Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 26 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 7

Estimates, 1992. - Vote 10: Office of Public Works (Revised Estimate).

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £99,943,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1992, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Public Works; and for services administered by that Office, including the Stationery Office as part of the Government Supplies Agency."

I propose to give particulars of expenditure by the Office of Public Works this year on the basis of the programme format contained in the Appendix to the Estimate for Vote 10 in the Revised Estimate Volume for 1992. The total amount sought for these programmes is £99,943,000.

A sum of £51,641,000 is sought for Programme 1 — the accommodation programme. Of this £19 million is required for the capital building programme. This covers the cost of erecting new buildings, as well as adapting and refurbishing others to meet State accommodation requirements.

In 1992, approximately £3 million will be spent on the ongoing Garda building programme for the Department of Justice. Last year saw the completion of the new divisional headquarters at Anglesea Street, Cork as well as major Garda projects at Balbriggan, Carlow and Shannon. During 1992 schemes will be completed in Dún Laoghaire, Kells, Tipperary, Charleville and Monasterevin. The modernisation of stations at Togher in Cork and Carrick-on-Suir will also be finished.

The latest phase of the redevelopment of the Garda Training College at Templemore was recently completed. The entire project is the largest one ever undertaken by the Office of Public Works outside of Dublin and the first two phases have been completed within budget. The project was initiated as a response to the Walsh report on Garda training and its overall objective was to create an appropriate setting for the training of a modern and effective police force for the future. In the 30 months since construction work began on site it has been transformed from a military style barracks providing a 26 week long elementary training course, to an up-to-date campus facilitating full third-level education for the Garda Síochána. It would be my hope that this excellent training college would be given recognition in the future as an institution offering a high level of academic study.

Other building work being undertaken for the Department of Justice includes the refurbishment of the Morgan Place wing of the Four Courts in order to provide additional court accommodation. This project commenced in 1991 and will be completed later this year.

A sum of £2.5 million is required to continue the ongoing employment exchange programme. Works on the construction of a new employment exchange at Finglas, Dublin which commenced in 1991, and extensions of the Galway social welfare office and Mullingar employment exchange will be completed this summer. Schemes for new exchanges at Navan Road and Tallaght in Dublin and the extension of the Carlow exchange are expected to commence later this year.

I am pleased to say that work began during 1991 on the refurbishment of the Treasury Building in the Lower Castle Yard, Dublin Castle and it is scheduled for completion later this year. The Treasury Building was built around 1712, making it the oldest surviving purpose built office building in Dublin and, consequently, it has considerable architectural importance. The project also includes the restoration of some external architectural features in the vicinity of the Treasury Building, such as Palace Street entrance to the castle, to improve the general appearance of the area. The cost of the project is £3.5 million and the building will be occupied by the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. I am sure the House will be pleased with this decision.

Work is in progress on the provision of a new extension at the Revenue Computer Centre, Johns Road, Inchicore. The work is scheduled to be completed later this year. Works on the restoration of the curvilinear range of glasshouses in the Botanic Gardens, the work of the renowned Dublin ironmaster Richard Turner, will commence this year at an estimated cost of £4.5 million over four years.

A major refurbishment of the 1968 wing of the National Gallery of Ireland, which will take two years to complete at a cost of some £6 million, as well as repairs to the extensive roofs of the National Museum, will commence later this year. Work is also scheduled to start shortly on refurbishment of State owned buildings at 9-10 Upper O'Connell Street, Dublin. This new office development for the Revenue Commissioners will include the provision of a central public inquiry office which will constitute a major improvement of services to the public. The development will have the major added advantage of enabling the Commissioners of Public Works to dispose of rented property in Pearse Street, Dublin.

Progress continues on the implementation of the decentralisation programme, based on the need for a more widespread location of public service facilities and job opportunities. Deputies will be aware of the importance which the Government attach to the decentralisation programme and I am particularly proud of the role being played by the staff of the Commissioners of Public Works in ensuring the success of the entire programme.

Phase 1 of the programme was completed in 1989 and saw the move of about 800 staff to centres at Cavan, Galway, Sligo and Ballina. Phase 2 is well on the way to completion with offices at Athlone, Killarney and Letterkenny having being occupied by over 500 staff. Projects at Ennis and Nenagh have been completed. The Ennis building is occupied and was officially opened yesterday. Staff are now moving into the offices at Nenagh. The remaining project, in Limerick, is scheduled for completion in the spring of 1993. Over 1,000 public servants will occupy these latter three buildings.

Phase 3 of the programme was announced in June of last year. It involves moving sizeable sections from ten Government Departments to eight provincial centres, Cork, Dundalk, Killarney, Longford, Portlaoise, Tullamore, Waterford and Wexford. The staff to be moved will be in the region of 1,500 persons. Developers have been selected for the offices in Longford and Cork and construction work is expected to begin shortly. Preparatory work is in hands in relation to the other centres.

The decentralisation programme is giving the opportunity to substantial numbers of people to return to their native areas on a permanent basis. The very desirable long term objectives of helping to reduce regional imbalances and pressure on the Dublin area are also being achieved. The towns to which public service staff have already been moved are now reaping the economic benefits and a welcome shot-in-the-arm has been provided to the business, commercial and social life of the communities.

As Deputies are aware, decentralisation projects are being designed, built and financed by private developers with the State purchasing the buildings on a deferred payment basis over 20 years. These payments will be met from the rent and rates subhead. Rents, which have remained static for a number of years, have recently shown some upward movement. This factor is reflected in the increase in the allocation from just over £20 million in 1991 to £22 million this year. The decentralisation programme will bring about substantial savings to the Exchequer in the coming years arising from a reduction in the figures for renting prime Dublin office space. It is now interesting to note that public representatives who originally opposed the programme are now its greatest advocates. I am very pleased to have been responsible for handling the entire decentralisation programme since its commencement in 1987.

In the light of developments affecting Departments' accommodation requirements, and in particular, the decentralisation programme, the Commissioners of Public Works have undertaken a detailed assessment of the accommodation allocations of each Department, with a view to achieving the optimum use of space and releasing the maximum amount for disposal. Occupancy surveys of the allocations have resulted, since 1986, in the disposal of some 500,000 square feet of space. An additional 400,000 square feet have been reallocated, under a rationalisation programme, to meet the needs of new Government services and to relieve overcrowding etc. This figure includes some 31,500 square feet for the Houses of the Oireachtas. Disposal of a further 350,000 square feet is targeted. Some notable disposals attributable, either in whole or in part, to decentralisation are Teach Earlsfort; Davitt House, Mespil Road; Nos. 21-33 Merrion Street; Hume House; Lincoln House and Phibsborough Tower in our capital city.

The accommodation programme also includes building maintenance, for which a sum of £9,351,000 is required; purchase of sites and buildings for which £750,000 is sought; energy costs for which £400,000 is required; national lottery funding of £100,000 for conservation work at the National Library and £40,000 for visitors' services at Dublin Castle.

The figure of £750,000 for the purchase of sites and buildings is £450,000 higher than the 1991 Estimate. This is attributable to the acquisition of a site for a new Garda Divisional Headquarters at Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin.

A sum of £7,216,000 is sought for arterial drainage under Programme 2. This will provide for the survey, design, construction and maintenance of arterial drainage and embankment schemes.

The 1992 allocation of £260,000 for survey and design work will allow the ongoing environmental impact assessment and cost benefit analysis of the flood relief schemes for the Mulcair River to be completed as well as the continuation of other studies. This cost is met from subhead L.1. This subhead also provides for hydrometric survey work involving the collection and analysis of data on many rivers throughout the country. This survey work provides essential information on the country's water resources.

The cost of construction work on arterial drainage schemes is met from Subhead L.2. This year's provision is £3 million. By the end of 1991 70 per cent of the Boyle River and 90 per cent of the Monaghan Blackwater River schemes had been completed. It is expected that the latter scheme will be finished towards the end of the current year.

At that stage, although some of the workers engaged on the scheme will be retained for the post-completion maintenance programme and efforts will be made to accommodate others on alternative projects being undertaken by the commissioners, it is regrettable that a number will have to be made redundant. It is no consolation that this is the norm at the end of arterial drainage schemes. But these schemes are, of course, finite projects and their wide geographical distribution does not always facilitate the continued employment of those engaged, for the most part, for the duration of a particular scheme at construction stage.

On completion of these schemes, which have been in progress since 1982 and 1985 respectively, substantial benefit will have been conferred on more than 40,000 acres of land which heretofore had serious problems of flooding or waterlogging. This brings the total area of land benefiting under the national programme, which is carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945, since its commencement, to 650,000 acres. This represents a vast investment of public funds over the years.

Maintenance of completed arterial drainage schemes will account for £3,956,000 in 1992. An amount of £1,132,000 is required under Programme 3 this year to cover the cost of engineering plant and machinery for arterial drainage schemes.

A sum of £7,201,000 is sought for Programme 4 covering our national parks and Wildlife Service. This figure includes the cost of projects which will be partfunded by the EC Structural Funds for tourism-related projects.

The care and protection of our Natural Heritage is entrusted to the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Office of Public Works. Five national parks have been established and to date 71 national nature reserves, five refuges for fauna and 68 wildfowl sanctuaries have been designated. Suitable sites for nature conservation purposes are constantly monitored. I expect accelerated progress on the acquisition of such lands now that the EC "Habitats Directive" has been agreed.

Both parks and reserves are managed by a dedicated staff of experts and ongoing management successes often go unnoticed by the general public. For example, when the commissioners acquired Glenveagh National Park for the people one of the most immediate threats to the habitats there was the continuing encroachment of rhododendrons. The intense growth of this introduced plant prevents natural regeneration of our native woodlands. I am pleased to say that it will be eradicated from Glenveagh Park within the next five years.

Another example of committed management is the continuing research into the dynamics of our boglands. This has resulted in a joint research project between the Irish and Dutch Governments, a recent highlight of which was the twinning of Clara Bog in Ireland with its counterpart, Bargerveen, in Holland. In addition, the staff of the National Parks and Wildlife Services provide, at a local level, an extremely important information and education service to the public through their contacts with private groups and organisations, advisory services and talks in schools and other educational outlets. In this regard the recent appointment of twelve additional wildlife rangers is welcomed.

However, the committed work by the Office of Public Works staff is being overshadowed by the current controversy about the provision of visitors centres at parks and reserves. Before I outline the progress on these projects to the House I think I should briefly set out the philosophy guiding these developments.

The Office of Public Works are essentially a conservation organisation. Areas of importance to our heritage are acquired and their subsequent management, including control of visitor access, is determined by the overall objective of conservation. Visitor centres serve a dual role of providing for interpretation and public appreciation of the heritage while, at the same time, serving to control visitors so that the natural or cultural resources being protected are not damaged.

This role of interpretation, in fostering an appreciation of the nation's heritage is crucial. Although provocative and inspirational, interpretation is not merely entertainment. It helps parks and other protected areas to contribute to people's understanding of nature and culture.

Interpretation is an integral component of the Office of Public Works' management policies for national parks, monuments and nature reserves. The commissioners use a variety of different approaches to convey the significance of a park or monument to the public. An interpretative programme for a park would include: (1) the recruitment of rangers and guides to provide tours, walks and talks for visitors; (2) the publication of a series of books, leaflets and pamphlets; (3) the provision of visitor centres containing display, exhibits and audiovisual programmes; and (4) the construction of information boards, panels, nature and historical trails.

Interpretation is inextricably linked to a sense of place, a fact which is accepted worldwide. Interpretation is therefore specific to a particular site, be it a national monument, national park or wildlife site.

On-site visitor centres are essential elements in the management of public access to the heritage landscape. This is also recognised worldwide. The provision of visitor centres at Ireland's major heritage sites is all the more important given Government policy which aims to significantly increase the number of visitors to this country. In recognition of this, given the commissioners' track record in the management of public access to our heritage sites, it is not inconsistent with their conservation ethos to avail of EC Structural Funds through the tourism operational programme. There is no alternative funding mechanism to provide for such access and conservation needs.

It is within this overall framework that visitor centres are provided. The value of visitor centres in national parks and reserves, therefore, is that such centres, while managing public access, provide the opportunity to develop an interpretative programme to encourage public appreciation of the various areas and all they contain and thus secures their preservation and the protection of the environment generally.

Not all the current proposals for visitor facilities at our national parks and reserves are controversial. I was pleased to open new facilities at Killarney National Park earlier this year. I recently officiated at the opening of a new centre at the National Historic, Literary and Nature Park at Coole/Garryland Reserve, near Gort, County Galway. Last week I had the pleasure of opening an extension to the Visitor Centre at Connemara National Park. Later in the year I hope to open two smaller centres at Dromore Nature Reserve, County Clare, and at Wexford Wildfowl Reserve.

The provision of a visitor centre for the Wicklow Mountains National Park has been the subject of controversy. People have conveniently disassociated this aspect of the park from all the other achievements in Wicklow. The fact that we now have approximately 15,000 hectares of land set aside for conservation, that in these difficult financial times five staff have been recruited, that major commercial conifer plantations in the core area have been resisted and that over 5,000 school children last year were assisted by park rangers in deepening their understanding of conservation, have been conveniently overlooked. The provision of the centre should be seen in balance with these achievements. Apart from the Office of Public Works' recognised expertise in this matter both independent consultants and the planning authority have validated the choice which has been made. We have now signed the contract for the centre and work will commence shortly.

The Burren centre has aroused organised opposition. Again in criticising the use of Structural Funds for this project opponents have overlooked the fact that in tandem with this funding the Government made allocations available to progress the land acquisition programme for the Burren National Park and the recruitment of staff for it. I am aware of the strength of support for the project among the local community and their grievance that their view has not been given equal attention in the national media. The project was the subject of an independent Environmental Impact Statement and the public were invited to comment on it. The comments of the public are being assessed in detail with a view to responding in full to any criticisms raised and to satisfying the planning authority that the project will not harm the environment in any way. The decision on the development must not be based on the incomplete story publicised in the media but on the facts of the proposal which will be appraised by the planning authority in a balanced manner.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service are responsible for identifying areas of scientific interest. An area of scientific interest is an area of special interest for its fauna and/or flora, either as individual species or as communities, or for its geology or topography. Selection of an area is based only on scientific criteria which relate to the fauna, flora and general ecosystem. The National Parks and Wildlife Service intend to update their knowledge of these areas over the next 18 months and to compile a comprehensive computerised inventory, including maps, for them. The interdepartmental committee set up in 1990 to consider the whole question of ASI's completed their report in mid-1991. A Memorandum for Government has now been prepared. It has been circulated to the relevant Government Departments and will be submitted shortly to Government for approval.

The research role of the service is vital in the formulation of conservation policy and in assessing factors and trends affecting the natural environment. Existing programmes will continue to be serviced in so far as possible. These include surveys on our Greenland White-fronted Goose, badger and bat populations, sea birds, falcons, dune systems, blanket bogs and protected flora. The blanket bog survey is due for completion this year and we will then establish the amount of blanket bog which is appropriate for conservation.

In March 1992, Ireland, through the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Office of Public Works, hosted an International Workshop to discuss the conservation of the Greenland White-fronted Goose. Ireland is the winter home for half of the world's population and these geese are the third rarest in the world. The aim of the workshop was to draw up an international plan for the conservation of this goose. Representatives from the Governments of the Range State Countries for the goose, which are, in addition to Ireland, the United Kingdom, Iceland and Greenland, represented through Denmark, attended the workshop, as did about 50 other experts and interested organisations from the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Denmark, France and Belgium. Conservation, farming and hunting interests in Ireland also attended. The European Commission was also represented.

The workshop was very productive and culminated in a formal declaration by all the parties which recommended the implementation of long term co-operative measures, including an international plan for the conservation of the Greenland White-fronted Goose. Arrangements are now being made to place this recommendation on a formal footing by the conclusion of an agreement between the Range States. Ireland is acting as the secretariat in order to bring about this formal agreement. The plan which was developed at the workshop is the first of its kind to be developed in Europe for a bird population and the agreement now being prepared is also a first.

The conservation of wildlife is obviously a matter for international concern. Various problems and challenges are common to a number of states, and so international co-operation is essential. Thus our officials have regular working contacts with many international governmental and other organisations. They also facilitate the administration and implementation of laws arising from the ratification by the state of international conventions dealing with various aspects of wildlife conservation.

The provision for the maintenance, management and development of Inland Waterways under Programme 5 is £6,002,000.

I must ask the Minister to conclude. I would remind him that he will have a further ten minutes at 3.50 p.m. to reply to the debate.

Perhaps I could have a minute or two to conclude my remarks in regard to waterways.

The function of the waterways division is to maintain, manage and develop as public amenities, the inland waterways for which the Office of Public Works have responsibility, that is, the Royal and Grand Canals, the Barrow Navigation and the River Shannon and its associated waterways.

The commissioners have been developing facilities on the Shannon on a progressive basis for many years. During 1992 approximately £2.4 million will be spent on the day to day maintenance and operation of the navigation and on a continuing programme of major development works. The principal projects being undertaken in 1992 are the enlargement of the harbour at Banagher, County Offaly, and the construction of a new pier at Terryglass on the shores of Lough Derg. Work has started on the reopening of the Lough Allen Canal. This will link up the Shannon Navigation right into Lough Allen, thus giving a terrific boost to tourism and development generally in County Leitrim. The project is being partially funded by the EC under the Interreg Fund. A survey of the Erne navigation was undertaken last year and work to remove some obstructions will be undertaken later this year.

With a view to the future, the commissioners have commissioned a study of the inland waterways of Ireland. This is now virtually completed and will shortly be presented to the Government for consideration. It will be a benchmark report and it is likely to inform decisions on the development of inland waterways for the foreseeable future.

The inland waterways of this country were under-utilised and under-developed for many years but recently there is a growing awareness and appreciation of their potential. Not only are they a valuable part of our heritage, but they are also very important in the context of the development of tourism, a fact which is reflected by their inclusion for funding under the EC Structural Funds Operational Programme for Tourism and by the emphasis being placed on them by the Government, which in particular is being stressed by the Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds.

I have referred to some of the activities of the Office of Public Works. Such is the diversity of the activities managed by the commissioners on behalf of the people of Ireland, that even if I were to speak for another hour and a half I probably would not cover all of them. I will be happy to reply to any questions asked by Members. I will do my utmost when concluding the debate to refer to various points I have not referred to at this stage. I thank the Chair for her co-operation.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the affairs of the Office of Public Works. It is the first time since my second coming to the Dáil, which began in 1989, that I have had the opportunity to discuss the affairs of the Office of Public Works in terms of their Estimate and annual spending. The Office of Public Works are engaged in many activities. The budget for this office is approximately £100 million. It is seldom realised that this is one of the largest spending areas of Government. I welcome this debate which I hope will enable us to comprehensively examine the various activities of the Office of Public Works.

I wish to refer to the nature of the Office of Public Works and the myriad of functions they carry out. The Office of Public Works are often criticised for having too many functions and for not carrying out many of them as efficiently as they might: because they have, to use the old saying, "too many irons in the fire", none of their activities are managed very well.

At the end of 1988 the Government commissioned Price Waterhouse, a leading consultancy firm, to carry out a report on the Office of Public Works. It is interesting to read the terms of reference they were given: they were to examine "the present operations of the Office of Public Works in all its aspects and recommend whatever changes are necessary to ensure an efficient and cost effective service to the State". I understand Price Waterhouse commenced their work at the beginning of January 1989 and they produced a voluminous report at the end of that year or early in 1990. I gather that the then Taoiseach and Minister for Finance took major decisions on that report in spring, 1990.

I am amazed that that report has never been published. There is widespread public interest in this issue. The Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am a member, have a major interest in this report in terms of efficiency in public spending. This report cost £94,187 to produce. I cannot for the life of me understand why this report has not been published. What did this report say about the Office of Public Works and their operations? Did the Government consider their findings too embarrassing to reveal them? As I said, I understand the then Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance took certain decisions in relation to the report in spring, 1990. Why were those decisions not made known to the public? I ask the Minister to say when this major report will be published. Perhaps he can outline some of its findings to the House. What are the major findings in the report and why have they not been published? It is unacceptable that the findings of this report have not been published two years later. I hope the Minister will be able to give a comprehensive answer to that question.

The Minister dealt at great length with the various activities of the Office of Public Works. In the limited time available to me I will deal with a number of areas in which I see problems. First, I will deal with the area of arterial drainage. Arterial drainage has cost the Exchequer an enormous amount of money since the enactment of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945. In the region of 34 catchments have been drained or partially drained in the intervening years. The whole management approach to these schemes has been totally antiquated. It might have been appropriate in 1945 but the procedures which have not been changed in the meantime are not adequate today.

The Minister spoke about two schemes that are in progress, the Ulster Blackwater, a joint scheme between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the Boyle-Bonet scheme — the headquarters of the Boyle scheme is located in my home town of Ballaghaderreen. To take the Boyle-Bonet scheme as an example, it commenced in 1982 and was to be completed in six and a half years. However, on the Minister's own admission, it is now only 69 per cent completed. One must question why there has been such an enormous over-shoot in the length of time allocated for the completion of that scheme. One assumes that together with the over-shoot of time there has also been a major over-shoot of cost — quite a substantial sum of money was allocated for this scheme. Perhaps the Minister will reply to that question.

Schemes such as these should be examined to find out the reason for the slowness to complete them. In the Boyle scheme at present all the rock huts are completed, the channels are 80 per cent completed, which is reasonable, but on the structure side, the building of bridges and so on, there is only 48 per cent completion. The reason is that major redundancies of manual and semi-skilled workers were ordered by the Minister in 1987-88. At the time 110 or 120 skilled or semi-skilled workers in bridge building were made redundant. However, the permanent ancillary staff — engineers, supervisors, office staff and fitters — are still employed to service the people working on those schemes. These people are working at about 50 per cent of their efficiency because they do not have personnel with the appropriate skills to do the structural work. That is one reason that such schemes get bogged down.

Every year Ministers request the man- agers involved to wind up these schemes. The thinking of the Minister, and the Department, in this regard is unacceptable. Under the 1945 Act there is an obligation on the Government to complete all schemes on schedule. The Minister, in his speech, referred to improvement in efficiency and so on. We should ensure that schemes in progress should not be left incomplete. There should be no jettisoning of major channels or rivers that form part of a system, which apparently is what is contemplated at present. The solution to the problem is those in charge should be given flexibility to recruit more seasonal workers. People with special skills should not be let go. There is gross mismanagement in regard to the labour-human resources available to the Office of Public Works.

There is an argument to be made for adopting a more flexible approach in future arterial drainage. To date the completion of rivers has involved carrying out channel work and so on that might be better done by farmers, landowners or public bodies. That is very costly and time-consuming. The whole system of arterial drainage should be looked at because in certain crucial areas work needs to be done. Arterial drainage has had a very damaging effect on the environment. The habitats of many fine trout and salmon rivers have been destroyed as a result of arterial drainage. I accept such work has benefited agriculture, but the right balance has to be found and we should be more selective in future.

We should be selective and carry out work where major flooding occurs, for example in the area from Athlone to Meelick or Banagher in the Shannon valley which suffers from winter and spring flooding. The Minister visited the area and met the Shannon Forum.

I set them up.

The Minister has a better reputation than many of his predecessors for addressing this problem. The area should be designated for a flood relief scheme to be carried out by the Office of Public Works. On a stretch of river from Athlone to Meelick the gradients are very steep and as a result the flow of water is much more rapid. As the water reaches a hollow in the system the speed of flow is much slower, and natural silts and objects dumped in the river over the decades are washed into these hollows. People tell us — the Office of Public Works, and the Minister on their behalf, have denied this — that this nine or ten mile stretch of river, where the water level is lowest in relation to sea level, is a natural reservoir for silts washed downstream. In that area also there is major drainage from the midlands bogs operated by Bord na Móna and the silts and solids dumped into the system in the last three or four decades by Bord na Móna have settled there. That in itself is environmentally damaging to fish and marine life in the river.

People living along the river tell us that in summer the average water level of the river at that point is about two feet higher than it was in the fifties. It is well known that the average speed of the river in that area 40 years ago was about three knots but nowadays, due to the build-up of silts in the area, the average speed is probably less than two knots — the average flow of the river is about five or six knots. Something needs to be done about this and it can be done in an environmentally sensitive way. There is no doubt about that. About 2,000 families are affected by flood almost on an annual basis. Forty years ago, and even 20 years ago, this flooding only occurred after very heavy rainfall and when there was unusually high flooding in all parts of the river. Due to the raising of the river bed on the stretch we are talking about and the consequent slowing down of the speed of flow of water enormous damage is being caused to at least 2,000 families many of whom are in my constituency in Roscommon. Naturally I have an interest in them, but many more are in the Minister's constituency of East Galway. The Minister of State should address this problem. There should be a more selective policy approach to arterial drainage. The blanket system has been a mixture of good and bad. We should now select specific areas that can be beneficially drained while taking into account environmental matters.

The Minister spoke at length on national parks and the wildlife service. A huge amount of money was spent on them. It is all very well to publish a list of figures and talk about increases but I often wonder what those figures mean. One would need somebody from the Office of Public Works to give an exact breakdown of the figures so that we could have a better impression of what is going on. While there is an increase in funding, we know that the allocation to the research branch of the wildlife service was reduced at a time when that section was understaffed and grossly overworked. It is all very well to talk about an increase in funding for national parks, but we do not know how the money is being spent. The Minister did not throw much light on that today.

I outlined the detail of that.

The detail certainly was not revealed to me. There seems to be a lack of proper planning in relation to national parks and areas of special importance. There has not been a survey to show us how these areas should be properly managed. The Minister in his speech referred to the national park in Killarney. There is no vegetation or soil map of Killarney which is essential if one is to know how the eco-system works and how it should be managed. We need more money for research.

The Minister mentioned that he presided at the opening of Coole Park or some portion of the Lady Gregory centre in Coole Park in Galway. The catering facilities in that park have been closed down because of water contamination. Had the Office of Public Works invested money in research and, perhaps, sought the advice of the county council that would not have happened.

The Minister also spoke about archaeological sites. We know that there are about 80,000 archaeological and historical sites and monuments here and that about 700 of these are designated as national monuments under the protection of the Office of Public Works. Restoration and improvement works are in progress on a limited number of those sites. These 700 national monuments present the total work achievement of the 108 year existence of the national monuments branch of the Office of Public Works. The remaining 70,000-plus sites are designated as historic monuments under the National Monuments Act, 1986, but they do not enjoy any active care or protection principally because of a lack of resources. There is no doubt that many sites are being damaged by the natural process of ruin, for instance, by exposure to the elements. Many very significant ones are being encroached upon and damaged by so-called farm improvement projects, commercial forestry and, in some cases, by urban development.

Instead of the Office of Public Works being responsible for the care of our national monuments we should have a national archaeological service. While the work being done by the Office of Public Works is very good the amount achieved over the 108 years has been very small and progress in regard to new sites is painfully slow. We need a national archaeological service which would be operated in the way some of our commercial semi-State bodies operate. This service should protect and develop sites and take account of the fact that many tourists want to visit them. The Office of Public Works in the way they are structured cannot really respond to the tourist need.

I do not know. The Minister ought to know better than me. From what I see, and from what people say, they cannot respond adequately. I await the Minister's response to some of the questions I put.

I join with Deputy Dukes in making a mild protest, at least, about the handling of the Estimates over the past few weeks. The time given to process Estimates at one time was ridiculously long and now it is ridiculously short. I recall former Deputy Kevin Boland in his time as Minister for Local Government reading a 120 page script from his Department and taking more than two hours. The debate on that Estimate went on for six months to the exclusion of all other Estimates. The Minister on one occasion spent the whole morning replying to the debate and then went on to deal with questions. I do not know what kind of kidneys the Minister had, but in my memory, that was the longest a Minister spent replying. We now have to deal with a sum of £662 million for the Environment Estimate in a very short time and only 13 Members will get an opportunity to contribute. I hope consideration will be given to changing the system next year.

I welcome the debate on this Estimate. May I take this opportunity to compliment the Minister and the Office for Public Works for the wonderful work they have done in recent years and particularly over the past ten years. Magnificent buildings have been constructed and improvement works have been carried out on our historic buildings in this city and elsewhere. The appearance of our public buildings has improved considerably. A great deal of work has been carried out in improving the National Concert Hall, the Royal Hospital, Dublin Castle and indeed the Custom House, where I took the initiative some years ago in having improvement works carried out. This work has added to the splendour of our capital city and is most welcome. It is not appropriate at present to complain about the money spent on Government Buildings and the Taoiseach's office as this is covered under another Estimate but I admire the work that has been done.

It is with some regret that I raise the fact that Leinster House has been ignored. While the weather has been very pleasant, this Chamber has not been an easy place to work in. We have had to bring in these awful fans, which clash with the rest of the decor, to move hot air from one place to another. I hope the Minister will use his influence to improve the working conditions in this Chamber.

We brought a group of young physically handicapped children from the Marino Clinic in Bray to visit this House. Because of the wonderful assistance from the ushers, staff and the children's helpers they were able to see most of the House but because of the difficulties of access to the Seanad, they were not able to see that Chamber. I think something should be done about access for the disabled. We are very fortunate that all 166 Members are able-bodied and can move around without difficulty. However I remember the measures that had to be taken when a wheelchair-bound person was elected to Wicklow County Council whose meetings were held in a room at the top of the old courthouse. I am sure that if one or two Members of this House were similarly disabled changes would have to be made as a matter of urgency.

I received a welcome letter from the Minister announcing that the contract for the visitors' interpretative centre at Whitehall, Luggala, would commence shortly. This has been very controversial. Indeed the whole movement to set up interpretative centres around the county is attracting a great deal of controversy. Deputy Jacob, who is present, is chairman of Wicklow County Council and he and I among others have had to bear the brunt of the criticism because of our total support for this project in County Wicklow. A member of Deputy Jacob's own party is one of the most virulent opponents of the siting of this centre, and I had to take particularly difficult criticism from him at a recent meeting.

A new description is being used to describe people who visit historical buildings and sites throughout the world. They are known as "eco-tourists". Usually they have specialist knowledge and have access to historic buildings and monuments from which the general public are excluded, for example the Pyramids of Egypt, the Taj Mahal, the Parthenon in Greece, and the Galápagos Islands. Wicklow is not going to become that kind of place; the granite in Wicklow is particularly solid and it can take the millions of people who wish to visit our beautiful county. The vast majority of visitors come from the city and county of Dublin. Indeed people who live in Wicklow become a little irritated at the vast numbers who visit at the weekend, when it is very difficult to work, as we Deputies do, because you find yourself in a line of traffic on the N11 from Wicklow to Bray. The tradition over hundreds of years is that the population of Dublin visit Wicklow and this will continue. However, people are now far more mobile and they can visit every lane and boreen in the county.

Having created the national park, we can expect more visitors and it will be necessary to explain and interpret the beauties of the county for the visitors. It leaves me absolutely cold when I think of the virulent nature of the protests about siting the interpretative centre at Luggala. There have been attempts to deflect the protest by suggesting there should be many small interpretative centres surrounding the national park. That may happen in the fullness of time but the design and location of this interpretative centre seems to meet the immediate needs of the area while remaining within the £4 million budget. I am sure it will become one of the gems of Wicklow.

Some years ago a colleague of mine, the former Deputy Joe Birmingham, as Minister for the Environment, had responsibility for setting up a visitors' centre in Glendalough. This tastefully designed building was built in a most sensitive area and there was no protest. However, I believe if it was attempted to build this now, ten years later, there would be a stream of protests. People would now be telling us, the public representatives, that we were not capable of preserving the beauties of our county. I believe that when this new interpretative centre is in operation, the protests will dissipate and people will appreciate the amenity of a tastefully designed building which will blend into the locality and will become one of the great attractions of the county. I am still prepared to defend the decision of the Office of Public Works to site the centre in Luggala.

People like Dr. Craig and his team have the difficult job of meeting those who are protesting about this centre. Because people are now taking a greater interest in the preservation of our environment there should be some structure where they can voice their protests and have the matter arbitrated on. The planners demand that the centres are designed to meet the local needs and they are also subject to an environmental impact study, yet I believe there is a need for someone to act as a final arbiter. It seems that the attack on the Office of Public Works has some element of justification in that there is no provision for an appeal, as there is under the Planning Acts. Perhaps there should be some such provision in the future.

The arguments made in respect of the Burren and Mullaghmore have been gathered together with the arguments made about Wicklow and Killarney. There seems to be a movement which proclaims that interpretative centres damage the environment. All the projects are lumped together by the protesters. Every area has particular aspects. It is unfortunate that the protests were joined together in respect of Wicklow and Mullaghmore. The opposition presented the case as if the same basic designs were to be used. In a democratic society people are entitled to air their views but undue influence is given to people who have ready access to the media and seem to be able to appear whenever it pleases on television and to have their letters and reports included in newspapers. I have been a Member of this House for 23 years and a Minister for five years. On not one occasion did RTE invite me to put my side of the argument. I have never been approached by The Irish Times to give my version of the story. We survive anyway without making our case in that way.

We will survive very well.

The people of Wicklow and those of us on the council who have had responsibility for several years to look after the county have maintained it very well. We are used to people who tell us how to do our job and it does not worry us. The elected representatives of the people of Wicklow have great concern for the county and its development. County Wicklow will be the foremost tourist area in the country. It is adjacent to the largest centre of population. We are improving our roads structure and more development is taking place so that we can encourage visitors to spent some time in the county rather than move through to other areas. There are several projects for the building of hotels and they will be closely monitored. If the people of Kerry, who have shown the way in this area, can maintain the physical beauty of that county and at the same time provide the most advanced tourism facilities, it can be done to the benefit of Wicklow. We need interpretative centres so that the visitor has somewhere interesting to go, apart from just looking at the scenery or dipping a toe in the sea at Brittas Bay. There is a need to keep people occupied and to enable them to see the area in the best light. I am delighted with the decision that has been taken and I know the Minister will be asked to build many more of these centres in Wicklow, particularly in the west of the county from Blessington to Baltinglas.

I would ask the Minister to train local people as rangers and guides. At the opening of the interpretative centre at Glendalough to which I as a public representative was invited, I was questioned by a young lady as to why I was attending the function. Obviously she knew her job in some ways but she did not seem to come from the area or to know the people there. The employment of local people would help to reduce the high rate of unemployment in the county.

Many other aspects of the activities of the Office of Public Works could be commented upon. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to mention some of the positive aspects of their work. I would hope that they would develop a better liaison with the general public in explaining their objectives and achievements. Anybody familiar with the quality of the work done by the Office of Public Works should be aware that they will not engage in substandard planning. There is a necessity for some public relations work to explain to people well in advance how a proposed project will influence the environment.

This Estimate will not be opposed by my party. There should, however, be more time for debate since very few Members will get the opportunity to contribute.

I compliment and congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, on returning to a portfolio which he has graced in the past. I thank him for his courtesy and co-operation with me as a backbench colleague and I wish him well in his onerous responsibility.

I acknowledge the excellent track record of the Office of Public Works in taking care of our public buildings, canals, monuments, nature reserves, national parks and so on. It is not an exaggeration to say that they have been the heroes in terms of the conservation and protection of our heritage.

I want to address the issue of the Wicklow National Park. While it might be approaching parochialism, it has national significance, particularly in view of the controversy that rages when something new is proposed. We seem to want to object when there is a controversy. We need to have an outside view, now that our people have said "we want to be in Europe and that we want further integration in Europe"; we want to be perceived and portrayed in Europe as a progressive responsible nation. The manner in which we are objecting to proposed developments in the Burren and Luggala in County Wicklow is regrettable and I hope we will depart from that practice in the future.

In 1988 the former Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, arrived in Glendalough and formally announced the national park. The news was greeted positively by the majority of people. There was mixed reaction to it and much concern was expressed particularly by residents of the proposed national park. Eventually the national park will comprise 30,000 hectares stretching from Killakee in the north of the county to south of Lugnaquilla and will have an average width of 10 kilometres. The initial core area is around the beautiful vale of Glendalough and consists of 3,700 hectares. In the Powerscourt Estate 2,500 hectares was acquired recently which is additional to the original core area. I understand that Coillte lands totalling some 5,000 hectares, after harvesting of the commercial timber on those lands, will eventually be taken over, will revert to the Office of Public Works and become part of the Wicklow mountains national park. It is very important that we get things right from a developmental point of view from the start.

There was much concern, following the announcement that a national park would be set up. Landowners feared that there would be compulsory purchase of their land and that people would come onto their land and interfere with their property and livestock. The concern of sheep farmers in County Wicklow to whom the mountainous areas of the county are very important and who have been there for generations is understandable. I remember bringing deputations — representatives of the Wicklow sheep farmers — to Ministers of the day in an effort to clarify matters and to allay their fears. Those exercises were successful to some extent.

The interests of people who will be living within and on the periphery of the national park are of paramount importance. I welcome the progress of the national park which can only be good for County Wicklow and for Ireland as a country particularly in the context of tourism where we are making such major strides.

I welcome the Minister's recent announcement regarding yet another aspect of the national park: the interpretative centre a Luggala. As has been said there has been much controversy which was uncalled for but in some ways understandable. The Minister who has taken professional advice and has been assured that the project is in keeping with all EC conditions has announced that it will proceed. The expenditure of £3.8 million is welcome and the obvious spin-offs for the economy will be extremely helpful.

However, the concerns to which I have referred will continue to exist so we must find a formula to allay them. For the further development of the Wicklow mountains national park there must be a rapport or liaison which will satisfy the people concerned that this is positive progress and not something that will be to the detriment of their way of life and that of future generations nor indeed of the environment now and in the future. I made a suggestion both in writing and verbally to previous incumbents of this portfolio with a view to having this problem dealt with. I have asked that a small body, a committee, a board of trustees, a board of management — call it what you wish — be set up which would act as a liaison mechanism between the residents of the area and officialdom with regard to putting to bed their fears. I suggest this body consist of the Office of Public Works, Wicklow County Council — the local authority — farming organisations, Coillte Teoranta, other local organisations and any interested parties that the Minister and his officials deem appropriate. It is very important that such a body be put in place.

The Luggala interpretative centre is only one part of the national park which is a colossal area covering the whole mountain plateau of the Wicklow mountains. As it develops over the years there will be other projects and other controversies. The way to alleviate the situation is to put in place a mechanism whereby there will be communication with the people on the ground, with officialdom and with the Minister. I earnestly request the Minister to address that issue. I know he will give it careful consideration. I know the situation on the ground. I have taken a positive view of this very welcome project but it is important that the needs and the fears of the people be recognised and allayed, if at all possible.

Those within the confines or on the periphery of the national park have another fear in relation to planning permission. This is particularly so in the case of landowners or the sons or daughters of landowners to build houses for themselves on their land. They fear, because they are within the boundaries of the national park, there will be objections from the Office of Public Works where, perhaps the view from the national park may be deemed to be obstructed by the building of such houses. I am not talking about any monstrosities. I am talking about ordinary homes for rural people. I dearly hope this will not be the case and that cognisance will be taken of the need of the local people to live in the area where their families have lived for generations.

I hope the Office of Public Works will avail of the good will of those people in the future. I apologise for being parochial but this park, and its interpretative centre, are of national significance. I compliment the Minister on what he has done. I want County Wicklow to be portrayed as a progressive and developing county that welcomes with open arms positive development, developers and investors who are prepared to invest in the county in a positive way.

Those involved in the debate this afternoon who had an opportunity to hear the Minister attempt to complete his speech within the time limit will recognise the amount of work undertaken by the staff of the Office of Public Works, headed by the Minister of State. I am sure Members were impressed at the diversity and importance of the work. I join with Deputy Kavanagh in his expressed hope that by next year a better way will have been devised to deal with Estimates of this importance and that we will be able to organise a debate in such a way that Members and the public may have access to it. A great amount of the work of the staff of the Office of Public Works, and the Minister of State is not known and sometimes it is only the issues of controversy that we hear of.

In the few moments available to me I want to place on record my praise for some of the restoration work that took place in recent years. The Minister of State, and his staff, deserve to be complimented. It is a matter of great pride to the Irish people that we have craftspeople whose work is of such a high standard that they have been able to restore buildings such as the Custom House and our own Seanad Chamber, works of beauty that are part of our heritage. Some of the buildings — the Seanad being one of them — were originally crafted by people brought in from other countries by the developers, builders or aristocrats from countries such as Italy and France. Today we are proud that our people have been able to do the plasterwork and the very complex restoration work on furniture and paintings.

The most recent development worthy of great praise was at the writers' centre and the writers' museum in Parnell Square, Dublin. Excellent restoration work was carried out there.

It was with such restoration work in mind that I was struck by a very important statement at the parliamentary forum during the recent Rio Summit, which I was privileged to attend. That statement put the issue into perspective. This comes within the ambit of the Office of Public Works who have responsibility not only for our buildings and national monuments but also for the incredibly wild natural beauty that we have in Ireland. It is the duty of all of us to retain that beauty and to protect it for future generations. In order to get across the enormity of that responsibility and the time limit within which the preservation and conservation work must be done, one of the speakers at the forum said that if one of our best known national or international museums of art or archives were plundered by thieves or ravaged by vandals there would be an international outcry; that if even a small amount of the property of our museums or art galleries were stolen it would be recognised as an international issue. He said that we have to treat our natural heritage in the way we treat the collections of art that have been collected in museums throughout the world.

That statement put the issue into perspective. We must recognise our natural heritage as being precious and irreplaceable. Indeed, it is sometimes more important than the works of art produced by human beings. We should try to instil that kind of awareness in our own people and tourists. We should try to impress on them that our natural heritage is as precious irreplaceable and beautiful as any of our human art monuments. Perhaps in that way we would all have a greater interest in protecting and preserving our environment. The Office of Public Works certainly have a responsibility in relation to the awareness needed and the importance of taking speedy action to preserve our heritage.

At international level, but particularly at national level, there is a great need for access to information. We need more information on what the Office of Public Works do from one year to another. I agree with Deputy Jacob that a series of information networks should be set up. When new initiatives are embarked on or restoration work is undertaken people should be given information not only about what is taking place but also about the complexity and the sensitivity of the work. That would give people a sense of pride and of belonging.

I accept that all work costs money, but I should like to see the development of open days when the staff who have been part of a wonderful project that is approaching completion would be available to give the public information and an explanation about the work and perhaps, even to receive some praise. The preservation of our heritage is one of the most important programmes in Ireland and throughout the world. The nineties will be remembered as the decade when we attempted to evaluate, preserve and, hopefully, conserve what was almost lost to us and what we are only now, belatedly, coming to recognise.

I welcome the provision for additional accommodation this year in the Four Courts in Morgan Place. I wish to impress on the Minister of State and, I hope, the Minister for Finance the importance of making provision to deal with the scandalous condition of some of our other court houses. Some of them are not fit for the serious work that must take place in them. Privacy should be ensured in a building in which legal proceedings take place. I do not have time to go into this issue in detail; it has been raised in the course of many other Estimates debates. There is a need either to provide new premises or refurbish the old premises.

The same argument applies to Garda stations. I welcome the central site chosen for the Garda headquarters in Dún Laoghaire. My constituents were concerned that the station be sited in a central position. I accept that such a suitable site costs money. I pay tribute to the gardaí who are working in very cramped conditions there. Their new accommodation will be more up to date and spacious.

Many Garda stations do not have adequate facilities. Some lack proper sanitary facilities, and other facilities which prevents greater integration between staff. As Chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Women's Rights, I am concerned that we do not yet have full facilities for men and women.

Finally, as spokesperson on the Marine for Fine Gael, I welcome the developments to our inland waterways. I was very interested to hear the Minister's proposals. I was also very interested in the comments by Deputy Connor on the advantages and disadvantages of arterial drainage. In regard to conservation, we must take into consideration that in draining we should conserve and preserve fishing and the other natural habitats which have been available to the flora and fauna in those areas. I hope we have learned our lesson in time in that regard.

Irish people have become incredibly interested in the tourist and fishing potential of our inland waterways, particularly canals. We should have a network of canals, replenished with fish where suitable; pleasure craft should also be provided so that people could cruise through some of the most beautiful parts of the countryside which is not really recognised. Many canals flow through land which is pleasant but not dramatic in terms of mountain and sea compared with coastal counties. If a network of canals and waterways could be linked it would mean huge potential for tourism. People could take a pleasant and leisurely journey through other places as well as visiting established tourist areas.

I agree with Deputy Kavanagh who said that the Office of Public Works should use all their influence to ensure that any public building planned, designed or refurbished will provide access for the disabled. A former Minister and Deputy Kavanagh made the point that Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas do not have a disabled representative and, therefore, the question of access has not arisen. However, has that been a bar to disabled people seeking to run for office? If they did run for office would we remove the obstacles in their path and give them the facilities they need? If we continue to ignore the problem it could constitute discrimination and I should like the Office of Public Works to use all their influence in this regard to ensure that there is access for the disabled in all areas.

I admire much of the incredibly important and beautiful work carried out by the Office of Public Works in various locations, including the offices of the Taoiseach. Of course, a sum of £17.5 million having been spent on them, one would have expected its completion to such a high standard.

It is a matter of great regret that the fine work carried out by the Office of Public Works in many areas throughout the country is being undermined by a series of insensitive decisions regarding the placing and location of interpretative centres in areas of great scenic beauty. As I said, everybody appreciates the work of the Office of Public Works in many areas, including tourism. They did an excellent job on the National Concert Hall, Dublin Castle and Kilmainham. The work is an outstanding testament to the expertise of the staff and they deserve our congratulations for their skill and professionalism.

The question of the siting of interpretative centres is a delicate issue which must be approached sensitively. The trouble is — as in relation to Maastricht — that when someone dangles EC money in front of a Government Department or any other body attached to Government, very often there is mad rush to accept it without thinking projects through properly. In praising the Office of Public Works I must mention their excellent track record in Glenveagh, County Donegal, and Letterfrack in Connemara. The Democratic Left support extending access to areas of beauty and interest to the maximum possible number of people. We reject the elitist approach which would like to preserve many of these areas for the wealthy. Very often huge tracts of land in Wicklow or Donegal are the sole and private preserve of extremely wealthy families and only they can enjoy the natural scenic beauty to which the average citizen never has access.

In making that point I wish to record my appreciation of the degree of access afforded to people in the Luggala area of Wicklow to the beauty of Lough Dan and its environs through privately owned lands. The construction of interpretative centres for visitors must be done sensitively and with adequate consideration of the wishes of the people who live in the area. Part of the attraction of our countryside, especially for visitors from abroad, is our low density of population, the sense of isolation and the feeling of being away from it all.

We must be extremely conscious of the dangers of over-development. When people visit areas of scenic interest they generally want to see the scenery, not buildings. I spend almost every other weekend walking in the Wicklow and Dublin mountains and it is that sense of isolation and freedom from the pylons and density of housing which makes me appreciate what we have. It is very important to retain this freedom and one of the big fears in the siting of interpretative centres is that they will not be appropriately placed and designed to blend with the environment. It is also very important that there should not be a knock-on effect as a result of building these centres, whereby landowners in the area would also seek planning permission for other developments such as guest houses, hotels or leisure facilities. That would destroy what the interpretative centres are supposed to encourage.

Plans for the two centres — at Mullaghmore in the Burren and Luggala in the Wicklow mountains — have generated particular local opposition which we cannot ignore. The Government and the Office of Public Works should not ignore it because local people are speaking out in the interests of their environment. The opposition in the Wicklow area around Luggala and its immediate environs must be listened to. It is not the decision to build the centres which has created the controversy, but their location. The decision of the Government announced earlier this week to go ahead with the interpretative centres in Wicklow is particularly unfortunate and insensitive and seems to ride roughshod over the wishes of large numbers of people in the county. I know this area particularly well and I must ask the Minister of State what is the reason they have decided to place it in the centre of a wilderness area when it would be more suitable and more appropriate to build it in nearby villages.

I understand that Wicklow County Council commissioned a study in relation to the proposal to build an interpretative centre at Luggala and that that was carried out by Professor Adrian Phillips of TCD. Although that study has been completed the council have not had an opportunity to discuss its findings. Therefore the decision to proceed with the project would seem to indicate a lack of consideration for the views of the local elected representatives and people. Surely the decision on whether to proceed with the project at Luggala should have been deferred until Wicklow County Council had an opportunity to consider the findings of this study.

The decision of Dublin Corporation to build a roadway in the wilderness area of Bull Island, gave rise to my concern about the tendency to ride roughshod over the views of members of local councils. However, while I support the concept of attracting people to visit beauty spots including the location in question, if the position is not controlled properly we could end up with a situation similar to that at Bull Island where people along the sand dune have literally to walk across a three or four lane highway if they want to get to the water's edge. Indeed, the local authority are now trying to restrict access by cars to the beach. It is obvious that they have not thought the matter through.

When I visited wilderness areas in the United States, in particular Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park, I was shocked to find, because so many people are attracted to these places of natural beauty, that I was confined to the boardwalks. Can one imagine board-walks being provided at Luggala, Djouce or War Hill and people being told that they should not leave them? If this were to happen we would destroy the ambience of these nature parks.

I should warn the Minister that the people who oppose the decision to build these centres at the locations proposed will continue to protest. If the Office of Public Works proceed with these projects, despite the opposition, it will lead to bitterness and resentment. They should also beware that EC funding for such centres, is now under threat. The European Commissioner, Mr. Bruce Millan, in a letter to Democratic Left MEP, Mr. Des Geraghty, suggested that EC Structural Funding for the proposed Burren interpretative centre has been frozen pending the outcome of an investigation into any possible breaches of European Community environmental legislation. He went on to say that "no Structural Funds will be given to this or any other project if there is a breach of EC environmental legislation."

I am sorry but I must advise the Deputy that time does not allow him "amuigh faoin spéir" much longer. Tá an t-ám istigh.

I was going to quote letters received from the European Commission with which the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, is familiar. However, he might take the opportunity to address some of the points I have raised during the course of my short contribution. I wish that it was longer.

In his speech the Minister of State said that the Office of Public Works are essentially a conservation organisation, and so they were and what a good job they did, too — I use the past tense, unfortunately. For many years the Office of Public Works were a well respected body charged with the care of our ancient monuments, public buildings, national parks and wilderness areas but alas that is no longer the case. What has happened to this august body, a body who have taken unto themselves extraordinary, all sweeping and undemocratic powers? They no longer care what the people think or what are the attitudes of local authorities.

The most recent crime against our environment and ecology, which they are mandated to protect, is the construction of so-called interpretative centres dotted around our country in the most unsuitable places and against the wishes of the people, locally, nationally and internationally. I am at a loss for words in relation to their attitude, to their planned destruction of some of the most beautiful parts of our island. We do not have much in this country but we do have our wonderful and unique wilderness areas——

We have a lot.

——which are famed throughout the world but the Office of Public Works are destroying them.

Where is the Deputy living? Is he living on this planet at all?

Why do these people think they know best and why will they not listen? Do they not realise that damage is being done? Is it the carrot of money from Europe that drives them inexorably and relentlessly to further destruction? The unyielding and inexplicable attitude of these most frightening of powerful bureaucrats who seem to be unanswerable to anybody and out of control terrifies not just me but a large number of people who care for more than money, be it from Europe or from the increased numbers of tourists they hope to cajole in to visiting our beautiful, precious places. Do they not realise that these acts are going to lead to the destruction of the beauty and the irreplaceable treasure they have been mandated to protect? Yet, we are now discussing allocating them even more of the country's money to assist them in this destruction.

Luggala which is one of the few remaining wilderness areas will be destroyed and for what? Mullaghmore — unique, wonderful and mysterious — will also be destroyed. Let us destroy what has been created over several millenia. Do the Office of Public Works think that the people of Ireland, of Europe and further afield appreciate or even approve of what is being done? Do they not realise that the places which appear in books, films and in literature throughout the world are famous and treasured for what they are and not for what they are trying to make of them? Are these unaccountable commissioners for the so-called Office of Public Works so deaf or is it that they will not hear? I call for their immediate resignation and replacement by people who care and not by those who think that they are the State's property developers destroying our land with our money and the money of other Europeans who also treasure these wonders.

I was highly amused at the Minister of State's statement that the Burren proposal has aroused organised opposition. Of course it has. Large numbers of people are horrified by the proposal and when this happens people tend to come together and work together. May I ask him if he thinks it should be disorganised opposition? He is possibly thinking of the antics of some of the members of his own political party over recent issues.

That is an ungracious remark.

It is well merited given the attitude of the Minister of State's party to the Maastricht Treaty and other issues.

We are living in a democracy.

I hope the Office of Public Works appreciate that. I would like to deal with the proposal in relation to Luggala as it appears that this project is likely to proceed shortly. Let us examine the word "interpretative". I could ask "interpreting what"? The ambience of a wilderness area is precisely that — it is wild and untamed by man. It is also desolate. Therefore, by definition, it attracts a small number of people at any one time. How can one interpret the feeling one has when standing on an outcrop of rock overlooking Lough Tay and Lough Dan in solitude apart from a few other like-minded hill walkers and some grouse and sky larks? Hundreds, if not thousands, of day trippers will now be decanted into this area with all the consequent accoutrements such as ice cream vans and the other alleged advantages of civilisation.

It is quite apparent to me that the people who call the shots in the Office of Public Works have not the foggiest idea of what a wilderness area is about, nor are they willing to learn. This act of environmental vandalism must be stopped. In the last resort I appeal to the people of Wicklow to come out en masse and physically prevent this scheme being operated. What else can they do? They have spoken to their elected representatives. Wicklow County Council have spoken out on this and have called on the Minister to defer this scheme, all to no avail. The Minister seems determined to proceed at all costs and at the expense of local democracy. What else can I call on them to do but to stand in the way and prevent this scheme from proceeding.

I should like to refer briefly to the proposal to add a third 18-hole golf course in the National Park in Killarney.

Not true; that is not a fact.

Yes, it is true. Part of the National Park in Killarney is being used for this third 18-hole golf course. It has been orchestrated by certain local interests acting against the long term interests of the people of Killarney and their efforts to nurture and protect the area and its amenities for future generations in Killarney and for those who visit there. These people are motivated by sheer unadulterated greed. It should be put on record that this proposal has been opposed by the local angling organisations, such as the Lough Leane Trout Anglers and Killarney Salmon and Trout Anglers' Association. It should also be pointed out that the maintenance of golf courses generally, the Killarney golf course in particular, causes severe problems due to the amount of fertilisers, nitrates and phosphates which find their way into the spawning streams and the lake itself.

I might point out to Deputy Garland that in golfing terminology, he has now reached the 18th hole.

Finally, I call specifically for the resignations from the Office of Public Works of Commissioners John Mahony and Brendan Scully, they being the principal architects responsible for the conversion of the Office of Public Works from having been an environmental conservation body to an environmental destruction body.

I have been a Member of this House for ten years during which period I have been honoured to serve the people of my constituency and of the country generally as a public representative. Never in those ten years here have I heard such an utterly ridiculous, eccentric, extreme contribution on the part of any Deputy as that just made by Deputy Garland. The fact that he has left the House before I have had an opportunity to respond shows that he himself knows full well that what he has put on the record of this House could not stand up anywhere.

The scalded cat syndrome.

It is disgraceful to call on public servants by name in this House to vacate office, to which they have been duly appointed, having been selected by the highest committee, an independent body who appoint senior civil servants and having an excellent record of public service. I heard Deputy Garland talk about a wilderness. I suggest he is walking into the wilderness himself with such an attitude.

I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. The variety of comments illustrates the impact the Office of Public Works and their activities have on the day-to-day life of this country. I will ensure that all of their comments are passed on to the commissioners or further consideration in due course.

I will endeavour to respond in the time available to me to the various comments made. Deputy John Connor was the first to respond on behalf of the Opposition. He spoke about the Office of Public Works having too many irons in the fire, contending that we were unable to manage them well. I am surprised at those remarks on the part of a Deputy representing an area where the Office of Public Works have made massive investments over the years, creating major opportunities for infrastructural and land improvements, waterway management and so on, bringing such tremendous facilites to the area. Therefore I am all the more surprised the Deputy would make such a bald statement. He spoke about gross mismanagement of arterial drainage. If he takes into account the topography of the areas with which we deal, the rock depths, soil types, fishing stocks, often the very serious compensatory demands being made, frequently with strong political representation he will realise somewhat the difficulties involved. I have seen examples of people claiming £500,000 per acre for damaged land, when we have been able to settle for perhaps £19,000 or £20,0000. In addition, there are demands to employ more staff. It must be remembered that the Office of Public Works are managers of human resources and, in an effort to respond, of course, endeavour to accommodate all demands. But no matter how good we are, or how broad our attitude, it seems we cannot be right in the eyes of some people. I was very disappointed at that generalised statement on the part of Deputy Connor.

It was a particular criticism; the Minister of State ought to be fair.

The Deputy said we had too many irons in the fire and we do not manage them well.

In the interests of good management there is a provision that later Deputy Connor can pose a special question to the Minister of State. Meanwhile he should be allowed continue without interruption.

Deputy Connor referred also to the Price Waterhouse report. Consideration of the Price Waterhouse review of the Office of Public Works is a matter for the Minister for Finance. The Government decided to have this report made available to them. It was not sought by this House or any Member thereof; consequently, it is not a public document. We have no difficulty with that report; as a matter of fact we were very pleased with it. The review has been raised with the Minister for Finance in the House on a number of occasions. The position is that the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works have agreed a programme for implementing many of the worthwhile, detailed proposals contained in that Price Waterhouse review. That programme has been approved by the Minister for Finance and is now being implemented. The intention is to achieve more commercial management of the Office of Public Works' operations and improve efficiency, taking into account modern technology and general effectiveness. The Minister is satisfied with the progress being made in implementing that programme. The main elements of that programme are the introduction of revised accounting systems to provide more comprehensive management and cost information; a review of the property management/property services function, the establishment of cost ranges for construction projects, a review of the Central Building Maintenance Workshop, a review of the central procurement and stockholding policy of the Government Supplies Agency; a review of the Central Engineering Workshops, a reorganisation of the heritage service and implementation of the Office of Public Works information technology plan, including accounting systems, resource databases and office information systems, and an overall corporate development plan for the Office of Public Works. Those were the main recommendations which would be made about any commercial company if and when Price Waterhouse were consulted and requested to take an overview, when they must justify their presence and carry out a critical analysis. The State paid them £94,000 for their advice, with which the Minister for Finance is very pleased, and to which, under his guidance, we are responding.

Deputy Connor also referred to arterial drainage schemes. As I have already said, there are two in operation — the Boyle/Bonet and the Ulster Blackwater. Work commenced in July 1982 on the Boyle scheme which was scheduled to take five years to complete at an estimated cost of £14 million, which has been progressively updated to £21.75 million. However, due primarily to the curtailment of funding for arterial drainage — I might add that this happened when Deputy Connor's party were in Government — progress has been substantially less than had been originally expected. At present, after ten years of operation, 70 per cent of the scheduled works have been completed at a cost of £16 million.

As a drainage scheme comes to completion, as appropriate, engineering staff are redeployed to duties elsewhere. Thus, for instance, in the case of the Boyle/Bonet scheme two engineers were transferred to other duties in 1991. In the case of the Blackwater scheme one engineer has been assigned part-time to other duties and a senior engineer has not been replaced on that project. Staff engaged in engineering services have been reduced from 140 to 83 since 1988, a reduction of over 40 per cent. Staff engaged in administration of drainage at head office have been assigned additional duties, with particular reference to the Shannon navigation scheme. I can tell the House, as somebody who has served in the Office of Public Works for almost three years, from 1987 to 1989 and again over the past few months, that, pro rata, the number of appointments we make at the non-professional, non-academic level vis-à-vis the more professional people is greater. We have maintained that balance over the years, always dependent on the needs we must meet. We must take into account the job to be done, the need for staffing and, of course, the scant resources available.

What about redundancies?

The redundancy scheme went ahead and many people took that option. It added a new dimension, giving bright, young staff an opportunity to surface within the public service, giving others an opportunity to take an earlier break in life and perhaps find fulfilment outside. That scheme has worked reasonably well and, as a result, the public service, has benefited.

The problems associated with the Shannon basin are long-standing with a history of reports and investigations stretching back over the past 150 years. Those reports all highlight the complexity of the problem, in financial and technical terms, compounded by the multiplicity and variety of interests involved. The complexity of the problem may well explain the reluctance of successive Governments to attempt a comprehensive solution. The Office of Public Works have a twofold interest in the Shannon. The commissioners are bound by the Shannon Navigation Act to maintain the Shannon as a public navigable waterway. The basic levels and minimum levels of water required for navigation are maintained by means of various weirs constructed in the last century. Sluices which were subsequently provided at those weirs are always operated to discharge water in excess of what is required for navigation so as to give the maximum relief possible from flooding. Manipulation of the sluices, however, have only very limited effect at times of high flow on the river.

The basic problem is that the capacity of the channel is not adequate to cater for the volume of water involved. The solution to that problem is possible only in the context of a drainage scheme for the entire catchment under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, which would include an enlargement of the channel. The Act does not provide for the improvement of particular areas in a catchment on a piecemeal basis. Accumulation of silt at Meelick Weir is very often alleged to be the cause of flooding in the Athlone to Banagher section of the river but this is not the case. Recently, when repairs to the weir were being carried out, the opportunity was taken to remove weed growth and silt from the upstream side of it and the quantity of silt found was very small.

The ESB have statutory control over water levels in the Shannon but their policy is to exercise this control in a manner which is inappropriate as far as this legislation is concerned. In an effort to promote co-operation and to bring together the various interests — about 40 in all — concerned with this vast natural waterway, to facilitate the co-ordination of their views and special interests, the River Shannon Forum was set up by me in March 1989. The forum has had frequent meetings since its inception, and flooding, pollution and tourist development are the most frequently discussed topics. It is an agency that contributes very positively to the successful management of the river. We appreciate the contribution of this forum.

The allocation of £350,000 under subhead G covers the cost of contract work and grant assistance to various organisations who have an interest in that area. The salaries of the 11 staff involved and all associated costs are provided for in the administration budget of the Office of Public Works. The allocation is purely for research purposes, laboratories, materials, equipment, etc. and not for staff.

Coole Park was also mentioned. I invite any Member of the House, their friends and families or acquaintances to come to see the tremendous work that has been done in Coole Park. It is an example of the superb management of a wonderful natural resource, of an historic and literary resource, of the maintenance and restoration of old buildings. The catering problems there at the moment are to do with the water supply and have nothing to do with Office of Public Works development. At this time of the year there is always a problem with water supplies in this area. There is also a problem in the autumn when the rain comes and there is a diversion of the water, the cause of which the geological people and others have not been able to identify as yet. Because of these and other technical difficulties we have decided to close the facility temporarily in order to try to solve the problems. We are confident that any visitors that pass along that roadway will find this a beautiful new haven of nature in the future.

We have spoken about taking the National Archaeology Service outside the Office of Public Works. This was considered by previous Governments and they decided that the Office of Public Works was the only organisation with the capacity and resources to manage archaeology in its totality. Our track record is such that we have tremendous co-operation with all the third level institutes and all the professionals involved. We have an opportunity to preserve and conserve and utilise the archaeology of Ireland to demonstrate our heritage. I am confident that the Office of Public Works will be able to do that.

I thank Deputies Joe Jacob and Liam Kavanagh for their contributions and for the warmth of their support for the Wicklow National Park. Their speeches contrasted with those we heard previously. All the Oireachtas Members in Wicklow were fully supportive of the proposal to proceed. Deputy Kavanagh referred to planning. Section 84 of the Planning Act makes it mandatory for the Office of Public Works to have a detailed consultation with the planning authorities vis-à-vis any State developments. This means that we must do as any applicant and that is to lodge our application and back it up with site maps, plans, detailed designs etc. The planning document then comes through after negotiation and we always more than fulfil the demands made by the planning authority. We would prefer to go through the normal planning system but the Members of this House felt it was in the best interests of the country that the State should have this facility. Anybody comparing any of our projects with similar ones done in the private sector will find that we have always exceeded the demands placed on us and fulfilled the requirements in their totality. Such is our commitment to adhering to proper planning requirements.

Deputy Kavanagh referred to the appeals system. If the system operated for the State as it does in the private sector we would be in the appeals mechanism. However, there must be a balance. If every project put up were to be appealed, we might never make progress. One must balance the need of the State to serve the people of Ireland against the legislation that is there. Our staff are exemplary in ensuring that we fulfil all the planning demands.

I am confident that we can proceed with the various developments that have been outlined. I am sure people will appreciate the efforts being made to ensure that the Wicklow National Park at Luggala will be properly managed. I am confident that this will happen at many more centres in the future so that there will be an opportunity for all of the people of Ireland and the many visitors who come here to enjoy the nature that God has bestowed on all of us.

Deputy Kavanagh spoke about recruitment. We have a policy of favouring local employment but that must be balanced against the rights of individuals and against performances at interviews. We will take into account what the Deputy said and I would hope that as many people as possible from County Wicklow will be employed in whatever facilities are planned by the Office of Public Works operation in County Wicklow.

Deputy Kavanagh also spoke about public relations. He said that we should have proper public relations to sell our message. Other people also referred to that today. It is not our policy to oversell what we do. We put our proposals and allow people to take an objective, critical view of them. We hope they will be the positive proposals that we put forward. We do not want to be seen to be over-selling our projects. We would like the people to judge them. Perhaps the question of public relations is something we could look at.

The Minister of State is too modest.

That is probably the difficulty. The Office of Public Works have been far too modest for far too long and the tremendous work they have done has not been recognised by the public en masse as it is by individuals visiting our sites and seeing the great work that has been done.

A number of Deputies, including Deputy Kavanagh, spoke about Leinster House. Leinster House is not air-conditioned. That is very obvious to us all. It has an air-handling unit which heats the Chamber in the winter. Air conditioning will be tackled in the foreseeable future, as soon as the scarce resources that are needed are allocated for the project. I would like to see an improvement in that area. I would not like to see a situation continue where people have to remove their jackets and create holy murder. It is unbecoming for politicians to be in such an environment.

I am fully aware of the situation pertaining to the disabled and that wheelchair access to the House is not ideal. I am pleased to say that works are being undertaken to improve the situation. To enhance access for wheelchair users to the visitors' gallery in Dáil Éireann, a new lift was recently installed and a special platform for wheelchairs was provided for the gallery itself. An external ramp will be provided this summer recess at the visitors' entrance to the building. In regard to Leinster House itself, there is already a ramp at the Kildare Street entrance providing access to the ground floor and from there access may be gained to the first and second floors by means of a lift. During the summer recess it is proposed to provide a ramp in the corridor leading to the bars which will extend wheelchair access to the office block and to the restaurant and bars. Other areas of the House are currently being studied with a view to establishing the measures necessary to improve wheelchair access.

With regard to Kildare House, there is satisfactory wheelchair access from the basement carpark to lifts serving all floors. Alternatively, a door at the entrance to the carpark at the ground floor level can provide wheelchair access to the ground floor of the building and the lifts. It is not possible to provide access for wheelchair users at the main entrance to Kildare House due to the significant difference in levels between the ground floor and the public pavement.

Deputy Jacob referred to developments on private property in the environs of the national park in County Wicklow. I should like to assure him that the Office of Public Works will not be involved in making decisions on such matters. These are purely matters for the planning authority of Wicklow County Council whom I am sure will continue to make their decisions in a positive and objective manner.

Deputy Barnes referred to the importance of our tourism and fishing industries and their potential. I concur with the points made by her in this regard. Even though she is a city Deputy, she has a great knowledge of these matters. She referred to the sensitivity displayed by the Office of Public Works in dealing with many issues including those concerning our waterways. I wish to point out that our fish stocks are continually topped-up. We will continue to co-operate with the Central Fisheries Board and the regional fisheries authorities. We also hope to carry out work in the Ringsend area. As a result of major investment in the area, the coarse fishing championships will be held there this year. However, much work remains to be done.

Deputy Barnes also referred to the wild and natural beauty of our country, the Burren and other areas. I believe everyone accepts that conservation is our aim. We will continue to preserve the unique areas of our country so that everyone can enjoy them in a carefully managed way.

Deputy Byrne said that the Office of Public Works ride roughshod over the people. He compared the Office of Public Works to Dublin Corporation. I am shocked that a democratically elected public representative would make such a statement. The Office of Public Works have never tried to ride roughshod over anyone. Our attitude is one of consultation, dialogue and consensus and that will continue to be our policy. It is unbecoming of a democratically elected public representative to make such a misleading statement about a State organisation or Department. He spoke about the possibility of locating interpretative centres in various towns. That is the argument used by the people who are against the building of these centres. People cannot interpret a national park from a town and they cannot interpret a town from a national park. If one wants to properly interpret an area and understand how precious it is one must do so in its natural state with proper access and back-up facilities. People can visit those areas in an organised way and enjoy the environment if they are managed properly. That is and will continue to be our policy.

Deputy Byrne suggested that our EC funding is under threat. This is not true. We have had many meetings with the European Commission and we fulfil all the requirements of the various EC directives and conventions under which we operate. There is no difficulty with Community funding. We do not rush in looking for Community funding but, as a State organisation, we have a duty to respond to the demands of Government. When negotiations for Structural Funds, Cohesion Funds or heritage funds take place the Office of Public Works are obliged to put forward a programme. This programme is then put forward to the Commission by the Government and the Department of Finance, our chief negotiators, as part of an overall proposal. Under the principle of subsidiarity, the Government, and State agencies involved, allocate funds to the various projects. Once we carry out those projects under the various EC directives there is no difficulty with any directorate in Brussels or the Commission. There has never been any threat to the funding available to Ireland, and I am confident that this will continue to be the case.

I wish to refer to some of the points made by Deputy Garland. He has left the Chamber but, perhaps, he is listening to the debate on the monitor in his office. I was absolutely shocked by some of the comments made by Deputy Garland. He went from the sublime to the ridiculous. He seems to forget that he is living in a democracy. He refuses to accept the will of the Irish people, even though 70 per cent of them recently voted to be part of a greater integrated Europe. I regard his statements as extreme and eccentric. Having regard to the statements he made, I wonder if he is living on this planet, not to mention on this island. The statements he made today were the most debasing statements ever made by any Member in this House and were unbecoming of a public representative. It is tragic that a public representative would use the national Parliament to heap blame and baseless abuse on outstanding public servants. I do not accept what he said. The vast majority of Members have never used this House in that way. I am confident Members will maintain the traditions of this House and continue to respect the quality and dedication of our public servants who respond to the demands of Government in carrying out public policy on behalf of all of the people of the country. If Deputy Garland had any respect for this House and public servants he would apologise to the people he named here. This is a sad day and I have never before seen a public representative stoop to such a low standard.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the services given by the Office of Public Works. These services are so wide and diverse that I would love to have a full day's debate on them in a very reasoned and calm atmosphere. This would enable me to allay any fears people may have and give as much information as possible to Members so that they would understand that the Office of Public Works in carrying out their duties, are cognisant that they are the main conservation organisation in the country. The Office of Public Works carry out work on behalf of many State Departments and agencies and implement Government policy on behalf of all the people. We will continue to pursue a policy of being fair to everyone and carrying out our work to the highest standards. I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate. I look forward to working with them in the interests of the country for as long as I am privileged to be in this office.

I understand Deputy Connor wishes to ask a question.

I am not sure of the procedure.

Deputy Connor is entitled to put a question.

I need to be guided by the Chair.

I am not sure if we have taken licence beyond which might have been ordered. On the one hand the order says that the Minister has ten minutes to reply but on the other it says that the Minister shall be called not later than a certain time. In so far as that time has not been reached my interpretation was that we would give the Minister in his reply an opportunity to display his undoubted eloquence. There are some minutes remaining during which Deputy Connor is entitled to put a specific question.

No doubt the people over here are eloquent also.

I am about to hear the Deputies; I was not present earlier to hear them. Let us distinguish between a question and crossexamination. The Deputy may ask two questions if he wishes.

When will the Minister be in a position to publish a register of the national monuments in the care of the State, as provided for under the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987? When will he be in a position to pursue a policy of providing public access to all national monuments in the care of the State? May I ask him what was meant by the circular sent to the managers of arterial drainage schemes asking them for costings of the winding-up of the schemes? The Boyle-Bonet scheme is almost 69 per cent completed and why should such a circular be sent to the manager of this scheme and what does it mean?

I will deal first with the circular in regard to arterial drainage schemes. When an arterial drainage scheme is published, a design is put forward and various analyses are carried out. When it is decided to proceed, costings are carried out and a certain amount of money is allocated. A timescale is also set for the scheme. Once the timescale is concluded it is mandatory on the Department of Finance, who have overall responsibility under the Constitution for the finances of the State, to query the excess expenditure, the reasons for it and when it is hoped to complete the scheme. Before the budget is announced by the Minister for Finance each year the question of whether the scheme has been over-run or can be allowed to continue must be teased out in the Estimates. That must happen each year once the period allocated has expired.

As regards sites and monuments, as the Deputy knows we have published a sites and monuments record for 30 of the 32 counties and the records for the other two counties will shortly be concluded. We are very pleased with the work in this area and we will follow it up with further publications, illustrations and information. The purpose of the sites and monuments record is to ensure that the statutory authorities involved in various developments, whether they be local authorities, the Department of Agriculture and Food or any other State authority grant-aiding work or carrying out work on behalf of the State, would have all the information at their disposal so that when decisions are being made they can refer to these records and ensure that the register makes the information available and that the monuments will be protected.

As regards access to monuments, if we were to provide access to all the monuments in the country a motion would have to be passed in this House to freeze all the moneys available each year for all the Departments and, perhaps, after ten years we would be able to provide access to all monuments. There are so many monuments in the country that it would not be possible to give an estimate of the amount of time and money that would be required, and the legalities involved, to do this.

No money would be required.

Of course we would have to provide money. If we provide access we must ensure that there are no encumbrances to access. We must be absolutely certain that we do not infringe on people's property. We have put preservation orders on monuments even though we may not have access to them. We have been asked by local authorities, public representatives and various heritage and historical societies to put preservation orders on certain monuments. It would not be possible to provide access to all monuments without providing massive amounts of money for legal costs, access costs and particularly management costs.

We operate a priority programme every year for the monuments that become popular, some of which will attract 5,000 visitors. As these monuments become popular and people visit them on educational tours, historical trips or whatever — international people visit monuments for various reasons, because they have a particular interest in them or because they relate to the history of a particular part of the country — we respond to the increased number of visitors. We are committed to providing access to the monuments most often visited. There are 36 centres in the country which catered for 1.5 million visitors last year and we will continue to proceed down that road.

May I ask——

Perhaps Deputy Connor would blend his patience with chivalry and allow Deputy Barnes to put her question. I will then come back to Deputy Connor.

Will the report on the inland waterways which will be presented to the Government for consideration be published or will it be only for the information of the Government? It is a report that would be of tremendous interest to many people. With regard to the archaeological survey of Ireland — I know Deputy Connor joins with me in welcoming the finalising of the records on the remaining two counties — the Minister mentioned that the publications take the format of hardback books, and he is right in saying that they will be of tremendous value to Coillte and to the farm development services centre, but I would like to know whether these books will be available in hardback form to people interested in archaeology and to tourists? If so, they would add to the State's coffers.

On the question of sites and monuments, it has been brought to my attention that some of the holy wells of Ireland, particularly St. Brigid's in Louth, are in great disrepair, filled with silt and dirt. I would like to know whether these wells come under sites and monuments, or does this matter need to be brought to the attention of the Office of Public Works? I know that many tourists are interested in touring holy wells. Finally, does the question of tree preservation come under the aegis of the Office of Public Works or is it a matter for local planning?

In response to Deputy Barnes' question about the inland waterways, we have put together a report for analysis by the Government and if they are satisfied with it, it will be published. It will then be available to the public who can make a critical analysis of it and, hopefully, assist us in ensuring that we achieve its objectives. On the archaeological survey, in each county where the book is published copies will be made available to the local libraries as well as to all State and semi-State agencies and local authorities. They will also be available in the Government Publications Office for any individual who wishes to buy them.

We have no responsibility for holy wells unless they have special architectural or archaeological features. If the Deputy or any Member of the House wishes to bring a matter to our attention we will certainly investigate it and see if we have a role to play in that regard. Tree preservation is a matter for each local authority. The local authority would consult with Coillte Teoranta who would make a recommendation on the matter. Unless trees are on our property we would have no role in this area.

To go back to the point I was making about access to monuments and the Minister's response to it, he made great play of the difficulties involved. I am fortunate enough to have on my property an early Christian, 7th century, high cross. Three years ago I signed a document providing access to the public to this monument which is visited by about 100 visitors each year.

We anticipate many more visitors in the next three years.

The exercise providing access was very simple and cheap and I did not seek compensation — the law should ensure that people are not compensated in such cases because these monuments belong to the people. From my experience of this matter the process, which seems to be a very simple exercise, should be speeded up.

In his response the Minister seemed to imply that because I criticised certain aspects of the operations of the Office of Public Works I was criticising them in every way, but that is not the case. The Office of Public Works have had a marvellous record during their 108 years in operation and they continue to do magnificent work. I was speaking about the deployment of labour on a drainage scheme, but the Minister has not satisfactorily dealt with that matter. A number of persons are permanently employed on these schemes but the people who were made redundant were non-permanent. In the case of the Boyle-Bonet scheme about 150 people were made redundant. The permanent ancillary staff who remain there can tell us that they could use three times the number of skilled people working on the scheme. My criticism was that the number of people required should have been employed until the scheme was completed. That matter, which was dealt with in a rather facile way by the Minister, is worthy of greater consideration. He tried to imply that I was making belittling remarks about the Office of Public Works and the way they manage their human resources. It is not good management of human resources to make redundant people with skills to carry out structural works. In the scheme in question only 48 per cent of the structural work has been completed.

I am very pleased with the civic attitude adopted by Deputy Connor in providing access to the monument on his property. That does not happen very often. In most cases if we seek access people request astronomical fees. Obviously the Deputy came forward and made the monument available to us and we deeply appreciate that. There are a number of people in the country who have acted in the same way. However in some cases where we have tried to gain access to monuments, high amounts have been sought. If any Member of the House wishes to forward a proposal on behalf of a person who wishes to provide access, we will be only too delighted to sign the necessary agreement.

I would not like to be facile in my attitude or my response to anybody. I was quoting the Deputy in his remarks that we have too many irons in the fire and we do not manage them well. That is exactly what he said.

The Minister should have told the House the facts about Price Waterhouse.

I told the Deputy the truth about Price Waterhouse. I gave him a detailed response and I thought he would be very grateful for that.

This west-of-the-Shannon tête-à-tête must terminate.

I do not wish to regionalise any aspect of the public service, apart from the decentralisation programme. On the matter of drainage, we have experienced, expert staff who are permanent staff of the State. Nobody can dismiss these people but they can leave voluntarily if they so wish. We recruit people on a temporary basis for schemes which are set up. These people know they are recruited for the duration of the scheme or as long as they are needed and they sign an agreement to that effect. We would like to recruit a group of people for one year to finish each scheme but the finances do not allow us to do that. We have to live within our resources and consequently the work takes much longer and that does not make anyone happy.

Vote put and declared carried.
The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 June 1992.
Barr
Roinn