Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 1933

Vol. 48 No. 16

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 24—Ordnance Survey.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £23,596 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Suirbhéireachta Ordonáis agus na Mion-tSeirbhísí ar a n-áiritear Macsamhla de Laimhscríbhinní Seanda do dhéanamh.

That a sum not exceeding £23,596 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ordnance Survey and of Minor Services including the Facsimile Reproduction of Ancient Manuscripts.

It seems to me that the terms of the Vote in this case are almost self-explanatory and that anything that may be lacking therein will be found on pages 91 to 93 of the volume of Estimates. However, I may say, that the principal services formed by the Ordnance Survey Department are, first of all, the revision of the 1/2500 scale maps on the ground; drawing the revised maps; computing and compiling the revised areas; re-levelling and supplying bench marks to replace those found to be defaced or destroyed; examining the revised plans in all stages; reproducing the MS. plans on zinc plates by Vandyke process; carefully checking proofs of 1", 6", 25", 5-feet and 10-feet scale maps, also proofs of indexes and diagrams. In addition, the Department prepares and prints, at special prices, maps for schools, and does a considerable amount of special printing work for the Government, in particular the facsimile reproduction of ancient manuscripts.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There is one matter with regard to this Estimate which causes me a little difficulty and which I would like the Minister to explain, and that is how he reconciles sub-head E with sub-head G. In sub-head E I see that last year, for materials for facsimile reproduction of ancient manuscripts, it was estimated that £320 worth of material would be required, and that this year only £150 worth of material will be required; but when I look down further I see, under sub-head G, that they expect repayment by the Stationery Office for facsimile reproductions of ancient manuscripts amounting to £1,272 as against £886 last year. According to that, as far as one can gather from these two items taken together, they are going to receive a very much larger sum from the reproductions they have carried out and, on the other hand, they are going to have a smaller amount of material. I should like to have that matter made clear by the Minister.

Mr. Dockrell

I should like to support what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has said about the cost of these manuscripts, but I approach it from a different angle. It seems to me that it is rather absurd putting it in under this particular heading. I suppose the colour process is type or printing, but they have the printing of these ancient manuscripts under the Stationery heading and they have it here under the Ordnance Survey. However, that is really only a matter as to why it is put in under this particular head and why they are not grouped together. I should like to ask the Minister how long does he reckon to work around a complete survey of the country; in other words, how long is it since a particular portion of the country was surveyed before? It was brought to my notice not so long ago—it may have been made right since—that a certain portion of the City of Dublin has not been surveyed for the past 25 years. I should like to ask the Minister is that the greatest delay that has taken place in the country or does it take 50 or 100 years to go around, because if you are 25 years behind since the last Ordnance Survey was taken of a particular area, that is very little use to people for up-to-date reference. Could the Minister say how long it takes them to work around the complete survey?

Mr. MacEntee

On the point raised by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney I think the explanation is a simple one. It should occur almost to any Deputy who read the Estimate. It is that the amount of work to be done, for which materials will be required for this year, will be less than last year and there is no discrepancy between the reduced figure which appears against Sub-head E in consequence of that and the increased figure which appears under Sub-head G; because in this year the Stationery Office, it is expected, will pay a sum of £1,272 as has been pointed out. This amount consists of the complete payment for the reproduction of "Patrician Documents from the Book of Armagh" and balances of payments in respect of the "Book of Lecan" and the "Annals of Lough Cé." This is for a work, which, it is anticipated, will be carried out this year and the other amount is for work already done.

On the question of the revision of the survey I may say that prior to 1923 the revision of the 25" survey took place by counties which were divided into two lists; those requiring revision, say, every 20 years, and those requiring revision, say, every 40 years. When the Ordnance Survey was reorganised it was thought that some economy could be secured without involving any very great practical disadvantage if the period between each revision of the survey were lengthened out and, in fact, the average period now is about 25 years. However, revisions take place more frequently than that in districts where it is thought that more frequent revision is necessary.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Minister said that the explanation was very plain and simple but I am not quite clear about it even after his explanation. If he says that the sum of £1,272 is the repayment for work already done, then that is the sum which was estimated for last year. Is it then that the Estimate last year was £400 under the actual work done and that the Estimate was £400 wrong? That seems to be the Minister's explanation.

Mr. Dockrell

I should like to ask the Minister how often the survey or re-survey of the City of Dublin is undertaken.

Mr. MacEntee

The last map was published in 1907, I think. The probabilities are that the revision will take place in 1936. I should like to point out to the Deputy that people who had greater experience than we have had of the necessity for the revision of the maps fixed the period for revision at 20 years in certain areas and at 40 years in other areas. When the reorganisation was taking place in 1923, as I have already explained, in order to secure some economy in this service, the period between revisions was extended. On the point made by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, I should like to say that what I have said in regard to 1933-34 applies to 1932-33.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Minister is still as vague even with that last explanation.

Vote put and agreed to.