Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1966

Vol. 226 No. 2

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy Cosgrave).

Mr. Larkin

Before questions, I was dealing with a sore and serious problem to which I brought the Minister's attention recently by way of Parliamentary Question when I sought information as to the average service necessary in the Board of Works to qualify employees for superannuation or sick pay. I was told it was 13 years. This indicates a serious situation and again illustrates the callousness with which these workers are treated.

This treatment is not confined to Board of Works employees in Dublin. It extends to the Board's employees in various parts of the country. Employees of local authorities in Dublin qualify after 12 months to accumulate service for superannuation and sick pay purposes. Similar condition apply in the ESB and in many private undertakings. Deputies, including the Parliamentary Secretary, will be aware that many relatively small undertakings are endeavouring to heed the exhortations of the Taoiseach and members of the Government to bring their plant up to date to become more efficient in the teeth of competition on our possible entry to the Common Market. Despite that, there are still workers in public undertakings being treated in the way I have described.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary on this occasion will not give me the same reply as he did when I asked the question previously. The employees of the Board of Works are under the direct control of this House. We are not talking about people employed by undertakings whose main interest is the accumulation of profits.

When he introduced the Estimate, the Parliamentary Secretary to some extent patted himself and the Department on the back in relation to the provision of school buildings last year. It is good to see that there was more school building but it must be said we are not satisfied that enough attention is being given to this important matter. Our aim is to provide a sufficient number of school buildings to ensure that our children will not have to travel long distance from their homes. The sum allocated for school building this year is £2,760,000 and the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to imply it was something to be proud of in the financial circumstances prevailing. We must remember that in 1963-64 the figure was £3.2 million. There has been an increase in costs since 1963-64. I should like to pose a question as to whether the amount shown in the Estimate is sufficient to provide the increase in the actual provision of schools for the current year. I referred elsewhere to the fact that there continues to be problems in the city of Dublin in this regard. It may well be that the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department are not responsible for the delays which continue to take place. I should like an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary, given the attention by other authorities concerned, that his Department will be able to provide the schools at a more rapid pace than previously.

Reference was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the provision of central sorting offices. A central sorting office was provided in Dublin at Sheriff Street. I do not know whether the placing of the sorting office in Sheriff Street is a good thing, having regard to the growing traffic conditions. There is another sorting office being completed in Artane, an area which the Minister for Finance and I represent as Deputies. That is a residential area which was fairly well planned to cater for both private and local authority dwellings. There is a nine acre space in the centre of the area which is gradually being developed as a park with a school bordering one side of it and a new church now being built. If anybody has a look at the design of the sorting office he will form a very poor opinion of whoever is responsible for the exact choice of site and the appearance of the sorting office itself. Whatever about the provisions inside from the point of view of dealing with the services certainly the exterior of the building and the siting of it is no credit to anybody. Possibly nothing can be done about it now but if this is to be the pattern of work carried out in this regard we might well examine our approach to it.

We are told that there are delays in the fisheries scheme at Dunmore East and Castletownbere. I do not see anything in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement regarding the development of Howth Harbour. At what particular stage are the plans in relation to Howth Harbour? It was selected some time ago as one of the areas which could be developed as a fishing centre. Reference was made to the question of extending a third pier out into the middle of the harbour. While we are dealing with the present year there is no reference to what the future will be.

The Parliamentary Secretary brushes off fairly glibly and fairly readily in his Estimate the very considerable reduction that has taken place in the employment and emergency schemes. The gross total for 1964 was £922,600. The net total of £465,000 for the Supplementary Estimate in respect of 1966-67 has to be added to this. The reduction in the various Votes under the employment and emergency schemes appears to have fallen mainly in urban employment, which has been reduced from £200,000 to £131,000 and rural employment schemes which have had over £40,000 deducted.

Employment and emergency schemes were originally introduced for the purpose of dealing with a situation in which unemployment existed and where it was necessary to provide some specific relief under this particular heading. It cannot be held that the unemployment position today is satisfactory or that the need for the employment and emergency schemes has declined. It might well be the case, if we were to get our priorities right, that we might even sacrifice a little of the facilities we have in this House if it meant that the level of assistance by way of those schemes was to be maintained or increased and the people for whom those schemes were designed to assist would get the assistance through maintaining those schemes.

This Estimate deals with coast erosion. Under this particular heading one might not only introduce the question of coast erosion but the general necessity for either the Office of Public Works or some of the local authorities to again look at the situation developing around our coastline. Much has been said about the right of the people of Ireland to own the soil of Ireland. Much has been said about the beautiful coastline of our country. There are very few countries which have such an attractive coastline but what is being done to preserve the amenities and the beauty of our coastline for the enjoyment and recreation of the ordinary citizens of our country?

Is the position not continuing to be that private individuals, private groups and private enterprise, with no regard for the Irish people as such, are increasingly obtaining strips of our coastline and increasingly depriving the ordinary people of their use and enjoyment? This is being done on a very large scale and there is little evidence of any intention on the Government's part to protect the public against this exploitation, or of any attempt to prevent the situation from developing as it has developed in a number of Continental countries. In a number of Continental countries, the ordinary citizen can only visit the seashore if he pays either a local authority or, worse still, an individual or a private group for the privilege of enjoying bathing, etc., on the strand in summertime.

On the Vote for the Ordnance Survey, Deputy Dillon made an eloquent appeal for the preservation of important architectural sites and so on. Whatever the situation is in the country, and I bow to his knowledge in this matter, the cities also possess buildings and remains of historical interest. What is being done about them?

Mr. Dillon

They are being pulled down.

Mr. Larkin

Not only are the buildings being pulled down—and I am not talking about Georgian buildings now —but in the process, the bulldozers go into the basement areas, into the low ground levels, and anything of an architectural or historical value is just shoved to one side. Possibly Government Departments, insurance companies, banks and so on, are guilty of this. They do not have any prior consultations with an archaeological or architectural society, or with the Board of Works. It is time that these matters were given some attention.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to drainage when introducing his Estimate. There is one general comment which I should like to make on this matter. As far as coastal cities are concerned the problems associated with flooding after heavy rains are left mainly in the hands of the local authorities. I wonder if it is sufficient to deal with the matter on this basis because flooding can arise in many cases from causes far removed from the cities themselves. We know that due to the extension of building schemes, the extension of cement and tarmacadam roads and pavements, the danger of temporary flooding has increased because there is no way for the surplus water to drain slowly through the ground and now it is carried on the surface or through water sewers. We are also aware of the fact that where an area has been denuded of trees the possibility of flooding is much greater.

Greater co-ordination is called for on this question of drainage generally. Technical officers in the local authorities will do their best to deal with the situation as they see it but their immediate responsibility is related only to their particular area. It is, therefore, necessary to take a broader view of the situation. If that was necessary from our own experience it has surely been shown to be necessary in regard to the catastrophe that has overtaken Italy in the last couple of months. We might well learn a lesson from the tragedy which has affected that very ancient land and which has caused such untold suffering and damage to Italy and its people.

The provision in the Estimate for employment and emergency schemes is down. Most of these relate to rural areas and I am sure that Deputies representing these areas will deal with this matter in detail. However, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if serious consideration is being given to the fact that if remedial action is not taken very few people will be able to obtain free access to our strands in a few years time because of the continued encroachment on the strands by private individuals. I should also like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate the reasons for the reduction in the provision for development works in bogs used by landowners and private producers. In 1965-66 the figure was £155,000 and for 1966-67 the estimate is for £5,000. Surely from the point of view of the development of bogs, etc., the weather in this part of the year has been more suitable for this type of work and advantage could well have been taken of it to carry out the work at an accelerated speed?

It is good to see that in the schools referred to which are under construction there is provision to give the pupils light meals and facilities for dining in the schools. Dining facilities in schools where children cannot readily get home are long overdue. Credit must be given for the fact that expenditure under this head is included in this Estimate. I take it that this refers mainly to the smaller schools in rural areas but may I use the occasion to mention that such facilities are also needed in many schools in city areas? There are thousands of children going to schools in Dublin who get an inadequate meal, the milk and bun. This is not the Parliamentary Secretary's responsibility and therefore I shall not dilate on it. There is no provision in these schools in Dublin for any other type of meal, if provided. This is a situation of which we cannot be proud. The Office of Public Works has the task of providing school buildings, and in considering plans for school buildings, should have regard to the fact that sooner or later we shall recognise the need not only for the facilities outlined in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech—these are very welcome—in respect of smaller schools but also the necessity for similar facilities in larger urban schools.

While it may be true that the pupils of such schools do not have long distances to travel, many thousands of them, because of traffic conditions or lack of inadequate public services, are constrained to have the miserable school meal, either in the classroom or even out in the playground. That is not good. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate his interest in these matters and his intention to do whatever is possible to improve the position.

Mr. Kitt

I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on that part of his speech in which he referred to the ever-increasing number of new schools being provided and the major improvement of existing schools. Deputy Larkin seemed to think that because the cost of building has gone up, the Parliamentary Secretary was giving himself a pat on the back that he did not deserve, but according to my reading of the speech, he said that last year 130 new schools were completed and major improvements were carried out to 66, which would give a total of 196 modern buildings for that year. Further, he tells us that 20,000 permanent pupil-places were provided. I think he does deserve congratulation on that aspect of the work of the Office of Public Works. He also states that £3,123,000 from State funds was spent on primary school building last year and that he is asking for £2,760,000 for schools for the current year. He said that despite financial difficulties, this is the third largest sum ever to be voted for the service in one year.

He mentions the central schools that are to be built to replace a number of one-and-two-teacher schools. Anybody who has any experience of teaching will agree that it is a good idea to abolish one-teacher schools. I never had the experience of teaching in a one-teacher school but one can imagine the task it must be for a teacher to go through every class from infants up to sixth or seventh class and teach different programmes, still maintaining discipline among the different sections. It has been done for years, but it must be a very trying experience for the teachers mostly women, I understand. It is a move in the right direction to replace these by central schools but there must be many two-teacher schools throughout the country—I know several of them that were built within the last decade— provided with hot and cold water and toilet facilities and everything necessary, except, perhaps, the additional rooms Deputy Larkin mentioned. It would be a waste of public money if such schools were to be demolished.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies will appreciate that the Board of Works is responsible only for the building of schools for which arrangements have been made between the Department of Education and the school managers.

Mr. Kitt

I understand that, but the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned one- and two-teacher schools and I want to suggest that instead of building a central school, he should put before the Minister for Finance, who will have to provide the money, the idea that use could be made of these small schools, particularly two-teacher schools that are quite modern and up-to-date.

Deputy Dillon mentioned the same problem when speaking on the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Education and said how difficult it will be to bring children four or five years old away in a bus and keep them at a school all day, while at the same time there is a new building within one hundred or two hundred yards of their own home. Perhaps you could bring the bigger pupils in the bus and use the two-teacher schools for the infants up to second or third class.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would seem to be a decision for the Minister of Education. The Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility.

Mr. Kitt

He might be able to inform the Minister of the use that could be made of these schools and this might save money and avoid building too many of the other type of school if the small schools were used for junior pupils where they are in good condition.

In deference to the wishes of the Chair, I shall leave that subject and go on to something affecting my own constituency which I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, that is, arterial drainage. He said that the minor scheme on Killimor which is already in progress will have further money spent on it this year and that he hopes to start the scheme on the

Corrib-Headford portion of the Corrib before the end of the year.

I am glad to hear that because I have been on several deputations regarding the Corrib-Headford river, and I have asked questions about it. It was part of the Corrib drainage scheme that had been omitted when the original scheme was introduced some years ago. As a result of its being included now and if as he hopes he can start work on it before the end of the year, we shall have 14,000 acres of agricultural land benefiting and 5,000 acres of bog. That will be a big benefit to that end of my constituency. If I had the same benefit at the other end which is bordered by the Suck, I would be doubly pleased. However, I do not see any mention whatever made of the Suck.

Mr. Dillon

It would be the first time for 20 years there was no mention of the Suck.

Mr. Kitt

We have been told for years that the Suck cannot be done until the Shannon is done.

Mr. Dillon

And you are going to do the Shannon.

Mr. Kitt

If it were done tomorrow morning, I would be very happy about it. One expert who was brought in by the Coalition Government, Mr. Rydell, brought out a report about the Shannon drainage, and it is his report that has held up the drainage of the Suck. I have been speaking to engineers, some of them Board of Works engineers, and they believe a scheme could be undertaken for the river Suck without waiting for this major scheme on the Shannon. I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to have the Office of Public Works examine this matter. The next item about which I want to speak is one, as Deputy Larkin says, that affects Deputies from rural areas. I am very disappointed in regard to Vote 9, Employment and Emergency Schemes.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kitt

I make no apology for saying that, because on 10th June last, I received a letter from the secretary of the Defence of the West Committee telling me that Dr. Hugh Gibbons, the Deputy representing Roscommon-Leitrim, had obtained for the Deputies from the west of Ireland, a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary in his office on Wednesday, June 15th. The Deputies from all Parties met the Parliamentary Secretary and he received us very kindly indeed. We put all aspects of this matter to him but——

Mr. Dillon

Kindness is all you got.

Mr. Kitt

Exactly. We still could not get any increase in the Vote, and I believe this money spent on employment and emergency schemes is one of the main things that was benefiting people in my constituency in the west of Ireland. The Parliamentary Secretary merged all the money into the rural improvements scheme. When there was only a certain amount of money available, I will have to admit that it was the right thing to do. Anybody who comes from rural Ireland who has seen the operation of the rural improvements scheme knows that invariably it was a much better scheme than the others, the minor employment or the bog development scheme, because under the rural improvement scheme the beneficiaries themselves contributed. They were small farmers or small farmers' sons. They did the work themselves, perhaps an accommodation road to their own house, and this ensured that the work was done well, and it was under the supervision of gangers and officers of the Board of Works.

In 1962, when the Minister for Education, Deputy O'Malley, was Parliamentary Secretary in the Board of Works, he sent down a circular to all the county councils to the effect that we could take over these roads and maintain them without further ado. That procedure was adopted by Galway County Council. Since 1962, where any group of people in my constituency constructed an accommodation road, a road linking an existing main road or a cul-de-sac, if it served two or more houses—it had to serve two before the grant was given—it has been taken over by Galway County

Council and the people are never asked to contribute to it again.

Deputy Dillon knows what I thought about the Local Authorities (Works) Act. He complimented me here once, when Deputy Burke and I came back from an Árd Fheis, on having asked the Árd Fheis to ask the Government to re-introduce that Act. If a good piece of legislation is brought into this House, I am one of those who will give credit to whoever introduced it. The Local Authorities (Works) Act was brought in by the late Deputy Murphy when he was Minister for Local Government. That Act worked well in my county. We are parliamentarians here and no matter what side of the House we are on, we participate in framing legislation. We put down amendments, and so on, and all Deputies have a part in that legislation in one way or another.

The only fault I saw in the Local Authorities (Works) Act—and other people saw it as well—was that there was no provision for future maintenance. A drain was done and after a while the drain became clogged up but the council was not given power to take it over and maintain it. Under the rural improvements scheme, we have power to maintain roads and drains. I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister for Finance and other Government Ministers involved, and I am asking them once again, that instead of the Board of Works carrying out these schemes as they are doing now, and as they will try to do from now on with reduced money, they do the same as was done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, that is, make an allocation to each county council and let the council in the respective areas, with their own engineers, carry out these schemes. The defect in the Local Authorities (Works) Act could be overcome by giving them powers of maintenance. As far as roads are concerned they would be maintained from then on. The drainage could be carried out by the local Land Project office which, to my mind, would be the most suitable body in a county to do it.

Mr. Dillon

Also set up——

Mr. Kitt

Was it the Deputy himself who set it up?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. Kitt

Whoever set it up, I give him credit. I am asking that the moneys be spent by that office or some similar office in each county instead of its being spent by the Board of Works. I can see problems where four or five farmers want to improve their land but there is a main outfall flowing along by their land which is nobody's baby. There could be one or two farmers in between who have no intention of improving their land. Heretofore, the Board of Works came along and the work was done under the rural improvements scheme or under a bog development scheme. There should be some special body in each county; I take it that in regard to roads, it would be the county council, and with regard to drains, the Land Project office or the Department of Agriculture. Instead of the Board of Works operating these schemes themselves, they should hand these moneys over to the councils concerned. Their engineers, together with the local councillors, should draw up a list of all the roads and drains in their areas. In that way the money would be better spent and you would have provision for maintenance which there was not in the Local Authorities (Works) Act. As I said, it was a good Act but it would have been much better if that had been provided.

That is my contribution. I have had a bee in my bonnet for many years about the Local Authorities (Works) Act and how to improve the rural improvement, minor employment and bog development schemes. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will put my views before the Minister for Finance and the Government and ask that they carry on with arterial drainage and all the other schemes under this Vote, but increase the subsidy and hand over the moneys to each county council and let the county council and the Department of Agriculture do the works in their own areas and maintain them after carrying them out.

Mr. Dillon

I know Deputy Kitt will agree with me that there is more in this than meets the eye. This discreet transfer of bog development schemes, employment schemes and rural improvement schemes introduces a new principle. Up to now, the bog development schemes and the rural employment schemes involved no local contribution. They now all carry a local contribution. I wonder if Deputy Kitt had been on this side of the House and we had abolished the free schemes and announced that hereafter all such schemes would involve a local contribution, what would his reaction have been? I think he would have been very eloquent. He would have spoken about our savage, cruel indifference to the unemployed of rural Ireland. He would have wept copious tears about the hungry poor whom we were concerned to trample underfoot. I have not heard him say anything about that today.

I would have much more respect for the Parliamentary Secretary if he came out plain and blunt and said: "We are bust. We have no money. We cannot give any money for employment schemes and bog development schemes any more." That is part of the process of going bust. The poor people suffer. When a Government run a country into acute financial crisis, to which reference was repeatedly made in the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, what happens is that the people who get hurt by the financial stringency are the defenceless poor. That is why I have been trying to tell this House for a long time what it means to go bust. The country does not stop; it does not sink under the sea. Nobody living in relatively affluent circumstances, like ourselves here in this House, are greatly inconvenienced. On the contrary, we have moved into magnificent new buildings, with every modern convenience. But the person who depends for a few shillings at Christmas from a bog development scheme or a rural employment scheme is informed there are not any more of them.

Deputy Kitt knows as well as I know that on bog development schemes and employment schemes a great many gangers are employed in all the rural areas, particularly the congested areas. These are mostly small farmers with uneconomic holdings, who got invaluable supplementary income from being gangers on these schemes. They have all been sacked. Nobody in Dublin gives a fiddle-de-dee about it. I doubt if the Parliamentary Secretary is even conscious of their existence. Most of these bog schemes and rural employment schemes were located in the congested areas. I think Deputy Kitt will agree with me that a great many of these people who were gangers, who eked out a modest living on their small holdings by ganging for the Special Employment Schemes Office, have gone to England to earn there by temporary agricultural work or something of that kind, the surplus income really necessary to maintain any rational standard of living at all.

That is what going bust means. It is the kind of thing that troubles me continually and about which I try to stir Deputies' consciences. There is no use talking to people who reside in Tipperary or Waterford or Kildare or Meath or Westmeath about these problems. They have not the faintest notion what they mean. I think it behoves Deputy Kitt and myself, who represent Monaghan and other congested areas in the country, to keep reminding the Government and the Dáil that if you blandly announce that you are going to wipe out these schemes, a great many small, defenceless people are going to suffer.

These schemes were not started for fun. They were started by administrations which were conscious of the need. Some of them were probably started at the instance of the old Congested Districts Board. who really knew what was going on in rural Ireland. Mind you, there is a good deal of adverse criticism of the Board of Works, but it is astonishing the store of social information accumulated in the Board of Works. You meet in the Board of Works men who have an understanding of the conditions of our people in rural Ireland which is comparable with that of the old staff of the Congested Districts Board, and I could not pay them a higher compliment than to say that.

These schemes were started by men who had an understanding of the conditions obtaining in rural Ireland, particularly the congested areas. The closing down of these schemes is part of the economy drive to relieve what the Parliamentary Secretary calls the "financial stringency", but which I call the process of going bust. This means we are meeting financial stringency, not at our own expense either in the way of accommodation or remuneration, but at the expense of the most defenceless elements in the community.

I think that is wrong. It is something of which I would be ashamed if I were the Parliamentary Secretary called upon to justify it to the House. However, I give him this credit: he does not attempt to justify it. He simply reports he was told to do it and has done it. Do not let us forget the fact that, over and above the schemes that are not being done, a lot of partially employed people in the congested areas have been sacked; and, certainly in the areas I know of, a relatively high proportion of them have gone to England to get in Birmingham and London the work that has been withdrawn from them in Ireland as a result of this Government going bust.

Now, I do not want to sound as if I am being ungenerous to the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to compliment him on the last paragraph of page 13, the last paragraph of the brief in regard to Votes 8 and 9. He says:

Work has begun in County Louth on the field stage of the archaeological survey of the country. It is planned to make a detailed, systematic, county-by-county survey. Aerial photography will play an important part in locating and identifying remains and the Air Corps is co-operating fully in this very important enterprise.

I compliment him on that. It would have been generous of him to recognise the source of his inspiration but I suppose that would be expecting too much.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Probably. The Deputy got enough compliments today.

Mr. Dillon

However, I forbear to dwell on the fact that it is a matter to which I have been directing the attention of successive Governments for close on 25 years. It is quite sufficient reward to see one's dream realised without having one's name associated with it.

I see the Parliamentary Secretary speaks of discussions with the Northern Ireland Government in regard to Border drainage problems. He says that, as a result, partly, of these discussions, it is proposed to engage on the drainage of the Kilcoo river in Counties Leitrim and Fermanagh, and of the Finn in Monaghan and Fermanagh, at which I greatly rejoice. What about the fane and the Dromore? I know the Finn is urgent and has long been the preoccupation of every Deputy who has represented County Monaghan here. I have always been told that if the Erne catchment area is dealt with, then the Dromore river would come within that catchment. I should be glad to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary if it is now proposed to deal with the Dromore. I see no mention of the Fane river but if the Finn and Dromore are done, then that would be a good beginning. My information is that the Northern Ireland authorities have done their part down as far as the Border on the Fane. I should be glad to know if and when we may expect our Government to do their part of the river which lies within our jurisdiction.

There is a reference to Phoenix Park in Dublin. I do not want to disguise that I have already mentioned this matter personally to the Parliamentary Secretary but I do it now again in public. There are certain public buildings and parks in his keeping, as Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Office of Public Works, and I want to suggest to him—I should like to hear him agree with me—that there is a very special responsibility upon us, if we have parkland in our possession, to ensure that, if it is used for grazing, it will present a model aspect. There is nothing more disedifying than to enter

Government property which holds itself out as being grazing land and to see evident upon it every example of bad husbandry which the Department of Agriculture is continually inveighing against. I yield to nobody in my admiration of the versatility of the Office of Public Works but it is not unnatural for the Office of Public Works to say: "We are not agronomists, nor, indeed, agriculturists in the Office of Public Works and we do not want to encroach on anybody else's prerogative".

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say to An Foras Talúntais and the Department of Agriculture itself, in effect: "We are willing to pay for what is requisite to be done in order to make these parks and grasslands in our possession examples of what they ought to be but it is up to you to give us your advice as to how to go about it." I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, with his background, particularly, that this matter ought to be very close to his heart. I shall not particularise further in regard to the parkland I have in mind but the Parliamentary Secretary already has some idea, I think, of the context in which I am speaking.

I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary not on his decision but on his Parliamentary skill in tossing off his announcement that the Civil Service is expanding so rapidly. The House will remember, I think, that seven years ago we were told it would drastically be reduced. I think a commission was set up for the purpose of reducing it, but the net result is that it has so dramatically increased that they are bursting out of the buildings in which they already are, and we are moving into the Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann building in Earlsfort Terrace, O'Connell Bridge House, the Rank building in Hawkins House, Liberty Hall and Ansley House in Mespil Road. I seem to remember a Parliamentary Question in which the Parliamentary Secretary was asked what happens to all the evacuated buildings and he replied, with bland frankness, that further armies of civil servants move into them. As fast as we move out one group, another body moves in. In any case, we are now in these five buildings I have mentioned.

On page 11 of his brief, the Parliamentary Secretary says:

The alternative to the renting of space in new buildings would be that the State would design and erect its own buildings. While that would undoubtedly be the ideal solution of our accommodation problem the amount of capital required to carry through such a programme would be enormous. In recent and present circumstances it could be made available only at the expense of vital services. Clearly, then, the only practical solution to the problem, though not, as I have indicated, the ideal one, lies in the renting of space in modern office blocks constructed by private enterprise.

I do not think that is true. I do not believe that the proposition here put forward can carry with it the informed approval of the specialist technicians of the Office of Public Works because there is an inherent contradiction. The Parliamentary Secretary says that his advice is that the ideal solution would be to build his own building—is that not so? —and not to rent. He says that capital stringency forces him to accept the second best, that is, the renting of accommodation in buildings erected by private capital. This all gives me a very uncomfortable feeling.

There are a lot of cute boys coming in here at present from all over the world erecting buildings, many of which are horrible eyesores. I discover to my amazement that two or three floors of these buildings are taken over subsequently by our Government. Why do the Government not build their own building, do the ideal thing and sell it to an insurance company, taking from the insurance company a lease of 99 years or 999 years at a rental which would give them a return sufficient to meet their actuarial valuation? Every insurance company in England is doing it. Half of the big office buildings in London have been built by companies such as the Shell Oil Company, Imperial Chemical Industries or companies whose total resources are as great as ours. The insurance companies who are finding a growing difficulty in investing their funds in the equity markets of the world on the Stock Exchange jump at the opportunity of a solvent tenant being prepared to sell them a building which they have erected to suit their own requirements. The insurance company then rents it back to them on a long-term lease which will give them the appropriate return on their money.

If the Parliamentary Secretary finds that it would be a much better thing to build his own building, why did he not do it? It need not have involved him in any capital expenditure at all and I very much doubt if such an arrangement would have involved him in an average cost of 17/4d per annum per square foot. I do not know whether that includes the covenant to spend up to £60,000 on adapting the accommodation to our particular requirements where we take over one or two floors of one of these buildings.

The fact is that we have taken over one or two floors in most of the buildings and have spent £60,000 adapting them to our requirements and then paid in some cases up to £1 per square foot. But, the Parliamentary Secretary said, taking one building with another, the cost was an average of 17/4d per square foot per annum—in O'Connell Bridge House, the Rank building, Liberty Hall and Ansley House in Mespil Road. That would seem to be a strange way of going about your business. I wonder with regard to all these buildings, if ever they established their right, who would undertake to occupy them. As the Parliamentary Secretary says, it is not the ideal course but only a second best.

I want to raise a matter which causes me concern and on which I have sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know what the answer is, to tell the truth. Everybody was wildly enthusiastic when the arterial drainage scheme started. They begin to root out gravel and mud and everything goes like wedding bells. Then they come to a rock barring the way. They blast the rock and proceed to take out the rock and spoil and put it somewhere. If you are to move heavy machinery down the bank of a river so as to remove the rock, you have to leave an area wide enough for that machinery to manoeuvre between the spoil you take out of the bottom of the river and the river itself. You end up with some unfortunate farmer faced with a pile of spoil 15 feet high consisting of rocks and mud. What are you to do?

Major de Valera

Put it back in the river and start again.

Mr. Dillon

Put it back in the river and start again, as Deputy de Valera says. That is like the suggestion of Deputy Booth that when light was found too expensive, you put out the lights. Both proposals are too expensive for those grappling with the realities of the situation.

Perhaps you have a man with a relatively small holding in Mayo, along the river Moy. I know a deputation from County Sligo has been asking for an interview with the Parliamentary Secretary about drainage on the Moy in the vicinity of a townland near where there is a substantial pile of rock. There is a substantial pile between that point and the Inny. This is one of the problems facing the Parliamentary Secretary. In the old days, it was commonly possible to get the county engineer to take back spoil and use it, but with modern methods, you are likely to be told that roads for tractors must have a certain specification of stone and the particular stone taken out of a river is not suitable. It is not roadstone, we are told.

I do not know what the solution of the problem is but it is a great hardship on the people on the land. The Board of Works have done excellent work and it is exasperating for them to find that the only reaction they get is a lot of protest over the countryside. I do not see what else the Board of Works could do than put the spoil out on the land. I cannot imagine though that they do not sympathise with the distress of the smallholder who is jealous of every square yard of his land because his holding is so small. I wonder how many Deputies know one of the principal reasons why the West of Ireland has become denuded of trees—because most of the small farmers cannot afford to keep trees. The shade of trees renders land on small holdings infertile, and for the same reason they cannot afford to keep the spoil from the drainage on their land. There is a kind of strip on the riverside which they feel has been effectively cut off their farms.

Mr. Larkin

They could shift the trees.

Mr. Dillon

I would be glad to know if the Parliamentary Secretary has had any opportunity of giving this matter consideration and if any solution for it has occurred to him.

There is very modest provision here for national monuments. Perhaps at the risk of going bust, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot provide as liberally for things as he would wish. All the Parliamentary Secretary has been allowed on the subhead is £60,000. There is, however, something he can do. I emphatically approve of the work of the Board of Works in the maintenance and restoration of the ancient monuments which they have taken in charge. They have worked with the best and made great improvements, and have resisted imprudent exhortations to put roofs on ancient buildings where roofs would turn some of these ancient monuments into fakes.

There is one aspect, however, where the Board of Works are making a mistake. You very often find, when passing these ancient buildings, that there is no clear indication available to the passerby that all the information he seeks is available. When I pass one of these monuments and see the little black and white card that goes with it, I know the Board of Works has this but if I see any other plaque, I get out of my car to read it. It occurs to me that it ought to be possible to design some chaste, aesthetic, artistic sign which would indicate that this monument is in charge of the Board of Works and at the same time, would communicate to the passerby that in the vicinity of this sign he will find an informative tablet or inscription which will give him the fundamental facts about the object which he has under contemplation.

I give that as a suggestion to the Board of Works. Their work deserves to be appreciated by the average passerby, by the tourist and by those of us who pay for it. I often complain, and I now complain, that bodies like the Board of Works hear all the criticism that people feel it their obligation to make on the occasion of the annual Estimate but few bother to pay tributes which hard work deserves. I think those who have charge of our monuments and the Board of Works generally have us all in their debt for the work they do in this regard. The only fault I have to find with them is that they blow their own bugle with a somewhat uncertain note and I would urge upon them to draw a little more public attention to the excellence of their performance in regard to this matter.

The last matter I want to deal with is this. This Vote speaks of public works and buildings but the Parliamentary Secretary is charged with the preservation of our ancient monuments. Deputy Larkin speaking on this aspect of the matter in its application to the city of Dublin and to other cities spoke of the clearance of sites without adequate archeological survey of the site before a new building is set upon it. I want to speak of the devastation that is being wrought in the architecture of the city of Dublin. I see that a school—is it the Royal Hibernian School? —is to move out to some location bought for it outside the city. That appears to me to be a very fine early Georgian building. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is going to happen to it?

Mr. J. Gibbons

I cannot.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary should be ablaze with interest? Before we know where we are, some warrior will arrive from Soho and the next thing is that we will see a crane arriving.

Mr. J. Gibbons

What building is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. Dillon

Is it not the Hibernian School?

Major de Valera

That was in the Park. Is it the so-called Bluecoat School?

Mr. Dillon

I saw a picture in the paper of a beautiful early Georgian building. It was a school. It was reported that the school was being moved 14 miles outside the city of Dublin—the King's Hospital School. Where is it?

Major de Valera

It is near Stoneybatter.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is near the Four Courts.

Mr. Dillon

As sure as there is an eye on a goat, there will be a crane standing outside that and somebody will proceed to tear it down.

Major de Valera

The Deputy is right. There are very strong historical associations with that building.

Mr. Dillon

It is a beautiful building.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Booth)

This is not a matter which comes under the control of the Commissioners of Public Works.

Mr. Dillon

Of course, it is.

Acting Chairman

Not unless it is part of the property vested in the Commissioners.

Mr. Dillon

You are quite mistaken. I am quite in order to urge the Commissioners to take it over. That is what I am saying to them: take it over before some warrior arrives from Soho with an upstanding crane to take the roof off and pull it down and erect some pillbox. That is what they may plan to do. You will have a supermarket on it before you know where you are. I wanted to take over the whole of Mountjoy Square when I was Minister for Agriculture and was quite prepared to move the entire Department of Agriculture up there. I think it would have been a very good thing to do. I think it would have been a damn sight better thing to move the Department of Agriculture to Mountjoy Square and restore all these Georgian buildings and accommodate the Department there than to park them in Ansley House.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It is too late now.

Mr. Dillon

I know, but let us learn from our past mistakes. We are now paying 17/4d a square foot to a company in these revolting pillboxes. If I had been given anything like 17/4d a square foot, I could have actuated the Board of Works to take over the whole of Mountjoy Square and we would have one of the loveliest Georgian Squares in Europe intact and protected for evermore. Now Stephen's Green is disappearing under our eyes. I am in fear and terror that I will wake up some morning to be told that the Board of Works have sold out. They have started on the corner from Hume Street to the Board of Works. The Board of Works at the moment is itself staying the flood but the Church Representative Body building is gone.

Major de Valera

The King's Hospital would be a nice site for the Board of Works now.

Mr. Dillon

If they occupied it, I would not be a bit distressed, provided it did not mean that they evacuated before the whole horde of vandals that are advancing from the Continent. I am hoping that we would have a battle of Lepanto on the gable end of the Board of Works building and would turn the Turks back there, to any place but to Stephen's Green. Otherwise, Stephen's Green is virtually gone and gone in my lifetime, gone since the end of the war. I am waiting for the vandals to start on Merrion Square.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Don John of Austria.

Mr. Dillon

That is the funny part of it, that we laugh at Don John of Austria. God help the poor old Turks.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I am laughing at the Deputy's simile—Lepanto.

Mr. Dillon

This is what drives me frantic. The poor old Turks at least were coming in with fire and sword to establish the Mahomedan religion and believed that they had a great cause and for this cause they should burn down cities and massacre populations. We are allowing fellows with chequebooks to come in and do it. The people of Europe 500 years ago defended these things with their lives against the Turks. Don John of Austria was on one side and the Spaniards on the other holding them at bay. But, I declare to God, if the vandal comes in here, not armed with fire or sword, but with a blooming chequebook, he can wreak more havoc upon our native city than the Turkish army was allowed to do in Europe 500 years ago. Does that not humiliate every one of us, whether we were born in Dublin or not?

I was born and reared in one of these Georgian houses in North Great George's Street. It is still there, thanks be to God. I know what treasures they were. I lived in a house in London and every door in it came from Frederick Street, and two of the mantelpieces. I do not think they are bothering to preserve the doors or the mantelpieces. They all go out in the junk heap.

Deputy de Valera probably sympathises with my view and I am sure Deputy Larkin sympathises with my view. I shrewdly suspect that the Parliamentary Secretary sympathises with my view. How is it that we cannot do anything about it?

Mr. J. Gibbons

We have not assessed the problem properly yet.

Mr. Dillon

Can we conscientiously say that we have not assessed the problem properly yet?

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, I think so.

Mr. Dillon

Why do we not say: "Stop; this whole thing must stop"?

Mr. J. Gibbons

That is not sufficient.

Mr. Dillon

I think we have assessed it correctly and then we will determine where the vandalism may run and where the vandal is to be controlled. If it is not this office of Government which is concerned with ancient monuments, who is concerned?

Acting Chairman

Does it not come under town planning in the Estimate for the Department of Local Government?

Mr. Dillon

No, I am afraid not. The Minister, I think, has no function in town planning.

Acting Chairman

Yes, but at the same time, that is a matter which comes under the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the preservation of ancient monuments comes under the Office of Public Works? However, it does not matter; I have said what I want to say. I have spoken of archaeological treasures but we have other treasures than archaeological treasures. We have architectural treasures in this country. They need protection, too. They have no protection by the same procedure as the archaeological remains. There is no town planning that can say: "You must not knock down that building". What it can say is: "If you knock down that building, you must satisfy the town planner that you will substitute for it something that is suitable and acceptable to the town planner". That is not what I want. I want the sovereign Government of this country to say: "There are certain buildings that we will not let anybody knock down". Unless we hurry up and do it, irreparable damage will be done. I want to give the Parliamentary Secretary two cases in point.

Acting Chairman

Does the Deputy feel that this can be done under existing legislation?

Mr. Dillon

He can take over any building he likes that is deemed to be an ancient building. For instance, suppose the Royal Hospital is standing vacant tomorrow, can he not take it over as an ancient monument? He took over Carrick-on-Suir Castle where Anne Boleyn was born. I suppose if he took that over, he can take over a more respectable building.

Acting Chairman

Was that taken over compulsorily or by agreement?

Mr. Dillon

I think so. If he can take it over at all, it can be done. He can go and negotiate with the Royal Hospital. I do not give a fiddle-dee-dee how he takes it over, so long as the havoc that may be caused is avoided.

Cement Limited bought a site at the bottom of Fitzwilliam Square. They got an architect who managed to wreck the building which preserved the facade of that unique Georgian square. Right opposite it, the ESB tore down Fitzwilliam Street. I am told now—I did not know this then—that the ESB were offered the full economic value of those houses by a body that was prepared to exploit them as residential flats.

Acting Chairman

I am afraid the Deputy is straying outside the limits of the debate.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Board of Works itself or per alios protect——

Mr. J. Gibbons

What was that word again?

Mr. Dillon

Per alios: per se aut per alios—itself or by others.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Oh; yes; I understand.

Mr. Dillon

——protect not only our archaeological treasures but our architectural treasures as well? I appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary, in spite of some difficulty for himself, has succeeded in making some beginning on the archaeological side. I agree with him that it is not the length of the road that matters; it is taking the first step upon the journey that is significant. I do not believe that he or any of his successors will arrest the progress of the work he has initiated. Therefore, for me his name will be always associated with it. I would like to be able to make the same association in defence of the architectural heritage which is ours.

Mr. J. Gibbons

I suppose I should begin where Deputy Dillon left off. He referred specifically to St. Stephen's Green, which brings up a general question with which the Office of Public Works has no direct dealing, the general question of the preservation of Georgian Dublin and, arising from that, the determination of precisely how we as a nation ought to proceed in the preservation of Georgian Dublin as we know it.

I do not believe there is any Deputy who goes out through those doors and looks out from the landing across Merrion Square or takes the trouble to go down Merrion Square and look at Fitzwilliam Street and Fitzwilliam Square and other areas of Dublin like that but would agree with Deputy Dillon that we have here in Dublin architectural treasures which definitely ought to be preserved. It is a far cry from agreeing with those sentiments to posturing, as Deputy Dillon does, as the Last Knight of Europe taking weapons from the war or possibly even like the Pope, casting his arms abroad for agony and loss and calling the Kings of Christendom for Swords about the Cross. It is easy to talk about Lepanto and become very dramatic. Deputy Dillon is not alone in this failing. I would call it a human failing. It is a tendency among a great many people—some of them mere pedants, ignorant pedants, who jump on this bandwagon, attach themselves to a cause that is in itself worthy and damage it and destroy it by their protestations of a superior appreciation of things such as this.

Mr. Dillon

Or by their mob activities.

Mr. J. Gibbons

Yes, occasionally. I came across a reference recently in a journal that circulates in this city. I forget the name of it, but it has something vaguely to do with the building trade. It was asserting that I and other officers of the Office of Public Works were taking a fiendish delight in the destruction of Georgian Dublin for some pecuniary reason, for the reason, it was suggested in this article, that I and others were making a good thing out of it, and this was a source of greenbacks, as the article said, for myself and for other people in the Office of Public Works. This is the type of thing I am talking about, of either the half-crazy fanatic or the ignorant pedant attaching himself to a cause that is in itself a worthy cause.

Deputy Dillon is the very Deputy I heard in this House wringing his hands in horror about a tragedy which occurred some years ago in this city of Dublin when a Georgian type building fell down and caused a fatal accident.

Mr. Dillon

"Georgian-type" is a good word. It was built about 1872 by a scratch builder—I forget his name. It was beside Archer's Garage.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The fact is that when a building becomes unsafe, whether it is a Georgian building or any other kind of building, it can very well fall down. This is the one that Deputy Dillon wrung his hands about. He had a phrase about it, a catchcry or cant that he used: "The houses are falling down on the people."

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. J. Gibbons

One of the houses about which the most recent furore has arisen, No. 1 Hume Street, is in bad structural condition and is potentially dangerous. I think, therefore, that the best thing that can be done with a house such as that, before it causes a fatal accident, is to have it taken down.

There is another aspect to this. Deputy Dillon has suggested more than once, including today in this House, that the Office of Public Works itself will soon come under the attentions of the Turks, the destroyers, the boyos from Soho. That is not so. There is no question of the boyos from Soho interfering with the Office of Public Works.

Mr. Dillon

So the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to make a Lepanto of the gable.

Mr. J. Gibbons

It was the Deputy who brought Lepanto into the discussion. Why, I cannot imagine. Between No. 46 St. Stephen's Green and the Office of Public Works, there was a group of, I think, three Georgian houses called Dominican Hall. These have been taken down—I do not, like other people, put myself forward as an expert in these matters or as one with a particularly refined perception—but I appreciate what people mean when they speak of "Georgian Dublin".

In my view, that side of St. Stephen's Green from the end of Merrion Row down to St. Vincent's Hospital will have been irreparably damaged or, at least, changed by the removal of Dominican Hall. It has been removed and I think it is a very debatable point now whether the retention of No. 46 and the decrepit and potentially dangerous No. 1 Hume Street would, even if they were preserved, add anything to the Georgian character of St. Stephen's Green or to its architectural harmony on that side. I do not think there is any certainty that the person who will develop the area must of necessity build a glass and concrete monstrosity such as those which have been built in other parts of the city. I do not know why Dublin Corporation cannot regulate the building of new structures in areas such as St. Stephen's Green or why their architects cannot achieve an effect such as that to which Deputy Dillon referred in relation to Irish Cement Limited.

This matter of the preservation of Georgian Dublin does not really arise on this Vote at all, but, since the Office of Public Works has been accused of being philistine in this matter and accused of being mercenary, it is necessary that we should at least face up to the facts. I think Dublin Corporation should immediately prepare a plan for the preservation of large areas of Georgian Dublin. In this connection, I should like to refer to a visit I paid to an exhibition run by An Taisce. It is still running in Dawson Street.

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The exhibition deals with this very subject. With that as a starting point, there is a type of defined plan for the preservation of Georgian Dublin and steps should now be taken towards preservation rather than leave the whole thing in the hands of pedants and cranks.

Mr. Dillon

And vandals.

Mr. J. Gibbons

And ignorant people who, as I have said a couple of times already, besmirch this very worthy cause by their unwarranted support.

I should like to express my appreciation of the tribute paid by Deputy Cosgrave and others to the national monuments section of the Office of Public Works and to say that I, like them, recognise the fact that provision in the Estimate for the preservation of our national monuments is lamentably small and that, if it were not for the work of unselfish, utterly patriotic, people like Father Egan of Ballintubber and, on a more parochial level, of the Kilkenny Archaeological Society, the matter of preservation might be more unsatisfactory still. These two have, each in his own way, done something for Ireland which is of real value. They have preserved something very worthy of preservation for us and for those who will come after us and the appreciation and thanks of the House and of the Irish nation are due to them.

I should hope that, in the context of an annual Vote which, however it may be improved, will always be proportionately somewhat less than sufficient, other groups will take example from people like Father Egan and the Kilkenny Archaeological Society and take on, in their own respective localities, the job of preserving some national monument. There is scarcely an area in which there is not some notable monument of national importance which ought to be preserved.

Deputy Cosgrave referred to the Royal Hospital and the publicity it got in recent times. He also referred to the necessity that there is, and it is recognised, of a very careful estimate being made before jobs of this kind are embarked on.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 13th December, 1966.