There has been a considerable amount of talk in recent years and particularly in recent months on the subject of environmental quality or the quality of life. The activities of the Board of Works affect this subject in many diverse ways because the Board of Works are a very diverse body in so far as the activities they carry out are concerned. They affect it through their drainage operations. They affect it through the policy they adopt in relation to the erection and preservation of public buildings in the possession of the Government. They affect the quality of life also through their concern for the preservation of national monuments and also their general responsibility for archaeological research.
Professor Galbraith remarked on the Late Late Show quite recently that a lot of the talk about the quality of life is carried on at the moment purely at the level of oratory and rhetoric and it has not yet reached the stage in many cases of being turned into practical action. It is of the greatest concern to us that we adopt a more positive approach towards this question. We must adopt a more positive approach to all those things we see, hear and smell, which if they are pleasant can make our lives pleasant and if they are unpleasant can make our lives not only unpleasant but unhealthy as well.
We are, as an agricultural country, rather loath to believe that we could have a pollution problem in this country. Our traditional agricultural background is such that we more or less take for granted the fact that we are living in clear air and that our rivers are clean. The fact is that this is no longer the case in many parts of our country and because we are still living in a rural culture we, perhaps, are not as sensitive as we should be to what is happening before our eyes and in many cases under our noses. This is something which the Board of Works, in co-operation with the other Ministries concerned, must alert the public on and must take action to remedy.
In regard also to the preservation of our architectural and archaeological heritage there is, perhaps, another difficulty. We in some ways could be described as a country which was formerly under colonial rule. There is, therefore, a tendency to regard as of little value the archaeological and architectural contributions of people who from an historical point of view are regarded as conquerors. Of course, we must realise that a very big percentage of the population of this country, who are now completely Irish ir every way, came to this country at some time from that other island, partly in the role of colonialists. They and their descendants have inhabited this island for thousands of years. Nobody would deny they are Irish. Therefore, we have reason to feel that we should preserve what they built when they came here just as much as we preserve what was built prior to the Norman conquest.
The reverse of this approach is to some extent evident in the policy of the Board of Works in that they are carrying out an archaeological survey at the moment covering the period prior to 1200 A.D., which is only 40 years after the Norman conquest. I should like to know the reason for excluding from this survey matters of architectural and archaeological interest after 1200 A.D. Is this thinking I was referring to evident here or is it just a mistake?
I spoke earlier about pollution and preservation. This should be put under one general ministerial umbrella. I would advocate a broad Department of environmental planning. This would have far wider scope and power than a Department of conservation, which has been suggested in other quarters.
I should like to move now to another point in relation to the Board of Works. There is, perhaps, a need to investigate the possibility of greater efficiency and greater speed in regard to tasks which are carried out by the board. We must ask the question whether it is in the best interests of speed and efficiency that responsibility for all public construction, with the exception of airports, roads and houses, should be concentrated in the hands of one department which, in fact, is only a division of a Department. The point was made in paragraph 34.3.1 and 34.3.8 of the Devlin Report that this concentration of responsibility for public buildings in the hands of this one department often led to undue delay, to duplication and to bureaucratic tension. We should have a very close look at this and see if it is the wisest way to undertake responsibility for public construction. Again in our search for greater efficiency, greater speed and a greater return for the taxpayers' money we should investigate the possibility of having some of the functions at present carried out by the Board of Works contracted out to private enterprise. I have no dogmatic or doctrinaire views either way on the question of private versus public enterprise. It is not a doctrinal debate but a practical debate. It is a debate of ends and means rather than broad national philosophy. We should examine the activities of the Board of Works to see if, on practical grounds, they can be carried out more effectively and more efficiently by private enterprise.
This question should be looked at from the following points of view: first, if it is carried out on contract by private enterprise you will have the system of competitive tendering which is likely to minimise cost. It will also be open to the Government Department who are giving the contract to engage themselves in closer and more vigorous supervision of what is being done, because there will not be the same staff problems. The people being supervised will not be their own employees. They will be people who will have a commercial relationship with the Department, so that if the work is unsatisfactory the contract can be withdrawn and given to somebody else. Obviously a Department cannot do that with their own employees.
Again, there is the advantage that plant and machinery will not lie idle if this work is being done by private enterprise. If the Board of Works are doing it themselves by direct labour they must have their own stock of machinery and when they are not carrying out that type of work the machinery will be lying idle. If the machinery is in the hands of private contractors who are doing the work occasionally on contract for the Board of Works they will be able, as the Board of Works are not, to seek contracts from other sources in order to utilise their machinery.
I am not sure whether that would be a solution to the problem but I am putting it forward as a tentative suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary for his views. Anyway it is arguable that by bringing in private enterprise in some areas we could save money, do a better job, and with the money saved engage in other projects which have been neglected. Therefore, I believe we could give more rather than less employment.