Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 2 May 1986

Vol. 365 No. 13

Estimates, 1986. - Vote 1: President's Establishment.

Dún Laoghaire): By agreement, Votes Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18 will be taken today and will be debated together. The Minister for Finance shall be called on to conclude not later than 3.45 p.m. today and the questions necessary to bring the proceedings on these Votes to a conclusion shall be put forthwith and successively at 4 p.m. today.

Also, by agreement, if a division is challenged on any of these Estimates today the taking of such divisions shall be postponed until 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 May 1986.

Is that agreed? Agreed. Vote No. 1 which will be debated with Votes Nos. 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18. The Minister for Finance to move.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £236,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1986, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Secretary to the President, and for certain other expenses of the President's Establishment.

Is there a speech? The Minister has moved Vote No. 1 which is being debated with all the other Votes I have read out.

I do not see any Opposition spokesman here. Where is the spokesman who was kicking up? He was calling for a quorum a moment ago and he is not here now.

If anybody wants to make a speech——

For the information of the House, Deputy O'Kennedy is taking this one and will be in the House very shortly.

Obviously he does not want to hear what I have to say about it anyway.

Is the Minister moving?

I have not got anybody here. I have to keep the House going until Deputy O'Kennedy gets back——

Is the Minister moving Vote No. 1 with a speech?

I will say a few words, all right, until Deputy O'Kennedy gets back. I do not want to discommode him in any way, seeing that he was worried about the absence of a sufficient number of Deputies in the House a few moments ago and he is not here himself now.

The first of these Votes is for the President's Establishment. This represents an increase of £19,000 on last year and takes into account increased postal and telephone charges. I see that I have less than complete attention on the part of my colleagues——

Would the Minister proceed with his speech?

I do not think the Ceann Comhairle has any control over the content of my contribution. The note provides for two State visits abroad by the President this year. The Houses of the Oireachtas provision is £12,342,000, a 3 per cent increase over the 1985 outturn. The main increase concerns service for Oireachtas committees and an increased allocation for consultancy services which will enable the Committee on Public Expenditure to engage a full time consultant this year.

In respect of this Vote significant reforms are being undertaken in the way the Houses of the Oireachtas work. Broadcasting of the proceedings of the Houses is in the process of being introduced. Also the Government have a number of motions on the Order Paper to introduce further reforms in the operation of the House. These include providing specific times for the debating of reports, not only of Oireachtas committees but also the many documents from subsidiary bodies that are laid on the table of the House each year — indeed up ten or 20 per day — none of which is ever debated. In a proposal before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges the Government are providing for a method of debating these proposals.

We are providing also for a new system of debating Estimates in the House. The debate in which we are now engaged — where the Minister is obliged to get up and make one contribution of considerable length, with Deputies on the other side of the House making one contribution each, when there can be no dialogue between Members in respect of individual Votes and queries about individual subheads on Votes — is one which is not conducive to good financial control or to the dignity of the House in the exercise of its function in authorising the expenditure of huge sums of public money.

In future the debating process will be one which will allow individual debates to occur on individual Votes but with speakers confined to making brief but numerous contributions, so that there can be something in the nature of a Committee style debate on each of the Estimates in the future whereas, in the past, the House had nothing more than a series of monologues such as that obtaining today. In fact, this Estimates debate is probably one of the last ever to be conducted in the old, unsatisfactory way of dealing with Estimates debates in this House where Members are confined to making long contributions, one each, which are unrelated to one another and allow no parliamentary scrutiny or detailed discussion of the individual items contained in the Estimates provisions. In future, the debate will take the form of an initial statement by the Minister which will be of some reasonable duration and an initial statement by the Opposition spokesman. After that the debate will consist of five minute contributions to and fro between the Minister and individual Deputies which will allow for a proper discussion.

I should say also — again in the context of the reforms of the proceedings of the House — that the Government have proposals on the point of being introduced to allow individual private Members to bring forward Private Members' Bills. In the past the Private Members' time that has been available has been used solely as Opposition time for the bringing forward of motions designed, not to achieve any useful result, but, in most cases, simply to cause embarrassment to the Government in the knowledge that, if the Opposition were ever to hold office, they would be doing exactly the same. They see some short term political gain in introducing motions of the kind designed to make Government Deputies go through the process of voting for their policies even though necessarily, in these times, Government policies will be unpopular from time to time. This abuse of Private Member's time — Which has been the case under parties on both sides of the House when in Government, or when in Opposition, more appropriately, because it is the Opposition who take decision as to the use of this time — does not serve the original purpose of Private Members' time. Private Members' time was intended originally to enable individual Members, not parties, to bring forward specific proposals of interest to groups of their constituents.

On a point of order, I would appreciate it if the Minister would address the House in relation to the presentation of Estimates and the new procedure on the motion before us this morning. I do not see how the whole question of Dáil reform arises on this issue of Private Members' time.

If the Minister wants to have a very broad debate, we can have it. I have been informed at short notice that this debate was simply with regard to payment in relation to Houses of the Oireachtas salaries, but if the Minister wants to have a broader debate ——

When the House is debating the Vote on Agriculture, agricultural policy is discussed. When we are discussing the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas, we can discuss policy in relation to the way in which the Oireachtas works.

Carry on, then.

The Deputy was not here for the start of my contribution and he should let me continue. As the House will be aware, as a result of the introduction of the new committee system we have now a very active Joint Services Committee of the House who are endeavouring to introduce new measures to improve access by the general public to the House and an information service to promote understanding among the population of the workings of democracy. The work of this committee is particularly important and very much to be welcomed.

A further major reform which has been introduced in the context of Vote 2 is that the committee account to the House generally. This system has made a very valuable contribution to the functioning of democracy. One such example would be the very through work done by the Joint Committee on Marriage Breakdown which has produced a report of great value and worth, providing a very useful and, indeed, almost essential contribution to the Government's consideration of the very difficult problem of marriage breakdown and thereby also to the proposals produced by the Government in regard to this subject.

In respect of particular matters arising from the Vote, I would draw attention to the fact that there is an increase of 40 per cent in the provision for services to joint Oireachtas committees. The joint Oireachtas committees did not use their allocation last year, so the outturn for last year is less than it should have been if the money had been used. We are providing again the same amount as was originally intended for last year, to allow the committees to make full use of consultancy services in their work. It is very important that Members of the House should have available to them in their committees the services of consultants to enable them to do their very useful job. I shall return later in my contribution to this vote, but shall proceed at this stage to deal with some of the other Estimates here.

May I just ask a question?

I am sorry, Deputy.

The Vote which I am coming to is Vote 7 which is concerned with ——

Has the Minister a copy of his speech?

No. That is why I was so sorry the Deputy was not here to hear me.

It is a practice.

I was giving an oral contribution and I am afraid the Deputy has missed it.

What I have heard so far has not elightened me very much. It is the practice to introduce Votes with a speech.

Again, the Deputy is wrong.

There is always a copy of the speech.

It is very definitely the practice. For someone who is engaged in Dáil reform ——

It has not been the practice.

If the Minister checks the record of last year which has recently arrived in the office, it was done that way last year and each previous year.

May I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle if I am in order?

I have no control over whether you distribute your speech or not, Minister. If you have notes, you are entitled to read from notes.

I have not. I am not reading. It is obvious to anybody who can see that I am not.

Continue, Minister.

On a point of order, what is the position? These Estimates cover three spokesmanships for the Opposition. The Minister is allowed 45 minutes to speak.

The first speaker, the Minister or a Member of the Government party, opening a debate on the Estimates has 45 minutes. The opening speaker for the Opposition has 45 minutes and thereafter each speaker has 20 minutes. Irrespective of a Minister of State or a Deputy, after the Minister and the Opposition opening speaker, each person has 20 minutes.

When this was discussed, the group areas ——

Is this time coming out of my allocation?

You will get extra time.

In that order, was there not agreement that spokesmanships would not be taken together?

Is Deputy Ahern's intervention going to be deducted from my time?

I have already indicated that you will be given extra time for that.

This is debating Dáil reform and we cannot speak on it.

The Order has been made this morning indicating that there is to be only one debate on all the Estimates. These are all being taken together.

That is a retrograde step.

Some Dáil reform. This includes the Attorney General's Office.

If the Order was made this morning, that is it. Please continue, Minister. I shall allow you two extra minutes.

The Office of the Minister for Finance Vote is Vote 7 and the main reason for the increase is the reduction in this year's provision for the payment under a special Border areas programme. The expiry date for this programme under the EC regulations was 15 December last. However, the date has been extended into 1986 so that projects already under way may be completed.

Vote 8 is that of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Estimate provision for 1986 is £1,245,000, which is 9 per cent higher——

On a point of order, I do not think Vote 8 may be taken here. On the list furnished, Vote 8 is not being taken.

You are out of order, Minister. I shall repeat the list. Votes 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

May I explain to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I was informed until this morning that all these Votes were being taken? To facilitate the Opposition, one or two have been dropped out.

On a point of order, there was no facilitating of the Opposition. I was told at the last minute from the Government side that the debate would be on the Public Services Estimates and that the Minister, Deputy O'Keeffe, would be here. I am here to reply. Let the Opposition not be blamed.

May I just mention that the order was made at 11.30 a.m.?

We were told at 10.30 a.m. to be here. We are here.

I was also informed that the Estimates to be taken today were those of the Department of the Public Service. I happened to be in the House on account of the Central Statistics Office. Because of the failure of the Government to communicate properly, my colleague, Deputy Ahern, is here to deal with a matter which is not arising and I just happened to be here and am now being asked to address the whole issue of finance. I accept that the Minister, Deputy Doyle, has communicated with her counterpart.

Deputy McEllistrim was made fully aware of the position.

She is the only Minister who has communicated with her counterpart. We accept that.

The communication problem must be on the far side.

That is between the Minister of State and Deputy McEllistrim.

Will Deputies please listen?

That misunderstanding arose early this morning.

Vote 9 is being taken.

Would Deputies allow the Minister to continue speaking on Votes 9, 10, 11, 12, 17 and 18 please?

Vote 9 is the Vote for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. This has been increased to £3.2 million over the 1985 provision. There is a substantial provision for office machinery and other office supplies. This includes a substantial computer installation in that office. The next item——

On a point of order, I understand that the Chair has indicated that speakers may speak for only 20 minutes.

That was the Order made. The Minister has 45 minutes and Deputy O'Kennedy has 45 minutes——

There is some misunderstanding because the Government Whip's office indicated to me last evening that they would be making a new Order notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that was passed only two nights ago.

I have an Order here dated 29 April and this provides that notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders certain arrangements shall apply in relation to debating the Estimates for the year 1986. I have indicated already what those arrangements are.

This debate is being conducted under the old system.

So much for Dáil reform. I have never seen such chaos.

There was chaos in the Opposition a few minutes ago when Deputy O'Kennedy, having called a quorum, was not here for the beginning of the debate that followed.

This is an appropriate time for another quorum so that we may have a House to listen to what the Minister is saying.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

The Estimate for Public Works and Buildings in the Book of Estimates follows the conventional lay-out but it includes, in an appendix, particulars of the expenditure on the various services provided by the office, gathered together under the respective programme headings. I propose to deal with this year's Estimate on the basis of this programme format.

Programme 1 covers the commissioners' functions in regard to the provision and upkeep of premises for State purposes. A sum of £66,020,000 is sought for this programme in 1986.

The largest single part of the programme relates to new building works. It includes the construction of modern purpose-designed buildings and the refurbishment of old buildings which have become obsolete relative to modern standards and requirements. In the national plan, Building on Reality, a real commitment has been given to the continuation of this policy. The investment involved will not alone generate useful employment in the construction industry but will also increase the capital stock of the State. A sum of £21,395,000 is sought for this purpose in 1986.

In the current year works will commence on the restoration and development of part of the Upper Yard of Dublin Castle. The works to be undertaken will provide badly needed additional accommodation and will involve also the provision of a new conference hall facility which will not only fulfil future EC requirements but will be marketed internationally by the Convention Bureau of Ireland. The facility is expected to generate a significant increase in the number of conferences to be held in this country with a consequential increase in tourism-related earnings. The commissioners are aware at all times of the importance of the conservation element of the works undertaken and endeavour to meet their responsibilities in this regard within the financial and other constraints imposed on them. The adaptation of the former Jacobs premises in Bishop Street as new centralised headquarters for the Stationery Office will be completed this year.

Building for the Department of Justice forms a significant part of the OPW building programme. New or improved accommodation for the Garda accounts for £4.9 million of this programme. Work is in progress on 31 projects under the Garda building programme including new district headquarters at Dungarvan, Killarney, Swinford and Roxboro Road, Limerick and major extensions at Sligo, Oughterard and Carrickmacross. Construction of a new Garda station in Tallaght is also in progress and plans are in hand for new divisional headquarters at Ennis and Naas and new district headquarters at Trim, Tramore, Lucan and Ashbourne. We would hope to commence most if not all of these major projects in the current year.

Work has commenced on a further stage of the Garda Headquarters at the Depot in the Phoenix Park which will house various services, including the Forensic Unit. Restoration of the facade and roof of part of the Clock Block has been carried out and major works are planned for the former Talbot garage site in Santry which will cater for garage services and other industrial type operations, including storage at present housed in cramped conditions at the depot and elsewhere.

Temporary accommodation for a children's court was provided in 1985 at Smithfield, Dublin, and the OPW have now placed a contract for a permanent building nearby. The construction of a new building for court staff at Inns Quay on the site of the former Four Courts Hotel is expected to be completed in December this year, three months ahead of schedule.

I should say that some of our young architects received commendations for their designs this year — one for a laboratory in Abbotstown, Dublin, for the Department of Agriculture, and one for a special project at Killykeen Forest Park, County Cavan, undertaken on behalf of the Department of Tourism, Fisheries and Forestry. In addition, I am delighted that the Europa Nostra Organisation has recognised the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, as one of Europe's great architectural restoration achievements and has bestowed its premier award on the project. Another building, the Glebe Gallery in Donegal, which houses the Derek Hill Collection, was specially commended by the Irish Museums Trust in the Museum of the Year Award in 1985.

Work is in progress on the restoration of the stonework of the Custom House, Dublin.

The obligation of the OPW to provide and maintain various embassy premises abroad is ongoing and this year will see the completion and occupation of a new purpose built embassy premises in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This project became necessary in order to comply with the mandatory transfer of diplomatic missions from Jeddah. Members of the design team are Irish and the work is being carried out by an Irish firm operating in the area.

Copies of the new works list have been circulated to Deputies. I have highlighted some of the major building projects being undertaken by the commissioners and do not propose to go through the full list. If any Deputy has a query relating to a particular project I will try to cover it in my reply and, if not, forward the information later.

There are other substantial items of expenditure in Programme 1. For instance, rents on leased accommodation will amount to £19,527,000 in 1986 while repairs and maintenance are expected to cost £13,998,000. Also, a provision of £8,700,000 will be needed for fuel, light and other charges. The commissioners at present carry these costs in respect of all Civil Service accommodation but they are of the view that paying rental, fuel and electricity charges for space occupied by other Departments does not encourage efficient use of accommodation and they are consulting with the Department of Finance on proposals to change this arrangement.

I turn now to arterial drainage which is the subject of Programme 2. Many times in the past few years this subject has been raised in the House, with particular reference to the review of arterial drainage which the Government directed should be undertaken. I am happy to report that the review has been completed by the commissioners and has been forwarded to the Minister for Finance.

For the present, I will deal with arterial drainage requirements in 1986. A total of £13,890,000 is required for the survey, design, construction and maintenance of arterial drainage schemes.

The collection and analysis of hydrometric data on many rivers throughout the country will continue to furnish valuable information on the country's water resources. In addition to providing essential material for the execution of the arterial drainage programme, these records are an important repository of information, providing valuable data for project planners requiring a knowledge of water quantities and flows in our rivers. The cost of undertaking drainage surveys will be £290,000 in 1986.

Specialist studies being undertaken in the Dunkellin-Lavally catchments, which were delayed by the extremely bad weather conditions last summer and the resulting high water levels, will be completed this year.

The formalities in bringing the Boyne scheme to completion are in hand and the Maigue and Corrib-Mask-Robe schemes are also expected to be completed in 1986. Works on the Boyle and Bonet schemes will continue for some time. A sum of £9,250,000 has been provided for arterial drainage construction works and EC aid will again be available this year to help defray the cost involved. Details of the EC aid are given in Programme 9.

Deputies will be aware of the importance which successive Governments have attached to cross-Border co-operation. The arterial drainage programme has been instrumental in giving practical effect to this ideal. For a number of years now the drainage authorities, on both sides of the Border, have collaborated in the preparation of a cross-Border programme. In 1984, works commenced in Northern Ireland on the main channel of the Ulster Monaghan-Blackwater and, last year, works on the channels in the Republic got underway. The momentum of this scheme will increase during the coming year and will continue for a number of years to come. The scheme is being financed by the Governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom with aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

The commissioners have a statutory obligation to maintain completed drainage schemes "in proper repair and effective condition". Four million, three hundred and fifty thousand pounds is required to fulfil this responsibility in 1986. The significant increase in the provision sought for maintenance works is largely accounted for by the fact that the Boyne scheme has reached completion and from now on will be included in the maintenance programme.

The cost of maintenance of completed arterial drainage schemes is recoverable by the Office of Public Works from the relevant county councils.

Programme 3 is concerned with marine works and will cost £1,970,000.

A sum of £140,000 is required for ongoing maintenance of coast protection schemes completed by the commissioners pursuant to the Coast Protection Act, 1963. The bulk of this year's sum will be expended at Rosslare Strand, thankfully, where, in very difficult circumstances the Office of Public Works have been successful in maintaining the existing sea defences and preventing the erosion of valuable property. This expenditure is also recoverable from the county councils involved.

Most of the £240,000 required for new harbour facilities will be used at Roonagh, County Mayo, where work is proceeding on a project involving the provision of a new pier, an access road and a car parking area. The completion of this project, scheduled for 1987, should confer a very considerable benefit on the locality. The maintenance and operation of the various State harbours will cost £1,626,000.

Programme 4 covers the purchase and maintenance of plant and machinery used on arterial drainage and marine works and will cost £1,675,000 this year.

Ireland's national parks and monuments are the subject of Programme 5, for which £7,602,000 is sought. Conservation of national monuments in State care is one of the statutory responsibilities of the commissioners and this year major projects are in progress at some 40 national monument sites throughout Ireland.

The provision of visitor centres at our better known monuments is now a major undertaking. Each year we try to expand the service and this year we will be providing a guide service at Mellifont Abbey for the first time. Last year, £357,000 people paid for admission to national monuments and the Rock of Cashel, with over £113,000 admissions, attracted the largest number of visitors.

I hope that work will start very shortly on the construction of a new visitor centre at Glendalough. This is an extremely popular national monument but the absence of an interpretive centre has meant that visitors could not obtain a full appreciation of its importance. Interpretation is the key to conservation and this new centre at Glendalough will be an exciting addition to our existing interpretive services. Site with visitor facilities also provide an outlet for the sale of our postcards and information brochures on national monuments.

A new colour booklet on the Rock of Cashel is with the printer and there will be a further extension of the range of postcards available to visitors this year. In 1985, the commissioners introduced a booklet entitled Irish Field Monuments which provides detailed information with suitable illustrations on various types of field monuments, which could be in danger of destruction. The booklet was aimed at the young people of Ireland to make them aware of the diversity of their heritage of monuments and sites of archaeological importance and of the absolute need to ensure that that heritage is safeguarded for future generations. The booklets were sent to every school in the country and the overall response and resultant interest shown has been very heartening. The booklet, which is being sold at the cost price of 50p each, was designed also to assist people involved in farm improvement schemes and other development works, such as the building industry, to enable them to identify ancient sites and monuments and to prevent their destruction. The initial print of £50,000 copies of the booklet has already been widely distributed and there have been many orders from abroad and it now looks as if a reprint will be required before long.

Large scale archaeological excavations are being undertaken at Dublin Castle which will cost £300,000 this year. These excavations have been very fruitful and have allowed us to reconstruct a thousand years of the history of this corner of Dublin. Grants for research purposes totalling £30,000 are being made available under a scheme operated in consultation with the Royal Irish Academy.

The archaeological survey of the State continues to make steady progress. So far, site and monuments records for Counties Louth, Monaghan and Westmeath have been published and similar records are expected to be published this year for eight other counties. The remaining counties will be completed as soon as possible.

This year will see a major step forward in the archaeological survey with the publication by the commissioners of an inventory of County Louth, the first to be completed. This is the stage following the sites and monuments record and will give a three or four line description of the archaeological sites in a county together with locational maps. It will be in the form of a hardbacked book which will be on sale through the Government Publications Office next month and which, I am sure, will be of great interest to all concerned with the preservation of our national heritage. It is expected that inventories for Counties Meath and Monaghan will be published later this year.

A survey of the medieval and plantation towns of Ireland is also progressing steadily and reports on the urban archaeology of Counties Louth, Meath, Longford and Westmeath as well as an individual report on Cork city have been completed and presented to the relevant planning authorities by the commissioners. Reports on Counties Laois and Offaly, together with a summary report on Dublin city will be completed next month and County Kildare will be completed in the summer. The programme for the urban archaeological survey envisages completion of the fieldwork in the rest of the country during the year, with the finalisation of reports continuing through 1987. These surveys are a necessary prerequisite to proper planning for the conservation of our built heritage.

It is clear from the progress being made with all of the archaeological surveys that we are on the right course to ensure the preservation of the nation's archaeological sites and monuments for present and future generations.

Ireland's national parks are among the 3,000 protected areas worldwide listed by the United Nations and the conservation of these areas is in accordance with internationally recognised criteria.

Killarney National Park was expanded in the past year with the addition of the lands and Upper Lake purchased from the estate of the late Mrs. Beatrice Grosvenor. This property of over 4,000 acres forms part of the red deer range and it is of critical importance that it be preserved free from exploitation. I would like to pay tribute to Mrs. Grosvenor's nephew, Mr. Dawney, for the manner in which he approached the disposal of these lands. Glenveagh National Park had its first full season in 1985 and attracted almost 55,000 visitors and I expect that the new visitor centre containing a magnificent lecture theatre, restaurant and exhibition area will be opened this summer together with Glenveagh Castle. The development works at Glenveagh have been part funded by the European Regional Development Fund.

Other welcome developments in our national parks in 1986 will be the opening of an audio-visual theatre and show at Connemara National Park and the launch of exhibitions at Knockreer House in Killarney which will be opened to the public.

The parks organisation provides for the integrated management of the national parks and of national historic parks and gardens to their mutual advantage. The commissioners are preparing management plans for each of the parks and gardens in their care and the first such plan to be produced will be for the Phoenix Park. This plan, which I will be launching shortly, will classify the Phoenix Park as a national historic park and outline the management policies which the commissioners hope will be adhered to in the future management of this important property. A five year programme of tree planting is already under way. It will conform broadly to the original landscape design and it is envisaged that 20,000 trees will have been planted by the end of the programme.

This year will see further welcome developments at the historic parks and gardens. Visitor facilities are being improved at Garinish Island by the provision of an information centre and toilets and the restoration of the Casita. A guide service will be inaugurated this summer. Plans are also at an advanced stage for the provision of improved visitor facilities, including an audio visual show at Derrynane national historic park which had over 10,000 visitors last year. The publication of a booklet entitled Scoil Eanna — The story of an Educational Adventure will add to the interpretive programme at St. Enda's.

I have dwelt at some length on the national parks and monuments managed by the commissioners. Their conservation efforts have rightly been recognised and the developments this year emphasise the continuing progress that is being made in the provision of facilities to enable the public to appreciate and enjoy them.

Expenditure on Shannon navigation is covered in the programme for waterways, Programme 6. The Shannon supports a thriving tourist industry but the ever increasing numbers using the navigation has meant increasing demands on facilities. The commissioners have kept pace with such demands by not only maintaining the highest standards on existing navigation works such as harbours, quays, locks, sluices, pumping stations etc., at a cost this year of £629,000, but also by carrying out substantial development works. These improvements, which will cost £110,000 this year, include the completion of a new jetty at Clonmacnoise together with the commencement of work on an extension to the harbour at Lecarrow and a new quay at Galey Bay.

The commissioners' responsibilities in regard to waterways are soon to be extended. Deputies will be aware of the recent enactment of the legislation to enable the Grand and Royal Canals to be transferred to the commissioners from CIE. When final preparations are completed, the Minister for Communications will appoint a vesting day to effect the transfer. I am delighted to welcome this development and I look forward to the challenge of managing and developing this substantial property as an amenity for the enjoyment and recreation of the public. We should remember also that the canals are, of course, an important part of our physical environment both in the countryside and especially in Dublin. It is my hope that all recreational opportunities afforded by the canals will be fully exploited by the public. These include not just pleasure cruising but also fishing, canoeing, long distance walking, nature study and passive recreation by local communities, especially in the context of the concept of the canals as linear parks.

To assist the Commissioners in the preparation of an integrated management and development plan the services of an experienced firm of planning consultants were retained to carry out a study of the waterway. This study is already well advanced and is due for completion at the end of this year. The present Estimate does not include provision for the canals but arrangements will be made in due course to give the commissioners the necessary funds to cover their outgoings from vesting day to the end of the year.

Programme 7 relates to the President's household staff. The amount sought is £77,000.

The administration of the office is the subject of Programme 8, for which £14,233,000 is required. This includes salaries and wages, official travel, staff training and development and office expenses. One area of this programme which I am particularly interested in highlighting is the ongoing upgrading of the computer facilities of the office. Two mini-computers have been purchased by the OPW and, in keeping with the country's expanding reputation in the technological field, both computers were made in Ireland.

A three dimensional computer aided architectural design and draughting system, the first of its kind in Ireland, has been installed in three architectural sections on a pilot basis. It has been used in the design of the Dublin Castle restoration and conference centre project and, I understand, it is most unlikely that the very demanding schedule for this project could have been met without the computer. It has also been used for design of Garda stations and for a number of office building and fitting out projects.

A number of portable micro-computers are being used to record archaeological finds on the Dublin Castle digs and to produce the sites and monuments records. Over the next 18 months, computer facilities will be extended to direct works sites and architectural district offices and it is also hoped to introduce electronic mail in head office this year.

The final programme, Programme 9, covers income into Vote 10 and in the current year receipts of £14,423,000 are expected. I have already mentioned the major sources of this income as relating to arterial drainage construction and maintenance works. Details of the remaining varied sources of income are contained in the programme.

As well as the activities which I have outlined, it is worthy of mention that the office also undertake works such as the construction of prisons and the provision of facilities in the fishery interests, which are not financed out of Vote 10. I will be happy to note any comments on the Office of Public Works Estimate made by Deputies and, during the course of my reply, I will endeavour to deal with the matters raised.

We all regret the confusion which has arisen here this morning. We are informed by the Minister, who is not in the House this morning, that we are going to find a new and efficient streamlined system for Dáil reform. The presentation this morning certainly does not in any way look like improving the procedures in the Dáil. I wish to make reference to some of the commitments that have been made in respect of Dáil reform by the Minister for Finance in particular and not only the failure to meet the targets which have been established by the Minister, but to create a condition——

The Minister wishes to make a reply.

By agreement, the Order of 29 April 1986 will not apply to the debate unless the Estimate is being taken today.

These matters are normally cleared well in advance. I want to address the whole question of the presentation of Estimates and the opportunities for the House to consider, as it should, the legislation on financial matters in particular and the fact that the conduct of the Government recently has made it next to impossible to have any proper consideration of the financial issues and particularly the Finance Bill.

Some years ago the Minister for Finance presented to the nation his programme for a better way to plan public finances. He insisted then that it was essential that the House would have the Estimates for the Government Departments ready for full discussion by October of each year. He insisted that it was his firm intention to ensure that these Estimates would be available so that the discussion on the budget and the Finance Bill which followed would all take place in the light of the fully presented Estimates and on the fullest disclosure of information. It was a very commendable commitment.

No Minister since this Oireachtas was established has been so remiss in meeting even the existing procedures much less the ones that he set for himself as the current Minister for Finance. The Estimates, far from being presented in October, were not even available in final form for months after the preparation and presentation of the budget in this House two months ago. Any Minister who can present that commitment as being new and necessary and can subsequently fail to bring in even the revised Estimates until some weeks ago clearly shows total and utter contempt for the rights and responsibilities of this Oireachtas. It is not possible to conduct debates unless we have some order and regularity in the procedures, particularly in relation to financial matters. Four years ago the present Minister for Finance made a major commitment in this area but he is now guilty not only of failing to adhere to his own targets but of abandoning even the targets established in this House for a considerable time.

The Finance Bill must be passed by both Houses within 100 days of the presentation of the budget. For that reason the Government have a special obligation to ensure that the Bill is presented to the House in time to have a meaningful analysis of a very complicated measure. This year this Government, the Minister for Finance and, in particular, the Taoiseach, failed to honour their commitment to introduce the Finance Bill in time. On many occasions here I asked the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance when the Finance Bill would be presented to the House and I was given various dates and eventually I was given a firm commitment that it would be introduced within two weeks. I wish to place on record that the Minister and the Government failed to honour that commitment and it was a month later before the Finance Bill was introduced. By their deliberate actions they have prevented the House from having a proper discussion on the Bill. We know the Bill must be out of the House by mid-May to enable it to be dealt with in the Seanad and signed by the President. A Bill that contains more than 100 sections of the most complex detail cannot be discussed properly in the conditions now obtaining. The man primarily responsible is the Taoiseach who has allowed this to happen and also the Minister for Finance who is responsible for the financial management of the country.

We now have the situation that we will have three days next week — about 14 hours — to deal in detail with the most complex sections one could find in any Finance Bill. It is totally and utterly inadequate. I wish to apologise to the public who will be affected by the provisions of this Bill that this House cannot and will not have an adequate opportunity to discuss it because the Government deliberately prevented us from doing that. Had they introduced the Bill as they promised, the necessary time would have been available to go through each section. However, they have deliberately confined the time and, by grace and favour of the Government, we will have only three days next week for Committee Stage.

I will illustrate the effect of the arrangements the Government are proposing. First, we have not as yet even seen the Minister's amendments to the Finance Bill. Each day, including this morning, he has presented amendments to his own Bill and no doubt next week he will present further amendments. He has even presented amendments to his own amendments. Obviously that is contrary to the proper conduct of affairs by any Minister for Finance and to the opportunity this House requires to discuss these issues. We will not be able to discuss much more than one-tenth of the sections in a Bill that is of major importance for the economic management and fiscal policy of this country. This is a direct and inevitable consequence of the deliberate policy of the Government in delaying presentation of the Bill to the House. This is from a Minister who indicated he would ensure we would have proper procedures in this House and a better way to plan the nation's finances. In fact, he is doing the opposite; he is creating chaos and confusion and he is preventing the Oireachtas from having the opportunity to discuss an important matter.

The confusion is on one side only.

If the Minister of State can contradict what I am saying in relation to the timetable for the Finance Bill I will give way to her now. However, I know she cannot do that. The implications of the new measures in the Bill for the economic management of the country are very serious. It is regrettable we will not have an opportunity to raise issues that will affect every sector of the community, much less to discuss them in detail.

In the preparation and presentation of the Finance Bill, it is time it was made a little more intelligible, not just to draftsmen and to lawyers but to the public who will be affected by it.

And to the Opposition spokesman.

Each section, including new sections relating to research and development and tax incentives, is an example of the most complex drafting. This has been the case to such an extent that the Minister has had to introduce amendments to clarify some of the matters that were anything but clear in the Bill. When we come to deal with those matters next week, if we manage to do that, it will be abundantly clear that all of the amendments to the Bill will add further to the confusion that will reign in this House and outside of the House.

We had an example of this two years ago under the business expansion scheme which was introduced by the previous Minister for Finance in the most complex fashion possible in 30 sections of a Finance Bill. He introduced amendments to his own legislation. We advised him that to achieve what we all wanted to achieve, namely, an incentive for people to invest in Irish manufacturing industry, he should not persist with the complex regulations and limitations he was imposing. Unfortunately the Minister persisted with this course and, two years after the legislation was introduced, only £5 million has been committed by way of equity participation in qualifying industries. That is a direct consequence of the kind of sloppy and inadequate preparation and presentation of financial legislation which has been a feature of this Government and which unfortunately looks like being a characteristic feature under the Minister for Finance.

We are anxious to ensure that we can give our full support to worthwhile provisions in financial legislation. There are areas which we indicated in advance we were anxious to support such as the proposals in relation to research and development and stock options. Unfortunately the Government so complicated their own ideas that they have already introduced amendments. The options proposal presented by the Minister will have the opposite effect to what he intended. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to unravel all this when it comes before us next week. The Government are failing to implement their own ideas and are failing to give clear signals on how to invest under these proposals or on how to qualify for grants and tax incentives.

The growth in the level of taxation under this Government has been astronomical, so much so that we are way ahead of any other democratic country in the OECD group. It clearly has been the main cause of the economic depression we have experienced in the past three years. I shall give some figures to illustrate the growth of taxation. At the end of 1982 before this Government came into office, total taxation was £4,000 million. Under the proposals in the Finance Bill, that has increased by 66 per cent to over £6,000 million which is an astronomical increase by any standards and is unprecedented in this or any other country. Is it any wonder that the climate for enterprise, investment and economic activity has been effectively killed by the Government? A taxation increase of that order could only have the consequences we have witnessed in the past three years — economic depression, unemployment, emigration and a general sapping of morale. The consequences of this can be seen in almost every area in our social and economic activity.

It is time the Government faced up to the deadly consequences of their mistaken policies. they were introduced originally in 1983 with the intention, as the Government presented it, of eliminating the budget deficit in four years. The budget deficit is a matter of considerable importance. The first statement in relation to it was that they would eliminate it in a four year period. When it was clear that the level of taxation they imposed in their first budget in 1983 would have the opposite effect, and far from being eliminated the budget deficit would actually grow, the Government, in a second stage rethink, introduced Building on Reality. This was a new presentation of an old intention but it was very different from the original specific included in the Government's programme. Instead of eliminating the current budget deficit in four years they would reduce it gradually so that by 1987 it would be 5 per cent of GNP. Within six months of the presentation of Building on Reality it had become clear that it was unrealisable and all their intentions in their second stage conversion were equally — Sir, I find it distracting if conversations take place.

I was getting the up to date position. I am sorry.

I appreciate that.

The Minister for Finance has deliberately departed from what was stated in Building On Reality. He has now indicated that it is the Government's intention to reduce the current budget deficit. There have been three different stages in relation to this. First of all it was to be eliminated; secondly it was to be reduced to 5 per cent by 1987; and now we are told it will be reduced. This clearly shows that the Government have no central direction in economic policy and are unable to meet their stated targets. This is a matter of considerable concern. The public know the reality of economic depression. The unemployed, the poor, the old and those forced to emigrate know it as do business people.

The only crime the former Minister for Finance committed was that he acted on behalf of the Government who had presented the Estimates and who had authorised him to produce a budget. When the Government saw the public reaction to the budget he presented on their behalf some sacrificial lamb had to be found to meet the public rejection of the budget and the victim was the man who presented it on behalf of the budget. That shows a total lack of consistency and direction on the part of the Government.

I shall give some examples to illustrate the growth of taxation. If we look at the trends in taxation which have given rise to the problem, we can see there is no sign of any change of heart on the Government's part at this stage. I have given a figure for the total growth in taxation since the Government came to office. It was a 66 per cent increase. That speaks volumes. Income taxation is a matter of continuing concern not just for those who shoulder the burden but for anyone concerned with the wellbeing of the economy. In 1982, total income tax accounted for £1,450 million representing 11.5 per cent of GNP. This year income tax will account for over £2,400 million, an increase of an extra billion pounds. It now represents a figure close to 14½ per cent of GNP. Any Government who insist on soaking in so much of available capital which should be used for investment, renewal and enterprise, can only succeed in further damaging and undermining the whole base of this economy.

Within that there are some very clear examples in relation to specific taxes. The one that has been highlighted particularly in recent times arises from the fact that this Government, more than any other in the past 15 years, have been given a major opportunity that was not available to any of their predecessors. The fall in oil prices in the last six to nine months has meant that within that period prices have dropped to the pre-1973 level. In fairness to the previous Coalition, I must say they had to face major traumatic developments from 1974 to 1975, as did the next Fianna Fáil Government in 1977 when there were two oil crises, one caused by the increase in the price of oil which obviously had an effect on economic planning, and the second caused by the Iranian events of 1978-79.

Taken all in all, prices multiplied for this energy dependent economy by a factor of about 60 per cent during that period. It is significant that, while it took ten years, affecting two Governments, for the increase in international oil to reach what was a horrific level affecting an energy dependent economy such as ours, in nine months prices have dropped to what they were before 1973. This is a major opportunity for any Government with the good fortune to be in office at that time. But what have this Government done in the face of that major opportunity? Instead of presenting revised policies for development, instead of taking advantage of the new opportunities, this Government have further retrenched and adhered to the same failed policies and have thus guaranteed that, when everyone else was taking off, we would be the only one left on the shore.

The best example of this is the taxation imposed in particular on petroleum products. In the space of three years the retail level of taxation on petroleum products has increased from 48 per cent of the retail cost in 1982 to 67 per cent of an enhanced retail cost today. The main consequences of that have been that, instead of getting enhanced revenue, there has been a drop in revenue resulting from a drop in consumption of 2 billion hectolitres. In the three years since this Government came into office, consumption has dropped to two thirds of what it was before. This is horrific.

As a result of Government policies we have contributed to the Exchequer in Britain through duties being paid by people who travel across the Border and a diminution of the enhanced consumption we could expect to get from travellers from England during our summer periods — and they are almost a vanishing breed. The major boost in each succeeding year to our exise duties from tourists, particularly from England, was always a feature that produced buoyancy in indirect taxation from spirits, beer and petroleum products. This Government, by their actions, have frightened off any potential tourists, particularly working class tourists from England.

It is very clear in terms of tourism and revenue generally that this has had a major impact on our whole economic condition. I submit that that is because the Government are still adhering to the policies they started with, attempting to reduce the budget deficit by increasing taxation. They are often referred to as Thatcherite. But in fairness to the British Prime Minister it is unfair to have her associated with this Government in terms of economic policy because the British Government did not attempt to attack the deficit by increasing taxation but by reducing current expenditure. There is a very considerable difference between the two.

There are areas, under this Government, where current expenditure has grown out of all proportion to anything we have previously experienced. I want to instance one Department alone. We have to make a choice as to how best to generate activity and provide employment. The consensus in the House, which I believe the Minister for Finance shares, is to create a climate and condition in which we can get a profitable return for investment which, in turn, will be reflected in enhanced employment. The private sector must be given the opportunity to increase the level of investment, to generate more job opportunities. This Government have not followed that path. They have increased the administrative agencies of Government more than any other Government.

The biggest growth area in all Government expenditure in the past four years has been in the Department of Labour and the various agencies associated with it to the extent that in this year it accounts for close to £200 million. I do not have to criticise the various agencies of the Department of Labour. I will not go into it in detail beyond saying that this Government and the Minister for Finance have increased public expenditure by up to 60 per cent and probably more. Had I been given proper notice of this debate I could have presented the precise figures, but they are at least that. While withdrawing from the productive sector, let it be agriculture, farm modernisation or improving the cattle breeding stock, let it be industry, giving them breathing space through reasonable taxes ——

The Deputy may only make a passing reference.

The construction industry has been crucified by the extra levels of taxation. Is there any sense in heaping taxation on our productive enterprises in order to feed the administrative growth of various Departments?

Fairy tales are not in order either.

I can demonstrate from this year's Estimates for the Public Service that the only person engaging in fairy tales is the Minister. The Estimates confirm what I am saying. I am relying on facts. This Government have soaked the private sector of all available capital to expand the public sector while increasing taxation. I do not believe any Government would deliberately do that.

I believe the Minister for Finance is presenting his Estimates this morning because the Government are facing in two different directions. They are adding more agencies to ensure that more money will be spent in a non-productive way. The Labour Party are never present for economic or finance debates because they are too embarrassed. They now have the National Development Corporation, another administrative agency. Any business man will tell you we do not need another corporation because the business corporations would be effective in themselves if they were not being driven into the ground by the costs imposed on them by this Government, whether by way of levies, PRSI or taxation charges. It is time the Government made up their minds ——

How does the Deputy make that out? The Government has substantially reduced the numbers in the public service for the first time ever.

Fairy tales.

I normally take note of what Deputy Kelly has to say, but he obviously has not been listening to me.

I have been listening.

I have not yet made any reference to numbers in the public service.

I appreciate that.

I have been talking about spending in the public service. Deputy Kelly and I agree on numbers in the public service. This Government are following the principle established by their immediate predecessors in the policy for reducing the numbers in the public service.

That policy did not begin to bite until the Minister, Deputy Boland, took over.

Deputy O'Kelly will know that the Government with Deputy Haughey as Taoiseach and Deputy Mac-Sharry as Minister for Finance introduced the policy of filling only one vacancy in three.

That came in in July 1981.

I do not want to be sidetracked because there is no point in trying to create divisions where they do not exist. I am talking about money being spent on wasteful purposes.

One thing is clear: there are various responsibilities in the Department of Finance — expenditure control, which we accept is not succeeding; taxation, which is alive and well and working, and the third element is economic planning and development; which is the most important element and is served by the other two elements. It is clear that under both Ministers for Finance there has been a lack of any semblance of economic planning and development. If there has been any effective policy in this area we would have seen more constructive proposals, particularly in the last six months when new opportunities arose because of enhanced economic activity worldwide. For example the growth projections for 1986 in the Federal Republic of Germany were higher than presented in the last 15 years. The same is true in Japan and the United States. In all the main economic centres new markets are opening but, instead of availing of these opportunites, this Government are still engaged in the same blind policies of imposing taxation to bridge a deficit which is growing all the time.

This Government should allocate expenditure to play to our strengths. I am sure our strengths are obvious and it does not require any one from this side of the House to suggest what they are. Agriculture has the potential for downstream added value in the food industry. Our marketing efforts ——

I cannot allow——

I am making a brief reference.

The Deputy must confine himself to the Department of Finance and their policies.

This is his third budget speech since Christmas.

One of the most important functions of the office of the Minister for Finance, unless it has been changed without any of us hearing about it, is economic planning and development. I am not going to go into agricultural policy in detail. I am making a passing reference to priorities for economic policy, and that is the only reference I propose to make.

You cannot go in depth into agriculture, industry or labour.

I will not be going into these subjects in depth because I do not have the time or the inclination to do so. I suggest that we might focus especially on the area of product development, research and development and marketing to ensure that the markets abroad which are expanding and which are available to us are exploited to the full. The Government have shown no awareness of this. Instead we have watched some of our agri-food industries not only declining, but closing. It is extraordinary that when opportunities for increased employment are recognised by other countries, Erin Foods are closing plants, the Sugar Company are——

This does not come under the Estimates of the Minister for Finance.

This is just a passing reference.

You are making a string of irrelevant passing references.

There are new opportunities in the area of food technology. A deliberate Government plan would open these markets to us, especially if the Minister for Finance provided appropriate tax incentives for marketing personnel. During the Finance Bill debate I will be developing further the proposal to encourage marketing personnel to exploit opportunities abroad, at little or no cost to the taxpayer. It is time we started to play to our strengths because we have the personnel to do so, but we must provide the opportunities. Is there any reason why our people should be condemned to succeed only away from home? If we continue on this path we will be condemned to that and they will be condemned to succeed in Australia, Canada and the US in developing the resources of those countries when they are prevented from developing the resources of their own. I am not going to go into any detail except to refer to a few cases. A similar case could be made for the process industry, fishing, downstream industries in forestry, the development of the resources in our peat, particularly the natural gas that others have recognised is a feature of our rich deposits of peat. Where is there evidence of this Government in their expenditure programmes even beginning to show awareness of that?

Of course, all of this will not take effect within six or 12 months, but the planning must be done now. The overall planning must be consistent with consensus not just between Government, whoever is in Government, but between all parties. As long as we have two parties in Government facing in different directions and having to compromise with each other, I do not care who those parties are, the present experience demonstrates that the current pair, at any rate, cannot reach that accommodation. We get arguments on an ideological basis about our energy, our offshore exploration, all the time ensuring that the resources there, whether it is gas, oil, peat, fisheries or forestry, lies dormant and unexplored. It is time we got away from that ideological, negative confrontation.

Hold off the Civil War. That is the fastest way of doing it.

Let me make a reference in that connection, a Cheann Comhairle you have been here a little longer than I have so I am sure you will appreciate this. I have been a Member of this Oireachtas for 21 years and I have not at any time during that 21 years seen any evidence of Civil War politics.

The Deputy knows what I mean.

It is becoming tiresome that those who are trying to suggest something new, as if they have the answer to everything, are implying that we have been engaged in Civil War politics here for 21 years.

Deputy O'Malley is one of these.

We should not have interruptions from a Deputy who has not possession and the Deputy who is speaking should come back to the Estimates and remain with them.

I am trying to get back to them but when one gets the opportunity one takes it. The Civil War took place over 60 years ago. We cannot call it off now, but in 21 years' experience in the Oireachtas I have experienced no Civil War politics and I hope that the next 21 years will be as clear of it. Those who pretend that we have been engaging in it are trying to mislead the public.

I will be——

Deputy Kelly, your interventions are far from helpful to the decorum of the House.

Well, Sir——

For somebody who believes in perfection, that is far from it.

Irrespective of who has Government responsibility there are problems to face in terms of the difficulties that we have experienced over the last 13 or 14 years, in particular since the impact of the first dramatic energy crisis followed by the second in 1978-79. Those problems are inherited from the past and they will be there for any Government, but it is equally important that the opportunities of today are recognised. That is where I find the Government's inability to face up to the possibilities.

I want to give another important illustration of how this should be done. I have made passing reference to our natural resources and I will not go further than that. The other strength we have is our own people, perhaps most important of all, our young people. Are we to continue to allow them to be forced to go away and we lose the benefit of their knowledge, commitment and capacity? Economic policy can never succeed unless, at the core of that policy, is a deliberate strategy for maximising the application of knowledge and educa- tional opportunity, particularly in this era of techniculture.

I want to refer to the experience of successful economies in recent times. It is no accident that in Japan more than half of first time employees have third level qualifications or equivalent. That is the basis on which the success of the Japanese economy has been built. They have played to their strength in their expenditure allocations. They have enabled their people to reach a level of capacity and productive enterprise through the application of technological skills and facilities. This Government have not enhanced the programme for education. I will not go into educational policy, though I regret what has happened recently in that area. However, let me say that if in terms of expenditure allocation you fix and apply the resources to develop your strengths — in this instance the strength of our own resource, our knowledge — this will be a much more confident and prosperous country than we have been led to believe it can be.

It is time for the moaning to stop. It is time for the exodus to stop. It is time to see to blocking the drain that is ensuring success for other countries through the efforts and enterprise of our people whom we have educated at taxpayers' expense. It is time to ensure that we do not allow our greatest resource to be dissipated in the way it has been, particularly in the application of knowledge through third level opportunity. This is vital. Switzerland and Japan have always known that. The FDR have always invested in it. But what do we find? More money is being invested in administrative agencies under this Government than we provide for third level education. Let anyone who can justify that come forward and justify it. That is the story of our failure.

It is time we began to recognise that instead of tinkering at the edges of policies which demonstrably have failed. We must reappraise those policies completely. They will not have immediate effect but in time they will at least signal a new direction for the people, new hope for our young people and, within a foreseeable period, they will be seen to have a major impact.

As a consequence of this Government's tax policies one thing that has emerged more than anything else is the complete drop in investment in the economy. The Government are soaking far too much into the public sector. Even the exclusion of Government gilts from the tax proposals in the Finance Bill, DIRT, the deposit interest retention tax——

That would be more appropriate on the Finance Bill. I would prefer if the Deputy would keep away from passing references to the Finance Bill which is currently before the House. I must have some order.

Let me refer you to the Votes, and these will be only passing references. The Vote I am referring to now——

Passing reference could be to everything under the sun that is not relevant.

Vote 7 which we are discussing is for the office of the Minister for Finance.

Office of the Revenue Commissioners, Vote 9. In passing, if a reference to taxation——

It is not relevant to taxation currently being processed through the House under the Finance Bill.

I would like a clear ruling on this. Are you telling me that any matter now before the House in the Finance Bill cannot be discussed under the office of the Minister for Finance and the Revenue Commissioners?

Then I suggest this debate is nonsense. To introduce the Estimate for the Minister for Finance and the Revenue Commissioners this morning——

It has been made nonsense. There is a Bill before the House this week and next week, I understand, dealing with this very tax that the Deputy is talking about and he wants to introduce it into an Estimate. That does not make sense.

The Minister for Finance who introduced this matter made references quite frequently to issues in the Finance Bill in his address. He did not have a prepared script, but that is fact. I will not go into it in detail, but what I am going to say in this context is in relation to investment. The most important thing is to encourage investment in the private sector. Government policies under the Minister for Finance are soaking off investment into the public sector. I just said in passing that an example of that has been the exclusion of Government gilts from the deposit interest retention tax. There is no justification for further penalties on the private sector and excluding Government gilts.

That is clearly anticipating the debate currently before the House.

I appreciate that but——

We will not have any more of it.

The next time we have a motion in relation to the Minister for Finance and the Revenue Commissioners, you should make it clear to the House before we start what we may discuss and refer to the relevant Standing Order.

Taxation policy may not be discussed.

Is this in relation to——

It is a ruling of one of my predecessors on more than one occasion.

Are you referring to Standing Orders?

I am referring to precedent.

Is it a Standing Order?

No, but I am not going to argue with the Deputy. I am ruling that the Deputy is out of order. He is one of the most difficult Deputies in the House and is perpetually out of order although he does not seem to know it.

He has been looking for the Estimates since last September and then he will not speak on them.

I am talking on the Estimates. The Revenue Commissioners are engaged only in tax collection.

I am ruling that a discussion on the provisions of the Finance Bill before the House is not in order.

Are you ruling now — let us be very clear on this — that any reference to the functions of the Revenue Commissioners and taxation imposed by them is out of order in discussing the office of the Revenue Commissioners? If so, could you indicate what is in order when discussing the office of the Revenue Commissioners.

I am ruling that references to matters contained in the Finance Bill are out of order; it is as simple as that.

An I allowed to discuss the taxation issue—

The Revenue Commissioners do not impose taxation; they only collect it. The House imposes taxation. The Deputy has a mixed-up attitude——

I am, therefore, only entitled to raise how the Revenue Commissioners collect tax?

So that I should recommend that they have a better system of collection?

If you check with precedent I am sure you will find that is not the case.

The Deputy should accept the Chair's ruling.

I do, but I will take the opportunity to present precedent to you so that you will know where we stand. In any event, the general taxation policies of the Government discourage investment in the private sector and, as long as that continues, there will be a continuation of the depressed economic conditions which have been a feature of the past three or four years. The Minister for Finance should ensure that he gets the right balance in regard to investment funds available for the private sector. One of the consequences of the policies of the Government is the very high level of interest rates. If taxation policies force money into the public sector to escape the impact of taxation in the private sector, the consequences are those which we have seen in recent times, a shortage on the money markets. There is also an impact on interest rates of major proportions at a time when, internationally, they are coming down at a considerable pace. We then get unnecessary and artificial pressures on our money markets which have caused interest rates here to rise way out of line with those applicable elsewhere.

The Government and the Minister for Finance in particular should review their policies to ensure that the same level of equal opportunity and return is available to investors in the private sector as has been available to those in the public sector. The Minister acknowledged that the rate of interest on tax overpaid to the Revenue Commissioners is sufficiently high to be attractive as an investment to the public. The Minister should concentrate on redirecting policies to generate investment in the private sector and to allow them a reasonable return for their effort and ability. Instead, there has been a continuation of the policies which demonstrate that we will be continuing with the same old tired prescriptions which can only lead to failure and pessimism throughout the community.

The Minister for Finance proclaimed his intention of being the reforming angel of Dáil procedure. It is the first time in my experience that so many Votes have been discussed together but the Minister for Finance did not present his Estimate, that from a man who proclaims that he will reform Dáil procedures. Unless he changes his attitude dramatically in that regard in the same way as he needs to change his attitude in regard to reform of planning and economic development procedures, we will be very much worse off in one or two years' time than we are today. The tragedy is that the opportunities are there to be seized and it is past time that we stopped luxuriating in the fact that the problems are created outside the country when, in fact, all our problems are created by the Government. I hope when the next Estimates for Finance and the Revenue Commissioners are produced there will be a dramatic change, and, in the confident expectation that they will be introduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister, I am sure there will be such a change. I am sure, a Cheann Comhairle, having putting up with the depression of the past few years——

The Chair has to put up with many things.

Perhaps one of those changes should include the presence of the Opposition spokesman for the debate.

I want to deal with four of the heads in the group of Estimates before the House. I should like to refer to the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Vote for the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Vote for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Vote for Public Works and Buildings.

Vote No. 8 is not being taken.

I accept that the Vote for the Attorney General has been deleted.

I shall list those excluded for the information of the Deputy. They are Vote 8, Comptroller and Auditor General; Vote 13, Office of the Attorney General; Vote 14, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and Vote 19, Farm Classification Office.

Under the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas come the salaries paid to Deputies and Senators, and pensions paid to former office holders come under a different heading but it is hard to deal with this theme without taking the two together. This is an important theme in the present climate, when so many of the Government's efforts are directed to trying to induce various parts of the public service to accept wage increases at a modest level related to the present very low and declining rate of inflation. I am not going to make specific reference to the teachers' dispute or the kind of issue which may exist between the Government and other parts of the public service after the teachers' dispute has been got out of the way, one way or another.

That will be more appropriate on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for the Public Service.

In a general sense it is fair to say that this serious national difficulty, and not merely a political difficulty faced by one Government, of reconciling the public service to a rate of wage increase, bearing in mind the Government's resources, is made very much more difficult when there are ripostes and rejoinders open to members of the public service, and their unions, in terms of accusing the Government, and those they stand for in here, of not being willing to apply the same discipline to themselves as they expect from others. Were I a teacher, or a member of some other branch of the public service in the larger sense——

I am not going to allow a discussion on the Department of Education or the Department of the Public Service, directly or indirectly.

I am not going to make any reference to those disputes except to say that they exist and that anybody in dispute, whether a teacher or anybody else, about a pay increase inside the public sector as an honest citizen will be inclined to take seriously admonitions about the level of increase that the State can afford having regard to the taxpayers' interests and so on; but in his chagrin at being denied, or apparently so, an increase he would be inclined to say to the Government who is admonishing him in those terms, "What about your own people? Did you apply that kind of discipline to yourselves? What about the 19 per cent increase of 1982 and the fact that former office holders draw pensions while still Members of these Houses?"

Will the Deputy please relate his remarks to some Vote that is before the House?

There is a Vote before the House for Dáil salaries. The Chair may think what I have said is an unnecessary lengthy introduction to a plea I want to make under this Vote, that the whole matter should be reformed. Dáil and Seanad salaries and, in the larger sense, other political salaries should be consolidated with other perquisites; allowances, pensions and so forth in such a way that they will make sense to the public, in such a way that the public will find them intelligible and acceptable. I hope that if that reform is undertaken it will not mean that anybody will be worse off than they were. It is hard to persuade the public that frequently one can be worse off through success in politics than through failure.

When I was first elected a Member of the House and was made a Parliamentary Secretary on my first day in the Dáil I instantly sustained a drop in total income of £2,500 in 1973 terms because I had to go on leave of absence from my other job and so forth. That figure in 1973 terms must be worth £7,000 or £8,000 gross in 1986 terms, if not more. That was a substantial drop. I was glad, and proud, to have the opportunity to serve and I did not think any worse of the system which expected me to work that much harder for that much less. However, I have always been anxious to contest the idea that people make money out of being in politics. They do not although the odd one may be in a very favourable position where he or she can derive advantages, direct or indirect, from involvement in politics. The idea that parliamentary salaries are a gift or that they will more than make good what is being lost on some other hand by somebody engaged in politics is wrong. I do not think we should be shy about saying that but having said it I think the public, and the public service unions if their members entertain such a grudge, have a point in saying that Deputies and Senators are paid on a basis which nobody else is paid on and that it should be changed.

I hope that if the change is made Deputies Doyle and McEllistrim who are in front of me will not be any worse off. I am not by any means advocating instant impoverishment, cuts or anything of that sort but we might reform the system in such a way that it becomes intelligible, transparent, rational and acceptable to the people. If we were to start from the level of Dáil salaries — I am not going to go into the Seanad because the question about the utility of a second House would crop up there — one could say, without making any special point about it, that Dáil salaries are probably the lowest parliamentary salaries in Europe. They most certainly are far lower than those in continental Europe and are somewhat lower than those in Britain. Deputies work at varying rates, some have a relatively easy time while others have a dog's life, depending on their geographical situation and the type of constituents they have. It depends on the way they see their support lying and likely to stay with them. The public might be got to accept a somewhat more generous payment to Deputies who lead lives that no member of the public would put up with. I am not recommending that but the public do not understand the hardships of the existence. They can only see the easy bits and the high profile things that are flattering to the ego but the hard grind that Deputy Doyle, Deputy McEllistrim and the rest of us have to endure behind the scenes is not perceived at all. For example, that comes through in the perception that the only work TDs do is in the Dáil on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and on the odd Friday. In fact, that is the easy part of a TD's work. He does not need to work when he gets to Dublin at all.

I know Deputies in my party, and in the other parties, who say that the only rest they get from one end of the week to the other is when the Dáil is sitting because once they get on the train or into a car to go home on a Thursday afternoon they do not get another hour's peace between then and the time they next step into the train or car to head for Dublin on the following Tuesday morning. They have a punishing, backbreaking round of clinics — some of the country constituencies may be 100 miles from end to end — and people call at their doors or on the telephone night and day. TDs have to go to functions, specially arranged party functions of all types, over the weekend. Those functions are specially arranged for the weekend because the Deputy is likely to be at home but every private citizen can regard that time as his private property for relaxation, recreation, being with his family or friends. The ordinary TD, the common or garden footslogger — I get off easily in this respect myself and I am not making a case based on my own experience — the ordinary infantry man or infantry woman in here has only one easy time during the week and that is when the Dáil is sitting. The rest of the week consists of commitments of a kind which no private citizen, particularly of the kind who give out about Deputies, would tolerate for a month, or less. We should not be shy about defending our position but we should be equally honest in admitting that the public have a point in complaining about salary rises of a dimension which they do not sympathise with, and, above all, about the fact that pensions and salaries can be paid simultaneously. I get a small pension. I think I would sooner not have it than have to endure the criticism which I meet at doorsteps at election time and others, of being in this category of former office holders who draw a Dáil salary as well as a pension. The Taoiseach has promised legislation to improve this area and I hope that legislation will get through before the end of this Dáil.

One way of doing that in a way that the public would see as equitable, which would remove what the public perceive as the scandal of simultaneous salary and pension, would be to pay Deputies not merely a good basic salary but an incremental salary in the way that such is common in every other regular paid employment — it may not be invariable but it is very common — in other words, a salary which would increase slightly with years of service. That happens in the non-elected public service and, depending on their private arrangements, it happens in a widespread way in the private sector. If we were to do that there would be a very rough correspondence — it would not be an exact correspondence — between former office holders and those who have been a fairly long time in the Dáil. If we were to remove Members' pensions during the time they were still a Member here then, perhaps, in a more rational and publicly-acceptable way, we would be able to make it good by an incremental system related to years of service.

No matter what one says in this area one will be criticised. Some people simply cannot be persuaded that we are not all ripping off the taxpayers through salaries, allowances and so on. I am really almost afraid to address myself to the subject. But I would like to say, as I have before, that I am in favour of reform — not in favour of sackcloth and ashes, not in favour of accepting criticisms against us which are unjustified, not in favour of allowing the public to be under any illusions about what a TD does — but in favour of reforming the salaries structure here in a way that makes it so far as possible identical with the kind of system which prevails in the rest of the public service, the non-elected public service, or the kind of system which private citizens in the private sector paid employment are accustomed to. I am absolutely in favour of that. I am very glad the Taoiseach has said that legislation along those lines — though I do not know exactly what shape it will take — is on the way.

When that moment arrives, when the salaries and allowances in here are transparent and defensible, so that one does not have to be on the defensive about them at doorsteps, then any Government — I do not care whether this one or one represented by Deputy McEllistrim — will be in a stronger position to say to people: "Look, we are accepting the same disciplines we are asking you to accept so any argument based on ourselves letting ourselves off anything is out of date; it might have been the case once upon a time but it is not the case any longer."

In regard to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, I heard your passage, Sir, with Deputy O'Kennedy who was trying and effectively succeeding — impromptu though he was and little though his preparation, according to himself, had been — in making a third budget speech since the Dáil reassembled at the end of January. He made one on the budget itself, one on the Second Stage of the Finance Bill and another one this morning. None of them contained anything very new — I could nearly have predicted what he would say on all three — but I shall stick to the thing which he thought so comptemptible, namely, the question of revenue collection. I do not mean to say something offensive about him — I am not on that kind of footing with him — but he seemed to think it was perhaps beneath the dignity of an Opposition Finance spokesman that he be asked to speak about something so trifling as the mere modalities of collecting taxes. I do want to say something here which I hope may be of interest.

The Revenue Commissioners employ a large number of staff, incidentally, some of them vocal enough when it comes to letting the public know their opinions, not merely about the modalities of revenue collection but about what kind of revenue should be collected and about where the burden should be placed, in other words, what I might call the more political dimensions of the Revenue officers' opinions not infrequently come through. Whether or not that is proper is perhaps not appropriate for discussion here. Personally I would prefer to feel that public servants, as I believe they do, are able to lay aside their opinions on fiscal ideology when they come into their office and administer a system. I believe they do leave their opinions aside. Indeed, it is a pity that the occasional resolutions from tax officials' associations about the general thrust of Government policy in these regards should, no doubt falsely, inaccurately and unfortunately, slightly shake the confidence of the ordinary people, that those who are collecting the tax have no opinions about whether the tax level in this or that instance, or whether the application of a tax in this or that area is right or wrong. As private citizens, naturally, they will have such opinions but it is a pity that, as a group, they articulate those opinions under that name. After all, they have every opportunity to do so in other settings in life.

Apparently one of the things which emerges from the Revenue Commissioners' Office is manpower shortage. This is given as one of the reasons for the large arrears in collection. It is worth stopping to look at that just for a moment. I have to say, by the way — in case anything I may have said now or before could be construed as unfriendly — that in my own dealings with the Revenue Commissioners I have never received anything but extreme courtesy and patience. I would not like to disturb that relatively amicable relationship by anything said here. But when I read or hear that they are impeded in their operations in collecting arrears of tax because of the embargo imposed on Civil Service recruitment which includes them as well, so that they have not sufficient people to collect the arrears effectively and promptly — and I believe that is so; I take them at their word that this is the case — I have to ask: why is this situation irremediable?

After all, advertisements for the public service do not necessarily, or even at all specify that recruitment will exclude the possibility of ever being employed anywhere else than where one starts off. Therefore, what is the obstacle to transferring public servants from areas in which there is a certain degree of redundancy — I do not mean in the sense of laying off but in the sense that there is not enough work to absorb the energies of the people ostensibly engaged in it — what is to prevent that from taking in a far more drastic way than has been the case to date? I understand that there are difficulties, that there is a sluggishness of an institutional kind which impedes the free flow of staff from areas where they are not so much wanted into areas in which they are so much wanted.

I would have hoped that a country like this, which has had a Department of the Public Service, a special Department all of its own to try to improve the quality of the public service delivered to the people since 1973 would by now have got its act together sufficiently to ensure a well lubricated easy flow of staff from areas where they are less necessary into others where they are more necessary. Everybody in the country knows at least one public service office where there are more people than there is work to absorb. I know one or two. Everybody knows one or two. No doubt there are ones that are overstaffed but I have no doubt that there are equally many which are understaffed. I cannot understand why this should be so. It is all one service. The conditions of employment, as far as I understand them, specifically allow for transfer between Departments.

The Deputy is moving into the public service area now.

Well, Sir, it is really a bit unavoidable because I am trying to deal with the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. Just before the occupancy of the Chair changed I had said that one of the difficulties of tax collection appeared to be a shortage of staff. I accept that it is. If there is a shortage of staff in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners it is not necessarily just attributable, as the Revenue officials themselves say, to the general public service recruitment embargo. It may equally be attributable to inefficient mechanisms for staff transfer within the public service.

Deputy, you are moving away from the subject of the debate.

I do not want to fight with you, Sir, but I ask to be allowed to make one more brief comment in this connection. I cannot really deal with staff shortage in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners without outlining a possibility for alleviating that shortage.

The relevant Vote will be coming on next Friday. What you are saying could be considered then.

I cannot make a speech in dribs and drabs. I ask you to bear with me for about three minutes.

You may make a passing reference. I am not trying to be awkward with you. Would you stay on the Vote for the Revenue Commissioners?

If I could put what I wish to say into a long subordinate clause I would, but that would be an inelegant solution to the problem. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a report which has evidently just being published by Dr. Micheál Ross of the Economic and Social Research Institution which report was summarised in a short story in yesterday's Irish Times on page 8. The work of this ESRI author was summarised under the caption “Public Service Job Statistics Unavailable”. He alleges — I cannot endorse this because I do not know — that the Department of the Public Service cannot discover how many people are under the roof of any other section or Department. There are some exceptions, and he has singled out the Garda and some other Departments where excellent records are kept and one can discover how many people these Departments are paying, but in the public service generally you cannot do that. They cannot reconcile even the numbers returned with the salary cheques paid out. It is an absolutely amazing state of affairs if this is correct. I do not endorse the allegation — and hope that it is not true but it is worth an examination — that the lack of information in the Department of the Public Service about how many are employed in the various sections of that service is due partly to obstruction.

I do not want to obstruct you, Deputy, but I should be very grateful if you would come back to the subject.

I shall move on by summarising briefly what I have said about the Revenue Commissioners' office. The Arrears Branch, and perhaps others, are apparently impeded by staff shortages. I say these staff shortages are attributed, in public at least, by the Tax Officials' Association, to the Government embargo on Civil Service recruitment. I am asking might not these staff shortages be alleviated by staff transfer from other sections of the public service? I am drawing attention to the fact that in that connection the very first difficulty that we face is that the DPS apparently do not know from day to day how many people are in any particular section of the public service, with rare exceptions. Naturally, that is an impediment to any such movement. Here is an area which must be attacked before we are going to get top efficiency in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners as well as in the rest of the service about which we are talking and which absorbs such gigantic quantities of public funds.

The Office of Public Works is a very wide ranging subject and I should like to have spent a longer time on it. I think I heard Deputy Haughey say at the beginning of this morning's debate — and I had to agree with him — that as a rule a whole day is given to the OPW. Certainly that was my recollection. I do not want to be unfair to other Deputies by overdoing this, but I would like to make one point. I shall not go into individual drainage schemes, problems of individual buildings or anything of that sort. The point I would like to make is in regard to the gigantic stock of housing owned by the Office of the Public Works, more of which should be put to use by way of renovation and conversion for new purposes than is the case.

I asked the Office of Public Works for a list — what I meant was a list of categories — of the property which they held. With extreme kindness and courtesy they obliged me, at short notice, with a most gigantic print-out of every Garda station and primary school. I have not had time even to count the pages, let alone look at the entries. This print-out will be very useful to me in the future. There are marvellous juxtapositions with the Lusaka Embassy coming next to Lyreacrompane national school, one from Deputy McEllistrim's constituency. There are many items in this publication which catch the eye. The amount of building stock under the charge of the OPW is immense. I do not mean to imply that much of this is not properly kept, but that it is very old and some buildings for architectural or historic reasons are worthy of conservation, in any case. Naturally that stock in Dublin is particularly large. Here we have ancient buildings still under the control of the OPW, and the State are nevertheless thinking of putting up new buildings for new purposes. We are going about that business the wrong way around. The Minister in charge of the OPW should have an examination made with regard to a better use being made of buildings which they already own, rather than putting up new buildings at huge cost, with architect fees and so forth.

I looked at this list to see if the military barracks of the State are included, but they are not. There is no firm rule. Certainly, Collins Barracks, which was the barracks that I wanted to mention in particular, does not appear to be there and I assume that it is the property of the Minister for Defence and not the OPW. My reason for briefly mentioning that barracks is that it is the oldest inhabited barracks in the world, having been put up in the very early 18th century. Its days as an effective barracks are obviously numbered — they were probably regarded as numbered a hundred years ago. Why might it not be possible to convert that historic building for some function which otherwise would be discharged by the expensive acquisition of a site and the building of a brand new edifice?

In the House two or three months ago the Taoiseach moved the Second Stage of the National Archives Bill and revealed that it was the intention of the Government to put up a new building to contain the National Archives. There is nothing magical about these archives, they simply mean old papers, old correspondence, old wills, old official documents, Land Commission inquiries and so on — things of all kinds which at the moment are under states and rafters owned by the State. All these documents are at present housed; they are not in the open air. At the moment the State offices are large enough to house them all, although dispersed widely in different Departments. Why must we have a brand new building to house material which is evidently of dimensions so modest that it can be housed conveniently in little slots here and there throughout a range of Government Departments? It is not as if we were getting an accession of completely new material, or as though a present of a gigantic library were suddenly arriving on the docks. It is just that bundles, perhaps large bundles of old files will be moved out of rookeries in Merrion Street and transported somehwere else, to be assembled together with other old files from other rookeries in other parts of the city or country. That is all it means.

I suggest that instead of putting up a brand new glass, concrete and steel building which if the products of the last 20 years for example in St. Stephen's Green or Lower Mount Street are anything to go by, will be dead and hideous, why not let us clear out and convert one very large rookery and adapt it internally so as to be an appropriate National Archive? There must be properties on the OPW list which would lend themselves to that sort of conversion. If the military barracks of the State had been on the list I would have suggested Collins Barracks — probably one wing would have been sufficient — as an ideal place. Another building, which is on the OPW list of properties, is Cathal Brugha Barracks, Rathmines formerly called Portobello in which during my brief military career and while I was a student I wore my country's uniform and participated in primitive arms drills. That barracks occupies a very large area and a prime site. Presumably it will be sold by the State sooner or later for some form of development but there are buildings there which would lend themselves to conversion for a purpose such as the housing of archives without going to the expense of erecting a new building on a totally new site.

Finally, I have a word of commendation for the OPW. Apart from their kind diligence in furnishing me with this encyclopaedia of State owned property, I commend them on the many fine facilities they are responsible for throughout the country. It would be difficult to go to a national monument that is under their charge without, as a rule, feeling proud at the general condition and standard of upkeep involved. The same must be said in relation to some of the parks maintained by the OPW. Notable in this regard is St. Stephen's Green. While each person may have a different idea as to what a park should be like, St. Stephen's Green is maintained with great pride and efficiency and gives a great deal of pleasure to huge numbers of Dublin people, not to mention the tourists for whom we are always supposed to be tarting ourselves up. The people who use this park derive great pleasure from walking through it and from sitting in it when the weather permits. The park is a credit to the OPW.

Sufficient has been said on the subject of Kilmainham Hospital, leaving aside the tragic incident that resulted in the damage to some of the Emperor's Warriors; magnificent work has been carried out there, admittedly with the help of a substantial subsidy from Europe. I have heard a man who has no mean experience of these matters describe the building as being, by a long shot, the finest single public building in these islands. There are not many fine public buildings on this island but there are a very large number in Britain and this man was inclined to put Kilmainham ahead of any of those. I am pleased to pass that tribute on to the people concerned. I am aware of the amount of dedication and hard work, and disappointment too, that goes into making a success of anything but the Office of Public Works must be commended for their many successes. I only wish they had a larger role in trying to ensure that property does not fall down and in trying to prevent the State from squandering money on new buildings when old ones could well be adapted for new purposes.

I congratulate the Minister of State on her elevation to office. She has been placed in charge of one of the oldest departments of Government. It is also a very important department and I am confident that the Minister will treat it as such.

I notice that there is a decrease of 9 per cent in the amount being provided this year for the Office of Public Works — £96,579,000 last year compared with £92,655,000 this year. The main reason why the Office of Public Works are so important is that they must deal with every other Department of Government. Therefore, the money allocated for the OPW is a good barometer in assessing the Government and their performance. When this office are not allocated sufficient finance, every Department feel the pinch. Sufficient money has not been allocated to this office this year. This will reflect itself in the services that will be provided during the coming year.

The OPW can be examined under three headings. These are buildings, engineering works and the area of conservation and amenities. In the past 12 months they have been subjected to some criticism for their activities in providing buildings for Government Departments. That criticism may be unjustified in some instances because the OPW must have space ready in anticipation of any Government Department needing extra office accommodation at any time. I recall that when I was responsible for that office, an order might come at very short notice for office space for some Government Department. Government Departments need office space adjacent to Dáil Éireann and in this respect the St. Stephen's Green area is much sought after.

I referred last year to the renovation of the old Land Commission building in Merrion Street. The Minister of State referred to that this morning but there is no provision this year for the expenditure of any money on the building. This is one of the oldest of our Government buildings. It is important that it should be renovated and brought up to the desired standard as quickly as possible. When I was Minister of State in charge of forestry my office was in that building so I can say from firsthand experience that the accommodation there is not satisfactory. I am making a strong plea to both the Minister of State and the Minister for Finance to provide money to enable the necessary works to be carried out to this building. It is adjacent to Dáil Éireann and consequently would be very valuable accommodation for some Government Department.

In the past few years the OPW should have purchased sites in the St. Stephen's Green area. Some sites in that area did become available during the past 18 to 24 months. These included the Hibernian Hotel site and one nearer to the Green. It would have been much more desirable for the OPW to have purchased either or both of those sites than to have the Government renting office space. It would be much more economic for the Government to purchase sites than to continue paying for rented accommodation.

I am very interested in a new block of offices for the Civil Service in my home town of Tralee. All the Government offices there are scattered and fragmented and it is important that they be housed in one centre. When Fianna Fáil were in office a suitable site was purchased from Tralee UDC. Construction on this building which was designed some time between 1980 and 1981 has not yet commenced. There are over 200 civil servants in Tralee town who need office accommodation. Some of these civil servants are working in very inadequate office space, especially in the office of the Department of Agriculture which is too far out of town. This makes it difficult for small farmers in the north Kerry area who have no transport of their own and they have to walk one and a half miles to get to the Department's office.

The Revenue Commissioner's staff are obliged to manage with four prefabricated buildings. Some time ago we were lucky that we did not have a strike by the Revenue Commissioners' workers in Tralee due to inadequate space. The office space is quite inadequate. It is an old building and not suitable for the Revenue Commissioners who have a large personnel there. As a matter of fact, the Tánaiste and Minister for Energy, Deputy Spring, who is a Deputy for the area, promised during the local elections campaign that an office block would be built this year. I would now like an assurance from the Minister of State that this building will be erected in Tralee this year. As there is no mention of it in the Estimates, I presume there is no provision for this building in Tralee.

Tenders will be invited before the end of the month.

I should like to ask the Minister of State will money be provided for it during this financial year?

Work is expected to commence in the autumn.

I welcome the fact that £21 million is to be spent on new buildings this year. It is a step in the right direction. The Government should have modern offices and should have a programme to provide new buildings and new office space for all Departments.

Over £2 million is to be spent on the restoration and development of Dublin Castle and the provision of a new conference hall needed for EC meetings. I welcome this. Dublin Castle is a very historic building. It is very satisfying to think it is being extended to accommodate EC meetings which were very difficult to accommodate in some of the limited space which was there up to now.

I am also delighted that the Europa Nostra Organisation have recognised the great architectural restoration achievements and bestowed the premiere award on Kilmainham Castle. This was tremendous. I notice that £1 million is to be spent on refurbishing it and on extra work which will be done this year. The restoration work being done on the Custom House is badly needed. Some of the facades of big buildings in Dublin have become very dilapidated and dirty looking. This restoration work is very welcome in Dublin and I am delighted that the Government are going ahead with this project.

I should like to deal with the subject of our national parks and monuments. I am delighted that the development of Glenveigh National Park in County Donegal is going ahead. The Minister of State mentioned that the castle at Glenveigh will be open to the public this year. This is a beautiful castle. While I was Minister of State, the Office of Public Works purchased the Glenveigh estate and I visited the castle on a few occasions. The estate comprises over 23 acres of land. There is a large number of red deer in the park and I hope they are doing well. There was a danger that the red deer would become extinct in Killarney some years ago. Steps were taken at that time to ensure that this did not happen. It is very important that the red deer in Glenveigh 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, Glenveigh and Letterfrack. I should like to talk a little about Killarney which is in my own native county. In the past the area comprised 21,000 acres of land and lake. The estate of the late Mrs. Grosvenor which has been purchased successfully adds 4,000 acres to the area. With the Minister of State, I would like to thank the representatives of the Grosvenor family for coming to an agreement with the officials of the Office of Public Works to add this valuable estate to Killarney National Park.

The Government have a duty to preserve our national parks and to keep them in good condition. They should encourage people to visit them. I suggested last year to the Minister of State, and I suggest to the present Minister of State that she should write to the principals of all national and post primary schools to suggest that they encourage their students to visit our national parks. Every school in the country has a day on which they go on a sight seeing expedition. It would be very beneficial to the students if they visited our national parks.

Also on the Killarney estate there is a herd of pure bred Kerry cows, the only herd of pure bred Kerry cows in the country. I mentioned in my speech last year that I was disappointed that those cows were not being milked by machine and their milk was not being recorded. My information from people who are herding the cows is that some of them are 1,000 and 1,100 gallon cows. Some people are surprised that Kerry cows produce that much milk as some of our Friesians do not produce 1,000 to 1,100 gallons. I would ask the Minister of State to investigate the possibility of recording the milk levels. Some of the pure-bred cows could be integrated into farms with Friesian cows and other breeds. Milk from Kerry cows is of very rich quality and it would be a tremendous asset to have them mixed with other herds.

I was delighted to hear the Minister state that the Phoenix Park is being declared a national historic park this year and that there are plans to plant 20,000 trees in the park. It is important to remember that the Phoenix Park is the biggest urban park in Europe and we should respect it as such. There were rumours recently that the Phoenix Park was to be handed over to Dublin Corporation. I would not like that to happen and I hope the Minister of State will resist it. Corporations or county councils would not have an adequate amount of finance or experience to run a park such as this. If Dublin Corporation took over the Phoenix Park they might allow buses to run through it. This was fought successfully 12 months ago when an effort was made to allow buses to travel through the Phoenix Park. If this happened it would also be used for basketball courts and football pitches. This would not be very desirable. I would ask the Minister of State in the Office of Public Works not to allow this park to come under the responsibility of Dublin Corporation or anybody else but to keep it within the Office of Public Works who have done a very good job maintaining and looking after it. There is a new policy document for the Phoenix Park and I hope the Minister of State will implement it and not any other body.

I would ask the Minister of State to purchase the Blasket Island off the Kerry coast and to retain it as a 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. From my own experience I know it is difficult to purchase some of the land on the island but by pursuing the matter intensively it would be possible to have all that land in the hands of the State. The Blasket Island would be an addition to the Office of Public Works. That Department have purchased some land there already and they should make an effort to get the rest of the land.

The guide services provided by the Office of Public Works should be extended. We have a guide service in most of our national parks but it could be extended further. Many young people are adequately qualified to act as guides especially during the summer period when they would be needed most.

I am a little disappointed with the amount of money being spent on arterial drainage this year. There is a 13 per cent reduction in the amount of money provided in this area. Work on the Boyne will be finished this year. Some other river should have been selected for dredging. The Government have prepared a priority scheme for arterial drainage and there is a 31 per cent increase in the amount provided for maintenance of arterial drainage. That maintenance money comes from local authorities and the Office of Public Works are paid by those local authorities. There are four main drainage schemes in progress, the Boyne, which will be completed this year, the Maigue, the Corrib-Robe-Mask and the Boyle and the Bonet. I would like to ask the Minister of State when the Government intend to start on the priority list. They were very slow in producing that list. It is very difficult to get an arterial drainage scheme going. First of all, there must be a cost analysis on the river. Then it must be advertised for six months. Therefore, at least 12 months or more would elapse before a dredging job could be started. It is important to remember that four of those rivers on which an arterial drainage job is being carried out are 50 per cent EC funded. In effect, the Government do not have to provide much money for arterial drainage.

I note that money has not been provided to do a survey on the River Shannon even though we were promised 50 per cent EC funding up to £400,000. Arterial drainage is of great importance to the agricultural sector. Many farmers cannot carry out drainage work because there is no arterial drainage scheme in their area and there is no outlet from their farms. The River Shannon, our longest river, floods nine counties: Counties Cavan, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Roscommon, Galway, Westmeath, Tipperary and Limerick. Last year was the wettest year and farmers suffered considerable hardship. The counties along the River Shannon would benefit substantially if dredging was carried out on the river, but this will not happen for a number of years at least because I presume the survey will take a considerable time to carry out. A number of jobs would be provided by carrying out such a survey and when dredging eventually would take place there could be up to 2,000 jobs provided, in addition to making many more acres of land viable.

The Office of Public Works made a bad mistake 12 or 18 months ago when they decided to scrap the decentralisation programme and to sell the 13 sites that were purchased for that purpose. The sites were purchased from urban councils, county councils and private individuals and the owners went out of their way to co-operate with the OPW in anticipation of State offices being built in their areas. The places that would have benefited were Killarney, Limerick, Nenagh, Cavan, Ennis, Letterkenny and Galway. I suppose it is no use at this stage in appealing to the Minister to retain the sites. I do not know if all of them were sold, but the Minister of State would have no difficulty in finding out. Even if this Government have no intention of carrying out the decentralisation programme, they should at least retain the sites so that when Fianna Fáil come back to power they can implement the programme.

The Deputy was doing well until then.

I would remind the Minister and the Minister of State that when Fianna Fáil were in power they purchased the 13 sites and had design plans drawn up at considerable cost. It was a bad mistake not to proceed with the decentralisation programme but I can assure the Minister that when Fianna Fáil return to power in the very near future we will implement that programme. The project was welcomed by civil servants and it would have given an opportunity to many rural people now living in Dublin to return to their own towns. In recent years there has been a considerable drop in property values and I am sure that the sites did not make much money on resale. I ask the Minister in her reply to state how many of them were sold and how many were retained by the Office of Public Works.

I am disappointed that no new schemes have been selected this year for coastal protection work. The amount being spent this year has decreased by 27 per cent. In the national plan the Government stated that no new coastal protection work would be carried out during their first five years in office.

We said that no new capital scheme would commence. There is a difference.

We should have started new schemes. In my county the Maherees-Castlegregory area is badly in need of coastal protection work and if something is not done about the matter in the near future the Maherees will become an island. As far as I know the area is at the top of the priority list. There are other areas in County Kerry that need similar work, including the area between Tralee and Fenit and the Ballyea-Barrow area. Parts of Waterford such as Ballyvoyle, Stradbally and Ardmore are also in need of coastal protection work. The Minister of State should try to get EC funds to have this work done. If it is not undertaken soon much of our coastline will be eroded.

I am very glad that the Office of Public Works are taking over the Royal and Grand Canals. I look forward to a substantial amount of money being made available for the development of those canals in the next 12 months. It is disappointing that no money has been provided for development work. They are important waterways and if they were properly developed and looked after, which the Office of Public Works are quite capable of doing, they would be a great amenity to Dublin and to people living on the outskirts of the city. The Office of Public works is a very important office, and the Minister of State should be asked to sit in on the preparations for the budget so that she could make a case for the office. This office is a very important one and should be provided with more money.

I notice that £4.9 million is provided for Garda accommodation this year and I welcome that. Some Garda barracks are in an antiquated state. The Department of Justice should provide money to the Office of Public Works to erect new Garda divisional headquarters in Ennis, Naas, Trim, Tramore, Ashbourne and the Phoenix Park. Other works in progress are in Dungarvan, Killarney, Swinford, Limerick and Tallaght. I welcome that. We should ensure that all Garda barracks are kept in a good state of repair and that new ones be provided when needed. Many small Garda barracks were built in rural parts of County Kerry and have worked out well. The Minister of State should point this out to the Department of Justice when she and her officials are having talks with that Department.

I was very disappointed when a decision was made to transfer the building and renovation of national schools from the Office of Public Works to the Department of Education. The Department of Education have fallen down on the job. They do not have the personnel to carry out this job as effectively as the Office of Public Works. Some of the personnel in OPW still have to do some work for the Department of Education. When dealing with the Department of Education I have been told I might have to wait for two years for plans to be produced in relation to new schools being built in County Kerry or for extensions to existing schools. I do not know what causes the delay. The Minister of State should get this area transferred back again to OPW.

Our engineers and architects were transferred with that section to the Department of Education.

Many of the staff must not have been transferred because of the delays in the Department. When OPW dealt with the building of schools they were very efficient. Perhaps after a while the Department of Education will get off the ground. OPW did a very good job in this area and it should be transferred to them again.

I am delighted to see that archaeological surveys are taking place and that inventories are being published by OPW. This is very important. An archaeological survey was carried out in County Kerry approximately a year ago. It was in the Dingle area and I should like to know if an inventory is being published in relation to that. I am delighted to note the introduction of micro-computers in Dublin Castle. I am sure these are beneficial to the people working on the site and I am delighted that OPW are availing of modern equipment.

There are 40 major national monument projects in progress at present. The provision of visitor centres is very important. It is desirable that these should be established in all national parks. Last year OPW produced a booklet on Irish field monuments which provided much detailed information on these monuments. It will be of great benefit to our young people and will help ensure that national monuments are not destroyed by way of farm development or vandalism.

Approximately £300,000 has been provided for archaeological excavations in Dublin Castle. This is an historic building. I am delighted to see that visitor centres are being improved at Garnish Island and Derrynane National Park in County Kerry, where one of our great Irishmen lived. He was none other than Daniel O'Connell. I have visited the area umpteen times and am delighted that such a facility will be provided there. Will the Minister of State consider restoring the old Cathedral in Ardfert, County Kerry? This is a very historic building, one of our national monuments. There is a preservation order on the building and, as far as I know, there is a graveyard there and that is under the aegis of the Office of Public Works. But I contend that a restoration job should be done on the building as well.

I am glad to note that £629,000 is being spent on the Shannon waterways this year and £110,000 on improvements. The Shannon is one of our finest waterways and more people should be encouraged to go to the Shannon who might otherwise go outside the country for holidays. I am glad that the facilities on the Shannon have been considerably improved. I spoke also about the Grand and Royal Canals which would be a great recreational centre for fishing, canoeing, walking and nature studies. It is important that the Office of Public Works should get money forthwith to ensure that they are developed properly.

Harbour maintenance and dredging should be the responsibility of the State. The local authorities in County Kerry are responsible for the dredging of some of our harbours and they cannot meet the cost and this should be supplied from the Central Fund. It is also unfair that the local authorities should be responsible for the maintenance of our rivers. Moneys should be provided for this from the Central Fund.

There are rumours that the Government are going to disband the Office of Public Works. I would like to know if it is true that the Office of Public Works will be fragmented into the different Departments. This would be a retrograde step and a mistake. I would like the Minister of State to confirm that there is no truth in this rumour. It is one of the oldest and best Departments in Government and I hope the Minister of State will use her feminine influence on the Government to ensure that that does not happen.

Please be more specific.

This sexism is dreadful.

I have noticed recently that the Office of Public Works have become very slow in making payments. Some projects have been approved for payment and held over until finance is available. I would like the Minister to tell me if there is adequate money in the Office of Public Works to meet the requirements because some of our contractors and people who work on behalf of the Office of Public Works are getting a bit perturbed about this.

In conclusion, the Minister of State is in a very important Department. She should make sure that that Department stays there and sit in at the Estimates meetings next year to ensure that she gets an adequate amount of finance to run that Department effectively for the next 12 months.

Because of the way the debate is structured I am precluded from replying. But the Minister for Finance will be and if there are any further details the Deputy would like from me let him please contact me.

I too would like to congratulate the Minister on her appointment and I wish her every success in the Department.

I particularly welcome this Estimate which is far-ranging. I welcome the work it will generate in the building industry. It is not my ambition to tour around the country today. I will direct my attention to my own constituency. I would like to refer to the Howth Harbour development. Howth has been designated the main fishing harbour on the east coast and it caters for fishermen from Rush, Skerries, Loughshinny to Balbriggan on the north side and Wexford on the south side. The harbour has developed very well and fishermen, yachtsmen and locals generally who use the harbour wish to congratulate the Board of Works on the excellent job that they have done there. I would particularly like to congratulate the engineers and architects who carried out this work. The fishermen and those who use the harbour have said that it is the best development that they have seen anywhere including England and the Continent.

However, there are drawbacks and I would like to draw the Minister's attention to them. An auction hall was promised in 1973 and 1974 when the drawings were put together. This has not come about and the fishermen are very disappointed. They are not looking for a grandiose building. They are looking for something to cater for fish auctions on the quay where, when the fishermen land their catch they could sell their fish. At present they have to bring it in to the Dublin market and this costs them a lot of money. It is felt locally in Howth that there is pressure to keep the Dublin fish market open from the people who have stands in the fish market and are not anxious to see Howth developed as the selling centre for the east coast. But it would make good sense to have the fish auction hall in Howth. It would encourage the buyers to come where the fish is landed. There was a trial some time ago by a small co-operative who tried to sell the fish there. However, they had not proper funding and they had not got a proper building so they had to discontinue that, but buyers who came there from England and other places did say that it was very convenient to come to the port, buy what they wanted and have it shipped straight away to England. I understand that the estimated amount at the time for building this auction hall was £750,000. An auction hall could be built for £100,000 to £200,000.

The ice plan has been completed in the harbour and this too was welcome by the fishermen. However, while the plant is complete, it is without an ice chute which I believe is used to get the ice into the boat. I would ask the Minister to take this up to ensure that an ice chute will be supplied there very quickly. The east pier and the west pier have come to my attention. I see that £51,000 has been put by to surface the east pier and I note some effort was made to resurface the west pier.

The public use the east pier which is in a dangerous condition and I am afraid somebody will have an accident there. I ask the Minister to see to the resurfacing of the east pier as soon as possible. A fire brigade action took place on the west pier when it was resurfaced but the materials were not the best. People who use the pier asked me to bring this to the attention of the Department so that a more permanent surface will be provided. During the last few weeks there has been damage to the west pier. I understand some serious cracks have appeared and the Minister might have this investigated and correct it.

The syncro-lift has been a welcome addition to the harbour and is used by many fishermen along the east coast. This should be developed to encourage people from the west of England to use the harbour. People from the west of England and the Isle of Man used this facility and know it is a great advantage. They are willing to pay for this service and this could develop a lot of work locally. At present there are 30 people employed there but if this were handled properly, we could employ up to 150 people.

There is also need for shunting equipment. When boats are lifted out of the water they are towed across the road, left in the open and there is no proper shunting equipment. What is required is a vehicle to shunt the trolleys across the road efficiently so that people can work on them. There is also a need for trolleys on which to rest the boats. This equipment is very urgently needed. There are three or four power points in the area but they are too far from the workplace. Perhaps more power points could be provided to facilitate people repairing vessels. In the long term it would be a good idea if some sort of cover could be provided. In the winter it is not very nice working in the open. More people would use this facility if a covered area was provided. It would not cost very much to erect a proper repair shed, about £150,000 to £200,000.

The harbour has developed very well, but it is like a bicycle without a front wheel. To give it a front wheel there is a need for industrial development on the Claremont Beach beside the west pier. It is envisaged that five acres will be reclaimed and that small industrial units would be erected where net making and net repairs, fish processing, light engineering and welding could take place. I am not asking the board to invest that type of money straightaway, but they could get together with the developers who are willing to put up their own money. There are people who would like to do this because I have been approached by a number of them. They would be willing to invest money to build these units and let them to people who want to run this type of business. There could be another 100 jobs provided here.

The yachting marina has developed very well and has become a tourist attraction. Last year people from England and France used it and complimented the yacht club on the moorings and the facilities which are excellent. There is an area just off the east pier which could be developed further along these lines. A number of private individuals in the Howth area who own boats are anxious to get their own moorings and they are willing to pay for them. At present they must be members of the yacht club before they can get a mooring. The area just off the east pier should be put aside for people who want their own private mooring and are willing to pay for it. This would provide an excellent facility.

The yacht club are building a new clubhouse. This means that the existing premises on the west pier will be vacant. I understand these premises are coming back to the Department and they will have a say in the disposal of that facility. I suggest that this should be put aside for fishermen because people from all along the east coast come to this harbour for fishing, landing catches and to work. There should be a facility where they could have a bed for the night, or they could have a clubhouse. This would create an excellent centre for fishermen who are away from home.

I welcome the classification of the Phoenix Park as a national historic park. I also welcome the tree planting programme. However, there were trees in the park which were dangerous and there was a possibility that branches could fall and injure somebody. I understand we have to subcontract work on trees to an outside body. We should be training our own tree surgeons and tree operatives. This would create employment in the Phoenix Park. I am delighted to hear the board are maintaining the Phoenix Park. I heard some time ago that Dublin Corporation intended taking it over. Dublin Corporation do an excellent job on the parks, but I thought the Phoenix Park was lagging a little behind. I am glad there is a commitment from the Department to retain that park but I would like a lot more work to be done there along the lines done by the corporation. I would also like to see a golf course there. Such a facility is much needed in the Dublin area and there is a great demand for it. That, too, should be considered by the Minister.

I congratulate the Minister and the Department on winning the Europa Nostra award for the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham. I visited it during the exhibition from China and I was very impressed. The board deserve that award.

In my area there is a need for a courthouse. The old courthouse on Station Road, in Sutton, was burnt out some time ago and there has been a great demand locally from the legal profession and others to have a courthouse provided in the area. At present the people from Howth, Baldoyle and Sutton must go to the Four Courts. This is not satisfactory. Again, I ask that a courthouse be provided in the Howth area at the earliest possible date.

The Minister mentioned that work was in progress on the Custom House. This work has been going on for a long time and it is about time it was finished. The scaffolding has been around the building for a long time and it is most unsightly. I ask the Minister to get things going to finish this work as soon as possible. It is a fine building and it is a pity that it has been in its present state for so long. Work should be concluded there as soon as possible and the building brought back into proper condition.

I welcome the decision to make Dublin Castle a conference centre. I have travelled abroad on conferences and I have noticed that most cities have excellent conference centres. Dublin Castle will make a fine conference centre and I hope that when finished it will be able to cater for any conference offered to this country. It is a money spinner which attracts people to this country, and we should have a proper conference centre here. Again I welcome the Estimate.

I thank Deputy McEllistrim and Deputy Cosgrave for their contributions to this debate and I am sure I convey the feelings of the Minister of State in expressing her appreciation of the very courteous remarks passed in her regard by both Deputies.

Deputy McEllistrim talked about new Garda station improvements and he made a variety of suggestions here. Although the Commissioners of Public Works are responsible for the building of these, the priorities are settled by the Department of Justice and I suppose the Garda Commissioner really is the person who has the ultimate say. While, naturally enough, we can convey Deputy McEllistrim's views to the appropriate authority, it would not be within the responsibility of the OPW, the Minister of State or I to deal with these matters in substance.

Deputy McEllistrim referred to the canals. It is not possible to say how much money will be needed for the development here until we receive and consider the report of the planning consultants who have been appointed. I understand that this report is due by the end of the year. It is fair to say, however, that these canals represent a major national resource in terms of tourism. Increasingly people are interested in tourism of the kind that can be provided on the canals we have. It is extremely important that we look at all of the possibilities not only for boating on the canals but for associated activities and for the re-creation as far as possible of the historic ambience which existed when the canals were in full commercial use. I am sure a great contribution can be made to this development by bodies such as the National Museum. I hope that in the development of a programme for the canals the expertise of the Ulster Folk Museum in Belfast, who have done a great deal of work on the culture and lifestyle of Ireland as a whole in representing them in a setting which people can visit, will be drawn on by the Commissioners of Public Works in devising an imaginative programme for the canals which will ensure that people will not only be able to enjoy a boating holiday but will feel some sense of being able to see something of what Ireland was like in the late 18th century in the relatively brief period before the onset of the railways and after the building of the canals when this was the principal means of communication in this country. The decision to transfer responsiblity for the canals to the OPW is very important and will have lasting value. I appreciate very much Deputy McEllistrim's complimentary remarks on this subject.

The Deputy referred to the archaeological survey of the Dingle Peninsula carried out by a local group with financial support from the OPW. We understand that their report will be published. I am interested in this because when I was Minister for Finance previously I was responsible for the original decision taken to support the archaeological survey in question from the employment guarantee fund of that day. Deputy Michael Begley was very interested in the survey being undertaken at that time and I share concern for it with him and his colleagues from the northern part of the country. I am looking forward to the publication of the result of this survey.

We hope in the near future to publish some other surveys which have been conducted by the Office of Public Works. One example is the archaeological survey of County Louth which is taking a complete inventory of the archaeological remains there. It will contain some very valuable information about the archaeological heritage of a very ancient part of Ireland. I understand that some survey material will soon be available in respect of County Meath which, let me say, is even more historic than County Louth.

It is extremely important that information in regard to monuments in each county in Ireland be published on an authoritative basis. One problem in recent years has been the destruction as a result of intensive agriculture, particularly ploughing, of very many ancient sites which have been simply ploughed through by landowners for a very superficial and, regrettable in present circumstances of cereal prices, temporary economic gain. Something of permanent benefit which has existed for the past 2,000 or 3,000 years has been destroyed irrevocably as a result. Some of these sites are not very visible except from the air because they show only very slight undulations on the ground. Unfortunately, many people who have been involved in ploughing them up did so, perhaps without full knowledge of the permanent damage they were doing to their own property, let alone to part of our national heritage.

The publication of the archaeological surveys on a systematic basis by the OPW will prove to be a great source of public information and of education for all landowners to deter them from the destruction of national monuments by making them aware of the true value of what is involved. We hope also that the publication of national monuments legislation which will soon come forward will provide additional powers to the Commissioners of Public Works to prevent the destruction of national monuments from a variety of different quarters. I hope the debate on this legislation will lead to great public awareness of the importance of our monuments.

Deputy McEllistrim inquired as to whether the OPW should have purchased additional sites in the St. Stephen's Green area. I am not quite sure what the Deputy had in mind here, but my information from the Minister of State is that the Government do not need additional accommodation in the St. Stephen's Green area. Indeed, in many cases, we have quite a substantial stock of accommodation already. This was the point made by Deputy Kelly who felt that instead of putting up new buildings the OPW and the Government should renovate existing buildings. In general, this is a point of view with which the Minister of State and I concur and we will be doing everything we can, including looking at the suggestions made by Deputy Kelly, in regard to refurbishment rather than new buildings.

I should also like to acknowledge the commendation of the OPW in general made by Deputy Kelly. He referred particularly to the provision of accommodation for the National Archives. However, the space at present used for the storage of archives is full and has many deficiencies. The stock of archives is growing rapidly and is now so great that it cannot be accommodated in the present building. I understand that the growth in archives does not solely derive from transfers from Government Departments; it is coming from other sources as well. Our advice is that the adaptation of an old building for the relatively specialist purpose of the storage of archives can be extremely costly and seldom works out properly. I presume there are requirements about temperature and moisture control in regard to old documents which would be achieved more readily in a new purpose built building rather than in an old one. I understand that the OPW and the Government do not have any buildings at their disposal which could successfully be adapted for archives purposes. However, we will look at the matter in the light of Deputy Kelly's comments and, if there are any changes in the situation as I outlined it, we will make the relevant decisions.

Deputy McEllistrim made an interesting suggestion regarding the OPW becoming involved in development in the Kerry cow breed and he felt that this is necessary in order to maintain a record of milk yields from that pure bred strain. I am not quite sure why it should be the responsibility of the OPW to become involved in this breed preservation——

They have 40 or 50 pure bred Kerry cows in the national park in Killarney.

I know, but any breed development undertaken, even using OPW property, would be more appropriately done under the supervision of the Agricultural Institute or the Department of Agriculture. I appreciate that from the point of view of genetics there is something to be said for the preservation of the pure strain because the continued use of hybrids in any form of genetics and the neglect of the maintenance of the pure breed strain contains long term difficulties as far as the development of the species is concerned. Therefore, the remarks made by Deputy McEllistrim will be conveyed by me to the Department of Agriculture and I am sure that if they, with their expert knowledge on the subject which is superior to that even of the OPW, think that something along the lines which Deputy McEllistrim suggested is necessary, they will undertake it. I hope that is satisfactory to Deputy McEllistrim.

Deputy Kelly also referred to the regrettable accident to the Emperor's Warriors at the exhibition in the Royal Hospital. However, the Office of Public Works were not responsible for mounting that exhibition. It was organised by the Royal Hospital itself and, while I know that Deputy Kelly did not suggest that the OPW were responsible, it could be said that in mentioning it in the context of the Estimate for the OPW, there could be some element of guilt by association. I wish to make it clear that it was not the responsibility of the OPW and I will not say any more in that regard.

Deputy Joe Cosgrave made a lengthy and detailed contribution about Howth Harbour, clearly displaying a knowledge of this part of his constituency second to none. However, while the OPW are responsible for building the pier, they are doing so on an agency basis for the Department of Fisheries and Forestry.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share