asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance undertook to a meeting of Mayo County Council on the 25th November, 1950, that the Office of Public Works would arrange for the removal of obstructions on the River Moy at Manulla, Foxford and Mount-falcon; that the work would commence in March, 1951; that the former Minister for Agriculture, in consultation with him, was allocating £100,000 for the scheme; and, if so, whether he will accordingly state if (1) there is any record in his Department of any such scheme; (2) there is any correspondence in the files of his Department with the Minister for Agriculture in connection with any such scheme; (3) whether any survey was carried out by his officials for the purpose of implementing any such scheme, and (4) if the Office of Public Works have had an examination made as to whether they have any legal right to remove these obstructions except in pursuance of a full unitary scheme under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945; and, if so, what was the result of the examination.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - River Moy Drainage.
I have no information as to the proceedings at the meeting of the Mayo County Council on the 25th November 1950, beyond that contained in Press reports, which attributed to Deputy Donnellan statements to the effect that he proposed to commence work on the removal of the obstructions at Manulla, Foxford and Mountfalcon in the summer of 1951 in advance of a comprehensive scheme for the Moy catchment under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945.
While the possibility of affording some temporary relief from flooding along the Moy by the removal of obstructions was adverted to in correspondence with the former Minister for Agriculture, there is no record in my Department of the allocation of a sum of £100,000—or any other sum—for such work; and no engineering survey has been made for the purpose of formulating or implementing any such scheme.
The removal of obstructions of the nature of those on the Moy is a major drainage operation involving substantial interference with important water rights and other rights, and the legal powers of the Commissioners of Public Works to interfere with such rights are derived from the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, and not otherwise.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that conversations were proceeding between the Board of Works and the Department of Agriculture to carry out the work on the Moy River; and that, after a full technical examination of the problem by the officers of the Board of Works, for which the Parliamentary Secretary is now supposed to be responsible, a decision was taken to conduct the survey of the River Moy late this year or early next year with survey staff provided by the Minister for Agriculture; and that, on that survey a decision would be taken as to whether the main channel of the Moy might not be excavated pending the undertaking by the Board of Works of a comprehensive arterial scheme under the Arterial Drainage Act?
As I mentioned in the reply to the question by Deputy Moran, there was correspondence between the Minister for Agriculture and the chief engineer.
It is the difference between credit and cash. I suppose.
Give me a chance to explain and do not display so much ignorance.
The trouble is that I was not ignorant enough for you.
Deputies ought to wait and hear the answer.
After this correspondence an explanation was sent by the chief engineer to the then Minister for Agriculture, in which he pointed out to the then Minister for Agriculture that:—
"It seems to me the solution to the Moy catchment drainage problem will lie, not only in opening up the main River Moy and its tributaries, but also in improving the channels leading into and out of the two lakes, Lough Conn and Lough Cullen, the object being to make much greater use of these lakes as storage and balancing reservoirs."
On 17th April, 1951, after some opening remarks, the then Minister for Agriculture said:—
"I have been giving the Moy very careful attention myself and the engineers of the Board of Works have been there examining every aspect of the problem there obtaining. There is no solution of the Moy flooding by removing the rock or by plugging or picking at it. The Moy must be dealt with as a unitary. It may involve the building of loughs on Lough Cullen and Lough Conn. It certainly constitutes a unitary drainage problem, and that is the way it is going to be done. The survey authority will start on it this year."
Hear, hear!
Is it not now clear that this statement was made publicly to the Mayo County Council and that it was sheer eyewash that there ever was any scheme for the removal of these obstructions from the River Moy?
There is no scheme for the removal of obstructions, nor could there be any scheme for the removal of obstructions, save under the Arterial Drainage Act, because of the fact that there are fishing and milling rights concerned.
That is not true.
Arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, is it not true that the whole question of the Moy drainage became a subject of consultation between the Department of Agriculture and the Board of Works and that the final decision taken was——
To put it off for five years.
——that a special survey team would go on the Moy not later than February, 1952, and that when the survey was completed a decision would be taken as to whether the main channel of the river would be dealt with or that the matter would be left until the whole arterial area would be done?
A survey for what purpose?
For the purpose of the drainage of the Moy main channel.
Window dressing.
Let us have the truth.
Was it for the purpose of the land project scheme or for the comprehensive drainage of the Moy?
I must furnish that information by way of question. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Government gave to the Minister for Agriculture authority to bespeak the services of the Board of Works for the clearance of the main channel of any arterial river in Ireland, leaving the catchment area for subsequent handling by the Board of Works arterial drainage staff, and that it was in pursuit of that general authority to deal with the main channel of the Moy, the Maigue in Kerry, the Rye in Kildare, that the Board of Works undertook an assignment to employ six survey staffs charged on my Vote?
Your Vote?
They undertook to do a certain type of drainage work on rivers where they could do it, but they did not undertake to carry out drainage on rivers where they would be up against the difficulties and claims of interested people who had fishing, milling and other rights. That is the position and Deputy Dillon knows it well. There is no record of anything else on any of the files in the Board of Works. Perhaps there is on some of his personal files.
Question No. 12.
The whole thing was a convivial conversation between Deputy Dillon and Deputy Blowick.
Now more of the lies are coming out.
asked the Minister for Finance if it is a fact that the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance took the scheme for the drainage of the River Corrib out of its order on the priority list for arterial drainage as a result of which the scheme for the River Moy will be considerably delayed.
I should explain that no rigid schedule of the order in which drainage schemes will be undertaken has at any time been settled. It was, of course, necessary when the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, came into force to draw up a provisional programme of work, and this was done so far as the information then available permitted. That programme is, and must continue to remain, subject to alteration as may be determined from time to time. The survey of the Corrib catchment was taken at an earlier stage than was originally contemplated, but this variation has not altered the position which the Moy occupied in the provisional programme.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the fact of the Corrib being done before the Moy necessarily postponed the work on the Moy for years, and will the Parliamentary Secretary state whether that was done by his predecessor with the full knowledge of the then Minister for Lands, Deputy Blowick, and the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon?
Is this to bolster up your lies?
Is it, or is it not, true that, apart from the schemes made by the Board of Works under the Arterial Drainage Act for the Corrib, special provision was made for the Moy under the land rehabilitation project which ensured that a full preliminary survey of the Moy would be made in 1952 instead of 2002, as was provided under the Fianna Fáil régime?
It is not true that there was any such provision made, according to the records in my office.
Tell us about the Rye survey.
The Rye survey does not come into this.
It is the same principle.
The Deputies are finding it hard to swallow their false promises.
Evidently no one is going to be allowed to speak with these continuous interruptions from every side of the House. Surely, if questions are to be answered and information given, Deputies ought to consider giving the person answering questions an opportunity of making a reply.
On a point of order. May I respectfully inquire as to whether that general admonition to us all is made in full possession of the fact that these questions were carefully concocted between Deputy Moran and the Parliamentary Secretary?
That is untrue.
These questions were handed in and examined and put on the Order Paper in the ordinary way.
They were carefully concocted.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm or deny that the taking of the Corrib, Clare Dalgan, out of its chronological order as placed by the Fianna Fáil Government, has in any way delayed the survey of the Moy, and further will he confirm or deny that the survey and drainage of the Clare Dalgan is equally as important to the people of South Mayo as the Moy is to North Mayo?
I am not going to go into that, but, as far as taking the Corrib out of its order, I do not think it would have delayed the Moy for the same period of time as that suggested by Deputy Moran.
Now I may take it the Parliamentary Secretary admits that it has not delayed the Moy and the Clare Dalgan, and we may take it that Deputy Moran has been misleading the members of this House and the people of the country?
It is the people on the other side of this House who are misleading the people.