Votes Nos. 10 and 11 can be discussed together.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 10—Office of Public Works; Vote No. 11—Public Works and Buildings.
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £64,333 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, 1934, 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 £64,333 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, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works. (1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 33, s. s. 5 and 6; 5 and 6 Vict., c. 89, s. s. 1 and 2; 9 and 10 Vict., c. 86, s. s. 2, 7 and 9; 10 Vict., c. 32, s. 3; 33 and 34 Vict., c. 46, s. 42; 40 and 41 Vict., c. 27; 44 and 45 Vict., c. 49, s. 31, etc.)
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £381,196 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, 1934, chun caiteachais i dtaobh Foirgintí Puiblí; chun Coinneáil-suas Páirceanna agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; chun Déanamh agus Coinneáil-suas Orbreacha Dréineála.
That a sum not exceeding £381,196 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, 1934, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; for the Execution and Maintenance of Drainage Works.
I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary is not present, as I should like to have called his attention to certain matters that he is well acquainted with. He is well aware that, as far as my constituency is concerned—Carlow-Kilkenny—there is very considerable inconvenience suffered there, and more than inconvenience, as a result of considerable flooding, and I should like to have got some indication from him as to what his views are. For instance, at a previous stage large drainage works were carried out on the Barrow in the Monasterevan-Athy area. It happens that since these works were carried out the flooding which afflicts the town of Carlow has been greater than it ever was before. I am not saying that that is the result of the work done by this Department. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc—that is, they have floods they never had before following, but not necessarily as a result of, that work, and the Department should recognise some responsibility in the matter. In this matter of flooding a number of things are taken into consideration. Sometimes, for instance, consideration is taken of the amount of land which is made unproductive as a result of flooding, the effect of drainage in making that land productive, and the relation between the additional value of the land and its productivity as compared with the cost of drainage. In the case of the Nore and Barrow there is another consideration that I think ought to come in. As I say, I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary is not here, because I know he has been down there. When you have towns like Carlow, Kilkenny, Thomastown, and smaller places like Leighlinbridge and Bagenalstown, where periodically the houses are made uninhabitable, it seems to me that the Government, which is spending large sums on relief works and various other things, should give particular consideration to these places even though the drainage would involve large sums of money. In Carlow houses are often under water. Then we have the conditions in Kilkenny, where I and other Deputies have been in houses where there have been five feet of water. Even when the water subsides, it leaves large masses of sediment, composed, to some extent, of sewage, and the people are living in these houses. It seems to me that considerations other than the purely economic consideration, the additional value which is taken into account in the case of land, should be brought to bear in these cases. A large part of Thomastown has been completely flooded three or four times in the last eighteen months. It is not like fields where the water just goes over them. These are houses in which people are living. The people very often have to go out of the houses for a short time. Everybody knows that in the case of a new building made of concrete the building has to be allowed to remain sometimes for two years with heating arrangements in before being available. People go back and live in those houses, as they have to, immediately after the flood has subsided. The unfortunate women go back and do the best they can to sweep out the sediment and the sewage that is left there. Then the Parliamentary Secretary goes down and discusses the matter with the local government bodies, and his Department and the local governing bodies are unable to come to terms as to the proportion of money that should be contributed by each, or as to responsibility. For instance, in the case of Carlow, the Board of Works can say that there is another river there besides the Barrow, and that if that were adequately bridged the flooding would not be quite so bad. On the other hand, it is said that the main part of the flooding comes from the Barrow, and that the flooding has been more serious since the Board of Works carried out operations there. In the case of the Nore, the Parliamentary Secretary goes down and refuses to advance this work unless the local governing bodies, that is, the county council and the corporation, themselves come to terms as to their respective contributions, when they must contribute 50 per cent. of the cost.
At the present moment, when the Government has withdrawn a large sum that previously went in relief of the rates; when even the Government admits that there is a very serious economic crisis in the country; when everybody knows that, even though the local governing bodies might decide, in the interests of such work, to increase the assessment on rates enormously, it would not at all mean that they are going to get the money, because the people simply have not got the money to give them; when the Government has increased central taxation enormously, and has justified their action in doing so by saying that as a policy they believe in enormous social services, that they believe in using money to relieve every form of distress in the country; it does seem to me that the old policy whereby a rigid percentage was agreed on by the central Government, with an insistence that the local bodies should provide the remainder, ought to be waived, because it is useless for the Government to come to an agreement with the local bodies which the local bodies will not be able to fulfil. As I said before, there is no use in saying that the local bodies should increase the rates enormously, because they simply would not be able to collect them. At such a time as this, with the Government policy what it is, with central taxation increased enormously, it seems to me that this whole matter should be reconsidered.
If the Government desires works that will give employment, here are works which will give an amount of employment, and be in the nature of relief works, while at the same time providing, we hope, a permanent benefit, which is very real. By spending what is a comparatively large capital sum at this moment you will create a situation in which people in towns of the dimensions and importance of Kilkenny, Carlow, Thomastown and Bagenalstown, and smaller places such as Leighlinbridge, will be able to live in houses which are habitable, instead of in houses which are not only periodically uninhabitable, but which, even in the periods between the floods, should be said to be uninhabitable, because the whole framework of the houses has not merely been steeped in water, but very often in water which is full of sewage. It does seem to me that the Parliamentary Secretary should seek from the Minister, who is dealing with the Estimate, enlarged powers for the expenditure of money in this direction. On so many other things that are called relief works there is money poured out in doing work which, while it keeps people occupied and might for some short time afterwards be of some little use, unless money is poured out on the same project continuously, ceases to be of use after a certain time. Here is a case which really ordinary humanity would demand should receive the utmost consideration from the Government. We are told periodically of the number of houses that are required in the country, and of the number of people who are inadequately housed. I deny that there is anybody in this country more inadequately housed than people who are living in houses that are flooded. If you go into Thomastown when the floods are on, you will find one-half of the town with the ground floor of the houses and shops under water. If you go down to certain parts of Kilkenny, when the floods are on, you will find five feet of water in the houses—water full of sewage. As it subsides it leaves a filthy and unhealthy sediment. The same thing applies in Carlow. It does seem to me that the Parliamentary Secretary should put before his Government that here is a case for spending large sums of money, for the waiving of the old rigid conditions imposed on local governing bodies, and for putting him in a position of being able to get an agreement between his Department and public bodies, which will be greatly facilitated when his Department does not have to insist on those bodies providing sums of money which it is quite beyond their power to find. In this way employment would be given, and permanent good created. It would do away permanently with an evil which is one of the most crying evils in the country at the moment. Some families may have to live in houses which are not quite suitable, but the houses in this country most unfit for human habitation are houses which annually, and sometimes bi-annually, are flooded with filthy water, and to which people go back to reside as soon as the water has subsided, and they have poured out their labour in trying to get rid of the filth which has remained as sediment of that water.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is not here, because there are one or two questions which I should like to ask him about the general administration of the Board of Works. One thing is that I understood it was in the province of the Board of Works to schedule an ancient monument, but there is a fight that 40 could join before you can get an ancient monument scheduled. I do not know why that should be, because I should imagine that the obligations which are imposed upon the Board of Works, by scheduling an ancient monument, are comparatively trivial, yet the very fact of scheduling provides an important protection. I have made representations, not, indeed, directly to the Board of Works, but indirectly, on the question of the castle of the O'Garas, which housed the Four Masters, with a view to having it scheduled as an ancient monument. So far as I am aware, no steps have been taken to do so, with the result that it has been carted away piecemeal. I may add that there must be a number of other public monuments of that kind through the country, which are being carted away, and which could be entirely protected by putting up the usual notice on them, and placing them under the protection of the Civic Guards.
Another thing I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is what inspired the Board of Works to tear down the fine old portal that was on Charlemont House, and invite somebody to try out his hand on a new one.
They did not do it. It was the Corporation did that.
As a wise man once said: "It was between you you did it," and it reflected no credit on either of you.
Mr. Kelly
The Board of Works had nothing to do with it.
There are some things that even the Dublin Corporation could not make me do, and one is to face the frontage of Charlemont House.
Mr. Kelly
That is another matter.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to muster his forces and make the best defence he can for that, because I think he did a very bad day's work in that regard. I think before the Department spends money in making alterations in the architectural treasures of this city some more exhaustive examination, from the aesthetic point of view, should be made than that which was made by the Dublin Corporation.
I have also drawn the attention of the Board of Works, on more than one occasion, to the useful constructive work that might be done if they would bring the old drainage schemes under closer observation. A great many of these schemes have ceased to serve any useful purpose at all for want of maintenance, or, I should say, for want of adequate maintenance. I believe very useful work could be done by restoring these old drainage schemes to their original condition, even if it were not intended subsequently to transfer them to the local authority under an Act which gives the Department power to do that at the present time. I would like to draw the special attention of the Board of Works to a drainage scheme which has been in their hands now for many years. All the plans for this scheme have been completed, and they have been held up by some red tape or other in the Department. I refer to the Tinnecarrow scheme in Lough Gara and in the Mantua drainage area. It is a considerable scheme, and I think that the engineering plans propose or would work out so that the bulk of the money would be spent on labour. Therefore, it is a scheme which should specially commend itself to the Board of Works from the point of view of labour conditions in the country at present.
I was glad to hear from the Minister for Finance that he is prepared to consider favourably proposals from the Electricity Supply Board to carry out otherwise uneconomic schemes of lighting with the assistance of relief works money. I think that this is something deserving of more attention than it already has had. The question of providing electric lighting as an amenity in country towns is an important one, and I take this occasion to refer to it briefly. There are many towns in this country which the Electricity Supply Board cannot reach because the cost of bringing the network into them would involve an expenditure of a capital sum upon which they could not get an economic return. Either the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce has laid down that they cannot sanction any such extension at present. In order that the Electricity Supply Board may be in a position to satisfy the Department, that extension must be an economic proposition. It must before the Department can sanction it. I therefore suggest to the Minister that where, on examination, a proposed extension scheme appears to be uneconomic according to this test, he should volunteer to place at the disposal of the Electricity Supply Board a sum of money which would defray the labour costs of the scheme. I believe that if the Minister did that in many cases the extension of schemes would come within the permissive conditions laid down. In that way electricity could be made available in many towns where it is not now available and additional centres for the sale of power would be made available to the Electricity Supply Board.
I remember when the relief works were first under consideration here, the Parliamentary Secretary made a very dramatic speech, and he thumped the table and said that people were chiding him for not spending money. but that what he wanted was schemes, concrete schemes, and that if he got them he would not be long in putting them into operation. Well, I rose to the bait, and I am still rising. I sent him two drainage schemes, one from Ramelton, in Donegal, and one from the Lifford area in the County Donegal. I had a very civil letter to say that they were engaging his most meticulous attention. That was last July. I suppose they are still engaging his most meticulous attention. I suggest now that it is time they engaged more than his attention. I invite the Board of Works to look into these two schemes and to say whether they cannot be put into hands without further delay.
Deputy Fitzgerald referred to the condition of persons in Carlow-Kilkenny, whose houses were inundated with water containing sewage. I would suggest to the Minister that a very large proportion of the relief money which it is proposed to spend in towns and rural areas should be spent upon providing up-to-date sewerage works. That is a very necessary amenity under modern conditions, and it is one that it is exceedingly difficult to get out of the local authority, because the moment a scheme is completed the question invariably arises: What is going to be the area of charge? I do not know if the Minister has any experience of local administration in this country. If he has he will know that once you start discussing an area of charge at a county council, you may be discussing it for 12 months or two years before there is any chance of settling it. Eventually the Minister for Local Government and Public Health steps in and fixes it in such a way that nobody is satisfied. The result is that it was exceedingly difficult now to get any scheme for sewerage works completed at all. The past experience is with rural dwellers, after they have been facilitated to draw up a scheme for sewerage for any town in the country that scheme will end abortively. I therefore suggest that it would be money well spent if these sewerage schemes could be financed out of the relief works. I am aware that the Board of Works has been offering to contribute a substantial proportion of the money, but it does not matter what proportion they contribute if they leave a balance to be found by the local authority to fall on the rateable valuation of the particular town where a sewerage scheme is to be put in operation. The same row will then start when you are trying to find out the area of charge, and I suggest it would be better if the Board of Works could see their way to provide from the relief grant some provision to complete the sewerage schemes in selected towns.
Lastly, I want to refer to something that is present to the minds of the Dáil every day, and that is the structure erected by the Board of Works which masquerades under the name of a dynamo in Dáil Eireann. I think the more suitable description of that structure would be an incubator. As an incubator it is admirable. If there were any proposals to start the production of chickens at Leinster Lawn, I have no doubt this could be turned into a useful incubator. I suggest that if the Fianna Fáil Party begin to get cold feet between now and the General Election, it might be used in a Fianna Fáil committee room. For this it would be eminently suitable. For the purpose for which it is required I do not think it requires any particular emphasis on my part to elaborate its unsuitability.
It would be of no use to the soft heads of the Centre Party.
You never could tell, but there is one thing, it is of no use for, and that is where it is. I suggest that the Board of Works should consider the problem of shifting this dynamo. At all events, something should be done to reduce the mean temperature of that room or eventually it will become like the deserted village.
There is one other annexe to this establishment to which I would like to refer. I can only describe it as a dog kennel, the accommodation that is provided at the entrance gate to Leinster House. If anybody comes here on business or otherwise he is ushered into this dog kennel which masquerades under the name of a waiting-room. In winter it is wet and cold and in summer it is hot and stuffy. It has many other qualities which I do not think it would be expedient or delicate to refer to in this Assembly. I suggest that where strangers are coming to visit this House, though they may be only miserable members of the public between the elections, they are entitled to some consideration. While I am well aware that the staff of the Oireachtas do everything in their power to mitigate the discomforts of this disgusting cubby hole, it is beyond their power to make it bearable for anybody but a man of powerful physique and great resistance. Very little, I think, would provide decent accommodation for visitors to the Dáil. I submit it is a matter that should engage the early attention of the Board of Works so that the kind of complaints one hears from reasonable people should no longer be made.
I want to refer to a matter which I raised by way of Parliamentary question in the last Dáil. I have in mind the agitation that has been going on for years in connection with the drainage of the Lerr, a river in the south of Kildare that runs along the border of Carlow. The drainage work was carried out as a relief scheme by the Board of Works some years ago without any appeal coming from the farmers through whose lands the river flows. The result was that those farmers were landed with a heavy rate by way of contribution towards the drainage of this river. All along they contested this rate and the Board of Works endeavoured to meet their grievance, but whatever was done in that direction was not satisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary in the last Dáil said that an ad hoc grant would be made which, in effect, would mean that the occupiers of land which benefited from the drainage would have to meet some charge and those whose lands did not benefit would not have to pay any levy at all. After that the agitation got worse and a sworn inquiry was held. I asked for the findings of that inquiry, but I could not get them.
This whole area has been visited by political pilgrimages representative of all parties and the people there were assured that the situation would be satisfactorily dealt with. Large arrears of the rates in respect of the drainage have now accrued. They can never be collected; they are absolutely irrecoverable. It is time a satisfactory settlement was arrived at. The unfortunate occupiers of land are faced with a rate which they cannot possibly pay and they derive no benefit whatever from the drainage. If Deputies Norton or Harris were here they would probably say I have not made the case sufficiently strong. I will ask the Minister to issue the necessary instructions to have a further sworn inquiry. Deputations have visited the Parliamentary Secretary, but the whole thing has been shelved and the people are being humbugged. I am quite certain that it is not the intention of the Board of Works, the Minister or the local Deputies to humbug the people there. I certainly hope something will be done in the immediate future to remedy a most unsatisfactory situation.
Mr. Hogan (Clare):
Some 12 months ago I raised a matter here with reference to the desirability of issuing unemployment insurance stamps to people engaged working on the Fergus drainage scheme. It cannot be argued in this case that the work was agricultural work. It may possibly be of advantage in the cases of people from whose farms flooding was removed. No doubt in many cases water-logged land was relieved; but certainly the drainage work could not be considered as agricultural work. Wading through water is not usually considered agricultural work, and carrying cement bags to make a dam in order to keep back the water for a period while they were repairing the banks is not work usually carried out by farmers. We were told at the time that this matter was under consideration and a decision would be arrived at. I expected a decision would be quickly arrived at and that we would have these stamps paid within a reasonable period. In reply to a Parliamentary question, the Minister mentioned that special cases were picked out and placed before the Department of Industry and Commerce.
How long does it take to reach a decision on a matter of this sort? Surely the insurance code is not so large as that it would not be possible to reach a decision in a month. Fully 200 of these men were disemployed when the work was closed down. They could not draw unemployment insurance, and the wages paid were not sufficient to leave any margin to live on during the period when those men were waiting for the Minister's decision. These 200 men could not get other employment, and they could not draw unemployment insurance benefit. They had to rely on home assistance or on some other charitable institutions during the period when they could not get work. I trust the Minister will urge on those who are considering the fine points of this legal argument to come to a decision at the earliest possible moment.
If this matter were brought to court, and if the Parliamentary Secretary were reported just as an ordinary employer to the National Health Insurance Commission, I have no doubt the judge would say that the work could not be considered by any stretch of the imagination as agricultural work. I want the Minister to give the people who are disemployed what they are entitled to. Unemployment will be relieved if all the relief schemes before the Minister are expedited. It is not the fault of the county council, which does everything possible. Whatever delay there is, it is at headquarters. I am not making any grievous complaint in that direction. The Board of Works has given careful and adequate consideration in the majority of cases. I know the amount of clogging work that there is in their office, and the extent of the work they have to do, but I would urge that when this matter comes before them it would receive immediate attention.
I just want to ask the Minister whether he can make any statement in regard to the allocation of £100,000 mentioned for the purpose of bog drainage: He must be aware that many Deputies are receiving inquiries about the allocation of this sum, and it would be well if a statement could be made upon the matter. In the same connection I would like to know if it is correct that the Board of Works are still supplying Gárdaí barracks, and similar institutions with imported coal while the public are being asked to use native fuel. It is certain that many Gárdaí barracks situated on the verge, or in the vicinity, of bogs are still being supplied with imported coal. Has it not occurred to the Department promoting the turf scheme to appeal to the Board of Works to give orders and to make provision for the burning of turf, since the burning of turf is now portion of the Government's scheme? It may, possibly, be the case that the Board of Works have contracts for the supply of coal to the institutions mentioned. But if the matter has been overlooked I hope the Minister will see to it and have inquiries made into it before it goes much further.
The Minister has already made himself responsible, in this House, for approval of a proposal which created the greatest possible concern amongst tradesmen in the City of Dublin generally. That was the arrangement by which instructions were issued by the Board of Works, to certain firms in the city, that kept on big staffs, to dispense with employees who had been employed by them for many years continuously, on Government contracts, in order to replace these more or less permanently employed persons, by casual employees. The protest on behalf of different bodies in the city, and the protest on behalf of this House, as no doubt Deputies are aware, prevented the pressing of that instruction, at the present moment, and the order, I understand, has been withdrawn. In view of the importance in all social life in getting and securing such employment to people of the tradesman type, such an order would have had disastrous consequences. I think it would be wrong on the part of the Minister to allow this Estimate to pass without making a statement to the House to the effect that it is not intended again to issue an order from the Office of Works along those lines. If after further examination of the position which I understand is promised—I do not know exactly—it transpired that something happened that would indicate, either to the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, that it was necessary to contemplate issuing an order that was in any way like the order that was withdrawn, I think it would be well for the Minister to promise that no such order would be issued until a statement had been made in the House as to the conditions that existed and necessitated the issue of an order like that. There would then be full discussion here as to the conditions existing, which made it necessary to issue an order like that, or made it seem necessary, that an order like that should be issued. No such order should be issued unless this House had the opportunity of discussing what alternative offered to the issue of an order such as that, and the displacement of a number of tradesmen where they had been permanently employed for many years.
I am very much interested in the point Deputy Moore raised about the burning of turf in barracks. I raised a similar point, as to whether the houses that are at present being put up in the country districts are being provided with grates suitable for the burning of turf. I think the Government ought to make up their minds that either they wish turf burned, and are going to see that it is used, or not. If they do they should provide grates suitable for the burning of turf. There is no use talking about burning turf in coal grates. The Government have got to make up their minds that if turf is going to be burned in certain districts, they are going to provide people with grates that can burn turf or not. The Government, if they persist in their present policy, are going to find themselves shortly up against a stone wall, especially where they say to people: "Why do you not burn turf?" the person so addressed will answer: "I cannot burn it because I have not got a grate suitable for it."
There is another matter about which I would like to ask the Minister. Other Deputies before me have commented on the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is not here, but I hope we shall be able to get a reply to some of the questions we have put. Deputy Fitzgerald referred to flooding in certain areas of the country. At Little Bray there has been very extensive flooding in the past, and to do the Government justice, there had been a very considerable amount of work carried out by them in connection with it, and it has cost a considerable sum of money. What some of the people in the district are anxious to find out, at present, is whether, as far as the Government are concerned, they think they have cured the flooding, or is it a question of the money having given out after the Government have done a certain amount of work on the river, because there is still a great deal to be done?
There is another matter that I would like to refer to, and that is the playground of St. Catherine's National School in the city. That playground is in a very bad state of repair. After rain the potholes, as they might be described, in this playground become full of water.
I am afraid that these playgrounds come under another Vote.
I absolutely submit to your ruling, but may I, at the same time, point out that the Board of Works have entered into arrangements for the remedy of this evil? I take it, however, that I must raise the matter on an Estimate other than this.
If the facts are as stated by the Deputy, he is quite in order.
The school authorities have had to salvage some of the children. I do not suggest that they were in danger of being drowned, but their shoes and stockings suffered considerable damage, and these children had to be brought in and their feet dried. The school authorities appealed to the Board of Works, and, I understand, the Board of Works promised to carry out the very necessary repairs. I would ask the Minister to find out what is holding this matter up. These are all the questions I wish to raise on this Estimate.
I should like to know whether or not the Minister would give us some indication of the policy of the Board of Works with regard to certain drainage schemes in certain parts of the country. I know myself that in County Cavan a number of schemes was sanctioned since the Act of 1924 was passed and they have got no further although engineers and surveyors have been sent down on these schemes and have reported on them and all that sort of thing. Notwithstanding the reports of these engineers, nothing has been done and no genuine attempt has been made to get the schemes started. The people are very anxious to get this work carried out. Some of these schemes are economic schemes and are quite feasible, and if they were only started they would give employment and be no burden on the community, but, for some reason, they are being held up. This work must be approached sooner or later, and I think the Board of Works should expedite the inspection of these works and settle the matter and get the work started, especially as there is such an amount of unemployment in parts of County Cavan.
I brought the matter before the Minister so far back as the 10th March last. We had been asked to suggest feasible schemes to provide employment, and I submitted a scheme on the 10th March last, which, I believe, is a very feasible scheme, and which would realise £100,000 if the Board of Works granted about 10 per cent. of the money. It would realise all that money, and would create a great deal of employment. I had information that the matter was being considered, and I should like to know from the Minister has it been considered, and, if so, has it been found satisfactory or feasible? In my opinion, this is a very opportune time to release money that has been held up.
I should like to ask the Minister about rivers in County Mayo. There is one river which I had in mind particularly, and that is the River Robe. Before the election in 1932 the Minister for Industry and Commerce was down there, and he gave an undertaking that the work of drainage would proceed as quickly as possible— in fact, as soon as the Fianna Fáil Government came into power. The Fianna Fáil Government has come into power in the meantime, but, I regret to say, nothing has been done. I have asked several questions in connection with this matter, but they do not seem to be able to get any further, although the Minister admitted that a sum of money was set aside for a scheme for the drainage of that river. Notwithstanding that, nothing has been done. This is the question I asked:
"Whether the Minister is aware that the Commissioners of Public Works submitted proposals to the Mayo County Council for the drainage of the River Robe and its tributaries in April, 1928; that the Commissioners were notified of the Council's concurrence in September, 1928, when the necessary statutory resolutions and guarantees required by the Arterial Drainage Act, 1925, were passed by the Council and submitted to the Commissioners; that a detailed engineering survey of the whole district, a valuation of the affected lands, and an assessment of the estimated increase in value for each individual holding was made and a report submitted to the Commissioners by their engineers in February, 1930, and if he will now state what steps have been taken by the Commissioners since 1930 to have the drainage of that river and its tributaries carried out."
The answer I got was simply this:
"As has been pointed out to the Deputy in reply to previous questions, subsequent to the receipt of their engineer's report in February, 1930, the Commissioners of Public Works had further necessary extensive inspections made by their engineers and valuers in order to obtain sufficient information to enable them to devise the most suitable scheme for the improvement of the drainage conditions in the River Robe district.
"A draft scheme has now been decided on and particulars of it with maps and descriptive schedules will, it is hoped, be submitted in about a month's time to the Mayo County Council with an enquiry as to whether that body is willing to make a contribution of 30 per cent. of the cost of the scheme to complement the 50 per cent. to be provided by the Minister for Finance so as to make the scheme an economic undertaking for the occupiers of affected lands."
When that was submitted by the Commissioners of Public Works to the Mayo County Council two years ago— that all that was required was to guarantee 6 per cent. of the scheme— the Mayo County Council passed a resolution agreeing to that, and the Board of Works sent down more engineers.
That was in 1928.
Wait awhile—later than that. Later on it was increased to 15 per cent. and the present Minister increased it from 15 to 30 per cent. The answer given a week ago was practically the same as that given a year ago. Nothing has been done by the present Government although they have been in office for the last 16 months. What I want to know is whether or not there is a possibility of getting this work under way. There is serious flooding in the district every year, for instance, the Catholic church in one district is being flooded by the overflow of the River Robe. I think that even half of the amount, which is £35,000, would relieve the distress. Apart from the River Robe, there are two other rivers, tributaries of the River Moy—Giveston, Pollock and the Yellow River. The Board of Works agreed to carry out these schemes at a cost of £12,000 and to give free grants to the extent of £6,000. The County Council passed the necessary resolution agreeing to the guarantee but nothing has been done since. These are the two principal schemes in South Mayo in which I am interested. There is also another— the Dalgan-Clare River from Ballyhaunis to Lough Corrib. A great deal of damage is caused by flooding there also. I should like the Minister to let us know if it is the intention of the Commissioners of Public Works to do anything in this connection. Of course, I can see that the purpose of a number of these drainage schemes is to a great extent to keep a certain staff in employment here in Dublin because the works proposed to be done here were part of the programme of the old Congested Districts Board some 20 years ago. They had the maps in the office of the Land Commission but I suppose that every time a new Government comes into power they want new maps and new schemes for the purpose, as I submit, of keeping a certain staff in the employment of the Commissioners of Public Works. I hope the Minister will keep this matter in view, particularly in regard to the River Robe. The river runs for about 40 miles through South Mayo and an enormous amount of damage is done every year.
I should like to make an appeal to the Minister that, if possible, a greater proportion of the amount from the various relief schemes should be allotted for drainage purposes. Perhaps there is no work that could be undertaken that gives greater employment in proportion to the amount expended. Hitherto it was rather difficult to get any advance from the various relief schemes for drainage purposes. Perhaps there were reasons for that. One might be that at certain periods of the year drainage could not be undertaken. I would, therefore, appeal to the Minister that, as far as possible, he should allot a greater sum than has been given hitherto for drainage purposes. The drainage of the country is one of the important questions at the present moment and will be for some years to come. I should like particularly to draw the Minister's attention to the valuable work done under the minor drainage schemes. I am not detracting at all from the work done by the Office of Public Works, who have carried out very large schemes and very excellent ones.
Minor drainage schemes surely arise on the Vote for the Department of Local Government.
Minor drainage schemes scarcely come under this Vote.
I may be a little out of order, but I was going to make a suggestion to the Minister in that regard.
The Deputy might make the suggestion if he does not deal with specific schemes.
Under the minor drainage schemes some valuable works have been undertaken. I believe that a lot of the difficulty in connection with drainage would be overcome if the provisions of the minor drainage schemes could be extended, that is, if it were possible to spend a greater sum than £1,000, and if the portion of the money given by the Government could be increased, some valuable schemes could be undertaken. In my county valuable work was done under one particular scheme which some years ago was declared to be uneconomic under the major drainage schemes and which would have cost some £8,000 or £10,000, and which even was uneconomic with the full grant that the Minister was authorised to give. Latterly, owing to the intervention of various people, this scheme, or part of it, has been undertaken as a minor drainage work. I should say that certainly more than half of the work that would have been done under the big scheme has been fulfilled by the engineer to the county council under this particular scheme. I, therefore, wish to make the suggestion that, if possible, works costing up to £2,000 or £3,000 should be brought under the minor drainage schemes with perhaps an increased grant. In that way a great deal of drainage work would be done which would not be undertaken under present circumstances. I think this suggestion will have the support of nearly every Deputy.
I merely wish to stress the remarks made by previous speakers. It seems to me that we are all agreed on the principle adumbrated in these Votes. We are all agreed on the necessity for public drainage works, and as to the advantages arising out of them. The Parliamentary Secretary, I am afraid, is aware that this subject is getting nearly as sour as the drainage itself, we have spent so long on it. Everyone has harped on the needs of his own county or constituency, and I feel that I must, to a certain extent, follow suit. As Deputy Moore said, we would like to get some idea when this grant will be allocated. I hope that when the grant is being allocated a very large territory in the north-east of Wexford will receive special attention. I refer to the district known as the Boira and Macamore. The district covers a vast tract of very good land which for years past has been intersected by pills and canals which were kept free from rushes by the industry of the population. That population has been decimated practically during the last few years owing to various reasons, and, consequently, there is greater need of outside help than there was. The district called the Boira is in the centre of these canals and pills and marshy boggy land which in itself is very good and very tenacious, but needs to be kept dry by constant clearing of the pills and by excavation of the slow-moving rivers which move through it. Everyone appears to have an axe to grind in connection with this Vote, and I merely ask that when the grant comes to be allocated special attention will be given to this district known as the Boira. It is not, of course, situated in the congested districts, but the people there are just in as much need of assistance as the people in the West of Ireland, because the land is very heavy grazing land and is rendered practically useless by the fact that it is being choked up by the pills, rivers and canals which are not excavated as they should be. At the risk of being tiresome, I would ask that when this grant is being allocated special attention should be paid to this district in north-east Wexford. Wexford Deputies of all shades of opinion have been harping on this for months past. We know it is impossible for our demands to be met in full or with the promptitude with which we should like them to be met. At the same time, as repetition appears to be the secret of success in political action, I want now to harp on this, even ad nauseam, and to ask that the district of Boira and Macamore be kept specially in mind when the grants are being allocated.
I hope the Minister will remember what Deputy Dillon said with reference to the accommodation of the Oireachtas. It is not only Deputies who must be considered in this matter, but also the staff. It is not fair that the staff should be kept in these unwholesome, unventilated conditions which they have to endure owing to the faulty nature of the new wing. I notice in these Estimates that there is provision made for giving ventilation in the Department of Fisheries. The poor fish in this establishment never get any ventilation. While Deputies have their own inferno in the restaurant, the gentlemen of the Press have a private hell of their own where they are roasted owing to lack of ventilation. During the long vacation the Minister might, at a comparatively small cost, bore some holes in the walls and let some air into the congested atmosphere of the Dáil. I notice amongst the works mentioned in the Estimates there is a sum of £6,000 required this year for the roofing of Baldonnell Aerodrome. That work has been on the Estimates for many years. I do not know how far it has progressed. At one time it was removed from the Estimates, but now it has been put back. It is difficult to expect the Minister for Finance to give a statement on this matter which really would be more appropriate from the Minister for Defence, but as it appears in this Estimate I only express the hope that the Minister will see that the full amount is spent this year.
There is in the second Vote—I think we are taking these two Votes together —an item which I cannot refrain from mentioning, and that is the sum of £3,817 which we are asked to vote in this particular Vote No. 11—leaving out the sum which we have already voted and which we will be called upon to vote in other estimates—for the upkeep of the Viceregal grand piano. I mentioned last week the fact that we were voting £820—I said £850, but the correct figure is £820—and the Minister seemed to doubt my statements. I looked up the records of the House, and I find that on the 29th March I received an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the effect that the sum of £820 had been included in the Estimates for rates on Government property, 1933-4, under the heading of "Other Services," sub-head A, Vote 17. The Minister naturally was not well up in this matter, and he doubted the accuracy of my statements last week. This week we are asked to vote a further sum of £3,817 for the upkeep of the grand piano.
If the Deputy would turn to page 74 he would see details of the Estimate for Vote 17. He would see there "Governor-General's Establishment" in italics, and he would see against it nothing.
Yes, but the answer I received on the 29th March, 1933, from the Parliamentary Secretary was that the sum of £820 was included in the last item, which is called "Other Services." That is the information which I received in the official reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. It is only changed from the top of the list to the bottom of the list. The sum is being paid, and it is suggested by the Vote that it is not being paid. It was that very fact which made me ask the question as to what sum was being paid, and why such sum does not appear in the Estimates for 1933-4. Apart from these sums there are also expenses in connection with the Gárda Síochána Vote for the protection of the Viceregal Lodge, which houses only this grand piano, that is more expensive than "the harp that once through Tara's Halls." Certainly it might well be substituted as a national emblem. I only mention these large sums in order that the Minister may state what is the intention of the Government with regard to this large establishment in the Phoenix Park. We cannot go on spending thousands of pounds every year on this white elephant. The Minister is himself familiar with white elephants, and this is one of his own creations, because whereas we were promised that we would have no Viceregal establishment we now have two instead of one. The Minister might at least, now that he has been in office so long, be able to tell us what are the intentions of the Government with regard to this establishment.
Minister to conclude, on Votes 10 and 11.
When the people of Carlow and Kilkenny read Deputy Fitzgerald's speech, which is full of consideration for their sorry plight, I am sure they will bitterly regret that Deputy Cosgrave and not Deputy Fitzgerald was their representative during the period when Deputy Fitzgerald and the Government of which he was a member might have given very practical proof that they sincerely felt and realised those considerations, given, of course, at the expense of the taxpayers. It is quite clear that, in a matter of drainage schemes particularly, while the economic factor is not the only one to be taken into consideration nevertheless it is a very important one in dealing with proposals of this nature for the expenditure of public money. We cannot proceed on the assumption that those whose lands are flooded and those whose houses are flooded are not in a position to do anything to help themselves, and particularly that the local authorities who have responsibility for the public health of the neighbourhood, and to whom rates are paid by those people, are also powerless in the matter. The position which has invariably been taken up in regard to arterial drainage works generally is that the people who should make the first move in the matter are the occupiers of the lands or dwellings affected. When an investigation has taken place, and the full facts have been submitted, in all cases in which it can be shown that the scheme would be made profitable to the occupiers of land by a free grant of up to 33? per cent. that grant has been given without hesitation. The amount of that grant measures the consideration which has been given by the Government to other than economic factors in dealing with those schemes. If it appears that more than one-third of the grant must be a free grant in order to make a scheme profitable to the occupiers of the land, and that otherwise the scheme is a good one, and there is a strong desire for it, the Government will go to the county council and ask them whether they attach importance to this scheme, and whether they are willing to contribute to it out of the county rates. If the local authority expresses its willingness to assist in this matter the Government is prepared to give over the grant of one-third of the cost an equivalent amount to that which the local authority is prepared to provide for the purpose of remedying such evil or inconvenience as exists. I do not think that the Government could be expected to do any more than that. If the Government is prepared to pay half the cost of the scheme in the event of the county council or local authority and the affected occupiers being ready to bear the remaining half, then I think that the national purse at any rate, has given all the consideration that it properly could to those factors which Deputy Fitzgerald referred to as other than economic considerations in matters of these schemes.
With regard to the special case of the flooding in Carlow, it is not clear yet that an expensive drainage scheme will have to be undertaken in order to remedy that flooding. The flooding occurred during a period of phenomenal rainfall in March last. It may not occur again for possibly another generation or even longer than that.
If the Minister will look up his notes he will see that it happened two or three times in the last 18 months.
My information is that the severe flooding was due to the phenomenal rainfall which took place in March.
And not as the result of the general election?
Not as a result of the general election. There is no reason why the river should go into flood, because the heavens did not weep at the result of the general election.
It left it to the people on earth to weep.
The Opposition has done enough of weeping.
One of the floods happened just before we went out of office. I am not trying to blame the weather on the Government.
I do not know that it is proper to pursue this discussion. I want to get back to this question of flooding at Carlow. I do not think any Government would be justified in undertaking a large expenditure merely because flooding has occurred at very rare intervals, and there is nothing on the records, hitherto, to show that the flooding of Carlow is likely to be recurring. If it were we would have to approach the matter from a different aspect, but all the time our approach would be conditioned by this, that the amount of assistance that the State could give to a scheme of this nature must be limited in proportion to the amount which the local authority concerned is prepared themselves to give.
The Deputy mentioned the case of the flooding of Thomastown and Kilkenny, which were flooded by the River Nore. In that case the Government have gone to the very limit. It has offered to bear 50 per cent. of the cost of the scheme, asking the local authorities to put up 46 per cent. of the cost. The scheme is a particularly uneconomic one. I think it is estimated to cost something like £92,000. My information is that the annual value of the land to be benefited by the scheme would not exceed £900. There might be some justification for spending £92,000 if there were to be a considerable amount of labour employed on the scheme. But in fact the labour content of these large drainage schemes is comparatively small. Most of the work would have to be done by machinery, and most of the cost would go to the provision and maintenance of the plant.
I do not think that any person could criticise the Government for refusing to give more than £46,000 to the cost of this scheme, estimated to cost £92,000, a scheme which would contribute only a yield or economic return of about £900 a year. It is a fact that if the amenities of Kilkenny, Thomastown and these other towns are to be improved, then they must be improved at the expense of those who live in them, but not mainly at the expense of the State. The local authorities, under whose jurisdiction these towns are, ought to have responsibility for these areas and they must realise their responsibility. If the people there want to do anything to cure this evil which admittedly bears very hardly upon a section of the population in these towns, they will have to put their shoulder to it and bear a fair share of the burden themselves.
On the question of ancient monuments raised by Deputy Dillon, it is quite true that the Board of Works can acquire monuments by purchase or agreement. When they have acquired them they can make reservation orders in regard to them. The position is that the Board of Works has already acquired a great many ancient and venerable castles. In fact, at the present moment they have acquired more than we can conveniently deal with. The cost of the maintenance of these ancient monuments is, all things taken into account, not inconsiderable and there has to be, naturally and necessarily, some discrimination in regard to those taken over. It is quite possible that the particular monument to which Deputy Dillon refers may have had a considerable historic value. If so, I suggest that he himself is not faultless in the matter, because he stated that he had approached the Board of Works, indirectly. I should have thought that if he really attached such importance to this monument as he has indicated to the Dáil, he should have come to us direct and used the influence which a Deputy can naturally bring to bear on these matters and so see that that monument was safeguarded before it was taken away piece-meal.
Might I interrupt the Minister for a moment to ask him to what extent monuments that have been taken over are inspected by the people representing him from time to time?
I am not in a position to say to what extent they are inspected from time to time but periodical inspection does take place and an annual sum is provided for their maintenance.
I wonder is the Minister satisfied that as much has been done as could be done to make Clonmacnoise worthy of its historic position and worthy of being a place of pilgrimage?
I am not in a position to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction in that respect because I am not familiar with the details. If the Deputy or any other Deputy in the House thinks that more attention should be paid to any monument, particularly to one of a unique kind like Clonmacnoise, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary or myself or the Board of Works would be only too glad if suggestions are made to us in that regard. I do not know how Deputy Dillon came to reckon what had been done in Charlemont House as one of the misdeeds or one of the sins of omission or commission of the Board of Works, because Charlemont House was handed over to the Dublin Corporation some time ago for conversion into an art gallery. Whatever architectural alterations were made have been carried out since the Dublin Corporation took the building over.
Did they not have to obtain the approval or use the services of the architects of the Commissioners of Public Works in any way?
No, they did not. The presumption is, of course, that the architects of the Dublin Corporation are as competent as the architects of the Board of Works in matters of this kind. In regard to the old drainage scheme to which Deputy Dillon also referred, I have to say that we restored 61 of these old drainage districts. The bulk of these were carried out under the Drainage Act of 1924. The general feeling of the Commissioners of Public Works is that this Act is practically worked out and that greater advantages are now to be secured by proceeding under the Drainage Act of 1925. It is under that Act that operations are now to be carried out.
With regard to the Tinnecarrow scheme to which Deputy Dillon also referred, a valuation and an engineering survey of the district have been made. The scheme, it is anticipated, will require a grant of 50 per cent. from Government sources and about 46 per cent. from the Counties Sligo and Roscommon. If the Government give this 50 per cent. and the county councils concerned likewise agree to contribute 46 per cent. of the cost, the scheme will be put up to the occupiers for their acceptance. I shall have the Lifford and Ramelton schemes, to which the Deputy also referred, looked up.
With regard to the Tinnecarrow, Lough Gara, scheme, who is going to take the next step? Will the Government's or the county council's decision come first?
I do not know who will be the first to come forward. The Government will naturally have to make up its mind before it asks the county council, but at the same time an indication from the county council that they would be prepared to bear 46 per cent. of the cost would be a considerable inducement in helping the Government to make up its mind.
The Government has been ruminating on these matters since a week after they came into office.
The Deputy will remember that the Government is occasionally reminded that expenditure must be reduced by £2,000,000 and with that figure in front of its mind continually it has to consider every penny piece of public expenditure before it agrees to anything.
Hear, hear, but it costs nothing to come to a decision. Hesitation is not an economy.
With regard to the suggestion made by Deputy Dillon, that consideration should be given to proposals submitted by the Electricity Supply Board to carry out works in districts where they felt that the economic return to the Electricity Supply Board would not warrant the execution of these works, I think the Deputy mentioned that these works might be carried out under the provisions made for the relief of unemployment. I do not know how far a discussion of the manner in which relief grants might be expended would properly arise on this Vote. In that connection, however, I should like the Deputy to remember that schemes for the expenditure of money out of Relief Votes have to be considered according to the following criteria:—(1) that the labour content of the scheme should be large; (2) that it should be work which in the ordinary way would not be carried out; (3) that it should be work carried out in districts where there is a large amount of unemployment to be relieved; (4) that in proportion to the magnitude of the scheme the work should be distributed over a wide area; (5) that the work should be capable of being economically carried out at periods in which the pressure of unemployment is greatest.
Now, it will be seen from this that in considering the proposals to extend the Electricity Supply Board network, or bear some part of the cost of extension of the network out of the Unemployment Relief Vote, it is unlikely that all the criteria to which I have referred will be satisfactorily fulfilled. First of all, the question of the economic merit of the scheme is one which may be subject to revision and change as time goes on. If the network were to be erected in a district where the population was growing and extending, it might be uneconomic this year, but in three, four or five years it might turn out to be quite an economic scheme. Consequently, the full cost of it should admittedly be borne on the funds of the Electricity Supply Board. The second point is that this network may have to be erected in districts in which unemployment is not rife. Thirdly, and, to my mind, this is the most important, as a general rule this is work which would be undertaken during the summer when the pressure of unemployment is least. My own opinion is that there would be comparatively few schemes submitted by the Electricity Supply Board in which any considerable grant out of the Unemployment Relief Vote would be at all justified. As I indicated in reply to Deputy Dillon's suggestion, we are prepared to consider any proposals of this kind on their merits as a relief work, not from the point of view of improving the amenities of any particular district or extending the facilities which the inhabitants of a district may enjoy. If the people in a district feel a supply of electricity would be of considerable importance and of material advantage to them, they ought to be prepared to pay for it at an economic rate.
On the question of the Dáil Restaurant, which was referred to by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Esmonde, I think both Deputies may congratulate themselves on the fact that they are in positions of greater freedom and less responsibility that do not compel them to lunch in the inner room, for then, in the words of Deputy Esmonde, they would know what an inferno really means. At any rate, the question of the ventilation of the restaurant is receiving special attention at the moment from the Board of Works, as is also the question of waiting-room accommodation. We trust that it may be found possible to sanction the expenditure necessary to carry out improvements in these matters; but again I must mention that we are continuously reminded from the benches opposite that we must save £2,000,000. We hope those Deputies who are always crying out for economy will spare a little sweat as a contribution towards that vast sum.
Deputy Minch mentioned Lerr drainage scheme. This is one of the drainage districts to which Deputy Dillon referred, and it is a work of the type which he advocated. It was carried out, I think, by the late Government, under an Act passed in 1924. If, as is sometimes the case with drainage schemes, the districts in which the works are carried out does not benefit as considerably as was anticipated, then we cannot be blamed. The charging order in this particular case has since been revised and an additional grant of £500 has recently been given by the Government and also by the county council, so that it is estimated that this charging order will lighten the burden of maintenance and payment by the occupiers of the land, and presumably it will do something to ease the situation.
Mr. Lynch
I want to thank the Minister for referring to that. May I ask him whether he is aware that a public sworn inquiry took place, and I asked for the findings to be published, and that the grant to which the Minister has referred would not be accepted? Is the Minister aware that the whole thing is a most unsatisfactory case?
The whole thing shows that drainage schemes should not be undertaken except after the fullest possible engineering investigation and inquiry. Drainage is a very ticklish problem, requiring great skill. Deputy Nally and others complained of the length of time engineering investigation takes, but it is necessarily so, because experience has shown that in a number of cases the best planned schemes have failed to get the results anticipated, and that the last state of the occupier has been found to be worse than the first. At the same time, I do not know how much further the Government can go in this matter than it has already gone. It has given, as I indicated, an additional grant of £500; the county council is doing likewise, and it seems to me that unless an alteration has resulted in the actual disimprovement of the district, I do not see how much further we could go.
I would appeal to the Government to reconsider the whole matter.
But, as I pointed out at the commencement of my statement, the local authorities have responsibilities in these matters also, and much greater responsibility, I submit, than the central Government.
The question of the insurance of workers on the Fergus Scheme, as I indicated, has been referred to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and it is hoped to have a decision that will govern these cases before many more days. In connection with it, the Deputy must remember that up to the present—over the past 10 years, and even going back much earlier—the policy has been to regard the average unskilled worker in drainage districts as uninsurable in employment under the Insurance Acts. As I have said, we have referred the matter to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for formal decision under the Act, and we hope to have that decision in the course of the next few days.
Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):
In fairness to myself, I think it is only right to say that in connection with the drainage scheme only five miles from Fergus, men who were employed on it for seven or eight years assured me that their insurance cards were stamped.
That scheme may not have been carried out by the Board of Works. It appears that in some schemes carried out by the Land Commission insurance cards were stamped.
Deputy Moore referred to coal for use in the Gárda barracks in the country. The fuel for the Gárda barracks in the country is not supplied by the Board of Works. A grant is given to the barracks, and they can purchase fuel from whatever source they like. They purchase it presumably from a coal merchant in the neighbourhood. For the Metropolitan barracks we contract for the supply of coal. Last year the supply of coal used by all barracks was from Continental sources. This year we are inviting tenders only from continental sources. It is an easy question to substitute peat and turf for coal in Government offices generally and the matter is being considered and turf will be used where possible. Deputy Dockrell said in that connection there was no use attempting to burn turf in coal grates. I do not know on what the Deputy bases that statement. I have had yearly experience of the burning of turf in slow combustion grates and found no difficulty. I go every year to the Gaeltacht district where coal is not available and turf is solely used in slow combustion grates. It burns quite as satisfactorily and as well and as economically, taking all the facts into consideration. At any rate the question of the provision of suitable grates for the burning of turf is being gone into and examined at the moment by the Department of Industry and Commerce in connection with schemes to encourage the use of turf.
With regard to the flooding of Little Bray, the Deputy referred to the work done there. That work was done in connection with relief schemes. I think they got a grant, but, having got as far as that, I think that the people of Bray and Little Bray will have to complete the work without any further relief work being done upon it. I think they will have to rely upon themselves in the coming year.
With regard to the playground at Donore Avenue mentioned by Deputy Dockrell, I think that should be properly raised on the Vote for the Department of Education. At least, I have no information about it. If the Deputy will furnish me with the particulars to which he referred, I will have them looked into.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to the proposal, which was under consideration, of adopting a rotary system with regard to the employment by contractors on public works. The suspension of that scheme was not due to any pressure from this House or from any pressure from outside. As a matter of fact, it was already decided to suspend that scheme before the question went down. It was thought that a rotary system probably was not a bad thing in the particular circumstances in which works were being carried out and that it should be given effect. But subsequent investigation into the application of the principle convinced the Parliamentary Secretary that nothing should be done until a much more searching inquiry had been made. And in connection with that I make the claim that there was no displacement of anybody. A vacancy did arise where a person who had served for 30 years fell sick and was unlikely, as far as opinion went, to return to work again. The employment of another person was suggested in this case. The person suggested for the vacancy was a competent tradesman, fully qualified, who had been out of work for a considerable period and had a wife and family dependent on him. In this connection I should like to point out that an attempt has been made to draw an analogy between those being employed by contractors and those employed by the State. If that position were to be taken up, then I think, the whole question of employment by contractors would have to be gone into very searchingly. The Government is bound to employ men in certain ways—through the labour exchanges or through the Civil Service Commission and in other ways—so as to ensure that the person in the greatest need of employment will secure employment. But, if the position is to be created that a private individual, carrying out a contract on behalf of the Government, is to be in a position to determine who shall, in effect, be permanently employed by the Government, then, I think, that position cannot be allowed to continue. No person employed in that way can be allowed to establish a prescriptive claim in the public service to the exclusion of everyone else no matter how deserving he may be. The same rules that apply to employment directly in the public service will have to be applied to those employed by contractors on Government contracts, and that is that those who are in the greatest need would have to have first claim. That is not to say that, where the position has obtained up to the present that a person is in continuous employment by a contractor, he is to make room for somebody else, but that where a vacancy does occur on public works that vacancy will have to be filled in accordance with the principle that the Government has already laid down, which is that those in the greatest need of employment will have first claim.
Arising out of what the Minister has said, there are two points which I wish to put forward. Has this whole question arisen simply because, in the case of one person who was out on sick leave for a long time, the Government attempted to dictate who should be employed in his place?
Nobody attempted to dictate to anybody. I understand that a man—a competent man—who was a married man with a family and had been out of employment for a long time, was recommended to a contractor who was known to have a vacancy on his staff, but nobody was displaced.
Do I understand that it all arose over one man? Am I also to understand that contractors who do work—either maintenance or constructional work—for the State will have to obey certain regulations as to the type of persons they will employ and that it is the intention to introduce a scheme of rotation as to the employment of these people?
Nothing of the sort. I indicated that if the claim were to be set up that, because a person was in the employment of a contractor who was carrying out works under a scheme for the Government, he had a prescriptive right to be regarded as a public employee, then the rules that normally govern employment in the public service would have to apply in that case also, but that he could not have it both ways. The Government is debarred from giving employment to any person except in accordance with certain rules.
Has there been a claim by Government contractors that they ought to be regarded as Government employees?
There was a statement in the public Press that these men were Government employees. If they were Government employees, then the ordinary rules governing public employees would have to apply to them. They cannot have it both ways. The contractors carrying out works for the account of the Government will have to observe, in relation to these men, exactly the same conditions as the Government would have to observe if it were employing these men directly.
Does the Minister propose to make that clear to the contractors?
I am pointing out the implication of the attitude taken up that these people are, in fact, public employees, and I am merely saying that if they are public employers, then their employment and the terms, conditions and method of their employment will have to conform to the terms and conditions universally applying to employment in the public service. The matter is being investigated and I am pointing out the natural consequence of an attitude which I have seen stated in the public Press during the past week or fortnight in relation to this matter.
Deputy McGovern referred to some suggestions which he made to the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to certain drainage works in County Cavan. He did not mention the names of the districts in which the work should be carried out and, consequently, I cannot identify them; but if he will be good enough to give me the information with regard to the particular districts involved I shall be happy to have the schemes inquired into.
Deputy Nally referred to the question of the drainage of the River Robe district which, he said, had been initiated in 1928 when the then Government, as a result of preliminary investigation, suggested that the local authority would only be called upon to contribute 6 per cent. of the scheme. He went on then to point out that, subsequently, increasing contributions, rising from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. might be asked for. I am afraid that may not be the end of the auction because, since then, the scheme has been exhaustively investigated and a definitive scheme has now been prepared and will be submitted to the County Council in the course of the next fortnight. The drainage of the River Robe has turned out to be a very complicated matter and it is estimated that the cost will be not less than £45,000. I should like to say— possibly in anticipation of what Deputy Nally might like to say on the matter— that we, at any rate, are putting a firm proposition before the County Council If the County Council are willing to contribute a reasonable amount to the cost of the scheme, we are willing to make a reasonable contribution also; but it will be nothing in the nature of 6 per cent.
The Minister made a proposition in April, 1932, and stated at that time that the Government were going to submit a definite scheme to the County Council within the following three months. I think it is just the same proposal that is going before the County Council now. As a member of the County Council I know what I am talking about.
I am in a position to give an undertaking this time that it will be fulfilled; that the scheme will be submitted within the next fortnight or three weeks or, at any rate, in the near future. What I said in regard to the point raised by Deputy Minch applies in this connection also.
What proprotion of the expenses of draining the Robe will the Government put up?
I am not going to commit myself to that at this stage. If the Deputy will put down a question, I shall be in a better position to deal with it.
Was there not an undertaking by the last Administration that 50 per cent. of the cost would be put up by the State and, if so, will the Minister take the same course?
At any rate, 50 per cent. is a matter for consideration. I am not going to pledge myself to give 50 per cent.
If the Minister discovers that the last Administration was willing to give 50 per cent., will he take the same course?
Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was not here when Deputy Nally was speaking. There is a striking conflict of evidence now. Deputy Nally's case was that the scheme was originally mooted in 1928 and that the then Administration only required the local authorities to put up 6 per cent. Six per cent. leaves 94 per cent. to be accounted for.
The Government would put up 50 per cent. at that time.
And the local authorities would only have to put up 6 per cent., and the occupiers of the land would have to put up 44 per cent. Is that it? I wonder what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and Deputy Nally would say if we were to ask the occupiers of land at this stage to deal with it in that way?
If I am not mistaken, there is a maximum which the Government can put up for any drainage scheme.
Yes.
What is the maximum?
50 per cent.
The last Administration undertook, when the scheme went through, to put up the maximum, that is, 50 per cent.
The last Administration gave a pledge quite obviously before they were in a position to form an opinion as to what the scheme was going to cost. They pledged themselves to put up 50 per cent. I am willing to accept the Deputy's statement. At the same time, they also pledged themselves, according to Deputy Nally, only to ask the local authorities to put up 6 per cent. I am wondering where the balance is to come from. It seems to me that if they gave a pledge to ask the local authorities to put up only 6 per cent. they must have taken a leap in the dark, because they could not possibly have known what this scheme, which has only reached completion in 1933, was going to cost.
If the Minister looks at the files of the Board of Works he will see the scheme which I saw two years ago or thereabouts. It was practically a complete scheme with the cost estimated.
Which you saw two years ago?
Or thereabouts. I am not tying myself to the exact date.
Then the inference to be drawn is that there must have been, under the late Administration, criminal negligence in not submitting this complete scheme at once to the local authorities and what it was going to cost.
A scheme that was ready about two years ago, just before the present Government came into office.
And it cost £2,150 to prepare that scheme.
From 1928 to 1932. We came into office on 9th March, 1932.
This is 1933 and two years ago would be 1931.
It is not yet two years ago. The vital fact that emerges is that for four years a scheme was being hatched out under the late Government and, apparently, at the end of four years they had not produced a satisfactory scheme. A scheme which the Government can stand over has now been produced and is ready for submission to the local authorities.
The scheme was perfectly complete in all details.
Why withhold this masterpiece then even for the few months you were in office after it had been completed?
The Minister referred to Deputy Nally's case and the case I brought forward as being analogous. I do not see where the analogy comes in. I can assure the Minister that I will accept 50 per cent. if he offers it.
I was merely drawing the moral from the sorry experience in regard to that drainage scheme that this scheme had to be prepared with very great care. I am not prepared to take up the attitude, notwithstanding what has been said across the House, that all the time has been wasted. In view of the complaints which we have received from time to time that drainage schemes, instead of improving conditions, make them worse, I think the most searching investigation must be undertaken before the Government, in the first place, commits itself to expend something like £22,500, as it would be in case the 50 per cent. were given, as I intimated is not unlikely, and ask the county council and the occupiers of the land, who are vitally concerned, to make themselves responsible for a large expenditure also.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Kehoe as to the Boira district, it seems to me that the works which he indicated as necessary in that case are of a type which normally would be carried out under the various relief works. If the Deputy will be good enough to send particulars of the works which he thinks should be carried out there, I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will have the necessary investigations made and, if it is considered that the works will fulfil the purpose for which the relief money is voted, will give them whatever assistance will be necessary.
Deputy MacDermot has followed up Deputy Dillon in connection with the portico at Charlemont House, which has been troubling their minds for some time. That matter was investigated by the City authorities, both architectural and engineering.
Did you not state, sir, that this did not come under the Vote?
The question was raised by Deputy Dillon and it was followed up by Deputy MacDermot.
The Minister was called upon to conclude.
Mr. Kelly
I was going to explain.
Explanations are not allowed after the Minister has concluded, but questions may be asked relative to the Minister's statement.
It is a very simple thing on which to interrupt a man.
I should like to ask the Minister what are the intentions of the Department in relation to the disused British military barracks, for instance the barracks at Ballincollig? With a small expenditure of money, the married quarters and other portions of that building could be used for housing.
I am afraid the Deputy will have to put that down as a parliamentary question.
Votes put and agreed to.