Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Nov 1986

Vol. 369 No. 7

Supplementary Estimates, 1986 (Resumed). - Vote 10: Public Works and Buildings (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £12,156,000 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 Public Works; for certain domestic expenses; for expenditure in respect of public and certain other buildings; for the maintenance of certain parks and public works; for the execution and maintenance of drainage and other engineering works.
—(Minister for Justice.)

In the course of his contribution Deputy McEllistrim referred to a project in Tralee. If I interpreted the Minister of State correctly she interjected to say the Deputy's party had plans for there in October 1982. In interjecting in that manner the Minister of State made Deputy McEllistrim's point. The Minister of State seems to have forgotten there was a general election in November 1982, that her party has now been in power for four years and in all of which time the project about which Deputy McEllistrim spoke has merely been gathering dust. The Minister of State now tells us that there will be some action taken, that there appears to be a stirring and, according to her, tenders will be advertised shortly. I hope the Minister of State will forgive me, but my suspicions are that the movement that has occurred has something to do with the forthcoming general election whether that takes place before Christmas 1986 or Christmas 1987. It would appear that an impending general election will have moved that project along somewhat.

When one takes into account all of the promises and commitments given by Ministers in recent times, the various announcements made at private and party meetings throughout the country, it would appear that the next Government — which will probably be a Fianna Fáil one — will have to pick up a tremendous bill.

I welcome this limited opportunity to discuss this Supplementary Estimate. It is of such a significant amount that had it been introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government we would have been assailed with cries of financial recklessness, cooked books, inability to estimate properly and similar accusations.

Like most other Deputies I welcome the decision to transfer responsibility for the Grand and Royal Canals from CIE to the Office of Public Works. It is only logical and sensible that the Office of Public Works, with all their expertise in water and water control, their knowledge of plant life and so on, should have control over these canals. I should like to compliment whoever is responsible for the tremendous work that is being carried out at Kilcock, a marvellous example of what can be achieved on our canals. What has been achieved there amounts to a wonderful amenity. However, I am somewhat puzzled that it should have been felt necessary by the Office of Public Works, or the Minister of State, to appoint consultants, and here I might quote from the remarks of the Minister of State when she said:

... a major study of the entire system, taking into account the vast amount of interest in and views on the canals manifested by local authorities and members of the public since the transfer.

One would have thought that the enormous expertise of the Office of Public Works, with the landscaping and maintenance of various parks and so on throughout the country, would have enabled them to carry out this work in conjunction with the detailed engineering survey of the Grand Canal which is under way. The Office of Public Works would know best how to manage and develop the canals as a public amenity given their enormous and undoubted skills in this whole area as manifest by all the major parks and lakes which they control.

It is with somewhat mixed feelings that I should like to discuss the purchase of Agriculture House. It is a very welcome purchase and is something which people have looked forward to for a long time. They like to see the Office of Public Works constructing their own buildings rather than renting them. I might add in passing that I do not see any reduction in the Estimates for rent for this year; rather it has increased as we can see from the Supplementary Estimate. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that position. When I think of the benefit this £8 million could have been to the economy of many rural areas, I wonder whether it is the sound and economic investment the Minister thinks it is. Is she aware that this sum would have constructed the proposed offices, which were cancelled by her Government, at Ballina, Sligo and Cavan? Could she attempt at this stage to quantify the tremendous and enormous benefit that would accrue to the economy of these regions, all of which are in stagnation because of the policies of the Government?

The town which I represent — Ballina — is haemorrhaging slowly. It is losing its young people and its unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country. The construction of an office of the Department of the Environment there, with over 200 salaries being paid each week into the economy of the local area, would make an enormous and significant difference to the economy of the whole area. The plans are in the Minister's office. They were carried out by OPW architects. The sites are there and all that is needed is the political will to give all areas equal treatment. The Government do not have that political will. While one welcomes the purchase of Agriculture House, one wonders whether that would have been done if Agriculture House was in Ballina, Galway or Nenagh.

As you know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that is one of the areas which would benefit from the whole decentralisation programme but I will not go into that because I accept your ruling. The £8 million would have been far better spent in improving the economy, particularly in the five areas to which the first section of that decentralisation programme referred and for which tenders were sought and obtained for leasing and renting, for rent and buy, or simply for construction. All the options were included in the tender. I had a great interest in the programme, having nursed it all the way through for two years.

I want to refer to the item in the Supplementary Estimate in relation to the £100,000 for the provision of necessary repairs to a courthouse. I know that the Minister has been a member of a local authority and, as such, she will know the frustration and anger caused to very many members of local authorities by the inaction of all Governments in relation to the maintenance of courthouses. The local authorities feel, and rightly so, that buildings for which they have no functional responsibility should be in the care of and maintained by the Department of Justice. One feels a certain sympathy for Galway County Council and their rate-payers who have to foot a bill for £100,000 as stated in this Supplementary Estimate. It is a very arbitrary decision that anyone would move in and carry out repairs and then ask the local authority to carry the burden. It is a function of the Department of Justice and it should be carried out by them under their budget.

One of the most significant points in the Minister's speech, one which gives an indication of the disastrous financial state of local authorities, is her admission that the appropriations-in-aid will be down by approximately £3 million. It is highly significant in that the appropriations-in-aid should not be taken out of the £14 million but out of the figure of £5.5 million which she gives. That will give an idea of the dire straits in which all local authorities find themselves, particularly those who have to fund major drainage maintenance schemes or major coastal protection schemes. I know the Minister, as a member of a local authority with a major problem of coastal protection, does not relish the idea of that local authority having to foot the bill for maintenance, if the work is ever done on coastal protection in the general Wexford area. That figure is an indictment of the manner in which this Government have crucified local authorities over the past four years in relation to their financing. I see the Leas-Cheann Comhairle looking at me.

Local authorities, as you know a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, are supposed to refund the contributions spent on drainage maintenance and coastal protection. Because of their dire financial straits they are no longer able to do so to the extent that was budgeted for. The Minister's admission that only £2.5 million out of a budgeted figure of £5.5 million will be paid shows the dire straits most local authorities are in. In fairness to all of them, as long as they could meet those responsibilities they met them. I talk in particular of my county which has major drainage works and which found itself saddled with a demand for a certain sum of money each year for work which had been put into it and over which it had no say on how or where that work would be done. At a time when various Governments had imposed a limit on the amount of money the county could raise by rates and had allowed a percentage increase only, it found itself having to reimburse the OPW for drainage maintenance. While I accept there have been some changes which are welcome, the problem is still of such a magnitude that many local authorities will not be able to meet their responsibilities under the subheads, and the fact that nearly a quarter of the Minister's speech referred to this is an indication of the enormity of the problem.

Deputy McEllistrim made the point, rightly with the tremendous number of men being laid off in drainage, one looks at the drainage Estimate and sees that it is down from last year on the full Estimate, and one wonders about salaries and wages is over and the necessity for extra money. The Office of Public Works no longer have responsibility for school building. The Department of Education have had that function for some time. Those of us who try to get information see how difficult it is. It must go through the Minister of State's office and there is a bottleneck. I have a personal problem which I will hand to the Minister of State afterwards and I will be grateful if she will try to do what she can about it.

The Supplementary Estimate is an indication of the tremendous difficulty that local authorities are having. For my part while one sees the sense of purchasing Agriculture House, the money could be better spent on the decentralisation programme. If the Fianna Fáil plan had been commenced that £8 million would have gone a fifth of the way towards the total and complete decentralisation programme which would have done a tremendous amount for very many areas, would have improved the economy of many areas, and would have been a far more sound economic and financial investment than the purchase of Agriculture House at this moment.

Sir, I notice you are going to tell me I should not talk about the decentralisation programme.

I remind you that you have three minutes — only two and a half minutes now.

It is a pity the Government have not only two and a half minutes but one must accept that as long as the numbers are there we have to wait for another while. I do not even need two and a half minutes for what I have to say. I reiterate that the space the Minister of State gave in her speech to the whole question of the reduction of the Appropriations-in-Aid indicates the state of the finances of many local authorities. It is also a warning sign to the Government that they will have to change their attitude in relation to local authority financing. They will have to try to help local authorities, not give them extra problems, such as asking them to fund drainage maintenance and water protection schemes. This should be examined by the Government with a view to changing it.

In many ways this Supplementary Estimate demonstrates the disastrous consequences for the country of the decisions taken by this Government and their failure to take other decisions. We are dealing here with a total Estimate of £105 million and a Supplementary Estimate of over £12.4 million. In the first instance a Government who claimed they were going to adhere to fiscal rectitude programmes have a great deal to answer for at this stage of the year in bringing before the house a Supplementary Estimate in one Department of £12.5 million which is almost an eighth of the total original Estimate. If that does not demonstrate a lack of planning, control and discipline I cannot think what else does.

We are being told now that this Government are spending considerable time and effort planning the Estimates for next year. We are being led to believe from the leaks and sources — only now not just Government sources, it is Fine Gael sources and Labour sources, trying to distinguish themselves from one another — that they are bending their efforts and applying their knowledge such as it is to reducing and controlling public expenditure for 1987. While apparently that is the exercise they are engaged in for 1987, they come in here now at this back end of 1986 to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for £12.5 million for one Department, the Office of Public Works. Like so much else about this Government, their actions demonstrate that their words are meaningless. This action today demonstrates that all the suggestions of careful planning, prudent control and determined reduction of public expenditure means nothing when the actions demonstrate quite the opposite.

When this Government took over in 1983 they made a great virtue of reducing the capital programme particularly for the Office of Public Works. I, and each one of us here, remember well that this was presented by this Government in 1983 as being evidence of their determination to demonstrate they were going to control public expenditure on both the current and capital sides.

We have had a bit of that nonsense from the Minister. Deputy Mitchell, already.

I am sure we did and we will hear it despite the fact that the proclamations are very different from the actions. Among these matters introduced as evidence of the Government's determination to achieve control of public expenditure in 1983 was the decimation of the public capital programme particularly as it affected the working of the OPW which was being done and planned by the previous Fianna Fáil Government in a comprehensive, planned, five-year programme. It was a five-year programme relating to all public buildings and particularly, as my colleagues have understandably and properly underlined, a decentralisation programme of Government offices. The amount of money to be expended in that first year, 1983, on that programme, which was planned, designed and already financed as the first stage of a five-year programme, was £5 million to cover the areas that our spokeman Deputy McEllistrim referred to in the first year. That involved consultants' fees, site acquisition and the development of sites across the whole range of the areas in which Government offices and Government buildings were to be placed around this country, to demonstrate that the country does not begin and end in Dublin. This Dublin-dominated Government, as was not so surprising considering the general attitute and orientation of the Taoiseach, cancelled that programme and claimed to make a virtue of doing so. You and I, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, among others are conscious of the disastrous impact it had in certain areas including our home town of Nenagh which was part of a major decentralisation programme for the Revenue Commissioners including a triangular development with Limerick and Ennis involving 250 jobs transfers. Those programmes were cancelled with no thought except to give a false demonstration of fiscal rectitude and determination to control expenditure.

Now, four years on, the Government bring in a Supplementary Estimate a very considerable portion of which is for the purchase of the offices at present occupied by the Department of Agriculture in Kildare Street. Over £8 million will now be spent to nail down, once and for all, the Department belonging mostly to the country, to rural Ireland. A major programme was being planned for Cavan in respect of agriculture. Now the Government are ensuring the prevention of decisions being taken by a succeeding Government to maintain and develop a decentralisation programme, particularly for agriculture.

I am not saying we should immediately shift the Department of Agriculture from Kildare House, but is this the time to acquire, on a permanent basis, extra office accommodation at a cost of over £8 million when we have long term plans for effective Government through decentralised departments? Anyone who knows anything about the problems of the economy at the moment, particularly in relation to the location of Government offices, knows that it is vitally important that we have a really regional economic programme for Government. This Government's extent of regional awareness seems to begin and end with Dublin 4 and Dublin 2, and beyond that all is a desert. This is not so. In fact, these areas have become so congested that we are seeing the environmental consequences and the dissatisfaction of so many public servants who are obliged to live and operate out of a Dublin environment when they should be able to operate, through decentralised departments, from around the country. It is sad but not surprising that this Government not only confirm their previous reduction of our decentralisation programmes but are trying to damn whatever other Government follow and prevent them for reviewing some of the decisions now being taken.

The Committee on Public Expenditure, of which I am vice-chairman, spent considerable time looking at the procedures of the Office of Public Works. Nothing I am saving or that the committee are saying is in any way an indictment of the staff of that office but rather of the way Government have failed to manage in the past 15 years. Amongst other things we recommended that, in each case involving new or additional accommodation, a study should be undertaken as to the most cost effective decision before any action was taken. There is no evidence in what the Minister has said today that any such study was undertaken before the decision to purchase Agriculture House was taken. In fact, the decision seems to be based, according to the Minister of State, on the fact that the building, which was held on a long term lease, was due for rental review in the current year and the purchase price represented what would amount to about eight years rent, following the review, and that given the size, condition and prize location of Agriculture House, the purchase was considered a sound economic investment. I wonder if it really is.

Is it satisfactory for a Minister of a Government in the almost penultimate moment of their lives as such, to make a bland statement like that without explaining the other options that might have been considered, the costings, the other locations and so on? The justification is on the basis of what would amount to eight years rent following the review. How do we know what the rate would be following the review? A rent is what a willing purchaser is ready to pay and a willing vendor ready to accept. It is clear that the rents for the huge proportion of public offices in this city are inordinately high. The Government themselves are the main customers for this accommodation because business activity in this city is so depressed that there is no demand from them for office accommodation.

Therefore, the Government are creating the upward trend in the price of property. The various Departments are forcing prices beyond what the market could reasonably demand at this stage. Then they complain this is the price they have to pay. About 40 per cent of all office accommodation in this city is occupied by the Government. Instead of following the planned and disciplined programme of decentralisation we started in 1981-82 which would be in the national interest, in the interests of this city and in the interests of saving expenditure, they react from day to day in the absence of any comprehensive plan, as in everything else they have done. The total decentralisation programme which would have covered 12 centres throughout the country——

Recentralisation programme.

Decentralisation programme.

There is a difference.

The total decentralisation programme, which would have covered 12 centres, would have cost £40 million over a five year period. In one fell swoop it was cancelled and the Government now come in gaily to ask this House to sanction one fifth of that just for one office block. Is there any reason in that kind of attitude? Is it not clear that what was planned then is even more necessary now? We knew then that office accommodation in Dublin was much more expensive, and would be increasingly more expensive, than in the rest of the country. If we had adopted that long term comprehensive plan, after three years we would have reduced the cost of Government office accommodation. If anything has proved us right, this Supplementary Estimate has done so. One office block is costing one-fifth of the cost of the decentralisation programme we had in train but which this Government cancelled.

A number of areas where sites were available and consultants' fees had been paid — upwards of £3 million — as well as the prison programme, were all set at nought by this Government who wasted money in the name of saving money. This Government should answer to the public for wasting at least £5 million by not going ahead with our decentralisation plans and our prison programme. We see the consequences of that action every day. We are making a mockery of our courts and court houses. There is no prison accommodation for the people who are sentenced because in 1983 this Government cancelled the four unit prison development programme we sanctioned. We can see the consequences of this action all around us.

It is not surprising that a Government who introduced Building on Reality two years ago, which is being rejected by the Government now, in their last breath are asking us to please sanction an extra £8 million for the acquisition of one office block in this congested city. Everyone knows that in terms of office accommodation there is only one direction the Government should go and that is a renewal of regional and national economic development. This Supplementary Estimate demonstrates the difference between the Coalition Government and Fianna Fáil. Inevitably we will be changing places in the near future and there will be no more nonsense like this. We will introduce a comprehensive programme for Government buildings and decentralisation.

Our spokesman, Deputy McEllistrim, has covered the broad outline and philosophy of Fianna Fáil with regard to the expenditure by the Office of Public Works and I will confine myself to specifics.

I am glad a detailed engineering survey is being made of the Grand Canal. When the Bill was going through the House I spoke about CIE giving the Grand Canal to the Office of Public Works. I said there was great potential for profit for the Exchequer in the development of the Grand Canal, as well as the other canals. I repeat that today and hope it will be the OPW's objective, not just a laissez faire policy but a strong marketing policy, to have the Grand Canal equipped to take visitors and to make a profit for the country. On one occasion I visited the Norfolk Broads where thousands of people go thinking they are boating. The space is very confined but the number of visitors is so great that there is no great comfort. Our canals have tremendous potential and I hope the objective of the Office of Public Works will be to develop that potential to the benefit of the country and the Exchequer.

I could not agree more with my colleagues who condemned the scrapping of the decentralisation of Government buildings and the purchase of Agriculture House for £8 million. In a marketing sense it may be a good purchase at this stage, but there is no doubt in my mind that the decision we took to decentralise was the correct one. The Minister mentioned the condition and prime location of Agriculture House. I hope she is right. I am a member of the Committee on Public Expenditure and there I discovered there was no proper inspection procedure of certain public buildings.

Setanta House cost the State a tremendous sum of money but the brickwork lifted away from the shell of the building. This was a scandal. When I put questions to certain experts before the committee I discovered very little care was taken for the safety of the public. I hope this is not true of Agriculture House. I hope the most minute and careful inspection took place.

I believe our policy of decentralisation was the right one. Admittedly, I have a vested interest in the sense that Cavan was one of the areas chosen for part of the Department of Agriculture, but it is regrettable that that scheme did not go through. More than 3,000 public servants would have been stationed in various rural areas. All one has to do is go to Parnell Square or O'Connell Street at the weekend to see many people going to the country. Locating these people in rural Ireland would have had a tremendous social and demographic effect on these areas. The last census showed that there were 3,000 fewer women than men in County Cavan. This is a strong indication that our policy was the correct one.

The Minister mentioned coastal protection. The money provided for coastal protection has been drastically reduced. I cannot understand how the Minister would allow that to happen because I visited her county and they have a big problem with coastal erosion. There is a statutory obligation on county councils to meet the cost of maintaining drainage and coastal protection. That is an obligation which county councils are unable to discharge. This is disastrous for small drainage schemes in rural areas. The Minister mentioned a review of arterial drainage. We have had reviews of the Erne until the river is almost turning around. The European Social and Economic Committees and other experts and consultants have been pushing for the drainage of the Erne for some time. There is a scheme in place in the Office of Public Works but nothing will be done about it as of now. This is a great disaster for my area.

A very mean, beggarly and skimpy approach was taken by the Office of Public Works to the finalisation of the Boyne drainage scheme. The Kells-Upper Blackwater section of that river was left undone although the rest of the scheme was completed. This was scandalous neglect by the Office of Public Works of a very important area where the people have been suffering for some time.

We in Cavan are waiting for a Garda station. I mentioned this on the Votes of the Department of Justice. We are also waiting for a military barracks for which a site has been purchased but there is delay and procrastination. Both of these facilities are badly needed in my area.

This Supplementary Estimate has given us an opportunity to comment but I do not go so far as other groups in the country who suggest that the Office of Public Works should be abolished altogether. I emphasise the importance of decentralisation. Deputies from the Government parties obviously realise that now. Decentralisation is the popular thing to talk about in the run-up to a general election. I am gratified to note from the recent comments of Government Deputies that they have been converted to the Fianna Fáil policy of decentralisation. My only regret is that they were not converted sooner.

Upon entering office the present Government dismantled the Fianna Fáil decentralisation programme. I mentioned this recently outside this Chamber and I was challenged on it. In case of a further challenge, I can quote from a letter from the Department of Finance, dated 16 September 1986. It says:

Dear Sir,

I am directed by the Minister for Finance to refer to your letter dated 26 August addressed to the Department of the Public Service regarding the decentralising of Government Departments.

The Decentralisation Programme was cancelled by the Government and an announcement to this effect was made in the context of the 1983 Budget. There are no plans at present to re-introduce the Decentralisation Programme either in whole or in part.

It was bad enough to scuttle the programme but it is worse that as recently as 16 September last they had no plans to reintroduce decentralisation. The ridiculous behaviour of some Members of this House who are clamouring in their constituencies for decentralisation should be ended and they should take it up with the Government at parliamentary party meetings.

The Deputy is saying decentralisation but he is talking about recentralisation. Moving from one centre to another is recentralisation, not decentralisation.

The Minister will have an opportunity to reply and I hope she will reply adequately when I have finished. In 1980 the Fianna Fáil Government drew up decentralisation plans. We intended to move sections of the Revenue Commissioners to Limerick and Ennis, sections of the Department of Social Welfare to Waterford, Sligo and Letterkenny, some sections of the Department of Defence were to be based in Galway, sections of the Department of Justice in Killarney, sections of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were to go to Nenagh and Dundalk and sections of the Department of the Environment to Ballina. The Department of Agriculture were to be partly located in Cavan, the Department of Education in Athlone and An Foras Forbartha to Merchants Quay in Cork. Not only did the Government halt the Fianna Fáil decentralisation plans but they sold sites acquired for relocating sections of the Civil Service. This action flew in the face of all social and economic wisdom.

It is an irrefutable fact that by OECD standards we have an exceptionally centralised State, with central Government accounting not only for a very high proportion of total national spending but for total public expenditure. A major OECD survey published at the end of September pointed out that of the 22 countries surveyed we gave least autonomy to local authorities to make financial and other decisions. The high level of centralisation damages decision-making by public representatives and civil servants alike, while it places an enormous strain on the metropolitan area. In 1926 Dublin city and county had a population of 17 per cent of the total population and today it has a population of more than 30 per cent of the total population. The European average for a population in a metropolitan area is 20 per cent. The headquarters of only five out of 80 Government Departments and State bodies are located outside of Dublin. The National Economic and Social Council have pointed out that the services sector, which is forecast to provide the bulk of jobs in the future, is now located disproportionately in Dublin and they have warned that this situation will continue unless the centralisation trend is reversed.

This was the situation we addressed in 1980 when we started to implement plans for decentralising the Civil Service. The Coalition Government undid our work, ignoring the valid socio-economic arguments in favour of regional development and administrative decentralisation. The Government ignored the fact that centralisation can be successfully reversed as shown in other countries such as Sweden and France who implemented measures which arrested the drift of population towards metropolitan areas.

The Coalition's ill will and indifference towards decentralisation is destructive when one considers that the most successful countries, the U.S., Canada, Australia, West Germany and Sweden all organise decision-making at a relatively decentralised level. The centralised nature of our bureaucracy is reflected in the failure of the Coalition to devise integrated regional development programmes to exploit the available money in EC aid. In this way EC money which could be used to fund local development potential, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises and local job creating initiatives, is not being taken up. Recently there was a proposal from the Government for the restructuring of the health boards on an even more centralised basis. This marks a further effort by the Government to concentrate power at the centre at the expense of local peripheral areas and a further erosion of people's rights to representation at local level.

I also wish to refer to the proposed location of a new dental school in Dublin. I do not object to its provision——

That would be more relevant to the Estimate for the Department of Health.

I am referring to decentralisation and I am merely making a passing reference to the hospital. I know a new dental hospital is required in Dublin but the Government should have taken note of the report of the Committee of Public Accounts. It is a threat to the future of the Cork Dental School and displays a deplorable insensitivity to the ravaged economy of Cork city and the sufferings endured by Corkonians over the past four years. This side of the House are well aware that centralisation of decision making has contributed to a stifling of enterprise and initiative as well as a failure to devise a coherent regional policy.

The Supplementary Estimate is principally for the purchase of Agriculture House and I do not object to that because these buildings should be the property of the State rather than the State paying enormous rents. However, it is a pity that the money sought — £12 million — could not be put to better use by decentralising many activities.

We are frustrated with the failure of the Government to provide adequate finance in any of the areas of public service, especially in the Office of Public Works. I welcome the decision of the Government to purchase Agriculture House and I cannot understand why it was not purchased initially. It is a sound investment to put capital into bricks and mortar. It was a tragedy that the Royal Hibernian Hotel, with the same architectural facade of the Dáil, was knocked down instead of being acquired to provide more office space in close proximity to Dáil Éireann so that we could give a better service to our constituents. Indeed, private developers took it over and its architectural qualities have been lost. There is a modern office block in its place.

Under subhead F1, maintenance and supplies, there is a major shortfall as the type of maintenance needed in rural areas under the arterial drainage scheme is not being done. As a result of a Government review notified to me by the Minister for Finance, it was decided that a review of arterial drainage policy should be carried out and that a report should be prepared and submitted to the Government. My information is that this report has been forwarded to the Government and has been on the desk of a Minister — if not the Taoiseach — for the past six or eight months. No action has been taken on the report.

In the west the Shannon has destroyed thousands of acres of land. I raised this matter on a number of occasions and, indeed, the Minister of State — for which I thank her — supplied me with figures on 4 March last which indicated the average monthly ordnance data figure for the level of water on the Shannon in 1985. As Ardnacrusha provides 4 per cent of the nation's electricity supplies, there is no reason for the level of water on the Shannon at the various locks being retained at their present very high levels. The Minister of State made various visits to the west. She was in my constituency recently looking at various projects but I did not hear of any positive decision having been made as a result.

The Minister for Agriculture and his Minister of State have consistently given commitments that they would set up a Shannon drainage authority but that has not been done. Why give commitments and do nothing? We should ensure that the various locks, particularly Victoria Lock, are removed or that the levels at least reduced on a more permanent basis to alleviate flooding which has destroyed thousands of acres of land in south east Galway in Woodford, Rossmore, Portumna and right down to the banks of the Suck and to Ballinasloe as well as on the other side of the river right up to Athlone.

Vast amounts of money are expended by the Department of Justice on permanent Garda security at these locks in case some frustrated person might decide to remove them. It is sad that money has to be expended on this instead of the Office of Public Works and various Ministers honouring their commitments by ensuring that progress is made in providing employment.

The same applies to the Dunkellin River. Why did the Minister of State visit my constituency recently? She looked at old monuments and graveyards but gave no commitment in regard to Portumna Castle which would give employment to 40 or 50 people for five years——

That is not covered in the Supplementary Estimate.

I am trying to show what is needed. The Minister came into my constituency to try to heal the wounds that have beset her party over the past few years.

Neither the visit of the Minister to Portumna nor Portumna itself is in the Supplementary Estimate.

I am trying to illustrate the need to have action taken on the river Shannon.

(Interruptions.)

In my county people who have been employed since the fifties recently got redundancy notices from the Office of Public Works which is under the control of the Minister of State. They are employed by the OPW on arterial drainage and maintenance and are being let go. We have appealed to the Minister and to the Office of Public Works to transfer those people and their expertise to working on the Dunkellin River. That is relevant to the Estimate. Those people at 60 years of age have tremendous professional experience in arterial drainage and maintenance and their services could be utilised. We have lost vast sums of money in Europe through the reduction in quotas because the productivity levels in the west have not been up to a sufficient standard to ensure that such quotas would be made available to them. The Minister, the Minister of State and the Government have constantly cut back on the amount of revenue to the Office of Public Works.

There is no point in having cutbacks right across the board and spending money on capital investment when it should be spent in areas of greatest need. No justification has been given for the decisions which have been made. Consequently, the taxpayer has to carry the brunt. The Minister talked about the additional sums required under subhead F5 for essential maintenance work at Galway courthouse. As Chairman of Galway County Council, I want to say that is not our responsibility. It is the responsibility of Galway Corporation. It is sad when the Judiciary have to say they are not prepared to hold their court in cold dilapidated courthouses because they are not being maintained. The reason for this is because the Government have not given the necessary finance to local authorities to upgrade and preserve the courthouses.

Is the Deputy not going to let the Minister reply?

The Minister has only come into the House. He was not here to move the Supplementary Estimate. I would prefer not to be interrupted.

I heard the Opposition challenge the Minister to reply to points made. The Deputy is not allowing her to do so.

There are courthouses right across the country which are badly in need of upgrading. There are caretakers in these courthouses living in appalling conditions.

The Deputy is wasting time and money in not allowing the Minister to reply.

There are people living in the residential sections of courthouses which are in appalling condition. The Government promise open government, financial reforms and reforms of all types but they have given us none of them. One major area of reform would be if the Office of Public Works were to accept they have a responsibility and a duty to upgrade courthouses and ensure that local authorities are not to be saddled with this responsibility. In 1986 Galway County Council received a net increase for all works of £7,000. How can we or our sister organisation, Galway Corporation, be expected to maintain courthouses when we receive only that increase? Urgent work is required on the Islands river, the Nanny river, the Dunkellin river and the Shannon. Urgent work is needed in Tuam where the farm development service are operating under terrible conditions.

That is in next year's Estimate speech.

That has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate.

The Minister came to our constituency on a political visit and promised nothing.

I would like to make a passing reference to a number of items as they affect my area and as they affect the Supplementary Estimate we are debating, particularly under the heading of salaries and wages. Dublin County Council have purchased a very fine property in the town of Swords, namely, Swords Castle. We have been requesting the co-operation of the Office of Public Works as this is a protected building and rightly so as it is a national monument. Dublin County Council have money in their Estimate this year to spent on a survey to be carried out in the Swords Castle area but we have been informed that the delay in sanctioning the necessary official to supervise this work is because of the lack of funds. I should like the Minister to assure us that this revised Estimate for additional funding is going to allow the necessary survey work to be carried out——

The Deputy will not get that assurance unless he lets her in to speak.

——on Swords Castle so that it can be restored for the benefit of the people of the town of Swords and of north County Dublin and so that it can be developed as a tourist amenity. I am concerned at the Minister's reference to coastal erosion. The beaches at Portmarnock and the Burrow at Portrane are suffering badly from coastal erosion. I would like to hear from the Minister her plans to allow the necessary work to prevent further erosion. The construction of schools in north County Dublin is in chaos.

Deputy Burke, please.

A passing reference, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The Deputy will not allow the Minister to make a passing reference to the debate.

I will make a passing reference to it on the basis that the Department had a responsibility in this area. I want to mention the extension to the primary school in River Valley Estate in Swords. We want it to go to tender at an early stage.

That is for the Department of Education.

Deputy Boland will look after that.

I am very anxious that we get this extension. As regards coastal erosion, I would like to come back to the matter of the Burrow at Portrane. This is a very attractive beach area where there are a number of fine residences.

It has nothing to do with us.

The Minister in her speech mentioned that the reductions in appropriations-in-aid are to cover the expected shortfall in moneys due for maintenance of completed drainage and coastal protection schemes.

The maintenance of completed coastal schemes.

The Minister is admitting that she is planning to do nothing with these very badly needed coastal protection schemes.

It has not happened yet. This is maintenance of completed coastal schemes.

If I talk about coastal protection schemes, I can also talk about the Minister's own constituency where she has done absolutely nothing about coastal protection schemes in Rosslare.

It has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate.

Deputy Burke is being disorderly, to say the least.

Under the heading of salaries, wages and allowances for the Office of Public Works——

This is a restricted debate on a Supplementary Estimate and the Deputy is going way outside the ambit of the debate.

On salaries, wages and allowances——

The Minister is not going to give any assurances unless the Deputy will let her reply.

I want to re-emphasise to the House the vital necessity of this survey being carried out in Swords at an early stage in order to allow the development and protection of the castle.

The points I want to make may not be important to the Minister but they are important to the people who are being asked to pay these bills. Perhaps, the Minister might communicate directly with the Deputies on the points on which they want to receive replies.

It is unfortunate that we do not have sufficient time to debate this very important Supplementary Estimate. The £8 million spent on the purchase of Agriculture House might well be better spent from the Department's viewpiont in providing adequate accommodation in areas where it is totally unsatisfactory. In some cases accommodation is in a deplorable state: I speak about Government offices in a number of major towns. They are of no credit to the Department. They are a positive disgrace. People are working in conditions which are in breach of the guidelines laid down by the Department of Labour under the office conditions. That £8 million would be more wisely spent at a time when financial resources are limited in providing adequate and decent facilities for the staff of the public service some of whom are working in outrageous conditions in many towns. I would like to support the views already expressed by other Deputies on the need for decentralisation. The Government should reconsider their decision to scrap the decentralisation programme. It is not to their credit that they abandoned that scheme. The scheme would have been a tremendous success if it had been followed through.

That does not come under the Supplementary Estimate.

Many of us would agree but we have had it all afternoon.

Canals are referred to in the Supplementary Estimate and I should like to suggest that the Minister of State should have work carried out on canals in the vicinity of Killaloe and Clonlara on the Shannon. It is important that tourist and recreation facilities are developed in such areas.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share