Vol. 245 No. 2
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £250,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, 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; for the execution and maintenance of Drainage and other Engineering Works; and for payment of grants-in-aid.
When the main Estimate was before the House a number of Deputies expressed regret that the Estimate for the year 1969-70 was reduced. I tried to explain to the House then that, in fact, we would overexpend the money then provided and this has now proved to be the case.
This Supplementary Estimate is for increased expenditure on some of the services provided by the Office of Public Works and to regularise certain payments.
The total amount required is £294,000, but £44,000 of this will be met from increased receipts.
The excess under subhead B is caused by the greater amount of travelling found necessary to deal with the activities of the Office and by increases in the allowances for travelling and subsistence.
The extra amount under subhead D is to meet the cost of accommodation needed urgently for the Language Institute. The need was not foreseen when the original estimate was being prepared.
The main increases are for primary school building and arterial drainage. School building work has gone ahead very satisfactorily this year and the total expenditure is expected to reach £3.6 million.
The £52,000 required for arterial drainage is to meet increases in wages granted during the year.
The sum of £1,000 provided separately under subhead EE is to regularise the payments for Killybegs fishery harbour scheme following the passing of the Fishery Harbour Centres Act 1969.
Subheads F1 and F2 cover the maintenance and furnishing of State premises. The excess on these services is due to increased costs and to the requirements being higher than was expected. The increases on subhead F4 are due to increases in the charges for electricity and other fuels.
Subhead H covers the purchase and maintenance of engineering plant, machinery and stores. The additional sum required reflects increased costs and calls on the services provided by the Central Engineering Workshop.
A survey of provincial museums, great gardens and historic houses is being carried out by An Taisc. It is desirable to assess resources and needs in these fields so that future policy may be determined. I am seeking authority to finance this desirable work by the payment of a grant-in-aid for £3,000.
An extra £4,000 is needed for refitting the Asgard.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that when the main Estimate was introduced most Deputies, including myself, felt a little aggrieved that the Estimate was less than the figure we all felt it should be. I do not think that this extra £250,000 is doing the work most of the Deputies suggested should be carried out by the Office of Public Works. This sum is mainly in respect of increases in costs, charges and wages. In considering the figure of £250,000 in an Estimate of approximately £9 million, it is fair comment to say that there was a very poor attempt made at proper estimation.
The biggest item here is under subhead F1 where a figure of £125,000 is quoted for maintenance and supplies. I find it difficult to believe, even with the extra cost and increases in prices, that that figure should be so high. Subhead H, which refers to maintenance of plant and machinery, also shows a large increase. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would say when replying whether any new plant or machinery was purchased that was not anticipated when the Estimate was being prepared?
It was reported to me some time ago that there was a danger that many of the labourers employed in Board of Works schemes would be redundant before the end of this financial year. I should like to know if this is the case and also whether the employment there is as high as it was previously: were any labourers disemployed in any of the schemes undertaken by the Board of Works since last Christmas?
There is a reference to a sum of £3.6 million being spent on schools. When this Estimate was being discussed I agreed that any money spent on schools throughout the country was a step in the right direction and I still hold this opinion. However, rumour has it that there will be a slowing down in the building of schools and I should like if the Parliamentary Secretary would tell us whether he has any indication either from the Minister for Finance or from the Government that that is part of that policy.
I do not think the House will object to the provision of this money since, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, we all asked on the main estimate debate that this work should be done. The only comment I have to make is that I do not see that any of the extra work or more useful work we suggested will be undertaken as a result of the provision of this money. I am appealing to the Minister, therefore, first of all to ensure that there will be no redundancy from the point of view of employment in the Board of Works and, secondly, to ensure the construction, maintenance and heating of schools.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that the main increases under subheads E and G are for primary school building and arterial drainage. He says:
School building work has gone ahead very satisfactorily this year and the total expenditure is expected to reach £3.6 million.
The Board of Works are doing a reasonably good job but there are still far too many substandard schools. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary can do about these. I do not know whether or not he can attempt to increase substantially the amount of money available. Last year I had a question down about schools in my constituency, a constituency close to Dublin city, and I was appalled at the number of substandard schools. Now the fact that some schools are so bad is because it does not appear to have been anybody's responsibility to keep them in repair and, if a school starts going down hill, it is only a matter of time before lack of maintenance, repainting and repair leaves the school in a condition in which it is close to being unfit for human habitation. There are far too many of these schools. It is shocking to find schools built as recently as 25 years ago in that condition. No one seems to have any responsibility for maintenance. I do not know whether it is the school manager, the inspector, the Board of Works, or the teacher who should see that maintenance is carried out.
I am opposed to the idea that it does not matter what kind the surroundings are in the schools. It is unrealistic to ask us to have young people growing up in such surroundings. Inevitably they will become vandals when they find they can break windows, damage doors, pull up floorboards, or anything else they like, and nobody will pass any remark. It should be the responsibility of the principal to see that the schools are kept in good repair. The pupils should be encouraged to keep the schools clean and tidy. Every effort should be made to provide pleasant surroundings, including flower beds where possible. Where there is a playground it should be kept clean and neat., It is shocking to see playgrounds littered with luncheon wrappers. No effort appears to be made to keep some of the playgrounds in order. The Parliamentary Secretary might pay a little attention to this and see if some improvement can be made.
There are exceptions. There are schools which are a joy to look at. Apparently those who work in them take an interest in both the pupils and their surroundings. As I say, these schools are a joy to look at. But the opposite is the case far too often. In addition, there is the old story, more relevant to the Department of Education, I admit, where a school built a few short years ago and still in excellent condition is closed down and the pupils transferred to another bigger centre, a centre in which additional classrooms have to be built to cater for the extra pupils. There is something wrong in this. Enough attention is not being given to this by the Department of Education and, if they do not give it, then it is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary to see that public money is not wasted.
We could talk about arterial drainage all day. The Parliamentary Secretary says:
The £52,000 required for arterial drainage is to meet increases in wages granted during the year.
I assume this refers to the famous 25/-and the £1. Last April practically every worker in the country got a wage increase. No State employee got an increase at that time but, after a good deal of shemozzle and after a special sub-committee was set up, it was agreed to give these workers an increase of 25/-, not from April but from June. This was a little bit of sharp practice. That was followed by another £1 in October. It was quite a long time before that money was paid to some of those employed on arterial drainage. Apparently no provision was made for the extra money needed to meet these increases and the result was that drainage maintenance workers were laid off work, although the work was there for them, and they are still unemployed. If anybody thinks it is improving the worker's lot to give him an increase of £2 5s a week and then give him eight months work instead of twelve he does not know very much about the economics of the working man's home. Possibly those who decided this was the way to do things are the people who have 52 weeks wages every year.
The Parliamentary Secretary is relatively new to the job. I have discussed these things with him. I have found him very approachable. He is prepared to look at my side and in one particular case he was able to be of considerable assistance. Now I do not like writing to Parliamentary Secretaries or Ministers about matters which should be dealt with by officials and so I try to deal with officials, but it is a little ridiculous when someone writes and says that the men on X scheme cannot be restarted until some time in May, which is the usual time, when in fact I know and they know that the men on X scheme have always been employed up until the middle of January, off in February and part of March, and usually starting again in early April. This sort of thing does not help to engender good labour relations and the Parliamentary Secretary could help by getting these people to understand that facts are facts.
There is another matter of which the Parliamentary Secretary might take note. In arterial drainage we are dealing with men who are on little more than a bare subsistence. The money they get for the job they do brings them only from one week to another. If a man was liable to income tax— God knows, very few even lowly paid workers escape now—the Minister for Finance took approximately 11/- out of that £2 5s. increase. If the man was living in a local authority house the local authority took half-a-crown in the £—not 3/8 which is what it is in Dublin —which represented another 5/-. There was an increase in the stamp from 1st January and the £2 5s has suddenly become £1 and a few shillings of an increase. We are, I think, reaching the stage at which when wage negotiations are being carried out we will have to start taking into consideration what the take home wage is——
Hear, hear.
——rather than what is being paid as a gross wage. It is most unfair to give a man the impression that he is getting an increase of £2 5s to enable him to live better and to buy the necessities of life when that £2 5s turns out to be £2 5s less £1, which the State, which is granting him the increase, takes back from him. This is simple economics. It has to be dealt with some time and the quicker the Parliamentary Secretary deals with it the better. Men employed on arterial drainage are working at the dirtiest job possible. They have to take mud, stones and all sorts of muck out of the rivers. They are exposed to the elements from early morning to late at night. The Office of Public Works have got their employees to work long hours during the summer. They work these hours needing the money from overtime because their wage rates are so low.
A definite effort must be made to improve the wages of these people. A wage demand has been served on the Office of Public Works. The very least we could expect is that within a period of a few weeks a conference would be arranged to discuss these matters. Apart from a simple acknowledgment, such as is used for acknowledging everything in the Office of Public Works, no notification has been received. Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to find out from the officials when they mean to open negotiations with the trade unions on the question of this year's wages? The wage rates should operate from 1st April, 1970, and not from 1st June next. It is only fair that the employees of the Office of Public Works should be treated in the same way as employees in other jobs. They should know at least their position. They should not be thrown something in a "take it or leave it" way. We have now the right to take the case of employees of the Office of Public Works and other State employees to the Labour Court. We do not want to go to the Labour Court with all sorts of complaints. Unless the Office of Public Works improve labour relations, they will find they will have to have the same treatment as everybody else and will have to discuss publicly the rate of wages they are trying to justify, rather than in the boardrooms, with people representing the workers who are prepared to discuss the matter in a reasonable way.
The £52,000 required here is to meet increases in wages during the year. Can I take it this sum will now have the effect of re-employing some of the people laid off because of the fact that money was short in a particular period? Can I also take it that an effort will be made by the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that a substantial wage increase for the coming year will be included in the Estimate so that we will not have this situation again where men are laid off because the money was not available even though the work was there to be done?
The Parliamentary Secretary, referring to subheads F1 and F2 said:
Subheads F1 and F2 cover the maintenance and furnishing of State premises. The excess on these services is due to increased costs and to the requirements being higher than was expected. The increases on subhead F4 are due to increases in the charges for electricity and other fuels.
I assume that "State premises" includes Dáil Éireann. Might I refer to the fact that on the floor used by the Labour Party two rooms which were available when not in use for sub-committee meetings have been locked for a considerable period and have not been made available to the Labour Party since they were taken over?
I believe one has been made available to the Labour Party.
Not officially. There was a promise one room would be made available.
That is my information as of today.
This is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary, who has no function in it at all.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges sat this evening.
As the Deputy is aware there was a meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges this evening to discuss this point. The Parliamentary Secretary has no function in the matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary has given me the information I require. We have no objection to the provision of the extra moneys required. I notice there have been quite a substantial number of Supplementary Estimates moved over the last few weeks. I would imagine they have run as high as the sum which would have been found by a mini-budget if there had not been a by-election in Dublin South-West. It was not politic to have that mini-budget because of the by-election. I will be most interested to see the provision made for this over-expenditure in the Budget which is coming soon.
One point I wish to mention arises from amalgamation of national schools. Another point arises from closure of Garda barracks in small towns and villages which leaves the Office of Public Works with sites on which it was originally intended to build Garda barracks. The same point applies to certain customs posts. It also applies in cases where schools have been amalgamated.
Would the Ceann Comhairle tell me what section of the Supplementary Estimate deals with the matters Deputy Cunningham is now speaking of? I was ruled out of order a few minutes ago.
The Office of Public Works have properties on their hands which are in danger of becoming neglected.
We have received £44,000—it is in the Supplementary Estimate—on the sale of certain properties to which I gather Deputy Cunningham is referring.
Where is that?
It is on the second page under "Increased Receipts".
Deputy Cunningham is in order.
Before any of these buildings fall into disrepair, or even ruin, they should be disposed of. This would apply also to any lands which are held. These lands are usually small plots. These small plots of land can become unsightly, if neglected. It is not to be expected that the Office of Public Works would look after all these small pieces of land. As building sites are becoming very valuable, I would suggest that any derelict land which will not be used for any purpose and any derelict or vacated buildings should be put up for sale by public auction or public tender. Where schools have been closed, local philanthropic or development associations should be given first option in the negotiation with the Office of Public Works for the purchase of the buildings. There are many cases where local development committees, charitable organisations, credit unions, or any organisation working for the local benefit, either economic or philanthropic, could make good use of these premises.
It is a pity to see around the country-side schools, closed because of amalgamation, being neglected and falling into disrepair. When such properties are not being used by the Board of Works they should be either sold to or placed at the disposal of local bodies or, indeed, put up for public sale for any other use. In Donegal we have Fort Leenan which was handed over to the Government in the 'thirties and which is not now used as a military fort but is under the Office of Public Works. A local development committee is very much interested in this property and they feel they could make use of it or could encourage some person, company or group of persons to use it for the benefit of the area. I have already suggested to the Parliamentary Secretary that it should be disposed of to the local development committee at an agreed reasonable price or else it should be let to them at a reasonable rent. What could happen in such cases is that such properties could be bought by a person who might have no interest in local development and the community, therefore, would derive no benefit.
In general, I would suggest that schools or other buildings which have been vacated for one reason or another should be disposed of rather than be retained until their value drops. All of the schools which have closed because of amalgamation are not owned by the Office of Public Works and I am sorry to say that the position here is even worse. I know of many schools that have been closed and no use whatever is being made of the buildings. In some cases they are not bad buildings. The Parliamentary Secretary has no control over those schools but where schools are owned by the Board of Works he has and I should like him to take action.
My second point deals with the erection of national schools. Although we hear about protests and agitation against the closing of a school or schools because of amalgamation the public may get the idea that there is wholesale disagreement with the policy. This is not so. It is only isolated cases which reach the headlines and the hundreds and hundreds of cases where agreed amalgamation has taken place never reach the headlines at all.
The policy of closing schools would be more properly a matter for the Department of Education. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary would have any function whatsoever.
I agree, but the point I am trying to make is that where there is agreement for amalgamation involving the erection of a new school, where everybody is agreed that two or three schools should be closed and that amalgamation should take place —and this is happening in 90 per cent of the cases—the grumble in part of the area I represent, and, indeed, in most areas, is over the delay in erecting the school. Where everybody has agreed there should be very little delay in erecting the school. Where there is disagreement a case might be made for delaying the erection of a new school but where there is 100 per cent agreement—between parents, teachers, manager and Department—every effort should be made to have the school erected quickly. There are a number of cases in my area where the agitation is not against amalgamation but over the delay of the Board of Works in erecting these schools.
As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the main increases here are for primary school buildings and arterial drainage. It is only right that we should congratulate the Board of Works and the Parliamentary Secretary on the type of schools being built, on the design, the lay-out, etc. Recently I was in a neighbouring village, Blackwater, near Enniscorthy, and I saw there a beautiful new school which is a tribute to the Board of Works and those responsible for it. My main reason for contributing to this debate is to mention schools for mentally handicapped. Recently a school was completed in Enniscorthy for the mentally handicapped and, again, it was a very fine building. While, again, in the first instance, it is a matter for the Department of Education I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to get ahead with the building of these schools for the mentally handicapped. There is a proposal for a school in Wexford town and the plans are with the Parliamentary Secretary's office and I hope sanction will be forthcoming in the very near future and that they will be able to get ahead with the job.
It was also mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary that £52,000 required for arterial drainage is to meet increases in wages granted during the year. I am sure nobody has any objection to the increases granted to the workers in this section of the Board of Works and, like Deputy Tully, I would like to see greater increases under this heading. These people work very hard and deserve everything we can give them. We cannot divorce the workers' wages from the work they do so I should like to mention the question of urgent drainage works. I know that there are definite well laid down priorities for arterial drainage but there are urgent drainage matters and I feel the Parliamentary Secretary should have some latitude in dealing with these. We had the Parliamentary Secretary in Wexford recently to look at one of these problems. I hope he will find it possible to provide the necessary funds to look after this urgent matter. It is a problem that will affect something like 9,000 to 10,000 acres of arable land if it is attended to.
At subhead K the Parliamentary Secretary says that a survey of provincial museums, great gardens and historic houses has been carried out by An Taisce. I am interested in the provincial museums. A few years ago a local committee in Enniscorthy, headed by the late administrator of the town, Father Ransome, acquired the ancient Norman castle there which was in a remarkable state of preservation and turned it into a folk museum. This museum is now something which attracts visitors from far and near to Enniscorthy. I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has formulated any policy in relation to this type of museum because it is something that is very worthy of support.
This is the first time I have spoken on a Supplementary Estimate introduced by this new Parliamentary Secretary. I want to congratulate him and hope that he will continue the work for many years. A river in north Dublin, commonly known as the Ballyboughal River, is the cause of flooding of hundreds of acres of land. The source of the river is on the borders of Deputy Tully's constituency so we have water from County Meath flowing down through County Dublin.
Are you not lucky?
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to take a note of this river and have a survey of it carried out. I would be delighted, of course, to entertain him by taking him along the Ballyboughal River from the sea to Garristown and Deputy Tully would probably take over there.
We will do it ourselves. We would not ask the Government for anything like that.
I am delighted to see that £52,000 is required for arterial drainage to meet the increases in wages granted during the year. We are all anxious to see these people getting the normal increases. They are doing a tough job. I have nothing to say about harbours except that the Parliamentary Secretary and his predecessor have done a good job for me in Skerries and I want to thank them. I do not see a subhead here on coast erosion and I claim your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle——
I am sorry, Deputy. The question does not arise on this Supplementary Estimate.
I thought I might get away with it. I would put in a subhead myself if I had time. The Office of Public Works has done a good job in County Dublin in regard to the building of schools. Twenty-five years ago we had a number of very bad schools in the county. Great advances have been made with school buildings, both in the city and county. I may not speak on barracks. May I only speak on what is in the Estimate?
That is correct.
I will not transgress the law. In regard to the furnishing of State premises I should like to see a little more done in the small room here in the Dáil that we call the room for the adjournment. It is about time we brightened the visitors' salon up a bit. The custom might be better in future. With regard to the purchase of engineering plant I want to say that modern machinery is most essential for any progressive Department. I hope that work will continue.
With reference to provincial museums I believe that, as we are depending so much on the tourist trade, every area should have its own historic museum. It would be a good thing if committees were set up in the different counties to deal with this. There are many museum pieces to be found in the homes in various counties.
The Taj Mahal.
It would cost too much to ship it over.
We are talking about another one.
In regard to historic houses one hears people talking about historic houses that are falling down. I like to see historic houses that are not a bundle of rubble. We have a historic house in north Dublin which we were very anxious to hold on to when I was chairman of the health authority but it would cost about £20,000 to do anything with it. We wanted it for use as an old people's home.
Did you not get that for the site?
We did not sell it yet. We bought this house from the Land Commission. I want to speak now about St. Patrick's Island which goes back to 432. The Parliamentary Secretary might have another survey carried out on St. Patrick's Island so that the tradition associated with the island might be preserved. It is true that St. Patrick landed there. If we were only to put a goat on it it would be something.
It would not last very long there.
My colleague here has said that there have been applications from persons interested in the island but may I say that they were the wrong type of applicants whom we could not entertain?
I am glad to see that the Asgard is being repaired and preserved. This is one of our great historical pieces. The Asgard and those who manned it helped to obtain for us the freedom that we in the 26 Counties enjoy.
While the Supplementary Estimate does not permit of very wide discussion I consider that I should not let the occasion pass without expressing my pleasure that the tremendous work being carried out by An Taisce is now being recognised and that a grant-in-aid of £3,000 is being made available to this organisation. It is not generally appreciated and the public are not generally aware of the aims and ideals of this organisation and the tremendous amount of work which they have been doing quietly and without publicity.
An Taisce have done a tremendous job in focussing attention on the great heritage of this country, particularly, historic buildings and places. The survey now being carried out by An Taisce will reveal an interesting situation. Deputy Burke referred to the more practical aspect of the programme for preserving historic buildings, that they have very great potentiality as regards the tourist industry. While realising that these memorials are of great interest to many tourists we must not lose sight of the importance of making our great heritage known to the younger generation. I have personal knowledge and experience of the work that has been and is being done by An Taisce and I welcome the grant-in-aid in this Supplementary Estimate.
I am aware of the efforts of An Taisce to restore, at least in part, the historic walls of Limerick. A great practical example of the value of our ancient buildings in so far as the tourist industry is concerned is Bunratty Castle which is situated a few miles outside Limerick. Here, an ancient building has been restored to its original condition and, due to the tremendous promotional work and imaginative planning by the Shannon Development Company, has become a tremendous tourist attraction.
However, while I welcome this grant-in-aid I am puzzled as to how the figure of £3,000 was arrived at. The Parliamentary Secretary might give us some additional information in this regard. The carrying out of any survey nowadays is a costly business and relatively small social surveys have cost several thousand pounds. I am wondering if the amount provided will be adequate. Certainly, the Parliamentary Secretary will have sympathetic support for any efforts he may make to uphold the work of An Taisce and to assist in preserving our great heritage.
I wish to make one or two points with regard to arterial drainage and I hope the Ceann Comhairle will allow me to do so. Under the subhead for arterial drainage, we are told, an additional £2,000 is required. The question of arterial drainage is very much in the minds of the people of the constituency which I have the honour to represent. This is because of the recent decision of the High Court in relation to the draining of the river Maigue. I should like to know what will happen in this regard since the original scheme has been thrown out and the High Court decision has been given against the Board of Works. If the Parliamentary Secretary can throw any light on this matter I shall be very grateful. If he has not got the information now he might be kind enough to write to us giving the information. This decision of the High Court has come as a bombshell to the hundreds of farmers who were told years ago that the river Maigue would be drained and that all was in readiness. Unfortunately a flaw was discovered in the Adare area. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to let us have whatever information he can as to what will happen now.
I should just like to make a few remarks in regard to this Supplementary Estimate. A great deal of the activity of the Board of Works relates to the building of schools and I must say that the work seems to have been done in an excellent manner. Nobody has found fault with the work to date. However, as some of the previous speakers remarked, a number of the older schools that have now become vacant are the cause of some trouble and local people or local organisations would like to acquire these schools. Therefore, I join with those Deputies in urging the Parliamentary Secretary to facilitate those people to the extent within his power.
My reason for rising on this occasion is to make a few remarks about arterial drainage. It is obvious that very good work has been done throughout the country in this regard but, unfortunately, my constituency does not seem to be in a position of any priority in this connection. For all practical purposes, the constituency is surrounded by water because of the various rivers on each side most of which flow into the Shannon.
The River Shannon has received some publicity in the past and I am aware that work has been started on that river. To this extent, any promises that have been made have been fulfilled but it is obvious to any reasonable person that it would take a very long time to conclude anything definite in relation to this river. We are told that the tributaries flowing into the Shannon cannot be drained until such time as the Shannon itself has been drained but it is my opinion that some new thinking will have to be done in this regard because, as I see it, we will have to wait an indefinite time to have work carried out on those rivers.
There is the other problem which has been aired here by Deputy Seán Browne as regards the smaller rivers. I will certainly go along with everything he has said in urging the Parliamentary Secretary to provide money for schemes to deal with small rivers. I understand there is a scheme for draining intermediate rivers which flow into the sea or into certain lakes but again they seem to be caught up in this question of Shannon drainage. We are told even the smaller rivers cannot be drained. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to take particular note of this problem and to make provision by way of Supplementary Estimate or main Estimate for this purpose. Flooding of these rivers has been a source of trouble and there is tremendous demand for drainage. This problem is not confined to my constituency. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give very serious consideration to this matter before the introduction of another Estimate.
I would like to say first in relation to the question of redundancy that Deputy Tully and Deputy Barry are fully aware that redundancy is a seasonal hazard in so far as maintenance of the various rivers that have been drained is concerned. There is no fixed date when people are let off and there is no fixed date when they are employed. The information so far as I can ascertain is that re-employment starts some time around April and maybe in some cases not until May.
The fact that we have made provision for £52,000 in this Supplementary Estimate should allay any worry Deputy Tully has in particular that because the men got a rise they were let go ahead of time. This sum of money has been provided for the purpose of paying the increases in wages and I am very glad I was able to get this sum to retain people in employment as long as I possibly could. I would like to say, however, so far as I am personally concerned, and so far as discussions as to next year's Estimate are concerned, if I can help it in no instance will I allow those maintenance schemes to terminate before Christmas. It goes against the grain with me to see people laid off a couple of weeks before Christmas but this is sometimes necessary due to water levels and many other factors which money has nothing to do with whatsoever. There are a great number of factors affecting the length of the maintenance work and money is not the most important. In fact, sometimes we run into difficulty about the availability of seasonal employees. Sometimes they are just not available at all.
That could not have been the case in a lay-off. They are, in fact, working and laid off.
Yes, but sometimes these people find better and more remunerative employment.
It did not happen last year.
I am very pleased to say that as a result of general Government policy the instances of unemployment are very much less than they were some years ago. I expect that starting in April, not necessarily in Deputy Tully's area, various seasonal employees will be taken on for maintenance work again. They will be taken on as they are required in the different areas depending on the merits of each individual case.
I should like to say that wage negotiations are a matter for the trade unions. The various unions which have to negotiate with the Office of Public Works have found the establishment people are prepared to sit down and talk reasonably with them in the hope of reaching an amicable settlement. I certainly do not try to intervene if I can help it. I have received deputations regarding complaints about conditions rather than about wage levels and I have in some instances been able at least to help a compromise to be reached between my officials and the officials of the trade union. Settlements are reached between the Office of Public Works and the trade unions in the ordinary manner of wage negotiations as obtains in private industries.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that no discussions have taken place on the forthcoming wage round although it is due to operate on 1st April?
I am not aware of what approach the various trade unions made to us. If there has been any undue delay in dealing with any claims that have been made by the unions I would be glad if it was brought to my attention and I will see to the best of my ability things are speeded up.
The discussions have not been opened.
Has an application been made?
Yes.
We will look into that matter. To the best of my knowledge and from my experience, the people employed in our establishment section are reasonable men and anxious to be reasonable in whatever settlement they make with any trade union. I am quite sure they will not delay negotiations for any ulterior motive the Deputy might be suggesting.
I am not suggesting an ulterior motive, I am simply suggesting it is unreasonable that they have taken so little interest that they have not asked to have a discussion.
I reject the implication that they have not taken an interest in it.
If the Parliamentary Secretary can give me another reason I will accept it.
I can say that in fact the settlements we made with some of the employees in the Deputy's union last year were slightly above the national average. With regard to Deputy Cunningham's question regarding the disposal of surplus property we are compelled by statute to dispose of any surplus property either by way of tender or auction, that is, provided no other Government Department require this property for their own purpose. If another Government Department require it they get first option and the property is not sold. It is not necessary, however, for the Office of Public Works to accept the highest bid at an auction or the highest bid by tender. The Office of Public Works will always be conscious of public amenity. In fact, in recent times we have demonstrated our interest in this field more than in any other field. In regard to any property in the hands of the Office of Public Works which is of artistic or historic merit, or which might be spoiled by commercial development, whereas a local authority, a harbour authority or a local voluntary organisation could put it to greater use as a public amenity, that will certainly be taken into full account on every occasion. I certainly have no intention of selling St. Patrick's Island to the hippies. In the first place, I do not own it and the Office of Public Works do not own it.
I was pleased with Deputy Seán Browne's contribution. Unfortunately it is not very often that we hear Deputies paying a tribute to the professional staff of my office and I wish I could hear more of this in future speeches here. There is very little doubt that the professional staff in the Office of Public Works are not only highly-skilled personnel but they are dedicated to the job.
Deputy Browne referred to a drainage problem and I thank him and Deputy Allen for having invited me down to see Tacumshane Lake in County Wexford. Not only had I a very educational day but the hospitality was exceptional and I now have got the proposal of the local engineers and farmers. It is being examined and there will be communication between the Office of Public Works engineers and the local engineers.
Deputy Browne also referred to castles and other such matters. Anybody who has studied Estimates for the Office of Public Works in recent years will appreciate that increasing amounts of money are being devoted towards monuments and other ruins. There is increasing awareness now in regard to local and national monuments and museums. As far as we can see from the archaeological survey we have carried out, there will be more than 1.2 million monuments to be looked after within the State and we must depend very largely on local authorities in this direction. When I was in Wexford with Deputy Browne I came across one of the first stone churches of the Penal Days. It is in private ownership now and there is nothing to prevent the farmer on whose lands it stands from demolishing it. I seriously hope the local authority concerned will put a preservation order on this building. If they do not, I should like the Deputies from the area to draw it to my attention and I will then see what I can do about it at national level.
Deputy P. J. Burke expressed concern about certain improvements that might be made in the furnishings of this House, particularly the "adjournment chamber".
Extension 35.
I could not tell you. I have been all over this House and I have had consultations with the architect in charge and with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach. We have decided in principle that many improvements are required in the furnishings of the House but that these improvements will not be made until the Summer Recess. This comes under the general heading and there is no particular sum of money allocated for doing one room or another.
While on this subject, I should like to make one thing clear regarding the buildings and furnishings of this House. When I replied to a parliamentary question on behalf of the Minister for Finance recently regarding the cost of the buildings and furniture in this House no Deputy opposite, to my surprise, asked a supplementary question. Nevertheless, editorial and other writings in the press were very critical regarding the figure I gave. Had I been pressed on that occasion I would have said that a large proportion of that sum was required for normal day-to-day maintenance. This is recurring all the time. I would have said also that the cost of all the new buildings and furniture, if you take them at today's values as against the values of the day when the work was begun, is well below the cost originally provided for that purpose.
Deputy P. J. Burke was worried about the Ballyboughal River, which involves an intermediate scheme, and Deputy T. O'Donnell spoke about the Maigue. Both are interrelated. The situation regarding the Maigue is unfortunate. There are hundreds of farmers who find themselves without the benefit of this scheme, which took years and years to prepare, involving a lot of money, time and expertise. The Arterial Drainage Act worked successfully since 1945 and the first time anybody decided to challenge it was in relation to the Boyne. Fortunately, we were able to reach a solution in that respect. Now we have been challenged again and an injunction has been granted preventing us presenting this scheme to the Minister for Finance for sanction. I should like to tell Deputy O'Donnell that the judgment is being studied with a view to a possible appeal to a higher court. We are also examining the question of whether the 1945 Act might be amended to enable us to begin this drainage scheme.
Would it be possible to start the scheme at another point? The machinery is there, is it not?
I have the machinery and the men there. This will render 300 to 400 men unemployed.
I am anxious to know whether it might be possible to start the scheme at some other point pending the solution of the present difficulties.
Unfortunately we have to deal with the entire catchment at once.
Why not start on the Blackwater?
That is No. 19. We cannot even bring the Maigue scheme to the Minister for sanction.
The farmers there are very worried.
We are all worried. We are considering either an appeal or the introduction of new legislation. Meanwhile, however, this action has put back the scheme by 12 months or two years. The judgment is being examined in detail and I hope to have a report on it in the next week or so. I would be happy if the Deputy communicated with me or my private secretary. As I have said, it is a serious situation. If this large scheme has to be postponed I am examining the possibility of proceeding with some of the intermediate and minor schemes which were not being dealt with because it was felt that to deal with the major catchments was the best way to get value for money. What about bringing the people from Limerick up to the Boyne?
We have the Groody and the Mulcaire Rivers. The Mulcaire will take two years.
The Shannon embankments scheme will come to an end about this time and there will be a labour force of 100 workers. This force is being run down because the work is completed.
I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for dealing with this although he did not expect that I would raise it. Will he now assure us that he will not move the men and the machinery from Limerick?
I cannot give the assurance. It is too soon to do so. I have not the opinions yet of our legal or technical or legislative advisers. It came as a great disappointment and shock to us that the judgment went as it did.
To Deputy Barry I would say that I do not think there is any significance in the Supplementary Estimate from the point of view of the purchase of any new heavy machinery.
Deputy Burke's intermediate scheme may now be considered as a result of the vacuum arising out of the Maigue decision.
St. Patrick's Island cannot be dealt with by the Office of Public Works. The remains of the church have been made the subject of a preservation order. The island itself has no archaeological remains of proven historic value. If you want to put the Fingal goat out there, it is a matter for a different Department.
I would disagree with Deputy O'Donnell's contention that An Taisce has not been recognised by the Office of Public Works.
I said that the great work they are doing is not generally recognised by the public at large.
The co-operation is excellent. There is 95 per cent co-operation between An Taisce and the Office of Public Works.
I wish the Minister for Local Government had a similar view.
We co-operate to the maximum extent with An Taisce where items of historic or artistic merit are concerned. The co-operation extends to a much wider field than I can talk about under this Supplementary Estimate.
Deputy Dr. Gibbons referred to the Shannon. I have decided to put more staff on the Shannon survey work, although I am fully aware that that decision may be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. There, again, the decision regarding the Maigue will influence whether extra survey work on the Shannon might in some way hold up or delay other catchment schemes. The whole question of whether we can continue with drainage under the present legislation must be examined very thoroughly.
I was disappointed that Deputy Cunningham implied we were delaying the erection of new schools. The allocation for schools in the Office of Public Works this year was £3 million. My main reason for being here today is that, by the end of the financial year, we shall have overspent by nearly £600,000. We are forging ahead with as many schemes as possible. I think our school building programme is now geared to such a stage that financial provisions cannot slow it down. Deputy Barry said there was a rumour it would be slowed down. We are spending £3.6 million in the current financial year. The allocation for the year before was £700,000, yet we spent just £3 million. The Office of Public Works invariably has to come to this House with a Supplementary Estimate because of subhead E—School Building. The Minister for Finance must consider all the priorities. The money being spent on schools is a record and is far in excess of what was envisaged even when the original Estimate was prepared.
I agree with Deputy Tully that landscaping is a very desirable feature of schools: it will follow the erection of the schools, in due course. I think our design of schools has improved. The amenities for the children have improved. I hope we shall continue to improve all aspects in this connection as we go along.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary ensure that existing schools will be painted and cleaned?
In the first instance, the repair of schools is the responsibility of the school manager. He draws the matter to the attention of the Minister for Education. If the manager requires improvements, additions, repainting or other maintenance work, the Minister will have the matter examined. In most cases, he accepts because the manager comes only when the work is needed. There is very little delay before the Office of Public Works intervenes.
Often, it is not until long afterwards.
There may be a little delay but not extremely serious delay.
The Parliamentary Secretary should slow up the State car when he is passing schools down the country. He will be amazed at what he will see.
I do that when I have my children with me—just to remind them. The contributions to the debate have been helpful. I trust my reply has been helpful. Perhaps our biggest problem is the decision regarding the Maigue. I agree also that we must try to maintain at least the present level of school building. I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.
