Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 May 1930

Vol. 34 No. 13

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Office of Public Works.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £68,936 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, 1931, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig na hOibreacha Puiblí. (1 agus 2 Will. 4. c. 33, a. 5 agus 6; 5 agus 6 Vict., c. 89. a. 1 agus 2; 9 agus 10 Vict., c. 86, a. 2, 7 agus 9; 10 Vict., s. 32, a. 3; 33 agus 34 Vict., c. 46, a. 42; 40 agus 41 Vict., c. 27; 44 agus 45 Vict., c. 49, a. 31, etc.)

That a sum not exceeding £68,936 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, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works. (1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 33, s.s. 5 and 6; 5 and 6 Vict., c. 89, s.s. 1 and 2; 9 and 10 Vict., c. 86, s.s. 2, 7 and 9; 10 Vict., c. 32, s. 3; 33 and 34 Vict., c. 46, s. 42; 40 and 41 Vict., c. 27; 44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 31, etc.)

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. J.A. Bourke)

It has been the practice, on previous occasions, to take Votes 10 and 11 together. It is very difficult, in the discussion, to differentiate the matters which will come up for discussion in these two Votes, and it is for that reason I propose to take them together now.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has been the common practice.

Mr. Bourke

There is not very much to say under Vote 10. There is very little difference between this Vote and the Vote asked for last year. There is a slight increase in the charge for the secretariat and the accounts section. This is due to the automatic increases of salaries by increments. There is a decrease under Sub-head E, due to the limiting of the Land Loans to farmers under a valuation of £20. The decrease in that sub-head is not in proportion to the decrease in the loans, because the smaller the number of loans spread over the country is, the more expensive will be the cost of administration in proportion to their number. And in the second place, the staff has already been reduced in anticipation. There has been a corresponding reduction in the appropriations-in-aid. Coming to Vote 11, there is a net increase of £60,362. For new works, alterations and additions, there is an increase of £34,250, and for maintenance and supplies an increase of £15,588. Then under Sub-head CC, compensation in lieu of restoration of lands taken over under emergency powers, which is a new item, a sum of £9,900 is to be provided. There is an increase of £5,000 for drainage maintenance; there is an increase of £14,000 for arterial drainage; there is an increase of £8,500 for purchase of machinery for arterial drainage, and there is a reduction of £15,000 for the Barrow drainage. There is an increase of £5,475 in appropriations-in-aid. As regards the increase for new works, the most important points are in connection with the Gárda barracks, and the three great Dublin buildings, the General Post Office, the Four Courts and the Custom House. Then there is the Preparatory Training Colleges, the Broadcasting Stations and the Legations abroad. In 1929-30 the provision of new barracks for the Gárda Síochána was partly suspended for the sake of economy. In 1930-31 it is thought necessary to resume that operation of providing Gárda barracks. There is a total provision of £37,000 made for that. We are providing for 24 new barracks and for some alternations, etc., in 17 other buildings.

With regard to the Custom House, its reconstruction has been completed at a cost of £260,000. It would have cost about three times that amount if the building had been reconstructed from the foundations, but we have used the old walls. As regards the Four Courts, the latest estimate is put at £400,000, which does not include the greater portion of the furniture. A provision of £70,000 is made for the year 1930-31, which will very nearly suffice to complete the building. It is hoped to have the building completed about Easter, 1931. The latest revised estimate for the General Post Office is £300,000. The front block, the Henry Street block, and the central block in the courtyard were structurally completed in the course of the year 1929-30. Certain equipment has not yet been installed in the last-named block. These three blocks are occupied at present. The work remaining to be done is at block D, the steel work for which has been erected. A further contract for this block will be shortly placed and a sum of £26,000 is provided in the Estimate for the current year. That will mean that about £200,000 will have been expended to date. It is hoped to complete this building by April, 1932. With regard to the Preparatory Colleges, besides continuing works already begun at several colleges, we are providing for commencing a new college in Munster and also for adapting the Hibernian Military School buildings, Phænix Park, to the purpose of a preparatory college. We are also providing for beginning work on a new training college in the Gaeltacht. Provision is also made for beginning the erection of a central high-power broadcasting station to provide an improved service for the general public which will be within the range of crystal sets. The Legations in Paris and New York and the High Commissioner's office in London will require some expenditure for new furniture. That applies particularly to the Paris Legation. As regards maintenance, the principal cause for the increase in expenditure under that head is that we did not carry out the usual amount of painting last year. It was postponed for the sake of economy and it is necessary this year to make up the arrears. There are also, of course, additional buildings in use, especially preparatory colleges and new Gárda Síochána barracks as well as Legations abroad.

The explanation of Sub-head CC is that the British took over certain lands under emergency powers during the European War. Under the Financial Settlement the Saorstát Government has undertaken the liability of restoring these to their owners and paying such compensation for restoration and damages as may be due. With regard to drainage maintenance and arterial drainage I intend to leave them to the last, as I have to go into them in some detail. The decrease of £15,000 on the Barrow does not mean any decrease in the amount of work contemplated. We expect to spend £62,000 in 1930-31, but it will be mostly loan money. The free grant has been mostly spent first. This diminishes the charge on the counties for interest during construction. There is also an increase for machinery for arterial drainage. Our experience has shown that excavating machines can be used much more widely than was at first anticipated. The firms from which the machines were purchased have been surprised at the extent to which we have been able to make use of them. The Irish workers who have been trained into the use of those engines, particularly engine-drivers, have shown an extraordinary aptitude for the work, and and we have been able to use these machines in places where at the outset we had no idea that we could avail of them. Our intention is to keep a small stock of these machines. At present there are five, and we expect to add five more in 1930-31. The system at present is that these machines are paid for out of this sub-head, and a hire charge for them is made against each drainage district on which they are used and the amount is credited to appropriations-in-aid. The increases in appropriations-in-aid are chiefly under the heading of rents and fines. This is due to the completion of the shopping arcade at the General Post Office, and we anticipate getting a considerable sum as fines from incoming tenants of the shops to recoup us for the capital expenditure on them.

In regard to the Drainage Acts I wish to give the House some general account as to where we stand both under the Drainage Maintenance Act, 1924, and the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925. I think that it is necessary to show how both those Acts are operated. I fear that their purpose and meaning have grown somewhat dim in the general recollection, as the House rarely hears of them or anything connected with them except by way of complaint in particular cases. There is usually the grievance that we interfered unnecessarily under the powers given to us in the Act of 1924, which gives the power to intervene without consulting the people interested. On the other hand, there are complaints that we have not interfered in many cases in which we might have interfered under the Act of 1925. Under that Act we cannot take any action without the consent and co-operation of the people interested locally. The two Acts are very different in their objects and their methods. The Act of 1924 was for the purpose of getting old drainage districts restored.

Before the European war there were in that part of Ireland which has since become the Saorstát, 178 arterial drainage districts in which about £3,000,000 had been invested. It was known that a good deal of this money had ceased to give any return because some of the drainage boards whose business it was to maintain the works had ceased to function or were scamping their work. The farmers in those districts, if they had understood their own interests, would have thrown out these drainage boards and elected other men to do the work. They did not, however, do that, either through slackness or because they were afraid of having to pay for the work. In some districts they were not able to do so because they had not yet become owners of the land and had not the vote. The Government took rather drastic action in this particular case and introduced and passed the Drainage Maintenance Act of 1924 which empowers the Board of Works to inspect all, or any, of these districts, and in any case where they are satisfied that neglect of maintenance is causing damage they are empowered, without consulting the drainage board or the farmers concerned but with only the approval of the Minister for Finance, to go in and restore that district to what it was when first formed, or as near that as it pays to go and even to make small improvements if necessary. When that is done the district is transferred to the county council who are bound, whether they like it or not, to take it over and maintain it, not at the expense of the county rates but out of drainage rates paid by the owners of land in the district. The cost of the work of restoration is also paid by those owners of land out of the drainage rates, but in order to sweeten this procedure the Minister for Finance has in each case made a free grant, varying from twenty per cent. of the cost upwards, and in some cases the county councils have also made free grants.

It will be observed that this is a rather arbitrary procedure. Because the farmers are not ready, or are not able, to act in their own interests the Government steps in and acts for them without consulting them and leaves them to pay the greater part of the cost. We have had some complaints but so far as my experience goes—and I have looked carefully into every case that came before me—these complaints have not been substantiated in any instance. A great deal of very useful work has been done. Of the 178 existing drainage districts 147 have been inspected. Many of these were found to be in good condition or, if not in good condition, in such a state that it would not be a profitable operation to restore them. In 61 districts it was found desirable to carry out restoration works and they have been carried out accordingly at a total cost of £168,100, of which the Government has contributed £46,393 and the county councils £7,130 while the remaining £114,577 is charged upon the owners of improved land. This work has been done rather quickly, with the minimum of preparation and consultation, partly because of the arbitrary procedure authorised by the Act but mainly because it was restoration work and not new schemes.

Therefore there was in general no question of design—the only question was how far it was profitable to go—and there was no question of assessing the benefit, because the benefit had already been assessed on the lands under the old scheme. The proportional payments were already fixed. The case is quite different when we come to the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925. Here we are dealing with new schemes and the Government is not at all in the same dogmatic frame of mind as with regard to restoration works. There is here no question of compulsion. Are any new works of arterial drainage really wanted? What are they to be? What will they cost? Who is to pay for them? The Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, supplies a procedure for getting an answer to all these questions, and I venture to say it is a good procedure and is getting us sound and satisfactory answers, but I have to admit that it is not working very quickly. I claim, however, that it is going as quickly as it is safe to go.

I suggest to those who find the procedure under the Act of 1925 too slow that it is better to be safe than sorry and that the important thing is not to get on quickly with all the schemes, but to make sure that you do not carry out any scheme which will involve the farmers in a loss. I would remind the House that we are working on a very much narrower money margin than those who carried out former schemes of arterial drainage. About £2,000,000 was spent on arterial drainage schemes between the years 1840 and 1860. By the best information we can get, it costs about five times as much to carry out drainage works now as it did between 1840 and 1860. But the farmer does not get five times the price for his produce that he did then; therefore the improvement of his land is not worth five times as much as it was then—far from it. Something like an additional £1,000,000 was spent on arterial drainage works between 1860 and 1900—mostly before 1881. It costs about four times as much to carry out drainage works now as it did between 1860 and 1881, but the farmer does not get four times the price for his produce. Therefore our schemes must, if they are to pay expenses, be cheaper, poorer schemes with shallower channels than those of the nineteenth century, but even so, many schemes which would have paid expenses then will not do so now.

In another way we are working on a narrower margin also. If a nineteenth century scheme failed to pay expenses—and many of them did— the landlords could afford to pay for it. Many of them actually did pay for schemes which had involved a loss. But the tenant purchasers would not relish paying for a losing scheme. They could not afford to do it in many cases as a matter of fact. I should say that the use of machinery is enabling us to make substantial economies, though it will not bring us near the cheapness of the nineteenth century. For all these reasons, under the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925, it is a case of many being called but few chosen. The machinery of the Act is set in motion in each case by a group of farmers who think that arterial drainage would improve their lands. They send a petition to the county council, indicating roughly the rivers and drains to be excavated and the lands to be improved. The county council have the position examined by their surveyor, and if the council on his report think the proposal deserves examination they send it on to the Board of Works.

A total of 555 petitions have been sent to the Board of Works for examination since the passing of the Act, and 49 have been rejected by the county councils as not worth examination. The flow of petitions is nearly stopped. It is probable that not many more will be received. Of these 555 petitions, 500 have been examined by our engineers, and in each case a report has been made showing whether a drainage scheme is practicable or not and giving an estimate of its cost. This, of course, involves an inspection of the ground in each case and a good deal of calculation. It has meant a very considerable amount of work, though it is only the first stage of the enquiry. Out of the 500 petitions examined, the Board of Works found it necessary to reject 53 as being impracticable or clearly uneconomic or for some other reason, and in 139 other cases the proposal was estimated to cost less than £1,000 and, therefore, has not been dealt with under the Act of 1925. As the House is aware an Act was passed in 1928—the Arterial Drainage (Minor Schemes) Act—which empowers the county councils to deal with such schemes on their own account.

The 500 petitions examined by the engineers were thus reduced to 308, and of these, 240 have been investigated by land valuers to ascertain the benefit to be expected from them to all the different parcels of land affected. This work is long and laborious. The valuer has to ascertain the boundaries of each holding, measure the part of it which he expects to be improved by the drainage works and assess the annual value of the improvement, in pounds, shillings and pence in each case. He must do it carefully, because his results are liable to be disputed by each of the farmers concerned and tested at a subsequent inquiry and, when so tested, they are the economic foundations of the whole scheme. Therefore, 240 petitions have been investigated by the valuers and in 32 cases the results showed the proposals to be uneconomic or impracticable and the Board of Works rejected the petitions at that stage. This leaves 208 petitions still alive. Of these no further proceedings have yet been taken on 59, The remaining 149 have been amalgamated into 90 drainage schemes, because often we get two or three separate petitions for different parts of the same river and it is necessary or desirable to make one scheme of them. These 90 schemes have been submitted either to the Minister for Finance or to the county councils, or both, for the free grants necessary if they are to proceed.

The Minister for Finance, in each case, that is in the 76 cases submitted to him, has agreed to the grant required, but the county councils have refused the grant in eighteen cases and have given no decision in 13 cases. I wish it to be understood that I am not criticising the county councils. It is their right and duty to form their own opinion whether each drainage scheme is or is not sufficiently desirable to justify them in imposing on the county rates the charge for a contribution. Of the 90 schemes submitted to the Minister for Finance or the county councils, 56 have so far emerged with the necessary promise of free grants and these are to be submitted to the occupiers of land affected. Forty-six have been so submitted up to the present. Of these the occupiers by their votes have accepted 32; they have rejected 12, and in two cases the result of the voting is not yet known.

After the acceptance of a scheme by the occupiers, there has usually to be an inquiry into objections. In three cases so far this inquiry has shown such serious objections that the scheme has had to be dropped. In eighteen cases so far all preliminary difficulties have been overcome and works have been begun. In five cases out of these eighteen the works have been completed. The process is continuous; more schemes are always coming up and reaching the stage where works begin. It is clear that we have work on our hands for some years to come at an average rate of perhaps £40,000 or £50,000 a year. How many schemes altogether will be carried out under the Act must be a matter of conjecture. My guess would be, if the present conditions continue, 50 schemes altogether costing perhaps a quarter of a million of money of which the Government free grants may amount to something over £100,000: that is, if the Government continues to give free grants on the present scale and if the county councils continue to give contributions in a good proportion of cases. It is quite clear that if the Government ceases to give, or if the Dáil ceases to approve, free grants, the whole thing will stop dead; and if the county councils ceased to give contributions there would be very few schemes carried out.

Now, the Vote before the House represents, of course, only the Government's free grants to the works which are expected to be carried out during the financial year 1930-31; the other part of the expenditure is provided for under Vote 8 (Local Loans).

Sub-head J 1, Drainage Maintenance, shows an increase because it is anticipated that a restoration scheme may be carried out in the Lough and River Corrib district, a large drainage district in which a considerable expenditure is desirable. We do not expect to have much more work under the Drainage Maintenance Act for some years to come; the Corrib is an exceptional case.

The provision under sub-head J 2 represents the best estimate we can make of the free grants which will be needed under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, during the year 1930-31. Large schemes in which the total free grant is over £3,000 are shown individually, and if it should prove desirable to make free grants for any large scheme other than those here shown, we shall introduce a supplementary estimate. Schemes for which the estimated free grant is less than £3,000 are not shown individually, but I shall be happy to give any information I have about any particular scheme in which Deputies may be interested.

I do not think it is necessary to say anything on the other sub-heads at present, as most of them are matters of considerable detail and it is very hard to know what particular points Deputies are interested in.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not intend to say very much on the estimate this year. Last year, I had a good deal to say in regard to a practice of some officials of the Department, and the Parliamentary Secretary gave what I think may be described as a very emphatic promise that we would not have any cause to complain this year in that connection. I should like if, in the course of his reply, he would state that that undertaking has been fulfilled.

One thing I am disappointed with in regard to his statement is that he made no mention of a problem which was exercising the minds of a considerable number of people on the east coast last year—that is in regard to coast erosion. A good deal of hardship was caused in that connection and it is very probable that last year will not see the end of the matter. For that reason, we would have thought the Parliamentary Secretary or the Board of Works might have given some attention to this matter and would have made provision in the estimates to deal with it, if it should arise in the same acute form this year.

As to the amount of work carried out under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, I think the House, having heard the account of the Parliamentary Secretary, will say that it is a case of "much ado about nothing." They started off in 1925 with a total of about 594 schemes submitted to the Department, and of them at least ninety have been examined by the valuers appointed by the Department and were considered to be economic schemes which it would be justifiable to proceed with. But we find, after five years of activity on the part of the Department, and of unquestionable desire on the part of those who are interested and who would have benefitted by the schemes, that we have work proceeding in the case of only 18 at present.

I think most Deputies will concede that the contrast between the figures of 594 petitions and 18 schemes now proceeding is a very disappointing one. If at least 20 per cent. of the schemes would have been economic, I think in the present circumstances and in the present condition of the country, with the dearth of employment, with the crying need to develop and to improve our agricultural land, that the Government should take some steps to find the money necessary. If the county councils cannot of themselves accept the burden, I think the Government ought to find the money to proceed with these schemes where their own valuers have found the work would yield an economic return. Apart from that altogether, an argument might be advanced in support of even a greater measure of activity on the part of the Department in this connection than has hitherto taken place. I think we might even go further and say that as regards these schemes, where even the return would not be economic, the local conditions would justify, from the point of view of some relief to the unemployment problem, the expenditure of public money, and that these schemes should receive favourable consideration also from the Department.

With regard to the general administration of the Department this year I have no very great complaint to make. It is obvious from the estimate that there has been a great tightening up of administration. I only hope that that tightening up will continue and that this Department, which is one of the most important from the point of view of public expenditure and from the point of view of public well-being, will become the model Department of the State.

Mr. G. Wolfe

I notice under Vote 11 that there is a sub-head dealing with parks, and I see that £700 is provided for maintenance and supplies at the Curragh. I happen to be the Ranger of the Curragh, but, as a matter of fact, it means nothing but the title, because the person who does all the work is the Deputy Ranger, by some extraordinary arrangement which was established by the British. In fact, I have no control over the Curragh whatever. It is rather an anomalous position, but such is the case. I am advised that there is an urgent necessity for certain sanitation to be carried out at the Curragh in connection with the racing there. Whether the money for that can be recovered from the Turf Club I do not know, but I think the work would have to be done by the Board of Works.

I should like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say on the matter, because there is an outcry about this, and it is a matter of very urgent necessity and ought to be attended to. There are a great many race meetings in the year there and, as I say, it is a matter of urgent public necessity.

Mr. Maguire

In connection with the Shannon navigation scheme, there is very considerable dissatisfaction in some areas affected by flooding, particularly Tarmonbarry. Various representations have been made from time to time to the Board of Works with a view to having some alterations made there that would remedy the flooding. As a result of representations an inspector was sent down some years ago, and he reported that 4,025 acres were affected by flooding in County Roscommon and 2,057 in County Leitrim. That was the only result of the inspection and the flooding still continues. I might mention that it has been asserted by the Board of Works that any improvement made to remedy the flooding would mean a very heavy outlay, as they would have to sink at least for a distance of a mile the navigation course in the cut. It is also asserted by the Board of Works that even then the improvement in the area affected would be very slight. The people concerned asked for the removal of the weir at Tarmonbarry. That may be a sweeping demand, but in view of the amount of traffic and in view of the area of land affected by the floods, the suggestion has a good deal to recommend it. The figures given by the Board of Works show that the total amount of tonnage carried north of Tarmonbarry is 12,450. The tolls collected represent £203 14s. 8d., and the cost of working the scheme is given as £904 12s. 11d.—as against the £203 14s. 11d. by way of tolls. That area has a very good service from the railway, which runs parallel. Now there is a very good motor service, and it is held that the continuation of the weir is entirely unnecessary from a traffic point of view.

In view of the figures I have given, there is no justification for keeping a barrier there in the way of the water. It is five feet at low water and eight feet in flood and is responsible for the flooding of practically the entire area to which I referred. It does seen entirely unnecessary and a waste of public money to keep in existence that water course, resulting in the flooding of the area round about, for the sake of the traffic it serves. The Board of Works should surely have regard to the very extensive damage caused by the retention of this water course. If it is not considered a practical suggestion to remove the Tarmonbarry weir entirely, it might be possible to continue the service by taking a few feet off the weir or, perhaps, by the adoption of flat-bottomed boats that would take a more shallow draught. It might be possible, in that way, to continue the service and still make provision to relieve the area of this very expensive flooding.

As regards drainage schemes, Co. Leitrim has refused after very considerable investigation to adopt a scheme. They found it to be impracticable so far as their county was concerned. It should be the duty of the Board of Works to see that schemes submitted by a county like Leitrim, which is waterlogged and more in need of drainage than any other county in Ireland, receive from them that consideration that the needs of the county deserve. I consider that it is a great waste of public money to have inspectors sent out from the Board of Works to investigate some hundreds and even thousands of cases all over the country and then merely reject them. The result is negative as far as that sort of investigation goes. The Board of Works should have more elastic powers and should exercise them. Where schemes may not fit in with the exact requirements of their existing rules, they should be able to deal with the peculiar local circumstances in order to make such schemes practicable. It is quite unfair that some of the poorer counties, like Leitrim, that cannot adopt such a scheme as this for economic reasons are still compelled to pay for the improvement conferred on the more well-to-do counties who are in a position to adopt such a scheme. Surely, the Board of Works, in order to be of real service to the whole community, should be in a position, as a result of its investigations, to make recommendations from time to time to the Dáil and to get powers to enable them to carry through schemes in all counties which would be of particular advantage to the counties affected, and not to have them tied up by a particular scheme which is altogether impracticable in particular cases.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has told us, most of the time of the board is spent in investigating large numbers of applications, and when these are inspected they are found to be impracticable and are turned down. That is not a justification for the continuation of a public institution like the Board of Works. Its purpose should be to make its service real and to do that it should come down to local requirements, and where they found there were peculiar local circumstances they should have powers to meet those circumstances in the various counties.

Mr. T.J. Murphy

I wish to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a matter of some importance—that is, the delay that takes place in the Department in reaching a decision as to the handing over to the people of burned down buildings that were formerly used as barracks when application is made for them. An application was made some time ago on behalf of the people of Bandon for a burned-down military barrack there, to be used for the purpose of erecting a public hall. I understand that application is held up because of a view entertained that that building might be necessary for some other purpose. The suggestion some time ago was that it might be used for the purpose of erecting a new barrack for housing members of the Gárda Síochána. I think that is unlikely, in view of the economies that took place on the Vote last year. Any expenditure of that kind, which would be very big, is not likely to be incurred for some time to come. A demand has been made by the people of the town for the disposal of the building to them in order to erect a public hall upon the site. I think the Parliamentary Secretary might inquire as to the cause of the delay in this matter, and, generally, in regard to other applications in connection with buildings of that kind.

There does not seem to be any reasonable cause for keeping on hand old buildings that are not likely to prove of any use to the Department. It would be much better that they should be utilised for some local purpose, especially when the purpose for which it is sought is one that would be of advantage to the towns.

In regard to drainage schemes, I regret that more progress has not been made and I regret particularly that in the county from which I come the local authorities have not been very helpful in the matter. The county council refused or failed to put forward any petition but one to the Board of Works, and while I feel I can say very little to the Department upon that matter, I would like to suggest that some arrangement might be made, or that some amendments of the law might be effected whereby, if necessary, pressure might be put upon the local authorities to have schemes which would be of economic advantage examined. If that could be done, I think it would be very advisable. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this particular matter of the demand of the people of the town of Bandon for the disposal of the old barrack for the purpose for which they have asked. I ask him to ascertain what is the cause of the delay that has taken place, and to endeavour to have a decision in this matter conveyed to the people as soon as possible.

Mr. Goulding

About the middle of the last century a fairly extensive drainage scheme was carried out in the County Waterford, known locally as the Bricka Drainage Scheme. They had a canal built and the charge was assessed over the affected area in a certain proportion. Two or three years ago the local county council made an application to the authorities for what was understood to be a loan to grant to carry out some cleaning in connection with this drainage. The result has not been at all satisfactory. The expense incurred was entirely out of proportion to the amount of work that was done in connection with it and many of the people affected, to their great surprise, were informed that they would have to pay a special drainage rate for the next fifteen or sixteen years to cover the cost. Unfortunately it was only when the people got this bill that they realised what they were up against, and now they are faced with the possibility of having to pay an increased rate again for maintenance for a period of years, and they want to know is there any possibility of avoiding this extra charge for maintenance. They have, of course, to pay this charge already levied on them because the work is done, but many of them claim that they derive no benefit whatsoever from it, and in one or two cases with which I am familiar I really believe that contention is correct, that the individual farmers derive no benefit from it. They want to know, if this thing is to continue, where they will find themselves. The rates for drainage alone will be far in excess of the ordinary poor rate. They consider it a decided grievance if they have to continue to pay for work from which they derive no benefit whatever.

There is a matter in connection with contracts. Is it usual to advertise contracts given out by the Board? For instance, large works carried out here in Dublin city, the renovation of the G.P.O. and of the Custom House and the Four Courts. Were these contracts advertised and if not advertised what was the system adopted in allocating these contracts?

Mr. Colohan

Deputy Wolfe has mentioned the want of sanitary accommodation at the Stand House on the Curragh but he alluded to no other place.

Mr. G. Wolfe

In regard to that I was alluding to the outside part of the Curragh; that is not the Stand House.

Mr. Colohan

I think there is a greater necessity for sanitary accommodation at the Stand House than anywhere else, especially on racing days.

Mr. Wolfe

If I may interrupt again, I think the Deputy and I are in agreement on the same thing. I may not have expressed it very well but that is what I meant.

Mr. Colohan

We agree on that point anyway, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary should see to it that proper sanitary accommodation is erected on the Curragh for people attending the races. As his chief the Minister for Finance does not intend to abolish the betting tax on race courses and as he has a surplus from last year I think he could usefully spend that in erecting the sanitary accommodation that is needed there. I hope he will mention that to the Minister for Finance.

There is another matter I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to and that is the delay in paying compensation under the Employers' Liability Insurance Act to men who were injured on the Barrow Drainage Scheme. Some cases have come to my notice lately and payment has not been made for four, five and six weeks. I need not tell you that that is a great hardship on the wives or dependents of the injured men. I have called to the insurance branch of his Department several times and I must say that the officials were very courteous and tried to hasten the payment as much as possible. The procedure is somewhat complicated and I think if the Minister looks into the matter he could make it a little bit more elastic and see that payment is made say a fortnight after the accident has taken place. It is a very important point and I think the Minister could easily help these poor fellows who got injured on the Barrow. In the Minister's desire for using machinery instead of hand labour and foot labour on the Barrow he has introduced dredgers and the men are injured very often. I hope he will take particular care in seeing that the interests of the men so far as accident insurance is concerned, are looked after.

There is another matter I would like to mention, and that is the Lerr drainage district in South Kildare. Some time ago the county council sent up a request asking the Department to send down one of its engineering inspectors to go over the Lerr drainage scheme with the county surveyor and see whether there was any justification for the complaints made by men in South Kildare, the county council and others, who said that instead of improving the Lerr river it was made worse. I do not believe these men are correct in their charges against the Board of Works, but I do say that I think it is only right that the Minister should issue an authoritative statement showing the improvements made for the money that is being spent there. As I am implicated and put down as the culprit for having that scheme carried out, I think it is only fair that the Minister should justify his Department and myself and have an authoritative statement of the case published.

Mr. Corish

You are an optimist.

Mr. Little

I would like to say a word in connection with what Deputy Goulding has referred to already—the Bricka scheme. When we were discussing that with the Department before, they said it was very difficult to do anything, but I understood them to say that if the scheme were re-opened and anything else done, some change in the burden might be made. There are a lot of people on that stream who get no benefit whatever from the scheme as originally done, but if, as I understand, there is some talk now of re-opening the scheme and redoing the work or improving the scheme, perhaps on the reorganisation of the scheme, the burden of the rate would be put upon those who really get the benefit and be taken off those who get really no benefit from it.

Mr. Bourke

I did not hear the scheme the Deputy was referring to.

Mr. Little

The Bricka scheme it is known as. It is a small stream that runs down the other side of Dungarvan and comes from four or five miles behind Dungarvan. The farmers up behind get no benefit. The people on the lower level get the benefit.

Mr. Broderick

I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the filthy state of the River Shannon in and around Athlone. I wrote to the Department in or about July about the state of the river. It was full of weeds and full of river matter coming up to the surface. I received a reply stating they were sending down an inspector. The inspector came and reported, and I received a communication that this matter would be looked into. A month or so passed and I called to the Department and interviewed a very prominent official of the Department. I was told that they were waiting for the weeds to finish growing. I wonder what would be the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary now. I suppose he will tell us: "We are waiting for the weeds to grow and when they are finished growing we will cut them next September, or some other time." Everyone who knows the River Shannon knows it is a fine river for fishing. You are encouraging tourists to come here and fish and to run motor boats on the river, and it is a very strange thing if a large river like that is to be left in the filthy state it is in at the moment. Another thing I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to, and he mentioned it in his opening statement, is the high-power station to be erected in Athlone.

Mr. Davin

Birr.

Mr. Bourke

I am not sure that it will be in Athlone.

Mr. Broderick

The estimate says in Athlone. In view of the big amount of unemployment in Athlone and round about that district—he says he is not sure now—if it is to be erected in Athlone, will he see that it is erected as soon as possible?

Mr. M. Brennan

I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a matter which is causing great difficulty to the county councils in the matter of drainage. It is the case where a drainage scheme adjoins two counties and two county councils are concerned. Now in those cases the Board of Works make their estimates and according to their valuation there is a certain local contribution to be made before the scheme can be economic. There is one such case before my mind at the moment. In this case one of the county councils has agreed to make the contribution. The other has refused and the whole work, although of very great importance, is held up. I would like to know what steps the Parliamentary Secretary, or his Department, proposes to take in order to rectify that. If two county councils are concerned in a joint drainage scheme and cannot be got to agree what steps are to be taken to see that the work is carried out? The drainage scheme I refer to is the Lough Gara Drainage Scheme. If the Ministry do not propose to take some steps to see that the work is carried out there is another proposal being put up or about to be put up, I understand, by one of the county councils that the work be done in a different manner, and I hope if the matter does come properly before the Board of Works that it will get the attention which it deserves.

With regard to the matter raised by Deputy Maguire, that is, the weir on the river Shannon near Tarmonbarry, we have various complaints made from the Roscommon County Council about the flooding of that district and in connection with the flooding of that district they find that unless something is done there will remain in that district thousands of acres of land under water. I think last year the Minister made a remark that nothing could be done until the further development of the Shannon. I am afraid if we are to wait until it affects this particular district we will be waiting for a very long time. I am very anxious that the Minister would deal with that matter of the joint river because it affects us very much.

Mr. Walsh

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to state what position the proposed scheme for the River Robe is in now. I raised this matter on a few occasions before. The county council was asked to give a guarantee. It gave the guarantee, and still nothing is being done. This is one of the schemes to which Deputy Brennan has referred, in which two counties are interested. That objection only came in at the very last moment when it was discovered that about 400 acres in the County of Galway would be included in the scheme. I understand this is the reason why the scheme has been held up. The Parliamentary Secretary is quite aware that this is very urgent and pressing, that, in fact, for generations it has caused enormous loss to the farmers in that district, and is causing enormous loss every year. I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, would make a clear statement as to how the proposal now stands, and if he would give any guarantee as to whether the work will be undertaken in the near future. During the discussion on the Local Government Estimate I asked the Minister for Local Government what was the reason of the delay in the minor drainage schemes in Co. Mayo. He told me I did not understand the Act. I now find that the position is that all petitions that were lodged under the 1925 Act in Co. Mayo had not been reported on when the 1928 Act came into operation, that is after four years. None of the schemes has been reported on by the Board of Works, though the County Surveyor and the Assistant Surveyor reported favourably on the work. That being so, the Mayo Co. Council refused to go to the trouble of considering schemes under the 1928 Act. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give an explanation as to the reason of that delay.

There is another defect in the Acts that, if a scheme is considered by the county council and reported upon favourably by the County Surveyor, and if the Board of Works engineer turns down that scheme the county council has to bear one-third of the cost of his inspection. I do not think that is at all reasonable. I think the Board of Works should bear the full cost of their own inspection. We heard the Parliamentary Secretary stating that new legislation is contemplated. There should be some clause put into any new Bill to that effect.

Mr. Esmonde

Year after year I have had to draw the attention of the House and of the Parliamentary Secretary to the existence outside this House of a caricature of a late sovereign. It is quite obvious to me that the ordinary members of the House have no desire that that caricature should remain there, and the Parliamentary Secretary has refused year after year to remove it. I would ask him in the course of this financial year at least to make inquiries as to what the financial cost would be of removing that caricature from outside the Parliament of the Irish Free State.

There is another point in connection with the Estimate for this Department, and that is with regard to the Phænix Park. The Board of Works have very kindly consented to give some facilities for the boys playing football in the Phænix Park on Saturdays and Sundays by providing water facilities from the main. There are other facilities which possibly they could provide and which would be of great benefit not only to the boys themselves but to their parents, that is increased facilities as far as huts are concerned. At the moment large numbers of boys play football in the Phænix Park, which is really the playing ground of the youth of Dublin, and you find, particularly in the winter, that boys have to undress in the open and have to leave their clothes on the sidelines, where their small valuables are liable to be stolen, and in any case they have very often to dress again in wet clothes. If the Parliamentary Secretary would consent to advocate the spending of the small sum of about £500 for the provision of extra facilities in the Phænix Park I think it would be highly appreciated, not only by the boys but by their parents.

Mr. Corish

In view of the outcry as to coast erosion that there was all over the country, and the necessity for that outcry during the very heavy winter we had last year, one would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would refer in some way to the deliberations, if he has received any report yet, of the Coast Erosion Commission. Surely that Commission has been sitting sufficiently long to be able to send in some sort of a report, even if it were only a tentative one. We are now well into the month of May, and if anything is going to be done to save our coasts surely it is at this time of the year that it ought to be done. This country has been spending an amount of money for the past five or six years with the very laudable object of getting tourists to come here, but if our seaside resorts are going to be neglected, as they have been by the Board of Works for a considerable time, I feel that the activities of the Tourist Development Association will be all in vain.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say something as to what is going to be the outcome of the sittings of this Commission. I am commencing to think now, as others thought when it was set up, that it was merely eyewash. Surely it is high time for that Commission to have reported. One would think that it would take them only three or four weeks in order to get the data required to enable them to come to some conclusion. In the constituency which I represent, from Carnsore Point right along the coast up to Arklow has been very seriously menaced during the last winter. Not alone have we had coast erosion at Rosslare and other places but the effect of it has been that the bar outside Wexford town has silted up in the last few weeks, with the result that three steamers going into Wexford had to be diverted to Rosslare Harbour. That is a very serious thing for a port like Wexford, which has a very small revenue as it is. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about this matter and that he will endeavour to get the Commission to report.

There is also the question of the Ports and Harbours Tribunal. That has been sitting for a considerable time and nobody knows what is being done. A great many harbour authorities have certain things in their minds to do but are loth to spend any money owing to the fact that they do not know where they stand. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to these two important matters.

Mr. Gorey

I rise to refer to the drainage schemes. At least ninety per cent. of the schemes all over the country have been turned down because they were uneconomic, and I see no prospect of these schemes ever being carried out except the matter is reconsidered and some new method adopted. There is no doubt that they are necessary. If we are going to have schemes carried out by the Department or by the county council, with overseers, with what is known as State hours, I can see that the work will not be done. In my opinion, the only way to do it is to adopt a different plan. I think you will have to get committees of the people benefiting by these schemes, acting under an engineer, either a county council engineer or an engineer from the Board of Works, and that these committees should have power to do the work themselves, with the power of employing and dismissing. It is all very well for Deputy Davin to laugh——

Mr. Davin

The taxpayers' money.

Mr. Gorey

Deputy Davin is in one of the sheltered trades. The farmers and the farmers' men have very different hours from Deputy Davin.

Mr. Davin

And Deputy Gorey.

Mr. Gorey

And Deputy Gorey. We are not thinking of work in the sheltered trades, although they have had a good innings up to this.

Mr. Davin

I have done as much work as you ever did.

Mr. Gorey

I do not think you did. I think I have done as much work in a day as you have done in your life.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What the Deputy is now advocating would require legislation and is, therefore, out of order.

Mr. Gorey

It might require legislation, but it is a suggestion that could be considered as an alternative to the present system. If you are to put into effect ninety per cent. of the drainage schemes throughout the country you will have to get at it in some other way. Committees of the people whose lands will be benefited should be created and they should be given power to employ their own labour, the labour of their children and their workers and outside people if necessary, under the supervision of an engineer. Better work would be done in that way, because it would be done by people who knew something about it, not as in the case of a number of the schemes, by people who knew nothing about the work and who were practically no good for that class of work, because the employment they previously had was no training for it.

If you want the country to benefit I think you will have to go outside the cut-and-dried schemes that you have and do it in the way that I suggest, not like some of the Government work under the Board of Works that they have been doing at the Curragh. We go by old time and they go by new time, and they are dismissed there every evening at four o'clock according to our time. You would not do very much on those lines.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

Evidently this Estimate gives Deputies an opportunity of talking on everything from cabbages to kings. We had Deputy Esmonde nose-diving into the debate with reference to what he describes as the caricature in Leinster Lawn. I go further than he has gone; I suggest that the caricature in Leinster Lawn should be melted down so as to afford that good lady an opportunity of doing at least one good turn to this country by being turned into coin. Deputy Gorey, of course, has the usual remedy for uneconomic schemes—reducing wages and lengthening hours.

Mr. Gorey

I did not say a word about reducing wages and lengthening hours.

Mr. Hogan

If the Deputy did not say that he did not say anything.

Mr. Gorey

I will not sit down under you anyway, or under any of your type.

Mr. Davin

The farmers are in the gallery listening to you.

Mr. Hogan

I am not asking Deputy Gorey to express an opinion on me. The only policy he ever had or ever expressed was to make the workers work more for less wages, and then the country would be turned into a paradise. He ought to know that it is not the wages or the hours of work that make a scheme uneconomic; there ought to be at least that much intelligence at the back of his head.

Mr. Gorey

You do not know anything about it. You never did a day's work.

Mr. Hogan

Nobody in the Dáil ever did any work except Deputy Gorey, but he did no work at least since he came in here. He is not here to do work of any advantage to his party, to the community he says he represents, or to the country as a whole. When speaking on drainage the Parliamentary Secretary might give some information as to why certain schemes are being held up. These are schemes which have been prepared and on which the men might be let loose, so to speak, at any moment. I have in mind several schemes in Clare. One at Scariff has been in hands for a long time, and there are schemes at Newmarket-on-Fergus, Sixmilebridge, Manus and Doonbeg. These schemes have been ready for some time and there is no reason why they should be held up or why operations should not start immediately.

I cannot understand some of the things that happened in connection with the Shannon Scheme. Certain lock-keepers have been dismissed and, notwithstanding the fact that they are redundant people, ready for employment, getting very little compensation for loss of employment, people were imported from the Six Counties and elsewhere to do simple work that the lock-keepers could do. It seems strange that lock-keepers who are perfectly capable of doing certain non-technical work are not allowed to do so but are given miserable compensation and new hands taken on. That does not seem to be the proper way to do business. The compensation given the lock-keepers is miserable and no attempt has been made to commute it. They are getting from £10 to £13 a year and they have lost their employment and no attempt is made to commute these amounts so that they might be given sums to enable them to start in business. That is a hardship on these men, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary should make representations to the Department of Finance with a view to seeing if an alteration could be made in the arrangement.

Reference has been made here repeatedly to coast erosion, and I think no coast in Ireland suffers more in that respect than County Clare. The inroads made by the sea on the coast of Clare are likely to wipe out several towns and several sources of income to the county. Lahinch will be wiped out unless the Government interferes immediately in an effective manner. I do not think any steps have been taken to save the town. Steps have not been taken to bore to find out how deep they would have to go down to find blue mud on which works could be erected. As Deputy Corish said, it is time that the Commission now sitting gave some information as to what it proposes to do. If action is not taken quickly in the constituency I represent several towns will be practically wiped out. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has taken action, if he has some data from the Commission, to check coast erosion.

Mr. Conlon

The only item I wish to refer to is that dealing with arterial drainage, which I think is the most important matter in the Estimate. The question of flooding by the River Shannon has been referred to, and the point was made that over 4,000 acres were flooded in Roscommon by the overflow of the river at Tarmonbarry. The suggestion was made that if the weir was removed matters would be improved and flooding prevented. I do not altogether agree that that would meet the situation, because at certain times the water at each side of the weir, particularly at flood-time, is at the same level, and I am afraid the removal of the weir would not cause a great improvement. I think at a reasonable expenditure the river could be widened at a point where it is very narrow. I suggest that that is a matter for the Government and that it should be seriously considered by the Board of Works.

The Parliamentary Secretary has given figures in connection with the drainage schemes that have been submitted to the Board of Works. His statement shows that progress in connection with the Arterial Drainage Act of 1925 is very slow indeed. I think he stated that 46 schemes had been submitted to the county councils—that is a small number out of the hundreds sent forward—and he mentioned that only 32 had been agreed to, and five rejected. In the county which I represent—and I presume it is an average county—we submitted a number of schemes. I think six have been agreed to by the Board of Works. One has been carried out. In four cases the county council has agreed to give a contribution. One scheme was rejected by the occupiers because they did not believe they would get sufficient benefit from it. A majority of occupiers assented to another scheme, and one scheme is now before the occupiers. I have already pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the officials of the Board of Works that I think some schemes are not getting a fair chance. I know occupiers of land who are most anxious to get drainage carried out. I know one case that was rejected but I am not familiar with the cause of the rejection in the other cases. In one area, where they approved of the scheme, it was almost rejected because of the manner in which it was presented by the Board of Works. I do not say that that was the fault of the Board of Works. Whoever the valuer was who went to the area, he did the work in such a manner as to cause great danger of the scheme being rejected. I will explain what I mean, with a view to having a little more care taken by the Board of Works with regard to schemes sent forward. For instance, one man's name was put in the schedule for a number of acres that was greater than the amount of land he possessed. On investigation, I found that land belonging to four other people surrounding his land was put down in the map in his name. That is only one instance, but I am afraid if care is not taken by the valuers who go down the same thing may happen in other cases. What would happen naturally in such cases is that the owner would oppose a scheme, whereas if the amount of land owned by each person was put down correctly probably the owner would vote for the scheme. I do not know if anything of the kind I have mentioned has occurred in connection with the scheme rejected in Roscommon. Greater care should be taken, as the people are most anxious that drainage schemes should be carried out.

Reference was made to another scheme which concerned Roscommon, and it was suggested that County Sligo, the adjoining county, had refused to adopt the scheme and that something should be done by the Board of Works. I am not quite sure if that is an accurate statement. As far as I am aware, Sligo County Council is awaiting a petition from the people in the area, and I am not aware that the county council has power to refuse a petition if it is sent in. I am glad the matter has been raised, because it concerns the county I represent. These are the only items to which I want to refer. My object in referring to them is that these schemes, which the people are anxious to have carried out, should get a fair chance.

Mr. Cassidy

There are a few items to which I wish to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. One is in connection with Bunerana harbour and pier, in respect of which the House is now asked to vote an additional £9,000. I understand this is part of the sum which was voted by the British Government in pre-war times to the Irish Development Fund and handed over to the present Government. My object in referring to this is to complain of the delay that has taken place in getting the work properly under way. I understand that this work was to have been started quite a considerable time ago. It is true that a start has been made on it, but up to the present only a comparatively small number of men are engaged on the work. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take the matter up with his Department with a view to having the work speeded up so that more employment may be given in Buncrana area. Unfortunately a very large number of men are unemployed there at present. They are expecting to get jobs on this work. I do not know whether the delay that has taken place in proceeding with the work is due to the non-arrival of a dredger at Bunerana or not, but, whatever the cause of the delay, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see that immediate steps are taken to speed up the work, and thereby give much-needed employment in that area.

There is another matter relating to harbours to which I desire to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. In connection with Dun Laoghaire harbour the House is asked to vote a sum of £20,114; for Howth harbour a sum of £2,274, and for Dunmore East harbour a sum of £730. I understand there is a statutory obligation on the Department to provide certain moneys in respect of these harbours and piers. I think the time has arrived when this whole question of old statutory agreements should be reviewed. For instance, this House has voted for a number of years past a sum of over £2,000 per annum for the maintenance and dredging of Howth harbour. I maintain that there are other harbours in the Saorstát much more in need of dredging than Howth and that the same attention is not being paid to them. There are a large number of harbours throughout the country which, if improved, would give employment to fisher-folk. Unfortunately, as we are all aware, the fishing in Howth at the present time, and for some years past, has been a comparative failure, notwithstanding the amount of money spent annually on the harbour there. I suggest the time has now arrived when these old statutory agreements should be looked into so that instead of Dun Laoghaire, Howth and Dunmore East harbours getting all the money, harbours in other parts of the country would be allocated a share. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary when replying will let us know when we may expect to have the report of the Port and Harbours Tribunal. We have been expecting that report for quite a considerable time.

Mr. Bourke

Deputy MacEntee is not present in the House, but I may say that the matter which he raised is being settled in such a way as to give satisfaction to all parties. With regard to the question of coast erosion, that of course is an extremely difficult matter. It has been exercising the attention of my Department and of other departments for a considerable time. The enormity of the task is illustrated by the fact that we have had Deputies from the West and from the East of Ireland raising the question. There is a Committee inquiring into the matter at the present time. I am not in a position to say when that Committee will be able to report, but I am afraid it will not be for some considerable time.

Neither would I like to raise false hopes in the case of the people residing in the towns concerned. I am not at all sure that the Government will be able to come to the assistance—at any rate financially— of the districts that are suffering. As regards professional assistance, we are always ready to give that. In every case where a desire has been expressed by the people in towns that have suffered in any way to get professional assistance we have immediately sent experts to the spot to see what could be done. But as regards the State coming to the aid of these towns in a financial way —seeing that there are very large areas affected—I am afraid I would be erring on the side of optimism if I were to say that we were likely to do anything in that direction.

Deputy MacEntee, in dealing with the question of arterial drainage, appeared to be speaking under a slight misapprehension. He seemed to think that a great many of these schemes were economic, and that it was owing to the cumbersome method that we adopted of investigating them that more work had not been done. As a matter of fact, in not a single case that we have investigated were any of these schemes economic. In every case grants were required. It is only a question of how much the Government in one case, and the county council in another, is prepared to lose in order to carry out these schemes. No scheme that has come before us up to the present would pay of its own accord. Adverting to Deputy Gorey's remarks, there is no doubt that if the farmers themselves would come together and form local committees they could do the work much cheaper than we could do it. If we carry out a scheme we have to ensure that it is watertight from every angle, so that there can be no complaints that we have bungled the job. But if the farmers themselves were to come together and form committees they could do a great deal of rough-and-ready work. They could benefit their lands to a very considerable extent if they were willing to do that. Unfortunately up to the present they have expressed no desire to come together and carry out that kind of work.

Deputy Wolfe referred to the question of sewerage on the Curragh. That matter has not been brought to our attention. The Curragh Race Committee are responsible for the buildings and for everything in connection therewith. I presume they are also responsible for this matter to which the Deputy refers.

Mr. G. Wolfe

I would like to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that the place where it is urged this work should be carried out is not on the land owned by the race people. It is situate not inside but outside the stand.

Mr. Bourke

As I have said, the matter has never been brought to our notice, but we are prepared to look into it to see if we can do anything. Tarmonbarry was referred to. This, of course, is an old chestnut on this Vote. We maintain that, if this weir were removed, it would not ameliorate the conditions to any extent worth while. Any appreciable change to improve the drainage at that particular point would cost a considerable amount of money. We estimate the cost at £100,000. If we were to put that charge on that particular district it would not be able to bear it, and what the carrying out of the work would mean is that we would then have to give an exorbitant grant, a grant that in the circumstances would be wholly unwarranted.

Mr. Conlon

What about the Owenmore?

Mr. Bourke

That was a more economic scheme, but not a model scheme. The question was raised as to what procedure we should adopt in cases where the Government was prepared to give a large grant to make the drainage schemes economic, and where two or more county councils are involved and one council was prepared to contribute and another council was not, and as a result of their refusal to contribute a scheme was held up. We have had a few cases of that kind. As a general rule, unless in exceptional cases, if the county councils are not prepared to pull their weight and make a small contribution, we leave the scheme alone. There are plenty of councils anxious to go ahead with their schemes. At present we have sufficient work on hands, and we are not going to trouble our heads about districts that have no interest in the matter.

In some cases the main part of the drainage is in a particular county and only a small part of the work has to be carried out in another county. If the county mainly concerned is willing to give a grant, in such a case we are prepared to go ahead and ignore that part of the work which it was intended to carry out in another county. The river Robe, which is an important river and one where we have a considerable scheme in view, is one of that kind. The main part of the work— in fact, 99½ per cent. of the work— will be carried out in Mayo. There is a small part of Galway which will come under the scheme, but that county refuses to contribute. We are anxious that Galway should step into line and pull their weight, but if they do not we are prepared to go ahead without them. At present we have valuers working on the scheme and doing all they can to push it ahead.

Deputy Murphy referred to our delay in dealing with the military barracks at Bandon. He says the popular demand is that these barracks should be used as a town hall. I have heard very little from the people who are anxious to make use of it in that particular way. Up to the present the more urgent demand is to have the barracks used as a creamery, and, considering that is a very useful purpose and one that should be encouraged in every way, I was anxious to give it favourable consideration, but I think those who are interested in that project have since dropped the idea of going ahead with it. The Gárda Síochána are also anxious to use that building, and their claim will have to be considered. I promised Deputy Murphy that this is a matter I will look into and give sympathetic consideration to. Deputy Colohan raised a rather novel point about the delay in paying insurance compensation to workers injured on the Barrow scheme. I have not heard anything about that before. Of course, we have to report to the insurance company which covers us in such cases, and some delay may possibly have occurred while those negotiations were proceeding, but I do not think the Deputy can have very many cases to complain about. Certainly it is a matter that has not been brought to my notice before. Deputy Goulding referred to the Brica drainage scheme which is being carried out under the 1924 Drainage Act. That work is now being completed, and the charging order is being put through. We have no power to vary the charge.

Mr. Goulding

Is it intended in carrying out the maintenance work in this scheme in the future to assess people in the same proportion?

Mr. Bourke

That is part of the scheme. They have to pay for maintenance.

Mr. Goulding

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that eventually the charge will become so heavy they will be unable to bear it and that those most heavily assessed derive no benefit from the scheme?

Mr. Bourke

That is a difficulty we are up against. We are accused in one quarter of delay, and in another of having proceeded where we should not have proceeded. The best technical brains at our command advised us that it is an economic scheme, and if the farmers object to pay we cannot help that. It is of considerable benefit to the people in the district.

Mr. Goulding

Surely the people in the district should be consulted before they are subjected to such a charge?

Mr. Bourke

Then the Oireachtas ought not to have passed that Act, which gave strong powers to the Department. It has given satisfaction generally in administration.

Mr. Little

Where a scheme has been decided on and where there is clear evidence that one section of the farmers are getting benefit and another section are not, would there be no way of reorganising this scheme so as to have the burdens fall on the people who are really getting the benefit? Is there no elasticity?

Mr. Bourke

Not under the present legislation. If there are anomalies of that kind it would be a matter for future legislation. The 1924 Act is quite rigid, but if we go under the 1925 Act it would only mean additional charges. Some Deputy— I think Deputy Goulding—asked a question about contracts. Our custom is to advertise all contracts over £500. That practice was adhered to in the case of the Four Courts, and all big buildings, and in the case of most of the national schools throughout the country. Deputy Hogan referred to some delay in connection with drainage schemes in County Clare. I think that on the whole Clare has been fairly well served under the Drainage Acts. He referred to Scariff, Newmarket-on-Fergus, Six-mile-bridge, and the Doonbeg and Manus Rivers. The Scariff scheme has been held up, as we had to make additional inquiries, and there may be some minor alterations necessary. The other schemes are ready for confirmation, and we expect to be working on them this season. Deputy Cassidy complained of the delay in starting the work in connection with Buncrana harbour. A good deal of the delay was because people locally took a long time to make up their minds with regard to giving the necessary local grants. We have now started work there. We have only a small number of men employed up to the present, but they are only doing preliminary work. When we get properly under way we expect to give considerable employment there for a number of years.

Mr. Davin

In view of the fact that Deputy Esmonde's eye-sight is seriously affected by looking at the monument in front of Leinster House, can the Parliamentary Secretary give us some assurance that something will be done with regard to that matter?

Mr. Bourke

I would be sorry to deprive Deputy Esmonde of the honour of being regarded as the Cato of the House. His attitude on that question is only comparable to that of that great man, Cato the Elder, on Carthage—Delenda est Carthage.

Mr. H. Broderick

I mentioned two matters, one in connection with the cutting of weeds on the Shannon at Athlone and another in connection with the high-power station. The Parliamentary Secretary has not made any reference to these two matters.

Mr. Bourke

It is not for me to decide where the high-power station is to be.

Mr. Broderick

Then what about the matter of the weeds that I mentioned?

Mr. Bourke

I will inquire into the matter about the weeds.

Question put and agreed to.