If there is no Deputy who wants to deal with sub-head A——
Vote 11—Public Works and Buildings (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That a sum not exceeding £593,216 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, 1936, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; and for the execution and maintenance of Drainage Works.
Discussion on sub-head A must be taken as concluded, the Committee having proceeded to discuss sub-head B.
On sub-head B, I do not want to enter into a discussion of this thing, but I think it is reasonable, in view of a number of things that have happened, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions in connection with the £1,500 which the House is asked to vote for the preparation of busts of Pearse and other national leaders for Leinster House.
Will the Deputy please say what item he is referring to?
Item 3, on page 41. As far as I can recollect from what I read, the statement was made by the Parliamentary Secretary that it was proposed to erect in Leinster House busts of Patrick Pearse, Arthur Griffith, Cathal Brugha, Austin Stack, and I do not know if there was anybody else.
Yes, Michael Collins.
No statement was made as to where they would be erected.
Very good. Then I would ask, in the first place, whether in connection with the erection and the unveiling of these busts an Easter Week demonstration will be organised by the Government, and, secondly, whether before the expenditure of public money on the preparation of these busts or their erection is incurred, the explicit approval of the nearest representatives of the dead leaders will be obtained for the preparation of these busts and for their erection at State expense?
On a point of order, I suggest that there is no money provided in this Estimate for any purposes of the kind the Deputy is seeking information on.
I would draw the attention of the House to item No. 3, which reads: "Preparation of busts of Padraig Pearse and other National Leaders—Vote required for 1935-36, £1,500."
Do I understand the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary to be this: that he is preparing busts, but that whether he will erect them or not remains undecided. I suggest that is trifling with the House.
Deputy Mulcahy is in order.
May I say, Sir, that the Parliamentary Secretary raised the point that there was no money provided for the purpose mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy? I cannot follow the Parliamentary Secretary unless on the assumption that he is going to prepare busts, but that whether they are ever erected or not is immaterial from the point of view of the House.
It is perfectly obvious that I cannot answer the question asked by Deputy Mulcahy. I have no function in answering that particular question.
This House has been asked by a representative of the Government to vote money for expenditure in a particular way, but if the person asking the House to provide that money has no function in explaining what is going to be done with it, then I suggest that the House should send for some person who has a function in that particular connection.
If the Parliamentary Secretary states that he cannot answer the question as not within his Department, that disposes of it. Some Minister must be responsible, and the Deputy was quite entitled to ask where the busts are to be erected.
I submit, not on this Vote. I submit that the Board of Works has no function in deciding the question which the Deputy has asked. The Board of Works has no function in deciding the question whether there will be any Easter Week demonstration. That matter has been raised again, and it is the intention to keep raising it.
We are asked to vote public money for certain work. There has been one very disagreeable incident in connection with a piece of work such as is indicated here—so far as a bust is concerned. In connection with the expenditure of public money on another memorial which has been surrounded by a particular type of Party activity and which has created——
The Deputy should not enter into that.
I think that the House is entitled to be told, when asked to vote an expenditure of £1,500 on the preparation of busts—the expenditure may be more than that, because this is only a provisional Estimate for the erection—if this money is going to be expended in the general State interest, and that this work is not going to be made, in the first place, the centre of a Party movement and, in the second place, that it is not going to give offence to the near relatives of the dead persons whose memory it is supposed to commemorate. I think it is very disappointing and very disgraceful that in carrying out work of this particular kind, the proposal for it would not be presented to the House in such a way as to enable it to be harmoniously and satisfactorily dealt with, instead of making it what it is likely to be if the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary is pursued, a matter of discord, a matter of dishonour and a matter of disgrace to the country.
That is what the Deputy is trying to make it.
In connection with this Vote, I desire to direct the attention of the House to an aspect of the proposal to which Deputy Mulcahy has just been referring, and which Deputy MacDermot mentioned last night. Personally, while I am happy to think that the opportunity is available to Deputies on both sides of the House, owing to the constitutional position which national endeavour has secured for the country, to pay tribute to men who have laid down their lives for the freedom of the country, I think that sometimes we, in Ireland, are too much given to making commemoration ceremonies of this kind an occasion for, possibly, unconscious partisanship. When I read under sub-head B, Item 3, that commemorative statues of patriots are to be prepared by the State, and when I am told that that collection is to contain a memorial of no man who appeared in the struggle for the liberty of this country before 1916, I cannot help asking myself if there was no such thing as an Irish nationalist in this country prior to 1916.
If those Deputies who took part in the national movement under the banner of Sinn Féin desire to commemorate the leaders of that movement, nothing could be more understandable and nothing could be more reasonable. I have no complaint whatever to make that Deputies on both sides of this House who were associated with the leaders of Sinn Féin should ask that, if there is to be a collection made of memorials to men who had wrought on behalf of Irish liberty, that collection should contain memorials to some, at least, of the leaders of the movement with which they were associated.
I suggest that the argument which the Deputy is advancing would be more appropriate on the Vote for the Office of the President. It appears to be a matter of policy and it would be a question for the Executive Council to decide. To add to the number of these busts would, presumably, involve an increased charge.
I am not going to advocate that. My submission is of a different nature. I do not in any way suggest that the leaders of a movement with which I was not associated and to which, so long as it existed, I was opposed should be excluded in a matter of this kind. I fully appreciate the right of the colleagues of these men to demand that their names should be commemorated as honourably as those of any other national leaders. When I say that, I want to make clear how necessary it is that, when we approach a question of national commemoration of this kind, we should try to make it an occasion for coming together outside the atmosphere of politics and agreeing amongst ourselves that every phase of the national struggle be adequately and honourably represented. I imagine that some of us might take the view, at this particular period, that such an act of commemoration might appropriately be postponed for some little time until a truer perspective could be secured and a full representation given of men whose task may be regarded as, to some extent, completed by the establishment of an independent Irish Parliament.
To bring an Estimate of this kind before the House now and to ask the House to adopt such a proposition as is put forward in paragraph 3 asks all of us to say, by implication, that we recognise that the collection adumbrated in the Parliamentary reply, given yesterday, is adequate. To commemorate what was in the mind of the Minister for Finance, it may well be adequate. As a national commemoration of all the men who have contributed to the liberty of this country, I am bound to say that, in my judgment, it is not adequate. It fell to a certain body of Irish men and women recently to determine how best to commemorate the memory of the late Mr. Joseph Devlin. The procedure adopted was that leaders from the Government side of the House, representative Deputies from this side of the House and representatives of every shade of opinion in the country met and discussed the question. They commented on the fact that in this purpose there prevailed a unity and an absence of strong political feeling which was peculiarly appropriate to the business we had to do. My respectful submission to the Government is: if and when they determine that an act of commemoration of the kind adumbrated under paragraph 3 is necessary, they should seek the co-operation of representatives of every school of political thought in the country, and, far away from Dáil Eireann and far away from the field of controversial politics, ask their assistance in surveying the whole picture of the national struggle—ask their assistance in composing what would be an adequate memorial to the men who participated in that struggle. If, instead of proceeding along the lines suggested, the Government would adopt the proposal I now make to them, the danger of any misunderstanding or of any grave misinterpretation of their purpose would be materially reduced and, instead of having an angry controversy in this House and outside it as to the true motive behind the proposal of the Government, they would have a unanimous voice, anxious to convert the occasion, whatever it might be, of finally setting up this memorial into a true gesture of national unity and a true gesture of national recognition that men who had worked for Ireland in the past and, in some cases, made the supreme sacrifice on her behalf are entitled to the respect and reverence of those of us who came after them.
I should like to switch for a moment from contemplation of the past to consideration of the future.
I hope the Deputy will not look too far into the future. The Estimate covers a period of only one year.
If the House had accepted the original proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary, made yesterday, to consider these three Votes together, we should have been saved much trouble and misunderstanding. The first matter I wish to deal with is the possibility under this Vote of establishing a national air port——
Perhaps the Deputy would inform me what section of the Vote that proposal would come under?
There are three headings in this Vote dealing with aerodromes. One item is for £16,000, another for £18,000, and another for £8,161.
I am loth to interrupt the Deputy but the Deputy seems to have departed from sub-head B.
I do not wish to refer to sub-head B.
It is not permissible to jump from B to X and back again to B in a haphazard fashion.
I can refer to——
We must take them in order. The Deputy can raise his point when we come to the particular item which is relevant, if it is, to the matter he wishes to discuss.
May we ask——
I would suggest that Deputy Esmonde, if he has nothing to raise on B, should postpone his observations until——
The Chair's suggestion is that the ordinary procedure be followed, i.e., to dispose of B before proceeding to C or subsequent items. The Deputy will have his opportunity when the item relevant to the matter he wishes to raise is reached. Sub-head B has not yet been disposed of. On sub-head B——
I refer to numbers 48 and 52.
No. 52 is another Vote.
As was pointed out yesterday, it is very difficult to deal with these different sub-heads without referring to other Votes dealing with relief. Perhaps I might be permitted to suggest that next year we should have a better arrangement of the Estimates. In fact, I would suggest that we should have a Ministry of Public Works and that those two Estimates should be grouped together so that we would have a responsible Minister to deal before the House with the whole question of public works. On the question of his salary we could debate the general question not only of public works but what I hope will cease to be called relief works and will in future be called public works.
That is Vote 69.
That should be included permanently in a general Department of Public Works. In that connection I should like to refer the House to the fact that we are now in this Estimate asked to vote large sums —£16,000, £18,000 and £8,000, or a total of £42,000—for repair and upkeep of aerodromes in this country, and none of them is of any value to the civilian population. Those aerodromes are relics of the defunct British Empire in this country. They were built during the Great War period. They have no use as far as civilian aviation is concerned, and yet we are asked to vote money year after year to pay for the upkeep of these relics—in fact ruins— in all parts of the country. I refer to places like Tallaght, Collinstown and other places further North, Oranmore in Galway, Fermoy in Cork, and so forth. They have no commercial value; they have no value in the way of promoting air traffic in this country. They are just a dead weight of expense on the Board of Works and should be disposed of and abolished as soon as possible.
I have been raising this matter in the Dáil for many years without getting very much satisfaction. The Department of Defence, which is the only Department having a small sub-head in their Estimates for civil aviation, will immediately send you on to the Department of Industry and Commerce. They will tell you that they cannot be expected to discuss this matter because they have not got any sub-head in their Vote. The Department of Industry and Commerce sends you on to the Corporation. The Dublin Corporation will point out that they deal only with the area inside the city limits. The Dublin Corporation will send you on to the Dublin County Council. The Dublin County Council will tell you that it is not strictly their business, and that you are to go on to the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The Dublin Port and Docks Board will listen attentively, and suggest that you should have a conversation with the railway company. The railway company will also listen very interestedly, and say that fundamentally it is a matter for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. When you get the Department of Posts and Telegraphs they say that you had better go back to Baldonnel and the Ministry of Defence, so here we go round the mulberry bush. I think the only way to settle this matter is to approach it from the point of view of this Department and this Vote—the Department of Public Works—from the point of view of finding employment in the way of relief schemes.
I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary has read what I believe to be by far the most interesting contribution in regard to this matter. It is by a gentleman called Mr. McAteer and appears in the current issue of the publication known as Studies. He suggests that a national aerodrome might well be established in the Southern portion of Dublin Bay. Certainly its construction would provide very great employment. Although all those various departments and bodies may try to put the responsibility on one another I think it is up to the Department of Public Works to make them realise their responsibilities in this matter because every country has got a national airport in their capital city. It would be undoubtedly money well spent for the future. I think it would be well worth while for the Department of Public Works to study this scheme for the establishment of a national airport in the capital city of the State. They should get together the representatives of the various Departments, bodies, public utility companies, and local authorities, to consider ways and means for managing such a scheme, because it would undoubtedly provide a very large amount of employment during two, three or four years. The Parliamentary Secretary has been providing employment during the last year under small archaelogical schemes in different parts of the country for the digging up of antique remains. I think whereas that is a very good work my suggestion is a better one. For that reason, I certainly urge that his Department should take the initiative in getting in touch with those various Departments—the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Defence, and the Department of Local Government—the various local authorities, and the various public utility companies, with a view to considering whether such a scheme would not be feasible, particularly in view of the great relief it would mean to unemployment at the present time.
The second question I wish to raise brings in a great number of items— numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10——
I trust some of them come under sub-head B?
Yes, I group them all together. I think it is only right that the Government and the House should realise that the public offices and Government buildings around this section of the city are becoming rather congested. There is also in Estimate No. 10 an amount for the design of new offices for the Department of Industry and Commerce across the street from this building. That is under sub-head C in Vote No. 10. The Parliamentary Secretary has not stated whether there is any committee of the Government dealing with Government buildings and accommodation for Government offices. Apart from this central section of buildings, there are certain other buildings in the city such as the Castle, the Custom House, Kilmainham, the Four Courts and so on. Round about in this area the Government offices are rapidly increasing in their dimensions and they are spreading in all directions. One can get a better view of the position from the air. What I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister is that they should get a good selection of aerial photographs of this section of the city before they decided on any Government plans, because you get a clearer idea of where congestion exists and where congestion should be relieved by getting a good selection of such photographs and observing the people walking in the streets.
We are asked to spend a huge sum of money on buildings for the Department of Industry and Commerce in Kildare Street. I think that that matter should be reconsidered and the whole question of the congestion of Government buildings around this centre of the city should be submitted to the committee. In other capital cities like London, Washington and Paris there are great centres for public buildings and government offices. Here we are a Government just beginning and there seems to be no chance for us to be able to leave this building. At the beginning when this State was established there was some idea that the Houses of Parliament would be re-established in College Green. There was another suggestion that we should go out to Kilmainham. Those suggestions were, I think, rightly set aside and there is, I think, no prospect of our being shifted from these premises during our lifetime at any rate. For that reason it is up to the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department to make careful plans of Government buildings for the future. For instance, on the opposite side of this building in Merrion Street the Land Commission and various other Departments are housed in temporary premises. New plans for the future should take the whole situation into consideration and should not make provision piecemeal. That is my suggestion. I think it is a very important matter because from year to year the Government might drift on making provision for one Department after another without having any preconceived or preconcerted plans.
I see in the Estimate that it is proposed to make an improvement to the entrance to Leinster House. What does that mean? There is a token Vote of £10 for this matter. A token Vote generally means that the Government are afraid to say what they would like to say. I know that the Irish Press announced last year that the front of Leinster House was to be improved. That turend out to be a false alarm. This year the Irish Press have again announced that the entrance to Leinster House is to be improved. That may also be a false alarm. At all events we have the benefit of the £10 token Vote. I do not know what the reason is for the delay on the part of the Government in improving the entrance to Leinster House. Perhaps it may be due to some form of superstition. The Government may be reading novels and stories dealing with oriental mysteries. They may have read tales about the “Green-eyed Idol” or “Yellow god” and the frightful calamity that happened the people who tried in any way to interfere with such things. At all events, for some superstitious reason the Government seem to be afraid to remove the idol which is blocking the entrance to Leinster House. That is the only explanation I can think of. But on this Estimate we have a token Vote of £10 for the carrying through of this work. That is the second point that I wished to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary.
The third point that I want the Parliamentary Secretary to look up is the question of the Gárda barracks accommodation in my constituency. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for the poor accommodation there is for the Gárda in Wexford because that is the fault of his predecessor. I am afraid the housing of the Gárda in County Wexford has been rather neglected. While good barracks have been provided for the Gárda in other counties, the Gárda have not been given as good quarters in County Wexford. For instance, I noticed in this Estimate that County Wexford is the only county which has two token Votes. These are two Votes which are left open evidently because the Government did not know what the exact amount would be. The other counties in this State have been provided for in previous years.
I think that County Wexford should be dealt with during the coming year and that it is not fair to expect the Gárda to be efficient or to perform their duties efficiently if they have not got decent accommodation. That is a matter which, I think, should be looked into. I have raised this matter for many years here and did not get much satisfaction, but I must say that since the Parliamentary Secretary came into power there has been an improvement in County Wexford as far as the accommodation of the Gárda is concerned. I think, however, that there is still room for improvement and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into these matters.
I should like to refer to just a few matters in the Vote.
Under sub-head B?
Yes, Sir. One is item No. 3, the preparation of busts of Padraig Pearse and other national leaders. I should like to know what national leaders exactly it is proposed to commemorate by the preparation of busts? Is it intended to have a bust prepared of the late James Connolly? My reason for asking is that I think that in any scheme to provide busts of national leaders, James Connolly's claim to consideration is one which cannot be overlooked. In the fight for national and economic emancipation James Connolly's work entitles him to a place in the vanguard of Irish nationalism. In the events prior to Easter Week none worked harder than he; in the events of Easter Week none fought more bravely than he; and when it came to dying, there was none who died more bravely or more courageously. I hope, therefore, that any scheme to provide busts of national leaders will take cognisance of James Connolly's claim to be commemorated. Although, however, a bust of James Connolly might be a gesture of the State's appreciation of him, his name will always be treasured in the hearts of all those people who value the cause of nationalism and of the working-class people of this country. The working-class people of this country will always treasure his name and regard it as something to be revered, and if the State should overlook his claim, the working-class people of the country will have good reason to bless his name for the work he did for the uplifting of the working-class people in this country. I hope, however, the State will recognise that fact by the inclusion of a bust of James Connolly in a scheme of this kind and that, so far as it is concerned, it at least will bestow on him the same recognition and admiration as is, apparently, to be bestowed on other national leaders. I trust that we will have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that James Connolly's name will be included in the scheme referred to under sub-head B.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer under sub-head B, and that is item No. 84—the erection of a new sorting and delivery office at Pearse Street. For some years past, I have directed the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the imperative necessity for reconstructing the existing building. The present central sorting and delivery office of the capital city in the State is simply a disused distillery. It is an utterly unsuitable building. It is insanitary. It is unsightly, and it is very dangerous from the point of view of the health of the staff who are compelled to work in it, not for eight hours per day, but for 24 hours. In June, 1933, we had an assurance from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that the work of erecting a new central sorting and delivery office would be commenced in September, 1933. It is now April, 1935, and the erection of a new sorting and delivery office seems to be as far off as ever. If the Parliamentary Secretary were to inspect the building, I am sure that he would give the necessary authority to have this work carried out with the utmost possible speed, because the building is such a poor structure generally that many cross-Channel firms who came over here to establish factories, looked at the building, passed on, and said: "We could not possibly put a staff into that place and could not possibly reconstruct a building of that kind." Yet, it is left to the State to take it over and patch it up for ten years and to try to work it as an office for the service of the central sorting and delivery office of the capital city of the country. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look into that matter personally and try, during the present year, to have a serious effort made to provide a new office, which is much needed, and the erection of which can, by no means, be regarded as extravagant, and which will do something to house the staff in circumstances conducive to good health and, at the same time, provide suitable premises for dealing with the postal traffic in the main postal artery of the country.
There are two other items under sub-head B to which I should like to refer—Nos. 105 and 108. The first has reference to the provision of new married quarters at the Curragh Camp. I understand that it was intended that a certain amount of this work was to have been carried out last year, but I think that very little, if any, work was carried out, and consequently we have a substantial re-Vote from last year. Not only is the provision of new married quarters necessary from the point of view of military requirements and of the Army personnel at the Curragh Camp, but I should like to urge on the Parliamentary Secretary that work of this kind is urgently needed in the vicinity of the Curragh Camp. As, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary knows, large numbers of people join the Army from different places throughout the country. Some of them are stationed at the Curragh Camp and, in due course, get married there, and when they leave the Army they settle down in the vicinity of the Camp, with the result that the area there is carrying a population which it is not capable of sustaining either through industry or through agricultural pursuits. It is carrying a large uneconomic population which it is not possible, in existing circumstances, to absorb into industry or agriculture, and which, in the main, and for a long time to come, must be maintained either in the form of some unemployment benefit or by some scheme of public works in the area. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, to endeavour to have the work of providing new married quarters carried out with the utmost possible expedition, not merely to provide a necessary want from the point of view of military requirements, but also because of the employment that would be provided in the vicinity of the Camp for the large numbers of people resident there.
Similarly, I want to call the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to item No. 108, which has to do with reconstruction work in Kildare Military Barracks. I think that if the Parliamentary Secretary had been able to visit there, he would see that it looks more like a ruined workhouse than an up-to-date military barracks. It has been grossly neglected in recent years and it does not seem to have seen a painter for a long time. It would be a difficult job, I think, to get the barrack to recognise any kind of a craftsman. In this case also, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have this work carried out during the present year and that we will not have a substantial re-Vote next year in respect of this work.
What is said of the Curragh can be equally applied to Kildare town. It is suffering from what produced unemployment in the vicinity of Curragh Camp. It is suffering from the fact that many people from other parts of the country join the Army, serve in the local barracks, are demobilised, and try to find employment in the area. That again means that the Curragh Camp and Kildare are suffering from a disability not associated with any local conditions, but associated, in the main, with the fact that the State attracts people to the Army, takes them to a barracks in the vicinity of Kildare or the Curragh, demobilises them from the Army, and these people often drift into the local town looking for work or for any kind of assistance they can get.
As a matter of fact, proof of my statement in that connection will be found by reference to the census of 1926. I think it will be shown that 53 per cent. of the people resident in the Kildare County Council electoral area were people not born in that area. If you examine the census I think you will not find any other place in the country where 53 per cent. of the local residents were not born in the place. I hope in this case the Parliamentary Secretary will, for these reasons, and because of the unemployment position which exists in the vicinity of the Curragh Camp and Kildare, have these matters attended to specially during the year. If he does, not only will he be providing for necessary military requirements, but, at the same time, he will be employing many unemployed people at work which is necessary and which will give them some definite means of livelihood.
There are one or two matters to which I wish to call attention, but really more for the purpose of obtaining information than anything else. Of course, I am glad to see the increase in the Vote for the erection of national schools. It was realised a considerable number of years ago that there was a great lot of leeway to be made up in that respect. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would let me know if the £120,000 voted last year was spent?
It was more than spent.
That is satisfactory. There are two types of schools being built in the country, one for the national education authorities by the Office of Public Works, and another under the aegis of the Department itself by the technical branch of the Department. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to compare the cost of these two types of buildings and see whether it would not be possible, with the same expenditure of money, to have a much more ample provision of national schools by taking the model of the type of building used for technical schools. So far as my memory serves me, I think the cost of the technical school per floor area was much less than that of the type put up by the Office of Works. I am not saying that it was as permanent a structure. I am not suggesting that there was any waste of money, so far as the buildings put up by the Office of Works is concerned. I think, however, that it might be taken into account whether it is advisable that these schools should be too permanent.
What I have in mind is this. There are many schools which are very solid buildings, and I have often wished that they were not so solid, because there might be an opportunity then of doing away with them and putting up more modern structures. In connection especially with school accommodation. as in fact with building in general, not merely do fashions change—that is a matter of slight importance—but there are continually improvements being effected so far as hygiene, lighting, etc., are concerned. I wonder whether the mere permanency of the work is sufficient justification for the extra expenditure. In fact the too great permanency of the work seems to me to be somewhat of a disadvantage, if I may say so. Therefore, I should like the Office of Works to submit to a very careful examination the relative merits of the two types of schools. Personally, so far as the smaller type of school is concerned, it struck me that in appearance, light, accommodation etc., the advantage lay with the type of school put up by the technical branch of the Department. Possibly, from the purely architectural point of view, the material was not as sound or as solid, but I think for all practical purposes it was quite as good. I merely want to bring that to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary.
As to the whole question of museum accommodation, there is the proposed utilisation of the building in the Phoenix Park as a folklore museum. There is, however, another matter in connection with the museum accommodation that is equally pressing. What our museum has always suffered from is overcrowding. Efforts were made some years ago to clear out a certain amount of the exhibits, but there is still considerable overcrowding. With the accommodation at the disposal of that branch of the Department of Education, it seems to me inevitable that there must be overcrowding, and that I think takes greatly from the exhibitionist aspect of the museum.
I should like serious consideration to be given to the suggestion that it is no longer possible to house in the very limited space we have here in Kildare Street the different departments of the museum. You have, to a certain extent, a national culture museum, representing not merely art, but the lives of the peoples of the East and the savage peoples of some of the southern islands. In addition, there are the two big divisions—the archaeological side and the art and industrial side. I am not saying that that is a very suitable building for a museum. Again in these matters styles and tastes change. What seems to be an excellent building to one generation seems to be the very opposite to another. Still, I think, it would be an advantage, using the actual buildings now at our disposal, if the bold step were taken of transferring a large portion of the exhibits to some other part of the city, near the present building if possible, having a separate building for the art and industrial section, and leaving the present building in Kildare Street mainly to the archaeological side, with Irish archaeology naturally in the centre, and grouped around that the other archaeological portions of the museum.
I notice a provision of £18,500 for married quarters at the customs frontier posts. That is a big sum to spend on frontier posts. It strikes me that it should not be necessary to spend such a large amount of money on married quarters when it might be arranged that the work could be done by single officers. Why should we transplant married officers to the Border and incur an expenditure of £18,500 to provide accommodation for them? It might be an advantage to have younger officers there, who possibly might be more physically active in the discharge of their duties. I notice another item of £2,800 for the adaptation of the High Commissioner's residence in London. Is that residence the property of the State? If it is not owned by the State what guarantee is there that the expenditure of this money will not be lost eventually, if the premises are surrendered? If we have not an official residence for the High Commissioner in London I suggest that money would not be ill-spent in providing one, instead of incurring expenditure in adapting other premises. It might be much more economical to acquire a permanent residence, owned by the State, as is the custom of other governments. Deputy O'Sullivan dealt with the Education Vote to which no one will object. I think money spent in the building of schools is well spent, but I should like to see it spent on the building of new schools, rather than on the reconstruction of old and dilapidated buildings, many of which are ill adapted for housing children. I notice a token vote of £10 for an extension of the natural history portion of the museum. It is estimated that the extension will eventually cost £47,000. I should like to have some indication from the Parliamentary Secretary that that work will be commenced at an early date. Another item refers to the erection of Government offices in Kildare Street. Before it is decided to proceed to build there I hope that consideration will be given to the proposal of Deputy T. Kelly. When the Deputy was referring to the question he was told that he was out of order.
The Deputy does not propose to follow the example?
I am only mentioning it to bring the question to the recollection of the Parliamentary Secretary, so that due regard may be paid to Deputy Kelly's desire, and that if possible another site should be procured for the offices that it is proposed to erect in Kildare Street. Perhaps the Kildare Street site could be given to Dublin Corporation for a hall, which it is very desirable should be provided.
Are the married quarters for Customs officers on the frontier to be of a permanent character? I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that they are to be permanent. If so, that is a very pessimistic view to take.
No sign of the Border going.
I am afraid I am not a prophet. My function is administration, not prophecy.
I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary got instructions.
In connection with the Vote for the dredging of certain harbours, I would like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary has resigned himself to a permanent annual expenditure for this purpose. The item is important from two aspects, inasmuch as if that be the Department's decision, the amount provided does not seem to be at all adequate for the harbour problem in Arklow, on which, I understand, it is mainly to be spent. The question arises whether the opinion of the eminent engineers which, I believe, was obtained some time ago, that there was no permanent remedy for the problem, is to be accepted for all time. It would seem to me a pity if the Parliamentary Secretary accepted as final an opinion, even from the most eminent engineer, that nothing could be done with the problem, and that the only thing to be faced was an annual expenditure for dredging purposes in order to keep the harbour open. I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that there is local opinion to the effect that the problem could be met by certain construction works. While it would not do to say that local lay opinion should be taken as being equal to professional opinion on the question, we have to remember that in certain departments of life the scientists have been rather discounted in recent years. For instance, it could be said that the economists have proved to be wrong and have proved to be rather useless people in relation to the big State problems caused by the world depression. Similarly, it is quite possible that the engineers may be proved wrong on the question of the siltage problem. There is in Arklow, as I have said, strong local opinion to the effect that permanent improvement could be effected, obviating the necessity for so much dredging as is necessary in the case of that harbour. As the position is at the moment, unless a bigger amount of money is granted, it does not seem likely that the harbour can be kept open permanently. There is a very serious situation there at present, and there is no money available to provide the dredging that is so urgently needed. No doubt the Department is aware there was a very bad accident to a boat there within the past fortnight.
I think it is the position that unless the Department can come to the rescue with money or otherwise there is going to be great loss to the shipping of that particular port; there is going to be serious interference with the fishing industry, which is very important at that particular centre; and there is going to be general dislocation. I shall be glad, therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary will state whether the Department has decided that anything can be done to assist the local Harbour Board to meet their problem other than by this comparatively small grant. If all that can be done is merely to keep the harbour open for a certain part of the year in this way, it is rather a bad outlook for a harbour which is very important for a big district and which is more important now than heretofore by reason of the fact that a very important manufacturing industry is about to start in the town.
There are two points in regard to this Estimate which I wish to make. The first is to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the completion of a work which was held over for many years, that is, the new telephone and telegraph exchange and post office in Rathmines. That is a work of which the Office should be proud. The other matter is one on which I should like some information, as to the applications to the Parliamentary Secretary for extra school building accommodation in the City and County of Dublin. As everybody knows, the population of this city, Greater Dublin and its surroundings, has increased enormously in recent years and the public school accommodation is entirely, and has been entirely, inadequate. There are a number of these schools in which, from the point of view of the teacher and the children, the conditions are anything but sanitary or healthy. Children come to school between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning and remain until 3 or 4 o'clock and they and the teachers live in an atmosphere which is absolutely insanitary.
I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary if he has had a number of applications from the city and surrounding districts for grants towards the building of new primary schools. There are a number of schools in the centre of the city which should not be open. They are overcrowded. We have talked a good deal about the housing problem and what should be done for it, but if the unfortunate children are living in overcrowded buildings during the night, it is regrettable that we should then send them for five or six hours to an overcrowded school building. As I say, it can be neither good for the children nor for the teachers. I am told that a number of applications have been made for grants and for support and co-operation in respect of the building of new schools and the extension of existing schools by a number of the managers in the city and surrounding districts. I do not know any particular details, but I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether that is so and what the Department proposes to do in that connection.
There is just one matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is the total inadequacy of the heating facilities in schools in rural areas. It is well known that children in the rural areas have to travel miles to school and we know what a school is like on a cold morning. Even if the school happens to be provided with a little bit of a fire, it is probably at one end of the school. I speak particularly for the rural areas and I say that the conditions under which children in those schools have to live during the winter cold are appalling and should be remedied. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that a system of central heating should be installed in the schools in the rural areas. I believe the expense would not be very great, but, in any case, something should be done along those lines, because the old system of heating the schools is inadequate. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with that. I have been led to believe that the installation of a system of central heating would not entail a lot of expense but I cannot vouch for that. All I do know, however, and I think everybody must agree with it, is that the heating facilities in schools in rural areas should be remedied, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the educational authorities will address themselves to that point.
I will not delay the House on the question of busts, seeing that my suggestion with regard to my national hero, Brian Boru, is apparently not being adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary. Deputy Esmonde brought before the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary a suggestion for an airport. Though not a flying enthusiast like the Deputy, I wish to support his suggestion and bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the suitability of Portmarnock Strand, if he is considering the suggestion for a national airport. Transatlantic flyers have already chosen this place as a starting point, and although I know nothing about aeronautics, when people who are about to fly the Atlantic select it as a starting point, it seems to me that it must have something to recommend it. I can say that the local authorities of the area would, if it were chosen, do all that was within their financial power to develop other lines that would improve the locality and make the site attractive as an airport. I should also like to emphasise the point raised by Deputy O'Sullivan and to particularise that point in regard to the construction of school buildings. I will not go as far as Deputy Curran, who wants central heating. That may be wanted in Tipperary, but we, in Dublin, would be satisfied if we got the shelter of the schools. I would particularly point out to the Parliamentary Secretary the Fairview, Marino, Donneycarney and Clontarf areas. I know many families around those areas who cannot get their children into schools because they are full up.
The need for school accommodation there is accentuated by a few important factors. One of these is that there are areas where new towns, bigger than most of the chief county towns in the Free State, have been planted, in the last few years. Marino had built in it originally 1,200 or 1,500 new houses. The qualification to get one of these new houses was that the applicant should have at least a minimum of four children under 16 years of age. Such houses placed more demand on the school accommodation than the housing in the ordinary way would have done. Schools built quite adjacent were taxed to capacity following on the Marino scheme. Then came the Donneycarney scheme of 450 new houses. Applicants for these had to fulfil similar conditions as to the number in family of each. There were no schools available for that colony of 450 houses with a minimum of four times that in children of school-going age. The children under this scheme had to seek accommodation in Marino schools and other schools.
In addition to that development by the Corporation there has been extensive development along Griffith Avenue, Collins Avenue and Malahide Road by private builders. There are three or four hundred houses occupied in these newly-developed areas, and the children from these houses have to find accommodation in schools already overtaxed at Marino and Griffith Avenue. I am interested in this with the local clergy, and I have spoken to the City Manager of Dublin about the matter. But I think after all the only source from which we can expect assistance is from the Department of the Parliamentary Secretary.
May I interrupt the Deputy with a view to saving his time, and the time of other Deputies who may address themselves to this matter? It is not the function of the Board of Works to help the Deputy in this; it is the function of the Department of Education. I am only intervening now in order to prevent each Deputy who may feel bound to put forward the claim of his own particular district doing so on this particular Vote, having regard to the fact that such claims should be put before the Minister for Education. We carry out duties; we are executive in the matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary has heard, I presume, of the difficulty in keeping the harbour of Balbriggan open.
I saw it, and we did clear it out for you.
There is a difficulty, as the Parliamentary Secretary is aware, if it came directly under his notice. That harbour, which accommodates a wide area is, I think, under the direct control of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to come across on me, and tell me that I am a member of the Dublin Port and Docks Board. The question of a dredger, which is controlled by the Parliamentary Secretary's Department, arises. I want to put this before the Parliamentary Secretary. From the local knowledge that I have been able to glean about that harbour I learn that when the wind blows it drives sand into the harbour.
Is not that a good thing?
I do not know how the Deputy would deal with drifting sand but it passes me to see how it could be a good thing. There was a time when sand used to be taken away as ballast, and that used to relieve the pressure of the sand in the harbour. Recently a couple of boats have been stranded in the harbour and we had a curious spectacle of carts going out in low water close to the vessels and taking off some of the cargo.
The Board of Works cannot stop that.
They could by altering a wall built many years ago to cure the shifting sand. It is now believed that that wall was built in the wrong place. I do not know whether it was built by the predecessors in office of the present Parliamentary Secretary, but the Parliamentary Secretary might consider the question of a grant——
The Deputy has changed his ground. A minute ago it was a loan.
A grant. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say when he comes to reply which is nearer and dearer to his heart—a grant or a loan; or is either?
I notice a new Gárda barrack is being built in Drumcondra at a cost of £14,500. I should like to know is that the total cost.
Like Deputy Belton, I am not going to mention Brian Boru except that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not do what was suggested and take him up in his aeroplane.
Brian Boru was a good flier.
I suggest in regard to the sea wall at Balbriggan that if a few blowers like Deputy Belton were sent down there they could manage to keep the sand back. I would like to support Deputy Curran's suggestion in regard to the heating of rural schools. There is a lot of money here in this Vote which, in my opinion, would be much better spent in that direction. During the winter months, when children have to come three or four miles on wet and cold mornings to school, there is very little use in having a bit of a fire in one end of the school-room. I think a lot of the work of the county medical officers and other medical people would be spared if some means were taken for the better heating of the schools in order to bring a bit of comfort to children after tramping several miles of road in wet and bleak weather. I suggest that some of the money allocated for Gárda Barracks would be better spent in providing some comfort for the children in rural schools. Since we did go up in the air a bit to-day I would suggest that all the money set out here for the reconstruction of camps in Baldonnel Aerodrome would be better spent in another direction.
The Deputy knows it is not in order to suggest transferring money from one item to something else.
I am suggesting that this money would be better spent at similar work in another place.
If the Deputy is suggesting the transfer of money in respect of one item to be put against some other item, that is not in order.
I am suggesting that the money proposed here for Baldonnel Aerodrome would be better spent in repairing the airport at Cobh, where it would be of some use. It would provide some facilities at the only port that exists in this country.
Another grant for Cork!
In view of the total amount of the grants that are set down here for Cork, I think I am entitled to look for something. I suggest the money would be better spent down there.
It is nearer to America than Baldonnel, anyway.
It could be used for the provision of proper aerodrome facilities for the port of Cork. Where the liners come in with passengers, I suggest up-to-date services are necessary.
Do they not come to Galway, too?
We had a description here to-day, accidentally given I admit, by one Deputy, of the kind of port he has, where they come along and shovel out the sand to make room for the boat. I suppose if we heard of Galway it would be something of the same description.
Worse, as a matter of fact.
I have a pretty decided objection to the enormous expenditure on Civic Guard barracks. Yesterday evening the Minister for Local Government described housing conditions in some parts of the country and he instanced the conditions applying, unfortunately, to a large proportion of our population. These housing conditions that were so aptly described by the Minister should be remedied. I suggest that the greater portion of that £500,000 for new works should be expended in the direction of providing better housing. Until we get a little richer and have time to go into the question of central heating and electricity down in Clonakilty for an agricultural station that is already costing us £4,000 or £5,000 a year, that money would be better spent providing houses for those who are living in slums and who, even in country districts, have only oneroomed dwellings. I honestly believe that the increase in the Board of Works Estimate would be more usefully spent in other directions.
Mr. Lynch
There is one matter that has been brought to my notice and I think it is the business of the Board of Works, as distinct from the Department of Education. It has reference to the provision of a school in the city. The Department of Education, I understand, is of the same mind as the management and the school teachers with regard to it. I refer to the need for a new school in the parish of SS. Michael and John, in Exchange Street, Dublin. I know there is a great necessity for a new school for boys in that parish and I understand there is a site available. There is a very peculiar position about that site. The site is the property of the State and is subject to a rent. The site has been abandoned for some years. I do not know what it was originally got for by the State. It must have been of some use to them at some time. For at least 20 years no use has been made of it and the State pays the small rent of £18 a year for it.
My information is that the management of the school approached the Government and the Board of Works to take over the site at its present rent; in other words, to relieve the Government of the rent they are paying for it. They were informed by the Board of Works that they could have the site at £60 or £70 a year, thus suggesting a profit out of what at the moment is a dead loss to the State. That attitude on the part of the Government towards persons prepared to put up a public utility building of the type of a national school is rather hard to understand. About two months ago the matter was brought to my notice. I would like to know if the Government have been prevailed upon to change their minds. Why is it that where they have a site like this on hands, making no use of it and liable for the rent every year, they do not hand it over and let somebody else bear the burden of the rent? Why not let the parish bear the rent and let them use the site for the purpose of the new school which is so very necessary?
There are several matters in connection with this Estimate to which I would like to refer. As regards certain items relating to maintenance, repairs and other current charges set out on page 53 of the Estimates, I would like to point out that in the country areas we do not receive facilities similar to those afforded to people residing in the cities. For instance, the Dublin Corporation, the Dublin County Council and the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council receive special consideration from the Government in connection with the maintenance of their harbours. Concessions have been given to the farmers through the land annuities being reduced and through other channels, but there are no similar concessions given to port and harbour boards in other parts of the country. Many urban areas have to bear the cost of repayment of old loans owing to the fact that harbour boards, through certain causes, are unable to meet it. Penal interest is charged in connection with those old loans and the repayment becomes a heavy burden on the local ratepayer. The ratepayers in many urban areas have received no concessions from this Government or from the previous Government. The rural areas have received all the benefits. The farmers are getting anything that is going.
They are getting the knocks all right.
The people in the towns get little or no consideration. The Board of Works insist that the urban councils must pay the loans due by the harbour boards. The harbour boards in many instances are unable to repay loans that were obtained 40 or 50 years ago and the Board of Works insist that every penny of those loans must be repaid, and that becomes a burden on the urban dwellers. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that some consideration be given to those boards in the matter of providing them with dredgers at a cheaper rate than that which prevails at present. We find that as much as £100 per week is charged for the hire of a dredger. I join with Deputy Moore in bringing to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary that we have a very important factory in our constituency. Our people are obliged to pay very high rates in order to meet repayment charges on loans—they have not advocated the non-payment of those charges —raised for the purpose of improving the condition of the local harbours. Something should be done to relieve the people in that connection. Special facilities should be given for the provision of a dock at Arklow and the improvement of the harbour. These works are required to meet the demands created by the new factory. Wicklow Harbour is in a similar position. Deputy Belton spoke about loans, but harbour boards have no power to borrow. It is only through an urban authority that that can be done. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to meet my wishes two years ago in connection with the double insurance that had to be paid in connection with the hire of dredgers. That has been changed and it has given much satisfaction. The one payment does now.
I fail to see why the Wicklow and Arklow Harbour Boards should not be able to hire a dredger on terms similar to those granted to Dun Laoghaire, which is a wealthy residential area. Special facilities should be afforded to those small harbour boards to have dredgers on more favourable terms. They are not asking for a 1,000 ton boat but a 300-ton boat is necessary to meet their requirements. I suggest that if a dredger were given to Arklow for a fortnight it would result in great benefit to the harbour. Larger boats could come in than at present. I also want to direct attention to the sum of £680 which appears in the Estimate for lights and beacons.
The arrangement was that everything under sub-head B should first be disposed of before we went on to the other subheads.
Some years ago we had a lightship on the North Arklow Bank. We made an appeal to the Irish Lights Body. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will assist us in replacing the beacon light there.
If that does not arise on sub-head B the Deputy cannot discuss it.
If the Deputy would drop me a line about it, it might save him a lot of trouble.
We have been to the Department on a couple of occasions. I will raise the matter when we come to the appropriate sub-head.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the position in regard to the Dundalk Unemployment Exchange? Is he aware that the building was destroyed by fire recently? The temporary accommodation provided is not at all suitable for the big number of clerks employed there. I have had occasion to visit the premises, and one would need to be a very hardy man to spend a few hours in them in the winter months. The temporary building has a corrugated iron roof. It is not at all suitable, and is a source of danger to the health of the staff. The Department should either proceed with the reconstruction of the building that was destroyed by fire, or find a site for the erection of a new building. Perhaps it would be better if the latter suggestion were adopted. Although Deputy Corry does not seem to have much sympathy with the erection of a new barracks for the Civic Guards I think that we should be all anxious to see the members of the force well housed. It is a force of which we are all proud. Going through the country I have observed that many of the new Civic Guard barracks present a nice and bright appearance, but in the very important town of Dundalk one finds that the principal barracks there is anything but suitable for the large number of men living in it. It is a rather old building, and I think that if the officials of the Department were directed to make an inspection of it they would not hesitate to come to the conclusion that a new barracks is necessary in Dundalk. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary's intentions are in connection with the military barracks in Dundalk. Many of the buildings there are unoccupied, and I would like to know what is to be their fate. The appeal of the Dundalk Urban Council has, I am glad to say, at last been granted, so that the married quarters in the barracks are now available as temporary accommodation for people who had been living in condemned areas on which new houses are to be erected. But other portions of the barracks are still available, and I would be glad to hear what are the intentions of the Department in regard to their disposal. There is also available a nice piece of ground there. It may be that the Department is anticipating—I hope their anticipations will be realised—an extension of the existing boot factory. Possibly the proprietors of it will take over all the available ground. If that is not so, I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what are the intentions of the Board of Works as to the remaining portion of the military barracks in their possession?
I take this opportunity of asking the Parliamentary Secretary what has become of the proposal to erect a new Gárda Síochána barracks at Wexford. Proposals have been before the Minister for Justice and the Board of Works for some years past. The conditions under which the Gárdaí are housed in Wexford are an absolute disgrace. They are housed in three different buildings, none of which is suitable for such a force. So far as I can understand, the site has been agreed upon but I do not know whether it has been purchased or not. Two years ago, I was told that the Board of Works was about to proceed with the building of a barrack but nothing was done. Great dissatisfaction exists because of this, not alone amongst the Gárdaí but amongst the people generally. The environment in which the Gárdaí are living in Wexford is not calculated to earn for them the respect which they should enjoy. I urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity of having something done to secure that the Gardáí will be properly housed in Wexford.
I should like to say how pleased I am with the very pleasant atmosphere which has now supervened and how willingly I co-operate in that regard. Deputy Tom Kelly put a question to me which he had prveiously put. On the previous occasion, he asked me not to give him any soft words of consolation.
I did not say that this time.
I quite agree with Deputy Kelly. It is customary sometimes to say soft and kind words when. perhaps, one cannot do anything. I think it is far better to be direct. The Deputy wants the Phoenix Park closed to all forms of traffic with the exception of hackney traffic. Except by legislation, there is no power to close the Phoenix Park for any considerable period. It is a public thoroughfare.
You closed it for the races.
It can be done temporarily but only for a short time. It was closed for the races and for an aeronautical display.
Under special legislation.
To close it for episodical purposes is quite different from closing it definitely to the public user in any particular way. Legislation would be necessary. Inasmuch as I have not any power to close it, I am not called upon to express any opinion as to the desirability or otherwise of the proposal. The Deputy would like the Chapel Royal to be open. He thinks that it has been neglected, that it is covered over with dust and cobwebs and filled with bundles of books. I assure him that those things do not happen under the Board of Works. The Chapel Royal is open three times a week and it has been kept in its natural, good condition.
Mr. Kelly
It is not used for public worship.
You are not royalty.
Whether it should be changed over and used for public worship is a matter of policy which it is not for the Board of Works to determine. Our business is to maintain it and keep it in good order. I admit that Henry Street Arcade does look a bit derelict, but every effort has been made to let it at a reasonable figure, having regard to its value. The general idea as regards property in the possession of the Board of Works is that, if we cannot immediately let it, it must be given away at any price offering. Frankly, that is not the policy of the Board of Works. The policy and the duty of the Board of Works, as Trustee for the country in relation to national property, is to see that the country does get the eventual and real value of the property in its possession, even if it has to keep it over for a certain time.
You are getting nothing out of it at the present time.
At the moment, portion of it is let and negotiations are in train for letting the whole of one side of it. We have every hope that, given a little patience, the property will be let at a figure advantageous to the country. Deputy Kelly raised a question as to the site for a public hall. Personally, I am far from being satisfied with the site mentioned. I say that subject to the better wisdom of those who know Dublin better than I do. I should not at all regard that site as the most suitable site. But the position is that it is urgently required for the specific purpose for which it is going to be used. Whatever is done eventually in relation to the solution of the main problem of Government offices and however desirable a solution of that kind is—and it is desirable—the provision of accommodation for the Department of Industry and Commerce cannot wait until that problem is solved. A couple of Departments urgently require accommodation —the Department of Lands, in relation to the Land Commission; the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the Department of Agriculture. We have to find them some accommodation now rather than say that, some time in the distant future, we shall find them much better accommodation. Unfortunately, we have not got any site to give and we have to use this site for this particular purpose. We believe that the user of that site and the buildings which will be placed upon it will fit into the general scheme afterwards. It is so intended.
Deputy Dillon raised the question of a general commemoration of national heroes in the form of busts and otherwise. Deputy Norton suggested that, in any scheme of that kind, a bust of Connolly should be included. I want the House to understand clearly that this provision does not pretend to bring about a complete solution of this question. The amount in the Estimate is for a specific purpose to deal with specific things which can be done now. I can assure the House that the broadest possible national consideration will be given to any scheme of a complete kind.
No suggestions of any kind were made except the suggestion that such a scheme should represent all that was really national or all that would be recognised as really national by all the people. Everything that is being done is intended to be done in that spirit. Deputy Esmonde raised the question of an airport in Merrion and referred to an article in Studies by Mr. McAteer. I went out and inspected that particular site myself. I may say that two plans for that site and two other plans in relation to other aerodrome sites are being considered by the Committee on Public Works, on which are represented all the Departments, so that there will be that coordination which Deputy Everett desires—co-ordination of intention and knowledge of all Departments and interests concerned. There is a question of policy involved in relation to airports and that is a question for the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Defence and the Department of External Affairs. Deputies can see, therefore, that it is not merely a question of our finding a particular site, ascertaining the cost and the best way of doing the work. The question as to where these airports should be placed and the effect of putting them in one place rather than another is a question of policy. After the general questions have been considered on the practical and executive side, they will have to be reconsidered along these lines. I can assure the House, however, that any practical proposal of that kind which has been put forward is being subjected to direct, practical and detailed examination.
The Deputy raised also the question of general accommodation for Government offices, and mentioned the fact that Government offices are springing up like mushrooms all over this particular area. Unfortunately that is so. A very considerable portion of the area around us here now is being studded with new Government offices. The whole question of the general accommodation of Government offices is being considered, but I think if anyone will envisage the size of that problem, and the number and diversity of the interests and necessities of the different offices and departments which have to be dealt with, he will recognise that it is not a task which can be completed immediately. It will take a considerable time to accomplish, but the House may rest assured that none of the temporary accommodation which we are now acquiring is being taken over without full advertence to the fact that eventually a larger and more cohesive scheme of accommodation will have to be worked out.
The "national idol" at the front of the building, to which the Deputy has so often called our attention, is a subject for consideration, but only in relation to the larger planning of the front. At the moment, one of our real difficulties is the extremely poor and undignified accommodation for visitors to the Dáil. It is not by any means what we should like it to be. In addition there is a fine building on each side, the National Museum and the National Library, which are crying out for more accommodation. A scheme is being considered at the moment which will combine the improvement of those two facades with the provision of proper accommodation for our guests, and the more suitable user of the front lawn for the proper parking of cars, and in other ways. The whole matter is being considered by the Oireachtas. The reason why we put down only a £10 Vote is that there are various ways of solving the problem, and we have not decided which is the best way. We are hopeful that we may possibly be in a position to come to a definite decision during the year, and are looking forward to some work in that direction.
Will the plans be available for consideration by the House before a decision is arrived at?
That is quite possible. I think the Dáil might very well like to know what is proposed to be done in the matter, and I do not see any reason why they should not. The sorting and delivery office in Pearse Street has undoubtedly been a hardy annual. It is a question for another Department, and we are waiting anxiously for the time when we will be in a position to proceed in the matter. The House may be assured that no preventable delay will take place either on the part of the Department concerned, or in our Department in carrying out their orders when available.
Deputy Norton raised a very interesting point which I should like to consider in relation to another Vote, and that is the peculiar problem of the substantial uneconomic population settled around the Curragh. In that connection 53 per cent. is a very remarkable figure, showing a special problem which has to be dealt with in some way. I do not think any of us would like to see it permanently dealt with on the basis of relief. In regard to the new married quarters in the Curragh, there have been certain changes of view, which somewhat held the matter up, but every effort will be made to expedite it. As far as the Board of Works is concerned, in most of those matters they are purely an executive. There are often questions of policy or interest of one kind or another which have to be settled by and through other Departments, before we reach a stage at which it can be decided that X building will be in a certain place and will cost a certain amount, so that we can get ahead with it. I think delays, from the point of view of the executive side, in translating into an actual building a Finance sanction to construct a building are reduced to the least possible limits in the Board of Works.
Deputy O'Sullivan raised the question of the cost and the nature of schools, and I was extremely pleased to hear what he said in that connection. It is a matter which is under very careful consideration. The old cost of schools was somewhere about £25 a place. It is necessary that that money should be as widely distributed as possible. We have got out various plans for schools. The thing was examined simply from the point of view of throwing aside all the existing conventions, in the sense of regarding nothing that had been done as being necessary in the future, simply because it had been done in the past. Various new plans of schools were got out, and as a matter of fact the cost per place has been very considerably reduced.
Arising out of two or three experimental schools of that kind built, there has been a new breath of air running through the whole design of the schools. In the matter of the schools you are between the devil and the deep sea. It is a question of how much money you are prepared to spend per place. Unfortunately the standards of other countries are much higher than ours where these countries are rich. Our business is to make the most we can of the money we have available, and that that is actively considered I can assure the Deputy. I would be very glad, indeed, if we could have the benefit of the Deputy's own expert experience in the matter. Nothing would please us better than that he should come along and look at the new standard plans and suggest any improvements. Any such co-operation would be highly valued. We should further value his active, practical co-operation in the matter. The ideas he has in mind will be met with the fullest practical effective sympathy in the Offices of the Board of Works.
Deputy Professor O'Sullivan said the Museum is overcrowded. It is. It has been largely sacrificed to the Oireachtas. That will be considerably relieved when the Vice-Regal Lodge is turned into a new Museum. But looking further forward, we envisage the Education Department as being eventually the heir to practically the whole of this block of buildings. When the larger scheme is developed, with Government offices, the feeling is that the first title to this particular site as part of a departmental system of public buildings would be the Education Department; that is to say, to this block, which is now in one form or another under the Museum, the Art Gallery, and so on. So that immediately we hope to relieve it by the development of the Vice-Regal Lodge and eventually to relieve it through the larger scheme of the provision of Government offices. As to his criticism of the disposition of the lights, the Deputy could raise that with the Minister for Education, who is generally acting in the matter. We are only carrying out his orders.
Deputy Bennett raised the question of married quarters for Customs officials on the Border. The people to decide that, as a matter of policy, are the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners. While we have nothing whatever to do with it I do know a certain amount about it, and the actual machinery of the Revenue Commissioners, their staff, and so on. I do know that married quarters are required in those particular districts.
Would it not be better to have temporary residence in a marquee?
Residences that might be moved with the Border?
I would be very glad to get rid of the Border residences. The Deputy also spoke about the residence of the High Commissioner in London. We do not own that. It is rented. We maintain it and keep it in good order. The Deputy said it might be better to buy a building of our own. I can say that the Department of Finance has carefully considered the available buildings, the prices and the possibility of providing another building. It is upon sound financial grounds that under the existing circumstances they have decided to do what they are doing. It is not an unconsidered decision or an accidental decision. It is a decision that is capable of review if the circumstances justify it. I have dealt with the question of the headquarters for the Department of Industry and Commerce. That is being built because it is imperative that that Department shall gather together its scattered forces from the four ends of the city, and get them into one building.
Deputy Moore raised the question of the Arklow Harbour. I think he knows that he does not need to say anything in favour of the Arklow Harbour to me. Arklow Harbour, Wexford Harbour, Loughshinny Harbour, Balbriggan and Buncrana Harbours I know all about. I could go through a dozen of them. They are all highly technical branches of the sand drift problem. If any of you next summer, when you are on holidays, find a stream running through sand, pick up some pieces of stone or brick and stick these in various places you will learn easily the fundamentals of the sand drift problem under the precise circumstances in which you make the experiment. By changing your bricks about in the places where there is different velocity you will be able to get an exact knowledge of what will occur in big harbour works under the same circumstances. If we were in the position of having a precise knowledge of the actual circumstances surrounding sand drift in any harbour, and the problem of dealing with harbours of this kind we would come very closely to an exact science.
The difficulty is that in practice the conditions in relation to harbours are mutable in the first place, and indeterminable in the second place. I have said that because we are up against the sand problem in regard to harbours at other places. In these harbours of Wicklow, Wexford and other places, it is a question of silting up. To illustrate: Take this chamber, for a moment, as an example of a harbour, and say you have a river running through that door where the Ceann Comhairle enters the chamber. That eventually finds its way up through the gangway, past the Independent benches in the centre. That is a normal case. Generally speaking, the tide is North and South and in a 50- year period that open channel is gradually driven more and more North until it is closed up and eventually it has to break out again. In that particular case, the suggestion is to carry the channel through artificial ways, straight through the Independent benches with the hope that that course will remain and that with the aid and assistance of the river behind it will practically dredge the channel. We have other cases where you have to send the drift along the seacoast, gradually piling up to the edge and opening of the harbour and eventually, having got past the defences, being driven into closing up the harbour. Various devices have been made at the moment in relation to Arklow, Wexford, Loughshinny, Balbriggan and Buncrana harbours; and these technical problems are receiving the closest and most highly skilled attention. I hope as a result of the enquiries and investigations which are being made that we may be in a position in relation to Arklow and other harbours either to say definitely that nothing can be done at the price which it is at all possible to envisage, or that a definite thing can be done with a reasonable probability of success. I think you may take it that the harbour engineering problem at the moment in so far as it comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Works is being given exactly that kind of consideration which a reasonable House of this kind would desire that the Department in charge of the works should give it.
Deputy Gearóid O'Sullivan raised the question of new schools for Dublin. Our function here is executive. Those representations should first be made to the Minister for Education. He would then make representations to Finance for a grant on a certain basis, and when that grant has been passed, instructions come along to us either to build the schools or to supervise the plans and building.
We have no function in providing sites. That is part of the function of the manager or the local authority that is building the school, and I want to make it perfectly clear that, not merely have we no function, but we have no right to provide sites, which are under our control, for the purpose of schools or of building houses, or for any other purpose, except at their actual value. I may say that this question arises continually. The general opinion is that any piece of property in the possession of the Board of Works, which is not actually being used at the moment, should be handed over at any price whatever that anyone chooses to offer. Unfortunately, we are in the market very often to buy sites for the purpose of Gárda Síochána barracks, schools, buildings, and what not, and we are in a position to know what, at any rate, ought to be the actual value or site value of property. All I can tell the House is that the offers that are made to the Board of Works for property in their possession bear no relation of any kind, sort or description to these values.
We have the case of Hoey's Court which was raised by Deputy Fionán Lynch. The suggestion is that, while it is necessary and desirable—and it is necessary and desirable—to build a school in a certain portion of Dublin, the Board of Works is in possession of a site which they will not give for one-third of what their professional valuers estimate it to be worth. The position, quite simply, is this. The State subsidises a particular school to the extent of providing two-thirds of the total cost of building, just in the same way as it subsidises houses in a particular area to the extent of two-thirds, or whatever it is, of whatever is the cost of the building of the houses. What the State has not done is to authorise the Board of Works further to subsidise either these schools or houses. The Dáil is supposed to know what it meant to have done when it arranged the subsidy, and until it gives the Board of Works authority and direction to subsidise activities, such as housing and school building, by the selling or handing over of Government property at less than what our valuers estimate to be the value, we have no right to do so.
Who determines finally the suitability of a site for a school? Is it the Minister for Education, or the Manager.
The responsibility for providing a site rests on the Manager, and the responsibility of approving of that site would, in an educational sense, rest with the Education Department, but in the sense of building and construction it would be decided by the educational authority using us as technical agents in the matter. It is actually a matter of conference.
The parish in this case is very small and their resources are very meagre.
I am not questioning that, but the fact remains that the State has not authorised the Board of Works specifically to subsidise either housing or school building by handing over property at a value other than its actual value.
What Department would represent the State in that case?
That, I think, is a conundrum and not a Parliamentary Question.
Whatever it is, all we want is to get it solved.
With regard to schools, in towns especially, there is very great difficulty in getting sites. I have been amazed at the difficulty in getting sites in urban and rural areas in which there seem to be thousands of acres of land. We have one particular case where we are trying at the moment to find some 20 or 30 sites for a particular purpose. We have been at it for months and it would break your heart to realise the difficulties and to realise the amazing value and indispensability factor which seems to attach to any site of any kind or description in any place as soon as it is wanted for a public purpose. Deputy Curran suggested that we should put central heating in schools. I can only say that in small schools it would not be a practicable financial proposition. There again, I am speaking subject to correction. If the Deputy will come along and have a look at a plan with me I shall be glad to help him. I mean that absolutely. Of course, I realise that it does not follow that the technical man sees everything in relation to a plan. As a matter of fact, nearly every radical improvement that has been made in any trade, industry or art in the world, has been made by an outsider—by someone who has not known enough about the convention to be bound by it. If Deputy Curran can give us his ideas we shall be happy to consider them.
Or submit a plan?
Yes, we would be charmed to have it, and I can assure the Deputy that I mean that. If the Deputy can produce a solution which would be practicable, I and the Department and the State will be indebted. However, except in the case of large schools, we have not found a solution of the problem up to the present. At any rate, the question of accommodation and so on is, again, for the local managers and the local authorities. For instance, the local manager can come along and say to us that he wants a school of a particular kind. We find that the cost of that school is, say, £35 per head of the children. In that particular case, the function of the Board of Works architect would be to go over that scheme and say that that is an accommodation in excess of State requirements and that the contribution of the State will be made on the basis of, say, two-thirds of the cost of a school which would be up to State requirements. For instance, if you have a school where space for a cinema is being provided or something like that, or, say, special rubber floorings, these are not contributed to by the State on the basis of two-thirds. In such a case the State will say: "If you want to do that, the extra cost will have to be borne by yourself." Last year we spent over £120,000 on the grant side of schools, and this year we have about £200,000 to spend, but our business is to stretch that cloth to fit as much of the bare back as possible and to deal with the rest as and when opportunity arises.
Deputy Corry objected to expenditure on Civic Guard barracks, and suggested that that money should be spent on housing. The effect of that argument is that the whole of sub-head B should be cancelled and spent on housing. One suggestion is as logical as the other, and if I were to do that, I am sure that Deputy Corry would be one of the first to get up and point out specific things that he thought should have been done for his constituency instead of having them done in someone else's constituency. With regard to County Wexford Gárda barracks, that, again, is a problem, and I think that Deputy Esmonde knows the difficulties. I can give him the assurance, however, that everything humanly possible will be done to remedy the matter. I can assure him that I shall go into it personally myself.
There is one question I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary. I take it that under sub-head B the erection of halls for Sluaighthe will be provided for. The reason I ask is that a list appeared in the Press recently of the towns in which it is proposed to build halls and I should like to know if the town of Ballaghaderreen was correctly included in that list. It may not be convenient for the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that question out of hand, but perhaps he would be kind enough to send me a note saying whether or not Ballaghaderreen was included in the list.
I saw that list in the paper but I did not actually read it. I shall look up the information which the Deputy wants and let him know. There are a lot of questions that Deputies want to know about when the debate is over, or when some sub-heads have gone through and they have not been in time to raise them when the particular Votes were on. The most direct, convenient and effective way for Deputies themselves is to drop a note to me and, if they do that every information possible will be given to them.
Mr. Lynch
As to SS. Michael and John's School, do I gather that the Government is precluded from contributing more than two-thirds towards the building of any school? If that is so, I am surprised.
That is not so, but whatever contribution they make is made direct, and not in the form of a grant from the Office of Works. That is the difficulty.
Mr. Lynch
Would the Parliamentary Secretary meet the situation that arises there by increasing the two-thirds grant towards the building of the school to bring it up to such an amount as would cover the capitalising of the rent he intends to charge for the use of the site? If you are precluded from handing over the site to the management except at a rent which is very high, then will you increase the two-thirds grant accordingly?
The Deputy is under a misunderstanding. The grant is made by the Minister for Finance on the recommendation of the Department of Education, and it is to that Minister the Deputy should put that question. However, I shall discuss the matter with the Minister for Finance and let the Deputy know about it later.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say when the labour exchange in Dundalk will be reconstructed?
I could not tell the Deputy off-hand, but I shall communicate with him in the matter.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us some more detailed information regarding the cost of maintenance of what is now described as the ex-Viceregal Lodge? The amount provided this year is £4,191, an increase of between £260 and £270 over last year. There is a sum of £3,861 under the head of maintenance and supplies. It seems to me, even for a building like the Viceregal Lodge, that that is a very large amount of money. We ought to be told what the Government's intentions are with regard to this building and whether we are to go on from year to year voting over £4,000 for the maintenance of what I am sure the Minister for Finance would describe as a white elephant, along with providing another establishment for the Governor-General. Has the Office of Public Works considered putting this building to other uses, and if so, is there any prospect that it may be utilised during the coming year; or is the whole of this sum of over £4,000 to be met by the taxpayers? Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us some idea as to how the money is expended on what I take it is an empty building?
The intention is, as the Deputy is aware, to convert that into a folklore museum. A good deal of this expenditure will not now take place having regard to the fact that we are changing it over to that purpose. The expenditure includes the upkeep of the gardens, greenhouses, etc.
I am very glad it is going to be utilised for something. There is another matter as to which I should like to get some information. I see here a sum of £2,416 for the U.S.A. Legation. Is the State responsible for the maintenance of that building and the gardens attached and, if so, do we bear the whole cost, or is any sum paid by the American Government? It seems to be a very substantial sum.
We receive a very considerable rent—£1,200 per year.
That is not set out in the Estimate, as far as I can find out. Therefore, we have to ask a question in order to get the matter elucidated. There is also another matter which I wish to raise, under the heading of Broadcasting Stations and Studios. I do not know whether it is due to a structural defect or not, but at times, during the broadcast from Athlone, particularly during the announcement of the news items, there is a good deal of interruption and what I might describe, for want of a better word, as outside noises creeping in. If there is a statement being made by way of news or if there is a lecture, there seems to be a lot of bashing going on and people laughing and talking. Whether that is due to a defect in the structure or to the fact that doors are not sound-proof I do not know, but it is most irritating. As usually happens in cases like that, the noise becomes more intensified at the very important part of the statement being made. I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us something on that matter.
I certainly would be astonished to hear that the noises were as irritating as the methods of the Deputy were ingenious in raising the point. I think the Deputy is pretty well satisfied that the structure has nothing whatever to do with it. At any rate, I am prepared to gamble on that.
I have never been in one of the studios and I do not know.
I do not think that anything that comes under the Vote for the Office of Works is responsible for these noises.
There are two minor points in the sub-heads worthy of consideration. One is with reference to the provision made for maintenance of the Oireachtas. I do not know if the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary has been called to the fact that the provision of outside lines on the telephone board seems recently to be inadequate. One finds repeatedly when trying to put through a call from the House to a number in the city that no line is available. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will cause inquiries to be made with a view to ascertaining if the present accommodation is adequate. I want also to draw attention to a matter which was referred to last year and the year before, the heating facilities. As I understand all the heating is provided through a system of boilers situate, strangely enough, under the dining-room. The atmosphere of this chamber is sometimes rather disagreeable. We all know that the ventilation of apartments of this character is extremely difficult, and even with the best scientific skill it is often a problem to get the air into a perfect condition. Nevertheless, the atmosphere here is extremely unsatisfactory. Allowing for that difficulty in respect of such an apartment as we are at present sitting in, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the problem is very much aggravated in the dining-room, and that during certain parts of the year it is practically impossible to use the dining-room. I do not know whether the expense of insulating the floor of the dining-room or removing the boiler to some other place would be excessive, but if that course would involve prohibitive expense, I submit that the Parliamentary Secretary will be driven back to consideration of the question of removing the dining-room. I put it to him seriously on more than one occasion that it is worth considering whether the dining-room should not be transferred from the premises at present occupied to the Fianna Fáil Party's Committee Rooms, and that provision for them might be made elsewhere, as was made for the Opposition.
There would be a very material additional advantage in having the diningrooms opening on to Leinster Lawn, where abundant ventilation and very pleasant amenities would be available, not only for Deputies, but for any guests that might come to the House during the summer session. There might be a reproduction of what is available in the British House of Commons, such as there is on the continent and in the United States, and a terrace for an Assembly of this character. When there is a place attached to the Oireachtas as beautiful as Leinster Lawn, why not use it? I am informed by persons competent to judge that one of the difficulties about the dining-room is that there is a concrete floor underneath, that it is liable to become heated, and to reflect the heat through the floor. However, that is a problem which the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain whether my proposal would provide a solution worthy of consideration.
May I remind the Parliamentary Secretary about the accommodation at the gate of Leinster House? Visitors have to spend a considerable period in the waiting-room, while Deputies are being communicated with. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the accommodation available there is little short of scandalous. I imagine that Deputies on all sides would be very anxious to have an improvement effected, both for the reputation of the House and for the convenience of visitors. A comparatively trivial sum would make adequate provision there, and I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with it in the course of this financial year.
One of the tragedies of life is that Deputies do not always sit in the House to listen to everything I say. The Deputy will be surprised, if he looks at the portion of the debate for which he was not here, to find that I dealt with the specific points he has raised. There are some architectural outrages already on this building. I am not alluding to the idols, but to other things which possibly we would like to see removed. We have not been able to find any simple or cheap solution. The token Vote of £10 for the improvements at the entrance envisages all that, and I will be very glad to show the Deputy that we are considering three or four different methods. It has not yet been decided how it will be done. He may take it that the question is under consideration. I absolutely endorse what the Deputy said, that the accommodation for visitors is undignified and inhospitable. As far as ventilation and the heating are concerned, his proposals will receive consideration. At present the plans we have worked out for better ventilation are costly. I do not like to envisage the removal of the dining-room, because we know the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation. To carry the Deputy's proposition a little further, I do not know if he would agree to move the dining-room to the salubrious quarters occupied by the Opposition. I do not know if the Deputy envisages that we should move the Opposition into the rather moist and heated atmosphere of the dining-room, or that the Government should take the present rather excellent accommodation provided for the Opposition. If the Deputy will come and have a look at the plans he will find that it is very difficult to make a big shift of that kind. All I can say is that the matter will be considered. The fact that it is a drastic proposal appeals to me, inasmuch as I would give it more consideration than is sometimes given to these things.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary look into the telephone question?
I do not think that concerns our Department but I will see to it.
On sub-head I, can the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House what it refers to beyond what is given in the explanatory note? The note says that it is provision for payment of the estimated amount of the debit balance on the Linen Hall account in the financial year. The Linen Hall account is something the nature of which I do not recollect.
The old Linen Hall was certain property which was vested in the Commissioners of Public Works by the Linen and Yarn Hall (Dublin) Act of 1878. The Linen Hall building was occupied as a military barracks but was destroyed by fire in 1916. The annual head rent payable to the State amounts to £146. The property is now sub-let to the Dublin Corporation and to two other lessees. The provision of £10 is required to make good a possible deficit on rents receivable over rents payable.
On sub-head J, I want to raise a matter in connection with the calculation of interest and the amounts spent on drainage. I raised this matter yesterday and, as a matter of fact, I mentioned that, properly speaking, it should be raised on the Accounts Branch of No. 10. However, it was agreed that it would be taken.
We will not object.
Some time ago, I raised the matter in this House and I endeavoured to raise it in a strictly non-Party manner, but I am afraid that on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to accept it in that light. I raise it in the very same way to-day and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will endeavour to deal with it in that way. There is really no Party spirit in the matter at all. I merely want to know the rights of the situation. It is in connection with a sum of money which was spent by the Board of Works a good many years ago, but which only came up last year by way of a charging order. It was spent on the restoration of the River Suck as far back as 1927 and 1928 and, I think, some of the early days of 1929. It was an expenditure of £18,825 on the drainage of the River Suck. Thirty per cent. of that was to be a free grant and the remainder was to be paid by the drainage ratepayers of the district. The allocation on that basis, according to the Board of Works, was £13,179 by the ratepayers and £5,600 odd by the Government. The work was carried out principally in the years 1927 and 1928, but a period of years elapsed between the carrying out of the work and the making out of the charging order. The first thing the Board of Works did in making out the charging order was to charge interest for the years intervening between the completion of the work and the making out of the charging order.
The interest charged upon £13,000 amounted to £4,500, which brought the amount payable by the ratepayers of that district to £17,688. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary will say that the law, as it stands, compels him to charge up to somebody the interest accruing on moneys expended in this way, but I submit that it is manifestly unfair to the people concerned that they should have the amount of interest piled up against them as has been done in this case. It does not help to lessen the number of years for which they will have to pay this money. It has added a burden of £4,500 to their already overburdened backs. It has increased their obligations by practically 35 per cent. If that was an ordinary individual transaction, I do not think it could stand the test of a court action. If I say to somebody, "I am lending you £100, to be paid back to me in ten half-yearly instalments, covering a period of five years," that will become payable as soon as I make out the account for it; but if I delay making out that account for five years and charge the man interest on the full amount for the five years, he has to pay as if there had not been any intervening period. That is what has happened here. I should like to know whether this is an isolated instance or whether it is the policy and practice of the Board of Works to charge up interest in this manner.
In every case.
Then I say it is manifestly unfair.
In every case under that Act.
If somebody has to suffer, I do not think it is fair that the ratepayers should be made suffer. Let us say that the Drainage Board was at fault; let us say the county councils were at fault; let us say the Board of Works was at fault in not preparing the charging order and submitting it immediately the work was done, but, surely the ratepayers were not at fault. It is their funeral but the position is not of their making. The position in this case is that the burden on those people has been increased by practically 35 per cent. of the original burden and there does not seem to be any redress. If that is the law, it is manifestly unfair and unjust. I do not want, and I did not want on any other occasion, to make any political capital whatever out of it, but I think those people are being very unfairly treated. If that is the practice, I suggest that something ought to be done to end that practice.
On this question of drainage, I do not want to make any adverse comments with regard to the expenditure of the money by the Board of Works. They have carried out very many excellent works in the country but I should like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I think I made the suggestion on another occasion, that the expenditure of money on drainage in very many cases could be more advantageously spread out than it is under these major schemes. I made the suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary on another Vote—I do not think I was quite in order—that an extension of the principle of minor drainage schemes would bring about a much more economic system of drainage. I have had the opportunity of observing the working of that scheme in my own county and if one compares it with the work done under the major schemes, one is inevitably driven to the conclusion that the amount of work done under the minor drainage schemes for the same expenditure of money does not bear any comparison.
The Parliamentary Secretary, I know, is very much interested in this question and he is very helpful in the many cases in which these matters are brought up. I should like him to examine the question of whether it would be possible—it would require legislation, perhaps—to extend the amount of money lent in respect of minor drainage schemes from £1,000 to £2,000 or £3,000, with, perhaps, a differentiation in the present free grant. I believe that much more work would be done in the various counties by capable county surveyors. I have in mind two or three different schemes in my own county. We got money in respect of one particular scheme near my own home. It was originally thought out under the British régime and I think they gave us £8,000 or £9,000. At the beginning of the European War that fell through. An attempt was made by some of us, occupiers on the banks of the river, to reopen the question with the Free State Government and get the matter started on the new. We found that the amount estimated was between £11,000 and £17,000, so it was abandoned for the time being. Subsequently, on the introduction of the Minor Drainage Schemes Act, we put in a petition for the drainage and reconstruction of a certain portion of the river which was supposed to be on the major scheme. To cut a long story short, our county surveyor, who is a very capable man, undertook the scheme, which turned out to be a very great success. The Parliamentary Secretary can satisfy himself that at least one-third of the work originally provided for under the major scheme at a cost of at least £13,000 or £14,000 has been accomplished very satisfactorily by our county surveyor at a very reasonable figure.
What is the name of that scheme?
The minor Camoge drainage scheme. There was, some years ago, on the same river, a similar scheme — a reconstruction scheme — carried out by the Public Works Department. It ran adjacent, and almost met our scheme, and I think the Minister will be satisfied that the work done by our county surveyor will bear very favourable comparison with it. There are many advantages in the minor schemes that enable the county surveyors to do the work cheaply and to avoid expenses which would be incurred by having the work done from Dublin. Our county surveyors are able to take advantage of stones and other materials excavated that the Department would not be able to do. Under another scheme there was a great amount of excavation of stones, and these stones were laid along the road for people to take away. With the present scheme the plan is different, and, therefore, I say that an extension of such a plan would be a very great advantage. The county surveyors under such plans are able to use the stones repairing the roads. In this scheme that I have mentioned £500 or £600 were saved by, amongst other things, the sale of stones excavated for use on the public roads.
I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should bring in some legislation that would extend the operation of these minor schemes so that at least double the amount could be granted to bring it up to £1,000 or £2,000. I believe that many of the major schemes could be economically carried out and well done under the various county surveyors in the country.
The burden of my complaint against the Parliamentary Secretary, in regard to the charging order for the River Suck Drainage scheme, lies in the fact that the Board of Works held up the charging order so long after the work was completed. The Parliamentary Secretary on a previous occasion, in volume 55 of the Official Reports of the 27th of February, column 169, said as follows:—
"Assume for a moment that we had been in a position to obey the law and hand over the drainage district immediately it was finished. Then the Roscommon County Council and the other county council would have come immediately under the obligation of paying in the form of annuities all that has now accumulated in the way of interest."
That is manifestly incorrect.
The word "law" is incorrect. Otherwise it is correct.
That charging order was made three or four years ago, and if sent down would have been directed towards the payment of current interest and reduction of principal. The interest would not have been accumulating and the people would be discharging the burden of indebtedness, and would have three years of the operation of that discharge done, by the time that the charging order was, in fact, made. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is on his defence to explain why the charging order was not made more promptly, and to explain why interest was allowed to be piled up, which eventually had to be added to the principal sum over that period. I am quite clear that had it not been allowed to accumulate it would have been defrayed annually out of the drainage rate collected for the benefit of the ratepayers. The Parliamentary Secretary must know well where there is delay of that kind, the promptitude with which the drainage rate is collected, and the care exercised to keep the whole thing running is liable to lag. The result is that the moneys did not accumulate to meet the added charge and, while theoretically the extra burden should not be very great it was bound to some extent, and in fact, did increase.
We will agree there was a small discrepancy between us—a few shillings one way or the other.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the statement he made and that I have quoted was not strictly accurate? Will he also agree that any grievance that accrued to the local authorities is due to the failure of his Department to make the charging order as early as he might?
No.
My contention is that there was inconvenience due to the course taken by the Parliamentary Secretary and I think that steps should be taken to mitigate the inconvenience. At the same time I think we ought to hear that in future when works that require a Charging Order are completed there should be no undue delay in preparing the Charging Order and issuing it through the responsible authorities.
I am very pleased that we are discussing the matter of the River Suck in the atmosphere which is now prevailing. So far Deputy Brennan has suggested that there is no Party issue in the matter. The Deputy will recognise that on Votes of this kind, as far as I am concerned, no Party issue is assumed unless it is made evident. I am quite prepared to discuss the River Suck on the basis that it is a common problem of which we want to find the solution. The first thing to remember is that there was an Act passed, and that it was handed over to the Board of Works as an obligation. Everything that was done by the Board of Works was done in strict accordance with that Act. Every charge that was made was made in accordance with that Act. Apart from the question, which we may leave for the moment, as to whether there was any culpable delay on the part of the Board of Works, everything that happened was inevitable. That, Deputies may take, as a definite statement of fact. Apart from the open question as to whether there was any culpable delay in framing the charging order everything that happened was inevitable under the Act. Now, as to the question of culpable delay. I have always felt that in relation to the time that elapsed between the completion in the year 1929—not 1928—and the time that we were in a position first to present that charging order there was a delay. I assume a delay of some three or four months. I have been over the files very carefully, step by step, and I say there was delay. But the Board of Works at that time was overstaffed and for that reason there was delay.
The Parliamentary Secretary said the Board was "over-staffed." Does he not mean under-staffed?
It was not adequately staffed.
Then it was understaffed.
It was not adequately staffed from the point of view of providing for particular charging orders in the most expeditiously possible manner. I am prepared to state there was a time element, but apart from that time element everything else was inevitable. I regard the time of delay for which the Board of Works was responsible as some months. When I first had to deal with it, considering that there might be accumulating interests I said: "Yes, we are now in a position to present you with a charging order. We will send you down that charging order and, at your desire, we will not enforce it until we see what can be done." That was done at the request of those who are now complaining.
That was after a year.
In 1932, I think, and from 1932 to 1934 it was hanging on at your request.
That was three years after the work was completed.
Yes. And it is only in relation to the excess period that the Deputy can possibly have any grievance.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary say there is a statutory period between the finishing of the work and the preparation of the schedule?
No, there is nothing in the Act that will help the Deputy's case even if there was delay. Still under the Act he is liable for all that has occurred. The only delay was what I have indicated.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say will he take long to finish the matter of the drainage of the River Suck?
I think the drainage of the Suck is regarded, at the moment, as entirely satisfactory by the two county councils. As to the other matters in the Vote we can deal with them later.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again on May the 1st, 1935.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. Wednesday, May 1st, 1935.