Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Jun 1965

Vol. 216 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 8—Public Works and Buildings (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £6,229,700 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, 1966, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works; for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; and for the Execution and Maintenance of Drainage and other Engineering Works.

We were discussing the suggestion that the process of selection of suitable schemes under the Coast Protection Act is of too elaborate a nature and Deputy Harte suggested that a better method might be to leave this process of selection exclusively to county councils. I think the House will agree that if such a practice were adopted, it would be a very unreliable way of getting an acceptable list of priorities in this very important matter. Since the Act has been in force only since 1963, we cannot say as yet that a proper list of priorities has been attained. We must consider this, too, in the context, as Deputy James Tully mentioned on the previous occasion, of the constant fact of our inability to get sufficient engineering staff to cope with the many engineering problems that arise on this and under other heads of a similar nature.

Deputy P. Burke raised in particular a question about Skerries harbour. There have been discussions with the Dublin Port and Docks Board, who are responsible for this harbour, the Dublin County Council, the Board of Works and the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture about the improvement scheme for this harbour. They have agreed tentatively on the outline of a development scheme and a preliminary engineering report has been made to the Fisheries Branch by the Office of Public Works. It will be necessary to make further examinations, including a boring survey of the bed of the harbour, before a final estimate can be worked out and detailed plans prepared. The necessary authority to expend money on this survey has been sought.

I wonder has the Parliamentary Secretary any idea when a start might be made?

There are several stages of the statutory process to be carried out yet and it would not be possible at this stage to say when a start might be made.

I know Deputy P. Burke has been promising this for 20 years.

I have no doubt there will be no undue loss of time, and it will be referred back to the proposing authority in due course.

Turning to schools, Deputy Larkin inquired whether or not we were getting more schools for the increased expenditure voted year by year for schools. That question, on analysis, boils down to this: are we getting better value for the money we are investing in the building of schools. The answer is that we are. Efficiency in the building of schools is increasing steadily.

Deputy Harte, and also Deputy Dillon, raised the question of the building of schools in remote areas. Deputy Dillon said it might be desirable if central parish schools were built and that the idea of the little local school—the small one or two-teacher school—should be gradually abandoned in favour of larger central schools with better amenities and better teaching facilities. This question is of course primarily a matter for the Department of Education. It is merely the function of the Office of Public Works to build schools in the place selected by the Department of Education. However, it is no harm to say in passing that my personal opinion is this is an idea well worth considering and is related to the question raised by Deputy Larkin—getting the best possible value for money invested in the building of schools.

Deputy Gallagher was worried as to whether there was real competition in the matter of tenders for schools. I should like to assure Deputy Gallagher and the House that this is a question which is carefully watched at all times. If it is felt necessary that tenders should be re-invited, this expedient is resorted to.

Deputy Davern expressed concern about what he considers might be a possible delay in dealing with the building of Clonoulty school. It is one of the group that has been selected to be built in a large contract on the modular plan. I do not think Deputy Davern need have any concern about this. The very purpose of this plan, making a large contract out of a group of schools of this kind, is to ensure that not only do we get the best possible value for the money invested but that the schools will be provided with the minimum delay.

Deputy P. O'Donnell expressed the view that there was no real necessity for the building of a school in Belcruit, County Donegal. The manager is of a different opinion and some time ago he wrote to the Office of Public Works and intimated this. It appears the old school is over 100 years old, standing on a very bad boggy site and is damp and unsuitable for teaching children in modern times. For those reasons it has been replaced.

Deputy Coughlan and Deputy Treacy mentioned their concern about the share their respective constituencies got in the matter of the building of new schools. I should like to say to Deputy Coughlan that in County Limerick there are 17 new schools being built and 16 others are being tendered for or are about to be tendered for. In the case of Tipperary, in the past three years 15 new schools and 11 major reconstruction jobs on schools have been completed at a cost of approximately £368,000. There are 16 new schools at present in the process of being built and there are eight major improvement schemes in progress, the total cost of these being £385,200. It can hardly be said that neither County Limerick nor County Tipperary is being neglected in this respect.

Deputy Treacy mentioned the question of school strikes and said that he felt that before action could be got from the Office of Public Works in the matter of building schools, it was necessary for parents and children to organise strikes so as to draw attention to the fact that their particular school was in a bad condition, To begin with, such strikes are not necessary. A very remarkable increase in the construction of schools in recent years means, if anything at all, that the Government are very conscious of the need not only for new schools, but for the raising of the standard of the types of school that are required.

Strikes do not have any bearing at all on the operations of the Office of Public Works because it is our function to erect schools where the Department of Education elect that they should be erected. There were a couple of isolated cases of contractors who fell down on the job. That is correct enough, but in those cases the contractors have been replaced.

Was the contractor who built the school at Lisnamrock in my constituency replaced?

I am afraid I have not got all the details to hand, but I can supply the Deputy with the details at a later stage if he wants them. By and large the suggestion that there is anything approaching a general toleration of this very isolated type of problem is not correct. I think the figures in the matter of school building are evidence enough of that fact.

Garda housing was discussed at some considerable length. Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Harte spoke of the provision of houses for the Garda and the provision of Garda stations. There was some incompatibility in what they said in this respect. Deputy Harte, I suppose understandably enough, felt it would be a very human and desirable thing if retiring Garda could remain in the houses they had occupied while they were members of the Force. I think Deputy O'Donnell was concerned that when houses were built they should be convenient to the Garda station and in close proximity to the area they were meant to serve. I think there is a bit of incompatibility there.

In what respect?

In this way. If the house is built convenient to the Garda station, and if it is built for a Garda, if it is not vacated by the Garda when he retires that will necessitate the finding of a new site and presumably the erection of another house for the Garda who replaces him. That could go on and on indefinitely, and that is hardly a suggestion that could be entertained.

Surely the span of life would curtail the length of the period.

Without entering too deeply into the life expectancy of members of the Force, I think it is fairly generally accepted that when the service of people in the public service ends they are provided for as well as the State can provide for them. In general they find alternative employment and alternative accommodation.

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it is very frustrating for a person who has served as a member of the Force to have to vacate the house.

I would be very grateful if someone would build a house for me and allow me to occupy it. These houses are built for the specific purpose of housing members of the Garda and I think we should stick to that. Whether or which, I do not think this is really a subject for discussion on this Vote because we are concerned only with the building of the houses. The record of the Office of Public Works in that respect is very good. Over 300 houses have been built by the National Building Agency and 140 more are under construction. The total expenditure to date from this Vote is £730,000.

They are not all for public employees?

They are all for the Garda.

The National Building Agency also build for industrial workers outside the public service.

These are for Garda alone.

The Deputy's surprise is very gratifying.

I am very surprised.

I am sure the Office of Public Works will take that as a compliment.

It is intended as one.

While I agree with Deputy Tully that compliments were the order of the day on this Vote, this is all the more gratifying as it was unexpected.

Deputy Coughlan and others mentioned the Limerick Garda Station. The position is that it is hoped to conclude negotiations for that Garda station very soon. I do not think that anything else of any great moment was raised on the matter of Garda stations.

I want to return now to arterial drainage. I deliberately referred to the Shannon drainage by itself because I think it deserves special mention.

Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves the question of buildings, has he considered my suggestion about farm buildings? He may remember that I suggested that the Building Agency might consider dealing with farm buildings as well.

I think that would be a matter for the Department of Agriculture.

I thought the Office of Public Works might carry out farm buildings as well.

I must confess I do not know. Presumably it would be a matter for inter-Departmental negotiation. I imagine it would require some revision of the existing system of farm buildings.

I think the Building Agency would do a good job.

I do not disagree. Deputy Harte inquired about the River Leannan and the River Finn. They are both listed in the priority list and will get their turn. I understand that special engineering inspections have been made, that very extensive works to contain flooding are required, and that the cost is out of proportion to the overall value of the scheme.

Plans and specifications for the Cloon Burn Scheme are being prepared and tenders will soon be invited. Work has been started on the Blanket Nook scheme and the question of the Skeoge will be examined.

Deputy Treacy seemed to be a bit dissatisfied about the Suir drainage. He mentioned that he tabled a question in 1960, I think it was, seeking information as to when the actual drainage work would start. At that time he was told by my predecessor that work would start in 1970. A couple of weeks ago he tabled a question to me and the reply still was that work would start in 1970. I think there are not any real, tangible grounds for Deputy Treacy's complaint. It would appear to be necessary to remind him of the extent of the problem posed by the drainage of a river of this size. Deputy Treacy seemed to think that it was merely a matter of getting a lot of excavating machinery at one end of the river and in the proverbial phrase starting them into action by blowing a whistle. It is not quite as easy as that. The whole catchment is about 890 acres and all that must be surveyed.

Not 890 acres.

890,000 acres. There are 1,500 miles of river and tributaries in the Suir basin. These have to be examined in detail. There are 2,000 odd bridges all of which have to be examined and the effect of the eventual drainage of the Suir can be related to these 2,000 odd bridges.

A by-election is the only hope.

If Deputy Casey cares to pursue that subject I am only too willing to accommodate him.

It did not do the Shannon very much good.

Mr. O'Malley

Plenty good.

I am afraid some members of the Opposition may be disappointed about the Shannon.

The people of Leitrim and Roscommon are already disappointed.

The Shannon will be drained. Deputies like Deputy Casey probably know we are taking on this job and that we shall finish it successfully. I suggest to Deputy Coogan and Deputy Casey that the time for them to exercise their undoubted wit is when we fall down on the job. If we do, we shall——

It would be a costly fall-down.

——invite Deputy Coogan with his heavy-handed humour to examine the question. Anyway, the drainage of the river Suir is well up to schedule and will go ahead, though it will not be possible for us to satisfy Deputy Treacy——

I shall not be satisfied until the work commences.

——until the work is due to commence in 1970.

Most of the preparatory work has been done on the arterial drainage of the Suir.

I do not think so.

My information, from replies to questions by the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, is that it has all been done.

All the preparatory survey, perhaps, but there is a great deal more to be done besides that. Deputy Tully mentioned the cost of maintenance of arterial drainage and felt there was an undue imposition on the local authorities who invited the arterial drainage in the first place and who have to bear their statutory share of the cost of maintenance. As the Deputy possibly knows, this apportionment of the cost of maintenance is laid down by statute. As Deputy Corry might say, that is the position.

He would not say it in that way.

Deputy Tully also mentioned the matter of excavator drivers and their jobs when schemes are finished. I understand the usual practice is that excavator drivers continue from one job to another.

Some of them do. On the subject of maintenance costs, would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the figure of up to 9/- in the £ in respect of the Boyne is correct?

That is the concern of the local authority, whose business it is.

It is the concern of the unfortunate ratepayers.

It is laid down by statute.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary, new in the job, consider changing it?

It would be a mercy if Deputy Tully would restrain his undoubted wit and let us get on with the work.

The Parliamentary Secretary invited it.

If I assure him it is scintillating will he accept it? He also referred to the incentive bonus scheme. This was introduced on the Broadmeadow scheme and has since been applied to the Moy and the Inny. The only reason it is not introduced universally is the scarcity of engineers and trained assessors. The Office of Public Works are well aware that it gets the job done efficiently and well and every effort is being made to introduce it all over.

It means a difference of more than £3 per week to the men doing the job.

It is a very desirable thing which should be expanded and will be as soon as possible.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary——

Would the Parliamentary Secretary be allowed to finish his reply?

This is a relevant question.

Not at this stage. The Parliamentary Secretary is concluding.

Is he satisfied the bonus system is giving good results in the finished job?

Very much so. Deputy Harte appeared to suggest that national monuments should be handed over to some voluntary organisation. He suggested, too, that they were the concern mainly of a small minority of people. I cannot accept either suggestion in any shape or form. Our national monuments, by their very definition, are of such importance to the nation, to our cultural and historical heritage, that it would be unthinkable they would be handed over to any voluntary organisation, however responsible. I cannot accept the point that they are the concern only of a small minority. As the Office of Public Works continue with their preservation efforts, public consciousness of their value, public pride in their existence is spreading over a wide area and the investment we make in this work is very well-spent money indeed.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that Kilmainham Jail was well attended to by a voluntary organisation?

That was the work of a voluntary organisation, right enough, and the people who participated in it are to be congratulated. However, as Deputy Dillon would say, this country happens to be one of the greatest store houses of archaeological treasures possibly in the world and for that reason and the reason that these monuments are a visible, tangible link with the past, their preservation is too big a job to be handed over to a voluntary organisation as Deputy Harte seemed to suggest.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might compromise and invite voluntary organisations who show interest to cooperate with him in the work.

Their help will always be acceptable.

If this were made known to certain people there might be a response.

Deputy Treacy congratulated the Board of Works for the work done in Cashel following the damage done by storm and he mentioned the West Gate in Clonmel. In the context of a great number of national monuments of priceless value, it is hardly possible to include the West Gate in Clonmel. I know this gate personally and I do not think it could be called a national monument. It is a castellated structure built in the last century. While it is on the site of the old West Gate, it might be a bit unkind to call it a piece of phoney architecture in that it adopted a style of architecture that preceded the period of its construction. In that way it has no historical association of any worth that I know of.

Deputy Dillon mentioned Killeaden and the association this place had with Rafteri an File. I propose to get in touch with the Land Commission about this place and to make representations to them to see what can be done about its preservation. Deputy Tully enquired about Tara. It is protected by a Preservation Order under the National Monuments Act. A very generous offer has been made to the owners——

Who considers it generous, the Board of Works?

Yes. We say it is very generous.

I would not mind that.

Feeling that it is generous we consider it should be accepted because we would be very reluctant to have to resort to any other method but we must at all times be conscious of the vital importance of Tara and its surroundings in that respect. That is the position and the matter is being actively pursued.

Is there not a credit squeeze on?

Not in the Board of Works.

Order, the Parliamentary Secretary to continue.

Deputy Harte raised the question of the preservation of——

Before the Parliamentary Secretary departs from archaeology could he say if he has considered the question of an aerial survey?

I understand this is a matter for the Ordnance Survey Office and in spite of the tempting offer Deputy Dillon made on the last day we discussed this, I am afraid I will have to resort to some other method of obtaining immortality.

It is a pity. If somebody does not do it soon, it will never be done.

Deputy P. O'Donnell suggested that his county had been more or less neglected by the Office of Public Works and I thought it advisable to remind him that the cost of the major harbour works in Killybegs is £300,000; Greencastle has been completed at a cost of £117,000 and the Lough Swilly embankments at a cost of over £200,000. I do not think in the light of these facts he could suggest that Donegal has been bypassed. I am only mentioning these as three isolated cases to illustrate the money which is being spent in Deputy O'Donnell's county.

It is a very big county.

It is big, yes. Deputy Coughlan suggested that it might be desirable to have regional workshops in the different areas through the country. The position, as he probably knows, is that there is one central workshop and in each scheme there is a smaller workshop which looks after the running and maintenance repairs. This has been found to be adequate and consequently any change would hardly be warranted. Deputy Gallagher, speaking on the operation of the Special Employment Schemes Office, suggested an inquiry into the possibility of preventing duplication between the work of local authority engineers and engineers of the Special Employment Schemes Office. He suggested it might be possible to get better value for the money invested in all kinds of rural schemes. I agree that if economy, in the avoidance of duplication, could be achieved it would be a very good thing. It is something that is worthy of consideration and examination and it will get it. Deputy Fitzpatrick and others raised the question of accommodation roads. This is allied to the question raised by Deputy Gallagher. The general trend of what Deputies said is pretty predictable in so far as the more money spent on accommodation roads the more accommodation roads will be made negotiable. In light of the fact that in spite of the increased provision of £105,000 since 1961-62 we still have not caught up with the problem, it will probably be there for some considerable time but no possible method of catching up with the problem is being ignored.

Deputy Millar suggested that it might be possible to make some special arrangement in regard to the rates contribution in County Galway. This would hardly be possible because if the case could be made for Galway I am quite sure it might be made for other places as well.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider that it would be good economy to tar some of these roads?

It would, but there are so many of them that you cannot do them all at once.

At least some of the major sections could be done.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider that?

I think I have covered most of the ground and most of the points raised by different Deputies in this debate. In conclusion I want to mention two points that I have not yet mentioned. Deputy P. O'Donnell suggested that the Office of Public Works should be abolished. I thought this was a bit unkind to the present incumbent of the office after such a short tenure but on the other hand Deputy Millar suggested that the position of Parliamentary Secretary in this office should be raised to the position of Minister and in view of these two suggestions it might be well to leave matters as they stand.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary any view to express on the question I put to him about the advisability of reroofing and renovating the buildings on the Rock of Cashel?

By statute the functions of the Office of Public Works are limited to the preservation of national monuments and any restoration work must be done on a repayment basis. Bunratty Castle was done in that way and the Rothe House in Kilkenny was done in the same way by money provided from sources other than this Vote. As the position stands the only thing that can be undertaken is preservation. In the case of Cashel, there are other contributory factors to that problem.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary see any objections to it on aesthetic grounds?

Personally no. It is a matter of personal opinion. There are two schools of thought about it. There are some people who would like to see it restored to its original state and others who would like to see it preserved as it is. I do not believe that this office have any function in deciding which should prevail.

Since the function of conducting an aerial survey belongs to Ordnance Survey, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that as Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Board of Works he is primarily responsible for the preservation of archaeological sites and ancient monuments, and if he is advised that archaeological sites are being destroyed progressively for the want of knowledge of their existence, would he not consider it incumbent on him to submit to the Government the desirability of carrying out an aerial survey at the earliest possible moment in order to enable him to discharge his duties in this respect?

All I can say about that is that I shall certainly convey Deputy Dillon's anxiety about this matter to the Government because I think it is a matter for their consideration rather than mine.

One question which the Parliamentary Secretary rather overlooked when he was interrupted by a question from this side is the question of the revised Estimate. I do not think he explained it. I should also like him to deal with another point: have the Office of Public Works yet defined the area for coastal protection? To what extent will the area extend for coast protection purposes?

Proposals for coastal protection have come in from various local authorities but not, in my opinion, in sufficient quantity to establish a clear picture of priorities and in the absence of that no priority list can be drawn up. Some proposals have been made to various local authorities who are at present in the process of examining them but as yet there is no priority list in existence.

Would an erosion scheme be defined by tidal waters or confined to the seaboard?

That is a six mark question.

That was a point raised last year with the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor and I expected to be informed as to what he had decided.

It is a wise man who would say: I do not know.

I thought my casting about for information would be sufficient indication of the fact that I did not know.

This is a dilemma with which everybody has intelligent sympathy.

I understand the definition of what constitutes coastal erosion is laid down in the Coastal Erosion Act of 1963.

What is the explanation in regard to the revised Estimate?

That was dealt with by the Minister for Finance himself in Volume 215, No. 13.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn