Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 8

ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 11—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £676,906 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun caiteachais i dtaobh Tithe Puibbnlí; chun coinncáil-suas Páirceanna agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; chun déanamh agus coinneáil suas Oibreacha Draeneála agus chun Ildeontaisí i gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £676,906 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; for execution and maintenance of Drainage Works; and Sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Mr. E. DUGGAN (Parliamentary Secretary)

This Vote, although a large one, does not embody any new policy which is not familiar to Deputies, and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to make a lengthy statement. I can reply later to any particular points which may be raised. The general position is that there is a certain average standing expenditure which is necessary and will always remain necessary for the maintenance of buildings, parks and harbours which are vested in the Government, for grants towards buildings and altering national schools, and for such new post offices, Gárda Síochána barracks, revenue offices and other Government buildings as may from time to time be required; and in addition to this average continuing charge we have this year large special and exceptional expenditure for three purposes:—(1) the housing of the Gárda Síochana; (2) the restoration of three great monumental buildings in Dublin, the Four Courts, the General Post Office, and the Custom House; (3) arterial drainage works. That is the general explanation of the large size of the Vote this year.

I will now go briefly through the several sub-heads of the Vote. Under sub-head A—Purchase of Sites and Buildings—there is an increase of £11,000. This increase is on account of the housing of the Gárda Síochána. The cost of building is still high in the Saorstát, though not so high as it was two years ago, and it is often cheaper to buy a house for a Gárda barrack than to build. It is also quicker, which is an important point. When we can, we prefer to rent houses or take them on lease rather than buy. Rents are shown under sub-head E. But many owners of houses refuse to let and will only sell, and it is, of course, cheaper to buy at a reasonable price than to pay a high rent. Naturally we only buy houses at those stations which the Department of Justice assure us will be permanent stations of the Gárda.

Sub-head AA—Annuities—these annuities, as shown in the details, p. 40, of the Estimates, are partly for the site and building of the College of Science and partly for certain military barracks. The annuity for the College runs till 1933, but that for the military barracks stops at the end of 1926-27.

Under sub-head B—New Works— there is an increase of £252,825. This is the most important sub-head, and shows the largest increase, but as Deputy Cooper is moving reduction, I will reserve anything I have to say on the details till I reply to him. I have already indicated the principal causes of the increase. Under sub-head C— Maintenance and Supplies—there is an increase of £4,485. The size of this sub-head naturally depends on two things, the number of buildings we have to maintain and the level of prices in the building trade. At present the numbers of buildings are tending to increase, because certain departments are growing, for example, the Revenue Department, and also because landlords of rented buildings are more reluctant than they used to be to undertake the obligation of maintaining them, and therefore, the Government, as tenant, has to undertake it; this applies particularly to rented barracks of the Gárda Síochána. Prices in the building trade appear to be nearly stationary, with perhaps a slight tendency to fall. Under sub-head D—Furniture, etc.—there is a decrease of £652.

Under sub-head E—Rents, &c.— there is an increase of £9,521. The increase is principally due to the housing of the Gárda Síochána and to rents for agricultural institutions, which are shown on this Vote for the first time— last year they were in the Department of Agriculture Vote. Under sub-head EE—Compensation for Premises Commandeered by the Army—there is a decrease of £45,000. This service is coming to an end, though new claims are still received from time to time, and there are considerable difficulties in coming to terms with a certain number of the claimants. Under sub-head F— Fuel, Light, Water, &c.—there is a decrease of £724. The principal factor in the amount of this sub-head is the cost of coal, and the future cost of coal is very speculative. But we bought considerable quantities before the present dispute in Great Britain began. Sub-heads G, H and I are matters of detail Under sub-heads J 1, J 2, J 3 and J4— Arterial Drainage—there is a total increase of £56,190. As the Committee are aware, these sub-heads provide for that part of the cost of arterial drainage schemes which is provided by the Government as free grants, while the Local Loans Vote provides the rest. The general policy on which these schemes are based is familiar to Deputies, and I rather gather from the debate on the Local Loans Vote yesterday that we shall be attacked for slowness in spending rather than for spending too much.

I will, therefore, deal by way of reply with any points which may be raised. Sub-head K is a matter of detail. Under sub-head L—Acquisition of a Bucket-Dredger—there is an increase of £15,000. This is a special transaction in the nature of a capital expenditure. The Commissioners of Public Works at present maintain three dredgers of different kinds—one bucket-dredger, one grab dredger, and one suction dredger. All are useful for different purpose and for different kinds of sea bottom. The bucket dredger is the most generally useful and is in most demand. The dredgers are used first to maintain harbours vested in the Board of Works—Dun Laoghaire, Howth and Dunmore East; secondly, to be let on hire to harbour authorities in the Saorstát—this is a great benefit to harbour authorities, because the terms of hire are lower than they could obtain elsewhere; thirdly, to carry out works of dredging where the Government is aiding harbours by means of free grants. Two such grants are being made at the present time, one at Burtonport, in County Tirconaill, and the other at Dingle, in the County Kerry.

The bucket-dredger will be occupied the whole of this summer, and perhaps a part of next summer, at these two places, and meantime her services are in request elsewhere. Also, the present bucket-dredger is an old boat, and before many years it will be more economical to replace her with a new one than to continue to maintain her. In these circumstances the Government decided to anticipate the replacement by a few years and to buy a second bucket-dredger while the first is still in active use. Under sub-head M— Appropriations-in-Aid—there is an increase of £159,350. This increase is principally due to a payment estimated at £150,000 from the Property Losses Compensation Vote for the restoration of Government buildings, principally Gárda Síochána barracks and the three great buildings in Dublin. There is also an increase of £8,100 under the item Tolls and Dues for the increased dues which it is proposed to charge on passenger steamers at Dun Laoghaire.

Mr. A. BYRNE

On sub-head A— The Purchase of Sites and Buildings— I would like to ask the Minister if he could tell us what the Board of Works are going to do with the sites that are derelict and an eye-sore in O'Connell Street for many years. What is their intention with regard to the two sites they own and which are almost next to the Gresham Hotel? For many years we were complaining about private owners not making any start to rebuild in O'Connell Street. Now, I think, with the exception of the Government, they have made some attempt to clear up the area. I think the Minister ought to tell us also what the Government's intention is with regard to a few other sites which I understand are owned by the Board of Works and which are also an eye-sore. There is one practically opposite this building, the site of Maple's Hotel. I believe the Government have some claim on that site, and why the rebuilding is being held up I cannot say.

I think as far as the other buildings that were formerly occupied by the Government are concerned, work on them is very slow and they are not giving sufficient employment for the amount of money involved. I mean the Four Courts, the General Post Office and the Customs House. I think now, at a time in which unemployment is so bad, the Government ought to speed up these buildings and give a little more work to those who are clamouring around those sites every day. I suggest, too—although I am informed that recently there was an effort made to remedy it—that in connection with all those Government buildings there is an inclination to buy foreign materials. Foreign material is dumped at the North Wall in such a state that it leaves very little for Irish workers to do. I refer to dressed steel and iron girders, bolted, riveted and almost ready for erection when they come in, leaving no work for the workmen engaged in those trades in the city.

Mr. DUGGAN

I do not think that any of the matters referred to by Deputy Byrne arise under sub-head A. I am rather glad, however, that he has more or less anticipated Deputy Bryan Cooper's amendment by putting forward an argument in favour of increased expenditure this year rather than decreased expenditure. With regard to the sites in O'Connell Street, we are willing to let them and we will be very glad if somebody will come and take them. The question of Maple's Hotel is still under consideration. No decision has been come to about it yet.

So far as the question of Irish manufacture is concerned, there is an express stipulation in every one of our contracts that Irish manufacture is to be used where at all possible. I was speaking to our principal architect yesterday and he told me that in many cases we pay a little more for materials of Irish manufacture.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I mentioned that there was an improvement in that respect.

Mr. DUGGAN

We pay a little more for materials of Irish manufacture, but the architect is quite satisfied that that is compensated for by the increased value of the materials we get.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to state whether the Board of Works is using Irish slates in the buildings which they are erecting, and if they are insisting when giving contracts that Irish slates are to be used. The Parliamentary Secretary is probably aware that most of the Irish slate quarries are in a position to deal with any orders which they receive. That being so, I think foreign slates and composition slates, which are sometimes used, should not be brought in. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Board of Works are insisting, as far as possible, on Irish slates being used in new buildings and in repair work.

Mr. DUGGAN

Killaloe slates are being used for the Four Courts and, wherever possible, Irish slates are being utilised. In some cases it is not possible to get them sufficiently quickly.

Major COOPER

I move to reduce sub-head B by £200,000. I am somewhat disarmed, in moving this amendment, partly because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Finance has not been in control of this department for any length of time, and partly because he has deferred justifying an increased expenditure of over a quarter of a million until I shall have made my speech. I shall, therefore, ask the leave of the Dáil to reply at greater length than I usually reply.

It is obvious to Deputies that, as we have been invited again and again to examine the Estimates, to make suggestions for economy, and to subject the figures to critical scrutiny, an increase of over £250,000 in a particular sub-head ought to be justified by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of it. There is an increase of that amount in respect of this sub-head. I have, in the past, advocated the expenditure of reasonable sums by the Government on the repair of Government buildings.

I have urged that it was inconsistent for the Government to appeal to private individuals to rebuild their premises while they themselves were doing nothing. But that is not to say that a large proportion of this expenditure should be incurred in one financial year. Looking at the items set out in the Estimate, one finds Dublin Custom House, £30,000 this year, £4,000 required next year; Department of Justice— Four Courts, £90,000 required this year, £36,000 required last year; Department of Posts and Telegraphs—G.P.O., £116,000 required this year as against about £20,000 last year. One realises the reason for these increases, but one is inclined to question the advisability of concentrating them all in one year. It is very desirable that the Government should proceed to reconstruct their buildings in order to give employment. But I am very much afraid that unemployment is not a problem of this year only but that it will continue next year and the year after. I would rather see work on these Government buildings spread over a longer period in order that there may be a steady flow of employment than that there should be a great effort this year and that then men should be turned off to look for jobs again.

Even admitting that it may be desirable to provide all this money this year, is it likely that it will be spent? On this point, I look back on the past of the Board of Works, which is no discredit to the present Parliamentary Secretary. As in the debate on Fisheries, the lightning was diverted from the head of the Minister for Fisheries to the head of the Minister for Finance, so, in this case, while not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department of Finance, I feel that, perhaps, we may educate the Minister for Education. If we are to accept the figures that appeared in the Press at the end of the last financial year—I am sorry the Minister for Finance is not present, because I do not know why the Press should get these figures and why Deputies should not—the general Vote for public works was over-estimated by over £570,000. That is for last year. I have no official figures to show that, but for the two previous years I have the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which gives the figures in detail. On this sub-head in 1923-24, there was an over-estimate of £20,000. In 1924-25 there was an over-estimate of £67,000. In other words, the Department of Public Works have not been able to spend all the money they got for new works in the past two years. And yet they come down demanding an increased estimate of over £250,000!

This raises a very important issue. I can quite understand a public department wanting to be on the safe side. I can quite understand their saying: "Whatever happens, we will not come down to the Dáil and ask for a supplementary estimate." I think that is a wrong habit of mind. It dates from the time when the British Parliament was occupied with thousands of matters. There was no real opportunity for discussion, and in the case of the British Parliament, supplementary estimates were to be avoided. But here our time at the beginning of the year—in January, February and March is not unduly congested. It is possible to bring forward supplementary estimates at that time, and have them more carefully considered than the general estimates are considered, under the pressure we are labouring under now. Therefore, I suggest to the Dáil that we should give this Department a minimum and not a maximum sum. It will be perfectly easy for the Parliamentary Secretary to come down here next Spring, with greater knowledge than he has now, and with more acquaintance with the details of his Department, and justify an additional expenditure of £100,000 or £200,000. But I do not believe that more than the amount I am suggesting—£473,000— will be spent on this Vote. Last year £420,000 was voted and a considerable portion of that was not spent. In the interests of careful estimating, in the interests of Parliamentary control and of public finance, I propose this amendment and I urge the Dáil to accept it.

Mr. WILSON

If Deputy Cooper's amendment were to effect a reduction in taxation, perhaps something might be said for it. That, of course, assumes the defeat of the Government and our carrying the motion to reduce. But the amount estimated here is capital expenditure. Hence its rejection, or its reduction by £200,000, will not affect the taxation of this year. In order that works may be carried out properly, it is necessary, in the case of the Board of Works, that they should be mapped out eighteen months in advance. Plans and maps have to be prepared. I see nothing wrong in bringing forward this estimate, although it is increased by £250,000. The effect will be better work on the part of the Board of Works and taxation will not be increased by this Vote on the people, who are clamouring for a reduction of taxation.

Professor MAGENNIS

I desire to support the protest of Deputy Cooper against loose estimating. If we direct our attention to the Estimates for the Post Office, we find, in connection with a building commonly known as the G.P.O. in O'Connell street, "Rebuilding Henry Street front, £56,130"— I will read only the amounts in round numbers—"building central block in courtyard, £39,000; reinstating front block, £50,000; rebuilding Prince's Street front, £102,000." There we have an outlay of over £240,000 contemplated in respect of one building. That is not to be the G.P.O., because a very important auxiliary—the sorting office—is provided for elsewhere. We find the item, "New sorting office; total estimate for the work."

There, there is a reference to a foot-note. The foot-note reads: "Estimate not yet made." The estimated total expenditure in respect of this item to the 31st March, 1926, is £9,600. We have heard of living from hand to mouth, but here we have building from hand to mouth. We have an estimated expenditure of close on £10,000 up to March and yet no estimate is made as regards the total expenditure to be incurred. Surely that is an example of what Deputy Cooper has in mind when he speaks of "loose estimating." Deputy Wilson comes, happily, to the support of the Board of Works with the contention that even if the Vote were reduced, as Deputy Cooper proposes, it would give no relief in taxation. The reason he gives is because it is "capital expenditure." Now, why should we come here and complain of over-taxation and at the same time complacently vote a capital expenditure exceeding that of last year by a quarter of a million of money, when it is obvious that many of the works in which this money is to be invested are to serve not our time nor the next generation, nor the generation after that, but for centuries? This overtaxed and over-harried generation is to be made to pay for these costly buildings out of the income of the present year.

Mr. WILSON

No, the Deputy is all wrong.

Mr. HEWAT

I almost invariably support Deputy Cooper in his amendments, because they are put forward with the laudable object of getting the Ministry to realise that there is a considerable demand for economy and cutting down of Estimates. In this particular case, however, I think the position is somewhat different, both as regards what Deputy Cooper refers to as over-estimating and as to the desirability of getting on with the work in hand as quickly as possible. A large amount of the money covered by this Estimate is for the General Post Office. I think the whole city of Dublin and, in fact, the whole country are being inconvenienced to a considerable extent, and I think the Post Office is being put to considerable extra expense for the lack of the building which is now in process of being re-built. So far from the Board of Works deferring expenditure on that building, I think that that department has been rather dilatory in getting on with the work.

I think it is a matter of urgent importance that the work should be pressed forward as quickly as possible, in order to give the citizens a suitable building in a convenient centre. Considerable portion of the expenditure is in connection with the Four Courts and Custom House, and I do not think that anybody will say that the work of rebuilding these institutions should be delayed. They are practically in the same position as the Post-Office as regards proper accommodation for carrying out the services which they render to the public. If the works outlined here are to be pushed through during the year a considerable amount of money would be required, and if at the end of the year there is a comparatively big surplus it will mean that the work has not proceeded as rapidly as we would wish.

Reference has, on the other hand, been made to the fact that these works are of a capital nature and are being capitalised. At this stage I would be glad to see that done in essential works of this sort, because the inflation of the national debt in that direction may at a later stage save us from inflation in other directions less desirable, and I would like to secure at this stage that the increase in the national debt through the raising of money would be used in this way and at this time to push forward necessary works of this kind, and in the hope when the Minister is getting his money for this work he will find difficulty in getting it for other works in contemplation which may not be so desirable. There are many things in this long list of approved plans and undertakings that I would not speak so enthusiastically about ordinarily, but as the Estimate embodies such substantial works as those to which I have referred, and as we must recognise that the Gárda in the country should be properly accommodated, I would hesitate to support Deputy Cooper's amendment. I think that the Deputy would, perhaps, be wise not to press it.

Professor MAGENNIS

I find that by inadvertence I mistook the column in the estimate, so that the total is £126,000, and not £242,000.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to have some definite assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary before deciding to vote for or against this amendment. Looking through, for instance, the column of the Vote required for this year, I find a number of items such as the Four Courts, etc., which constitute a very big proportion of the total Vote. I want to have some assurance whether these sums are to be spent this year, within reasonable expectation and allowing for the deduction which is taken at the end of the Vote for works which may not be carried out during the year —£50,000. But taking all expectations, can we have something like a general assurance that this money will be spent subject to possibilities, or whether a big portion should not go into the fourth column which is devoted to the further amount required for completion of the works? If I had an assurance that the money would be spent this year I would not be inclined to support Deputy Cooper, but if we are to vote the money with a dim hope that it may be required this year I do not think that that is sufficient.

I think we ought not to be asked to vote a large sum in this way unless we can have an assurance that it the real anticipation of the Department that the money will be spent this year, and that they will direct their practical working so that it will be spent this year. It will make a great difference to the general economic situation so far as workmen are concerned. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give further information as to the character of the work at Ardnacrusha new barracks. It is not his business to answer questions as to strategic value and so on, but perhaps we could get some information as to the character of the buildings, and the material used in construction. From that information we might draw our own conclusions as to the strategical policy, if he has one, of the Minister for Defence. I would like this information from the Minister as to his real anticipation of the policy of the Department regarding the expenditure of this money during the current year. When that is answered we shall be able to make up our minds as to whether we can support the amendment or not.

Mr. DUGGAN

I think some Deputies have answered Deputy Cooper's argument. Deputy Johnson seems to have doubt as to whether it is really our intention to spend the money estimated for this year. I can assure him that it is, for two reasons; first, it is in the interests of economy, and, secondly, it is in the interests of the efficiency of the departments now housed in temporary buildings all over the city. It is not in the interests of economy that we should pay rent for temporary buildings for the Gárda Síochána and at the same time have a site which we purchased lying idle for another year because we will not spend the money required for its reconstruction. It is not in the interests of efficiency that the Department of the Post Office should have its officials housed in scattered buildings for which we have to pay rents and, at the same time, allow to remain unfinished one central building which would accommodate them all, and enable them to discharge their duties in a more efficient manner and under better supervision.

It is not in the interests of efficiency that the Gárda Síochána should in many places be housed in buildings which are not fit for them. It is unfair in a great many cases that men should be asked to live in buildings which cannot accommodate them. We all know that if you want to get the best out of men, you must provide them with proper accommodation. We are serious in our intention to complete the buildings estimated for this year, for the reasons which I have mentioned. The point has been made that last year we did not expend the amount of our Estimate. We are in a totally different position this year. So far as the Post Office and Custom House are concerned, the work is well under way. Anyone who knows anything about building knows that in the early stages of a contract you move slowly, but when you get to a certain point you find that the increase in expenditure goes up very suddenly. We want to finish these buildings as soon as possible. We hope to finish one of them this year. I can assure Deputy Johnson, if he has any doubt on the matter, that, so far as the Office of Public Works is concerned, it is the intention to get through with these buildings as quickly as possible.

There is another reason why we should do this. We are being pressed every day in the week by different Government Departments for accommodation, and we do not feel inclined to take further buildings in view of the fact that we know that within a certain limited period, when those buildings are finished, there will be ample office accommodation available for every Government Department. If we were to adopt Deputy Cooper's suggestion with the buildings we are working on it would mean having to take other buildings for the accommodation of these Departments, which are really badly in need of it. I have been present at conferences recently when the Departments concerned put up very strong arguments in support of their demands for accommodation. We are endeavouring at present to stave them off by assuring them that when these three large buildings in Dublin are completed we will have ample accommodation for them. Deputy Johnson asked about the new barracks at Ardnacrusha. It is proposed to acquire about three and a half acres of land at Ardnacrusha, with a farmhouse standing thereon, as a site for a barrack to accommodate 250 troops of all ranks as the protective force for the power station, and to acquire a house in a commanding position convenient to the weir which can be adapted to house a detachment of 50 troops. The cost of Ardnacrusha barracks is estimated at £40,000 and of the alterations, etc., to the weir protection post at £1,000 provisionally. Portion of the proposed site for the barracks has already been occupied in connection with the Shannon scheme. It is expected that the land and property required can be acquired by negotiation.

Major COOPER

There is one point that I think has been overlooked by every Deputy who spoke, except the Parliamentary Secretary, who knew it and naturally did not refer to it. My amendment proposes to allow the Department of Public Works every penny that they had last year, including the amount that they did not spend, and £50,000 over. The whole provision for barracks for the Gárda Síochána is less than £50,000. I am not seeking to hamper them in that direction in any way whatever. A sum of £50,000 would pay for the provision for the Gárda Síochána and leave, roughly speaking, about £10,000 over.

Deputy Johnson asked if we were to vote money in the hope that it may be required this year. The Parliamentary Secretary has that hope, but I suggest to Deputy Johnson that, as in the past, it would be well to get some evidence as to the fulfilment of that hope. Deputy Johnson has argued in the past more than once on Votes of this kind that it is desirable to make sure of the expenditure of the money by making the Minister come for a Supplementary Estimate. I am not opposing a Supplementary Estimate, but I do say that this Department has consistently over-estimated. It is a case, steadily over three years, of serious over-estimating. Deputy Wilson says that that does not matter. Deputy Wilson has been on the Public Accounts Committee for three years now, and he says that this does not matter. Looking into Deputy Wilson's mind I can now realise why the farmers of this country are in such a distressed condition. It does not matter what you spend if it is not coming out of current income; it does not matter how big your overdraft is; it does not matter how big your debt is if only it does not come out of your current income! The interest on this £200,000 would be £10,000 a year, and supporters of Deputy Wilson—not in the Dáil; the Farmers' Party in the Dáil have too much sense—"go mad and cut themselves with knives and lances and cry to Heaven" because £500 a year is allowed for the President's motor car. And yet £10,000 a year is a bagatelle and nothing, and the amendment cannot be supported.

Deputy Hewat referred to a subject that the Parliamentary Secretary was too wise to refer to—the Four Courts. There is some strength in the argument as regards the Post Office; there is none with regard to the Four Courts. The Courts of Justice are housed in Dublin Castle; they are housed there at no considerable expense to the State. Considerable sums of money have been spent in converting Dublin Castle into a home for the courts, and while a certain amount of inconvenience is felt, no substantial inconvenience is felt. There is no strike of solicitors, no barristers parading the streets to protest against the intolerable conditions of their employment.

Mr. JOHNSON

There was a stay-in strike of solicitors.

Major COOPER

At any rate, in the existing financial situation the Courts might well remain in Dublin Castle for three or four years more at no expense to the State and at a considerable saving to the taxpayer. If I can get one Deputy to tell with me I am going to force this amendment to a Division, because it is a touchstone to humbug. It is the last of a number of amendments which I put down to these Estimates, and it is the biggest. I put them down because there was great talk of economy, and because my belief is that everyone is in favour of economy in the abstract and very few people will support it in the concrete, and that belief has been more or less justified. I hope that my example will be followed by other Deputies. It has been followed by Deputy Baxter and Deputy Heffernan, and I presume they acted on behalf of their Party. It is also rather belatedly followed by Deputy Johnson, but still I welcome the last convert. But where are those Deputies whom I hoped to have supporting me on this amendment? Where is Deputy O'Mara? Where is the alter ego of the Minister for Finance, the other Deputy from Monaghan? Where are the people who talk about economy in the country and have nothing to do with economy in this House?

Mr. BAXTER

The Chamber of Commerce.

Major COOPER

They are all over the country, in the Chambers of Commerce, on the Farmers' platforms, and elsewhere. A lot of people are talking about economy who have not even read the Estimates. I believe that this is an economy that could be made without serious injury to the public service. I do not believe that all this money will be spent. I believe that progress will be slower than the Department of Works anticipates. It has been so in the past. I also believe that a Supplementary Estimate might well be brought in should progress prove quicker than I anticipate. It is a fair question to put, and it is a touchstone to sincerity. I do not know if Deputy Johnson is satisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's answer, but at any rate the Labour Party will be perfectly consistent. They have never talked about economy; they have always wanted more money spent. I am not arraigning them, but I am arraigning those Deputies who think it popular to talk about economy outside, but who do not do a hand's turn for economy in the Dáil.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Deputy is utterly mistaken. The Labour Party has always talked about economy, and economy is the be-all and the end-all of its existence.

Major COOPER

Then I apologise.

Mr. JOHNSON

But it means economy; it does not mean merely the saving of expenditure. It means wise expenditure and plenty of it, plenty of expenditure if you get good and valuable service for the expenditure in the upbuilding of the country, and in the creation of wealth. So that there is real economy in the Labour Party's programme, and it is the only economy. Deputy Cooper says that the money will not be spent, and he has challenged me to say whether I am satisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance. I am in this position: I have got an assurance, which is noted by every Deputy in the House, that it is intended that this money shall be spent in this year and that every effort will be made to spend it. But supposing we refuse to grant the money now and it is not spent this year, when we call the Parliamentary Secretary to account his answer will be: "You refused to give us an assurance that you would allow us this money. How could we prepare our plans, how could we continue to carry on our preparatory work, if we did not know whether or not we would get the money that was necessary to do the work throughout the year?" Having got the assurance I am prepared to vote the money that the Parliamentary Secretary says is required, and I will do my best to keep him up to the mark and to see that the money is spent this year.

Mr. ESMONDE

I wonder could Deputy Cooper explain to us when he talks about economy what specific buildings provided for in the Estimate he advises should not be built. It is not economy to propose that a building should be built next year and not this year. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, that is the very opposite to economy. But Deputy Cooper, as far as I heard him, did not recommend that any one particular building for which provision is made in this Estimate should not be built at some time or other. His only contention was that a certain amount of this expenditure should not take place this year, or, if it took place this year, that a Supplementary Estimate should be brought in. I do not see what that has to do with economy.

Deputy Cooper referred to the fact that if this sum of £200,000 was not spent this year there would be a saving of £10,000 interest on debt. We have to compare that saving of £10,000 with the loss which would be incurred by the State, the loss which was pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary, in connection with the renting or purchase of temporary premises in order to accommodate Departments for one, two, or possibly more years, until such time as these permanent buildings had been erected. Even on the figure of £10,000 which Deputy Cooper gave as the sum total of the real economy to the State, I doubt if there will be much of it left if extra expenditure, by not having these permanent buildings, was incurred. So that when Deputy Cooper made his eloquent plea for sincerity on the part of those who advocate economy outside the Dáil and in general, and who also advocated it in particular cases. I do not think it exactly fitted in with the concrete proposal which he put before the Dáil to postpone for one year, or possibly two years, the building of some of these Government structures.

Mr. M. DOYLE

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if all this expenditure under the heading of Department of Defence is necessary. There is something like £105,000 under that heading. It seems to me the major portion of this is for the reconstruction of a lot of military barracks. Is the reconstruction of all these military barracks necessary to accommodate our present forces? If not, what are those barracks to be turned into? Are they really necessary to accommodate military at the moment? There are amounts varying from ten to twenty thousand pounds for the reconstruction of certain military barracks in the country. I was of the opinion that with the present strength of the military organisation we had ample accommodation without any of the reconstructed buildings. If they are being reconstructed for other purposes—if they can be turned into any useful purpose apart from accommodating military—it is quite all right. I cannot see that there is any necessity for spending up to £100,000 for works that may never be necessary at all.

Major COOPER

Perhaps I would be permitted, as a matter of courtesy, to recapitulate my main argument for Deputy Esmonde, who did not hear it? I do not believe the Board of Works will be able to spend the whole of the money in the present financial year. I do not believe they have the machinery to do it. They always have over-estimated; I believe they always will over-estimate, and I think the Dáil ought to stop it.

Professor MAGENNIS

Deputy Esmonde takes a very peculiar view of this Estimate. He forgets that we have the high authority of the President for the statement that the country is taxed up to the furthest limit that it can bear. Many of us believe it is taxed further than it can bear. We were invited from the Ministerial Benches to point out in what respect any service provided by the Free State could be cut down, diminished or have in connection with it a saving effected. Deputy Cooper and I drew attention this evening to expenditure that in its princely character is wholly unnecessary, and we are told from the Farmers' benches that it would not amount to anything in the diminution of the country's taxation to put a stop to these fine æsthetic performances.

Not to-day nor yesterday did I raise my voice in this House against the wanton conduct of the Board of Works, in conjunction with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. A Commission was set up to inquire into the public services in the city of Dublin and to see, amongst other things, what utilisation might profitably be made of the public buildings in the city, and almost before that Commission had time to consider its terms of reference, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs had got consent from the Executive Council——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot discuss the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs now.

Professor MAGENNIS

Pardon me. I am not discussing the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs; I am discussing the Vote of £30,000 for the rebuilding— the reinstatement—of the Custom House this year, and the money being spent upon the G.P.O. I am merely reciting the history. I am responding to the appeal that Deputy Cooper made just now that all the men who are sincere in their protestations against extravagance should speak.

Mr. BAXTER

And put down amendments.

Professor MAGENNIS

Putting down amendments is worthless.

Mr. BAXTER

Then vote.

Professor MAGENNIS

I do not at all mean to attack Deputy Cooper's policy of putting down amendments, but when one has been put down it is merely eye-wash for the public to pretend great activity by putting down additional amendments. I am not to be diverted from my purpose in exposing this thing. We are a population of 3¼ millions and we are engaged in erecting public buildings for the housing of a Post Office, for the housing of a Civil Service; that would be admirable from the point of view of fine art and an enrichment of the municipality if our income were ten times what it is and if our prospects of future income were ten times what they are. We are not going to be fooled by replies to the effect that civil servants are scattered all over the city in various houses. We know that is so; we regret it is so. We know that itself is an evil and diminishes the rateable value of houses in the city. But is the remedy to expend £30,000 upon the rebuilding or the reinstatement of the old Custom House under the heading of the Department of Finance? Remember that it is the Custom House that is being restored. I hope that contemplates the adoption of a policy in which the Custom House will be very active, indeed. If you are going to have tariffs you may as well build yourselves a Custom House for the working of them.

Look at the partly-reconstructed G.P.O. in Henry Street or Prince's Street. There you will find magnificent shops are being built. I agree that to make a source of revenue out of this is an excellent thing; but there are useful purposes to which these buildings could have been devoted, and for these purposes necessary money would have been forthcoming, and it would be quite possible to provide accommodation for the civil servants without building palaces.

I wonder if the country Deputies have taken the trouble to inspect the rebuilt Four Courts. That is reproduced with minute fidelity in all its earlier magnificence, and the work was done at once. It is not, remember, a temporary structure to keep the interior from further decay nor roofing to prevent the spoiling of what already survived, but the entire reinstatement in all its splendour of the Four Courts. And for what? To return the lawyers there who do not want to go. The city has so grown that the housing of the law courts in that district has become altogether a thing which neither lawyers nor clients desire. Everyone, litigant, lawyer and judge, is satisfied with the present accommodation in the Castle; yet the re-building has gone on.

Now, it would have been possible to provide a magnificent home for the G.P.O. in all its various branches and departments in the reconstructed Custom House. That has not been done. The result is you are building a sorting-office in another quarter of the city, and, as I have already pointed out this evening, there is no estimate for what it is to cost, except this, that the estimated outlay upon it up to 31st March was a sum of £9,000. Is that a picture that pleases the contemplative farmer—a little agricultural nation of some 3¼ millions of a population building palaces in the city? There was a time of prosperity centuries ago when these buildings could be afforded and when the high artistic sense of the population in the city in those days could gratify itself with them. Are we cutting our coat according to our cloth? Who are we that can afford those luxuries or spend the money of the citizens on them? Deputy Cooper is right to demand that every man sincere in his protestations against Governmental extravagance should vote with him on this.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 47.

Tá

• Pádraig Baxter.
• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• Connor Hogan.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).

Níl

• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
• James Dwyer.
• Séamus Eabhróid.
• Michael Egan.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• David Hall.
• Thomas Hennessy.
• John Hennigan.
• William Hewat.
• Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
• Liam Mac Cosgair.
• Seán Mac Curtain.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Seoirse Mas Niocaill.
• Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
• Martin M. Nally.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• John T. Nolan.
• Michael K. Noonan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Parthalán O Conchubhair.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Séamus O Dóláin.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Peadar O Dubhghaill.
• Eamon O Dúgáin.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Seán O Raghallaigh.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Seán O Súilleabháin.
• Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Cooper and Magennis. Níl: Deputies Dolan and Tierney. Amendment declared lost.

Sitting suspended at 6.55 p.m. and resumed at 7.45 p.m.,AN CEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.

Mr. RODDY

There is one point I wish to raise on sub-head B. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what he proposes to do with the burned-out and ruined coastguard stations on the sea coast in the Western area. Does he propose to have these ruined buildings reconstructed, or is it his policy to allow them to remain in their present condition—a perpetual eyesore to the public? Some of these sites, I imagine, could be sold at fancy prices for the erection of summer residences for shopkeepers in the Western towns. Some of them would be very suitable as building sites. I know very well that the Board of Works has a difficulty with regard to the letting of these sites, and that the Parliamentary Secretary is not entirely a free agent with regard to their disposal. I think it, is time he should be in a position to say what his policy is with regard to the future of these buildings.

Mr. SEARS

I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what he proposes to do with regard to the burned-out military barracks at Ballinrobe. There is a great want of housing accommodation in Ballinrobe, and these buildings might be capable of being converted into dwellings. There is also a large field of about six acres of land. The people of the town are anxious to get possession of this land for use as a public park. The townspeople have no proper park, and they are anxious to get possession of this land, which is within reach of them. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if he could think of any way of meeting them in the matter.

Mr. DUGGAN

In reply to Deputy Roddy's question, we generally endeavour to find out first whether the coastguard stations are required for Government purposes. If not, we endeavour to let them on the most favourable terms. With regard to the question of Deputy Sears, I would have to look into that matter, as I am not sure that we have Ballinrobe barracks at all.

Mr. WHITE

On several occasions I have approached the Board of Works with regard to unoccupied coastguard houses in my area. There is a large coastguard station at Malin Head. One or two houses are occupied by the Civic Guard, but I think there are four houses vacant. About two years ago I approached the Department to get one of these houses for an operator at the Marconi Wireless Station at Malin Head. An engine attendant named MacDermott sent in an application for one of these cottages about a year and a half ago. A wireless operator named Long, a County Cork man, also applied for one of them. I asked questions in the House on different occasions about this, and was answered most courteously by the Minister for Finance, who stated that the applications were still under consideration. I suppose they are still under consideration. I do not think it should take one and a half years to arrive at a decision as to whether you are going to give possession of two unoccupied coastguard stations to two deserving employees in the Post Office Department. MacDermott is a married man with a small family, and Long is in the same position. Housing accommodation in the area is very scarce. I put it seriously to the Parliamentary Secretary that the applications of these men should be considered at once, and that the houses should be given to them without any further delay. I am not taking any exception to the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor, because any time I approached him he was most courteous. He was courteous even when he did not give me anything.

Mr. BAXTER

On sub-head J (1), 1 gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary yesterday that I intended to raise the question of the drainage of outer Lough Erne and of the constructional works in the Lough Erne area. Under the 1924 Act the drainage boards in that district have been given certain promises, and as in the case mentioned by Deputy White, on another sub-head, that is as far as they have gone, I think it right to say that more than twelve months ago a deputation approached the Department, and through the intervention of Deputy Cole, certain promises were made as to what would be done by the Board of Works in that district. Undoubtedly the works on the River Erne demand immediate attention. As a result of the floods over a very large area very considerable losses indeed have been sustained by the people in that district. The flooding was to a great extent responsible for the cattle losses through fluke in the winter of 1924. It was intimated to me in this House more than six months ago that an effort would be made to start work on the Erne before the month of May. Certain matters in connection with the carrying out of work have gone before the County Council of Cavan. I think the initial steps lie with the Board of Works.

I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that thousands of acres of land in that part of Cavan are, year after year, very seriously damaged by these floods. The expenditure of money on the improvement of that drainage district is an urgent need. Promises have been made that certain sums would be forthcoming, but nothing has yet been done. As far as I can see no preparations have been made so far to start work. Several meetings of the drainage boards have discussed the possibility of work being carried out. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if anything is to be done this year it ought to be started now. Over that whole constituency, as far as I know, no work has been done, nor have any grants been given for the improvement of the existing drainage works. There is not in the Saorstát an area more deserving of consideration than this one. Engineers have gone there and reported on the condition of the works. If anything is going to be done I suggest that a definite statement ought to be made as to what is to be done, and when it is likely the work will start. If nothing is going to be done, then it would be well to let us know that, as then we need not expect anything.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I raised a question on the Local Loans Fund last night, but was told it was not in order. Perhaps I can raise it on this sub-head. It deals with the case of farmers who apply for loans for drainage in which a reservation has been imposed by the Board of Works that a loan will not be granted to any holder whose valuation is under £7. I contend that is an impossible reservation as far as the County of Tirconaill is concerned. The average valuation in that county is £8, and of course such a reservation rules out that county altogether with regard to any assistance that it could receive in that way. We contend that in the County of Tirconaill a holding of something like £5 valuation is as economic as it is possible for it to be.

MINISTER for EDUCATION (Professor O'Sullivan)

On a point of order, I do not think this arises on this Vote, which deals with arterial drainage. What the Deputy is referring to is thorough drainage—that is the drainage of fields.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

Would the Minister let me know on what Vote I can raise the question?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

It would arise, I think, on the Local Loans Fund Vote which was dealt with yesterday, or I think it could be raised on the Board of Works Vote. It certainly does not arise on this Vote.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is the Parliamentary Secretary for the Board of Works responsible in any way for the matter that is being raised?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

For convenience we will allow Deputy McGoldrick to raise it here.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

The argument is that there should not be any money spent on these holdings because they are uneconomic. As regards the difficulty they are going to have in the office in relation to this matter, I think if the needs of the country are going to wait the office convenience, we are finished altogether. These small-holders are entitled to the same advantages as the owners of holdings of high valuation. The security on a holding of £5 valuation is as good as the security on a holding of £50 valuation proportionate to the amounts that these people will require for improving their holdings. I feel that the sum of £7 that has been arbitrarily fixed must come down to at least £5, and that the benefits of this loan must be given to those who have holdings valued at from £5 upwards. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that that particular reservation is wiped out, and that the benefits of the scheme will be given to these small-holders.

With regard to sub-head J. 2, I feel very strongly with regard to the easygoing pace at which the Board of Works is proceeding, in connection with the Arterial Drainage Act. They appear to be bound up in red tape, and they have got to burst these shackles. It was intended that the Act should come into operation at once. Schemes have been sent forward by the county councils, but they have been held up. We were told, in answer to a question some time ago, that it was not expected that any money will be expended this year. Why is this? The law has been passed, the works are urgent and unemployment is acute. Why will not these men, sitting behind files in Government offices, get a move on and try to give the people of the country the benefits that this House intended that they should get from these schemes? In my own county fourteen schemes are held up at the present time. For years before the Bill was passed various committees in the counties were working for these schemes, and it was largely through their energy that the Bill was forced through this House. Now it is held up, and why it is held up I do not know. It seems to be only because of some official formality or technicality. If legislation that is passed by this House to provide advantages for the people is not going to be given effect to until Tibb's Eve, there seems to be some ground for the amendment moved by Deputy Cooper. Why should we be passing money if Ministers are going to come back and say that the money we voted had not been spent? We have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the money will be expended this year. Let us hope that that will be the case. Let us hope that the money provided by us will be expended, and that the Board of Works will take steps to get rid of formalities as far as possible, and get on with the works, because they are most urgent. There is nothing more important in an agricultural area than arterial drainage. We have little holdings of land bordering on each other that are constantly being flooded by a common river. The people on these holdings are prepared to co-operate in getting the work done to protect their crops from flooding. There is no return for the labour that is expended on these little bits of land, because of flooding. The Board of Works should do what they can to speed up the work of this Arterial Drainage Act, and get rid of the delays which are altogether intolerable.

Mr. SHAW

I wish to support the remarks of Deputy McGoldrick. In County Westmeath a considerable number of schemes have been prepared in connection with drainage. They have been approved by the County Surveyor; they have been forwarded to the Board of Works in the past six months. It will be very interesting to me and, I am sure, to the House, to know what is the cause of all these schemes being held up. We have been told that nothing is going to be done on them until next year. It would be very interesting to know what is the trouble. Everyone agrees that there is no work that could be provided in the country that would be as beneficial as the reclamation of thousands of acres that are under water at the present time. There never was a time when the work was as much needed as at present, in order to give employment to the persons who cannot obtain it otherwise. The money that will be spent will be saved a thousand times over by the benefits that will be obtained in the reclaiming of the land It will be very interesting to know why the schemes are lying in the Board of Works office for the past six months without any sign of their being put into operation.

Mr. COLE

Last March twelvemonths a deputation interviewed the then Parliamentary Secretary and his engineer in connection with the Lough Oughter drainage scheme. It was understood that this work of drainage was to be proceeded with immediately. I had several conversations during last summer with the Board of Works, and each time I was told that there would be something done before the end of the year. The end of the year came; the beginning of this year came, and yet nothing has been done. Now the prospects of it, according to a letter that I received from the Board of Works last week, are practically nil. We were told last year that the scheme would cost £60,000. For some reason or other that Estimate has been cast aside and now it is maintained that it will cost a great deal more. These people are paying to the present Drainage Board over £1,000 a year for nothing, while they see their crops being washed away season after season. They are not getting any value whatever for that money. We cannot afford to spend £60,000 but we are spending a lot of money in connection with unemployment. We are giving doles out and encouraging men to idle. We have been trying to start credit societies and to do several things to relieve the farmers of the losses caused by fluke. The only way to get rid of fluke is to drain the land. Until we do that we can never get rid of the disease. If the work is to be done at all it should be started immediately. We ought to be told plainly whether it is going to be done or not. If not, we must try some other means.

Mr. J. CONLAN

The Deputies who have spoken on this subject up to the present have all found fault with the Board of Works for not doing work that was publicly required. I have to complain of the Board of Works for Engaging in work carried out on the quired—the work carried out on the river Lir, a tributary of that notorious river, the Barrow. This river, some thirty-five or perhaps forty years ago, was subjected to an improvement scheme under the Board of Works. I must say that they did a very good job on it. When the county council came into operation the management of this river was given over to a special committee called the Lir Committee. They met from time to time. They had an engineer specially engaged to see that the river was maintained in good order and they voted annually a sum necessary to keep it in good order. I do not know what representation was made to the Board of Works, but anyhow at the meeting of the Kildare County Council in July, 1925, a letter, dated the 4th July, was read from the Local Government Department saying that the Board of Works were about to carry out a scheme of improvements on the river Lir at an estimated cost of £4,300 and that the expenditure of that sum would entail a charge of 4/9 an acre on lands in the drainage district. Several members who were very well acquainted with the river expressed the opinion that this work was altogether unnecessary. As I have said, the drainage of the river has been well maintained during the time it had been under the management of this committee of the county council. No damage by flooding was being done by this stream. I had personal knowledge of that myself because I farmed a considerable tract of land adjoining the river for eighteen or nineteen years and during that whole time I never saw my land invaded by floods except once and then the flooding only lasted twenty-four hours. The county council at that meeting referred the matter to the Lir Drainage Committee, who came to the same conclusion—that the work was unnecessary—in which opinion they were fortified by their engineer. At that time, as my friend Deputy Colohan will agree, there was considerable unemployment in the country as there is to-day and an Unemployment Committee was set up, composed partly of members of the council and of some people outside the council, for the purpose of trying to devise means of relieving unemployment. A meeting was held on the 5th August, 1925, and the following resolution was agreed to:

Referring to the letter of the Commissioners of Public Works relative to the work proposed in the River Lir, suggesting that a contribution towards the cost of same should be made by the County Council of Kildare—

The Board of Works said they were about to advance thirty per cent. of the cost, and they asked the county council to make a contribution also—

we would point out that the work has been undertaken without the opinion of the county council as to the necessity or value of it as a reproductive work being obtained. In view of this fact, we are not at present in a position to agree to consider that matter, and we have referred it to the Lir Drainage Committee, asking for their opinion and advice.

Amongst those present were John Conlan, Hugh Colohan, and George Wolfe, so that we had every section represented by its Parliamentary representative. At the same time, they went over other drainage works that might be carried out in the county.

The work was initiated on the 22nd July, and the county council had not had time or opportunity to give a considered opinion on the subject in the interval. The imposition of a 4/9 rate per acre has caused the greatest dissatisfaction among the landholders concerned. A deputation representing them has appeared before the county council to protest against this imposition being placed upon them without any benefit accruing. They positively assrt that no benefit whatever will accrue to them on account of this work. I should certainly like to have an explanation, and the people whom I represent would like to have an explanation, as to the reasons which actuated the Board of Works in going ahead so precipitately with this work, without any demand whatever being made by the county council or by the people affected. Deputy Colohan said some time ago that a good job had been done in this connection. I cannot contest that statement from personal knowledge, but the landholders hold an opposite opinion. They say that a bad job has been done, and some of them assert that their land, which never had been flooded, is flooded now.

Mr. NALLY

I desire to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the condition of the River Robe in South Mayo. The Mayo County Council have complied with all the necessary formalities. They have lodged the necessary petitions, maps and guarantees which are required under the Arterial Drainage Act, but nothing has been done since they were sent to the Board of Works Office. In the Robe district over 4,000 acres of land are flooded from October to March, owing to the overflowing of the River Robe. Last year, in this district, there were 38 houses flooded, and the inhabitants had to leave. In addition, the Parish Church at Crossboyne has been flooded time and again. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that the necessary steps are taken by the Board of Works to have the drainage of the River Robe, the Westport River, and the River Moy carried out this season.

Mr. COLOHAN

Deputy Conlan has spoken of the drainage of the River Lir. He said that I asserted that the work was well done. I have no personal knowledge of the work, but I have heard several responsible men say that it was a good drainage job. It is only yesterday that I handed in a Parliamentary question calling the attention of the Minister for Finance to a resolution passed on the 4th of the present month by a Cumann na nGaedheal branch in the neighbourhood. This resolution calls on the Minister to carry out further works on the Lir so as to relieve flooding. If the river requires no improvement, I wonder why are these men sending a copy of this resolution to me and to the Minister for Finance. Very few people heard of this river until it was brought up in this House. It is 22½ miles long. I myself am of opinion that Deputy Conlan is altogether wrong when he contests the statement that good work has been done on this river.

Mr. CONLAN

I did not contest it at all.

Mr. COLOHAN

I would like to call Deputy Conlan's attention to the fact that there was a deputation from the Board of Health with the Minister for Local Government sometimes early last year. Many schemes were put up to relieve unemployment and to improve these drainage districts. The Board of Works sent out their engineers to inspect and report. As they have complete power to go in on any drainage district and to improve the drainage of any river where they consider it necessary, they were not bound to get the consent of the County Council. Although the farmers were clamouring for drainage schemes all over the County Kildare, when this scheme was started by the Board of Works, they kicked up their heels against the rate imposed. It is the same way with all the drainage schemes. They want the drainage schemes, but they are not inclined to pay for them. I think we should speak out straight on this matter. We have more important drainage schemes than the Lir. I think it is the duty of the farmers of the three counties—Kildare, Offaly and Leix—to come together and do their part in getting the Barrow drainage scheme into operation.

Mr. NOONAN

I wish to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the drainage of the Awbeg River. For two years this work has been contemplated, but nothing has been done. The County Council has done its part in advancing this scheme, but the Board of Works has done practically nothing. They had their engineers down there nearly twelve months ago and they made some pretence at going on with the scheme. Now it has been held up, because they say they want a land valuer. There are over 5,000 acres flooded there year after year, and many people are losing their cattle. The land would be an asset if it were properly drained. The farmers there are prepared to pay for the cost of the scheme, but I am sorry to say that the Board of Works are taking no active steps in advancing the scheme. I hope now that there is a change of Parliamentary Secretaries something will be done.

Mr. T. MURPHY

I should like to refer to the point dealt with by Deputy McGoldrick yesterday with regard to the valuation of these small holdings. It raises an important point for constituencies which contain a large number of small holders. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if something could not be done to have the valuation limit reduced in cases where there are a large number of holdings with a valuation of about £5 and £7.

In regard to arterial drainage I think it is only fair to say—I have taken the trouble to make inquiries—that if there is delay we are ourselves responsible. We framed an Act of Parliament that provided for all sorts of inquiries and formalities. The Board of Works, so far as I know, are making every effort to comply without delay with the provisions of the Act. The procedure is necessarily slow, and that is the fault of the law more than of any thing else. I would be glad if drainage work could be speeded up in any way, but I am satisfied that there is no undue delay on the part of the Board of Works. There is, however, undue delay on the part of other bodies. I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact—he has, of course, no control in the matter—that in some cases the county councils who have to take the first step are very slow. I know of a county council to which a number of schemes were submitted six months ago. The majority of these schemes are still pigeon-holed in the county council office. In the case of one scheme submitted to the Board of Works from Cork and sent back last November to the county council for amendment, it has not since been returned. I dare say that the Board of Works have no control in these matters, but at all events they are not contributing to the delay.

In regard to the restoration of drainage districts, I have had experience of one scheme which the Board of Works carried out in the County Cork. The work was extremely well done. The Board came to the people's assistance when employment was very badly needed there. The scheme improved hundreds of acres of land and it was generally conceded that the work was well carried out. We have a number of other existing drainage areas and while the charge for restoration might be high on the occupiers, from what I know of the farmers there, they are willing and anxious to bear any reasonable charge imposed upon them. I mention that point in order to urge on the Parliamentary Secretary the need for further work of the very useful and desirable kind his Department has already carried out in regard to the restoration of existing drainage areas in Cork County.

Mr. GOREY

I do not think it is sufficient reason to urge for the Board of Works or any other authority going into a district and carrying out works of this description, that unemployment is rife and something must be done to relieve it. It is not good enough to tax people for work that is not necessary. I do not know personally or in detail the merits of the case from Kildare. I listened to a deputation who came up to explain the position here and I was struck by what was said by a number of men who seemed to know what they were talking about. If the land has benefited to the extent that is suggested, I am quite satisfied, but if it has not benefited and if it was not needed nothing would justify it.

Mr. COLOHAN

On a point of explanation, may I remind Deputy Gorey that at the head of this river the lands are flooded. These lands are in the Deputy's own constituency, and some of his constituents have written to me asking me to use my influence with the Board of Works to get them to complete the scheme.

Mr. GOREY

That is quite true. Except it is done in the lower regions, there is no use doing it in the upper regions. That is what we complain about. There is no use in dealing with the source of the stream and regulating the flow and fall of the water unless it is done right down along. I have a report here of a meeting at which Deputy Colohan was present and I see that he agreed to the resolution which was passed.

Mr. COLOHAN

What resolution was passed?

Mr. GOREY

This resolution which was proposed by Mr. Connor and seconded by Mr. Carroll.

Mr. COLOHAN

That man is dead.

Mr. GOREY

I understand that Mr. Carroll was a member of Mr. Colohan's party.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I would rather hear criticism of this Vote.

Mr. GOREY

The great thing is that this work should be necessary for the sake of improving the land. I would ask the Board of Works and the Minister not to be led away by the representations made to them. They should not listen to people who come and object to these lands being drained. These people come up and tell you that if a certain area is drained all the water will be let down on their land. We have several of that class of people in the country and I hope that the Board of Works will pay no attention to them. The water is flowing away.

Mr. COLOHAN

I can tell the Deputy that the water is flowing the other way.

Mr. GOREY

If the Deputy is able to convince me that the water can flow against the hill he is a genius. I am not referring to Kildare in this connection, but I am referring to the objection that is made to several schemes all over the country by people in the lower reaches who object to the upper reaches being drained. I have no sympathy with people in any area where real benefit is conferred upon them, where their area is drained and the value of their land improved. I have no sympathy with people who say that the State must pay all the expenses and who refuse to contribute anything. They should be made to contribute their fair share. They should realise that that class of land has been valued low because of its low-lying condition, whereas the people who are being asked to pay for the improvement of those lands are paying on a higher valuation and are paying larger annuities. Anyone who is not prepared to pay his share for the improvement of his farm does not deserve to get any improvement. While we heard a lot about these schemes twelve months ago we now hear very little about them. It is a question of going slowly and doing very little. I do not know what is holding them up. Though schemes have been approved by the county councils nothing seems to have been done. I hope, however, that that state of affairs will be remedied and that a start will be made now, instead of waiting until 1927 when the elections come on, and when the spades will go hand-in-hand with the voting papers.

Mr. BRODERICK

I would like to know what the intentions of the Department are in regard to the boards of trustees that existed in past years. In Galway the moneys are being collected year after year. On the river Suck, for the past five years, no maintenance work has been done. I do not know whether the moneys are being collected to pay the few officials in connection with the trustee board, but the moneys are being collected and people are being processed though no work is being done. In the Corrib area, year after year, hundreds of acres are flooded. Year after year there are surveyors' reports and levels are taken, but apparently we get no further. Though their lands are flooded the owners are being asked to pay annuities by the Land Commission. The Corrib area affects nearly all North Galway but, so far, we have heard nothing about work being done there.

Mr. GOREY

I intended to deal with one matter, but I forgot to do so. I intended to refer to the fact that in the 1923 Land Act, owing to representations made by us, authority is provided for the maintenance of waterways. Previous Land Acts omitted those waterways, with the result that vast tracts of country have suffered. What was everybody's business became nobody's business, and nothing was done. On several estates which have been purchased within the last twenty or thirty years, the water system has been neglected, with the result that the land has deteriorated. Considerable damage has been done, and it will need this new scheme to put things right. I am not sure that it is not desirable that powers should be taken to make the maintenance of these waterways compulsory, even if we have to amend previous Land Acts. This has been the cause of a great national loss for many years. Deputy Colohan and Deputy Conlan know the condition of Barbawn, which was good land when I was coursing there thirty years ago. Now it is absolute waste, and there are two or three feet of water where, when I was a boy, there was no water. The same thing applies to nearly all the estates that were purchased for the last thirty years. I think legal power should be taken to deal with the problem, and that the Minister should pay particular attention to it.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

There is a question which I have several times attempted to raise, and which can be brought in under this sub-head with the same propriety as under Vote 10. It refers to the Fergus drainage. In connection with the supervision of the work at Ennis last year, there was a sum of £16,000 granted by the Board of Works, part of which was a grant, the balance being a loan raised, with some contribution from the county council, for the purpose of carrying out this drainage scheme. Difficulties subsequently took place at Ennis. Men could not be got to work for the wages which were offered, and the scheme was held up for a considerable time. It eventually proceeded. Wages are one thing, but return is another thing, and the real criterion must be value. I contend, and submit, that we got no value or, at least, the farmers whose lands were affected did not get value for the expenditure. The wages were reasonable, but what was the output of work? You had troops of men, numbering from 150 to 200, engaged in cleaning the stream, but I believe it would be hard to find a parallel for their slow rate of progress. The proverbial worm is fast when compared to them. It would be hard to analyse the cause of the slow rate of progress, but I think it was due to the men's hopes of getting high wages and finding themselves working for wages which, while not over-generous, were reasonable.

Mr. JOHNSON

What were they?

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

35/- a week.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Would the Deputy live on that?

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

I have lived on less.

Mr. MORRISSEY

You do not show it.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

The game apparently was to spread the work over an indefinite period, and it was a case of saying to the riparian owners, "heads we win, tails you lose." There was no return. The men were there for weeks and weeks, and you would almost want a microscope to see what they achieved during that time. It was to me a source of amusement, mingled with shame, to observe their activities on that river. Nothing was doing. You should have evidence of your eyesight before you could realise what they were doing. It was the game of ca'canny reduced to a fine art. It was evidently intended to work in this way, namely, that more money would have to be put up if the scheme were to be completed. Otherwise, without money on hand, the scheme would be left far from complete, with disastrous results to the riparian owners, and eventually the State would have to make a further grant. It was not desirable, taking all considerations into account, that the subvention should be increased for such work. I cast around for a simile to describe the appearance of those reputed workers, willing workers as they are termed, and I could only find it in the slow motion pictures in a cinema. They gave us a tableau vivant.

Mr. DWYER

As a number of rivers have been mentioned, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Government have made any arrangements with regard to the Barrow this year?

Mr. M. DOYLE

So much has been said about the slow motion of the Board of Works in this drainage business that I have very little to add. I think that we in Co. Wexford had the fourth scheme with regard to arterial drainage on the books of the Board of Works. It is about ten months since it was put on their books, and as far as I know, no move has been made yet. I believe an engineer did visit the district, but nothing whatever has been done. The scheme is for a place where drainage is very badly required: several roads are flooded every winter owing to the fact that the rivers are not cleaned, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to urge on those who are to carry out this business the need for proceeding with it as soon as possible. The fine weather is passing, and nothing has been done. A few days ago I had occasion to ask a question with regard to the procedure with regard to a slobland in my county. I was informed that it is the same, but if it is to be as slow as the one already on the books I am afraid that the slobland banks will be washed away before anything is done.

Mr. E. DOYLE

I would like to add my voice to that of Deputy Dwyer in urging that something should be done immediately in connection with the drainage of that hardy annual, the Barrow.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think we ought to get the other things finished first. I am anticipating a compact discussion on the Barrow drainage by itself. We will take it separately.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us any idea as to how far the Department expects to get with the work under the Arterial Drainage Act this year? Will it be possible for the Department to have the preliminary work, with regard to inspection and so on, in the case of most of the schemes which have been submitted by the county councils, carried out this summer? If this work is not done this summer it will mean that the schemes will be put back for about two years, because in many cases inspections cannot be carried out in winter when the areas are flooded. It seems to me that as only £15,000 is set down for the work, the Department does not expect to be able to do much, if any, actual work this year, but I would like to know what preliminary work they will be able to get done.

Mr. DUGGAN

The Office of Works has been accused on the one hand of insisting on doing unnecessary work, and on the other hand of refusing to do very necessary and urgent work. With regard to the point that most Deputies have spoken on, the question of the amount of work likely to be done this year under the Arterial Drainage Act, the position is that we have actually received to date about 400 petitions. The procedure in respect to each one of these is shortly this: The first step after all the preliminaries have been complied with and the petition lodged in the Office of Public Works is that an engineer has to be sent down to inspect. The number of engineers is limited. We have 400 schemes, and we cannot send down an engineer on the same day to inspect each one of the 400. For that we would require 400 engineers. The number of these schemes actually ripe for dealing with up to the present is very limited. I think only about twenty-eight have been inspected. The engineer then makes his report, and a land valuer has to be sent down to estimate the value of the improvements on each holding affected by the scheme. The scheme is then drawn up and published and the occupants of the lands affected must vote on it. Any objections must be heard, and a certain time must be allowed in order to bring the scheme into operation.

Mr. BAXTER

When the Parliamentary Secretary says that twenty-eight schemes have been inspected, does he mean that in the case of twentyeight schemes the engineers have taken levels and made reports?

Mr. DUGGAN

No, they make preliminary inspections and report as to whether the scheme is one that is likely to be carried out. There is no reason for the Office of Public Works to delay this matter. I suppose that most Deputies have got this little pamphlet issued by the Office of Public Works explaining the procedure under the Act. The Act was passed by this House; if the procedure is more round-about than it should be that is not the fault of the Department. Another thing that it would be well to recollect is this, that most of these schemes did not come in until quite recently, and the engineers could not make their inspections while the rivers were in flood. They were only able to start that work about two months ago.

Deputy Nally inquired about the rivers Robe and Moyle. I am glad to be able to tell him that we have arranged to have these inspected almost immediately. I think the question raised by Deputy Conlan was more or less satisfactorily answered by Deputy Colohan. Deputy Noonan enquired about the Awbeg. The drainage of that river is actually under consideration by the Department. With regard to the question raised by Deputy Gorey, I understand that the Land Commission have the matter under consideration and that it is likely that legislation will be introduced to deal with it. Deputy Baxter inquired about the Erne drainage. I have had enquiries made with regard to that and I find that the position is this, that in order to do any effective drainage work there the cost would be so very heavy that it is doubtful if the scheme would be a remunerative one. We have had the matter under consideration again recently. We have had it further inspected, and the chairman actually went down to inspect the place himself. He is in consultation at the moment with the chief engineer as to whether it is possible to do any work at all there, but I am not hopeful that it is.

Deputy Broderick asked about the River Suck Drainage Board proceeding for arrears. I understand the position in that regard is that we have no control over that matter. The Drainage Board themselves are responsible. The Commissioners have advised the Drainage Board to endeavour to collect the arrears of rates, for the reason that unless they do it would be impossible for the work to be carried out as it should be. The Deputy also asked a question as to the river Corrib. I am afraid that at the moment there is not very much prospect of any work being carried out in that district during the present year. Deputy McGoldrick repeated the question that he raised last night, when I think he was ruled out of order, as to the minimum amount of loans. The minimum is £35. The trouble about very small loans is this, that there is the same amount of expense in making the preliminary inquiries for a small loan as there is for a big loan. After all, £35 is a small amount, and I think that if you were to make the minimum any lower than that you might eventually reach a state when you would be asked for a loan of 2/6, repayable in 35 years.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

Why should the minimum be confined to £35 when the goodwill of the owner of the holding is worth at least 60 years' purchase of the valuation?

Mr. DUGGAN

Because the relative cost of these very small loans means that it is an unfair burden on the taxpayer generally to have to make provisions for them.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I realise that, but I do not see why a £7 holding should be confined to a £35 minimum.

Mr. DUGGAN

You must remember that the security is the security of the holding and not of the individual. That is the only security we have. The owner may die.

Mr. GOREY

What would the annual charge be on a loan of £35?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

About £6 10s. per cent. per annum if the loan is for about 30 to 35 years. It would be between £6 10s. and £7.

Mr. GOREY

Fifty pounds would work out at £3 5s. 0d.?

Mr. DUGGAN

About that.

Mr. GOREY

A valuation of £7 would be good security for an addition of £3 5s. 0d. Land of that valuation that needed drainage might represent ten or fifteen acres, and the good that would be done to a farm of that description would be considerably in excess of a £3 5s. annual charge in value.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

Five times the valuation is not enough to advance on a farm of that sort. You could give a good deal more than that. You could lower it to a £5 valuation and still give £35, which would be seven times the valuation.

Mr. NOLAN

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not be in favour of supporting the policy suggested by Mr. McGoldrick? If the tenant recognised his liabilities in connection with any other debt to the State I would support him, because it would be money well spent.

Mr. CONLAN

The explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the River Lir is most unsatisfactory. I think the only conclusion that the House can come to is that he has no satisfactory explanation to give.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary—I do not know whether he thinks the matter worth replying to—to say whether the allegations made by Deputy Connor Hogan with regard to the work carried out under the supervision of the Board of Works on the River Fergus are true?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

This is the only place where any complaint was made about the work done on the drainage schemes last year. I can say that excellent work was done elsewhere.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Is the Minister satisfied that the reason why that was the only county from which a complaint was made was because of the fact that Deputy Connor Hogan represents that county?

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

The Minister intimated that the work at Ennis was unsatisfactory.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

There were some complaints from Ennis, and I must say that Deputy Connor Hogan was the principal complainant.

Mr. JOHNSON

Have the complaints been investigated? Are they found to be justifiable?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I would be slow to agree, but so far as my recollection goes there was bad work. I am sorry to agree to such a statement. The work was, possibly, not up to the standard of work done elsewhere; it was not good work.

Mr. GOREY

I do not think the question was altogether one of bad work. Was the Minister satisfied with the output?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That is what I mean by bad work; it is in that connection I mean that the work was bad. I did not mean that from the engineering point of view the work was bad. The output was bad.

Mr. GOREY

Is the Minister satisfied that the output was not good enough?

Mr. COLOHAN

Was the output all right in connection with the Lir drainage?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Yes.

Mr. BAXTER

It was all wrong and there should be no output at all there.

Mr. JOHNSON

Had the Minister anything to say to the supervisor if he considered the output was defective? Is the bad output blamed upon the men or upon the supervision?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

It is the business of the supervisor to see that the men give a proper output.

Mr. GOREY

I want to refer to one important point. Does the Minister contend that where work is carried out it can be so carried out that the cost involved will not, in justice, be charged back on the land? Does the Minister realise that land is worth only a certain amount, and will he agree that work can be carried out in such a slow way that the improvement will be made expensive and that, in justice to the occupier, the charge should not be placed on the land?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That is precisely one of the factors that is always taken into account—whether the land can bear the improvement. Hence the delays that Deputies are complaining of and hence the application of the arterial drainage scheme. That is the point that was made by the Parliamentary Secretary—that you cannot cast aside or tear away the red tape and get on with the work. You first have to investigate whether the land will bear the proposed improvement. There is no suggestion that the land in any of the cases mentioned cannot, as far as we can judge, bear the extra charge. It is usual in these matters first to say that the land can bear the extra charge; then when the work starts complaints are made that the land cannot bear the extra charge. That is almost the universal experience.

The River Lir was investigated and that was one of the relevant factors taken into account—whether the improvement there was a fair charge upon the land. It must be remembered that all the improvement charge did not go on the farmers, or what Deputy Connor Hogan would call the riparian owners; fully 30 per cent. of the cost of the Lir improvement was borne by the State. Deputy Conlan did not mention that. It is quite possible Deputy Conlan has a holding beside the River Lir and it is not flooded. That happens with every river. There are certain areas that are never flooded, but it does not follow that there is not severe flooding elsewhere.

Mr. CONLAN

I have a thorough knowledge of the whole river and I never knew flooding of a serious nature to take place.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

The only solution of this problem that I can see is that there should be a plebiscite of all the people of the district. That was not provided for in the Act of 1924. but it seems to be the only way out of the matter.

Mr. CONLAN

The work that has been carried out on the River Lir will bring no improvement to the land.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

That is always said after the work is done and when the time for payment comes on.

Mr. CONLAN

Why were the people not consulted before the work was undertaken?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

They could not be consulted under the 1924 Act.

Mr. CONLAN

You ought to take some heed of the probable result of your work.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

With reference to the reply of the Minister, which I did not consider at all satisfactory, is it not a fact that I drew his attention to the conditions existing there about nine months ago?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

So I have said.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Did the Minister order an inquiry to be made? Did he have any confidential report transmitted from the area? Will he give that report to the Committee?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I have not charge of that report. We inquired whether there was any justification for the Deputy's complaint.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Was there?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

We allowed the work to go on.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Did you not change your overseer?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

We did not consider there was justification for what the Deputy stated.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Will the Minister at this stage have an inquiry instituted into the matter? I will be prepared to produce ample evidence in support of my contention that the money was wasted and that there was no return for the money spent. There was deliberate idleness prevailing.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Will the Minister state whether the alleged idleness and slackness on the part of the workers in Clare were in any way responsible for the election of Deputy Connor Hogan?

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

That is irrelevant.

Mr. M. DOYLE

The Parliamentary Secretary has thrown a lot of the blame for the delay that has occurred on the Act as it stands. I understand it was drafted by the Board of Works or by the Parliamentary Secretary himself. If it is cumbersome and hard to make operative, he should not throw any responsibility on the county councils or on the people concerned. I suppose the Dáil should have more carefully examined this measure and not have left it as cumbersome as the Parliamentary Secretary says it is. I believe the Act was hatched by the Board of Works, and, in the circumstances, they have no reason to complain if it is cumbersome.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

There is no complaint to the effect that the Act is cumbersome. It was, in fact, necessary that it should be cumbersome. Otherwise you would have complaints made by Deputy Gorey that people were being charged for benefits which they had not received and which they had no possibility of receiving. As to the delay on the part of the county councils, the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that most of last summer was allowed to go by, and it was only, in fact, at the beginning of winter that any schemes began to come in from the county councils. Inspection at that time of the year was out of the question.

Mr. M. DOYLE

I regret to have to contradict the Minister. The scheme from Wexford was in long before the winter.

Mr. BAXTER

It seems to me, from what knowledge I have been able to glean since this Act was passed, that very few Deputies can gauge how long it will take before work on one of these schemes will start. There should be some definite information given on that point. It seems to me that the starting of drainage work under the Act even next year is a remote possibility. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that several hundred schemes have been received and that twenty-one of these have been subjected to preliminary inspection. We gather that inspection means the visit of an inspector to see whether drainage is required. Following a decision as to whether drainage is required, if the decision is in favour of a scheme an engineer has to take levels over the whole area. All that has to be done effectively if the drainage scheme is to be a sound proposition.

Unless the Board of Works are prepared to increase their staffs by, perhaps, five times, the possibilities of having drainage works carried out even next year, under the present policy of the Board of Works, is remote. There should be some definite statement regarding the policy of the Department in this matter. It is not sufficient to pass it over this evening with the sort of understanding that if we are not going to have drainage schemes this year we will next year. There should be a definite statement as to whether there is a possibility of starting these drainage schemes this year.

Mr. DUGGAN

It does not really lie with the Office of Public Works to decide when it will be possible to start a drainage scheme. The people concerned have to make some move in the matter. Preliminary investigations have to be carried out before any scheme arrives at the stage when we can deal with it. If any schemes are decided upon between now and the end of the autumn, it is our intention to have work started, but the starting of schemes does not depend entirely on the Department.

Mr. BAXTER

With the present staff, and in view of the very tedious work of taking levels and carrying out other preliminaries, is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to tell us that work will be started this autumn?

Mr. DUGGAN

I cannot give any undertaking at all. If the other persons concerned in particular schemes carry out their part of the preliminaries, we will do our best to have work started on some of the schemes this year.

Mr. CONLAN

In regard to sub-head J. 4, I want to have an explanation of how the sum of £20,000 arises in the Estimates in connection with the cost of preliminary works. Has that been expended in the way of making surveys, taking levels and making plans, etc., or has any consideration been given to any less expensive scheme than that outlined by the eminent Swiss engineer who made a report on the river some two years ago? I regret that Deputy Davin, who is a noted protagonist of the Barrow Drainage Scheme, is not present. I do not know if there is any use in going very fully into the matter, because I am afraid the scheme is getting more shadowy every day, and I do not know that there is any great prospect of the matter being dealt with this session. Probably it will be relegated to 1927.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

On this question, there is in this Estimate— Vote 11—a sum under J. 4 of £20,000 for the cost of preliminary works. In Vote No. 10, which is for the Public Works Office, there is also provision for a Barrow drainage staff and, I think, if it meets the views of the Committee, it would be simpler to have the whole discussion, in so far as it would relate to the Barrow, on this Vote, allowing the latitude it has become customary to allow on this particular matter of the Barrow drainage.

Mr. JOHNSON

There are so many queries of a peculiar kind being put to the Parliamentary Secretary that I desire to add my quota. Would he explain what are "bothy women" and "propagators?" He will find the reference to them on page 57.

Mr. DUGGAN

Deputy Conlan asked whether the sum of £20,000 was for preliminary engineering expenses. It is not. These engineering expenses are provided for in the other Vote. This sum of £20,000 is for preliminary work in clearing the channel of the river Barrow, and we hope to be able to expend that amount this year. The position, generally, with regard to the Barrow scheme is this: Professor Meyer-Peter in his report on page 39, paragraph 6, stated:—

"Daily observations exist for the water surface at the gauges on the navigation locks. At a suitable place the connection between any one of the gauges and the volume of flow should be determined by current metre. By this means it will be possible to determine the water conditions of the Barrow for all years for which water gauge readings are available. This investigation will take more than a year. From now on the water gauges in general should be observed by the State. The author considers this provision absolutely essential in order to check later the results of the proposed regulation."

The observations which he directed to be made have been made by the engineering staff of the Office of Public Works. In the month of February last there was a record flood. All during that period measurements were taken which provided us with data that we never previously had. A great many people talk about the Barrow. They talk about it on the basis that for the last hundred years it has been said that it is going to be drained and they believe it is never going to be drained. But no one ever took the trouble before of taking these particular measurements. They have had one very important result, which is this, that we have got a figure somewhat lower than the figures that were the basis upon which Professor Meyer-Peter prepared his report. That being so, Professor Meyer-Peter was invited by the Government shortly before Whitsuntide to come across to Dublin. He arrived here during the past week and is at present in consultation with the engineering staff of the Office of Public Works with a view to advising us as to whether these new measurements that we have got would result in any modification of the scheme he put forward. I think he is actually down in the Barrow area to-day, and will certainly be here for some days to come.

Mr. COLOHAN

Would the Minister say on what particular reaches of the river Barrow it is intended to spend money this year?

Mr. CONLAN

I think the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary is very satisfactory inasmuch as he tells us that it may be possible to modify the scheme of Professor Meyer-Peter. The people who are interested in this matter, those in the three counties, will have to bear a 50-50 contribution if the Government persist in asking that. On an estimated expenditure of £1,150,000 it would be impossible to expect the people to pay half that sum. Men who have given a life-study to this question, engineers amongst them, consider that the drainage should be carried out satisfactorily for a much less sum.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Men who have made a life-study of the question have not, I take it, any measurements. They just do not want to pay.

Mr. COLOHAN

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say on what particular reaches of the river they are going to spend money?

Mr. DUGGAN

I am sorry, I could not. With regard to Deputy Johnson's question about "bothy women." I understand "bothy" is a word of Scotch origin, and that these ladies look after the houses in the Phoenix Park in which the gardeners live.

Vote 11 put and agreed to.