Vol. 101 No. 4
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £113,400 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1947, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 33, sees. 5 and 6; 5 & 6 Vict., c. 89, sees. 1 and 2; 9 & 10 Vict., c. 86, sees. 2, 7 and 9; etc.).
It is usual to discuss Votes 9 and 10 together—and sometimes Vote 11 also.
As you have indicated, it has been the practice to take these three Votes together and I am following this year on the same lines.
Vote 9 bears the salaries and expenses of the administrative, executive and technical staffs of the Office of Public Works, which is the office responsible for the administration of Votes 10 and 11. Vote 10 provides the necessary funds for the purchase of sites and buildings, for the erection, maintenance and furnishing of the Government offices and other State-owned premises throughout the country, for the erection and improvement of national schools, for the erection of major military buildings, for arterial drainage, for the maintenance of State-owned parks and State harbours, and for a number of minor-activities. Vote 11 is a small Vote, providing for the expenses of management of Haulbowline Island in so far as the island remains in civilian control.
Vote 9.—There is an increase of £16,280 in the Estimate for the Office of Public Works. This is due mainly to the payment of increased emergency bonus to civil servants and to the recruitment of additional staff for the architectural and engineering branches. The additional architectural staff is required to replace officers seconded to the Department of Industry and Commerce for airports work and to undertake an increased programme of schools survey work; the additional engineering staff is necessary for arterial drainage.
It will be noted that a new sub-head —CC—appears in the Estimate for this year. The Government has decided to proceed with the development of the Rotunda Gardens site, which was acquired with a view to its conversion into a Garden of Remembrance dedicated to the memory of those who gave their lives for Irish freedom. The cost of the work will be borne on Vote 10; on Vote 9 will be borne incidental expenses as set out in Part III of the Estimate.
Vote 10.—The Estimate for Public Works and Buildings at £980,900 shows an increase of £129,327 on the Vote for 1945-46. The main increases are in the New Works, Maintenance and Drainage sub-heads. The amount voted for sub-head B—New Works, Alterations and Additions—for 1945-46 was £390,000. The expenditure was £280,000, approximately. Supplies of steel, timber, heating and electrical equipment essential for our building works were still restricted. The amount provided for 1946-47 is £500,000, which is an increase of £110,000 on the 1945-46 Vote. We have found it necessary to put forward a number of new items and to provide for the carrying out of others which have had to be postponed during the emergency. Particulars of these items will be found in Part III of the Estimate. We are hoping that there will be sufficient improvement in the supply position during the year to enable us to carry out our programme.
We are again providing £250,000 for grants for building and improving national schools. Expenditure on this service in 1945-46 was £176,000 approximately, which is £50,000 approximately less than the expenditure in the previous year. This was due mainly to the difficulty of placing contracts owing to the unsatisfactory supply position.
Maintenance.—Expenditure under this sub-head in recent years has exceeded the provisions and in view of the high costs of materials and labour still prevailing we consider it necessary to increase the provision for 1946-47 to £240,000.
Drainage.—Provision for expenditure on comprehensive drainage schemes under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, is not made in the Estimate. If we are satisfied later that a start on drainage works will be possible and desirable, provision for the expenditure involved will be made by way of Supplementary Estimate. We are providing for the purchase of four new excavating machines which are at present on order and of which delivery is expected by the end of this summer, and provision is also made as in previous years for the reconditioning of our existing drainage plant.
Vote 11.—The Vote for Hawlbowline Dockyard is in the usual form and calls for no special comment.
I would like to say a few words on the absence of any provision for arterial drainage and would like to preface my remarks by pointing out that there has been a good deal of controversy here about wages and incomes. We should bear in mind always, in the provision of works for employment purposes, that we all live out of the national income and can only take out of the national pool what we put into it. If the people engaged on unproductive works have to be borne by the rest of the community, that is a dead weight on the rest of the community. I was anxious to hear a reference by the Parliamentary Secretary to the anxiety of his office to provide, as far as possible, works of an improvement nature. That is a very important aspect of this whole problem, as otherwise the attempts are only palliatives.
I hope the danger of having another debate on wages will not arise.
I am being very brief in that reference and just relating it to the problem. Here is a very wide field open to the Parliamentary Secretary to employ a very considerable number of men and I cannot understand the very great delay in implementing the Arterial Drainage Act. We had a very elaborate programme and a good deal of detailed information in the House when the Bill was under discussion; but while certain provision has been made in the last couple of years for preparatory work, no attempt at all has been made to launch out on a big scheme of arterial drainage. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us now that an order has been placed for four big machines and I see that a sum of £18,000 is provided for that purpose. For maintenance of machinery there is a sum of £3,000 and there is a very big increase in the sum for surveys—there was £4,800 last year and this year it is £8,000. I can understand the necessity for buying modern machinery, but were we absolutely derelict of machinery? Was the Office of Public Works, so far as equipment is concerned, not in a position to proceed with drainage of any sort for the last two or three years, when we were asked to provide a token Vote of £10, as occurs again this year? Notwithstanding those orders placed for machinery and equipment, judging by the recent year's provision under sub-head J. (7), a considerable amount of preparatory survey work must have been undertaken and completed by now. I cannot see why some real effort has not been made to attack this problem, of which there are several aspects.
There are large tracts of land which, if drained and surveyed, have considerable potential wealth for this country and it is to be deeply regretted that years of neglect have passed and nothing has been done about them. Again, there are many towns all over the country inundated with water maybe two or three times every winter. We are passing a Public Health Bill here and I am often impressed, in some of the towns I know, by the shocking condition of the unfortunate people forced to live in houses where that inundation occurs. It is not merely the inconvenience and hardship they suffer during the flooding period, but the condition that is left afterwards—the damp and the slime, the dirt and the mud, and the possibility of tuberculosis and other diseases making headway.
These are very important considerations, and I am certainly justified in saying that this House is entitled very severely to criticise the responsible Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary acting for the Minister, when no attempt has been made to make a start. I think there is no excuse. It is regrettable if we find ourselves in the position that we have not the equipment or the machinery to proceed with work of this character. It is odious to make comparisons, but we see what Great Britain has done in the way of arterial drainage, and drainage generally, as well as the amount of reclamation that has been carried out. We hear that little or no reclamation can be carried out here over large areas until the arteries are opened up and properly drained. I regret that no steps have been taken under the Act about which the Parliamentary Secretary was so very enthusiastic when it was passing through the House. The Act was given a good deal of thought, and it was believed that there was going to be a very big national scheme. If we had a number of gauges to measure water flow taken, and preliminary work done on a few rivers we could be going ahead. Why are we asked to provide an extra £1,000 for that purpose in the sub-head? Are we in the position that we have to wait for a few machines before we can do anything? I do not believe that is so. I think we could be starting and doing a considerable amount before the machines are delivered. I have no doubt the machines will be a great asset in the work, but bearing in mind the shocking conditions, and the number of people who have made representations to Deputies from constituencies where flooding occurs, it is very hard to find an excuse for the fact that no effort has been made to tackle the problem. There is an increase in the Estimate for new works and buildings and the Parliamentary Secretary has informed the House of the difficulty of substantially increasing provision for that purpose because of the difficulty of securing raw materials. I appreciate that difficulty. All the advice I can offer is that, so far as the provision of schools and public buildings is concerned, all possible preparation should be made in the way of completing plans and preparatory work.
I notice on page 40 that there is provision for the erection of an official residence under the heading of the President's Establishment. I am wondering what that means. Does it mean that we are going to provide a new residence for the President? Is Árus an Uachtaráin not sufficient for that purpose? I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what is the intention behind that item. A sum of £16,000 is to be spent this year on that establishment and £2,000 was spent last year, out of a total estimate for work there of £40,000. It is rather extraordinary to spend a substantial sum like that if the intention is to provide a new residence later. There is a considerable list of works in the Estimate dealing with barracks and schools. Some of these items have appeared more than once. I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary has the legitimate excuse that it was impossible to get raw materials. The only thing that could be done was to have preparations made in case raw materials are got at an early date. When replying I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give some real excuse for not making a start under the Arterial Drainage Act.
I join with Deputy Hughes in pressing the Parliamentary Secretary for a little more information in connection with the operation of the Arterial Drainage Act, and to tell us when he hopes that work will start on some major schemes already approved of. Can he say when the necessary machinery is likely to be secured, and following the delivery of the machinery, when a commencement will be made on drainage schemes like those on the Barrow River? I understand that scheme has been approved of. One of the county councils in my constituency was informed to that effect some time ago. I should like to know when that work is likely to commence. I am not certain as to what extent the Department is responsible for seeing that local drainage boards, including the Barrow Drainage Board, carry out their duties regarding maintenance work which has got into arrears. Very useful schemes were carried out in recent years. If the Department is the supervising authority I wish it would look into the position, to see that boards responsible for maintenance work do not allow it to get into arrears.
I notice in the Estimate that there is a reduction in the amount set aside for turf during the coming year. Last year the cost of fuel, light, water and cleaning was £103,960 and this year there is a round figure of £100,000, showing a decrease of £3,960. Does the Parliamentary Secretary hope, as far as cost of fuel in Government Departments is concerned, that it will be reduced in the coming year, and that they will get the benefit of the reduction of 10/- per ton in the price of turf? Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House the average price paid for the turf covered by the sub-head during the year, and whether the necessary quantity was secured by inviting public tenders? Is that the practice? It will be interesting to know whether this particular sub-head will receive the benefit of the 10/- reduction in the price of fuel this year compared with last year.
Ba mhaith liom tagairt do dhá rud a bhaineann leis an meastachán so. The question of the erection of schools is a most difficult one, because there are two, if not more, Departments involved. I do not know whether it could be contended that the Office of Public Works is responsible for the delays that occur between the initiation of a scheme for the repair of a school or the erection of a new building, and the time when the work is put in hand.
A good proportion of the delay is due to the Office of Public Works.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in connection with the erection of new schools and the repair of old ones, if any plan could be devised for accelerating the operations which take place between the time a proposal comes before the staffs in the Department and the time the work is put in hands. I know a case that has been going on for years, and no conclusion has yet been reached about it. I know of another case in the County of Limerick in connection with the erection of new schools. I admit that in that case there were difficulties about the site and the title to the site. A search had been made for documents and these had to be examined. Apart from that, there were difficulties about the plans. Changes were made in them, and there were alterations of various kinds. There was a difficulty in getting the Department to come to a conclusion and in getting the work under way.
I would also like to know how contractors for these works are selected. Is there a list of approved contractors in the Office of Public Works? Are proposals from contractors who are not in that list considered? I heard of some instances, in connection with contractors who carried out work on school buildings, that after a few years their work did not turn out to be satisfactory. Has the Department any system of inspecting work for a few years after it has been completed in order to find out if there are any flaws in it, and if these flaws are due to bad work on the part of contractors? A large sum of public money is expended on the erection of school buildings. It is very important, therefore, that the occasion for spending more money on them should not arise soon after their completion.
I notice there is an increase in the allocation provided for dredging operations in the case of fishery harbours. The increase is substantial compared with the amount voted last year. I want to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary a long-standing grievance in connection with Arklow harbour. The fact that there is continuous silting there tends to make the harbour unsuitable for any type of shipping, and particularly so for fishing. Arklow is a very important fishery harbour. I think this is one of the first works that should be taken in hands in view of the recent increased allocation.
In the case of my own constituency, I see that rather indefinite provision is made for the erection of a Gárda barracks at Baltinglass. There is only a token Estimate, but I would strongly urge on the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity for proceeding with that work. The present station is a private house which has been rented for some years. It is a rather old building and is unsuitable for the purposes of a Gárda station. I think it should be possible to provide a suitable site, and that there should be no delay in going ahead with the work.
I often wonder, in connection with the provision of public money for the improvement and renovation of this House, if it would not be possible to provide some money for the improvement of the statue at the Kildare Street entrance to this House. I think the statue is somewhat out of date. I have a feeling which I think would recommend itself even to a frugal-minded person, that if a little public money was expended on the renovation of that good lady, if a little beauty treatment was provided and she were re-christened Mother Ireland——
Put her in modern dress.
Possibly, there could be a little modernisation although I do not know that artists and poets recommend modern dress for Mother Ireland. At any rate, I think it should be possible to bring her more into line with our ideas.
She was no friend of Ireland. She gave £15 for starving Ireland in the Famine years.
We ought to forget these things now. The suggestion which I have made is one which, I think, would recommend itself to a frugal-minded person who wants to make the best use of anything that is in existence, and who does not seek to destroy completely anything which is of long-standing.
My view in connection with this parliamentary building is that I do not think it ought to be scrapped. It is true that it is an old building, but I think it should be well able to serve its purpose for a good many more years, possibly with the aid of a little beauty treatment and renovation. I follow the same line in regard to the Presidential establishment—the President's residence. I do not think there is any occasion for the erection of a new building. I think that the building which at present houses the President is very substantial and quite adequate for the purpose. It is beautifully situated and I think entirely desirable. Hence, I do not see any reason why public money should be expended on the erection of a new building, particularly when there are so many other purposes to which public money could be applied, purposes for which it is urgently needed.
The erection of suitable school buildings in our rural areas comes under this Vote. It is probably true that there is an equally urgent need for their erection in urban and city areas. In that connection, I am not certain if it is the function of the Parliamentary Secretary to decide and determine the contribution which local areas have to make for the provision of new schools. I know there are some very poor parishes and districts where it is very difficult to raise the one-third of the cost which a local area is called upon to pay for the provision of a new school.
I think that is a matter for the Minister for Education. Apart from drainage, I do not think there is direct responsibility for any other activity on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. They act as agents for other Departments.
At any rate, so far as this Parliamentary Secretary's proportion of the work is concerned, I hope it will be expedited. In many of the rural areas of Wicklow we have some very antiquated and very unsuitable school buildings. The difficulty, of course, is that not only have we poor and inadequate buildings, but also we have a very small attendance in many of the rural areas, owing to the sparse population. That might create a problem, possibly, in regard to the financing of new buildings, but the need is very urgent and I am sure the demand for expedition with regard to the erection of new buildings will have the Parliamentary Secretary's wholehearted support.
There is one item in this Vote that concerns the provision of a Garden of Remembrance at Parnell Square. This proposal has been subjected to a considerable amount of criticism on the ground that the space available is inadequate. In view of the fact that Parnell Square is central, and in view of the associations of this Square with Easter Week, I think it is not an unsuitable location. It was rather unfortunate that a building was erected recently on that site—a nurses' home— but, notwithstanding that, I think the site, if put in charge of a competent architect, or whoever it is will design such an undertaking, will prove satisfactory and not only can it be made a suitable monument to those who sacrificed their lives for this country, but it can also be an added attraction to our city. It will add beauty to the centre of our city. I do not think that the criticism that has been launched against this proposal is entirely justified. While the site may be small, there is no doubt that if used to the best advantage it can provide a very beautiful Garden of Remembrance.
There are several small rivers that flow from the Galtee and Knockmeal down Mountains and they cause a considerable amount of flooding. I have a feeling that the Chair will endeavour to bar my toss by saying that this has reference to forestry, but the Forestry Department disclaim all responsibility for it. One of the rivers is called the Tar and it washes down considerable quantities of silt, particularly following excavations for planting and drainage. The silt washed down by the rivers accumulates and I have had several complaints of large areas being flooded. The Forestry Department suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary's Department is responsible for the cleaning of those rivers. The people whose farms are inundated do not care who cleans the rivers. The shifting of responsibility from one Department to another does not get the silt away. There are two streams of that class along the Galtees, from Chair to Mitchelstown, and there are others along the Knock-mealdowns, where a similar position prevails.
The people are peaceful, and going to court is not in their style; they would sooner go in any other direction. I would be slow to suggest a limb of the law to advise them. They do not like going to a solicitor's office. I do not know whether a county court judge would deal with it, but a mandamus in the High Court might. I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should consider removing the silt from these rivers, the names of which I shall give him. The people there are in a bad way. In one instance eight farms are inundated. The tillage inspector asks for the tillage quota and the crops are flooded before they are half-grown. The people there are between the devil and the deep sea. Which is the devil and which is the deep sea, I refuse to say.
I should like to have some information about the President's residence, Arus an Uachtaráin. Is it intended to remove any of the buildings covered by this sum of £22,000? There is a suggestion that some very expensive alterations are to be made. Having regard to the substantial nature of the structure, I think that would be very unwise. Surely it would be impossible to replace any of those buildings for many years to come. I think they fulfil their purpose. If there are to be improvements, they ought not to necessitate the demolition of any of the existing buildings.
As regards the Leinster Lawn Cenotaph, when is it proposed to proceed with this particular work? This matter has been under consideration for a number of years. I quite appreciate the necessity for having the original Cenotaph taken down, but I think the time has come when there should be some definite move to replace the Cenotaph in memory of the three men who were the founders of this State.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any information about Kilmainham Jail? There are quite a number of people interested in this institution and for some time past they have wondered what is going to happen, whether the building will be pulled down or reopened as a museum. If the building is left in its present condition much longer, with no roof on portion of it and open to all sorts of weather, it will be very difficult to do anything with it.
What proposals are before the Board of Works with reference to restoring the Stores Department Factory at St. John's Road? That was a very interesting industry for the city. Nothing was done with regard to it since the fire. The citizens are very anxious to have that factory restored.
I am afraid I cannot give Deputy Hughes and some other Deputies any encouraging information as to when we are likely to start on arterial drainage. Deputy Hughes mentioned that we have machines on order and commented that we must have had some plant of our own, apart from what we are trying now to obtain. I should like to tell the House and the Deputy that, even if we were in a position to go ahead from the point of view of plant, we are not ready to go ahead, inasmuch as there has not yet been any exhibition of the Brosna scheme, and the law provides for the exhibition of the scheme. The law also provides for the lodging of objections by those interested and it provides a period of three months in which that may be done. It contains a number of other provisions all of which have a time effect.
When we were discussing the Arterial Drainage Bill, Deputy Hughes and other Deputies were very anxious to see that all the individual safeguards were included, to make sure that no dictatorial powers would be given to the Board of Works and so on, but when you set out to secure these rights and that protection for the individual, it usually results in some of the delays, and, I would say, necessary delays, to which I have referred. We are getting along with the Brosna as best we can. We expect to exhibit the scheme very shortly, and, after that, the law will take its course. I make the point merely to show that it is not our inability to obtain the machinery which is responsible entirely for the delay.
There is another matter to which consideration would have to be given if we had the scheme ready and the machines on the spot. I should like to make a start on drainage, and I am sure that other Deputies would be glad to see that start made, but, even if we were in a position to start to-morrow, a number of other vital matters would have to be considered. The fact that turf production is important, that tillage operations are important and that the Brosna—with which we propose to deal first as it happens to be first on the list—runs largely through a turf and tillage area—all these factors would have to be taken into consideration. It would be necessary to have regard to these matters from the angle of the wider interest, even if the necessary plant were available and the scheme itself in a condition which would justify us in going ahead with the work. We have not got the machines. We have been trying very hard to get them, and, as I said in my opening statement, we have an assurance that we will get those four machines at the end of the summer. In addition, I hope to see the scheme exhibited shortly and that will bring us a step nearer to being ready to go ahead whenever we think the time is opportune.
Mention was made by Deputy Doyle and others of the President's establishment. There is no intention of erecting new buildings there, but the building itself is an old building, and a number of improvements and alterations are necessary. Some of these are being provided for in the Vote and the work will, we hope, be carried out this year.
With regard to the provision of national schools, Deputy O Briain has referred to some of the irritating delays which take place in that regard and has asked me to say—hoping, I suppose, that we are not contributing —to what extent we are contributing as a Department to such delays. I interrupted him to say that we contribute our fair quota to any delays that take place. It is not unusual where so many interests are involved for one interest to try to throw responsibility for these delays on to the shoulders of the other. The manager, the Department of Education and the Office of Public Works—all three are concerned in the provision of new school buildings and the alteration and improvement of existing buildings.
Will the new national schools have a more modern design?
We are doing very well, I think, in that regard. I do not profess to have an expert's eye, but it seems to me that the designs of the new buildings which are going up are fairly good. However, I am not going to be drawn off the track. I do not propose now, nor is it my intention to try, to apportion the blame for any delays which take place, but I should like Deputies who are interested to remember that it is a cumbersome and tortuous method. First, the manager has to get a site. The site has then to be inspected, and, if found to be unsuitable, the manager has to get another. He can only take a site in a certain place because he must have the school for the convenience of the district it is proposed to serve. If that second site is found to be unsuitable, the same thing is repeated, and even when a suitable site is found, he has to get in touch with the Land Commission and go through a number of legal formalities.
He then has to take up with the Department of Education the amount of the contribution he will be called upon to make depending upon the circumstances of the district—whether it is poor, medium or very well-off. All these negotiations must take place and when the contribution which the manager has to make has been finally determined, the manager has sometimes to look for the contribution. He may not have it and he may not desire to go into debt. He may desire to make it in kind and may call on his parishioners to raise the materials and cart them to the spot and, in that way, make the contribution, or portion of it, required of him. The contribution must, of course, be made before the work can be gone on with.
In that setting, it would be foolish for any one of the parties—the Department of Education, the Office of Public Works or the manager—to make any accusation against the other of being responsible for delay. All I can say is that I think we have a reasonably efficient school architectural branch in the Office of Public Works and that we have a number of architects employed there who are as good as are likely to be found anywhere and who are really interested, as all of us are, in the provision of new schools in the different cities, towns and rural areas. Having regard to all the difficulties we encounter, and to some of which I have referred, these men try to get on with the work and to see that as good a job as possible is done.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say if it is the intention of the Board of Works to do away with the dry-closet system in these schools?
That is a very big question. We might be glad to do away with it, but there are very often practical difficulties in the way which cannot be overcome by the mere desire to overcome them.
When you get the water survey completed as a result of the census, you will be able to do that.
Deputy Davin asked me about turf and about the item for heating and so on. We get our supply of turf by public tender, usually from county councils, and the prices at which we secure our supplies are determined largely by transport costs and so on. We are not affected at all by the reduction of 10/- in respect of retail turf mentioned in the Budget statement. I do not know if there is anything else I have to say. Deputy Doyle asked me about the Cenotaph on Leinster Lawn. I have not any up-to-date information about that except to say that sketches have been sent to the Government and we have not heard up to the present as to how the matter stands.
With regard to the other matter to which he referred, that is the Post Office factory, plans are in course of preparation to provide alternative accommodation to that which was destroyed by fire some years ago.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what the proposals are regarding Kilmainham Gaol?
I have a note of it here. It is rather a long one.
Before it falls.
The only thing I can tell you about it at the moment is that we are finding considerable difficulty in arriving at a decision as to what it is practicable to do in connection with it. No final decision has been made as yet.
You have an amount of money down here for the Museum. Surely there must be some proposals about it.
I am informed that the place is in such a deplorable state it is doubtful if it can be reconditioned to serve such a purpose.
