Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 1939

Vol. 75 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 11—Public Works and Buildings.

Mr. Ruttledge

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £913,628 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha na Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, chun caiteachais i dtaobh Foirgintí Puiblí; chun coinneáil-suas Páirceanna agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; agus chun déanamh agus coinneáil-suas Oibreacha Dréineála.

That a sum not exceeding £913,628 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, 1940, for expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; and for the execution and maintenance of Drainage Works.

Mr. Flinn

Vote 10 is for salaries and expenses of the staff of the Office of Public Works. The net total estimated for the year 1939-40 is £133,030 which compares with the Estimate of £131, 846 for 1938-39 and shows an increase of £1,184. This increase is represented by an increase in the gross expenditure of £2,804, almost entirely accounted for under the provision for salaries, etc., of the staff, offset by an estimated increase in appropriations-in-aid of £1,560. The Estimate under the head of salaries, wages and allowances shows the numbers and cost of the staff in each branch of the office. Compared with the figures for 1938-39 the net result is an increase of £2,679 in the money provision and six in the personnel; but it should be noted that the precise number and grading of the engineering staff for the arterial drainage section had not been determined at the time the Estimate was framed and for that reason a lump sum provision of £3,600 was inserted in the Estimate.

Actually, therefore, the figures appearing in the Estimate as regards numbers of staff do not reflect the true position, because it is a position of flux at the moment. Since the Estimate was prepared the numbers and grades of engineers for the drainage section have been fixed, namely, 1 grade I, 2 grade II and 6 grade III — a total of nine engineers; so that the total staff represented by the money provision in the Estimate is really 44 instead of 35 as shown in the printed column. The numbers of the engineering staff shown in the Estimates of previous years included posts which had been authorised but were never filled.

The Estimate for travelling expenses is the same as for last year. There is no change in the provision in Land Improvement Loans under sub-head E (1). The technical duties in connection with loans for land improvement are performed by a temporary surveyor who receives an allowance of £86 per annum.

The provision of £1,370,328 under the Vote for Public Works and Buildings for 1939-40 is greater than the provision for 1938-39 by £181,479. This increase of £181,479 is mainly attributable to larger provisions, under sub-head A—£10,560, and under sub-head B — £168,415. The increase of £168,415 under sub-head B is attributable principally to the following two factors: an additional £50,000 for national school grants, making a provision of £250,000 for 1939-40 as against £200,000 for 1938-39 and an additional £191,760 for military new works making a total of £444,475 for military new works for 1939-40 as against £252,715 for 1938-39.

Mr. Morrissey

I must confess I had expected a rather fuller statement from the Parliamentary Secretary dealing with these two Votes. The Office of Public Works is responsible for the expenditure of a very large sum of money, covering very wide fields and various forms of work, and there is a very substantial increase, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, of £181,000. I think nearly every Department of State is covered under Vote 11 to some extent, and we have set out under Drainage 13 separate drainage districts for which a considerable amount of money was voted last year. Substantially the same, or, in most of the cases, larger sums are apparently being voted this year, and we have not got any explanation as to why the moneys voted last year were not spent, why the works were not carried out, why it was necessary to increase the amounts voted last year for this year, and what progress, if any, the Department hopes to make on these particular works during the present financial year. It seems to me that that is one of the particular sub-heads on which the Parliamentary Secretary might have given the House some information.

Generally speaking, what puzzles me in regard to this particular Vote year after year is that you find for a particular work or building a large sum of money asked for under a particular head, say, this year, and then the total amount is set out which is estimated for the work, say £1,500, and then you get in the next column "Estimated to be expended this year, £250." It seems to me that this House ought not to be asked to vote money until the Department is ready to spend that money, until, in other words, the Office of Public Works have their plans completed in connection with the proposed work; and if their plans have been completed, when they come to the House for the money one finds it hard to understand why only a comparatively small portion of that money is to be spent in the coming year, having regard particularly to the necessity there is for providing all the work it is possible to provide. I realise, of course, that the activities of this particular Department are many and varied, that they are responsible for practically everything in the country, from the bog-road to the Viceregal Lodge. We have set out here, year after year, estimates for the construction of barracks for the Gárda Síochána. We find that from year to year an estimate is carried on, and apparently there is no work carried out. We find very often that the Dáil this year is asked to vote, say £10,000, for a particular work, and you come on to the following year and you find no work done—not even started—and the original estimate increased to £30,000; and even that year, that no work may be started. There may be a very good reason for all this, but, if there is, it ought to be explained to the House. Now there is one large work which has been figured on this Estimate for a number of years, that is, for a very large building which is to be erected in Kildare Street. There is a very big sum of money — something like £218,000 — for that particular work.

We find that out of the £218,000 required, the amount expected to be spent in the present financial year is £50,000. The estimated expenditure for last year was only £16,000. As I say, the Parliamentary Secretary may have a very good explanation for the apparent slowness of this particular work, but, if he has, I think he ought to give it to the House. I am afraid, Sir, I have to confess that I find myself rather confined, in view of the agreement to which we have already come, and perhaps that is all the better, because, confining myself as I must to the few points I have raised, there is perhaps a better chance that they may be answered by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Benson

First of all, I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the improved lighting both in this Chamber and in the Library. Apparently, he has occupied his Easter holidays usefully, and I think we can all say that it is a decided improvement. The chief point which I wish to make on this Vote is one which I raised last year also, and of which it was my intention to give the Parliamentary Secretary notice—I regret that I did not do so — and that is a question which concerns this city from the planning point of view. As the House is well aware, a joint plan for this City of Dublin is at present being prepared, and it must also be realised that Government offices form a very considerable section of that plan. So far as the Dublin Corporation is aware, the Government has no scheme or no plan as to what they propose to do with regard to any Government buildings, or whether they propose to erect any to bring them more together than they are at the present moment. There is, of course, a scheme going on at the moment behind my back, but apart from that we know of nothing. At the present moment it is not necessary for the Government to have plans passed by the Corporation. Possibly the first information that the corporation receives is some mention in the Press that work is started, or actually seeing the work started, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have serious consideration given to this matter, and that as soon as possible such information should be supplied to the planning authority in order that it may be incorporated in the plan. If it is the decision of the Government that the Legislature should remain in this building, then it is to be presumed that the general tendency will be to bring the Government offices into this vicinity. But if for any reason they should decide that this building is not suitable, and that some other building would be more suitable, then I think the corporation should be so informed at the earliest possible moment in order that it may help on the very good cause of bringing in a proper plan for this city.

Professor O'Sullivan

I think the point made by Deputy Morrissey does require a certain amount of attention. It is undoubtedly the practice that very often an Estimate is put down and even the amount estimated for the year is not spent. I am not putting all the blame for that on the Board of Works.

Mr. Flinn

Providence has something to do with it.

Professor O'Sullivan

Not necessarily, but other Departments have something to do with it. There have been cases I know in which other Departments have come along and asked the Board of Works to draw up, most urgently, certain plans for certain buildings. A short time afterwards either they do not want that building at all, or they want considerable modification of the building. But even if the fault is not with the Board of Works it is with the Departments of Government. Undoubtedly, on this particular Estimate there is often conveyed the impression — I do not say it started with the present occupant of the office — that a great deal more money is going to be spent on works than actually will be spent during the year. To some extent that may be unavoidable. I realise from a certain amount of experience I once had that responsibility certainly does not altogether lie with the Board of Works, but—and I speak especially from the point of view of those who are looking towards employment — it is a factor that does require some consideration. Now, I do not like bringing up my hardy annuals to the Parliamentary Secretary, and yet I cannot refrain from doing so. Possibly, as the year goes by, they will become hardier still, because I doubt if in the tenure of office of the present Parliamentary Secretary they are likely to reach any solution. I am referring to three very urgent drainage schemes, not because they are the only drainage schemes in the country that require consideration, but because, in addition to being so very urgent, I regard them as in many respects typical of the whole problem. That is one of the reasons why I do refer to them particularly. They are typical in their extreme urgency, typical also in some of the difficulties which they represent, and typical because they present a problem which I think must be faced. I am convinced of two things; first of all, that some time or other the drainage of the particular districts which I have in mind will have to be faced — that at some time some Government will undertake it. I am equally convinced that if we do apply the rule that the scheme must be "economical," the schemes most likely will be held to be "uneconomical." But i am convinced that they will be undertaken. I am convinced that the pressure will ultimately be so great, and the scandal of having those things there so strong that they will have to be undertaken by some Government.

Mr. Flinn

However uneconomcial it is?

Professor O'Sullivan

That is my point. I think they will be undertaken. The extent of their uneconomic quality will vary; apart altogether from the considerable material damage, there is the bad effect on the public mind, as well as considerations of public health, which I am told by doctors do come in in some of those districts, and which, of course, are not taken into account when the "economic" value of the schemes is being reckoned. If you take the schemes from the mere alleged improvement of the land, and add to that the maintenance charge, I can quite understand that the Parliamentary Secretary could make out a case — I do not say whether it is a valid case or not; I want to be quite fair — that the schemes which I mention are uneconomic. Yet I am sure that ultimately they will be started, and that the longer you postpone them the less economical they will become. I mention the three names, because I think they will be undertaken some time or other. I had better give the names. There is the Brick and Cashin, the Akeragh Lough, and the Lower Maine. They present certain problems of their own that raise another question. The Board of Works and their engineers are faced with a difficulty, however able the engineers may be, and I should be the very last to question their ability, in this matter particularly, because I think the only authorities that we have in this country, or perhaps in the next country, on drainage, you have them in the Board of Works. Therefore, I am not questioning their competency.

I do not think, in the case of some of these schemes, that it is possible, beforehand, to frame anything like a steady estimate. You may estimate that the scheme will cost £50,000. It may cost £40,000 or it may cost £70,000. In any circumstance, I think the amount that has to be paid by the people whose lands are benefited by the scheme should not exceed the amount of the benefit. The amount that has to be paid by way of repayment of loan and maintenance charge by the beneficiaries should not exceed the amount of the estimated benefit that they will get. Unfortunately, as the law stands at present, it may happen that they may have to pay more. I have a case in point in which that is so. Take the Akeragh Lough district. It was drained a few years ago. A certain estimate was made. I am not questioning the competence of the people who made the estimate, but it is apparent from what occurred, from the very history of the scheme, that it was not the success that was hoped for. Otherwise, there would not have been, a year or two after the scheme coming into operation or being handed over to the county council, the necessity for a considerable expenditure.

The people of the district complain that the scheme has gone bad altogether. Probably what happened is that the higher land may have benefited somewhat, but the low-lying lands have almost reverted to their previous condition, with the result that, a year or two after the scheme had been handed over to the county council, the actual amount of money spent in keeping the scheme in condition, plus the wages paid to a caretaker to look after the sluices, plus the yearly charge on the beneficiaries to repay their portion of the loan that was necessary to finance the scheme, amounted to considerably more than the estimated benefit for that year. I think the estimated benefit was something like £332. The annuity for the tenants' portion was, roughly, £100 less. There was £50 or £70 — I cannot remember the exact amount — for the caretaker, and there was an expenditure of something like £250, a special expenditure for that year. That the scheme should have required any great expenditure in the first couple of years is quite abnormal. I should have expected a scheme of that kind —apart from the wages of the caretaker — if it had been successful, not to require much in the way of maintenance in the first couple of years. Here you had a very considerable sum about two years after it was handed over.

That did create an intolerable situation for the people. What is the result? In the last couple of years there was no expenditure at all on the scheme. The county council are spending nothing, because the people have not paid the rate. Why are they not paying the rate? Because they were told their benefit was £332 and they held they were getting no benefit. In one year they were called upon to pay a couple of hundred in excess of the alleged benefit. As a result, no work has been done on that scheme for a couple of years. A scheme that was completed about five or six years ago has now reverted, in some portions at least, to the condition in which things were before the scheme was conditioned. I think it was an old scheme that was reconditioned.

Take one of the other schemes that has been put, perhaps not very fully as yet in all details, but certainly strongly before the Board of Works. It is one of the urgent schemes of the year and it illustrates the danger of delay. I am speaking now of the Lower Maine. Some years ago the Upper Maine was drained, but the Lower Maine was not drained. I am not going now into the engineering value of that particular procedure. I am merely stating the facts. The result, as the Parliamentary Secretary and the House know, was that the waters came down much more quickly by reason of the better drainage in the upper reaches of the Maine. Flooding, therefore, occurred more extensively than previously. This was a scheme that was quite new. The upper portion of the Maine was an entirely new scheme. The lower portion that I am discussing has never yet been taken up. The lower portion is tidal and a large portion of the land has to be protected by banks. What is the result? I have heard it argued — I do not accept the argument — that on the occasion of a flood, even a quick one coming down, it does not do any permanent harm. I am not accepting that explanation, though I have heard it. What is the serious thing is this, that as a result of the quicker flowing off of the waters from the upper reaches — and that was particularly evident in the exceptional year that we have had, and that is what I always warned against, that a year of that kind is bound to come— you have had the breaking of the banks and, therefore, considerable damage.

There again you have the urgency of the problem illustrated. Every year that passes by means more damage, accelerating damage very often as a result of broken banks, because, being tidal, a large portion of the land depends on the steadfastness of the banks for their protection. The result is that you have an accelerating process of deterioration and every year that passes will not merely increase the damage that is done, but will make the ultimate scheme more costly. That is the reason I urged that something be done, even outside the framework of any particular Act, to build up the banks in this particular place. Something of the same kind might have been done in the years that have passed in the other schemes, the Brick and Cashin scheme, and on the Akeragh Lough. All these three schemes present difficulties from the engineering point of view. I admit that. They are tidal. I am aware of the difficulty that a tidal river presents so far as any full and fast estimater is concerned. Therefore, I think that in connection with any scheme in the future the full charge on the beneficiaries should be fixed from the start; that work undertaken should be kept in good condition and that any extra expense will have to be met out of public funds. I see no other way out of it. It is trying human nature too highly to assume that people will pay for schemes of that kind more even than the Government has estimated that they are benefiting.

A very serious case has happened in the instance of the Akeragh Lough. Actually a great deal more than the annual benefit (estimated) was paid in one particular year, and the whole scheme has collapsed. I do not mean collapsed physically — that had happened already. The actual money spent is a proof of that. But the scheme financially has collapsed in the sense that there is no collection and no more expenditure by the county council on that particular scheme. Take the Lower Maine as another instance. There are a number of estates there. The Land Commission has certain obligations. It may not have sufficient money to deal with that situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary has other sums of money to spend in the way of relief works. Would it not be well, while we are awaiting the report of the commission, to consider whether the Land Commission and the Parliamentary Secretary in his capacity as head of the Board of Works, and as being responsible for employment schemes, should see that something at least should be done in the way of repairing of banks; that the two Departments should come together and, not merely because there are two different Departments, be completely innocent of each other's activities. The commission did take a considerable time to come into being. Even when its setting up was first adumbrated by the Parliamentary Secretary, it was a considerable time before the commission was set up, and an amount of valuable time was lost, and urgent works were not dealt with. I think it is bound to be some time before they can report. That is the reason I was glad to hear that they are examining schemes, but rather in order to deal with the different problems facing them. In that way we may expect a report more quickly than if they went in detail into every scheme. After all that is not their work, as they are not engineers. It will be some time before they can deal with them. I take these three schemes as being typical of other schemes in the country. In the meantime there will be accruing damage. The position will get worse year by year, and it has got worse year by year. I may say that I spent two hours in the middle of one of these districts quite by mistake, owing to the fact that the car in which I was travelling got into the middle of one of the roads and we could not get out of it between 10 and 12 o'clock one night. You have the roads flooded, communications interfered with, health damaged, as I am told by the medical officers, and considerable damage done to property. For that reason I urge strongly on the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether some temporary relief could not be given outside the operation of the Drainage Act at present in operation. I can understand how he is bound up and tied by the present drainage code. It might have been possible to have introduced a certain interim amendment in that code — but by the rules of order we cannot discuss that here. What I am asking him to do now is different, namely, to see whether at least some temporary relief could not be given. Ultimately it would mean a saving in money, because I am convinced that in the cases indicated more damage and more cost will ultimately be involved if the schemes are not quickly dealt with.

There are a couple of other matters which do not make the same appeal to my mind. One is that I would like to know what is the life of the airports, assuming peace conditions. Am I justified in assuming that in war conditions they will be used only for peace purposes? I admit that it is not the Department's duty to answer that. But I should like to know what is the life of these airports? Is it ten, or 20, or 30 years? I hope it is not like a national school — 80 years. There is a considerable amount of money being spent on the Dublin airport and on the Shannon airport. When is it thought they will be finished? I have no idea myself about the life of these ports, whether it is ten, 20 or 30 years, and what modifications will be necessary as the result of improving conditions in connection with air travel, etc. What I presume is, as there is considerable expense, that there is some estimate as to the life of these ports. I see that maintenance is very slight at the moment. I was wondering what there would be in the way of expense when they would have to be reconditioned?

Mr. Flinn

It is possible that maintenance might be very small compared with the obsolescence element. I see your point.

Professor O'Sullivan

I was noticing that the maintenance estimate was small. There is the question as to how quickly they might get out of date. The sum is considerable. Has the Parliamentary Secretary any idea as to the ultimate destiny of places like Dublin Castle and the Viceregal Lodge? Is it the idea that the President will continue to live in the Viceregal Lodge? At one time there was a suggestion that he might get some other building?

Mr. Flinn

The intention was to build a new one. There has been no change in that intention.

Professor O'Sullivan

The intention is there still to have a new building, but there is no intention of going on at present?

Mr. Flinn

I would not say that.

Professor O'Sullivan

In that case what is to happen to the Viceregal Lodge which will be maintained at considerable expense?

Mr. Flinn

It will have to be maintained until some other building is provided.

Professor O'Sullivan

I admit that.

Mr. Flinn

As the Deputy is suggesting it is going to be a very long time before the other building will be erected, he can wait for a little bit for an answer to that question.

Professor O'Sullivan

I will take it for granted that you are merely considering it. If it is anything like some of the drainage problems, the answer to my question is not urgent. I am anxious to see whether something could be done in the way of temporary relief in connection with these schemes I was referring to. I know that the drainage code presents difficulties, but I think that all over the country some temporary work might be available if something of the kind I was referring to was done. I gathered from what the Parliamentary Secretary stated some time ago in a circular he sent out that there were places where a scheme of that kind might not fill the bill so far as providing work is concerned. I should like him to give careful and sympathetic consideration to that suggestion.

Mr. Dockrell

I notice on page 42 of the Estimates, under the heading of Travelling Expenses, that for B (4) — Special Works Division — there is a sum of £4,800 provided for 1939-40, as against £3,700 for 1938-39. In the item before that —"National Monuments Advisory Council — there is a sum for a special survey in connection with national monuments. Although £1,100 is not a very big increase in the Estimates, it is a big increase in travelling allowances.

The next thing I want to touch on is a matter that has been more or less mentioned by Deputy Benson. I see on page 45, Vote 11, "Dublin Castle, additional accommodation (Revote)". There is an item of £10,000 for that building. As far as my recollection of Dublin Castle goes, the Upper Castle and the Lower Castle Yard are more or less fixed. You could not do very much there. Then there are other places where there are minor buildings. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can tell us the precise location of that particular site on which £10,000 is to be expended. I do not know whether this £10,000 will finish it or whether there will be further funds needed in the coming years. But the real point in connection with that is this, that there has been some effort to make a town planning scheme for Dublin. In connection with that there was a road projected through certain parts of the Castle.

Has that been considered in connection with the £10,000 building? I ask that because if a building has been put along the projected edge of the new thoroughfare, I suppose it would not be a help for it, it would block for all time that improvement. The Dublin Castle area is the very site on which probably some traffic and arteries may have to be opened. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary how far that matter has been considered, especially in the light of Deputy Benson's remark that the Board of Works has put up a building without any reference to the Corporation and without asking for their permission. I think it would be a great matter if things in the centre of the city were more fully considered. The Board of Works are probably one of the biggest and most considerable customers for new buildings in Dublin. I have no objection to that. It is very desirable to try to improve the amenities of our city. At the same time I think that greater efforts should be made to plan those buildings in connection with town planning schemes for the improvement of the lay-out of the city.

The next item I wish to ask the Minister about is this. I see there was a considerable expenditure on the Shannon air port last year. This year there is a large expenditure, too, and further expenditure is required to finish it. That means that it would be 1941 before the air port is finished. I and other people thought there was a very considerable need for pushing on that scheme in view of the development in connection with the air line from America. Presumably if we do not push on those schemes some other available site may be found, and the very favourable geographical position which this country enjoys in connection with that line of traffic may be menaced. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply, will endeavour to deal with these points.

Mr. John Flynn

I wish to refer to a matter mentioned by Deputy Professor O'Sullivan. I support the Deputy entirely in the plea that he made to the Parliamentary Secretary and I hope he will have the matter that was put up to him by the Deputy examined at the earliest possible date. I suggest, pending the decision of the Drainage Commission, that the Parliamentary Secretary would work in co-operation with the Minister for Lands. In other words, that any moneys held in trust by the Land Commission for the upkeep of the embankments mentioned by Deputy O'Sullivan and for the improvement of the adjoining properties be utilised in connection with some of the rivers. Some of the grants given by the Board of Works to repair these embankments pending the final scheme being put through should be utilised. Otherwise, as Deputy O'Sullivan pointed out, the danger will be that by the time the scheme is adopted — as it will have to be at some time, at some period — considerable damage will have been done and it will be very difficult to recoup to the people concerned what they have lost. My contention is that £1,000 now or even £100 spent on a scheme of that kind will be of greater benefit than considerably more money spent afterwards if the Board of Works delay their decision. In regard to the Drainage Commission, it is possible that that report will not be put through for another year or two. The money which might be expended during the next few months or certainly before the end of the year will enable those people to carry on and to develop the lands adjoining those tidal rivers. Either the Departments concerned must come to the assistance of the people and to their rescue in some way or the whole place will become derelict.

The suggestions put forward by Deputy O'Sullivan are the only practical suggestions that could be put forward under the circumstances. I, who live in that area, and who would be very interested in that scheme, concur completely with Deputy O'Sullivan's remarks. I make an earnest plea to the Parliamentary Secretary for his co-operation with the Land Commission. Over a period of the last 20 or 30 years the Land Commission have expended thousands of pounds in that district. Still, you have the same unsatisfactory results. The only hope, so far as I can see, is an extensive drainage scheme. Otherwise it will for all time, I submit, be a question of repairs to embankments. Pending that arrangement I make this plea.

I take it that the Land Commission will be very well pleased, and it will be to their benefit to co-operate with the Parliamentary Secretary. It will be a saving to all concerned if the Land Commission will contribute their own portion and co-operate with the Parliamentary Secretary for once and for all in dealing with this question which has been an eyesore for the past 20 or 30 years. This tidal district is being destroyed by the incoming tide and a large area of the countryside is, as a result, made almost derelict.

Mr. Hughes

I want to refer to just one particular item on this Estimate— item J 3 under the heading of Barrow drainage. The Barrow drainage scheme cost something over £500,000. The figure was £522,000.

That was paid as follows:—Free grant by the State, £261,000, and a loan by the Commissioners of Public Works, £261,000. The interest and repayments on that loan, paid by the three counties of Kildare, Laoighis, Ua bhFailghe, amount to £19,714 for 35 years. There is a maintenance charge of £3,250 on each county, making a total for 35 years of £22,964, to be levied as follows:—Annual sum charged through direct levy on the beneficiaries along the river, £8,981, and a charge on the county-at-large of £13,982. The approximate charge is about £5,000 on each county.

There is a real problem down there. I do not know how it is going to be solved, but I would call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to it. The county councils are striking a general rate this year of 1/2 in the £, but the real problem is that the levy on certain lands that are supposed to have benefited along the river is as much as 4/-, 5/- and 6/- an acre. A good deal of the land is scarcely worth the levy that is charged on it at the present time. There is one particular farmer in County Kildare faced with an annual charge for Barrow drainage of over £160. He could not possibly meet that charge.

There is another farmer who has an out-farm of 40 acres on the banks of the river. It is very poor, washed-out bogland. You can realise how poor the land is when it is let at £8 a year. The levy on that 40 acres is £6 18s. 6d., plus rent and taxes. Meetings have been held protesting against these levies. They have been trying to find some solution for it. I do not know whether representations have yet been made to the Parliamentary Secretary on the matter or not.

Mr. Flinn

They have been made to the Drainage Commission.

Mr. Hughes

Can the Drainage Commission examine?

Mr. Flinn

They can examine, yes.

Mr. Hughes

I think they are not prepared to examine this question, but it is one that ought to be examined by the Parliamentary Secretary or by the Drainage Commission. If it is possible, under the new national scheme of drainage that we are promised, and which the Drainage Commission is examining at present, to absorb this land into the new scheme, it might be a solution. I want to emphasise that the present levy is not economically possible for a number of the beneficiaries. The levy is beyond their capacity to pay, as Deputy O'Sullivan pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary in the case of Kerry. He warned the Parliamentary Secretary against the danger of a levy being beyond the capacity of the people to pay. In this particular case on the Barrow, I am satisfied that the levy is beyond the economic levy. The land is not worth any more than the levy. There will have to be some solution.

I have given you two instances, one, the man with 40 acres, the letting value of which was £8, bearing a levy of £6 18s. 6d.; the other, the farmer having to face an annual levy of over £160 a year. It is not possible for that man to meet the demand and there is no benefit to that extent accruing to the land. He admitted that the benefit would probably be in or around £20 a year but he is asked to pay over £160 a year. While, admittedly, on the Barrow some advantages have accrued, there are also definitely some disadvantages. Floods come down much more rapidly and the farmers have lost hay as the result of rapid flooding. In the past they got due warning of flooding. When there was danger of flooding the farmers got time to remove their hay. Now they complain that the flood comes down too rapidly. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to find a solution to that problem. The problem I want him to solve is the financial problem. The farmers are unable to meet the present demand made on them and it is not being paid. County councils are not able to collect the charges at the present time. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the matter and see what can be done about it.

There is another river, the Lirr, in County Kildare. That was drained in 1924 or 1926. The maintenance charge on that has been paid by the beneficiaries along the river but none of the original cost of it has been paid by the occupiers. They say that at the time the river was drained it was against the wishes of the occupiers along the river, and against the county councillors for County Kildare. The occupiers there contend that they were not interested in the river being done at all. There was an inquiry held into that Lirr drainage in 1922 or 1923 and I do not think the report of that inquiry has ever been published. Is it possible to get the report of that inquiry? There was a new charge order made on the river, but we have never seen the report of the inquiry and if the Parliamentary Secretary would furnish that report I would be very pleased.

Mr. Hurley

I have a few matters to raise on this Vote, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, especially with regard to the provision of new school buildings. In the statement of the Minister for Education, he gave us the number as 605 new schools needed in the country. Last year, according to the Estimate, there was £200,000 voted for grounds for building, repairing, and erection of new school buildings; and I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how many school buildings were erected in the rural parts of the country. There is still a great outcry against the delay which is caused in the erection of school buildings. There are two Departments involved in this — the Department of Education and the Public Works Department — and between the two there is often a good deal of time lost in getting the work started. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to try to expedite a solution of this very pressing problem. There is no mistake about it— many of the schools in rural parts of the country are a disgrace to civilisation, they are badly lighted, badly ventilated, and I venture to say that the seeds of disease which often remain permanently in after life are sown in these schools. It is a very urgent and pressing problem, whatever is the cause of it. There is a rather undue delay between the preliminaries in starting the erection of the school building and its completion. I would like to know how many of these schools were erected in rural areas during the past 12 months. There is another matter I wish to refer to, and that is the Civic Guards barracks at Kilnap, in my area, which, from information I have received and from my own inspection of the place, I think must be one of the worst in Ireland. The Board of Works officials inspected it from time to time, but nothing has been done. The barracks is not even sufficiently large to accommodate the strength that should be in that barracks, and as a result we have the Guards in that area understaffed. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to take that in hands and see if something could be done to put up a new building, because it is impossible to make the present place habitable. I understand that the Board of Works is paying a decent rental for the house.

As well as that, this particular barracks is on a by-road off the main road, and strangers to the district have difficulty in locating the place. I have been informed that when an accident takes place on the main Mallow road people looking for help are not able to locate the barracks. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to erect a new barracks for that area, and I would suggest that it be put up in a more central place — probably nearer to the city.

Another matter I would like to refer to is the condition of the coastguard houses at Crosshaven. These houses were formerly inhabited by coastguards, and whatever was the reason for it, there were no front doors put to the houses. There are back entrances through a common back yard — that is the only egress from the houses. I put up a suggestion to the Board of Works that it would be very profitable to put front doors to these houses with an entrance from the main road; because these houses can be rented for 10/- a week. There are a number of Civic Guards who live in these houses, because they can get no other accommodation in the district. People who could get accommodation in the district have left them and, out of the 11 or 12 houses there, I think five or six are unoccupied. I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to these matters: they are matters that are urgent and pressing, and I hope they will be taken in hands during the coming 12 months.

Mr. O'Neill

In addition to having charge of the public buildings the Board of Works is also in charge of the ruins of the country; and these ruins fall into two classes — ruins which ought to be kept up and those which ought to be pulled down. In connection with the first class, I would like to commend the Department of Public Works for the good work that has been done in regard to the preservation of these national monuments and the very excellent way some of these old buildings have been preserved. Some of these buildings have valuable historic association, and convey an important lesson to the youth. I think very good work has been done in preserving these monuments and I hope the Minister will see that in the future more of that work will be carried on. Now, the works that ought to be pulled down and the ruins that deface our country need attention. There are ruins which leave a nasty taste in our mouths, traces of civil conflicts, burnt-out military barracks, coast-guard stations and police buildings — and also some old work-houses. The work-houses would in most cases, I think, fall under the control of the county councils, but, at any rate, proper demolition should be undertaken, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me that they are defacing the country in a very hideous way. Now that we are going to spend such a lot of money on our tourist development, I think it should be put up to the Department to make greater efforts in getting rid of some of these buildings and give employment in their pulling-down. I was often going to suggest that it would be a good idea for relief schemes— but we are not discussing relief schemes at the moment. Some of them are pretty large buildings, and could possibly be pulled down for the value of the materials in them. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to keep that problem before him and get these hideous buildings taken down. He has done something towards letting the old coast-guard stations, and some of them are being rebuilt and used as seaside houses; perhaps greater facilities could be given to prospective lessees of these buildings. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary can give a lease for 90 years, and I am sorry it is not availed of to a greater extent, but sometimes a problem arises, particularly in regard to some of these coast-guard stations — I think the Department of Lands comes in and there has been trouble with the Land Commission. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to keep these hideous ruins in mind, because in some way they tend not only to have a bad effect on people who come to see them as visitors, but a bad effect also on people living in their neighbourhood.

Mr. Hickey

Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us in his reply the actual amount of money expended on the Shannon Airport and the Collinstown Airport up to date?

Dr. Tubridy

Before the Minister replies, I should like to make a few remarks on the question of drainage. I understood that all questions of drainage were to be referred to the Drainage Commission, and I was very interested to hear the Deputy from Carlow discussing the Barrow drainage. He made some very interesting comments on the rate that was to be paid by the people who benefited by the Barrow drainage. The Kerry Deputies — both the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael members — in discussing drainage, seemed to be unanimous both in praising the Parliamentary Secretary for whatever he did in regard to drainage in Kerry, and in having the audacity to try to coax the Parliamentary Secretary to expend more money on drainage, although we were given to understand that very little money would be expended on drainage until the Drainage Commission sat. It was very interesting to hear what Deputy Hughes had to say about the Barrow drainage, and about the extent of the payments that had to be made. He told us about one unfortunate farmer who had to pay something like £160 a year. That whole Barrow drainage was done at a period when I was in this House, but when Fianna Fáil were not the Government, and I take it that it was done with at least the consent of the Deputy, or of the Deputy who was here before him—Deputy Minch. Now there is this grievance, that if the Barrow drainage has been a failure — I do not know whether it has or not — the people around the Barrow who get the benefit of it want us to take it over as a national failure. In other words, we who had a much more severe amount of flooding in the West, and who got nothing at all from the late Government or from the present Government, are now to bear the same burden as the people from the Barrow area. Do I take it that the Deputy opposite, in spite of the fact that an immense amount of money was spent on that drainage, expects us in the West of Ireland to accede to his wishes now and take the whole thing over as a national cost? You cannot have jam on both sides of the bread, and apparently that is what the Deputy wants.

My intention in speaking on this Vote was to point out that a big amount of money was spent on the Barrow drainage, and why should the Deputy now come along to this House and ask us in the West to share the responsibility of the payment for that drainage? I would object entirely to that. Why should I not do so?

What I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary now is not to wait for this drainage commission to make their report. I cannot conscientiously ask the people in the area of Clare-Galway and Castlegar, which is flooded, to wait for two or three years until the commission reports, all for the sake of a few hundred pounds which would be more valuable now than a couple of thousand pounds later on. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that in regard to the drainage of those rivers a few hundred pounds now would be more valuable than a few thousands in we will say two or three years' time when the harm is done. Another matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary is the fact that drainage up to this was done by local influence, political thought, politics all the time. The money was spent according to where there was going to be a by-election. We all know that. That was definite. I am quite correct in that. The Barrow was drained. There was a by-election there at the time. We all know that, and apparently some people now wish to forget that all those drainage schemes were done for political purposes. I can see Deputy O'Neill registering disgust, but the fact is there. We all know that there was an election in Carlow-Kilkenny at the time this money was spent.

Mr. Hughes

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

Dr. Tubridy

Perhaps if Deputy Minch were here he would know it.

Mr. Hughes

The Barrow was on the point of being drained in the British days here. Is the Deputy aware of that?

Dr. Tubridy

It is a wonder they did not drain it.

Mr. Hughes

You do not know the history of the thing at all.

Dr. Tubridy

The Deputy may know more about the Barrow drainage than I do.

Mr. Hughes

I certainly do.

Dr. Tubridy

I admit that he is the Deputy for that area, but I think he will admit that it is just a little bit high-handed for him to come here and ask us to take it over as a national scheme now, when they already agreed to take it on the conditions under which they took it. Is not that so? But the drainage of the Corrib is what I want to refer to.

Mr. Hughes

That is right.

Dr. Tubridy

Certainly. I have often wondered how Kerry people have so much "coaxiorum". When I hear Deputies on that side and on this side coaxing our Parliamentary Secretary, I am astounded at the cleverness of the Kerry mentality when they are looking for grants. The Cork people are not too bad either. We had a little example of that from the other benches. I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that in our area there is a complete neglect of drainage, due to the fact that people are waiting for the drainage commission to decide what is to be done as regards drainage in our area. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to allocate at least a small amount for the clearing of the minor rivers into the Corrib, because if that is not done there is going to be constant flooding of the Corrib drainage area, which includes the Mask, and down into Clare-Galway. The last few years have been very bad, and there has been a lot of flooding in that area. The people there are in a desperate condition. The expenditure of a few hundred pounds now would improve conditions, and we could then afford to wait for the drainage board to decide what should be done with regard to drainage in a general way. I think that at least those people who got very extensive grants for the drainage of the rivers in their areas, both in Cork and Carlow, should not grudge us the few hundred pounds necessary to keep the rivers in condition until such time as the general scheme is ready.

In our constituency in Galway the same thing happened as in the case of the Barrow. Money was spent, a considerable amount of money, in draining the upper reaches of the river and letting the floods go into the lower portions, on to the mouths of the lakes and into the sea. Of course, it was a political stunt, too; we all know it was. Having agreed on that, we will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the advisability of spending some money on the maintenance of the rivers that flow into the Corrib.

Mr. Flinn

There has been a distinct advantage in the segregation of the Vote to-night, in the sense that we have had a more concentrated, a more ad rem discussion, as far as the Board of Works Vote is concerned, and certainly the whole of the discussion has been aimed at being helpful. I need hardly tell the House that neither I nor anyone else can keep in mind the thousand and one things which the Board of Works are expected to do. Therefore, if Deputies have particular points to which they want an answer in the course of the debate, they would be considering their own interests if they would give advance notice to me of those particular cases. I have a general knowledge of what has gone on in Crosshaven, but I have not that particular knowledge, and I do not think there is any reason why I should have, which would enable me, without notice, to set out the various considerations why a pre-existing condition relating to back doors or front doors should now be changed into having all front doors.

My desire in a discussion of this kind is to be helpful to Deputies and give them the information they want; but if they want information on specific points, they ought to give notice of them in advance. I will look into the question of Crosshaven, but my recollection is that there is no case, from the point of view of the State, for doing it, unless the State is to be considered as somebody whose business it is merely to provide amenities, whatever may be the cost of those amenities. I am speaking from recollection. I will look into the matter and I will tell the Deputy the position. He asked how many new schools had been erected. I do not know the number, but I will get that information and I will give it to the Deputy.

The Dáil gave the Board of Works £200,000 to spend on schools, and they have spent the whole of it. This year they are getting £250,000, and we hope to spend considerably more than £250,000. We are keenly anxious to do everything that in us lies in relation to dealing with the school shortage and school improvements, and for that purpose, as I told the Dáil last year, we were then setting up a special department to deal with new schools. That department has been set up. It is functioning very satisfactorily, and it leads me to hope that whatever money the Dáil may decide to put at our disposal, we will be able to spend it. At any rate, that is our intention.

Deputy O'Neill raised the question of two types of buildings, ruins that ought to be maintained and ruins that ought to be destroyed. He agrees that we have done all we can in relation to ruins that ought to be maintained. Our attitude towards that is not merely an ordinary Departmental one, but one of very great sympathy with that purpose and very great appreciation of the purpose served by maintaining them and keeping them in condition. As far as the hideous ruins which obtrude themselves so seriously on the vision of Deputy O'Neill are concerned, I can only say that my own opinion is exactly the same; but here again you are up against very considerable difficulty. There is the legal ownership, the conditions upon which you can enter upon premises of that kind; there is the tracing of the title and what you are to do with the space when you get it. All I can tell you is that the recovery value of the materials bears a very low proportion to the total cost of doing the work, and in a great many cases it is not work upon which ordinary unskilled labour can safely be let loose. The matter has been under consideration, with all its legal and other implications, for some time, and a Bill will probably be offered to the Dáil for the purposee of trying to deal with those difficulties. The matter has had the fullest possible consideration and will be dealt with.

A good many Deputies have raised the question of drainage. Deputy O'Sullivan did it in a very sympathetic and, I think, a very useful manner. Deputy Hughes also raised it. Deputy Flynn raised it much on the lines of Deputy O'Sullivan and others. Deputy O'Sullivan raised three separate cases as illustrations, which is about the best purpose for which any individual item can be raised upon a Vote of this kind. I do not think this is by any means the best place to raise individual cases in relation to a police barracks or something of that kind which, it is suggested, has been delayed. Very much better work can be done for Deputies' constituents in getting rid of a delay by using the ordinary method of approach through the Department, where the matter comes up for consideration to see what can be done.

Why I am raising that point is because it is valuable to raise cases which contain some principle which will cover a larger number of other cases. Now, Deputy O'Sullivan, in raising the question of the Brick and Cashin River, the Lower Maine and the Akeragh Lough, raised difficulties which are inherent in schemes of that character. The Brick and Cashin is a scheme which, if it is done at all, is going to cost a couple of hundred thousand pounds. It has the engineering difficulty connected with a tidal outfall. It goes out through a tidal estuary which is subject to disturbance by storm and tide and matters of that kind. Unless and until we are in a position to design some outfall through that shifting estuary which we can be satisfied will maintain itself, the whole position is that we might spend £200,000 and find ourselves with no solution whatever. The Lower Maine also presents a very difficult engineering problem and immediately you come on to a problem of difficult engineering in relation to drainage, you come across a financial and a cost problem.

I know of no way at present in which expenditure on the Brick and Cashin could be justified. We cannot see, even if we carried it out, that it would maintain itself. There are cases in which you can make an opening through a harbour at any cost you like and it may be closed up in a night. You have the cases in Wicklow and Wexford where a harbour is closed up regularly by its tide. One of the problems which the Drainage Commission will have to solve, and in my opinion the most important problem it will have to solve, will be: under what financial conditions will drainage be done in future; who is going to pay for it; in what proportion is it going to be paid for; and how are you going to guarantee that these proportions, when ascertained, will in fact be paid? That is the main problem. There are very few engineering problems left in relation to most of the rivers. It is simply a question of spending money, and mostly a case of spending money on cutting deeply into rocky outfalls of rivers which, as far as it is concentrated on the outfalls, will produce nothing in the way of immediate drainage benefit.

Deputy O'Sullivan's contribution to-night would be very good evidence before the Drainage Commission. It is simply putting up to them a series of difficult financial problems for which at the moment there is no obvious solution. If the Dáil is prepared to accept the proposition that any drainage which is demanded, at whatever cost, has got to be done because it is demanded, and that the whole cost of it is to be borne by the community, then that is a very simple sort of direction to give to the Drainage Commission. It is a very simple thing for the Dáil to do when the report of the commission comes before it. Deputies have to realise that that is going to involve a lot of money, and not necessarily money distributed in a way in which the benefit would accrue in a direction in which this Dáil, as a responsible body, would desire.

Take the question of the Barrow. There was a special Act passed for the Barrow drainage. The Barrow also has a special history. The British Government contemplated draining it for generations before it was done and nothing came out of that. What did happen was that this Dáil passed an Act under which the drainage scheme was to cost about £510,000. Eventually it cost £547,000. But, as far as the benefited owner was concerned, his position was safeguarded as well as it was humanly possible to safeguard it. It was laid down that the occupier should pay only the actual improved value, and that was to be ascertained by an assessor. When it was ascertained by an assessor, it was sent to appeal and reassessed. Unless the Dáil has some more infallible method of assessing it, then it stands. The Dáil has to have some assessor. No matter what your scheme is in the future, unless you are going to say that the benefited occupier shall pay nothing, there has to be an assessor, and that assessor will have to be accepted. That is exactly the position in which the people on the Barrow are. They asked for this scheme, they demanded it, they pressed for it, and they got it under the conditions accepted by the Dáil. I do not think that anyone is going to ask for a better standard than that the occupier shall not pay more than the actual improved value as assessed by the accredited assessor.

Mr. Hughes

I should like to point out that the beneficiaries along the Barrow got no information beforehand as to the probable cost.

Mr. Flinn

There was a draft award inquiry and the estimate of the scheme was given here in this House.

Mr. Hughes

Prior to the work being done?

Mr. Flinn

Whatever it was, the estimated value was ascertained by an assessor.

Mr. Hughes

I agree that they asked for the scheme, but they were not aware of what it was going to cost.

Mr. Flinn

My experience is that before we start any drainage scheme we are told that it will be of inestimable value. That is invariably the case. When it is finished, no matter how well it is done, we are told it is of no value. We have that continually. We are told that there is an unlimited amount of economic value, but immediately it is done an occupier says: "Why did you take the water off my land? It is now too dry." That sort of thing does, in fact, happen. What I am trying to get at, as one interested in getting drainage done, is that unless we can come to some understanding by which, when the scheme is done, those who have agreed to pay for it under certain prescribed conditions will be prepared to do so, then drainage is going to be a very difficult matter to carry through. At present no one can possibly accuse the State of being ungenerous. We are passing schemes which are 70, 80 and 90 per cent. uneconomic. That means that for every £1 which the farmers, who benefit by the drainage of their land, pay the State is paying in some cases £9 and in some cases £3, £4 and £5. Unless the benefited owner of the land is prepared to fulfil the engagement into which he enters to the community that is making that generous contribution towards his necessities it is not going to be easy to get through that drainage.

Mr. Keyes

Would it not be advisable to make sure that the work would be competently carried out by the Board of Works for the assessed figure, which they have failed to do in many cases?

Mr. Flinn

The best drainage engineers in the country, engineers who know most about this type of drainage, practically the only engineers who are competent in relation to this particular form of drainage, which is sui generis, are our own engineers. If the Deputy is going to sit in judgment as an engineer and tell us that our engineers do not know their job, if the benefited owner, as soon as he gets his land drained, is going to be in a position to sit in judgment, then where do we stand? We are satisfied that our engineers are thoroughly competent in this matter.

Mr. Keyes

When banks fall into the middle of the river you do not want to be an engineer to see that the scheme is a failure.

Mr. Flinn

It is possible that the falling in of a bank at the beginning of the maintenance period of a drainage scheme may not be altogether a proof of the failure of the scheme. Take the ordinary bank of a river. It has eroded itself into a stable condition over a period of years. There are all sorts of banks on all sorts of rivers, on the inside of a bend and on the outside of a bend; banks beside a fast-running river and banks beside a slow-running river; entirely different banks which are stable. Very often part of the problem of maintenance, after the scheme has been put in a particular condition, is to allow the river to re-create a stable bank for the new conditions which it has to face. It was said to-day, for instance, that it was ridiculous that maintenance on a particular scheme should be high in the early years. Quite possibly, in the first couple of years, after the drainage scheme had been completed, there would be a period in which there would be that erosion. It might be a question of doing a good deal of maintenance during the very early stage rather than leaving it over and taking up the consequences after.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. to-morrow.