979. This figure is not being put forward as part of Fianna Fáil propaganda as some might suggest but by a most reputable international organisation, the OECD.
A debate on taxation is not in order on the Estimate. I did not interview up to now because I accepted what the Deputy was saying as being in order, but I must remind him that taxation is a matter for legislation and is therefore not in order during this debate.
I shall not go into the question of taxation in detail but you will be aware that among the areas we are dealing with in this debate is the Vote for the Revenue Commissioners, a Vote which, as the Minister has indicated, is of the order of £80 million.
That is a matter of collecting tax.
It is also a matter of implementing tax provisions. Surely I am allowed to make a passing reference to tax.
A passing reference is in order.
It may help to confirm you in what I hope is a reasonable opinion if I say that among the Votes is the Vote for the Commission on Taxation who have been asked specifically by Governments to consider our taxation system, the levels of taxation and the spread of it. It is not my intention during this short debate to cover the whole range of the reports of the Commission on Taxation but with respect, I should be entitled to say that we now find that real wages have declined by 15 per cent after taxation since 1979. This has emerged also from the Commission's reports. Such a depressing picture gives no joy to any of us and even less to those outside the House who are suffering the consequence of that depression.
The situation is underlined further by the latest Exchequer returns which give total revenue receipts up to 14 June running at £68 million below last year's level. If we allow for inflation in real terms, that is a major drop in the revenue receipts that one would have expected in the first half of the year, because normally these receipts should be running at a level of £100 million more than the previous year and that would not be even keeping in line with inflation. When we have the first half yearly returns we will be in a position to comment further.
It is now fairly clear that the current budget deficit for the first half of the year will be of the order of £850 million and that is almost 70 per cent of the target deficit of £1,234 million set by the Minister in the budget. Many thought that was a dangerously high target deficit but now there is a dramatic overrun on that. Clearly the consequences of this will be disastrous for the economy.
To consider the other side of the coin that emerged from the Exchequer returns up to 14 June, while revenue has dropped dramatically despite increasing tax levels, in the same period total expenditure by way of central fund services and supply services has increased by £326 million to £3.63 billion in comparison with last year. All of this demonstrates that the Government, and the Minister in particular, who made a virtue of their capacity and determination to control the economy, to adhere to targets, to adopt a disciplined approach and to bring Ireland face to face with reality, have brought about a most disastrous deterioration in terms of our current budget deficit, our growing foreign debt, our total national debt and any other area. We all know too well from our recent contact with the people just how much they are suffering as a result of the Government's policies. Some may not have been in contact with the people before.
The Deputy should speak for himself.
Perhaps the Minister might benefit from keeping in closer contact with the people.
The Deputy is speaking in ignorance. He should speak for himself and then he might have some chance of being right.
Most people realise that apart from the very serious impact socially of unemployment——
I am looking at item No. 12 which relates to Estimates for the Public Service for 1985 and I find that under the different headings are the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, State Laboratory, Secret Service——
There is reference to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and you will be aware that they deal with tax.
I am only too well aware of what it is all about and I am only asking the Deputy to keep on the straight and narrow.
I appreciate your guidance and I can only express the wish that the nation was being given the same kind of guidance. The increasing level of unemployment and the diminishing labour force who are being forced to foot the bill for the increasing numbers who are depending on social welfare are placing an enormous strain on the economy and are resulting in further tax contributions.
Total employment is increasing.
Both the Deputy and the Minister are out of order in so far as this Estimate is concerned.
Would the Chair prefer me to speak about the Office of the DPP?
We are discussing Estimates for the Public Service.
May I draw your attention to the fact that included in the Estimate is the Vote for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and for the Commission on Taxation who have produced four detailed reports on every aspect of taxation?
We are dealing with Estimates for Departments but the Deputy is ranging into the taxation system, unemployment and the general economy. This is the fourth time on Estimates that we have had this type of confrontation.
I am not sure whether that is the result of lack of understanding on your part or on my part.
The lack of understanding is on the part of the Deputy.
In the course of the Estimates for public expenditure, on which Vote would it be appropriate to discuss taxation and the Revenue Commissioners?
The budget would be the appropriate forum.
I should like to have a reply from the Chair.
The budget is the appropriate mechanism for discussing economic or financial matters. Item No. 12 this evening relates to Estimates for the Public Service for 1985 and includes different Votes.
Had you been here when the Minister was speaking you would have heard him say that he was providing £80 million for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. I am asking whether it would be more appropriate to address oneself to the role of the Revenue Commissioners in relation to taxation when discussing a Vote for the Office of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry or the Office of the Minister for Education, for instance?
The Deputy is being facetious.
I am afraid so, but unless you can indicate under which Vote I may discuss taxation——
The Deputy is launching into a full range debate on economic affairs when we are dealing solely with Estimates for the Public Service. I accept that passing references are in order in respect of the Department of Finance.
We are dealing with the Office of the Minister for Finance. He is the Minister who is in the House. I suppose that when next we have a debate on the Office of the Minister for Agriculture we will not be allowed discuss agricultural policy.
As I reminded the Deputy two weeks ago, he has been in the House for far longer than I and he is only too well aware of the procedure on Estimates.
In all my time in this House — and I do not want to pull rank in length of time in the House — I have never heard the Chair suggest that the most fundamental elements of the responsibility of the Minister in the House were not relevant to the debate on the Estimates. I have never heard that.
The Estimate is not for the Department of Finance. The Estimates here are for the Public Service in totality.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order, I may be able to help the Deputy——
The Office of the Minister for Finance is in Vote No. 7. If the Chair has a look at that——
I have that.
May I have a point of order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
What I am saying is that I accept that the Deputy is entitled to refer to the Department of Finance, but the Deputy is veering out into the whole economic sphere.
All right——
Passing references are in order.
All right, we will not get into a tizzy — passing references, whatever that means. What I am saying in relation to the level of taxation is that it places such an intolerable strain on our economy that it gives rise to a vicious circle in terms of unemployment. We are demanding further tax contributions from an ever-diminishing labour force. We find now nationally as emerges from OECD reports and economic surveys that real wages are diminishing to such an extent that unemployment benefits now replace 80 per cent of earnings compared with 70 per cent less than ten years ago.
When we look at the economy, for which this Minister is particularly responsible on any one of its fronts, we find that the level of investment in the economy has declined dramatically in recent years. Net foreign investment last year was less than 1 per cent of GNP, and manufacturing activity, not surprisingly, declined by 40 per cent. The decline is even steeper so far this year. The OECD Report to which I have been referring points out that, as a result of what they call the tax wedge — they use the term specifically in relation to the Irish position — which is effectively the huge increase in the tax burden, income is being forcibly transferred in this country from the private to the public sector to an alarming extent. They warn in a very objective and serious way about the effects of this tax wedge on the poor profit situation of a diminishing number of indigenous firms.
Under this Minister the only growth areas have been all too obvious — the black economy, because of the level of taxation, unemployment, taxation itself, and, of course emigration. We do not have to worry about emigrants, they are leaving us — they are no longer a burden on us — at the rate of 30,000 per annum. That is the only basis on which we can claim relief, that they are going elsewhere and finding little to satisfy them. All of these distressing figures demonstrate that the country has been brought to the brink of economic ruin. The public are frustrated and angry to an unprecedented extent. Those public representatives who have had to face them on the ground in recent times know the extent of that frustration and anger. It is time that those who have responsibility in Government recognised its extent. For that reason if the Government as a whole are determined, and they do appear to be, to hold on and to ignore all these serious distress signals at present, then perhaps what I sought and suggested initially, with reluctance personally, but said seriously out of political responsibility — the resignation of the Minister for Finance — might signal some faint hope of survival.
I wish particularly to speak on Vote No. 10. — Public Works and Buildings. The net total Estimate for Public Works and Buildings for 1985 is £96,579,000. While it is not among the top ten Estimates in terms of the amount of money being sought, nevertheless, it always generates a considerable amount of interest among Deputies on all sides of the House. This is a reflection of the impact which the activities of the Office of Public Works have on so many aspects of life throughout the country.
These activities may be considered under three broad headings — buildings, engineering works and conservation and amenity.
The Office of Public Works is the Government's principal agent for the provision and care of buildings for State purposes at home and abroad. Wherever possible, accommodation needs for Government services are provided for in premises owned by the State and the OPW's on-going building programme is designed to meet those needs as far as is possible within the constraints of the allocations in the Public Capital Programme.
The office seems to be coming in for a certain amount of criticism lately in relation to its building programme. One of the charges being levelled at them is an apparent lack of concern for the preservation of buildings of architectural and historic merit. There is, of course, no such lack of concern. The State is always mindful of its responsibilities in relation to important buildings in its care, and the Commissioners of Public Works in particular are aware of the fact that the public look to them in a special way to see that anything of merit from the past is treated with sympathy. Some people seem to have difficulty in appreciating that it is often necessary, in maintaining the historic character and features of buildings, to cater at the same time for modern functional needs. It must also be said that occasions can arise when a building which people might like to see retained has to go. Decisions in such cases are not taken lightly but where, for example, considerations of public safety are concerned there may be no real choice to be made.
An outstanding example of what the OPW have achieved in the field of preservation and restoration is the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham. Last year I had the honour of formally accepting, on behalf of the State, the magnificently restored building from the contractors. The completed restoration scheme is an outstanding achievement and a major milestone in terms of the preservation of a unique element of our rich architectural, historical and cultural heritage. I would like to pay tribute to the Office of Public Works, the design team, the contractors and their workforce for the wonderful work to which all who have seen the building will testify. I might add that, contrary to the impression given from time to time in certain quarters, tight financial control was exercised throughout the project and the cost, at approximately £20 million, has been money well spent given the nature and scale of the works involved.
In November last the Government announced that the Royal Hospital would be open to the public and developed as a major centre for culture and the arts. An independent company has been established to manage and control the premises and the Office of Public Works, in consultation with the company, will undertake the fitting out works considered necessary.
The Office of Public Works are also at present engaged in a major scheme of restoration of the stonework of the Custom House in Dublin. It is expected that work will commence shortly on a similar scheme at the Registry of Deeds in Henrietta Street.
Another group of buildings which it is intended to restore for posterity is the group of Georgian houses facing Government buildings in Merrion Street, one of the most important Georgian streets in Dublin. Present plans envisage the faithful restoration, as far as is practicable, of the interior and exterior of the houses and the installation of modern services to make them functionally useful. The work will be undertaken in a phased manner over the next few years.
Buildings for the Garda form a significant part of the OPW building programme. Work on the erection of new Garda stations is in progress at various centres throughout the country and is expected to commence at a number of others before the end of the year. Planning of other new stations will continue. This year will also see the refurbishment of part of the Clock Block at the Garda Depot in the Phoenix Park, which will provide improved accommodation for senior Garda personnel. Also at the Phoenix Park, on a site adjoining the depot, the construction of a further stage of the Garda Headquarters will commence. New accommodation for Garda industrial-type services, such as garages, stores etc., at present in cramped and unsuitable buildings at the depot, Phoenix Park and St. John's Road, will be provided at the former Talbot premises at Santry, Dublin, where adaptation works are due to commence this year.
Deputies will see from the list supplied to them that there are many other building projects included in the 1985 programme apart from those which I have mentioned specifically. It would take too long for me to talk about each one of them but, if any Deputy requires information on a particular project, I will be happy to give it in my reply. Apart from the initial provision and fitting-out of premises, the Office of Public Works also have responsibility for furnishing, heating and lighting and on-going repair and maintenance.
When introducing this Estimate last year I stressed the importance of proper maintenance of buildings and property generally. In pursuance of this policy, at the suggestion of the Office of Public Works, an accommodation officer is to be appointed in each Department and from 1 January next these officers will be entrusted with certain maintenance responsibilitues within their own Departments. This, I hope, will lead to a general improvement in maintenance standards.
Because of the on-going demand for new and improved accommodation for Government services and the unavoidably restricted amount of capital available for building it is likely that, for some time to come, it will be necessary to continue to meet some needs by way of rented accommodation. The provision for rents in 1985 is £17.495 million— Subhead F.3.
The engineering works provided for in the Estimate fall into two main categories: Arterial Drainage and Marine Works. Last year I alluded to the review of arterial drainage policy undertaken by the Office of Public Works at the direction of the Government. The review has been drawn up and has been given consideration by the Department of Finance. Some additional data required before submission to the Government are now being collected and I hope that the review and all necessary data will be before the Government before the end of this year.
I will now deal with the requirements for implementation of the programme envisaged in 1985. Amounts totalling £15,537,000 are included under subheads G.1., G.2. and G.3. of the Estimate to provide for the survey, design and construction of arterial drainage schemes, together with the maintenance of upwards of 30 completed schemes.
The programme includes the continuation of the collection and analysis of hydrometric data on many rivers throughout the country which provides valuable information in regard to the country's water resources. I expect that the specialist studies being undertaken in the Dunkellin-Lavally catchments will be completed this year.
This year should also see the completion of construction works on the Boyne catchment drainage scheme, which is the biggest single scheme so far undertaken by the Commissioners of Public Works. When completed it will have conferred benefit on about 120,000 acres of land. Work will continue on the Maigue, Corrib-Mask-Robe, Boyle and Bonet schemes. In addition I expect progress on the joint scheme for the Ulster-Monaghan Blackwater, being undertaken in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, to have reached the stage whereby it will be possible for the Commissioners of Public Works to commence operations in the southern reaches of the catchment in County Monaghan. Substantial EEC grants towards the cost of drainage construction works will be available again this year. The cost of maintaining completed schemes is met from Subhead G3 initially and is recoverable from the relevant county councils. The Office of Public Works are the statutory authority responsible for the management and control of the three State harbours, Dún Laoghaire, Howth and Dunmore East. Provision is included in the Estimate for some necessary improvements to the passenger terminal building at the mailboat pier in Dún Laoghaire. A contract is in progress for the replacement of stairs with ramps and when that is completed any redecoration needed will be done. I am conscious that the existing passenger handling facilities and arrangements at the harbour need to be reviewed and to this end a working group, set up by the Minister for Communications, is at present examining the options. Pending the outcome of the group's deliberations, it clearly would be unwise to embark on major capital works and the cost of the necessary improvements to which I have referred represents prudent use of available resources in the interim.
Provision is also included in this year's Estimate for a marine project at Roonagh, County Mayo. The project involves provision of a new pier, an access road and a car parking area at an estimated cost of £550,000 and, when completed, will allow vessels to berth at all stages of the tides. This will be a considerable boon to the inhabitants of Clare Island where new landing facilities have already been provided by the Office of Public Works.
In accordance with the provisions of the Coast Protection Act, 1963, the Office of Public Works are charged with the responsibility of undertaking and maintaining coast protection schemes. The provision included in this Year's estimate will cover the cost of maintenance only and the bulk of it will be spend at Rosslare and Youghal. The expenditure on maintenance is recoverable from the county councils concerned. As far as conservation and amenity are concerned, work continues on the development and maintenance of the natural and cultural resources in the care of the office.
Glenveagh National Park in County Donegal was successfully opened to the public in July of last year and received almost 35,000 visitors by the end of the tourist season. Facilities at the park include the first stage of a visitor centre incorporating an interpretive display, toilets and car-parks, an audio-visual show, tea-room, nature trail, a guide service and a range of explanatory booklets. Work is proceeding on the second stage of the visitor centre which will include further interpretive displays, a permanent auditorium and a restaurant-rest area and on maintenance work to Glenveagh Castle. This building programme is being part-funded by the EC Regional Development Fund. I hope that the full visitor centre and the castle will be open to the public in 1986. As most of the trees in the Phoenix Park have reached maturity, a major replacement programme has commenced. It is hoped to plant 20,000 trees within the next five years.
A new audiovisual show on the lives of the Pearse brothers was produced for the Pearse Museum in St. Enda's Park, Rathfarnham. This can be seen any day of the week free of charge. It is a very interesting show. It should be of particular value to schoolchildren but anyone with an interest in the history of Ireland in the early part of this century will find it well worthwhile to pay a visit to St. Enda's.
We are all aware of the decision to transfer the Grand and Royal Canals from CIE to the Commissioners. The Commissioners existing highly successful role in respect of the management of the Shannon Navigation had a great bearing on this decision. However, this Estimate does not include any provision for the canals and, accordingly, other than saying that I am confident that the Commissioners will be as successful in their management of the canals, I will confine my comments to matters relevant to the Shannon Navigation. The financing of the canals on their transfer will be dealt with as a separate matter.
My office's role in the management of the Shannon Navigation is worthy of the highest praise. This can be appreciated by the fact that even in these difficult times the usage of the navigation facilities is increasing. The Commissioners are fully conscious of the need to continuously improve, extend, and provide new facilities wherever required on the navigation. Their resources are fully utilised to ensure the maximum return for the navigation and the benefits of this policy can be seen by all who visit the Shannon or avail of its facilities.
Expenditure on major development works in 1985 will be £80,000. This will cover works at Clonmacnoise, Dromineer, Lecarrow and Williamstown. The provision of these facilities will greatly enhance the navigation and, I hope, attract more people to it. It should be appreciated that the management of a navigation as extensive as the Shannon involves a massive maintenance programme not alone to ensure that the works do not deteriorate but also to ensure that safety standards are of the highest. An indication of the extent of this programme is that in excess of 600 navigation marks such as buoys and perches have to be maintained. Other navigation works such as harbours, quays, locks, sluices, pumping stations etc., also have to be maintained. The Commissioners record in this respect is second to none and the £665,000 which will be expended under the F1 Subhead on this maintenance programme will ensure that the high standards will continue.
A sum of £2,980,000 is required under Subhead J for the conservation and presentation of national monuments in State care, for archaeological excavations and for archaeological survey work. Conservation of national monuments in State care is one of the statutory duties of the Commissioners of Public Works. This year major projects are in hands at some 34 sites throughout Ireland.
The provision of visitor services at our better known monuments is now a major undertaking. This summer 50 guide information officers will be working at 16 locations. This service is constantly monitored and resources are made available to cope with increased numbers of visitors. Last year 320,000 visitors paid for admission to these locations. At the Rock of Cashel numbers were at an all time high — just under 100,000. Grants for archaeological excavations, totalling £90,000 are being made this year under a scheme operated in consultation with the Royal Irish Academy. The major works are at Knowth in County Meath, Lisleagh, County Cork and Loher, County Kerry.
I am happy to be able to report that the archaeological survey continues to make steady progress. A sites and monuments record for County Louth was released last year and similar records for Counties Monaghan and Westmeath were recently issued. Sites and monuments records for the four other counties. already surveyed by the commissioners, that is Counties Kildare, Offaly, Cavan and Longford, will be issued inside the next three years. The preliminary surveys of Counties Cork and Galway being done on contract for the commissioners by University Colleges Cork and Galway, respectively, are nearing completion and records for these counties will be available next year. Including County Donegal, which was surveyed some years ago under a scheme operated through the employment guarantee fund, and for which a sites and monuments record will be available later this year, the ten counties where field survey has been completed will have records available for them by 1988.
To augment progress on the archaeological survey, a paper survey of the 16 remaining counties got under way in March 1985. This survey, which will concern itself with an examination of ordnance survey maps, estate maps and all published material in respect of the county being surveyed, is scheduled to be completed by the end of 1988. Thus inside the next three years or so sites and monuments records will be available for all 26 counties. On the basis of the favourable reactions from planning officers and agencies concerned with environmental change to the records for Counties Louth, Monaghan and Westmeath, I am satisfied that we are on the right course in our efforts to halt the destruction of monuments and sites of archaeological significance.
I have given here only a broad outline of the main activities of the Office of Public Works covered by this Estimate. In addition to these works, the office of course also undertake major programmes of work on a repayment basis on behalf of various other Government services, such as the prisons service, fisheries, telecommunications etc.
I do not wish to continue to go through all the items or phases of activities of the OPW, and I will not have an opportunity to come in here again on this, but if anyone has any serious question to ask I will make available whatever information is needed.
The Estimate for the OPW for 1985 is £96.5 million. This is not adequate for that office. I maintain that the OPW are a very important office who deal with every Department of Government, and the money allocated to the OPW is a great barometer for assessing a Government and their performance. When the OPW are left without enough finance for the year, every Department in Government feel the pinch. Sufficient money has not been allocated this year to the OPW and enough allowance was not made for inflation.
The OPW can be examined under three headings: buildings, engineering works and conservation and amenity. Taking buildings first, the OPW have come under a great deal of criticism recently for their activities in providing buildings for Government Departments. Some of this criticism is unjustified as the OPW must provide and have space ready in anticipation of any Government Department needing extra office space at any given time. Every Government Department need office space near Dáil Éireann and especially in the St. Stephen's Green area. When I was in that Department as Minister of State we had several requests for office space and all the Departments intimated to us that they needed office space near Dáil Éire-ann.
The OPW should start on the renovation of the old Land Commission buildings in Merrion Street. The Minister of State spoke about some houses in Merrion Street being renovated. I do not know whether these are the old Land Commission buildings, but I was in those buildings when I was Minister of State and as far as I know they belong to the Government. They should be renovated as quickly as possible and prepared for use by some Department. Also the OPW should purchase sites when they become available in the St. Stephen's Green area or near the Dáil. When the old Hibernian Hotel was demolished recently, a site became available which would be very suitable for an office block. The erection of a building by the OPW would be a better investment than renting office space.
I am particularly interested in a new block of offices for the Civil Service Departments in my town of Tralee. All the offices are scattered around the town and it is important that all of them should be in one centre. A very suitable site was purchased from Tralee UDC when I was Minister of State in the OPW and a building was designed at that time which has not yet been erected by the Government. It is needed to house approximately 200 civil servants who are scattered all over the town of Tralee, some of them in very inferior offices. Some of the offices, particularly the offices of the Department of Agriculture, are too far out of town and very difficult for farmers to get to. The Revenue Commissioners are obliged to manage with three prefabricated buildings and that accommodation is completely inadequate for them. The Minister for Energy, Deputy Spring, promised during the local election campaign that this office block will be built next year. I would like an assurance from the Minister of State that this Civil Service office block will be erected in Tralee next year.
The Minister of State spoke about the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham. I remind him that it was a Fianna Fáil Government who initiated the restoration of that building. It should be opened to the public, a manager appointed and a guide service provided. I congratulate the staff of the Office of Public Works who did such a magnificant job in restoring this building which is rich in architectural, historical and cultural heritage.
I am delighted that the OPW are engaged in major restoration job on the stonework of the Custom House. This was suggested when we were discussing the Estimates last year and the work has since commenced.
I notice that £90,000 is being provided for archaeological excavations. An archaeological survey is being carried out in County Kerry by the National University of Ireland and I should like the OPW to give as much help and financial assistance as possible since my country is rich in national heritage. I should welcome restoration work on the cathedral in Ardfert and the appointment of a guide to show visitors around this fine old building.
On the subject of parks and monuments, I am delighted that the development of the Glenveagh National Park in Donegal is going ahead. When will the castle be open to the public and how are the red deer progressing in this park? There was a danger that the red deer would become extinct in Killarney and some years ago steps were taken to ensure that this would not happen. It is very important that the red deer in Glenveagh should also be looked after to ensure the preservation of this native species. We have some of the most beautiful national parks in the world — Killarney, Glenveagh and Letterfrack — as well as the nucleus of a national park in the Burren in County Clare. Killarney is reputed to be one of the most beautiful national parks in the world and there is a duty on the Government of the day to keep these parks in good condition and encourage our people to visit them. The Minister should write to the principals of all national and post-primary schools suggesting that they encourage their students to visit our national parks. Every school has a day out for sightseeing. I am delighted that a superintendent has been appointed to Phoenix Park. The maintenance of that park has very much improved since the appointment. This is one of the biggest and best urban parks in Europe and I would urge the Minister to ensure that buses are not allowed to travel through it. We have one million people in Dublin, many of whom are unemployed, and the park should be preserved for the people. It would spoil the beauty of the area if buses were allowed there.
I request the Minister of State and the Minister for Finance to purchase the Great Blasket Island off the Kerry coast and retain it as an historic park. It is important that some of the historic buildings on that island should be preserved and possibly renovated, especially the buildings occupied by some of our best writers. A booklet should be made available on the history of the Great Blasket Island.
I am very disappointed at the amount being provided for arterial drainage. There are four main drainage schemes in progress — the Boyne, the Maigue, the Corrib-Robe-Mask and the Boyle— Bonet scheme. I note that the Boyne scheme will be completed this year. What river will be started next year? The Government are very slow in producing the report on arterial drainage and there is no cost-benefit analysis being prepared. Those rivers on which work is to be done will have to be advertised in order to allow for objections. A cost-benefit analysis survey should be carried out to avoid any delay in the arterial drainage programme. It takes at least six months to deal with objections and, if the Government do not have this report prepared as soon as possible, there will be no schemes ready to go ahead in the next few years. The four schemes in progress were started and effectively pursued by Fianna Fáil. There has been a slowing down of arterial drainage work under the Coalition Government. More money should be allocated for arterial drainage and schemes should be prepared to ensure that there is further progress in that area. It is important to mention that four of these arterial drainage schemes are 50 per cent EC funded.
I note that there is no money provided to do a survey on the River Shannon even though this also could be 50 per cent EC funded. Arterial drainage is of great importance to the agricultural sector. Many of our farmers cannot carry out a farm drainage scheme because there is no arterial drainage in their area. The Shannon floods nine counties, Cavan, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Roscommon, Galway, Westmeath, Tipperary and Limerick. The dredging of the Shannon would provide anything from 1,500 to 2,000 jobs so, as well as making more acres of land workable and viable, it would give much needed employment.
The Office of Public Works made an awful mistake in offering for sale this year the 13 sites purchased for decentralisation. It was a retrograde step. Some of those sites were purchased from urban and county councils and private individuals also went out of their way to co-operate with the Office of Public Works in facilitating the purchase of sites in anticipation of Civil Service offices being built in their area. The areas which would have benefited were Killarney, Limerick, Nenagh, Cavan, Ennis, Letterkenny and Galway. I appeal to the Minister to retain those sites. When Fianna Fáil come back to office we will start our decentralisation programme again and this will mean the transfer of many civil servants to the country. This project was welcomed by the Civil Service and would have afforded many rural people living in Dublin an opportunity to go back to their own towns. With the present state of the property market, those sites will not make very much money and it would be much better to retain them. Any money acquired from the sale of these sites would not be of much benefit to the Government.
I am disappointed that no new schemes were selected this year for coast protection work. A very paltry sum is allocated for coast protection and the Government stated in the national plan that no new coast protection work would be done during their five year period in office. The Maharees, Castlegregory, are badly in need of coast protection work and if it is not done very soon, the Maharees will become another island. There are also other areas in County Kerry which need coast protection work, including the area between Tralee and Fenit and the Ballyea Barrow area also. Parts of County Waterford such as Ballyvoyle, Strabally, Belair and Ardmore also badly need coast protection work. I suggest to the Minister of State that he should try to get EC funds to have this work done because, if it is not undertaken soon, much of our coastline will be eaten away.
I am delighted that the Office of Public Works have taken over the Royal and Grand Canals and I am looking forward to a substantial amount of money being made available for the development of those canals next year. The Office of Public Works are very important and the Minister of State should be allowed to sit in when the Estimates are being prepared for the budget so that he can make a case for his Department because the Office of Public Works are forgotten at budget time as they have no one to speak on their behalf.
I note from the speech of the Minister of State that the Garda facilities in the Phoenix Park are to be improved. Many Garda barracks throughout the country need replacement and renovation. The Garda now need much better facilities and I appeal to the Department of Justice to allocate more money to the OPW so that Garda barracks can be renovated and repaired. In this year's Estimate, there was a big shortfall in the amount of money allocated to the OPW. I am disappointed in the allocation of money made to that office this year as they are doing a tremendous job with limited resources. As the Minister for Finance is here, I ask him to ensure that, when they are preparing the budget next year, a bigger amount of money will be allocated for coast protection work and arterial drainage.
I wish to deal with the question of security in this House which rests with staff of the House under the Captain of the Guard and the ushers. The next people with whom security rests are the Garda Síochána and the Army. As a Deputy elected by the people of Laois-Offaly I would object to the security of the House being placed in the hands of outsiders or allowing any foreign group of friendly persuasion or otherwise to play a role in the security of the House. My reason for drawing the attention of the House to this important point arises out of the visits of President Reagan and President Herzog. I an very well disposed towards America and its government. On the occasion of the visit of President Reagan I noticed when I arrived in the House that a large number of security people from the United States were present. I was concerned that people who were obviously armed were able to wander around the House. I strenuously object to any Government —
It is difficult to see how that arises on the Estimate. In so far as the Deputy may be referring to ushers, I should point out that they are paid out of funds voted here, but the Deputy appears to be dealing with visiting presidents and their personal staff who would be looking after their security perhaps, and not the security of the House properly so called. As well as that, the Chair would consider it in bad taste to criticise the staff who accompanied the visiting presidents particularly if the staff came with them without any question from their hosts.
I should like to thank the Chair for his assistance on this. I wish it to be clearly understood that I am well disposed towards the presidents who visited this country but I have a duty to raise this matter here.
The Deputy could raise it more appropriately with the Committee on Procedures and Privileges.
This is a matter of public importance. It is not a matter that should be debated behind closed doors. The House happens to be a symbol of authority for the people of Ireland. I am not criticising the ushers or the staff of the House.
The Deputy is entitled to deal with the ushers or members of the Garda Síochána in so far as they work here, but it is in extremely bad taste to deal with visiting heads of state who visited the country on the invitation of the Government and are, presumably, complying with any conditions laid down for their visit. It is in extremely bad taste to deal with that in this way in the House and it is not in order.
I have considered this matter for some time and the only opportunity I have had of raising it in the House ——
If the Deputy wishes to raise it on another Estimate he should find a suitable one to do so, but it does not arise under the group of Estimates before the House.
One of the Estimates we are discussing is for the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Estimates are the Finance group and nobody in that group is directly answerable for the visit of foreign heads of state. If any Estimate is appropriate it is not in the group before the House and I am so ruling.
I bow to the authority of the Chair in regard to that matter but what I was saying was perfectly in order in my view. It is important.
No doubt the Deputy will look around and he may or he may not get a suitable occasion to raise this.
From what the Chair has said it appears that there is no other method for me to raise this matter. I waited deliberately to raise this issue tonight. Irrespective of any foreign dignitary who may attend in the House I will never again sit during the visit of such a dignitary if there is an armed bodyguard or a security person in the House with him.
I am ruling the Deputy out of order.
It would not be proper for me to sit here while there was an armed security person present.
If the Deputy does not obey the Chair he will not stand there much longer.
I am disappointed that I could not raise this matter but I have made my point which applies to any foreign dignitary.
I should like to raise the question of staffing in the Office of the DPP and the Chief State Solicitor. Problems have arisen recently in regard to a number of cases being dismissed in court because they were not brought expeditiously enough. It is a pity if cases are dismissed because the State is not able to process them expeditiously. If there is a shortage of staff in those offices it should be dealt with by the relevant Minister. Members of the Garda Síochána go to the trouble of investigating cases and bringing people to court but, because of a shortage of staff in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, the book of evidence is not prepared in time. It is essential that such cases are dealt with more speedily and that can only be done if additional staff are appointed. It is serious if people who opt for trial by judge and jury have their cases dismissed because the book of evidence is not prepared in time. That is a matter of great importance. It is being stated by the DPP, and officials in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, that they do not have sufficient staff to process these cases. Gardaí have a difficult task to perform and when they bring people before our courts it is essential that the necessary ancillary services are provided for them to deal with the cases. The Office of Public Works are an important section of the Department of Finance. I am concerned that there has not been a proper approach to carrying out drainage work on the Shannon and its tributaries. Each year from October to March huge tracts of land in the midlands are flooded, particularly in west and south Offaly. A number of rivers are affected, including the Brosna. This problem recurs year after year and farmers complain of flooding but on each occasion they are told they will have to wait until some of the tributaries are drained before the Shannon can be drained properly.
We have a serious unemployment problem. One of the ways to provide sizeable employment would be by undertaking major drainage work. This would have a twofold effect. There would be a sizeable number of jobs created in the areas of design, engineering, architectural and planning areas and so on. On the architectural and planning sides a great number of staff would be employed doing very important work for a number of years, and at the same time huge tracts of land would be improved.
If drainage work on the Shannon was undertaken it would benefit everybody and I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Joe Bermingham, to look into this matter. For too long the excuse was that work on the Shannon could not be started until work on the tributaries was completed. This has been talked about since the thirties and many Deputies have spoken about this matter late into the night over a number of decades, and sad to say they will probably be talking about it for many decades to come.
As I said, we have a very serious unemployment problem and thousands of people in the midlands are very anxious to be gainfully employed. On their behalf I appeal to the Minister and his Minister of State to look very seriously at this area and they will see the many jobs that will be created if this work is undertaken. The drainage of the Shannon would benefit people from Cavan to Clare. This work should be undertaken with care because the Shannon is a wonderful amenity for boating, cruising, fishing and all the ancillary industries, but with common sense a lot of land could be improved as well as the amenities at present provided. Many more landing points and jetties could be provided. There is enormous revenue generated from boats on the Shannon, especially in my area of Offaly, Shannonbridge and Banagher. This is a source of enjoyment for many, and people from all over the country travel there regularly.
I ask the Minister to seriously consider draining the Shannon, because this would benefit everybody. It is very important to provide jetties and proper berthing facilities. At present there is a vast increase in the number of cruisers on the Shannon, particularly at weekends when a number of cruisers are unable to berth properly in the limited space available. Further extensions will have to be undertaken by the Office of Public Works in co-operation with Bord Fáilte, the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism and the local authorities. This is very important and would be welcomed by all.
As regards the Slieve Bloom area I ask that a survey of the Glendine Valley, which has been requested by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in order to provide a new forest park, be looked at by the Office of Public Works. The Department of Fisheries and Forestry considered providing an artificial lake there but they then discovered that they did not have sufficient staff to carry out the work. I am reliably informed that they have been in touch with the Office Of Public Works asking them to investigate the provision of this artificial lake and a forest park. If this work were undertaken it would provide hundreds of jobs in the midlands over the next few years and it would provide a wonderful amenity for everybody who visits the area.
The Slieve Bloom area is a very important tourist attraction. The Slieve Bloom Association, Laois County Council, Offaly County Council and all the public representatives in Laois and Offaly are very anxious that this amenity be provided because it would be a great boost to the area and the capital cost would be minimal. The Office of Public Works have been asked to investigate the feasibility of providing this artificial lake. The land has been acquired by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry who have expressed their willingness to give the land for the artificial lake and the forest park if the Office of Public Works carry out the survey. The Minister may not be in a position to reply to these points tonight but I would ask him or some of his officials to communicate with me and let me know the position as soon as possible. I am informed that at present the land is lying idle. This amenity has been sought for a considerable length of time and I ask the Minister to look into the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.
To conclude, in case the Ceann Comhairle got the wrong impression from what I was saying earlier, the people to whom I referred were very welcome to visit this country. Any guest of any Irish Government and of any Taoiseach is welcome, as far as I am concerned. Some of the demonstrations which took place during one of these visits saddened me. As a nation, we are friendly disposed towards these people. I would not like the wrong interpretation to be put on any of my remarks. I shall not repeat the point I made because it is on record, but it is something that I felt needed to be raised here. However, I accepted the ruling of the Chair.
The Chair had no alternative but to take a firm stand. The Deputy will appreciate that.
The Minister of State in charge of Public Works mentioned activities under buildings, engineering works, conservation and amenities and I have a few points to raise regarding buildings and arterial drainage. He mentioned the maintenance of the historical character and features of buildings and that at the same time they would cater for modern functional needs. The Office of Public Works are to be congratulated for what they are doing in this connection in many areas. It is very important to maintain such buildings and have them functioning and in proper use.
However, I have some criticism of the Office of Public Works regarding their building schemes. With regard to my own county, over the last ten year period a number of buildings have been erected — schools, barracks, and local authority buildings for which the Minister has no responsibility but which are dependent on public subscriptions. There should be more co-operation and better utilisation of buildings and closer examination of any advanced development. In county towns there are Departments of Agriculture, veterinary offices and ACOT offices which should be more centralised. The services are too fragmented and it is far too costly an operation.
Many sites in Monaghan have been taken over by the Office of Public Works. I know of two instances, one in Monaghan town and one in Clones, where substantial, good quality brick and mortar buildings were demolished and shoddy enough short-lived replacements made. The original buildings could have been used for other purposes. The building around Monaghan town over the past ten years has been substantial, involving much money and many jobs. However, if the usual business procedures were used, this work would be approached differently and much money would be saved, with a much better job done at the end of the day.
In the southern part of the county there were two Garda houses which had not been used for ten years and which had been originally in good repair, worth perhaps, at present day prices, £20,000 a piece — this despite much pressure at county council level for housing needs. Eventually, the Office of Public Works made an examination of these buildings and took a long time in deciding on how to dispose of them. There should not have to be such a detailed examination and the Office of Public Works should be able to go to the local authority and ask them to make an offer for such houses, or get an independent valuer to value them and have them put back into use. It is a ridiculous situation that these two houses are now probably gone to rack and ruin and if the local authority did take them over it would cost an amount of money to put them into even reasonable repair.
For many years a Garda station was badly needed in Monaghan where there was such a number of Garda personnel stationed, it being the district headquarters. Over 100 people were housed in a building which was not suitable for that number. One-fifth of that number would not have been properly accommodated there. A fine barracks is now being built, but there again it is built on a site which it would not take an engineer to know would be fairly doubtful, necessitating piling. A substantial amount of money had to be spent before the building commenced and this was in an area where admittedly sites were at a premium but sites could have been obtained which would have provided a better quality foundation. These matters should be closely examined.
There is a demand now for customs clearance stations and in Monaghan there is a need for extra accommodation and extra parking space. The clearance station there was erected when I came into Dáil Éireann 11 years ago and I remember saying here on one occasion that they were moving from a hazardous corner regarding traffic to an equally dangerous place, which turned out to be correct. The area around the station is too small for parking, which is causing a real problem on the roadway. Certainly, it is good to see a row of lorries going north or south because that is a sign of activity, but parking would have been much safer if there had been forward planning. It is a pity that space is so restricted.
The Minister also mentioned the maintenance of buildings. With the curtailment on funding, we are probably neglecting the maintenance of many of our buildings, whether local authority, health board, or Office of Public Works buildings. In all probability, there will need to be a substantial input within the next couple of years to correct the position.
The Minister also dealt with arterial drainage and referred to the work due to commence on the Ulster Blackwater. This is a scheme which I have long been pursuing very actively. Last Sunday, on the way home from a football match in the athletic grounds in Armagh, I went to Kelvin to see the famous weir which has been causing the hold-up of water on the Blackwater River. The weir was eight foot and they are taking another seven foot out of the channel. They are doing a very good job. The Minister of State said they could commence work on the Blackwater. I understand an engineer has been appointed but they have not yet a compound for the machinery. It is a pity this was not done in advance because I understand that within the next three months they will be in a position to commence work. I suggest that they purchase a site and erect a substantial premises that could be used as a headquarters for the various drainage schemes.
The work being carried out on arterial drainage is excellent. I think that a sum of £54 million has been spent on the Boyne River since 1968 and the work done has been excellent. The Office of Public Works will have to re-examine their approach to drainage schemes. While they do very good work on areas that are high on the priority list others will not be attended to for a considerable number of years. There is no grant aid available to carry out any maintenance work. Many rivers are silting up and large trees that have fallen into them have not been removed. In a similar debate here a few years ago I said that engineers should be sent to County Fermanagh where they have a county drainage committee. They have carried out such an effective job that they are not interested in the arterial drainage scheme we proposed in the cross-Border development talks. They have carried out work on minor rivers at a much cheaper cost and they have drained approximately 16,000 hectares on a fairly low yearly budget. As well as having a major programme, the Office of Public Works should also have a minor programme to do necessary work. There is no way that all the areas on the list will be attended to in the foreseeable future. I suggest that the Office of Public Works should opt for having two schemes, namely, a major scheme and an ongoing maintenance scheme for small channels.
In his speech the Minister said that a review of arterial drainage would be carried out and would be put before the Government before the end of the year. I await that development with special interest. In the past ten years we have spent considerable time on cross-Border talks and the main point was the drainage of the Erne catchment which included Fermanagh, part of Tyrone, Leitrim, Cavan and Monaghan. Many reports were compiled on the matter, including the EC report, the North Eastern Regional Development Organisation report and a report that was commissioned jointly by the two sovereign Governments and the EC. It would have given a new lease of life to an area that has become disadvantaged in recent years. Many of the problems in that Border region were created by the Minister. We were rather annoyed that he did not give more favourable consideration to the area. Instead, in his budget he imposed increased excise duties. I will not dwell any further on that as I will be ruled out of order.
I hope that the scheme to which I referred will be implemented. When Cavan County Council got in touch with the Taoiseach regarding the slow progress in implementing the Erne catchment scheme, he threw cold water on that drainage scheme. He questioned its viability and the desirability of the arterial drainage scheme as a whole. However, much of the spade work has been done and I hope that the scheme will proceed.
Other speakers mentioned EC funds. While it is easy for us to say we should avail of such funds, they have to be matched pound for pound. In future years many of us will probably regret that more use was not made of the fund. The money comes into the Exchequer and it is the most effectively controlled scheme under the management of the Minister for Finance. There are many ambitious farmers who would do substantial drainage work if money could be made available. I have discussed this matter with EC officials in relation to various projects where substantial local contributions would be made. We could do much more than we are doing with the EC funds that are available. We are not making the best use of the Regional Fund and we are not taking full advantage of the non-quota section. I am sure that EC officials demand a continuing review of the system but there has been little substantial change in it. Money is made available to the Exchequer and it is then dispersed to the various Departments. I would remind the Minister that the cross-Border scheme was the basis of our discussions in the Forum report. It would open the gates to more co-operation and development on a cross-Border basis. Many of the reports relating to agriculture and tourism could perhaps be the basis for greater cross-Border co-operation in these areas. I hope that a serious effort will be made to implement a substantial part of the report in the years ahead.
I intend to address myself to the vote for the Office of Public Works. I thank Deputies on both sides who made contributions and raised a number of issues in that connection. I detect a certain lack of consistency from the opposite side of the House. I will deal with this in more detail later.
When Deputy O'Kennedy was not straying into taxation and other areas he complained that, in his view, the current deficit was too high. The main thrust of Deputy McEllistrim's remarks was that we should spend more money on the various programmes funded by the OPW. At no stage was any indication given by either Deputy as to how extra funding would be made available within the context of the projected current deficit for this year or the lower level to which Deputy O'Kennedy now seems to aspire. The answer is that Deputy O'Kennedy and his colleagues are not able to make up their minds about anything. They are incapable of making choices or deciding on priorities. I have the feeling, and the experience of past years bears this out, that even when they make up their minds about something, if someone shouts loudly at them for long enough they will decide on something new as well which will be in addition to everything that went before. We know the problems that has brought in its wake. However, I do not intend to say anything more about that at this stage.
Deputy McEllistrim had a few specific queries on matters covered by the Vote for the OPW. He asked about the provision of new Government offices in Tralee. I can tell him, as I understand he has already been told by Deputy Spring, that the Commissioners of Public Works hope to be in a position to invite tenders for the construction of these offices around the end of this year, that is within the next six months. The Deputy asked when the castle in Glenveagh Park would be opened to the public. I refer him to the remarks of the Minister of State who said during the course of his speech that he hoped to have the castle opened to the public during the summer of 1986.
Deputy Enright and other Deputies referred to the drainage of the Shannon and to arterial drainage. I have noted the remarks made about the general programme of arterial drainage. I would refer Deputies to what the Minister of State said earlier this evening about the review of arterial drainage policy which has taken place. As he pointed out, the review was drawn up and submitted to my Department but I require some additional data to complete the report which OPW are now putting together. I hope that before the end of the year I will be able to bring the review to the Government and we will have a recommendation as to future policy in this area. In advance of that I cannot be any more specific in my answer. I am tempted to remark, as Deputy Enright did earlier, that the Shannon drainage scheme has been the subject of debate for a long time. Deputy Leonard expects it to be the subject of debate for a long time to come. We must recognise that it is probably the biggest drainage project that has ever been conceived and is of such a size as to pre-empt funding for any other part of the drainage programme.
A number of Deputies have remarked on the fact that a large scale arterial drainage project would have a number of advantages not least of which would be an increase in employment. Given the way that arterial drainage is carried out, that would be the case. What has not been referred to with anything like the same attention is the question of funding such a programme. None of the arguments made about the benefits in terms of extra employment, the productivity of the land and the greater convenience for the population generally from other points of view have included what would have to be done in order to provide the necessary funds. Funds can be raised from taxation or they can be borrowed, which is the same thing in the end because it is from taxation that we raise money to pay for our borrowing. The Opposition seem to be like a trapeze artist doing a half turn and wondering where the next trapeze will come from. They are beginning to get excited about the level of borrowing and the current deficit and yet are still insisting that we spend more money on a lot of areas without suggesting how that money is to be provided. That is a defect in their presentation to which they should pay some attention.
Deputy Leonard spoke at some length about facilities on the Shannon and Deputy Enright spoke about the value to the economy generally and the Shannon catchment area in particular of the continuation and development of the Shannon navigation. As the Minister of State pointed out earlier, a number of development works are provided for on the Shannon during the course of the year at Clonmacnoise, Dromineer, Lecarrow and Williamstown. The work at Clonmacnoise provides for a new landing stage for the reasons Deputy Enright pointed out. That would be an important part of any development work on the Shannon.
I understood Deputy Leonard in referring to the Blackwater drainage scheme to be suggesting that we move ahead quickly with the provision of headquarters property for the scheme. I am happy to be able to tell the Deputy that we are reaching the point where decisions will be made on that matter in the near future. Suitable properties have been shortlisted and I trust that a final selection will not involve too much time. As is said in all the best jargon, the matter is under active consideration and I trust it will be brought to fruition very shortly. I do not intend to say any more about arterial drainage except to assure Deputies that, in bringing the review to the Government, I will bear in mind a number of the suggestions offered during the debate by Deputy Enright and Deputy Leonard in particular who offered specific recommendations on how we might proceed with furthering the programme.
Deputy Leonard asked if we are making the best use of and extracting the best value from EC funds. This question is a fairly frequent matter of discussion between Deputy Leonard and myself. We get good value from EC funds and we use all of those funds that are available to us. Whatever Deputy Leonard might think about the procedures applied, and these are the ones that have been applied since we joined the EC and began to benefit from the Regional Fund, it is not the case that another way of dealing with these funds would increase the total amount of funding available to us. That should be borne in mind because it has been my experience from talking to groups of people in various parts of the country that there is a widespread misconception that if only we proceeded somewhat differently, additional EC moneys would become available automatically. I wish that were so because there are a great many areas that would benefit from additional capital. I doubt if any Member of the House would be short of ideas in that regard though I would subject any such suggestion to critical appraisal before reaching a decision on it. However, changing the way we carry out the job would not suddenly make extra EC funds available for any project no matter how worthy or productive it might be and regardless of what extra employment it might generate.
Deputy Enright referred to difficulties which he claims have arisen in the courts as a result, he alleges, of shortages of staff in the Chief State Solicitor's office. We are providing, under Vote 13, which is the Vote for the Office of the Attorney General, for additional professional staff. The additional staff will enable services to the Director of Public Prosecutions to be improved. This is the only area in this group of votes in which we are providing extra staff and we are doing so partly for reasons that are not unconnected with the difficulties Deputy Enright says he has encountered. We have anticipated the difficulty raised by the Deputy and have taken steps to deal with it.
I turn now to the more general questions dealt with by Deputy O'Kennedy. The Deputy followed a practice that he began about 18 months ago, that is, the practice of applying various adjectives to describe me. The words "calm" and "relaxed" are two of those and for them I thank him. Their use indicates a very accurate perception on his part. Cold and arrogant are two more of the words he uses. I am very sad at a man of Deputy O'Kennedy's parliamentary and other experience being obliged, apparently by the lack of anything substantial to say, to descend to that kind of abuse. He has manufactured this kind of patter of cold words to describe me. He seems to be becoming so bored by this repetition himself that I would almost have described him this evening as calm and relaxed. He could not work up a passion about anything. He does not even seem to believe what he is saying when he is using those words to describe me. However, that will not make any difference to me.
Unfortunately.
Adjectives of that kind which have nothing to do with the substance of policy leave me totally unconcerned except to the extent that I consider the Deputy to be letting himself down by resorting to that kind of language.
Obviously, Deputy O'Kennedy is missing a great deal of what is going on. As I have said during debates here in the past couple of months, and indeed since the budget, we are now at a point where total employment is increasing. In the past two years — and this will be repeated this year — we have clocked up a very respectable performance so far as the volume of manufacturing output is concerned. We have clocked up an extremely good performance in relation to the volume of exports, as the trade figures released earlier this week will show even on the most cursory examination. Inflation has been reduced to just over 5 per cent and interest rates are now lower than they were in the period leading up to the end of November last. But Deputy O'Kennedy chooses to ignore all of this because this performance on our part does not suit the arguments he is making.
Deputy O'Kennedy made a number of remarks and I trust the Chair will allow me to make a passing reference to one or two of those. They relate to levels of expenditure and to debt. As I had been saying before the Deputy chose to rejoin us, he was followed by Deputy McEllistrim who was recommending more expenditure. Other colleagues of Deputy O'Kennedy also recommended more expenditure. I suggest it is time Deputy O'Kennedy decided what he is opting for and, having made that decision, have a chat with the other members of his party because they are going in all directions and not paying any attention to the concerns the Deputy is expressing about the level of the deficit and the level of borrowing. What these Deputies are doing is in line with the line that has been taken always by Fianna Fáil, that is, not to consider the level of the deficit or the level of borrowing and since many people wish us to spend more money, we should do so. Life must be very difficult for Deputy O'Kennedy because he is not getting any support from the remainder of his colleagues.
I was talking about expenditure of the money we have.
Deputy O'Kennedy is not being assisted in making up his mind as to what Fianna Fáil think economic and budgetary policy should be about.
The Minister might divert his concern to the state of the country. What about the debt and the deficit? These are the issues I spoke about. There is also the matter of the level of taxation.
Deputy O'Kennedy might be interested to know, since he is talking about debt, and since he has the OECD report there ——
The Minister should tell us about it.
—— an interesting little sidelight on one of the tables in the report — I am informed that, in drawing up statistics on the level of public debt, the Swedish Government, for example, puts in the figure for borrowing at the exchange rate prevailing on the day the money is borrowed. Deputy O'Kennedy knows as well as I do that, if he is comparing us with that, he is not comparing like with like ——
This is a poor effort; the OECD did say that ——
—— just to increase the pleasure and instruction that the Deputy will derive from what is obviously a very close perusal of that report. Of course, Deputy O'Kennedy knows there is a lot more to that story than he has actually dealt with.
The Minister's time is up.
I am sorry the Deputy has not been allowed follow the route he set out on in relation to taxation. Indeed he claimed to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that this was the first time he had ever heard of those rules. As he was saying that, I was looking through the Official Report of 8 June of last year where I find that you yourself, a Cheann Comhairle, told Deputy O'Kennedy exactly the same thing.
I am sorry, the Minister's time is up and, if it was intended to sit later, a motion should have been moved two hours ago. Deputy O'Kennedy should familiarise himself with Standing Orders. If he wanted to prolong the debate he should have come into the House two hours ago and done it.
The Minister does not seem to want to address himself to our situation.
Vote No. 1— President's Establishment — has been moved. Is the Vote agreed?
Vote put and agreed to.