Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 May 1931

Vol. 38 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 10—Office of Public Works and Vote 11—Public Works and Buildings.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £68,376 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig na nOibreacha 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., c. 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 £68,376 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, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works. (1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 33, ss. 5 and 6; 5 and 6 Vict., c. 89, ss. 1 and 2; 9 and 10 Vict., c. 86, ss. 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.).

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £452,282 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun caiteachais i dtaobh Foirgintí Puiblí; chun coinneáil-suas Páirceanna agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; chun déanamh agus coinneáil-suas Oibreacha Dréineála; agus chun Ildeontaisí i gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £452,282 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, 1932, for the 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.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

I assume that with the permission of the Dáil I will continue the usual practice of taking Vote 10 (Office of Public Works) and Vote 11 (Public Works and Buildings) together, as they cover practically the same ground. On Vote 10 not many points require notice. It will be observed that there is a small increase on sub-head A—Salaries, Wages, and Allowances—and if the details are examined it will be seen that this is due in the main to three items—an improvement in the scale of pay of temporary engineers engaged for arterial drainage work, the addition of a temporary draughtsman to the engineer's branch, and the addition of six temporary junior architectural assistants in the architectural drawing office. The first of these points, the improvement in the pay of temporary engineers engaged for arterial drainage, has been for some time pressed upon us by representatives of the engineering profession, and was once or twice raised in this House. The scale of pay has been somewhat improved—the maximum raised from £250 to £350—in order to give a little inducement to these young engineers to stay at this job for a few years when they have got the experience which makes them useful. The engineering draughtsman and the six temporary architectural assistants who are being added to the staff are required for the various new works we are undertaking. These works are shown in Vote 11.

Sub-head B—Travelling Expenses— shows a small decrease on the whole, but it includes a new item for travelling expenses of the National Monuments Advisory Council. This Council was appointed under the National Monuments Act, 1930, Section 21; it held its first meeting on the 10th September last, and has already shown itself a very active and energetic body. It has produced proposals for a general archaeological survey of the national monuments of Ireland, which are now under consideration by the Minister for Finance. These are all the points I think it necessary to mention on Vote 10.

In Vote 11, sub-head A—Purchase of Sites and Buildings. It continues to be necessary to purchase sites and buildings for housing the Gárda Síochána, for the new Preparatory Colleges, and for other purposes, but we hope to be able to reduce the expense a little this year.

Sub-head AA—Annuities. As explained on previous occasions, this is an annuity in repayment of an advance for the purchase of the site of the College of Science and Government Buildings, and the erection of the college; it comes to an end in 1933.

Sub-head B—New Works. There are some points of special interest here. The new works on the Oireachtas buildings may interest Deputies. The extension of hot-water heating is a small matter of economy; it will nearly supersede the use of coal fires in the offices, and will secure the rooms from deterioration when unoccupied. The heading "New Restaurant, Members' Rooms, etc.," refers to a connected series of works for improving the accommodation for members. The part to be begun in 1931-2 is the erection of a two-storey building facing Kildare Place, of which the principal purpose is to provide rooms for the Opposition members. Work No. 4—renewal of statues on the Dublin Custom House—is a small matter in money, but will, we hope, have a considerable effect in restoring the appearance of the building to what it was before it was burned. There were formerly four statues on the roof facing the river; they were so badly damaged by the fire that they had to be removed, and the front looks rather flat without them. Work No. 11—reconstruction of the Four Courts. We were somewhat delayed by the unfortunate dispute in the Dublin building trade, and it is doubtful if we shall be able to finish the work, as we expected, in time to move the courts in during the long vacation.

Now as to the barracks for the Gárda Síochána, Works Nos. 17 to 101. The form in which the Estimates are drawn up to meet the requirements of this House, showing every individual new work separately, makes it rather hard to see the general position. As I explained last year (on 8th May, 1930, col. 1555 of the Report), there was a partial suspension of work on these barracks in 1929-30 for the sake of economy. Any stoppage of that kind has far-reaching effects. When you are dealing with a great number of comparatively small buildings you must keep on continuously finding sites, negotiating with landlords, preparing plans, etc., etc., unless you wish to have great delay. The consequence of the stoppage in 1929-30 was that we have only been able to spend £30,000 in 1930-31. In the coming year, 1931-32, we hope to get into something like full swing again and spend £58,000. It is very desirable to get this business of housing the Gárda finished so far as it ever can be finished—that is, to provide a reasonably satisfactory barrack in every station. There are over 800 stations outside Dublin. Dublin is a separate matter. The first problem was to find a barrack of any kind in each station; that was substantially done by 1925, but many of the barracks were wretched places, fit only for temporary use. Since then we have been building, buying, renting, and adapting houses, and we have got rid of most of the worst barracks, but there are still some bad ones, and a good many more cases in which a better barrack is desirable. It will probably take three or four years more to finish the job.

Work No. 102—Grants for National Schools. This is an important part of our duties. The sum provided for grants is the same as last year, and the work of building and improving schools is going on at a good pace.

Works No. 105 to 110—Preparatory Colleges. These are large and important buildings. It will be observed that Coláiste Brighde at Ballyconnell, Co. Donegal, is nearly finished. Some additional work will be necessary in order to improve the water supply. It is occupied. Coláiste Einne, at Furbough, Co. Galway, is hardly begun, as the vendor of the land has so far failed to get a satisfactory title on which we can safely build. Coláiste Ide, Dingle, Co. Kerry, is finished and occupied. Coláiste Muire, Tourmakeady, Co. Mayo, is occupied, though there is some work still to do, mainly in the grounds. Work will, we hope, begin in 1931-32 on the new preparatory college at Ballyvourney in Co. Cork, and on the preparatory college to be made by adaptation of part of the buildings of the former Hibernian Military School in the Phoenix Park. There is also a larger undertaking, the new training college at Galway, already sanctioned by the Dáil; we secured the site during 1930-31, and hope to begin building in 1931-32.

Passing on to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Work No. 127, the completion of the General Post Office in Dublin was delayed by the building trade dispute, but is now proceeding. Work No. 129 is important. There is only a token Vote for it, because we do not expect to get to work this year, as a great deal of planning and preparation will be necessary. The proposal is to erect in Pearse Street, adjacent to Westland Row Station, a large building in which letter-sorting, parcel-sorting, and, I believe, other services can be concentrated, with considerable consequent economy in the working of the postal service.

Work No. 137—the erection of the high-power wireless station—is important. We are at present engaged in finding a site. For the Department of Defence we hope to finish the work proposed at Baldonnel Aerodrome. It was delayed by the building trades dispute. We are continuing the restoration of the Michael Collins Barracks at Cork (Work No. 142) for the rather large force of reserve battalions and permanent staff stationed there. The items for which this year's Vote provides are (a) quarters for unmarried officers, (b) mess and canteen for sergeants, and (c) district offices. The two items for dining halls and food stores, etc., at Kilbride and Kilworth rifle ranges (Works Nos. 143 and 144) are very necessary, if the troops are to take full advantage of the facilities for rifle practice in those rather remote and inaccessible places.

I think no other new work calls for special notice, nor do I wish to make any observation on any other sub-heads of the Vote except those for drainage maintenance and arterial drainage— Sub-heads J (1), (2), (3) and (4). Sub-head J (1)—Drainage Maintenance— shows a decrease to £1,000. It is not expected that any fresh scheme of restoration will be undertaken in the year 1931-32. The estimate of £1,000 is for expenses of charging orders, etc., in districts already completed. Sub-head J (2)—Arterial Drainage— shows an increase of £7,000, indicating that we expect to do a little more work and spend a little more money in 1931 than in 1930. The provision represents, of course, only the free grants by the Government. I went pretty fully into this matter of arterial drainage last year (8th May, 1930, cols. 1558-1565 of the Report), and gave a great number of figures. I do not propose to go over them again, but I will give those relating to schemes actually submitted to the occupiers for their votes. I stated in May, 1930, that up to that time 46 schemes had been submitted to occupiers of land; the corresponding figure is now 57. The number of schemes accepted by the votes of the occupiers was then 32; it is now 42. The number of schemes on which actual work on the lands had begun was then 18; it is now 24. The number of schemes in which the works were finished was then 5; it is now 18. These few figures indicate the steady progress of the work.

As regards the Barrow drainage, sub-head J (3), as I explained last year, the small Vote of £5,000 for the Barrow does not by any means represent the amount of work to be done; we expect to spend some £48,000, but most of this will be loan money, and will be charged to Vote 8—Local Loans. The scheme is going on well, and will, we expect, be concluded in about three years from now.

The estimate of £5,000 is for the free grant only; the total estimate for the year is £48,000, of which £43,000 will be provided from the Local Loans Fund (Vote 8), and £5,000 on this Vote. The expenditure during 1930-31 was £62,000. The lesser expenditure anticipated during 1931-32 is not because we expect to do less excavation, but because we expect to do it more cheaply, and the reason of this is that a smaller part of it will be on the Lower Barrow (between Athy and Monasterevan), where the bottom is hard and the river large, and a greater part on the Upper Barrow and the tributaries, where the work is easier, and, therefore, cheaper per cube yard excavated.

During the year ending 31/3/'31 an output of 588,616 cubic yards of soft and rock excavation has been effected, bringing the excavation total for the year practically to the equal of all previous output. The greater part of the excavation of the main river has now been done, and excavation has been begun and has progressed well on the following tributaries:—The Finnery River, the Stradbally River, the Figile River, the Upper Barrow.

In addition, under-pinning and repairs have been carried out to the Town Bridge and Spa Lane Bridge, Portarlington, and some smaller bridges.

The total expenditure on the work up to 31st March, 1931, was £289,000. Owing to the operations of the mechanical excavators, eleven of which are employed, the unit costs of the excavation are kept low. They vary in different circumstances, but a great deal of work is now being done at 1/3 per cube yard.

In winter the average number of men employed is about 220, and in summer, owing to double shifting the machines, the number rises to about 520.

The beneficial effect produced by the works already upon the flooded and damaged lands has been most pronounced.

Sub-head J (4)—Purchase of Machinery. We are still increasing our small stock of drag-line excavators. We bought two in the financial year 1928-9; in the financial year 1930-31 we estimated to buy five, and have done so, and we estimate to buy five more in the coming year 1931-32. It is the use of these machines which enables us to carry out work under the Arterial Drainage Acts as cheaply as we do.

I do not think there is anything else to call for comment by me. If there are any other points on which Deputies want information I will be quite willing to enlighten them.

I move the amendment standing in my name that the Vote be referred back for reconsideration. The Minister for Finance has complained outside the House that he has not got much assistance from the Fianna Fáil Party in showing him where economies might be effected. As we have a strong sense of responsibility on this side of the House we think the Board of Works is one of the great spending Departments to which the House might be asked to turn its attention. The House will notice that the overhead expenses in connection with the office amount to something like £101,000, whereas the expenditure on public works and buildings for the coming year is estimated at £678,282. It will, therefore, be seen that this is one of the most important Departments of the State as far as public expenditure is concerned.

It seems to me that the attitude of the House in dealing with this Department ought to be to examine it very rigidly and see whether economies could not be effected, and even if our criticisms have no effect this year, perhaps in the future they may have. Furthermore, in the present position, when money can only be got for a very urgent purpose by means of extra taxation, it seems to me that it should be the duty of every member of the House to point out where non-productive expenditure, especially, can be reduced. I think there are some items in the Estimate before us that can be classed as non-productive expenditure. Even in the case of productive expenditure there is always the point to consider whether the present is the most opportune time to carry out certain works, whether you will get the best value for the contemplated expenditure at the present juncture. This Department, it seems to me, has gradually increased its overhead charges since the Free State was established. In 1923-24 the overhead expenses of the Office of Public Works came to something like £73,131. During the present year Deputies will notice, as regards salaries, wages and allowances that figure of £73,131 has increased to £99,000. The total expenditure on the Office has increased from something like £90,000 to £113,000. There is a slight increase this year under the head of salaries, wages and allowances.

In addition to the ordinary staff of the Board of Works there is a special staff maintained for the purpose of dealing with loans under the Land Improvements Acts and the Land Act of 1881. This is a feature of the work of this particular Department which we had expected was going to disappear in the course of time. I remember we called attention to it two or three years ago, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out to us that in the course of time this branch of the work would disappear. I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, would indicate to the House what is the amount of the loans for which his Department is responsible. I think it is probably a very considerable sum. Even so, as we now have a special Corporation for dealing with agricultural credit, and as we have the Land Commission, on the other hand, dealing with the question of land settlement, and as we have the Local Government Department for dealing with the question of housing, I think the Parliamentary Secretary will have to make a very strong case indeed to show why this service should be maintained.

The number of officials in the Department has increased at a considerable rate, and at a greater rate than the expenditure. I think the number of officials has increased something like threefold since the State took over this Department. The Department was no doubt busily engaged for some years back on large work, as, for example, the Custom House. I understand that the Custom House is now practically complete, and that we may not meet it again in the Estimate. We have also the Four Courts, and I think the Four Courts will be completed in another year. We are asked to vote £35,000 for the Four Courts work this year. There is also the G.P.O., which, I understand, may be completed next year also. In view of the fact that these exceedingly heavy works will soon be completed, I think it is up to the Parliamentary Secretary to justify to the House the heavy overhead expenses that this Department is costing the country.

Turning to the other side, to the question of economy, I want to refer to the question of non-productive expenditure. I think the expenditure on the Gárda Síochána barracks cannot be justified at the present juncture. Last year the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out to us that the estimate for work in this connection had only reappeared in the Estimates that year, having been cut out in the previous year as part of the economy drive. When the work was recommenced last year the total amount estimated for was only £37,000 on twenty-four new barracks, and seventeen other barracks which were to be adapted or improved. This year there are about 64 new barracks estimated for, and about twenty barracks for restoration or adaptation, amounting to something like £70,000 in all. The question is whether that £70,000 is an absolutely necessary item of expenditure at the present time, and whether it is work that could not be deferred. It seems to me that nothing has changed during the past few years. If there were good arguments in favour of holding up this class of work then the same arguments should hold at the present time, and while there are urgent works of more importance, in my opinion, to the community being held up, that such a large sum should be voted for the building of new barracks in particular seems to be unjustifiable.

There are small increases in connection with some of the sub-heads which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain. There is in connection with maintenance and supply— sub-head C—an increase of nearly £1,500, and in the case of furniture, fittings and utensils an increase of over £1,000. I think that in the case of what I might call standardised services of that nature—maintenance and supplies of furniture and fittings to Government Departments—there ought to be very good reasons indeed given to the Dáil before expenditure in excess of what we voted last year should be granted.

There are two items also which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some information on. There is, first, sub-head CC—Compensation in lieu of restoration of lands taken over under emergency powers. If the Parliamentary Secretary could tell the House what is the basis of granting compensation in such cases I think it would be valuable.

As regards sub-head E—Compensation for Premises Commandeered by the Army—I am anxious to know whether that sub-head is likely to disappear in the near future. It seems to me that compensation that has to be paid in this connection ought now to be almost completely accounted for.

Then we turn to the question of drainage. The Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that there is only £1,000 available for drainage maintenance this year. Last year we voted £6,000. I think he indicated last year that one of the chief works of the future which he envisaged was drainage work on the River Corrib. Deputies from the area will, I am sure, be interested to know whether that work is completed and what responsibility the State will have in future. Are we to understand that the State is now completely free of responsibility with regard to the drainage in that area?

As regard arterial drainage, there is an increase of £7,000. It seems to me, however, that the improvement that the Parliamentary Secretary has read out in the number of schemes which are being executed does not indicate sufficient progress for that £7,000, for which we are now asked, making a total of £36,000 for the coming year. Last year, he told us that 500 petitions had been examined, and of these 500 petitions 308 were still alive. Of these, 240 had in fact been investigated by his valuers. The chief complaint of Deputies last year was about the slow progress of the work, that in spite of the fact that there seemed to be hundreds of schemes well in hands, only 18 works had actually been begun. This year, the Parliamentary Secretary reports that 18 have been completed and that there are now 24 upon which work has been begun. But that is only six more. I would like to know what is the total number of schemes which the Parliamentary Secretary eventually hopes to see in operation. I understand that last year he reported to the House that there were some 90 schemes which would be passed and that the Minister for Finance had sanctioned grants in 76 cases. Are we to take it that in these 76 cases, of which only 24 show signs of actual progress in regard to work done, the blame is on the local bodies in all cases for failure to continue this work? As well as the 90 schemes, however, which the Department of Finance seem to have more or less sanctioned, there were a considerable number still to be investigated. For example, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that there were 59 on which, although the valuers had reported—and we must take it that there was a case for going ahead—they had not reached the stage of being submitted either to the Department of Finance or to the local authorities. There were some 60 cases of that nature

As regards the Barrow drainage, the House, I am sure, would be glad to know when the Parliamentary Secretary expects to complete this work. £5,000, he told us, has been voted and £43,000 is being got out of borrowed moneys. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Bourke

That is right.

£648,000 in all. I do not think I have anything further to say except again to press the view, as this is one of the big spending Departments, that it is our duty to demand that all economies possible should be made. No economies have been shown. There are certain items where I think expenditure might be cut down. There are other items where it seems to me, by virtue of the fact that the work is not proceeding as expeditiously as all Parties in the House would like, and as the big works that the Department had in hands in the city of Dublin are now on the verge of completion, a real, substantial effort should be made by the Ministry to effect economies.

There are a few items in connection with this Vote to which I would desire to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary in the hope that he will have them remedied. For instance, under the heading of harbours I see that there is an additional sum of £9,000 voted towards improvements for Buncrana harbour and pier. I understand that this sum of £9,000 is part of a sum of £18,000 which was handed over to the Saorstát Exchequer under what is known as the Ireland Development Grant Fund, after the signing of the Treaty. As far as that £18,000 is concerned, which will be devoted to improvement of Buncrana harbour and pier I understand that Buncrana Urban District Council are asked to contribute a sum of £6,000.

What I desire to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to is this: quite a considerable time ago I understand the Buncrana Urban District Council, and the Buncrana Harbour Commissioners, requested the Board of Works to supply them with plans in connection with a new pier, together with the bill of costs and the bill of quantities. Neither the plans, the bill of costs nor the bill of quantities has been supplied to the Buncrana Harbour Commissioners or the Urban District Council. The people in Buncrana maintain that, as the ratepayers of the urban district are asked to contribute £6,000, in all fairness they should be supplied with copies of the plans, the bill of costs and the bill of quantities. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary now that his attention has been drawn to this matter will take it up with his chief engineer right away and see that these things are supplied without further delay.

I did not know that this Estimate was going to come up to-day. On tomorrow's Order Paper a question will appear in my name asking for the total expenditure in connection with the new works being carried out at Buncrana harbour and pier up to and including 31st of March this year. It is possible that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to furnish that information tomorrow.

Under the heading "Harbours, etc.," I notice that a sum of £19,226 is asked in connection with Dun Laoghaire Harbour, a sum of £2,100 for Howth Harbour, and a sum of £1,219 for Dunmore East Harbour. I understand that these sums are a statutory obligation, and that the money has to be voted to these harbours each year. I think, however, that the time has arrived when this matter of State-owned harbours should be investigated. I believe that while Dun Laoghaire, Howth, and Dunmore East may have claims, there are other harbours in the country on which these or like sums could be expended to better advantage. In my constituency, for instance, we have Killybegs Harbour, which is very much in need of money for improvement, and also the landing places at Kincasslagh. I understand that there was also an application made in respect of Thorn, at Letterkenny. While the expenditure in regard to Dun Laoghaire, Howth and Dunmore East might be justified to a certain extent and is statutory, I think, at the same time, there are other harbours and piers and landing places in the Saorstát upon which the money could be expended to much greater advantage. As far as Dun Laoghaire is concerned, I realise that a large amount is repaid by way of tolls and dues. As far as Howth is concerned, seeing that fishing was a comparative failure for years, there is very little money coming back from that harbour in the way of dues, etc.

I notice a sum of £1,200 is asked for in connection with the Dublin Custom House for the renewal of statues. I think Deputies will generally agree that this is an absolutely unnecessary expenditure. Money is being spent upon repairing and renovating the Custom House, but I do not see why the taxpayers of the country should be called upon to expend £1,200 on ornamental statues. They may be all right to look at, but, after all, I think the £1,200 could be spent in a much better fashion. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into these matters and have them corrected.

I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if any progress has been made as regards the Commission set up under his Department to deal with the question of coast erosion. During the last few winters there has been very considerable coast erosion along the Eastern and Southern coasts of Ireland, particularly in Wicklow and Wexford. Local bodies have made repeated applications to the Government for assistance in some scheme to alleviate the situation. I think some officials were down and they investigated the various spots where erosion had taken place, but so far there has been no practical help forthcoming, and no practical suggestion has been made by the Department.

With regard to Nos. 1 and 2 in this Estimate, under the heading "Oireachtas," I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary is making provision for an extension of the heating system. I hope he will also consider the question of ventilation. The new premises here are very defective in the matter of ventilation. As regards No. 2, the amount involved is very considerable—£29,200. I was astonished to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that a large proportion of this money is to be spent wholly for the benefit of the Opposition—to provide members' rooms and other improvements for the Opposition.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

You might be one of the Opposition next time.

I would like to point out that Deputies belonging to the Government Party are equally in need of accommodation. There is no spot in the whole institution in which a Deputy can sit down quietly and examine a Bill without being interrupted with the conversations on either side of him amongst Deputies and their constituents. The Ministers can retire at any time to their private rooms, but the ordinary private Deputy has not a single spot in the whole building where he can sit down quietly. When it comes to the question of approving of the plans for these improvements I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the points I have submitted. Under this Estimate also it is permissible for one to refer to the old problem of the front of Leinster House.

Good old Queen Vic.!

Some months ago the Minister mentioned that the cost of improving the lawn in front of Leinster House would be too great, and he declared that in the circumstances it would not be worth while making any improvement there. I have personal ocular experience of similar work elsewhere. A few weeks ago I saw a somewhat similar object being removed at no cost whatsoever to the State. The only requirements are two stout ropes, and there is plenty of free labour to do the rest. I think the Minister was really evading the matter when he was talking about the question of cost. I suppose it will be many years before the Parliamentary Secretary will eventually succumb to the popular demand that this lawn should be improved.

I wonder is there any principle of selection with regard to the erection, or the re-erection of Gárda barracks. I almost fear to speak of 98—Gorey ex-R.I.C. Barrack—Restoration. I think it is seven years since I put down a question as to when that barrack in my home town would be reconstructed. I notice that No. 98 is still in the Estimates and not a single penny of the £3,000 estimated for the work has been spent. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what is the principle of selection—whether it is due to favouritism amongst Deputies, or what exactly is the manner of priority.

I will now come to No. 141—Baldonnel Aerodrome—Reconstruction of Barracks. The Parliamentary Secretary said they were spending a very large sum of money on the reconstruction of the barracks at the aerodrome. It is rather curious that they should be spending a large sum of money on reconstructing the barracks when the hangars at the aerodrome itself are decaying to such an extent that they are in danger of collapsing. If the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Minister for Defence, would visit the aerodrome they could actually tear lumps from the iron doors of the hangars. Portions of the building are rotting and falling to pieces. It reminds me of the poem written by Dean Swift when he saw the magazine in the Phoenix Park. If the situation at Baldonnel is allowed to develop on present lines by the Board of Works and the Ministry of Defence I think that we could safely parody Swift's couplet and say of it:

Behold a proof of Irish fun,

'Tis Irish wit I guess;

When the aerodrome is dead and gone

We build an officers' mess.

On previous occasions a large sum was put down for the reconditioning of the hangars in Baldonnel but it disappeared in subsequent years from the Estimate. With regard to the Phoenix Park, last year and the year before I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to do something in the way of providing proper accommodation for boys playing football on the fifteen acres. There is no telephone or lavatory accommodation there. A telephone in that part of the park would be very advisable, especially in view of next year's celebrations. The cost would be comparatively small. I am not sure whether it should be borne by the Board of Works or the Post Office. The telephone is badly needed, because frequently accidents occur there and people have to go a considerable distance before they can get an ambulance for an injured player.

I notice that in another sub-head a sum of over £10,000 is provided for the upkeep of British aerodromes and military buildings in this country. It is now a considerable number of years since the British left, and I think it is about time that some decision was taken as to what is to be done with these buildings. A charge of £10,000 is rather unnecessary. Of course, certain rents are being paid for land attached to these buildings, but they hardly amount to that figure. The matter has been dragging on for years, and it is a charge on the State which might very well cease.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is about to take steps to drain the Blackwater, which, with the Boyne, is one of the main rivers of Co. Meath. I do not remember seeing it in a worse condition that it is at present. I am sure that he has had notification about it from the county council. In its present state it is doing a considerable amount of damage and is doing much to nullify the effects of arterial drainage. It seems a strange system under which the main rivers are left undrained while the small rivers are drained. That may be one of the reasons why I have so many complaints from people who are supposed to have benefited by arterial drainage. I have received very sound complaints from farmers, who state that instead of getting any benefit their land is completely flooded. If that is so, I do not see how the Board of Works can continue to assess them. The matter should be examined. From one district for a couple of years I have had complaints that the lands of some of the farmers have been flooded out altogether. I have not actually seen them, but I have reasonable ground for knowing that that statement is correct. I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would get his engineers to examine the district, and if these lands are being flooded the farmers should not be asked to pay. I will give the Parliamentary Secretary the names of these districts afterwards. It was rather demoralising to have such complaints made, especially when the cost of schemes is so high. I wrote on two or three occasions to the Board and was told in reply that the scheme was assessed and there was no way out of it. Engineers, however, like other people, can make mistakes. It would not, in my opinion, cost much to repair the damage caused by the overflowing of the Blackwater.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what progress has been made in regard to the National Monuments Act, which was passed two or three years ago, and inform us whether he has scheduled under that Act any monuments which were not scheduled before. Personally I cannot see that any progress has been made. The few places which I visited displayed dilapidated signboards with the inscription—almost impossible to read: "Board of Works. Trespassers keep away." That state of affairs should not be allowed to continue, particularly as we went to the expense and trouble of passing a Bill to protect such places. It does not look as if steps are being taken to protect them. I notice in the Estimate that provision is made for a salary of £100 for an inspector under that Act. I wonder if his whole time is being given to that duty or whether he is only a part-time official. Certainly the amount struck me as not being sufficient for a whole-time inspector. I would be glad if the Minister, when replying, would answer my queries, especially in regard to the Blackwater.

I congratulate the Board of Works on the great success of the drainage scheme which they carried out in my district near Buttevant, where formerly hundreds of acres were flooded every year. Nothing grew but rushes, and at the end of May you could see nothing there but water and water-hens. When they tried to bring the hay in in September they would often find water half-way up the haycocks. Now, however, there are up to 1,000 acres there of the most fertile land in Co. Cork. The great success of the Awbeg drainage scheme has been commented on by several Deputies. If every other scheme in Ireland proves as successful as the Awbeg scheme the Board of Works should go on with the work. In my district a lot of property is managed by the Board of Works, who do everything to meet the wishes of the people, and houses under their control have been let to people after proper representation had been made to the Board. I have nothing but praise for this Department.

The small provision made in the Estimates for the provision of lights and beacons in harbours has induced my return to a subject which I discussed here on former occasions. On change of Government, the buoys in Castletownbere Harbour were removed, and repeated attempts have failed to induce the Board of Works to make any provision for harbour lights there. Representations have been made so often that there appears to be very little use in continuing them, but as this is the only opportunity we have of reviewing the work of the Department responsible in this case, it is perhaps as well to bring the matter to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary again. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have an inquiry made into the matter and to satisfy himself as to the facts of the matter. He will find that the fishermen there are plying their calling at the present time under very great difficulties and that the position which obtains there at the moment, if not remedied, will ultimately result in loss of property certainly, perhaps loss of life. The expense will be very small and there does not seem to be any reason whatever why the work should not be undertaken.

In connection with smaller works in connection with the west Cork coast line, I understand that the Board of Works have performed their part of the work satisfactorily and that the delay is due to the fact that the local authorities have not dealt with the matter as expeditiously as they might have done. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary twelve months ago for information in regard to another matter, namely, in connection with the ruined military barracks in Bandon. The decision as to what would be done with the building was held up pending some negotiations which were taking place between the Department of Public Works and the people interested in the erection of a central co-operative creamery. A site for the creamery has since been selected elsewhere, and the building is still there. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that a demand reached him from the townspeople for the purchase of the building with a view to erecting a people's hall on the site. I do not know whether any decision has been come to, but it seems rather hard to understand the great delay in dealing with the matter. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, or if he is unable to do so when replying, as soon as possible afterwards, to give us some information to indicate what the policy of the Department is in connection with that particular building.

I notice that provision has been made for the erection of a military barracks at Ballydehob, and I suggest that the work should be expedited as much as possible. I would like also to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether his Department does in fact insist upon a fair wages clause being embodied in contracts entered into by the Department of Public Works. I brought to the notice of his Department lately a very bad case where the fair wages clause had been entirely ignored. I pointed out the facts of the case where a contract had been entered into for the erection of a public building, and where the contractor, in complete disregard of the fair wages clause, tendered a wage of 24/- a week to labourers employed on the work. The provision in the clause would go to show that the Office of Public Works desired that a contractor for work of that kind would pay as good a wage as a good employer in the locality. The local rate of wages in this case would be something like 35/- or 36/-. I am anxious to know whether this clause is usually insisted on, or whether it is merely inserted in the contract as a matter of form. This is clearly a very bad case, and a case in which one must assume that if reasonable provision for a fair wage were insisted upon when the contract was made, the contractor would have regard to that. The effect of it would be, if this were allowed to continue, that the wages which ought to go in payment of labour on the work would revert to the contractor in addition to whatever profit he might reasonably be expected to get in the ordinary way.

I regret that no more ample provision than is indicated in the Estimates is made for minor works. One coming from a coast-line constituency can see the necessity for a number of works altogether in excess of that which the sum in this Estimate would provide for. I would like to see that item dealt with in the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, and also if he would give us some indication as to what he intends to do with the small sum provided. I would also like some explanation as to why a much larger sum is not forthcoming for work of that kind. I would direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the other matters I have referred to, with particular reference to the item of the fair wages clause, and also to the complaint that the discretion to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred in regard to contracts is not exercised. Complaints have been made to me that in some cases very unsatisfactory contractors have been accepted for certain work, people who insist on paying very small wages and who would not in the ordinary way, on works of much lesser importance, be regarded as competent.

I rather agree with what Deputy Esmonde stated in regard to the division of the new building which it is proposed to erect. It is absolutely right that the Opposition should have their proper rooms in every way and have what they require. It is also, as he says, quite right that the members of the Government Party should have rooms too. As Deputy Esmonde remarked, there is no privacy here for seeing people or for writing letters. You have invariably a large number of people about you. I think that the interests of the Government Party should be considered in that matter. There is also another matter which should be considered. At present we have not very many lady members of the Dáil, but there are some lady members of the Seanad and there is really no provision made for their comfort in any way. I think, as in other assemblies of which ladies are members, there should be reading rooms for them with all necessary accessories. Now that the voting power of the women of the Free State is very considerable, I think that in time to come there will be many more lady members on every side of the House, and I think their interests and comfort should be considered. Nobody will deny that at present that is not the case. I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to that matter.

I am glad to hear that the Barrow works are a success, and that the good effect of the drainage so far is being felt, because that is a thing that is long overdue. It will always stand to the credit of the Government that they tackled a matter which British Government after British Government tried to remedy and failed. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if it is proposed to do a large amount of the work this year, and if in consequence a larger number of people will be employed, and if he could state the approximate time that it is expected to complete the work.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

Under the Parliamentary Secretary's administration there are certain matters in connection with the Shannon development scheme that I would like to refer to. There were lock-keepers employed who came under the control of the Board of Works, and therefore under the control of the Parliamentary Secretary. When the Shannon development was initiated several of these people were thrown out of employment. The compensation given them was very small. In fact it is miserable in some cases. There are two cases that I wish to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary and of the House, and they are, perhaps, as penurious as it will be possible to find under the administration of any department. One is that of a lock-keeper named Magee. He was in the employment of the Board of Works for 27 years as a lock-keeper, his wages being £1 10s. 6d. a week. In addition to being in the employment of the Board for that period as a lock-keeper he was, for five years, on the inspector's boat for navigation purposes. In calculating his allowance these five years were not taken into consideration at all, and the total amount that was given to him was £28 per year. He had to leave his house, which was worth 7/- a week to him. It contained three bedrooms, a parlour and kitchen. He had a free garden and 2½ acres of land, which were rented at 30/- a year. That man is being deprived of everything, perquisites and all, and all that he receives now is £28 a year. Anyone who examines this case will, I think, agree that, at his age, £28 a year will not enable him to keep his family properly. He is certainly not able to go to work. He cannot find work in the district that will suit him. At his age he is not able to take on new employment.

There is another case which is probably worse than the one I have mentioned. It is that of a man named Crowe. He was for 11 years in the employment of the Board of Works as a lock-keeper. He succeeded his father, who was for over 40 years so engaged, and also his grandfather, who held the same employment. His wages were £1 10s. 6d. a week. He had a free house valued at 10/- a week. He rented 26 acres 3 roods and 37 perches of land, the annual rent being £4 10s. It will be agreed, I think, that these were very important emoluments and added materially to his wages. He was obliged to sacrifice all that. As far as he is concerned, everything went. His house is now under water. All that he receives now is £13 a year. Representations have been made to the Parliamentary Secretary with a view to having the sums awarded in these cases commuted to a lump sum, so that the men concerned would have some chance of starting some kind of a business to enable them to earn a livelihood. So far nothing has been done. As a matter of fact, the Department of Finance has turned down the matter entirely. It is important to note that although the houses of these two men were totally destroyed, in the case of other lock-keepers who were given compensation they were left their houses. Not alone were these two men given meagre compensation, but their houses were destroyed. They were told to go and find a house. They are expected to live on a miserable pittance of £13 a year in one case and £28 in the other.

These are cases which the Parliamentary Secretary should surely take into consideration. I think he ought to take steps to see whether the Minister for Finance would, on reconsideration, agree to commute the amounts granted in both cases and give lump sums, so that these people would have a chance of setting up in business, and thereby be enabled to keep their families. It is interesting to note that while these men are unemployed and are suffering great hardship strangers are brought into the district to do the work that they could do. Strangers have been brought in from other counties, counties close by and counties far distant. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter.

I was glad that Deputy Esmonde raised the question of coast erosion. This is a matter of very grave importance to us in Clare. Locally we are certainly not in a position to deal with it. It is wiping away one of the best seaside resorts that we have in the county. It is time that this question was dealt with in a national fashion, time that we knew what this Commission is doing, whether they have held any sittings or paid visits to seaside places in the county, and whether their engineers have made an examination to see if these places can be saved. I never heard, for instance, that the Commission visited Lahinch, where the-sea is biting in at a great rate annually, and threatening to wipe out that pretty health-giving resort.

Regarding drainage schemes, there are several of them that I think the Parliamentary Secretary should take steps to expedite. I cannot join in the eulogistic terms that Deputy Daly employed when speaking on this. Neither can I say that the Board is not doing a good deal of work in this matter of drainage. The Board is doing a great deal of valuable work in that connection, but I think they might take steps to expedite work on a number of schemes that have been under consideration for a long period. Some years ago the Board carried through a number of large schemes, schemes involving large areas, and in connection with these much valuable work was done. I do not, however, know what is the position in regard to maintenance on them. Unless something is done to keep those schemes in proper repair, then all the work and expense incurred in carrying them through some years ago will be lost. Breaches will be made in them here and there, thereby enabling recurrent floods to tear away whole banks and do damage that will cost a lot of money to repair.

I thought Deputy Esmonde might have developed the matter of an improvement in the front of the House and in the lawn Might I make a suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary that from an æsthetic point of view, it might be just as well if he paid some attention to what Deputy Esmonde did say, and that if he did nothing else he might get the Department of Finance to smelt down the object referred to, thereby giving the good lady an opportunity of being of some service to this country which she so consistently despised.

I notice in the Estimate that the amount provided for repairs and maintenance of the Phoenix Park has decreased from £19,410 in 1930-31 to £1,990 for the current year. I must say that the Park is kept in excellent condition. It is a credit to the Board of Works and to the workmen employed there. Some of the footpaths, however, are in a very bad state—some of those in the main, and most frequented, parts of the Park, particularly from the North Circular Road Gate to the Depôt. They are so worn down and full of holes that no one can use them. The result is that all pedestrian traffic is diverted to the main road. On account of the footpaths being in such a condition, people who witness the heavy traffic there is in the Park, fear that some day a serious accident will occur.

There is another matter that I wish to refer to. Some of the trees along the main road are very old and seem to be in danger of falling. I am sure I have only to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this matter, so that he will take steps to see that these old trees are removed. The wood in them would not be much use, I think, except for firewood. It could be distributed amongst the poor through the St. Vincent de Paul Society, and it would do something to relieve their condition during the winter when fuel is so scarce and dear. The condition of the Park, as a whole, is excellent. The People's Gardens are really a credit to any city in the world. They are a marvellous breathing space and playground for the children of the city. I feel sure I have only to mention the matters I have touched on to the Parliamentary Secretary, and that he will do his best to have them rectified.

There are one or two matters to which I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is that some years ago the Post Office authorities acquired some premises in Cork for the purpose of Post Office work. There is a re-vote mentioned in the present Estimate and a number of people in Cork are inquiring when this work will be begun. We do not know what the difficulty is. There may be some question of title, but, at last, there appears to be an amount of doubt as to the causes which have held up this building or buildings. A number of persons in the building industry in the city are at the moment unemployed, and it would be a commendable thing if the Parliamentary Secretary were to expedite this work. We know that the present Post Office in Cork is rather congested from time to time, and we know that there is necessity there for increased facilities and that further space is required. I take it that the Post Office authorities would not have acquired these buildings otherwise, and hence I ask that the work should be expedited as soon as possible.

There is another matter to which I want to refer which might be considered a purely domestic matter. It concerns the engineering staff who are responsible for the heating of these premises and the adjoining premises. As far as I understand the matter, these men appear to be official and yet unofficial. They are not directly employed under the Department but by some contractor, and these men have no recognition from the State in any way. It seems a rather peculiar state of affairs that you have a building such as the one in which we are housed, and the adjoining building, which are the property of the State, and yet the men working in them are not in the State service. They are engaged in the heating of these premises and they undertake very strenuous work in the way of firing, looking after the boiler, and work of that character, which every Deputy will admit is hard and arduous work. Even if they got recognition to the extent even of a fortnight's holidays my complaint would not be so great. They work from year's end to year's end without any holiday whatever. That is a state of affairs that should be immediately remedied. It is no credit to this State that persons engaged on what is after all State service by virtue of their employment, should not have the amenities enjoyed by all other servants of the State.

Another matter to which I want to call attention is that of the derelict coast guard stations in the country. As the Committee is aware, they have been dismantled. Others are in a very bad state of repair, and probably a very large number of them are untenanted. While we have demand in the country for housing I do not see why some of these structures should not be made into dwelling houses. With very little expenditure many of them could be put into a habitable condition. Some of them could be let as boarding houses at the seaside. It would be a useful expenditure on the part of the State to recondition some of these houses and let them at rents that would recoup the State for any expenditure involved in their repair.

Deputy Wolfe referred to some of the amenities which are not enjoyed by the Deputies in this House. He has spoken of the want of proper accommodation for the lady members of the House, and also for Committees appointed for various purposes. We are extremely limited so far as these amenities are concerned.

We of the Labour Party do not complain, but a very short time ago we were evicted out of our own Committee room to make way for the President. We consented to that with a good grace, although we might have claimed to have what is termed squatters' rights, and could have made a good stand, and could probably have resisted a long siege before being dispossessed. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether we should not be able to enjoy the ordinary amenities to be obtained in the ordinary club, and to which we are justly entitled. The fact that the Committee room which we have is not large enough at times to accommodate the members of our own Party when having meetings with other bodies who have interests possibly in common with us, should be remedied by the Department of Public Works. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to supply the information I have asked for on these subjects this evening.

The Public Works Department have, I think, a very long and honourable record in many monuments throughout the country which it has put up and in the substantial work that it has done. In looking over the Estimates for the coming year I do not think that, perhaps, the most pressing things have been put in the forefront. The Deputy who has just sat down referred to the shortcomings of this House, and a large sum of money is proposed to be expended on what are called certain improvements. I am not sure that a case can be made for that in normal circumstances. I think from the debates which we have listened to during the last number of Parliamentary sittings one would not gather that the country had so much superfluous money to spend on this House. I think we are not badly housed at all if we look at the number of rooms in this building and the number of members in the House. Surely with some little adjustment we would not be too badly off at all.

The group to which I belong is lent a room during the time when the Dáil is sitting. We make no complaint. We had not a room to ourselves. I cannot believe there is any great hardship suffered by Deputies in the House, especially when you look round and witness the celerity with which Deputies disappear out of the House at times. There must be some congenial place in the House where people find rest and refreshment and comfort. I do not think the spending of this sum of money on this House is one of the most pressing needs of the day. I think there are other things more pressing in the country, and that this matter could stand over for the present time.

I would like to say a word or two in commendation of this Department. I have visited several places and they are certainly doing useful drainage work, and going ahead with a fair amount of speed. Still, I think there are several schemes which could be undertaken. One in particular was a very burning question, especially during the last couple of elections. It will remain there until there is a prospect of another election. I refer to a scheme which affects Monaghan particularly, and also Cavan. That is the Dromore drainage scheme. I do not like to mention the need for this drainage scheme. Several inspections have been made and a great amount of money has been spent. Inspections do not remedy things. I have been over the area, and it is a disgrace to think that we have a Drainage Act that we are not putting into force there. The rainfall has not been heavy lately, but for miles the land is covered with water. That is not the worst. The farmers are crying out that they cannot put their cattle on meadows for which they are paying annuities and rates. The water is being banked up owing to the floods, and in Ballybay the river washes the sewage back into the town. It is a menace to the health of the people, and I do not think you will find the like of it throughout the Free State. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to speed up the work in that area. There may be a small scheme which would relieve that nuisance I speak of. There is another aspect; throughout the county and the neighbouring counties there are men in receipt of unemployment benefit because there is no work for them. Here is a useful means of employment. In the good weather there is no reason why there should not be a great amount of work done on this river. It could be done economically.

There are a number of other things, but they have been mentioned by other Deputies. Perhaps in speaking about the rooms of the House I should have qualified my statement. If it is a fact that the lady members of this House, and of the other House, have no room, somebody should be moved so that they might have a room right away. In a building of this sort we should be able to find accommodation for them.

One of the objections I have to this Department is that its ideas are far beyond the opportunities of the people. In some of the counties in which I have an interest I have found that the estimates for drainage schemes are entirely out of reach of those responsible. From the ordinary view-point it might appear to be a matter of circumstances. Certain operations would be so expensive that they would be uneconomic. On examining the proposition further, I am forced to the conclusion that the Department might, with very great advantage, adapt itself to the conditions of the areas concerned. In County Leitrim recently we considered whether the County would come under the Drainage Act passed in this House. Of twenty schemes, approximately, which we examined in the county, four were actually recommended by the Department as practicable. That meant that a very large part of the county was denied the possibility of having any drainage schemes carried through, because, in the opinion of the Department's engineers, the work would cost so much as to render the scheme impracticable for the county. If I had not got the experience of a drainage operation in the county, I might be inclined to think the Department was right, but in one of the areas which the Department had inspected, Rinn and the Black River, they estimated £16,000. The engineers of the Department recommend that the work should not be carried out, as it would not be economic. In that area there is a Drainage Board existing by statute, which is bound to carry out certain drainage operations. Their operations are naturally limited, but since the report of the Board of Works engineers was made they had, of necessity, to carry out a minor drainage work. It consisted of one and a half miles of river which, according to the Board of Works engineer, would cost £170. The actual cost to the local authority was £37. The work was satisfactory to all concerned, and it was all that could be desired by the local people whose lands were affected. In view of that I am forced to the conclusion that the Department are operating on too large a scale, and that their ideas are out of keeping with the requirements of the poorer counties. I feel that the Department would do well to arrange its entire system and to adopt methods more in keeping with local requirements.

For a number of years representations have been made regarding an improvement in the Shannon navigation north of Athlone. I put a question to the Minister to-day asking if it was proposed to do anything, but the reply gave no indication of any sincerity on the part of the Department to undertake an investigation of the position. The amount of goods carried north of Athlone is shown by the tolls collected for the year 1929, amounting to £203 14s. 8d., while the expense of maintaining the system for navigation purposes amounted to £904 12s. 11d. As a business transaction, surely that would be considered a bad one. I do not suppose any business institution would stand for its maintenance for any length of time.

If that were the only objection perhaps some argument might be used in favour of its retention, but when we take into consideration that in County Leitrim the retention of the navigation represents the flooding of over 4,000 acres, according to the engineer to the board of health, and that the estimated loss amounts to £13,450 yearly, then one has some difficulty in understanding the mentality of the Department that continues the operation of the system. It shows a lack of business consideration apart from the losses inflicted by this flooding. These figures do not include other counties affected, like Westmeath, Longford, Roscommon and parts of Sligo. In view of these circumstances I think I am quite justified in saying that whatever useful work the Board of Works may be doing in other ways I am not in a position to say anything kindly or good of it in this respect. It would be well if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider that the people affected in these areas have a right to some consideration beyond the stereotyped reply that a Deputy gets when he puts down a question regarding this Department. The officials in the Department may be very kindly disposed and very good, but they are bound by an amount of red tape in the form of statutes dating back hundreds of years. Another aspect of the case is that farmers find themselves compelled to pay drainage rate as a result of which they suffer from increased flooding.

As long as the Shannon is maintained at its present level no expenditure in the way of drainage can have an effect other than to increase the flooding on a section of the people living close to the river. That section has a right to consideration in a practical form, and they insist on some relief being given to them. If the Parliamentary Secretary by some means could destroy all the parchments that tie his hands and that regulate these matters he would really be conferring a service on the community. A navigation system that dates back for centuries may be of historical value, but for practical purposes its retention should not be tolerated by a modern department. After the remarks that were made by a Deputy on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches dealing with the improvement of Leinster Lawn, and spending money there, I hold that a far more useful purpose could be served by the Department bringing itself up to date and dealing with problems of drainage, as they affect the bread and butter of the people down the country. It may be a very good thing to suggest expenditure on Committee rooms for the Opposition —and I presume the Parliamentary Secretary was thinking of their value as a result of the coming General Election—but I suggest to the Department that the money is required for other purposes, and that this Department should make itself a useful asset to the State. This Department insist on retaining a service in the form of navigation that is being run at an annual loss of practically £700, and at the same time results in the flooding of 4,000 acres. That is a proposal that does not appeal to me for a vote of confidence. I feel that I am justified in taking the stand I am taking until this Department loosens itself from the ties and from statutes that have influenced it since the time of Queen Elizabeth. Until it does so, it will be my duty to vote against this expenditure. As far as I know it is not a useful Department. I take this opportunity of making this protest, and I will vote against any money being spent on it.

I notice that £100,000 is being voted for building and enlarging national schools. That is a very substantial sum. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain, if he can, why there is such great delay in making grants to responsible persons for the building of schools. Complaints are very general from managers that although they have complied with all the necessary requirements, they cannot get the money released to go on with the work. While I feel that this matter would be, perhaps, more properly raised on the Vote for the Minister for Education. I think it right to mention it now.

As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, when the Ministry of Education are asked what is the cause of the delay they are not beyond saying that the delay rests with the Board of Works. I am, therefore, giving the Minister an opportunity of saying what exactly is the position with regard to the grants and what is the cause of the delay. We have been told quite recently, in fact, since the 1st April, that there was no money available at the moment. I do not know whether it is that they were waiting for this Vote to be passed. I do not think that is the reason because some money was voted on account.

Then there is a type of case where more than the ordinary two-thirds grant is being given. It appears that there is some special sum named beyond which grants will not be given. When that sum is exceeded no grants will be given. That is a mystery to most people. Nobody knows anything about it until the particular case crops up and then the applicant is told that the amount of money available for these special cases has been exceeded. Nobody knows how the amount of money is arrived at. I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister, the necessity for revising these regulations for the giving of grants for school buildings. There are no statutory regulations tying the hands of the Minister in this matter. While it might have been right and proper at some period that the locality would be expected to find one-third of the amount necessary to build a school, it does not at all hold that it is equally right and proper now. In fact, it is the general opinion of those who are responsible for building schools that in the vast majority of cases the two-thirds grant from the Department is not sufficient in present circumstances and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to raise the balance of one-third to put up a new school building. There are very strong arguments in favour of granting the whole or a very much greater proportion of the amount necessary to build a school. I do hope that the Minister will tell us what exactly is the reason for the delay in a great many cases in regard to school buildings.

I see on page 53, where grants are made for arterial drainage that while there are several districts mentioned in the Estimates there is no mention whatsoever of the Robe drainage. That omission leads me to believe that there is no money to be expended on the Robe drainage this year. I have asked questions and other Mayo Deputies have asked questions from time to time, with regard to the position of this drainage scheme that has been talked about as long as I can remember. Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to say how the matter stands now or what progress, if any, has been made? Can he say how soon the work on this scheme can be commenced? I think we had promises from time to time, not entirely official promises, that the work would be commenced inside three months. These three months have long passed.

There was, at least, I think, a hint in some of the Minister's most recent answers in this matter that the delay lay with the county council. The Government have removed that obstacle, so they cannot any longer say that the blame rests with the Mayo County Council. I would like to know what has been done and when the work is to be commenced. Quite a number of young labouring men go from that district to England and Scotland at this time of the year—from now on until June. These men are anxious to know if work on the Robe drainage is to be commenced this season. That knowledge would help them to decide whether they are to go to seek work in England and Scotland or to wait for the work at home. I need not urge, I am sure, the necessity for getting on with this work. The importance of the work is accepted by everybody. What I want to know is what is the position, and whether it is likely that the work will be commenced this season. If the Minister makes a statement it will help a great many of these men to decide whether it would be possible for them to get work on the Robe drainage or seek work in England or Scotland.

To-day I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question in connection with the building of a school in Rosslare in my constituency. I was surprised to hear that the Board of Works recommended to the manager of the school that the second lowest tender for the building of that school should be accepted. I think the House will agree with me that that is a system over which no self-respecting Department would stand. I could understand that attitude being taken if the firm which had the lowest tender on this occasion were a firm of mushroom growth. But the firm that sent in the lowest tender in this instance had been established in the town of Wexford for fifty years. I refer to the firm of O'Connor and Company. They have built up a large business in Wexford and amongst the contracts taken by them was that for the building of the Convent of Perpetual Adoration, Loretto College and Saint John of God's Convent. They have also built additions to the two principal churches in Wexford. If they were good enough for that I cannot understand why the Board of Works did not think them sufficiently well qualified to build a small national school in Rosslare. The action of the Board of Works on the present occasion is a thing that the Ministry could not reasonably stand over. I do not think it is fair to the contractor or fair to the school manager or fair to the tax-paying community. When a firm of reputation, such as the one about which I have told the House, gives a lower tender than another I believe that tender should be accepted. Doing anything else than that is a form of patronage which I cannot understand, and I would like to hear a more lucid explanation than the Parliamentary Secretary gave at question time.

The question of coast erosion has been raised by other Deputies. We have had a Commission sitting on this question for two or three years, and the country would be now entitled to know what is the policy of the Government so far as coast erosion is concerned. So far as one can see it is merely a question of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. For the last two or three winters, from Waterford along the eastern coast right up to Greystones, there has been grave coast erosion. In my constituency, in Rosslare, a great deal of damage has been done. Part of the public roadway has been taken away within the last winter. Surely we are entitled to expect now some result from the deliberations of that Commission. That ought to be made known to the Dáil and to the public generally. The people are beginning to think, and I fear with some degree of accuracy, that when a Government wants to shelve a question the method is to appoint a Commission. That has certainly been proved true in the case of two or three matters in this country recently. I think the people are entitled to know what is the policy of the Government on this question of coast erosion.

Part of the money contained in this Vote is for dredging. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he thinks, in view of the demand made upon the Board of Works by different harbour boards in the State, that he has sufficient plant at his disposal. Has he made any representation to the Minister for Finance with a view to getting more plant? I know that in two or three cases where applications have been made to the Board of Works by harbour boards in the Free State for the use of a dredger on hire, the Board of Works were not in a position to grant the facilities asked for within a certain period, with the result that the harbours in question have been allowed to shoal up. In the case of a tidal harbour, such as Wexford, there are only certain months of the year in which dredging can be done, and invariably it happens that the dredger is available for Wexford two or three months after it has been asked for, with the result that the work cannot be done in the time at their disposal. I do believe, even though a great many of the harbours in this country are not directly under State control, that a greater effort should be made by the Board of Works to provide facilities for these harbours, especially tidal harbours. Some of the seaport towns in this country are making earnest efforts at the moment to develop their trade, and I must say that there has been very little help from Government Departments. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he considers the facilities at his disposal for meeting the requests of the various harbour boards are sufficient. I submit that it is his duty if he finds they are not sufficient to make representations to the Minister for Finance with a view to providing greater facilities.

Some time ago I put down a question as to the advisability of providing Castlebridge, Co. Wexford, with a new Gárda barracks. The position there is undoubtedly very bad. The barrack has been condemned quite a long time by the sanitary officer, who has stated that it is a menace to the public health. I was told on that occasion that it was proposed to build a new barracks. I notice on the Estimate that while it is suggested that the cost would be £1,500 there is only included in this Vote a sum of £200 as a token provision. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that a token provision of that kind will be a long time making a Civic Guard barracks sanitary. I do believe that matters of this kind should not be shelved as they have been done by the Parliamentary Secretary's Department. This place is a standing disgrace in the particular locality in which it is, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make an honest endeavour to have that particular job proceeded with this year.

I do not think there is anything else I want to refer to; the ground has been covered pretty well, but I certainly would insist on an answer so far as the giving of the contract for the Rosslare National School is concerned as to why a tender other than the lowest tender was accepted. I certainly think we should get a more satisfactory answer on that point.

My experience of the Board of Works in respect of arterial drainage has not been very pleasant. Inspectors and engineers went to a good deal of trouble in our county some years ago, and they submitted proposals to the county council. The proposed contribution of the Board of Works was considered generous at the time but the proposed work was turned down by the county council, with the result that the people affected suffered considerably through the flooding of their land and through the loss of the money they were getting in the shape of a free grant, which would have been spent to their benefit and the benefit of the workmen in the district. Having regard to what occurred on that occasion, I think it is useless for the Board of Works to proceed to deal with arterial drainage under the present system. I think that they ought to take the initiative, and when they find that work is necessary do it and allocate the sum that the people benefited would have to pay. I do not see any other way of dealing with it, because in the county council you have representatives of north, south, east and west, and a scheme that will only benefit one part of the county will not be supported by representatives from the rest of the county. Under such circumstances I think the Board of Works should carry out such works in the interests of the people affected and for the national benefit.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair].

There is another matter of very great importance that I wish to refer to. It has to do with the Shannon in North Longford, portion of Roscommon and South Leitrim. Unfortunately, this Vote has come more or less like the car before the horse. For a considerable number of years much attention has not been paid to the Shannon. Silt has collected before a number of arches to such an extent as to form islands, and the passage of the water is retarded. I certainly think the Board of Works should pay attention to that matter. Attention should also be paid to the locks and canals generally. The lock gates are of a rigid type. They are there for the purpose of holding water for the service of boats. I think these gates should be removed entirely and a gate installed that could be manipulated with ease. If the water rises to any considerable extent before those gates, they cannot be opened at all. In such a case as that, when you have flooding in an area, the gates must remain so closed until the water subsides.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to send some engineers down in order to consult with the people who are complaining about the flooding of their lands. The old method of dealing with floods should not be allowed to continue. At the present time the lands there are flooded to such an extent as to leave them of little or no value to the community. It is an important thing that engineers from the Department should inspect those places. They would be able to form a definite opinion as to the cause of flooding, and they could consult with the people. In this manner a scheme might be arranged which would dispose of the existing menace. The people should not be allowed to suffer such losses year after year. For the last 30 years the people have been suffering, and the flooding, I may say, is getting worse every year. The trouble is primarily due to neglect—want of regular attention to the Shannon in general. I trust that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will look at this matter from the point of view of the people who are, at the moment, suffering very severely. To remedy the condition of things down there may involve a good deal of expense, but the people, who live mainly by farming, cannot be expected to continue to suffer heavy losses.

I am surprised that no provision has been made in the Estimates to deal with coast erosion. There is no constituency in the Twenty-six Counties that has suffered more damage through coast erosion than Wicklow. I recognise that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Works engineers have given us every sympathy, and they have assisted us financially by way of a small grant for relief work. I certainly admit that very good work has been accomplished under that small grant. However, if the local bodies do not receive a further substantial grant, it will be difficult to prevent additional damage being done during the coming winter. I will make a special appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, now that his engineers are there, and now that men are actually engaged on constructing protection works with the object of preventing further damage, to request the Executive Council to give us a further grant. The local bodies have spent some thousands of pounds, and they are unable to give anything further by reason of existing depression, unemployment and high rates. We believe it is the duty of the State to prevent serious damage being done. Such damage is bound to have an effect on the towns and on the business people and others. If adequate protection is not afforded, it will mean a loss to the harbour, and that will reflect on trade and there will be further unemployment.

With regard to the dredger, there are complaints from some of the harbour boards in my constituency. Their finances are limited, and while they appreciate the privilege of having the dredger, they are forced to pay for the use of the dredger from the date it leaves the port in Dublin until it returns. They have to pay actually for the day when the dredger is anchored, but not working, in the harbour. I think that the harbour board should be asked to pay only for the actual working days in each area. The harbour boards should have some control over the dredger as to the particular place where it should work, and the amount of work that should be done in each area. It is a great hardship on harbour boards with limited finances to have to pay for the use of the dredger over a period of a week when really only one day's work would be done. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will make some effort to relieve the harbour boards of liability in these circumstances. The boards are quite willing to pay for the dredger on the days on which it is actually working in their areas. It is possible that this matter has not been drawn to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary before. Now that work is proceeding in Wicklow in connection with coast erosion, I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will endeavour to give a further grant so that additional good work may be done in that area.

I would like to refer to one river in Roscommon, the Hind. The drainage of the Hind was carried out about four or five years ago at a time when an election was on. If the work had been as satisfactory as the people expected, they would not raise any objection to paying for it, but most of the people living in the Hind river drainage area complain that instead of there being an improvement, the land is flooded worse than ever. Undoubtedly near the town of Roscommon the land has been drained all right, but the people near the Shannon end have suffered very much. It is a scandalous thing to ask them to pay for an alleged improvement. The fact of the matter is that there was no improvement at all made on their lands by the drainage work that was carried out. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to have the place inspected again.

As far as I know, the procedure of the Department of Public Works is that they estimate what the improvement is likely to be and they ask the farmers to pay on that estimate. If, instead of an improvement being effected, there is more flooding, then it is very hard to ask people to pay. I was in this particular district last Sunday and I met a lot of people who live along the drainage area. They complained to me that since the work was carried out the flooding has been much worse. I do not know whether they are correct in saying that the work was started at the wrong end and was not completed towards the Shannon end; they told me the work was carried out more at the source of the river and it was not finished towards the Shannon side. That may be the case. In all these cases I suggest there should be an examination to ascertain whether the estimated improvement has taken place before the people are asked to pay for the work done.

I am glad to see Deputy Connolly helping us out in regard to the Shannon question. I know the position in North Roscommon and in Longford and Leitrim. After the Deputy's speech I need say nothing more on the Shannon question. I think we may expect good results.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate whether the Department of Public Works intends to carry out the promise given to me some time ago regarding the drainage of the River Robe. This matter goes back, probably, for over one hundred years. Some time ago I was shown a cutting of a newspaper containing a speech made by the late George Henry Moore in 1864 in which he referred to the drainage of the Robe. The Parliamentary Secretary made many statements in the House regarding the drainage of the Robe and some of the Cumann na nGaedheal representatives from Mayo have gone to South Mayo and made definite statements that the work was going to be carried out. I presume they made those statements because they had guarantees from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.

With regard to Deputy O'Connell's remarks about the county council, I can assure him—and he must be already aware of it—that the guarantee from the Mayo County Council, in respect of the carrying out of that work, was given eighteen months ago. The county council were asked to guarantee a sum of £6,000. They gave that guarantee, regardless of party. It was given under the impression that the work would be carried out immediately. I understand the survey of the drainage area was undertaken but we have heard nothing about it since and no drainage work has been carried out in the area. Undoubtedly this is a big grievance in Co. Mayo and the overflowing of the Robe results in damage to the extent of thousands of pounds every year.

That is quite well known to everybody. It is well known to the Department of Public Works. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, to state definitely whether they have completely abandoned this scheme or whether they intend to make a start in the immediate future. I would also ask him whether his Department has considered and finally given their decision regarding the making of an additional grant towards a drainage scheme carried out in what was known as the Sauleen drainage area in the Castlebar district. I have spoken to the Parliamentary Secretary regarding this matter. He is aware that the cost of this scheme presses heavily on a lot of small land holders, many of whose valuations do not exceed £3. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would say whether anything could be done towards their relief by the making of a further grant in aid of this scheme. I should also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why it has been considered necessary to build a new Civic Guard barracks in Ballyglass area, and if it is the intention to establish an additional Civic Guard station there, seeing that already the Civic Guards are living only about one and a quarter miles from the barracks now being built. Is it the intention that the Guards who are at present stationed about one and a quarter miles from there are to be removed to the new barracks, or are these additional barracks? If so, what is the necessity for this additional expense? I would again impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the urgency of the necessity for draining the Robe. I would like if he would state whether his Department have any sincere intention of carrying out the work, or whether it is to be treated as it was in the past. When I went to the offices of the Department to inquire about it it appeared to me to be treated as a standing joke. I should like to know whether the matter is to be attended to seriously in the future.

I notice in the Estimate an item for the care and upkeep of war graves. I have no objection to spending money on the upkeep of war graves. There is an old saying that nobody should speak ill of the dead, no matter who they are. That is a good saying. I am not objecting to the care of the graves as such, but I do consider it rather contradictory that, in a country like this, it should be left to a few private individuals in this city, for instance, to form what is called a National Graves Association, and that they should have to go round begging and sending out circulars to raise the necessary funds for the care of what we consider the national graves of this country. I consider it rather contradictory that a sum like this should be provided in our Estimates year after year when no sum is provided for the care of graves that can really be considered national, not only in Glasnevin Cemetery but in cemeteries throughout the country.

There is scarcely a graveyard in the country where you will not find the grave of some veteran who took part, perhaps, in the land agitation or the Fenian movement or some of the older movements, or in which you will not find the grave of a man who took part in the struggles of our own time. Recently, a friend from a foreign country asked me to bring him to St. Michan's churchyard in this city. I saw there where the bodies of the brothers Sheares are lying. Certainly the condition of affairs there is not one that any Irishman can be proud of. I am given to understand that since the great Dr. Madden, the historian of '98, thought it worth his while to euclose the remains of the brothers in a coffin, nothing has been done. I had also a few years ago occasion to visit the grave of a man from my own place who was imprisoned in Mountjoy, where he was serving a ten years' sentence for assisting the cause of his country. Within a fortnight of his release he died, because of the prolonged imprisonment. I paid several visits to Glasnevin before I could find his grave. It is only since the founding of the National Graves' Association that any man working in the cemetery can point out the grave of that man. That is the objection I have to this sum. While such a state of things exists regarding the national graves of this nation, I do not see why we should be asked to provide an annual sum for the upkeep of graves that are certainly not national. I, for one, enter my protest against any such practice in the future.

I rise to get some information from the Parliamentary Secretary on some of the sub-heads in this Vote. I notice that under sub-heads C and D the Department of Public Works purchase a considerable amount of supplies—to the extent of about £220,000. I desire to know whether these purchases are made, in the first place, by means of tenders open to the public. If so, are these tenders dealt with by a committee of the Department or by a public committee similar to that which deals with tenders, say, in the trade department of the Local Government Department? A considerable sum is being voted for works of various kinds. I would like that the Dáil should have more time to deal with the large number of sub-heads than it has. As regards dredging, to which other Deputies have alluded, I think that dredging is a very extravagant item and, if I may say so, uneconomic. I think that some of our port authorities in the Saorstát are coming to the conclusion that dredging is uneconomic. I was wondering whether the Department had considered the giving of this dredging to some contractor, whether within the country or without. A contractor would, I think, do the work at a considerably lower price than is set forth in this Vote.

A previous Deputy referred to this Vote of £25,000 for British military graves. I am glad he did. This matter has been getting so much political advertisement recently that I would like that the Parliamentary Secretary should give the Dáil a very lucid statement on the whole question and set our minds at case.

There is an item in the Vote referring to Dun Laoghaire harbour. An annual sum of £20,000 is voted for the upkeep and maintenance of Dun Laoghaire harbour. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say if that Vote is to continue interminably?

£20,000 seems to be a very big sum for the taxpayers to devote to that particular harbour. I think that it is 120 years since that Act was passed. I understand that a considerable amount of business is being done by vessels using that harbour. Surely they pay harbour dues, berthage dues, or some other form of dues when using the harbour that would reduce the amount of this Vote. In all the ports with which I am acquainted there are such dues as tonnage dues, berthage dues, and so forth, in order to relieve the port authorities and give them some revenue to maintain the port. Am I to understand that the vessels using Dun Laoghaire harbour do not contribute anything to the maintenance of that port and that the taxpayer has to provide annually a sum of £20,000 for its upkeep?

In connection with this rather extraordinary Estimate I hope before the Parliamentary Secretary replies that we will hear something from Deputy Heffernan, Chairman of the Economy Committee. The total amount of this Vote is £678,000, and of that I find that £356,000 is being spent in Dublin and the balance, £322,000, throughout the rest of the country. It is difficult on coming to Dublin and seeing the fine buildings which it contains to ascertain where room will be found for more of them in order that £356,000 may be spent in that direction. Compare that sum with the £51,000 voted for drainage purposes. £356,000 for building places in Dublin and £51,000 for the farming community throughout the country. The more we consider the Estimate the more faults we have to find with it.

In connection with the various housing schemes and housing grants we frequently hear comments here about the scarcity of money, yet we have a sum of £29,200 provided for supplying easy couches for sleepy Deputies. I am well aware that when Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies are not allowed to speak here they must have somewhere to slumber out their leisure hours until the division bell calls them. That sum would be better spent in providing accommodation for some of the families who live in one-roomed tenements in Dublin and other places in the country than in spending it on supplying better accommodation for tongue-tied Deputies on the opposite benches.

I notice also that we intend spending £10,000 in the restoration of Civic Guard barracks in Cork city. I think that the Guards there have more accommodation than they need. I know some stations there where there are fifteen or sixteen rooms for thirteen men. That ought to be sufficient without building a new mansion costing £10,000 this year, and an additional £6,000 next year, or some future year. That money is more badly needed by the unfortunate workmen of Cork for new houses, and if it were spent in that way it would give far more satisfaction. In my constituency, a sum of £1,500 is provided for the building of a new barrack in Whitegate. I think that Deputy Hennessy hit the nail on the head when he asked how tenders for these barracks were received. I know that within the last twelve months we required a doctor's residence at Whitegate, and we secured a beautiful house standing in its own grounds, with five acres of freehold, for £700, within a quarter of a mile of Whitegate. If the South Cork Board of Assistance could purchase a residence of that kind for a doctor, with room for a dispensary attached, for £700, surely a barrack to house four or five Civic Guards could be secured from any of the seven residences which we were offered there without spending £1,500 on building barracks or rather on buckshee for the contractors, because that, I think, is what it means.

For the Governor-General's establishment we have £7,000 provided for maintenance and supplies. Does all that go in food for the Governor-General or is some of it going in extra buildings to house an increasing family or anything like that? We are paying £4,150 for fuel, light, cleaning and water. I think that a gentleman with a salary of £10,000 a year could surely afford to pay someone to clean his house without having to provide in this Estimate a sum of £4,150 for that purpose. I think that is absurd for a country like this. Then we have a sum of £1,000 for new furniture. I wonder is the grand piano included in that. The more we look into this Estimate the more extraordinary it seems. There should be no occasion to spend £9,450 on providing fuel, light, furniture, maintenance and supplies for a gentleman with a salary of £10,000 a year. Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that we have turned yet another corner? I consider that this Estimate is nothing more or less than a scandal. I do not wish to allude to it, as Deputy Walsh has already mentioned the matter, but in regard to this sum of £25,000 for the erection of headstones for the British military, I would like to know where these stones are being purchased. On Monday last at a meeting of the Cork County Board of Health we had an application from this Department for permission to erect these headstones over different graves. Permission was granted on condition that the headstones were purchased in Cork.

Who proposed that permission be given?

I am not a member of the Cork Board.

You are a member of the South Cork Board of Assistance. Who proposed to give them permission?

Hear, hear.

Considering that the money has been passed by the Dáil, a sum of £25,000 for headstones for British military out of the taxpayers pockets, I thought that certainly they should get permission to erect them on condition that they were purchased in Cork. I would like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply as to where these headstones are being bought. Is it a fact that the headstones are being purchased outside the country, and that we are actually paying the British for headstones to put over their own men? I would like to hear that explained by the Parliamentary Secretary. I have looked carefully through the Estimates and I have found no sum to provide for the care and maintenance of the graves of Irishmen who were executed by those British military and whose bodies still lie in Cork jail. I have seen no provision made in the Estimate for the care and maintenance of those graves. I would like some statement from the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply on that matter. If we are so generous that we can afford to give £25,000 for headstones for those who shot them, surely we can afford something for headstones or for the care and maintenance of those graves. I consider that this whole Estimate expresses the minds of those who unfortunately rule the Twenty-Six Counties at present. We see that that mind is centred here in Dublin City and cannot by any possible means be got into the country, the mind of those who spend £356,000 in Dublin City out of an Estimate of £678,000. I think that speaks for itself, for the mind of those people who spend this £356,000 on buildings and all the rest of it here, and who spend only £51,000 for drainage for farmers in the whole Twenty-Six Counties.

As I stated at the commencement, before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I would like to hear some statement from Deputy Heffernan and his Economy Committee. He is Chairman of the Economy Committee. He was put in charge of it by the Farmers' Party, and he has occupied that position for the last three or four years, but we have not heard a single word of economy since. This is a special field where his services would be very much appreciated, and I would like to hear something of his economy on this particular Vote.

Mr. Bourke

Deputy Derrig criticised the high expenditure of the Department, and asked why a reduction is not made in salaries, etc., and in the cost of the staff. As the Deputy will see by the programme of works which we have in hand, there has been little or no decrease in the amount of work which we are doing at the present time, and accordingly we are not able to reduce the Estimate. We expect later on, perhaps next year or the year afterwards, if no new works are undertaken, to be able to reduce the staff accordingly. At the present time we have many new works, Gárda Síochána barracks, new schools, etc., in hand; and there is no justification for any reduction in the staff or the expenditure thereon. The Deputy dealt in particular with the Land Loans section, and he asked why, now that the Agricultural Credit Corporation had taken over most of our duties, we are incurring any expenditure under this head. At the present time we are dealing with all cases under £20 valuation. Accordingly, while our expenditure has been considerably decreased we have still to keep up a considerable staff for dealing with land loan work under this section. The Deputy also referred to the work on Gárda Síochána barracks, and thought that our expenditure in this connection was unnecessary. I consider that this is one of the most necessary things with which we have to deal in the country at present, and one that has to be dealt with very expeditiously. The Deputy also referred to the decrease in the amount for drainage maintenance. That £1,000 is not much more than a token Vote. We do not expect to do anything under the Drainage Maintenance Act. We have practically completed all the work which it is possible to do under that Act. We had intended to do some work on the Corrib, and we were making available a grant of £10,000 for that purpose, but the Galway County Council refused to go ahead with the scheme, and there the matter drops. As far as we were concerned, we were quite willing to go ahead.

Deputy Cassidy dealt with the works in Buncrana, and he said that there was some objection taken locally to the fact that we started without any plans. The scheme in Buncrana was a bit rushed in the beginning in order to give employment. On the representations of Deputy Cassidy and other Deputies, we decided to proceed with certain works that we knew would be required before the plans were completed. The plans are completed now, and the Engineer has satisfied the local council on all questions raised. The Deputy also raised a point about grants for certain harbours. We only give grants for harbours which are vested in the Office of Public Works. It would be much too big an undertaking to take charge of all the harbours in the country. Some Deputy made a remark about the statues on the Custom House. The Custom House is one of the great ornaments of the city. It is an architectural masterpiece of its kind. It is famous all over the world, and, I think, for the sake of the expenditure of a couple of thousand pounds, it would be a pity not to restore it to its original condition.

Deputy Esmonde expressed the view that it was the duty of the Board of Works to provide extra space in the Dáil for Government Deputies. That is a matter for the Deputies themselves. The function of the Board of Works is to carry out the instructions given to it. If Deputies feel that there is any lack of accommodation, then it is their duty to make representations, and if instructions are conveyed to the Board of Works we will be only too willing to carry them out.

What about excess of accommodation?

Mr. Bourke

I suppose the Deputy requires a room for himself. Deputy Murphy raised a point about the fair wages clause. We insist on that in all our contracts. In several cases where it was not observed we dealt with the contractors and insisted on their carrying out the undertaking with reference to it. Deputy Maguire seems to think that in the carrying out of our drainage policy we are inclined to proceed on too grandiose a line. As I mentioned before, if the local people were satisfied to carry out these drainage schemes the work could be done much cheaper. Anything we do in that line has to approach very near perfection. When our work is executed it is examined with a microscope by the local people charged with the benefits accruing to their lands, and if any individual thinks his land is not benefited to the extent that he has been assessed we hear all about it. Deputy Boland gave us the opposite side of the case. He complained that people in his area have objected to what they are being charged for the carrying out of these schemes. I may say that has been our experience all over the country.

People clamour for drainage schemes to be carried out. While the work is in course of execution they are in ecstasies as to how it is being done, but when completed and the charge goes on them then we hear from them that their land has not benefited at all, and in some cases they complain that it has actually suffered as a result of the operations we have carried out. The Deputy also referred to the question of navigation on the Shannon. He seemed to consider that in our attempts to maintain the navigation we were keeping the country in that particular area flooded. He referred to the old Tarmonbarry problem. As I mentioned before, the lowering of the weir there would not really benefit the district. The difficulty there is the lack of cut, which is hewn from solid rock. The cut is too narrow, and would not take away the water no matter how much the weir was lowered. The cost of cutting through the rock would be so heavy as to make the undertaking hopelessly uneconomic for the farmers.

The Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with the lack of cut south of Tarmonbarry weir, but the flooding that I refer to is north of Tarmonbarry weir. There is an obstruction of eight feet, and it is that that is responsible for the flooding in the area that I have been speaking about.

Mr. Bourke

Our engineers have reported that without doing something to deal with the lack of cut no benefit would result from any lowering of the weir. With regard to the point raised by Deputy O'Connell, I am not aware of any undue delay in the building of national schools. We pay out the grant according as the work is done. No case has been brought to my notice at any time of undue delay in this matter. If there is any delay it may be that the Department of Education, for other reasons, are holding up these schemes. With regard to the River Robe, Deputy Walsh told us that the drainage of this river has been on the tapis for over a hundred years. That being so, I do not see why Deputies should be anxious that it should be rushed in a few months. The original delay in that case arose from the fact that it was not possible to get Galway and Mayo County Councils to submit proposals to us. In order to carry out a complete scheme on the Robe it is necessary that Galway should petition as well as Mayo. Galway has refused to petition. The position there is that we cannot go ahead with a complete scheme because Galway has refused to co-operate. We have made a thorough investigation of the area. At present, we are held up owing to a legal difficulty as to whether or not we have the right to lower the level of the waters in Lough Mask. There are various other matters too that have to be dealt with in detail before the scheme can go through. Personally, I do not think we will be able to put the scheme in operation this year. I will be very much surprised, however, if we cannot make a start next spring or next summer.

Deputy Corish raised a question with regard to a tender for the building of a national school in the County Wexford. As I have said we did not accept the lowest tender. We accepted the second lowest tender. The difference between the two was only £2. As I explained we are not in the position of deciding whether a tender will be accepted or not. We are in the position that we merely give advice to the local manager. We advised him that, in our opinion, the second offer was the better one. We have had experience of the work carried out by this man. He has always given satisfaction. From our knowledge, we did not consider the other man fit for doing work of this nature. If the local manager wishes to disregard the advice we have given to him he can do so.

If he has sense he will.

Mr. Bourke

The question of coast erosion was also raised. I believe that the Commission considering that question have reported to the Minister for Local Government. It is a matter for the Minister for Local Government and not for my Department. Our concern will be to carry out any recommendations that may be decided on, but we have no other functions in the matter.

Deputy Hogan referred to the lock-keepers on the Shannon. Those lock-keepers have been pensioned on the same basis as the others, but they have of course received different annuities. James Good has £21, John Magee £28, Simon McEvoy £33, John Crowe £13, David Madden £33, Michael Hackett £33, Patrick Gully £30. In the case of John Ryan, who had less than six years service, a gratuity of £33 was awarded him. The pensions were calculated as follows:— Wages, 13s. per week; value of house and lands, 4s. 3d. per week; bonus on above, 13s. 1d. per week; total, 34s. 4d., multiplied by years of service. That is the basis on which they were pensioned; it is the usual basis, and we could make no distinction between them. There are, I realise, in these certain cases of hardship, but it is an old principle that hard cases make bad laws, and we cannot legislate for every individual.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

I might point out that even on the Parliamentary Secretary's own figures it would seem that in the actual calculation there is some kind of discrimination, because some of these people got £30, while retaining their houses, which is certainly a very great thing for an ex-lock keeper. In the case of Magee and Crowe, all their perquisites and wages have gone, and in the matter of Crowe he, after a number of years and following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, only got £13 to live upon in Killaloe; that is certainly something blue to look forward to. In the other case the man got only £28. It certainly, at first glance, seems as if there was discrimination in connection with these men; whether that is so or not, I cannot say. I do not know.

Mr. Bourke

The matter was put before the Minister for Finance, and he went very carefully into it. I do not think there would be any good in again putting the matter before him.

May I ask the Minister if I am to infer from his statement in connection with the acceptance of the tender for Rosslare, that it is not mandatory on the manager to accept the recommendation of the Board of Works, but that he can decide for himself?

Mr. Bourke

That is so.

The Parliamentary Secretary did not give us any idea of the policy of the Board on the matter of coast erosion.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that the condition of the flooding on the northern portion of the Shannon would be looked into by the Department and be remedied?

Mr. Bourke

We have looked into it, and we are looking into it. It is a very complicated matter. We cannot take any action upon that matter without consultation with the Department of Industry and Commerce in view of the operations likely to take place under the Shannon scheme.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary state if he has had any representations made to him in connection with the drainage of the Blackwater in the Co. Meath?

Mr. Bourke

I forget just at the moment how that stands.

Mr. O'Reilly

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us something about the way in which work under the Ancient Monuments Act is progressing?

Mr. Bourke

The Ancient Monuments Body has only very lately been brought together. The first meeting of the Council was called by the Commissioners for the 10th September, 1930, and was duly held, the members being received and welcomed by the Commissioners. Professor Macalister was unanimously elected as chairman, but I think the Deputy knows all that. Consideration has been given to the preparation of a list of monuments of interest and importance which, in the Council's opinion, are worthy of preservation, and some progress has been made with it. The Council has put forward the considered opinion that a monumental survey of the whole country is a work of great importance and necessity, and has submitted a draft scheme supported by recommendations and a report upon what is being done in other countries in this way for the Minister's consideration. There are proposals for the encouragement of the public interest in ancient monuments and their protection and preservation. This body has only been called into being for a very short time, and we cannot expect much results for some time to come. They are preparing the ground for work later on.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary take any steps to have those dilapidated signboards removed or replaced?

Mr. Bourke

That is a matter for the Council, and I shall bring it before them.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary state when the work on the buildings acquired by the Post Office in Cork will begin? That was one of the questions I asked this afternoon.

On that I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary in what manner are the contracts placed? Are they advertised for public tender in the public Press?

Mr. Bourke

Yes, they are advertised. I expect the work of the Cork Post Office will begin this year.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary confident that the works undertaken are always offered for tender to the public and that they are advertised in the usual way in the Press?

Mr. Bourke

Practically all those over £500 except in very exceptional cases, as for example in the case of the improvements in the Dáil last year we had to accept a contract without tender in order to get the work done in time.

With regard to works under £500, how do the Department get tenders? How do they give the contracts for works under £500 other than by tenders?

Mr. Bourke

We have a certain list of contractors to carry out these works.

Are these contractors selected by the Parliamentary Secretary or his Department?

Mr. Bourke

By the Department.

On what basis?

Mr. Bourke

On the basis of continually doing the work and giving satisfaction.

In that way the Department will have but a very limited number to select from so that he is not offering the work out to ordinary competition as his Department should do.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary say if the preservation of the fair wages clause in contracts is insisted on? My information is to the contrary in some cases. Do the engineering staff of the Department make sure that the fair wages clause is observed or do they wait until complaints reach the Department that the clause is not observed?

Mr. Bourke

Usually we have to wait for complaints.

Are the names of contractors that the Board of Works gets to do these works under £500, published? Is the list available for Deputies in any printed document?

Mr. Bourke

I am sure if the Deputy asked for it he would get it.

Is it a public or a private list?

Mr. Bourke

A private list.

It will be laid on the Table of the House, if asked for?

Mr. Bourke

I do not think there is any objection to giving it.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is general dissatisfaction in the country at the manner in which contracts under £500 are given away? It is the general belief that it is arranged that certain contractors put in particular tenders. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say how the price of these works is arrived at? Is it on the prices fixed by contractors the contracts are given away?

Mr. Bourke

I am not aware of anything of the kind. That is the first time I heard it.

What is the objection to having all contracts given by tender whether under or over £500? Will that be the policy in future?

Mr. Bourke

There is the expense of advertising and the loss of time.

Am I to understand that the Department has dropped the idea of immediately carrying out the drainage scheme on the River Robe? Would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider the question of putting in a qualification with regard to the guarantee from Galway County Council? Is he aware that Galway is going to be concerned in the scheme only to the extent of 200 or 300 acres on the side of a mountain at the end of Lough Mask, and that the county will not be affected by the drainage at all? Will the Parliamentary Secretary express any hope of the scheme being carried out in a reasonable time?

Mr. Bourke

We are going ahead with this scheme irrespective of County Galway. I cannot say when the scheme will be undertaken or completed— perhaps next year.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair].

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 67.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn Hugo.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Aird, William P.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Finlay, Thomas A.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEóin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Reilly John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle.
Motion declared lost.
Main question put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m. until Thursday, May 14, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share