Vol. 142 No. 3
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £69,800 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, 1954, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works (1 & 2 Will. 4, c.33, secs. 5 and 6; 5 & 6 Vict., c. 89, secs. 1 and 2; 9 & 10 Vict., c. 86, secs. 2, 7 and 9; etc.).
I propose to follow the practice of previous years by taking Votes 8 and 9 together.
Vote 8 bears the salaries and expenses of the administrative, executive and technical staffs of the Office of Public Works which is the office responsible for the administration of Vote 9.
Vote 9 provides the necessary funds for the purchase of sites and buildings for State purposes; for the erection, maintenance and furnishing of Government offices and other State-owned premises; for the erection and improvement of national schools; for theerection of major military buildings; for arterial drainage and other engineering works; for the maintenance of State-owned parks and State harbours; and for a number of other activities.
The net Estimate for Vote 8 is £2,700 above the Estimate for 1952-53. This increase is explained by additional expenditure of £18,900, mainly on wages and salaries, offset by a reduction of £500 in the provision for travelling expenses and additional estimated Appropriations-in-Aid of £15,700.
Sub-head A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—has been increased by £18,400.
Specific provision is made for 33 additional heads of staffs and there are contingency provisions amounting to £11,400. The specific increases in numbers are mainly in the accountant's branch and in the mechanical division of the engineering branch. The contingency provisions are intended mainly to cover proposals for additional posts in the secretary's branch and in the drainage and marine divisions of the engineering branch. The increased staffs have been rendered necessary by the continuing expansion of most of the activities of the Office of Public Works.
The salaries, amounting to £20,000, and travelling expenses of engineering staff, numbering 41, and some executive staff, authorised for surveys and works concerned with land rehabilitation, being carried out by the commissioners as agents for the Minister for Agriculture, are recoverable from the Vote for Agriculture.
Sub-head B—Travelling Expenses— and C—Incidental Expenses—call for no special comment. Together, they account for a decrease of £200 in the provision for 1952-53.
As against the estimated additional expenditure on these sub-heads, receipts under sub-head E—Appropria-tions-in-Aid—are expected to amount to £15,700 more than the Estimate for last year. Of this, £9,000 represents increased receipts from agency service fees, mainly in connection with workswhose cost is defrayed from the telephone capital account and the social insurance fund. A further £5,000 is in respect of recoveries from Vote 9—Public Works and Buildings —of salaries and travelling expenses of staff engaged on drainage schemes, of which further mention will be made in connection with Vote 9. Similar expenditure recoverable from the Vote for Transport and Marine Services, in connection with harbour improvement and constructional works, accounts almost entirely for the balance of the anticipated additional Appropriations-in-Aid.
The Estimate of £3,009,350 for Public Works and Buildings for this year compared with the Vote for 1952-53 shows a net increase of £32,300.
The increase in gross expenditure is mainly in respect of new building work, the maintenance and furnishing of existing accommodation, fuel costs, and the maintenance of plant and machinery. Against the total increase of £318,960 in gross expenditure, there are reductions amounting to £246,500, for the most part in machinery purchases. Expenditure on drainage works and on the central engineering workshop is also expected to be somewhat below the amounts provided in the previous year's Vote.
The provisions for the individual sub-heads show the following variations on those of last year:—
Sub-head A.—Purchase of Sites and Buildings, has been reduced by £5,000.
Sub-head B.—New Works, Alterations and Additions, which amounts to £1,330,000, shows an increase of £180,000. Expenditure last year was over £1,000,000, of which about £688,000 was incurred on grants for school building and improvements, as against the Estimate for that year of £600,000, and an expenditure in the preceding year of £530,000. For 1953-54, the Estimate of expenditure on grants for school buildings is £730,000, which is more than one half of the total provision under sub-head B.
The present trend of expenditure on schools would appear to indicate that this Estimate will be insufficient. Upto the end of the half-year (30th September), grant payments amounted to £472,000. At the same time last year, the corresponding figure was only £219,000, and if the experience of last year is repeated the expenditure for this year would be well over £1,000,000. The rate of expenditure, however, varies considerably from month to month, depending on the amount of payments falling due on the larger contracts.
Apart from the provision for national schools and that for Garda Síochána barracks, for which a sum of £105,000 has been included, sub-head B covers over 130 individual projects. The principal items, from the point of view of cost, are:— Áras an Uachtaráin—Improvements; Office of Public Works—central engineering workshop and stores (adaptations); Botanic Gardens—improvement of water supply; Abbotstown Farm—adaptations; agricultural schools at Athenry, Ballyhaise and Clonakilty—sundry building and improvement works; Grange Stud and Dairy Farm—adaptations; Johnstown Castle—adaptations; Munster Institute—improved accommodation; Veterinary College—improvements; Fishery, etc. Harbours—dredging and improvement works; Coláiste Móibhí Preparatory College—adaptations; Shelton Abbey Forestry School— adaptations; Rosslare—new meteorological station; Valentia Observatory —adaptations and additions; new post offices and telephone exchanges at Athenry, Cootehill, Drogheda, Galway, Kilrush, Naas, and Rathluirc; extensions and improvements to existing post offices at Ballina, Dundalk, Kilkenny and Tralee; Broadcasting— new studios at Cork; Baldonnel Camp —hard surface runways and new hangar gates; Curragh Camp—building of new Catholic church, renewal of electrical installation; Kilrush Camp— officers' mess.
Sub-head C.—Maintenance and Supplies, shows an increase of £80,000 over the provision for last year of £450,000, which in fact proved to be insufficient and was exceeded by about £45,000. Increases in the wages of building trade workers and of staffs employed at parks and harbours, etc.,are mainly responsible for the rise in expenditure under this sub-head.
The other related maintenance sub-heads show smaller increases. For sub-head D (1).—Furniture, Fittings and Supplies, an additional £10,000 is being provided, covering requirements at new premises for representatives abroad and some essential institutional requirements. General increases in rents and rates are responsible for the increase of £6,000 proposed for sub-head E.—Rents, Rates, etc. There is an estimated additional outlay under sub-head F.—Fuel, Light, Water, Cleaning, etc., of £15,000. This includes provision for increased gas charges and greater electricity consumption due to the extended use of electrical storage heating systems.
The arterial drainage surveys programme is similar to that projected for 1952-53 but the provision this year, under sub-head J (1), includes an additional £800 to meet wage increases. Expenditure under sub-head J (2).—Arterial Drainage Construction Work—is expected to be somewhat less this year by reason of the approaching completion of the Brosna Catchment Drainage Scheme, the provision for which is £66,000 less than the sum voted for it in the preceding year. This reduction is largely offset by the provisions for the Corrib-Clare Catchment and the Nenagh Catchment Schemes, which appear in the Estimate for the first time, and by additional provision for the Feale Catchment Scheme.
The works at Clarecastle, County Clare, provided for under sub-head J (4).—River Fergus Drainage, in fulfilment of the statutory undertaking given in the consent which formed the basis of the River Fergus Drainage Act, 1943, are also due for completion this year, and there is a consequential reduction of £13,500 in the provision.
The sub-head which shows the most marked decrease this year is sub-head K.1—Purchase of Engineering Plant and Machinery. The provision of £80,000 is £200,000 below the sum voted last year. This is not, of course, to be taken as suggesting that any slowing-down of the drainage programme iscontemplated; it is explained by the fact that, in the purchase of heavy and more expensive plant and machinery, the stage has been reached at which the bulk of present and immediate future requirements has largely been met.
The servicing of the present fleet of machines and other plant necessitates an increase, estimated at £25,000, in the provision under sub-head K.2— Maintenance of Engineering Plant and Machinery—particularly in view of the impending release for overhaul of plant from the Brosna drainage scheme. Expenditure on sub-head K.3—Central Engineering Workshop and Stores—is expected to show an estimated reduction of £13,000, due to stores reserve requirements having been largely fulfilled.
The amount which it is expected to realise this year under sub-head L.— Appropriations-in-Aid — is £40,160 higher than last year's Estimate. Of the additional receipts, £27,500 arises from services rendered to the Department of Social Welfare by way of the provision and maintenance of accommodation for social insurance purposes. Expenditure in this connection is recoverable from the Social Insurance Fund. The balance of the additional receipts is expected to arise mainly from the hireage of plant.
I thought we were taking the three Votes together.
Nos. 8 and 9 are being taken together.
Vote 10—Employment and Emergency Schemes—will be taken later?
Before I move to refer these Votes back for further consideration I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is he satisfied at the cutting down of sub-head K (1), which he has just mentioned, from £280,000 to £80,000. This would be the most advantageous time to purchase any heavy machinery that may be required for the continuation ofarterial drainage. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be under the impression that there is sufficient machinery available, due to the fact that the Brosna scheme is now nearing completion, if it has not already been completed. Most of these machines have been three years in operation. With repair and overhaul, which would be costly, they may not be quite reliable. It is the one disturbing feature in this particular Vote that no provision is made for the purchase of new machinery this year, that there is a reduction of £200,000 under sub-head K (1).
I wish the Parliamentary Secretary had expanded a little more and given the House a full account or, at least, the benefit of the experience of the engineers in his Department as to the success or otherwise of the Brosna scheme.
After all, this is the first big venture of arterial drainage in this country, and it is drawing to a close. Even by now the Department's engineers must have a fairly good idea of whether it will be a success or not. Personally, I believe it will be an outstanding success, but I do wish that the Parliamentary Secretary had elaborated a little bit and had told us exactly how the thing stands. Perhaps, owing to the fact that it was the first venture of the kind in this country, little things may have been overlooked; or perhaps experience has shown them that in future schemes it might be better to do something a different way or adopt different methods, but there is one thing the Parliamentary Secretary might be quite sure of—that he has the full backing and co-operation, I think, of every member in the House in this question of arterial drainage.
What about the Barrow?
To be quite truthful, I have never heard whether the Barrow was a success or not.
Of course it was.
What I mean to say is that I have never heard an opinion expressed one way or the other on it.
It was a success.
I would be glad to learn that the Brosna scheme was a good job. It must be admitted by the Parliamentary Secretary that it was started in the spring of 1948 and, from the little I saw of it, it seems to be a first class job, a job that if we read about it taking place, say in the United States or in Germany or in any other progressive country that has the name of being up and doing and whose engineers have a top notch name we would say: "Those are great fellows. Why cannot we do something like that?"
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is not treating himself or his Department or the country fairly by just glossing over it and barely even mentioning in a grudging way that the scheme was almost completed. I would like to hear him shout it from the house tops and see headlines inches deep in the newspapers tomorrow announcing the success of the scheme, because we all know that the very shape of our country is opposed to arterial drainage, that there is a ring of mountains around the coast and the surface of the country has often been described as being like a saucer. That in itself would present very peculiar difficulties to the engineers of the Board of Works who have to face this problem, and if they have got over it successfully they deserve more than a clap on the back.
I was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us when he hopes to commence work on the Lough Corrib, Lough Mask and Lough Carra scheme. We are all looking forward to that down in the West. It is one of the schemes nearest to our doorsteps, nearest to our land and nearest to our hearts, and I am sorry that he did not tell us exactly what progress is being made there about the survey. We heard that it was to be started last June. Then when last June came we heard that it was to be started some time in December. Now the latest rumour going around, whether there is any truth in it or not I do not know, is that it is not going to be started until next June. The Parliamentary Secretary should tell us exactly when it is going to start. If there are unavoidable delays or hold-ups nobodyis going to blame the Parliamentary Secretary for that. With a big scheme like this you cannot wish it to be done and go straight ahead. It is not just like when you press the self-starter and the engine of a car jumps into life. There are a thousand and one difficulties to be overcome, and these cannot be got over in a hurry like that.
The Minister for Finance is constantly holding the gun to the Parliamentary Secretary's head and probably holding him up, and if there is a shortage of money in the Department of Finance in all probability the Parliamentary Secretary's office is one of the first that will suffer and be cut down. I expect the Parliamentary Secretary to stand out firmly against that, because I am quite sure there would be a body of opinion, and perhaps a large body of opinion, in this country who think that money spent on drainage, whether arterial or local or small drainage, is just dead waste. There are lots of people, mind you, who have no connection with the land or no experience whatever of the people who live on the land, or their difficulties, who seem to think that once a farmer has a bit of land it is his duty to drain it himself. They have not the least idea of it, and these are well meaning people; and I go so far as to say that you would probably find numbers of the Civil Service staff who think along those lines. It is the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary, who comes from a rural area and knows all the difficulties of these things, to put down his foot firmly on that kind of thing.
I would not ask him to give an explanation of the technical difficulties to those people or anything like that, but he should do what is reasonable and fair. In his hands is an office for the development of this country, and we must admit that it is one side of the development of our country that has been sadly neglected all during the past, and that is drainage. The drainage of the country has been neglected very, very badly. There were feeble attempts made in the past to drain here and there, but to balance those there were actual barriers erected in places to prevent drainage just because it suited certain big land-ownersto do who had very little interest in the welfare of this country. It suited them, for military purposes in many cases, to actually block up the outlet of water regardless of how much land they flooded or how much damage they did. I could quote a couple of cases, but I will not do so. They are too old and to boarded up now to go dragging them down here once more in this House, but these things have a huge effect on output.
From time to time we hear a lot of talk about increasing agricultural production, and I still have to be convinced that the inter-Party Government were wrong when they went all out, determined to spend a lot of money and to recover back from the floods and from the rushes 4,500,000 acres of good land waterlogged at the present time. I want to say that with the land reclamation scheme, coupled with the Local Authorities (Works) Act, until it was knifed in the back by the present Government, we were doing a great deal to recover that land. The Parliamentary Secretary has in his hands the means of doing that. A great number of the land reclamation schemes will have to be delayed until arterial drainage provides the outfall. It is obvious that there is no use whatever in freeing one man's flooded land by flooding another man's. The arterial drainage, the heavy drainage, has to come along first. We must start at the bottom, in this case the outfall into the sea. In the Parliamentary Secretary's hands lies the putting into effect of that particular piece of work for the development of this country. The rainfall of Ireland is at once a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing for the crops and all the rest of it for the man who has his land on a height, but it is a curse and a robber and a cause of waste to the man whose land is subject to waterlogging. The engineers of the Department could come to the rescue of from 80,000 to 90,000 farmers in this country. When I say that—I got the figures some three or four years ago— I mean that there are that number badly affected. Those 80,000 or 90,000 farms will become derelict if arterial drainage is not expedited. As regards the other 300,000 farmers, I do notknow one of them who cannot benefit through drainage in a greater or lesser degree.
There is scarcely a holding or a farm in the country that has not, at the end of it, waterlogged land somewhere that could, if the water was taken away, be brought into full production. Mind you we have only a small country, but we could add that 4,000,000 acres of land; and when I am speaking of 4,000,000 extra acres of land, I am speaking of arable land that is waterlogged. I am not referring to mountain or other waste ground in which it would not ever be profitable or wise or practicable to attempt reclamation. If we could, in our time, restore that 4,000,000 acres to production, I think we would be doing a wonderful job of work.
Sub-head B in Vote 9 refers to new works, alterations and additions. There is an increase of £180,000 there. I was wondering how much of that sum of money goes towards the rehabilitation of the stables for Tulyar. I have a suspicion that quite a sizable slice of that £180,000 goes there. When the Parliamentary Secretary is replying, and if the figures are available to him, we trust that he will tell us how much of that money is being spent in respect of the Park and on various other items. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that some of that money will be devoted to national schools. Am I correct in that statement, or am I confusing two different sub-heads? I am referring now to sub-head B of Vote 9.
The estimate for schools is inadequate. It would have to be increased.
Do national schools come into sub-head B of Vote 9?
Yes.
Deputy Blowick should read down along the list on page 45 of the Estimate.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to break down that figure for us when he is replying. I do not think it is fair for him to come in here and ask for a Vote—and under one sub-head alone of that Vote, sub-head B, he asks for£1,330,000—without breaking down the large amount of money sought under sub-head B. He did the same in regard to arterial drainage. I do not think that that attitude is quite fair to the House when a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary is asking for large sums like that. Many Deputies might regard it as insolence on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to think that the duty of the members of this House is to act as a lot of "Yes" men and to vote for a huge sum of money like that without having the details of it explained to them.
The Parliamentary Secretary explained that.
Yes, but he did so in a very tabloid form. When a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary is asking for such a large sum of money under one sub-head alone, as the present Parliamentary Secretary is asking under sub-head B of Vote 9, I think he should give us a more detailed account of the necessity for that money. If good works are to be carried out with this money nobody would be prouder than I would be about it. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see new national schools replace some of the scandalous old hovels that we have been using. Nothing would please me more than to see drainage well done, roads made and new houses replace some of the old hovels that are an eyesore in different parts of the country. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is hiding his light under a bushel.
If Deputy Blowick will turn to page 45 of the Estimate he will find the details which he is seeking.
I am afraid that the Chair would have something to say to me if I started to analyse that particular page of the Book of Estimates. Each of the items there is quoted and split up, but the Parliamentary Secretary should have given the House a fuller explanation: that would not be asking too much.
On the introduction of these two Votes, the Parliamentary Secretary spoke for only about nine minutes, all told. That gives the impression that hisattitude was that he could walk in here, anyhow, and get a majority of the Deputies to follow him into the Division Lobby.
The Book of Estimates is circulated so that Deputies may take a squint at it now and again.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see Deputy Killilea a Parliamentary Secretary or a Minister.
That does not arise now.
God forbid, Sir.
Deputy Killilea would be far more efficient than Deputy Blowick was when he was a Minister.
That is a charitable remark. You are a charitable man.
I do my best. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us an idea of when he hopes the work on the Corrib catchment area will commence? If he is encountering difficulties, then he should tell us about them. Nobody would jump on the Parliamentary Secretary's neck for things which are beyond his control—at least, I would not.
God help me, if he did.
The weight would crush the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary will remember a parliamentary question which I addressed to him on the subject of the rebuilding of a weir by Mayo County Council. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Commissioners of the Board of Works to have that weir removed. I believe that the matter comes within the ambit or scope of his office, and within the legislation under which his office works. A weir was built across the Keel river —I have already explained this in detail to the Parliamentary Secretary— I believe, at the expense of the rate-payers of Mayo. I do not know anybody whom that weir benefits. I have not heard a single person say that the weir should not be removed. Unless I am mistaken, the weir was first erected in 1845 and the original purpose for which it was built was purely to enhance the beauty of a certaindemense. That demense is now in the hands of the Forestry Department and is used as a nursery and a plantation. About the period 1919-1922, a group of the farmers met on a particular night, took the law into their own hands, and sent the weir sky-high with the aid of explosives. The weir was then left in that condition until it was rebuilt recently.
After it was blown sky-high, it was a boon and a blessing because it lowered the level of the Caragh Lake by two or three feet. It was a great benefit to the farmers round about. At the time it was said that the fishing in the lake would be seriously impaired by the removal of the weir, but I must say that I never saw so many fishing boats there. About May or June of this year a sum of £44 was spent on rebuilding this weir across the river. That had the immediate effect of flooding between 600 to 800 acres of land which belonged to small farmers who could not afford to lose a perch of ground and who refused to part even with some of the poorest of their land when asked to do so by the Department.
If the expenditure was by the local authority it is not clear how the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible in this connection.
I am not certain that the expenditure was by the local authority. However, even if the local authority was responsible for it, the Statute which empowered the local authority to do so—that is, if it was done by the local authority—comes within the scope of the office of the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now asking this House for these two Votes. The rebuilding of that weir was a scandalous piece of work and the Commissioners of the Board of Works should take immediate steps to remove it. It will not cost a lot of money to remove that weir. I believe that, already, they have sufficient authority to do so at once. It seems to be the greatest daftness in creation that a crowd of engineers should be surveying the Corrib, Lough Mask and many other rivers in the area with a viewto lowering the levels of both lakes for the benefit of the people there, while, at the same time, another State body comes along and builds a wall across one of the rivers that are to be surveyed. Most of the people in the area think that the Civil Service and the Government are daft and it is hard to blame the people for thinking so. The ordinary man down there has not the time or the opportunity to study the nicety of the whole situation, or the law, or to get to know the history of the whole thing. It was scandalous to allow that weir to be rebuilt.
From a brief study of the relevant Act, I am of the opinion that the Commissioners of the Board of Works already have the power to give a direction which will, at least, allow the local farmers to remove the weir. It is serving no useful purpose and it has raised the level of the water in Lough Caragh by two feet. That weir is doing no good whatsoever. It is not improving the fishing in this particular take and it is flooding between 600 and 800 acres of land. As a matter of fact, I might be nearer the correct figure if I said that it is flooding between 10,000 and 12,000 acres of land belonging to small farmers, some of whom are as far away as the town of Ballyhaunis.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to look into that case, which is an indication of the queer things which the law allows to happen—one crowd of engineers being paid to survey the Corrib and Mask and the rivers flowing into them with a view to draining the land and another crowd spending Government money or ratepayers' money on building a wall across a river. The local people think the Civil Service have gone daft and that the Government have gone asleep and do not care two hoots what they do.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a clear breakdown of all the works he is doing. The work being done is all to the good and I am proud to see these things going ahead. They are a sign of advancement and it is encouraging to hear visitors—particularly our own flesh and blood who have been in America for a long period—saying that they see a huge improvement inthe country. Let us hear of all these improvements. Let the Parliamentary Secretary not hide them under a bushel because he is not treating himself, his officials or the country fairly in doing so.
These large Votes for which the Parliamentary Secretary is answerable to the House can make a wonderful contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem, especially in the rural areas, and, at the same time, bring back into production thousands of acres of land. The problem of unemployment at the moment is fairly serious, and it is not my intention to exaggerate it in any way, but the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a decent man of common sense and who knows the situation fully, can do a good deal to make a big contribution to the solution of the problem which confronts the country at the moment in that regard.
I want to congratulate the commissioners, the engineering officials, and all the other officials and workers on the wonderfully good job they have done on the Brosna drainage scheme. The agitation for the drainage of that river went on for many years, but the work is now nearing completion. I do not propose to guess, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give an approximate estimate of the acreage of land which will come back into production when the scheme has been completed. A fairly large sum has already been set aside for the carrying out of the work and I assume that this sum of £1,150,000 has been or will be spent in the most useful manner possible. I have not given the Parliamentary Secretary notice of my intention to ask the question, but I should like him to give the figures as to the approximate percentage of that sum which represents the labour content of the scheme and the percentage which represents the cost of machinery.
With regard to sub-head J (1), I want to ask if the survey for the drainage of the Nore has yet been completed. During my half a lifetime of experience in the House, there has been agitation, fully justified, year afteryear by the huge number of farmers and small holders in the Nore drainage area for the carrying out of even the essential preliminary work. There has been constant flooding for a great part of the year of a large acreage of land which could be reclaimed and put into useful production and in that way help to increase agricultural production at a time when the Parliamentary Secretary, each of his colleagues and every member of the House, is anxious for it. Can the Parliamentary Secretary state definitely if the survey has been completed? I daresay he knows that a certain amount of preliminary work—the removal of obstructions and so on—was carried out, not under the Board of Works Estimate, but under financial provision made by his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, under the Works Act. Some of the work carried out was essential and has been well done, but the principal matter in which I am interested is when the scheme of drainage for which the survey, I assume, has been completed, will be commenced. The sooner it is commenced, the sooner it will be completed, and the sooner we will see the value of the work required to be done.
There is nothing about the Nore here.
Deputy Blowick may be pleased to hear from me, though I am not an expert, that the people living in the Barrow drainage area are fully satisfied with the wonderful job carried out by the Board of Works many years ago, which helped to reclaim roughly 60,000 acres. This acreage has been relieved of flooding as a result of the wonderful work carried out by the Board of Works engineers on that scheme.
What about the lower reaches of the river?
My knowledge is confined to what I have seen within the constituency of the two counties of Laois and Offaly. I was a member, and I felt very honoured to be appointed a member, of the Barrow Drainage Commission, but I have not seen the lower reaches of the riversince I visited St. Mullin's and that part of the country when the members of that commission paid a visit to the area. When I signed unanimous recommendations in favour of the scheme, with four other men—may the Lord have mercy on three of them—I never thought that I should live to see the day when the river would be drained, because the usual experience of a member of a commission is that, when you sign such recommendations, there is a possibility of the job being done long after you have passed out of this world. As I say, I am happy to have lived to see the day when the job was completed to the satisfaction of the local people and I hope the same will apply to Deputy Blowick in relation to the rivers he is interested in getting drained.
They started at the wrong end.
They did only half of it and drowned the people of Wexford.
I have already said to my colleague, Deputy Hughes, that I am not very well acquainted with the position on the lower reaches of the river. It is enough to have to take an interest in one's own constituency without having to poke one's nose into the affairs of Carlow, Kilkenny and Wexford. Deputy Allen seems to want to put it on record that the job was started at the wrong end.
The commissioners did that.
In any event, they succeeded in doing the work which required to be done in the area in which I am very deeply interested.
I assume, Sir, that we are allowed to discuss matters in relation to the Employment Schemes Vote?
That is not under discussion. We are discussing Votes 8 and 9 and the other matters to which the Deputy refers will arise on Vote 10.
I rose chiefly to refer to the good work so well done on theBrosna drainage scheme. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give me the figures I have asked for— the approximate percentage of the £1,150,000 which represents wages paid to workers and the approximate percentage which represents the cost and use of machinery in carrying out the work.
I do not know whether I was sorry or glad to hear Deputies saying that, in the case of the drainage of the Barrow, they had begun at the source——
At the wrong end.
I did not say that.
——drowning the lands at the mouth of the river. The same thing happened in connection with the drainage of portion of a river in Kerry, the River Maine. A tributary of the river, the Brown Flesk, was drained and that resulted in flooding the lands from the confluence of the two rivers to the mouth of the River Maine. Nobody could ever make out why such drainage took place. Seeing that Deputies have principally referred to arterial drainage, I should like to congratulate the Board of Works on the great work they are doing on the River Feale in North Kerry. I want again to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that at various times we have appealed to his Department to ensure that when that work is completed in North Kerry, the machinery will be removed to carry out the drainage of the River Maine. A large deputation from Kerry, representative of all sections of the people, and including Deputies, county councillors and officials of the county council, interviewed the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Lands in connection with this drainage scheme. We know that to a certain extent we have been successful in our efforts because at the present time a survey of the river is being made. I hope, now that the drainage of the Feale is nearing completion, that there will be no doubt whatsoever about commencing the drainage of the River Maine. Thousands of pounds have been spent by the Land Commission during the past two or three years—in fact for many years—in maintaining the embankments there, because whenever there was a high tide or serious storms hundreds of acres, including some of the finest land in Ireland, were completely flooded. Not only the land but houses in the vicinity were inundated and farmers suffered serious losses in live stock. If the drainage were carried out, the thousands of pounds which it was necessary to expend on the embankments heretofore could be devoted to some other purpose.
There is another river in Kerry that would perhaps also come under the arterial drainage scheme although, like the river referred to by Deputy Davin, a good deal has been done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act in removing certain obstructions. I refer to the River Flesk. With the drainage of the Maine and the Flesk, we hope that we shall be finished with arterial drainage in Kerry.
There is also the question of piers, for the construction or reconstruction of which the Board of Works are responsible. Fishermen in the Cahirciveen area and inhabitants of Valentia Island, at the present time are hoping that a viaduct will be erected to connect the mainland with the island. Pending all that, if it ever comes to pass, it is absolutely essential that the pier at Renard Point should be improved and extended almost to 100 feet and that it should be also protected in some way so that fishermen can land their catches safely and so that people travelling to and from Valentia Island may be carried in safety in the boats available for that purpose. Surveys have been made and an estimate has been prepared of the cost of carrying out the work. I sincerely hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the officials of the board will in the near future take the necessary steps to have that work pushed ahead.
I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary mention that there was an increase in the Estimate for school buildings. In fact, I think that in the course of this financial year the cost will run into £100,000 odd. I admit that a great deal has beendone in regard to the erection of new schools and the reconstruction of old ones even in a temporary way, but in many cases there are delays; however these delays occur whether it is in the Department of Education or in the Board of Works. I think that there should be greater co-ordination between the two Departments to ensure that this essential work will be carried out more speedily than has been the case heretofore.
In connection with the sub-head for new works, alterations and additions, many of us, like Deputy Blowick, cannot make out exactly what this sum of money is required for. I was wondering if some of it was required for improvements to the stable for Tulyar, but I did not know that Tulyar was such a big horse that that work would require such an amount of money.
He cost a lot of money.
I wonder if any of it is required in connection with the survey of Dublin Castle and the erection of new buildings and the demolition of old buildings there? I understand that somewhere in the Board of Works there is a model in a glass case of a new type of Dublin Castle. That will be a new structure that we are led to believe will cost £4,500,000 or £5,000,000. That estimate was made many years ago, and I understand that at present the cost would be nearer £10,000,000. I would suggest to the Board of Works and to the Parliamentary Secretary that they might exhibit this model of Dublin Castle somewhere in Dublin or that they should send it around the country so that people can see what it is going to be like, in the same way as we had an exhibition of the model of Titania's Castle when it was sent around the whole British Empire and finally found a home somewhere in Ireland. People would then realise what the cost of these buildings would be. After all it is not right that these fantastic plans and surveys should be made at an immense cost to the taxpayers—plans for new parliamentary buildings, new Government buildings and offices such as those in Store Street. If the inter-PartyGovernment had been long in power, there would be no need at all for any renovation or new constructions in connection with Dublin Castle because the intention was to transfer the personnel of the Civil Service into the buildings in Store Street, rather than use it as a C.I.E. bus station. I have nothing further to say in connection with this Vote 8, but I move that it be referred back for reconsideration.
Even though Deputy Palmer has moved to refer this Vote back, the fact that Deputies are not too critical of the work carried out during the past year by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Office of Public Works is, in my opinion, an indication that the House is satisfied in general with their administration. I should, however, like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the desirability of improving small harbours and piers throughout the country. While I am not critical of the work of the Parliamentary Secretary, I am very disappointed and dissatisfied, and so are many more, with the delay in implementing schemes submitted to the Office of Public Works. I have in mind pier and harbour works and, judging from the results that I have seen, from the time a work costing a few thousand pounds is submitted to the Office of Public Works it will take at least five or six years before the work is executed. That is unfair and unreasonable. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary and the commissioners to do something to rectify that position.
The Parliamentary Secretary may think that I am making an exaggerated statement, but I will just give one illustration of a small scheme costing £700 or £800 in County Cork for the improvement of the slip at Tralino Strand. The Cork County Council agreed some two years ago to contribute 50 per cent. of the cost of that work and I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that the county council would not approve of the expenditure unless the scheme was warranted. The slip had been inspected by the county councilengineers and then we had a dual inspection by engineers of the Office of Public Works, which was rather costly, but without any finality. I think that such things as that should not be allowed to continue.
In common with other representatives, I have been approached about the proposed execution of some schemes, mainly the improvement of small harbours and piers which are very beneficial to fishermen, to farmers for landing sand and seaweed, and to workers for their employment content. Judging by past results, I am rather doubtful of informing people that there is any likelihood of getting these schemes executed in the near future because I have found that the time taken is altogether out of reason. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary and to his office to do something to improve that position. I am not commenting adversely on their work, but I am drawing attention to a state of affairs which requires rectification.
I might mention that I am particularly interested in one scheme which has been mooted in my constituency for a number of years, namely, the provision of a breakwater at Schull. The local development committee, headed by the parish priest, approached the Cork County Council with a view to getting a portion of the cost from that body. The county council, having got the relevant reports from the technical advisers, were satisfied that it was an essential work and decided to make a reasonable contribution towards its execution. I hope I am misinformed, but I believe that the Commissioners of Public Works did not take the view that the local authority did. They were of the opinion that such a work did not come within the scope of their administration. I fail to see how they can hold that view.
For a number of years the fishermen in Schull are labouring under great disadvantages so far as the lack of proper shelter is concerned. They have suggested time and again that this breakwater should be provided. That matter has been actively pursued within the last two or three years and still nothing has been done. The Parliamentary Secretary can get full detailsof that work in his office, and I appeal to him as strongly as I can to take immediate steps to carry out this work or at least to provide the money. It should be sufficient assurance that the work is warranted when the county council are prepared to pay a reasonable portion of the cost. I do not want to delay the House in referring to other schemes, as possibly a similar position obtains in other parts of the country. But the demand, so far as Schull is concerned, is a reasonable one and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take some definite action in the matter.
The question of delay arises also in regard to the improvement of school buildings. It is very difficult for an ordinary person to understand why the delay occurs. Questions of vesting and title arise. The title question seems to be a big crux and is sufficient to hold up a work for years. I cannot see why that should occur.
The question of title would not arise on this Vote as the Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible.
With respect, the solicitor to the Parliamentary Secretary's office investigates the title.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has any responsibility for the delay to which the Deputy refers.
I maintain that this crux about title has held up work in connection with school buildings and I think that is relevant to this Vote. Apart from that, the commissioners are very slow in improving school buildings. This matter has reached such a stage that the responsible health authority for the County Cork had to sit up and take notice. Owing to various representations made by managers and parents of children they instructed their county medical officer of health and his assistants to inspect some of these schools.
If I read one or two of these reports I think they will bring home to the Parliamentary Secretary the need for some very definite action. This is a report made about the BallymoneyNational School, Ballineen, County Cork, by the Assistant County Medical Officer of Health: "Water supply for drinking, not satisfactory; for washing, not satisfactory; no lavatory basins available; school built in 1839, two storey. Schoolrooms; upper storey reached by stone steps; general structure, damp; roof, poor; floors, poor; school unsuitable." It may be said that that is only one case, but these reports have just come to the local authority and we have others. We have the report on the neighbouring school at Lisbealad, Dunmanway: "Repairs to school premises required; roof poor in places, reslated; replaster gable end; internal plaster of walls; floor repairs and redecoration."
I think it is unfair to the children that they have to attend these schools. I am very sure that you will not find such conditions obtaining in the City of Dublin. It is not because these schools are situated in remote districts—not too remote—that they should not get the same attention as schools in Dublin or places contiguous to it. That applies also to the erection of new schools. We have delays which I think are unreasonable. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to try and arrange with his advisers some means of overcoming this particular difficulty of delay in getting the work carried out.
The Deputies who spoke previously were very interested in this arterial drainage scheme. I am well aware of the marked advantage of that particular scheme. In many counties there is no need for arterial drainage as smaller schemes would suffice—schemes such as those carried out under the Local Authorities (Works) Acts. I want to bring home to the Parliamentary Secretary a particular scheme that I know of which was included under the Local Authorities (Works) Act and met with approval. It was the general opinion of the technical advisers and the farmers in the particular district that that scheme could be carried out for a few thousand pounds. When the Local Authority (Works) Act was about completely wiped out and when there was no hope of getting thescheme under that Act, the suggestion was made that our only hope was to try the Board of Works and put it forward as an arterial drainage scheme.
It was surveyed by some engineers and the cost was anything in the region of £12,000 or £13,000, and even up to £20,000 as an arterial drainage scheme. I dissented from that view-point because I already knew that it was the considered opinion of the local farmers and the local engineers that such a type of work could be usefully carried out to the satisfaction of the parties concerned as a local authority work. I just mention that to bring home to the Parliamentary Secretary, that if the Local Authorities (Works) Act was continued in operation, as it was under the inter-Party Government régime, probably many of the schemes that are being submitted now as arterial drainage schemes could have been usefully executed as local authority works schemes at a much reduced cost.
That is an illustration of what is happening. When there is no money available under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, the people try to make schemes seem as big as possible with a view to benefiting under the Arterial Drainage Act. They think they are entitled to get some benefit under that particular heading when it is not available under the Local Authorities (Works) Act.
The only other item I should like to mention on this particular Vote concerns the question of insurance. Last year, it was mentioned to the Parliamentary Secretary that, as in the case of many local authorities, it would be desirable if the Board of Works acted as their own insurer. I understand— I have not got the exact figure—that the Board of Works pay a large sum of money annually by way of insurance and that that insurance is paid, not to an Irish company, but to a foreign company. It was suggested during the course of the discussion 12 months ago that there was need for a change, and that it was unfair and out of place at the present time to have to pay this money to foreign companies. It was also strongly advocated that the Boardof Works could usefully imitate many local authorities.
I know that the Cork County Council is a body who act as their own insurers. Over a number of years they have effected a substantial sum in saving as a result of that plan being carried out. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is replying, what is the position relative to this insurance business. I should like to know whether the position is the same as last year or whether the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to change the system. I will close by asking the Parliamentary Secretary to try and improve the position in regard to the execution of small pier works and the repair of schools.
There are just one or two matters that I should like to raise with regard to this Vote. The first of these is the important matter of arterial drainage. The Board of Works are charged, under the Arterial Drainage Acts, with the execution of Government schemes for arterial drainage.
In 1948, a start was made with the Brosna scheme in Offaly and it was a tribute to the then Parliamentary Secretary, that that work was got under way. The drainage of the Brosna is now nearing completion and we must be concerned with what the future programme is, what schemes for future drainage are now under consideration and what ones will be undertaken.
We are asked to vote money for certain schemes that are now under way, the Brosna for its completion, the Corrib-Clare drainage scheme, the Feale drainage scheme, the Glyde and Dee, and a scheme in the vicinity of Nenagh. That is good work and certainly, so far as I am concerned, I pay a tribute to the commissioners for the manner in which these schemes have been got under way, but I am disturbed to see that less money is being provided this year for arterial drainage schemes and that—there may be an explanation for this — less machinery will be purchased this year than we purchased before. I sincerely hope that that does not mean that there is going to be any slowing up in this worthwhile work. The Arterial Drainage Act of 1945 accentuated theimportance of large scale drainage work. Up to that, local schemes of a casual kind were entered into in a gay and carefree manner and never amounted to anything worthwhile. It was in the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945 that a real effort was made to carry out as an investment scheme the large scale drainage of an entire catchment area. I sincerely hope that the importance attached to that work has been in no way lessened and that the smaller sum being effected for this year does not mean that the work will be in any way impaired.
In discussing arterial drainage as a Deputy for Leix-Offaly, may I be permitted to raise the question of the drainage of the River Nore. I do so because a portion of that catchment area affects a very important agricultural portion of my constituency and, of course, it affects people in other counties. I would be pleased if the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply would inform me and other Deputies in the counties affected by the River Nore catchment area when it is likely that that scheme may be reached.
There is one other matter that I would like to refer to, and that is this question of Dublin Castle. I should like to know what is proposed, and what is going to happen, in connection with it. Naturally, the Board of Works will be expected to carry out any Government scheme of works, no matter how daft it may be. One of the daftest schemes ever suggested has been this proposal to expend a sum in excess of £4,000,000 on perpetuating a building which most Irishmen would like to see gone for ever. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether that proposal, to rebuild Dublin Castle, was merely a phase in a nightmare which Government Ministers had a couple of months ago, that it was only a bad dream and will never come to reality. We certainly will oppose it, tooth and nail. A sum of £4,000,000 could be used to better national advantage than in rebuilding Dublin Castle. That sum, if added to the Arterial Drainage Vote for this year, would enable work on the drainage of the River Nore to beput in hands, as well as on many other worthwhile drainage schemes through-out the country.
I know the case will be made that there is overcrowding in Civil Service offices and all the rest of it. The Government, at times, are very anxious to be kind to the civil servants and, of course, at times they are very anxious to hold the civil servants up as a section of the community who are a blister upon it, and that if they did not exist important tax concessions could be allowed. The mere case of overcrowding in Government Departments is not sufficiently sound to justify the expenditure of a huge sum of money on a scheme that would not have the slightest support amongst our people. We are against it. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, that that particular notion has been abandoned.
Some years ago a skeleton in the Fianna Fáil cupboard was discovered on this Vote, a proposal that was similarly absurd, to knock down this building and in effect to construct a completely new parliament building, to become the tame aper of the British occupation Government in the North. That particular notion never came to anything because, luckily, a sensible Government, for a period at any rate, was in charge of this country. Let there be no doubt in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary that this scheme with regard to Dublin Castle will be similarly dealt with by us if the opportunity presents itself. Worthwhile employment on good work of national importance remains to be given and to be done in this country. It merely requires sense and reason to carry out worthwhile projects, and we should not be deflected from the job of building up this country by silly notions and ideas such as seem to have affected those who have sponsored the idea of rebuilding Dublin Castle. I do not know whether I would be in order in discussing local authority schemes under this Vote.
The Parliamentary Secretary is not responsible for local authority schemes.
I should like, while not discussing them, to make a suggestionthat I made before with regard to schemes of that kind. In general, the suggestion was that they should all be administered and managed by the one body. The Board of Works was there very long before this Parliament came into existence, and it may well be there for many years after it. It is an important institution in the State. It does, however, seem to me to lead to delays and to wastage to have a variety of schemes of drainage, and works of that kind, administered by a variety of authorities. While the same criticism can be made on other Votes, with regard to other Departments, I should now like to emphasis, as a personal suggestion, that the Government should consider amalgumating all these different authorities under one control and one management. In that way some sensible programme of drainage and local works of that kind could be embarked upon. A correct programme will never be drawn up if local employment schemes are designed and carried into effect to meet a particular local problem outside the management of, and beyond the control of the Commissioners of Public Works. I would like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's views on that when replying.
There are other matters of detail of a constituency kind that I would like to refer to, but perhaps it might not be reasonable to expect that, in a debate of this kind, the Parliamentary Secretary should be asked to deal with local matters. Generally speaking, I have no complaints to make on behalf of the constituency I represent with regard to the manner in which the Board of Works carry out their duty. They always do it, and always have done it well, but I do agree with some Deputies that there are delays in relation to school buildings and a variety of things of that kind. These, perhaps, are not the fault or the responsibility of the Board of Works. But the fact that delays do take place will, I am sure, be a reason why the Parliamentary Secretary will examine the complaints and, if possible, have them met.
There is nothing else that I haveto say on the Vote. I was anxious to raise the local question of drainage of the River Nore. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, will be able to tell us that that scheme has not been forgotten, and that some time in the foreseeable future this drainage work will be undertaken.
The Board of Works handles vast sums of money. They spend big sums in a big way. Unfortunately, as far as my county is concerned, very little of that money comes its way. I, therefore, have to express the grievance which the people there feel in that respect. During the last 20 or 30 years the people in my county have been crying out for the drainage of the River Boyne, but nothing has been done about it. I am of opinion that the drainage of that river is a matter of vast importance to the economy of the country.
It is a low-lying basin where hundreds of thousands of acres of good arable land are flooded year in and year out and no effort is being made to stop the flooding. I make a strong protest against the Board of Works for not spending in my county more of that vast amount of money which is at their disposal. The River Boyne is one of the most important rivers in Ireland from the point of view of fishing and of the drainage of the whole centre of the country. For the past number of years we have had big drainage schemes in operation, from the Bog of Allen up to the bogs of Westmeath. They are drained in a big way and that water is allowed into the River Boyne with the result that flooding is experienced by small farmers along its banks. Part of the River Boyne, from the town of Trim to roughly five miles further on to Navan, is a disgrace to this country when one considers that after 30 years of native Government no effort has been made to get a proper course for the river. Large trees have grown and huge banks of sediment have mounted up so that the river has taken a new course every other 20 years. It is the duty of the Board of Works to see that it is kept within its own banks. Money must and should be spent immediately on the drainage ofthat four- or five-mile stretch of river. If that were done the main drainage work on the Boyne could wait for years.
I call on the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a man of commonsense, to apply himself to the task because tens of thousands of pounds worth of potential food is lost every year in that area. Most of the farmers for miles and miles along those banks are being held up and are unable to avail of drainage schemes in operation such as the Dillon scheme. Such schemes are no use because they cannot embark upon them until the other work is attended to. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to inquire into the delay in regard to this matter.
I heard Deputies here congratulating the Board of Works on the great schemes being carried out in every county. I cannot congratulate them as far as my county is concerned, because they have spent practically nothing. One small part of Meath might have come under the drainage of the River Rye up in Louth but, generally speaking, it did not affect the county at all. There is a similar situation at the village of Dunboyne. For three or four months of the year serious flooding takes place and water three or four feet deep lodges on the public roads. I know a widow with a small farm whose house was nine feet deep in water and she had to live upstairs for the best part of three weeks until the floods abated.
These occurrences should not be tolerated. We hear of loans being raised for £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 every year. Why not spend this money on the elimination of all this distress? We hear of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 being spent on Dublin Castle to house civil servants. If that were spent down the country where it is needed it would be better employed. We want the people to produce more food, but they are being obstructed in their efforts. It is fantastic nonsense to spend millions of pounds on the City of Dublin when the people down the country are living in quagmires and in constant danger of being inundated. In the village of Kilcock there is a vastarea needing immediate attention. Flooding occurs three or four times during the year and progressive farmers who are crying out to operate the Dillon scheme cannot do so because their land is waterlogged.
Deputy Sweetman and I have raised the question of the River Rye here on several occasions. It concerns both Kildare and Meath. The flooding which is occasioned affects hundreds of thousands of acres of land along a five- or ten-mile stretch. I think a scheme was started in 1948 and if those in office would only see to it that it was completed this trouble would not arise. It merely entails lowering the river bed by nine or 12 inches over some part of County Kildare going on to the River Liffey. There is no use spending money on surveying and doing nothing further I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the river bed is lowered so that the water can flow into the Liffey, thus enabling hundreds of farmers in the Midlands to go ahead with the draining of land. They are paying dearly and they expect something in return. They saw a scheme half completed when the machinery was taken away; the work was stopped and no further progress was made. We hear a great deal about surveys being carried out. Has the country not been surveyed enough? Let us get on with the work, take the water away and improve conditions for the people.
I do hope I will hear something in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply about the River Boyne. There are in the centre of the bed of that river big trees that no bulldozer of the larger type will even shake. They grew up from saplings and took root on to the sediment which is mountains high in the river between Trim and Navan. The urban council of Trim have complained about it and so have the Navan Council but no steps have been taken to remedy the situation about which we have been protesting over the last 15 or 20 years. We are told there is more important work to be done. I say that the county I come from is very important. It is carrying many of the troubles of this country on its back and we are entitled tosome consideration. We hear about what is happening along the Deale and the other rivers to which attention has been directed but we want something done with our river. This river takes away the water from the entire centre of Ireland.
Apart from that, something should be done in connection with the preservation of the tributaries to the Boyne and the Boyne itself in connection with fishing. Fishing has deteriorated in the upper reaches of the rivers because black, dirty water is continually flowing into them. There was good fishing there some years ago and there is practically none now. If that situation is allowed to continue we will only have such fish as pike in the waters; trout are dying out there because of this huge amount of dirty black water from the bogs and because there is no outlet on the Boyne to take it away.
I have raised these matters by question and by speeches on several occasions but I am getting a bit sick of it and so are the Deputies from the Fianna Fáil side. They may not be as vocal on this question as I am— that is their own business—but they are hearing as much about it as I am. None of the vast amounts of money being spent are coming in to my county in spite of the fact that 15- and 20-acre farms are being devastated by this menace. It is time something should be done about it. The Parliamentary Secretary now in charge is a man of vigour and energy, who believes in relieving the distress of the smaller farmers, and I would ask him to have something done about it and to give some reply at the end of this Estimate debate.
I had not an opportunity of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary's opening remarks and he may have referred to the point I wished to raise, which is in connection with the general problem of arterial drainage. I know he is as anxious as anyone else to get ahead with the very desirable work of drainage. The Arterial Drainage Act was passed in this House in 1945. That means eightyears have elopsed. If we look back on the eight years we should be able to say now that two of the principal difficulties which faced the Board of Works in carrying out drainage have been solved—the recruitment and training of suitable engineering staff and the purchase of the necessary type of modern machinery. No one can suggest that the machinery can be got overnight or that an engineer could be trained and get experience as a surveyor for drainage work in a short time. It is a highly skilled process and I, for one, would not criticise a delay of a couple of years until sufficient staff had been recruited. Eight years have elapsed, however, since the Act was passed and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he is satisfied now that he has sufficient engineering staff and sufficient machinery to go ahead full steam on as many comprehensive drainage schemes as possible.
No matter how keen the Parliamentary Secretary may be on the question of drainage, and even if he has solved the engineering problem and the machinery problem, there is one other very important matter that enters into drainage, the question of money. With all the good resolutions in the world of the Parliamentary Secretary, and in spite of all the protests in this House about the urgency to tackle drainage, unless the Government itself is prepared to make sufficient money available to the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Works, all his good work and good intentions go for nothing. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient money being made available for drainage. I have heard complaints here from both sides, from Deputies who support the Government and from the Opposition, about the slowness of the work. Great anxiety has been expressed from all sides that particular rivers be done in various constituencies. That should be proof enough to the Board of Works and the Government that there is a crying need to tackle this drainage problem in an energetic manner. However, the question of money is one on which the last word lies with the Government. As far as I can see money is fairly tightthese days when it comes to expenditure on drainage.
In many areas in the West we have had a reduction in drainage grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act schemes. Many excellent schemes were done under that particular Act. We cannot expect all the various drainage works to come under it, and there are important schemes that come under the Board of Works and the arterial drainage proposals. In that regard, I want to add my voice to that of other Deputies in querying the Parliamentary Secretary about a particular river which borders my own constituency. Most Deputies have their own grievances in connection with drainage, and I would like him to let me know the position with regard to the River Suck. He is just as interested himself in it as I am. One of the difficulties the Parliamentary Secretary may be in is that he will not have it said that he is going to show favouritism over a river or will not have it even suggested that because he is personally interested in the constituency he used his position or power as Parliamentary Secretary to give preference to that area just because he represented it. No one can deny the urgency of that particular drainage problem.
I cannot understand the delay in commencing a survey of the Suck, and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to let us know what system of priority he adopts for selecting drainage areas. It is a mystery to me how certain rivers are placed high up on the list while others, which in the opinion of many who should know, are of more importance, have come to the bottom of the list. Is the selection made on the grounds that the lands attached to a particular river are much better than those attached to another river? Is it a question that on the banks of the particular river in the Midlands you have plenty of excellent land and very few people, is it the fact that the land comes before the people in the priority list? As far as the River Suck is concerned, it cannot be challenged that there are more people per square mile trying to eke out a living along the banks of the Suck than can be found near any other river or catchment area in the country.Most of the holdings near the River Suck that are affected by flooding are very small holdings, but on each of them large families are being reared. Many of them do not really get a living, just barely an existence, being reared until the boys and girls are fit to emigrate. Their land is flooded for many months of the year, and it is heartbreaking to think of the human element involved. My personal conviction is that wherever the most people are living, even though the land may not be good, one must take into consideration their livelihood and their future first. I do not dispute the fact that where you have good land it needs drainage, but I do not think it should get priority. Here I would cross swords possibly with Deputy Giles. The population in counties in the West, as in my own county affected by the Suck, is a denser population than that in County Meath.
I did not mean it in that way.
I know that. We have County Meath and other counties where the bullock reigns supreme and where we have rich, lush land and very few people, whereas in the West we have rather poor land but large numbers of families, each with five, six or up to eight children, trying to eke out a miserable existence on a few acres. The Parliamentary Secretary himself knows one case, that of a particular village close to the River Suck. In that particular village there are 18 families and between them the amount of arable land is 65 acres. That is the exact figure. They are a thrifty, hard-working people and I think it is just too bad that year after year they have to ask their public representative "can anything be done to get the River Suck drained?" It is very depressing on any public representative to have to tell them that there is a priority list made out and I am informed by those in authority that there are more urgent drainage areas than yours. I would not like to have to tell these people that the urgency involved a problem of good land versus people. I think the people should come first, and before the question of good land. Thatis what I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary — that if the point of view I have expressed was taken into consideration in the making of a priority list then there could be no question of doubt about it that the River Suck would be one of the highest on this list. That is why I want to clear the air on the kind of priority adopted.
On the question of the River Suck, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is quite aware of the little bit of history attaching to it. Three or four years ago when the survey of the Corrib was undertaken I got a specific promise from the then Parliamentary Secretary who is now Deputy Donnellan, that as soon as the survey of the Corrib catchment area was made that he would switch the team of engineers to the Suck. Not alone did he give me that guarantee but in the presence of the Roscommon County Council and the Suck Drainage Board he made it quite clear that he was going to stand over that promise. A change of Government took place since that happened and I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary as a matter of ethics is that promise not binding on Deputy Donnellan's successor? I think when a promise is made by a responsible individual holding such an important appointment as Parliamentary Secretary and responsible for arterial drainage that, if in all seriousness, he makes a promise to Roscommon County Council and to the Suck Drainage Board that when the survey of Lough Corrib was completed he would put a team of engineers on the River Suck, such a promise should be honoured by his successor. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has any comment to make on that? Can he hold out any hope that the promise made by his predecessor will be honoured in the near future because in Roscommon and in his own constituency in County Galway, the people are looking forward to seeing that the present Parliamentary Secretary will not let them down and that he will be the first to honour the promise made by his predecessor. I want to hear what hope he can hold out to the people around the Suck of having that veryurgent drainage problem tackled in the near future.
To my mind this Estimate is one of the most important estimates so far as we rural Deputies are concerned, and I believe I would be failing in my duty if I did not refer to the question of the River Suir which is flooding some of the best land in the area. It is no surprise in the summer for certain farmers when they go out in the evening for their stocks of cattle to have to get a saddle horse or to have to wade through floods to get the animals in.
On the question of the priority list on which we are down, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give every consideration to the case of the River Suir because it has been before the Dáil, I think, for the past 20 years. Serious flooding of land has been caused in that area and thousands of the best acres are under water. The people cannot avail of the land reclamation scheme in this area unless the River Suir is drained. I have known some local authority works to have been done and some of them are very good, but if the main rivers were cleared it would help the smaller rivers to drain themselves. The Suir was a very important wide river some years back, but you would not need to be very athletic now to cross it at almost any place, because the banks are closed in. We are suffering very much through the drainage of bogs by Bord na Móna on account of the excess water that is coming into the Suir. We have raised the matter time after time and we are always met with the same old cry. We know about the high rates the farmer has to pay at the present time, and if he could use the land, he would not have to cry out that he cannot afford to pay his rates. It is ridiculous to saddle a farmer with a high levy when he cannot look at his lands for three months of the year. I know the Parliamentary Secretary, and since he came into office any representations I made with regard to accommodation roads got the best attention, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not raise this matter of drainage. I would, therefore, like theParliamentary Secretary—as I have put the matter before him on several occasions—to give his early attention to it. The river, I suppose, is the first and most important thing, because if the main rivers are drained we will not have flooding on the uplands as the smaller rivers will eventually drain themselves.
What was the use, in the case of some of the local authorities' works, in draining part of the land and letting the water out on somebody else's ground? To my mind that was a waste of money and a waste of time.
There is not very much more for me to say. I am not going to delay this Estimate but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to try and push us up on this list so that a river as important as any other—the River Suir— can be drained.
In coming to discuss this Estimate we have to bear in mind that the duties of the Board of Works have increased considerably in the last few years. I understand they are responsible for the maintenance and construction of all Government offices and, of course, if we stop to think for a moment we will realise that the Department of Social Welfare—just to take one of them—has grown out of all proportion and that in conjunction with other Departments that have grown extensively has thrown a lot of work on this Department. I think it is fair to say they have a lot of surveys to make and a lot of work to carry out that entails the employment of engineers, and from my experience as a Deputy visiting this Department, I think they make an honest endeavour to meet all their commitments but I do not think they have sufficient engineering staff to carry out anything like the amount of work they have to do. I think we can take it that if the work that this Department have on hands at the moment were to be carried through to fruition—the work they are actually committed to do— with the staff they have at the moment at their disposal that a great many of us here would have passed on before that work would be accomplished. Also in dealing with this Department wemust remember that they have a great deal of inter-departmental discussion. Naturally, their work, as far as I can make out, is delivered up to them by the other Departments and they have to carry it out and survey a lot of work that would appear to be useless.
Several Deputies have adverted to the proposed reconstruction of Dublin Castle. One Deputy, speaking a few moments ago, said that that scheme would cost something in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000. I presume that when this scheme was originally mooted it was surveyed by the Board of Works and estimated to cost something in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000. As far as I am aware that survey was carried out in 1945 and to-day, therefore, a more likely estimate of the cost would be £8,000,000. I merely mention that to stress the fact that there is more useful work to be done. I do not think these schemes are to be laid at the door of the office of Public Works. This office is more or less the Cinderella of the State Departments; it has to do the work suggested to it by other Departments. It is up to us to express our opinion on that here because such work as that to which I have referred is a waste of time and, more important still, a waste of money.
Deputies have referred to the construction of a new parliament buildings. These schemes have been foisted on the Office of Public Works to the detriment of other more useful works. The principal work in which this office has the right to decide when, where and how the work should be carried out is in relation to arterial drainage. In that connection I believe the office is short of engineers. Because of that they are handicapped in the work. But I do not think that fully explains the delay in the carrying out of arterial drainage schemes for the purpose of reclaiming the waste land. There are waste lands in every county in Ireland. It is proposed to spend £3,935,000 on public works and buildings. Deputies will observe that the money being voted for survey purposes in connection with arterial drainage is increased by £800. If they examinethe Estimate further they will find that on construction works there is a decrease of £15,000. That does not suggest that the present Government is very interested in arterial drainage. Until such time as those responsible get down to the job there will always be considerable difficulty with any subsidiary drainage carried out by any other Department.
It has been pointed out to me that in the main drainage schemes carried out work has commenced on the upper reaches of the rivers instead of being commenced at the lower reaches in order to give the excess water an opportunity of discharging into the sea. Work has been done the wrong way round with the result that the water has come down even more freely than before, spread out and created new catchment areas. The Parliamentary Secretary may attribute the blame for that to his predecessors. The point I want to make is that we have not got sufficient expert staff to carry out these schemes. The fact that they have been carried out the wrong way round is due to the fact that the schemes have not been properly drawn up. Because of lack of staff and pressure of work the schemes are rushed and an attempt is made to produce quick results. If one drains the lower reaches of a river one does not produce immediate results. If one drains the upper reaches one can point to the reclaimed land. The whole policy is short-sighted. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should concentrate his energies on having complete surveys made. He should ensure that any drainage that is done will be complementary to any other drainage that may be carried out subsequently. We have more flooded land than will be found in any other country in the world.
The drainage problem is a difficult one. We have a vast river in the West surrounded by very low-lying lands. As long as I can remember these areas are flooded every winter. There are plenty of places on the lower reaches of the river which could be opened up to take the surplus water. I admit that will be a big undertaking and onethat only the State can competently deal with but I think all our energies should be concentrated on doing that.
When the Parliamentary Secretary is approached by his colleagues in relation to drainage works that will be of no lasting benefit to the State he should hold out against doing these works, making it perfectly clear that he intends to concentrate all his energies on a proper scheme of arterial drainage. He should seek all the money he can get to carry out that scheme. He should recruit the necessary staff and obtain all the necessary machinery.
With regard to the shortage of engineering staff, I have had a good deal to do with the Office of Public Works in connection with a harbour in my own constituency. A survey had been carried out prior to my arrival in this House at the behest, I understand, of Deputy Corish. I interested myself in trying to get a jetty reconstructed. I was met very fairly by the Office of Public Works. In the beginning, I was put on the long finger because sufficient engineering staff was not available. Eventually the job was done. Plans were drawn up, and I believe now the work will be carried out by direct labour. I am grateful for what has been done in that regard and I hope that they will push forward with the work as quickly as possible.
There is one matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary comes from the West of Ireland and no man is a better judge of the advantages that can be gained by the people in the West of Ireland if certain drainage works are carried out there. I want to refer to the drainage of the Moy. The drainage of the Moy has been mooted for the last 25 or 30 years and we are just as near to having the drainage carried out as we were 20 or 25 years ago. Surveys have been made. I heard today about shortage of staff and shortage of engineers. There were engineers on the Moy 20 years ago. Whenever an election is about to take place the engineers come to make a survey of the Moy.
The Moy drains almost the wholecounty into the sea. There are tributaries flowing into Lough Conn and Lough Cullen, which act as a reservoir. There is an outlet from the lake through the Moy into the sea, but when the lake rises to a certain height in winter the water spreads out with the result that the land becomes flooded. Grazing land, crops and everything on which the farmers depend for existence can be washed away overnight by a big flood.
Big floods are fairly general in winter time in the part of the county surrounding those two lakes. The water rises suddenly and there is no outlet for it. The Moy is the main outlet for those two lakes, and unless provision is made to expedite drainage of the Moy the people in the area will have to demand that it should be done. They cannot be expected to be complacent if they see their means of existence being washed away.
A number of small farmers on the western side of the Moy have to take a large proportion of their supplies from the other side of the Moy, sometimes by boat. I mention that for the reason that a demand has been before the Mayo County Council for years past for the erection of a bridge across the Moy. The local authority are concerned as to the effect the drainage of the Moy might have on any bridge that they might erect. The bridge might have to be built at a certain height, width or level. If we erect a bridge to accommodate the people, as we are anxious to do, it might have to be taken down when the drainage of the Moy would be put into operation.
There are families living at Mount Falcon who grow hay and crops of every description. A sudden flood could sweep all these crops away in one night. There are areas where at least 80 per cent. of the potato crop was washed out of drills by floods. Floods do not happen every year. They may happen twice in one year or three times a year or not at all. If flooding takes place in August or September desperate damage occurs.
This matter was discussed at a meeting of the Mayo County Councilon one occasion and we were given to understand that there are three obstructions on the Moy: one between Ballina and Foxford, one near Foxford and one at the Ballyvary side of Foxford. I think the predecessor of the present Parliamentary Secretary was aware of the presence of these three obstructions. The removal of these obstructions would be part and parcel of the drainage of the Moy. Their removal would reduce the level of the lake by from three to six feet. Money spent on the removal of these obstructions would go part of the way to relieving the distress in the area. Land reclamation cannot be carried out because the officials will not pass the schemes because of the fact that the land is low-lying and there is no outlet.
As far as the Local Authorities (Works) Act is concerned and the money spent on drainage under that Act, as other speakers have said, the fact that some works were started and there was not sufficient money to complete them has meant that water has been taken a certain distance and cannot be brought any further.
Money could not be spent on any better scheme than drainage, especially in the poorer areas where drainage means the addition of an acre to a small holding. It also has the advantage of providing work for people in their own area. In the district surrounding Lough Conn and Lough Cullen and the Moy and its tributaries there is a huge number of registered unemployed. Money spent on drainage would be usefully employed in the improvement of the land and the provision of employment.
About two years ago the Board of Works engineers were on the Moy for a few months, and I am sure the report of their survey is in the Board of Works. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary here this evening to examine the survey and to make an effort to show some priority as far as the Moy is concerned. I was given to understand that the Moy had a certain priority and that that priority was well within reach this month. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give me or somebody representing Mayo and representing the people in thelocal authority as far as the council is concerned some idea of when there is a hope that the Moy will be taken over and the drainage will be put into operation. If we get an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary it will be a great relief to those representatives on the local authority and to the Deputies representing Mayo, because the people are asking when the drainage will take place, so if the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to make this statement and give us even roughly a date within the next six or 12 months I will be perfectly satisfied; but he should give us some date when he hopes to be in a position to say that he is going to tackle this question of the drainage of the Moy.
I would like to refer to one of the most important schemes in our district, that is, South Kerry, namely, the Maine drainage scheme. Let me say at the outset that on behalf of the people in the Maine valley and those affected I express our appreciation of the action already taken by the Parliamentary Secretary. There is quite a history attached to that proposal. Mention has been made here this evening by Deputy McQuillan of promises made to him by Deputy Donnellan. I do not want to repeat what I have already said about it, but the position in our case was quite different to the case of the Suck or the Moy or any of those. Parts of the Maine drainage scheme, the up-reaches of that catchment area, were dealt with and drained away back 20 or 25 years ago, and our case was the completion of a scheme while Deputy McQuillan's case was a question of the initiation of a scheme. In regard to the Maine, we had a much better case than any of the others because, unfortunately for our people, whether it was an engineering difficulty or not at the time the drainage operations were commenced in the upper reaches instead of the lower reaches and the people in the lower reaches were being flooded out. I understand that the explanation was that the farmers further down would not agree at the time to the levy being put on them and the Board of Works then had no option but to commence operations at the other end. There isno blame attached to the Board of Works engineers for doing what they did. They had no option; but the result in that case was that people in the lower reaches were in a bad way for 20 or 25 years. Deputy Donnellan made promises that he was giving priority to the people down there, to the farmers in Firies and other places. He told them that it had a certain priority on their list of schemes, but to the amazement of all concerned the Corrib or one of those schemes was selected instead. We came back here then and made a case to Deputy Beegan, the Parliamentary Secretary, and all credit is due to him; he arranged that this survey will take place and it is now in operation for the past five or six months. I am hoping that as a result of that survey the matter can be expedited and that we can have our scheme on the official list.
I notice here on this Book of Estimates that there is no mention made at all of this Maine catchment. I take it, anyway, that items such as that would not appear on this Book unless an estimate had been made out or that the survey had been completed, because in the case of the Corrib, I see here that the survey must be complete, but yet there is no estimate mentioned. There is no total cost mentioned but yet it is no this official list here. However, I am hoping that when the matter is being dealt with it can be scheduled as a scheme for sanction.
I was very disappointed when I asked the Parliamentary Secretary on Tuesday if, in view of the fact that the survey of the Maine drainage catchment will be completed this year, he would take steps to sanction the operation of the scheme early in the coming year. His reply was to the effect that he was not in a position to say how long those steps might take but there was no prospect of their being completed in time to permit of works being started next year. Well, now, I submit that surely it will not take a full year after the completion of a survey to give a decision. I am very well aware of the commitments,namely, advertising and legal notices being served and all those kind of things, but where there is a will there is a way, and I suggest that if the proper drive is put into it sanction should be forthcoming at the very least, anyway, in the middle of next year instead of this reply that there is no prospect of its being sanetioned next year. I need not stress the point that even recent floods in that district caused considerable damage and loss to accrue to the people along there.
Deputy McQuillan raised a point about the method employed in the selection of these schemes. He made a good point in regard to the density of population, and I claim that in so far as our area is concerned that is one point that will win out for us, and also that it is merely completion of a scheme, as I said at the outset. It is completion of a scheme begun 25 years ago, and, therefore, that should earmark it as an outstanding one.
The political aspect of this case is a very funny one. Immediately that the Parliamentary Secretary agreed to have this survey started Deputies Palmer and Lynch tabled a motion, and, mind you, it is still on the Order Paper even though the survey is almost completed—this motion "That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that a survey of the River Maine catchment area, in County Kerry, should be made forthwith so that the arterial drainage of the river may be put into operation directly the drainage of the Brick and Cashen is completed." That was put on this Order Paper, and I raised the point with the Ceann Comhairle one day as to why a motion like that which is obviously out of date, the subject-matter of which is already dealt with, should be allowed to carry on for propaganda purposes all along the line, done as it is, to show some connection with the scheme. That was done for the purpose of political propaganda and nothing else, and if Deputies Palmer and Lynch were sincere about this matter they would have challenged——
It is the Parliamentary Secretary who is responsiblefor the administration of this Department, not Deputy Palmer. Deputy Palmer is within his rights in putting down a motion.
On the subject matter dealt with already——
A survey does not commit you to anything. You can drop it.
We take it very seriously. We take it for granted——
——that a scheme will be carried out?
Yes. It has been the custom in the past and I do not see why it should be departed from now. However, to come back to the point——
That is better.
The answer to that motion is this: Why did Deputy Palmer and Deputy Lynch not protest against Deputy Donnellan's action when he deleted our scheme from the list and selected the Corrib instead?
Deputy Palmer and Deputy Lynch are quite entitled to put down a motion and it is within the rules of order to have it on the Order Paper.
On a point of order. Is it in order for a Deputy to make an attack on a man who is defending the unity of Ireland in America at the moment?
I suggest that Deputy Flynn should now direct his criticism—if he has any—towards the Parliamentary Secretary.
I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to review the whole matter with the object of seeing if this scheme can be dealt with in all its phases and sanction completed early next year. I still hope and believe that it is not an impossible task. Even allowing for all the preliminaries, advertisements, legal commitments, and so forth, attached to a scheme, I believe that at least sanction should be forthcoming next year. The ParliamentarySecretary's reply to me indicated that next year was out of the question. I respectfully submit to him that I fail to see why it should be out of the question.
Hear, hear!
Recently, a scheme was submitted by our county engineer in respect of the erection of small piers and slipways at Killorglin and way down that way along the coast. It was submitted to the Board of Works. We got the usual reply from the employment schemes office to the effect that if the county council was prepared to put up 25 per cent., plus the maintenance, they would agree to a 75 per cent. contribution. The county council accepted that, except the provision in regard to maintenance. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to forgo that stipulation, if at all possible. This question of maintenance is a hardy annual and local authorities usually protest because they do not like it. The slipway at Cromane and the pier at Dooks are only £800 or £900 jobs.
A slipway is a new addition to the district and is of immense help to fishermen for their boats, and so forth. It could never be a question of maintenance by a local authority. The pier at Dooks was never maintained by the county council. Why, therefore, should this stipulation be made that the Government would give this grant subject to the county council's taking over the maintenance? Our county engineer made the point at one meeting that much more is entailed than mere acquiescence in regard to maintenance. He says that accidents must be taken into consideration. If anything should happen at that pier at a later date and workmen are involved and are not properly insured, the county council would be responsible by reason of the fact that they are charged with the maintenance of the slipway. Therefore, for the sake of progress and for the sake of getting something done I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have the matter examined to see if the Board of Works could make the usual contribution—the countycouncil giving 25 per cent.—and, if at all possible, to forgo this question of maintenance. In any case, the maintenance costs would be very inconsiderable and if that condition were forgone by the Department it would mean that the local authority would not be saddled with something for which they believe they should not be responsible.
I come now to the question of rural improvement schemes and minor relief schemes. I regret that I was not in the House when the Parliamentary Secretary made his opening statement but I hope that he referred to rural improvement schemes that have been dealt with and reported upon, and in respect of which the money was paid. These schemes have been held up for some months past and, with winter approaching, it would be a good thing if the Parliamentary Secretary could deal with the matter urgently and have money made available so that work can commence immediately.
Is the Deputy anticipating the discussion on Vote 10?
I am speaking generally on the Estimate.
I know. However, employment and emergency schemes come under Vote No. 10. I think that the Deputy's remarks would be more relevant on that Estimate.
Then all that remains for me to do is to reiterate what I said about the Maine catchment scheme and to express again my appreciation of what the Parliamentary Secretary did in the matter. He was genuine and straightforward about it. Some months ago, we had a deputation here which was sent by the county manager, the county council and all political parties. In fact, it is almost a year ago now. At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary said that nothing could be done and that he saw no way out of the difficulty. However, six months later, when he saw a way out and felt that there was a hope of coming to the assistance of the people concerned, he did so immediatelyand he did not carry on with any of the camouflage that Deputy Donnellan and Deputy Palmer carried on with. It is now an established fact and I hope that, having started the good work, he will complete it for us early in the coming year.
I think that all Deputies fully realise how important drainage is and that the money spent on drainage gives a valuable return to the country. Like other Deputies, I am very interested in the matter of arterial drainage and in what rivers will be done next. In particular, I am interested in the River Barrow. The position in regard to that river is very different from that of other rivers, I understand. A portion of the River Barrow was drained some years ago: it must be almost 20 years now since it was done. The upper portion of the river was drained. Deputy Davin congratulated the Board of Works on the work that was done at that time. I am sure that that portion of the work which was done was an excellent job and an excellent job also for that part of the country. It stopped flooding in the neighbourhood of Portarlington.
It had a very serious effect, however, on the lower part of the river. The river was drained as far as Athy and from there down we have had flooding in parts of the country which were never previously known to be flooded. Seemingly, the engineers started at the wrong end of the river, so far as the layman's view is concerned. One would imagine that they would have started at the mouth, but they started at the upper end, with the result that the greater portion of the river has been flooding seriously ever since. While there was always flooding of the land adjoining the river, the flooding is now affecting very important towns on the river— Carlow, Graiguecullen, Leighlinbridge and Bagenalstown. Every time there is heavy rain, these towns are badly flooded and people have to leave their homes. There is a better case for the completion of the work on that river than there is in the case of many other rivers. The work was started 20 years ago, but there is no sign of anythingbeing done since. The position there is very serious. The work which was done on the upper end of the river may have pleased Deputy Davin, but it has done untold harm in the lower reaches because the flooding is worse there than ever. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see what can be done to complete that very necessary work.
Listening to Deputies speaking on this debate and giving expression to their views on this very important question of arterial drainage, I have the feeling that Deputies have their minds made up that it will be a very long time before the rivers they have in mind in different parts of the country are attended to. Deputies are justified in that attitude because the rate of progress is slow. Admittedly, in the case of those rivers which have been done or are in course of being done, good jobs have been carried out, but when we ask ourselves when all this machinery will get to the rivers in Donegal or the rivers in Kerry, we definitely must say that it will be a long time before they get there.
I suggest that, in addition to the large machinery employed on these major arterial drainage works, the Board of Works should consider purchasing smaller units to be sent into each county to do whatever work is to be done there. They may not be able to do all that work—some of it may be of such a nature that it will have to wait until the major machinery gets around to doing it—but, while waiting for that, there should be in operation in each county, or at least in every two counties, a lighter type of machinery which could go into operation immediately on the smaller rivers. There are counties where it may not be necessary at all to bring in the larger machinery at all. I strongly urge that smaller types of excavators, drainage machines and so on, be purchased and put into operation in the different counties.
During the recent harvest time in Donegal, I went specially from Lifford up to Castlefin, and beyond it. That is the part of Donegal known as the Finn valley which, with the Laganvalley, produces, acre for acre, a higher yield of crops than any other part of Ireland, and it was aggravating to see in the Finn valley the finest crops of wheat and oats there have been for years flooded, with stacks of grain partly covered with water and carts and tractors trying to salvage some of the best wheat and definitely the best oats in the country. It would not require any major machinery to remedy that situation. There are other smaller rivers which cause damage also and the flooding of lands along which could be eliminated, if any effort at all were made to tackle the matter in earnest. I hope that suggestion will be seriously considered, because we are of the opinion that it will be years and years before this major machinery comes our way.
Another matter which has been engaging the attention of Donegal Deputies for some time past relates to another of our major industries, or what should be a major industry—fishing. I refer to the provision of a first-class pier and landing facilities at Glengad. That ball has been fired from one to another over a long number of years and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on going one step on the road towards the provision of suitable facilities for the fishermen there. I know that last year a survey was taken and we are all awaiting a statement on the results of that survey. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to urge that the report should be made available as soon as possible and that, when the report is to hand, a further step or steps be taken in the very near future, because we have a generation of fishermen there who are up against it, as their forefathers were up against it. They are working against very heavy odds, first, by reason of the poor landing facilities and, secondly, by reason of the fact that it is the most northerly fishing port in Ireland. Now there is a danger that the younger generation of fishermen will not put up with the same hardships—and I cannot blame them if they do not—as were suffered by generations of fishermen before them.
My third point is somewhat unusual,so far as the Office of Public Works is concerned. It deals with the Lough Swilly railway. A section of the Lough Swilly railway running from Letterkenny to a place called Farland Point was the property of the Office of Public Works. It was operated by the Lough Swilly Railway Company in conjunction with other lines run by them—the line from Derry to Buncrana and this branch about which I am speaking now. Last year the Lough Swilly Railway Company sought and obtained permission to close their railways—they also operate as a road transport company. That section of the railway running from Letterkenny was sold by the Office of Public Works to the Lough Swilly Railway Company without any prior advertisement. I think it is the only time that property belonging to the Office of Public Works has been sold privately. It has been sold at a figure of £12,000. I discussed this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary—the sale had taken place before I got to know about it—and the Parliamentary Secretary was unaware of it. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to make full inquiries into this matter because I maintain that any property which the Office of Public Works has for sale should not be sold until the general public are given a chance to bid for it.
They are bound to advertise it.
I do not know what they are bound to do or what they are not bound to do, but that section of the railway was sold to the Lough Swilly Railway Company without any advertisement in the public Press or by any other means.
Are you sure it was State property?
Yes. It was owned by the Office of Public Works.
Some friend must have been interested in it.
I am not so sure that it was public property.
A sum of £12,000 was paid to the Office of Public Worksfor it. They may have received the money under false pretences, but that is the position. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make full inquiries into this matter. It was something which I did not know had taken place until it was an accomplished fact and to which I, now knowing that it has taken place, seriously object. I say that serious action should be taken against whoever was responsible, because to my mind the property was worth more than £12,000. Even if it were not worth that amount, it should still be advertised for sale by public auction. These are the only three points I want to mention in connection with this Vote. There may be other minor matters, but I feel that if these three points are dealt with, something worthwhile will have been done for the constituency I represent.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the Office of Public Works and to the commissioners for their promptness and for the full investigations that were made at their instance as the result of any representations I made on behalf of the people of my constituency. I have had occasion to approach the commissioners more than once over a number of years in connection with the Brosna drainage scheme. I want to say, in all fairness, that on any occasion when representations were made either by local authorities with which I am associated, by members of the county council or by myself as Deputy, the greatest courtesy was extended to those making representations, and a high degree of speed and efficiency was displayed in dealing with them.
I should like to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary that the Office of Public Works is probably one of the most important Departments of State and, being such an important Department, the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary responsible should keep a careful and close eye on all the proceedings and activities of that Department. If the allegation made by Deputy Cunningham is correct— that property was sold by the Office of Public Works without even an advertisement in the local press toannounce the proposed sale—I think the complaint which the Deputy has made merits very close and careful investigation. The Deputy from Donegal has outlined a case in which property to the value of some thousands of pounds was disposed of by a State Department—in this case he has definitely stated that it is the Office of Public Works was concerned—without acquainting the general public, without having a public auction, without even endeavouring to secure the highest bid for such property. I think that is a disgraceful state of affairs. On every occasion on which there is State property for sale the general public, particularly the taxpayers who have a share in that property, should at least be acquainted that the property is on the public market and the general public should be given an opportunity of purchasing the property if they so desire. It might be that public-spirited citizens would come in and put up sufficient funds to have the property purchased for the welfare of the community as a whole; not for the purpose of swelling the purse of any private individuals. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to make a statement either through the public Press or in this House within the next few days concerning the charge that has been made by the Donegal Deputy.
There are many useful schemes which can be operated through the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works, as I have already stated, is a Department of very great importance but it has been noted for its slowness and for the slovenly manner in which schemes of importance are undertaken. Deputies have made complaints concerning national schools. Garda barracks have also been mentioned. The Office of Public Works could undertake some very beneficial and very important schemes.
The Arterial Drainage Act was passed some years ago. Apart from the scheme that has been completed on the Brosna in Offaly and the schemes that are in progress in County Louth and in North Kerry, the Arterial Drainage Act has been placed on the shelves to be covered with dust and cobwebs.
When the inter-Party Government were in office Deputies who now support the Government were availing of every possible opportunity, both by way of parliamentary question and by statements in this House on the Vote for the Office of Public Works, to complain that important schemes of drainage were not being undertaken as speedily as they would like.
It is a long time ago since two members of the present Government addressed a meeting under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Ossory in the City of Kilkenny, which had been called because of the fact that the city had suffered very serious losses as a result of flooding. At that meeting a resolution was passed asking the Government to have a drainage scheme carried out on the River Nore immediately. Part of the City of Kilkenny, familiarly known as the Butts parish, was administered then and is still administered by Dean Cavanagh as parish priest and he pointed out at the meeting that his parish had suffered endless inconvenience and that very serious damage was caused to property owing to the bursting of the banks of the River Nore which called for immediate Government action. Even though that resolution was passed and two Deputies who then represented the constituency are now Government Ministers, from that day to this there has been no question of carrying out a survey or undertaking a drainage scheme on one of the most important rivers from the Midlands to the South. There are parts of that very important river which, if one were any sort of an athlete, one could jump across.
The drainage of the River Nore should receive immediate attention. The Office of Public Works have authority under the Arterial Drainage Act to carry out such drainage schemes and I fail to understand how they can make the excuse that they have no staff available for the making of a survey. They also say that there is a shortage of machinery for the carrying out of drainage schemes, yet the Department of Agriculture are disposing of machinery which could beused for the purpose. There seems to be a lack of co-ordination between the Office of Public Works and other Departments in connection with drainage schemes and other works which could be carried out.
The River Nore which passes through a large part of my constituency has on occasions destroyed hundreds and hundreds of acres of good arable land and left it useless. Deputies who have any knowledge of the conditions there are quite satisfied that a stronger case cannot be made for the drainage of any river than for the drainage of the Nore. Yet the Office of Public Works have taken no action in the matter even in regard to the making of a survey. I therefore take this opportunity of appealing to the Parliamentary Secretary to have a survey made and an estimate of the cost in order that a comprehensive drainage scheme may be undertaken. If such a drainage scheme is carried out it will vastly improve the fertility of the soil along the banks of the Nore, it will increase the value of the homesteads in the County Laois and County Kilkenny. The farmers living on the banks of the River Nore are paying rates as high as those on the highest valued lands in the County Meath. Yet for several months of the year their lands are rendered useless by flooding although they have to pay rates and taxes year after year on very high valuations. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consult with the chief engineer so that a survey may be made. Even if a comprehensive drainage scheme cannot be undertaken this year, some arrangement should be made for its carrying out with the least possible delay when circumstances permit of it.
While I am dealing with the Nore, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind the representations which have been made so often in connection with the Boyne. We know that it is impossible to have all these drainage schemes going on at the one time. But when we have so serious an unemployment problem, with 50,000 registered unemployed and 40,000 unregistered unemployed, drainage work could relieve thatproblem with the least possible delay. The Boyne is a river of very great importance and causes very serious flooding of a small part of the County Offaly. Repeated representations have been made in regard to that matter. I understand that the Meath County Council have on occasions passed resolutions asking the Office of Public Works to interest themselves in the drainage of that river, yet no survey has been made.
The Office of Public Works should have a survey made of all the important rivers, and if machinery is not available for the carrying out of these drainage schemes at the one time, at least some work should be carried out by way of reconstructing bridges and removing trees and other obstructions in rivers like the Nore and Boyne. In that way a considerable amount of employment could be given. The Office of Public Works, I am sure, could employ at least four times more than they are employing at present.
Whenever proposals came before this House to carry out schemes under the Arterial Drainage Act or other schemes under the Office of Public Works there was never any complaint from any side of the House and the money was always provided. I am sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary asked this House for funds for the carrying out of a comprehensive drainage scheme on either the Nore or the Boyne the House would welcome the proposal. It is of the greatest importance that men should be put to work. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there seems to be no end to the tide of emigration that is going on at the present time. The serious part of it is that it is from rural Ireland the people are mostly emigrating. At the same time, we find a general appeal made by public representatives and local authorities to have important drainage schemes carried out. The Office of Public Works can render invaluable service in providing work for these people by carrying out some of these important schemes.
I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to go to his Department, take down the Arterial Drainage Act,wipe the cobwebs and the dust off it, open it up and have the schemes undertaken with the least possible delay. This House will be prepared to vote him the money. I have no hesitation in saying that the workers are available and the farmers on the banks of all those rivers are only too anxious and willing to sign their approval for the carrying out of the various schemes of drainage. The Parliamentary Secretary will have no trouble with the various county councils in having their permission for the removal of bridges and whatever obstructions which may be in the way.
The Nore and the Boyne are the two most pressing problems from a drainage point of view. Some years ago, particularly when the inter-Party Government were in office, meetings were called from time to time in a part of my constituency in the Shannonbridge area. I am sure that if there is any such thing as a heavy and over loaded file in the Office of Public Works that file must concern flooding on the banks of the Shannon.
I remember, when Deputy Donnellan was in charge of the Office of Public Works, meetings were called by the parish priest of Clonmacnoise and Shannonbridge and at those meetings people assembled from parts of Galway and Westmeath, Offaly and North Tipperary. Those conferences were held every other Sunday evening and arrangements were made to have the people on the banks of the Shannon assisted by the carrying out of a scheme of drainage on the Shannon which we are now told is impossible and cannot be done. When Deputy Beegan was on this side of the House it was quite possible for Deputy Donnellan to do that. We were told you would have no trouble doing it.
The change came and Deputy Beegan now says it is impossible for him to do what it was possible for Deputy Donnellan to do. That is the Parliamentary Secretary's own statement. It is not sound logic. The farmers on the banks of the Shannon, particularly those farmers on the banks of the Shannon from Meelick to Athlone, can only use their lands from three to four months in the year. For eight months of the year a beast cannot be put onthose lands. The people are forced to secure conacre lettings on farms away from the banks of the Shannon. If they leave their live stock on the water-logged lands of the Shannon, the live stock suffers from fluke. Live stock are not thriving and are dying. At the same time the local authorities have no consideration for the fact that the owners of the live stock are by the banks of the Shannon. They have to pay their rates and taxes just as if they were living on the most fertile land in the County Meath.
The Office of Public Works were to carry out an investigation and officers of the Department were to do likewise. The Board of Works was to have a conference and, if my memory serves me right, representatives of the Land Commission and the E.S.B. were to be present. The Board of Works were to assist the E.S.B. and the Land Commission in having a joint conference of the E.S.B., the Land Commission, the Department of Education and the Office of Public Works with a view to hammering out a scheme which would give substantial relief to the farmers, smallholders and even cottage tenants who were trying to eke out an existence—a very miserable existence—on the banks of the Shannon.
The Parliamentary Secretary is two and a half years in office now and there was not even a sneeze about the Shannon, much less a conference. It was never mentioned and the parish priest of Clonmacnoise has called no meeting since, but there were plenty of meetings when the inter-Party Government was in office. There was no meeting since.
We cannot discuss the parish priest of Clonmacnoise on this Estimate.
The Parliamentary Secretary can be included. He was present at all those meetings. No meeting was called since. There were no protests from the Shannon valley. There were no letters in the public Press. There were no crowds congregated outside Shannonbridge NationalSchool, but the cars could not be counted when the inter-Party Government was in office. Deputy Beegan himself said that Deputy Donnellan would have no trouble putting a very large and comprehensive scheme into operation on the Shannon.
In addition to that, a request was made to the Government at the time to have alternative holdings provided for the people on the banks of the Shannon, and the Office of Public Works was to make recommendations in connection with the removal of the people from the banks of the Shannon. From that day to this there was not a word about it. There was no question whatever about the drainage of the Shannon.
Be that as it is, a further meeting was called at which the present Parliamentary Secretary was present and an announcement was made asking all the people on the banks of the Shannon to come to a meeting and make a claim for compensation, that the Government was going to hand out thousands to them in compensation and that the Office of Public Works had arrived at the conclusion that the scheme could not be undertaken for the drainage of the Shannon, and that instead of providing money for the drainage of the Shannon they were going to provide money for the purpose of providing compensation for the people.
In addition, the Office of Public Works at the time were going to make representations to the Offaly, Roscommon, Westmeath and North Tipperary County Councils and legislation was to be introduced in this House on the recommendation of the Office of Public Works and the necessary law was to be passed to enable the county councils concerned not to levy the high county rates on the people on the banks of the Shannon. Even though they were getting all these concessions at the time they were still going to be given the use of their lands for whatever period they could use them in the summer time. From the day there was a change of Government all those things disappeared.
I think it would be very pleasing to the people on the banks of the Shannon were they to hear now from the Parliamentary Secretary what are the obstacles and what is preventing the Office of Public Works going ahead with the drainage of the Shannon. We were told one time that parts of the Shannon could not in any way be interfered with because of E.S.B. rights. The present Parliamentary Secretary, probably with the best intentions in the world—and I believe it was with the best intentions in the world—was about to have the conference to which I have already referred for the purpose of having agreement with the E.S.B. in regard to whatever steps should be taken by the Office of Public Works to remove the barriers that were responsible for the continuous plight in which those hard-working, decent, respectable, honest and sincere farmers were working.
I am told by the people in the district who have not, of course, any engineering qualifications, that there would be no more difficulty experienced in the drainage of the Shannon than there was in regard to the drainage of the Brosna or Barrow.
Investigation is involved.
I agree, but at the same time the Parliamentary Secretary was to have his little conference for the purpose of getting all that. We have not heard of the conference since. I believe that there are parts of the Shannon which need to be deepened and widened. Again, an unlimited number of men who are now working in the coal mines in England, the steel factories of Sheffield and in the malt houses of Peterboro' could be usefully employed at home on the drainage of the Shannon. In addition to that, the land on the banks of the Shannon could be vastly improved. As we all know, a greater result can be got by increased production, increased production which cannot be obtained from the water-logged lands on which the people are trying to eke out an existence at the present time.
Deputies have referred to national schools. I want to say in all sincerity that the standard of the nationalschools in this country is far behind that in Great Britain. I have been in national schools in Great Britain, and I have found that in some of them hot and cold water is provided. Before class, children can go to the bathroom to wash their hands; they can wash themselves again in the middle of the day for the purpose of refreshing themselves. In how many national schools in this country are such facilities provided, despite the fact that in almost all our towns we have waterworks and sewerage schemes? The county councils and the Office of Public Works will advocate that all houses in these towns should be connected up with these schemes. I want the Office of Public Works to see that every national school in the country is provided with hot and cold water. It is an important matter.
Have not the local managers something to say to that?
Yes, certainly.
Put the blame on them, too.
the local managers are not all angels. I would not advocate for a moment in this House the taking of the national schools out of the hands of the managers. I would not believe that would be right, but I do believe that the Office of Public Works should compel the managers, or should have the right to compel them, to have the schools in decent and perfect order. If the managers will not do that, then the Office of Public Works should appoint a special appeals officer whose duty it would be to inspect the national schools, and who would have the right to say to the school manager: "If the school is not put into a proper state of repair within a given period the Office of Public Works will do it and compel you to pay for it."
We all know quite well that there are school managers in this country, the number may be few, who probably will only visit the schools once a year. I would be prepared to accept the advice of the national teacher on these things. The national teacher has to teach in the school, remain in the school and beresponsible for the pupils while they are in the school. It has been a matter of surprise and amazement to me that the National Teachers' Organisation has not taken steps to bring national teachers out of the schools, in view of the fact that to-day we have national schools which are breeding dumps for tuberculosis. There is no window in some of those schools; there is dampness in more of them, and old furniture that would not even make a good scrap fire. Some of those schools have no modern facilities whatever. Some of them are badly heated. Something should be done by the Office of Public Works about that. If the school managers do not act, then the Office of Public Works should have inspectors to see that the improvements are carried out if the managers will not do them.
On a point of order. Are these matters for the Office of Public Works or for the Department of Education? I think it would be well if we had a ruling from the Chair on that.
I do not think that the Department of the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for the matters to which the Deputy has been referring.
At the present time the Office of Public Works is undertaking the preparation of plans and specifications for the erection of a national school at the Swan, near Wolfhill, in the County of Laois. The Minister for Education has asked it to have specifications prepared and tenders invited for the erection of this school with the least possible delay. I have been told, within the last month, that the Office of Public Works has given a guarantee to the Minister for Education that this school will get priority over every other school in the country because there is an urgent need for it. Local representations have been made by the people living in the Swan in connection with this school.
There is a very large number of county council houses in the Swan, and there are children there up to the ages of five, six and seven who have not yetbeen to school. In view of the fact that the provision of this new school has been recommended by the local manager and by the people, I think it is a disgrace that there should be such delay by the Office of Public Works in asking for tenders for its erection. I suggest that, when tenders are accepted, the Office of Public Works should see to it that the erection of the school is completed with the least possible delay. I think that most of the old schools in this country should be condemned and closed, and that a scheme should be undertaken by the Office of Public Works for the erection of up-to-date modern schools throughout the country.
I have a complaint to make about the wages which the Office of Public Works pays to its employees on drainage schemes. I also have to complain about the delay that occurs in returning their cards to workers when they leave the employment of the Office of Public Works. I am sure that the other Deputies who have the honour to represent the same constituency as I represent have had similar complaints from workers who were employed on the Brosna drainage scheme and who were then let go either because of the closing down of the scheme or because of the shortage of work.
My complaint is that very long delays occur before their cards are returned by the Office of Public Works to these workers. There have been delays of a month, six weeks, two months and in some cases, three months. I know a worker in my constituency, who lives convenient to the village of Ballycumber. He was let off when work ceased on the Brosna scheme, and secured employment elsewhere. After a period of three weeks, his last employer let him go because he had not been able to produce his card. Repeated applications and requests for the card were sent to the Office of Public Works. The card was not sent to him despite the fact that he had lost his job. That was the cause of grave inconvenience to him, to his wife and young children. I suggest that these cards should be returned promptly.
I would suggest, too, when men are being let go, that, with their last payment,they should be given their card and their holiday money in the one envelope. I cannot understand the delay that occurs in the Office of Public Works as regards the payment of holiday money. I wonder is it realised there that the labouring man has to pay cash down for the loaf of bread that goes on his table and that his wife is probably depending on the few miserable halfpence, which I think is the proper way to describe them, which her husband receives. If there is not sufficient staff in the office to deal with these things, then it should be increased. I think that some senior officer should be put in charge to see that workers' cards and holiday money are presented to them with their last payment when they are leaving employment with the Office of Public Works. That is always done in the case of men who are in private employment. I say it should also be done in the case of employment in State sponsored schemes. In the case of men who were employed on the Brosna scheme, they had to wait six weeks and in some cases months before they received their holiday money. I think that is wrong and unfair to the worker, and I trust that steps will be taken to rectify it.
The Office of Public Works could, in my opinion, set an example in wages. We are told, time and again, that the Office of Public Works do not like paying more wages than the local authority, because men employed by the local authority, either on local road making or local drainage work, would leave the local authority and go to work with the Office of Public Works if the wages were sufficiently attractive. We were told, on the other hand, that steps required to be taken to keep the agricultural workers away from drainage work and keep them with the farmers. I do not believe those excuses. They are flimsy excuses and do not offer a true and correct picture.
The Office of Public Works should set an example and a headline in paying their workers. We all know that these drainage schemes are not permanent for the vast majority of workers, and for the length of timethat it takes the scheme to be carried out these men have to work hard. They have gangers and foremen over them to see that they work hard.
As far as the work on the drainage of the Brosna is concerned, I want to pay a tribute to every worker that was engaged on it. It is a credit to every man who raised a shovel on it. It is one of the most beneficial schemes ever carried out in this country, and it would be well worth while for any Deputy who has not already seen the scheme carried out so far on the Brosna to go down to County Offaly and see the amount of good that scheme has done.
In regard to future schemes, I feel that more attractive rates of pay should be given by the Office of Public Works. We all know that the worker who is employed on such important schemes is certainly engaged in a more laborious and more strenuous type of labour than the labourer who would be employed on the land. For that reason, I would impress upon the Office of Public Works and the Parliamentary Secretary to forget the rate of agricultural pay in an area, to forget the local county council rate, to forget the local building rate and to set a headline by paying the workers a decent wage. They would require from 30/- to 35/- of an increase per week before they would be in receipt of a wage commensurate with the amount of labour and the amount of work they must do on these important drainage schemes. I do hope and trust that the Office of Public Works will have more attractive rates of pay for the workers, particularly on these drainage schemes.
With regard to Garda barracks, quite a number of applications have been made for the erection of new barracks. These applications are slow in being dealt with. A site was acquired by the Office of Public Works in my own town of Mountmellick. I forget how long it was since the site was acquired for the erection of the Garda barracks. No tenders were invited for the erection of such a building and no steps have been taken by the Office of Public Works in erecting it.
There are many other areas and many other districts in which the Guards are labouring under very difficultconditions. I have known of one Garda barracks that has been reported to the Office of Public Works time and again where the rain is coming down after every heavy rainfall, windows are falling out and there is general inconvenience. I have known of another Garda barracks where we were told rats thrived under the floor of the bedroom. I think it is quite wrong for the Office of Public Works to tolerate such conditions, and when such conditions are reported no time should be lost in having the scheme carried out and having the old building condemned. I expect it is the Office of Public Works which must pay the rates—rates are being paid by the Office of Public Works on quite a lot of sites, but in areas where it is established that the Office of Public Works are satisfied that new Garda barracks should be erected, no time should be lost in having these buildings constructed. Some time ago there were many of the older type of Garda who, for the love of their duty and from a sense of national outlook were prepared to administer the law in any building.
Would this not be a matter for the Minister for Justice?
I do not think the Minister for Justice would have anything to do with the erection of Garda barracks.
He would have responsibility for recommending the building of barracks.
Anyway, it is the Office of Public Works which has to ask for tenders and I respectfully want to know what is the delay on the part of the Office of Public Works in inviting tenders for those Garda barracks. I think it is a fair question. I have not had a satisfactory reply from any Parliamentary Secretary or Minister on that and I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us an outline as to how many new Garda barracks have been erected in recent years, how many sites have been acquired by the Office of Public Works for the erection of new Gardabarracks and have not been erected. I want to know what is the cause of the delay. They are hampering the Guards from discharging their duties efficiently; on the other hand, we see that the Guards are expected to do this, that and the other; yet they have not a decent building in which to conduct their affairs.
I think this could be raised more relevantly on the Estimate for the Department of Justice.
We will do that, too. In the case of Mountmellick, I would ask that the Office of Public Works should invite tenders for the erection of that Garda barracks with the least possible delay. While we are discussing Garda barracks, schools and drainage, I am sure we are within our rights in referring on this important Vote to the amount of work that has been carried out by the Office of Public Works here at Leinster House. It is a long time since there was a war waged on the dog-box, as it was described, convenient to Leinster House. When I refer to the dog-box, I mean the visitors' entrance to this House. How long ago is it since the Office of Public Works were to have that disgraceful spectacle removed and have it replaced by a decent structure so that people calling at Leinster House to interview Ministers, Deputies or on any other business, might at least have a decent place to sit down?
The distinguished visitors calling to Leinster House have the greatest kindness and courtesy extended to them by the officials but they may sit in a cold, dreary-looking, weary-looking, ugly, out-of-date, ancient, bewildered-looking cage. How can they take away a good impression of Government Buildings? It has been described as a cage and as a dog-box but no matter what description could be given, one would have to sit in it for 15 or 20 minutes before the proper and right title could be found for it. It is a disgrace to the Parliament of the country and it is only right that we should not have to be asking the Office of Public Works year after year what is the delay in having aproper waiting room erected at Leinster House, in which there would be at least some privacy, in which a person would not have to be embarrassed when he inquires for a Deputy and takes his place probably with five or six other people crowding around him on a busy day.
Is that a matter for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible?
Yes, it is.
The Chair feels it is the responsibility of somebody other than the Parliamentary Secretary.
I think it is in the Estimate.
It might be raised more relevantly on another Estimate.
This is the one I was told to raise it on.
That does not make it proper.
What does it say in the Book of Estimates? I have not got it here.
On page 45, Houses of the Oireachtas, New Works, Alterations and Additions.
Although I have but briefly referred to the spectacle at the gate, I hope and trust that my reflection on it is sufficient to fix the attention of the Commissioners of Public Works, so that some steps will be taken to have it improved.
Again, when one asks to have a press removed at Leinster House, from four to six Board of Works employees come with tapes, rules and lines to survey and to step and to plan for the removal. I do not know how many are on the staff of the Office of Public Works for this section, but there seems to be plenty of labour there for the carrying out of schemes such as this, while they are very slow to carry out schemesthat are absolutely essential. It has been reported time and time again to them that the ventilation in this very House we are in at the moment is in need of improvement. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what expert advice he has got on the proper ventilation of Leinster House. This is the only time we will have the Office of Public Works under review for a year and at least when we Deputies do a lot of talking about the comfort of the whole country, we might try to elicit some little comfort for ourselves. The ventilation in this House, as everyone knows, is a disgrace. It is inclined to put Deputies to sleep and for the Deputies who do sleep it is inclined to keep them asleep for the whole day. The ventilation is a disgrace and the Office of Public Works should lose no time in having inquiries made to have this House properly ventilated. I do not desire to comment further on that.
We ought to condense the hot air, too.
I see schemes carried out here by the Office of Public Works which certainly are not a credit to them. I do not know who is responsible and do not want to criticise. The only one who can shoulder the blame is the Parliamentary Secretary. He must take responsibility for the inefficiency of those under him.
On the whole, a lot of very useful work could be done and schemes of very great improvement could be carried out, and I want to take this opportunity of protesting in the strongest possible manner, and in a very determined manner, on behalf of every decent taxpayer, against the huge expenditure on Dublin Castle. It is a disgrace and it is wrong. That money could be put to some more useful purpose. If we had it in my constituency we could carry out drainage schemes or other schemes of improvement which would be of far greater benefit to the country than this expensive scheme at Dublin Castle. I disagree with it and protest against it and whoever is responsible for it, I am telling you with all respect, willhave a lot to answer for towards the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country.
I want to wind up the way I started, in saying that the Office of Public Works has been attentive to complaints as far as I have ever made them and I ask that more funds be made available for the carrying out of schemes of national and local importance.
I have not very much to say on this Estimate—Deputy Flanagan has contributed quite a lot— but I want to mention the new situation that has cropped up on the Boyne, due to the activities of Bord na Móna at the sources of the Boyne. I had a letter only this morning from the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with that. The Board of Works seems to be under the impression that it has no responsibility for what Bord na Móna does. There should be no misunderstanding about this. If Bord na Móna succeeds in draining the bogs in Offaly that water must go into the Boyne and if it reaches the Boyne the lower portion of the river is bound to flood. That is only natural. I am not an engineer and do not know a desperate lot about drainage, but I have some little knowledge and I think that would be the natural reaction. Therefore, something of a temporary nature should be done to prevent that flooding.
The Boyne for years during the winter months, of course, overflows. Some of the work done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act has been almost useless, due to the fact that the Boyne still floods. However, there is no remedy for that but the drainage of the Boyne. I am not now advocating that the Boyne be drained, but I am advocating that something be done to carry that surplus water from the bogs or the sources of the Boyne on to the sea.
The next thing I want to mention is the question of some ancient monuments. In Meath, like several other counties, there are some of these inscribed or sculptured crosses. They are reaching an age now ofvery close on 1,000 years and the figures on them are beginning to disappear. It would be a loss to the nation if we allowed that to happen. As far as I know, there is a remedy against that—whether it is liquid glass or a dressing that is put on the cross through which you can see and which preserves the picture. It may be an expensive business, but these crosses are very valuable national monuments and it would be a pity to let them disappear.
I also asked the Board of Works to do some little repairs, quite simple repairs, and possibly a little bit of excavation, on the old castle in which Blessed Oliver Plunket was born and the old church in which he was christened. We had some ceremonies there last year and that has brought quite a number of visitors to the site. The chapel is gradually disappearing, the walls of the old church are gradually falling, the stones are coming from the top, there is ivy on it and it is in a state of complete dilapidation. It is all right for the Board of Works to tell me that that is not an ancient monument. They simply told me that it had no intrinsic value. Just exactly in archaeology what that means, I could not tell you. They could repair some of the previous churches, the older churches. The pagan mounds on Lough Crew Hill are tumbling down. On many occasions I asked them to repair some of the caves or cromlechs there, but it has not been done; the rabbits get in and tear down the stone. That is not quite so bad as in the case of the more modern type of ancient churches; they are all gradually disappearing and no effort is made to repair them. It would not have cost so much money, but just a little cement.
That is nearly all I have to say. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will attend, not to the drainage of the Boyne but to the prevention of over-flooding due to the activities of Bord na Móna at the source of the Boyne. And I hope they will reconsider their refusal to do anything with the old church at Lough Crew, which is probably the place where Blessed Oliver Plunket was baptised and in whichhis parents were buried. I think that the words "intrinsic" or "sentimental" value do not cover such places adequately. If the Board of Works are not able to do this I propose to have it done privately. We will try to get some sort of a committee together and get a few pounds in and get the work done. The church is in a disgraceful condition at the moment.
A bit further on, there are old ruins at a place called Moylacht, and further on you have forts, and the same thing happened there. They are completely derelict. I know money may be scarce, but with a little effort and organisation it does not take so much to give these places the appearance of reverence and respect, and that is all I ask the Board of Works to do.
When I listened to Deputy O. Flanagan starting his speech by paying a very high tribute to the efficiency and the speed of the Board of Works I was rather amazed that any Deputy in this House could be prepared to pay that compliment to the Board of Works.
Excuse me, Deputy, it was of the office staff of the commissioners I was speaking. I hope I am not going to be misrepresented.
That modification does not appeal to me. I have criticised, and I could criticise the Parliamentary Secretary and any Parliamentary Secretary in his place, but, having experience of acting a few times on the Public Accounts Committee, I can see that if I were in the same position as the Parliamentary Secretary I would feel just as helpless as he is to do the things he is anxious to get done. I am going to say quite frankly that the administration of the Board of Works is anything but satisfactory. I was on the Public Accounts Committee the year before last, and I raised a certain matter there about plant that was purchased in Dundalk and we were paying £600 a year to the Port and Docks Board for minding scrap for three, four or five years. When a question was asked about it and anexplanation given I asked in this House what action was taken with the engineer or engineers responsible for buying that plant.
The Deputy must not discuss the Board of Works engineers in this House. The Parliamentary Secretary is responsible and individuals should not be mentioned.
I must then repeat what I say that the Parliamentary Secretary is in a hopeless position unless some action is taken by those who are in authority to do the right thing in the Board of Works. When I asked a question afterwards about the persons who were responsible for the transaction I got no satisfactory reply —dead silence. I was present this year when the question of the sale of Lough Swilly Railway was before us, and there was no satisfactory reply given to the question as to why that property was sold, including some houses and other goods, without being first advertised for public auction. Now I am going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take the necessary steps to have some satisfactory reply to this question: what action is being taken against those responsible for that? On the Public Accounts Committee last year, we were told there was not sufficient check of stocks in or out of one of the most important stores of the Board of Works where thousands of pounds worth of goods were handled.
It was promised that something would be done by this year but this year we were informed that it was not yet completed. Here was a store of the Board of Works with thousands and thousands of pounds worth of goods going in and out and there was no complete system of checking of stock in or out. There may have been some check on goods going out but there was no question of a proper check on goods coming in. When the question was asked regarding the stocks that were taken out of a particular firm under Board of Works authority there was no check on where that stock ultimately went. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary—and I am prepared to say this and it is notthrowing any bouquets at him—that he is as anxious as I am to have the right thing done. It would be a good thing if those members who are on the Public Accounts Committee would go along to one of the Board of Works' Departments and see what is being done and who is responsible for the irregularities that are taking place. I am perfectly satisfied that there is no genuine administration in the Board of Works concerning goods supplied by them for the service of the different Departments of State.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could indicate when replying when he intends to start the drainage of the Corrib-Clare-Dalgan rivers and if he realises that the people of his own county and the people of Roscommon, Mayo and Sligo—the four counties affected—are in need of this drainage? Does he realise that there is grave disappointment in those areas and in particular in the constituency I have the honour to represent? We have waited for many years hoping that this project would be undertaken and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is well acquainted with the damage that is done by the neglect of the past 100 years as regards the cleaning and opening of this river. We hoped that early in the past summer the drainage would have started in the catchment of the Corrib but so far nothing has been done.
In my constituency, we have thousands of acres of land and bog waterlogged. I had occasion to write to the Parliamentary Secretary on 10th September last year regarding a pond or lake which at times due to flooding or bad weather covers anything from 15 to 20 acres. It is known as Treelawn at Ballindine, County Mayo. The Parliamentary Secretary informed me I would have to wait for some years pending, of course, the preparation of this scheme, the Corrib-Clare-Dalgan scheme. I hope, when replying, he will be able to indicate the date on which he will be able to open this scheme and undertake the drainage of this important river and its tributaries.
I appreciate it is not easy. I understandthere are difficulties and problems that have to be overcome but I think either the Parliamentary Secretary or his Department is lagging or malingering for some reason or other best known to himself, or the executive officers or engineers responsible for the initiation of this scheme for which the survey was completed over the past two years.
I would also like to know what progress or development has taken place with regard to the survey of the Moy. I understand engineers are at work there and I would like to know when the survey will be completed and when the Parliamentary Secretary intends to initiate the drainage of that very important river which affects something like 500,000 acres of land and bog in Sligo and Mayo. People this year suffered a great deal of loss with turf, corn and hay, with meadows and grass. These losses arose out of flooding by the River Moy. I would not like to throw the blame on the Parliamentary Secretary or to be too hard on the Board of Works but I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to press for greater speed with the view to initiating drainage in this particular area sooner than any of us anticipate. The people there are bewildered when they think they have to wait for another five years. I would like to be able to tell them that perhaps in the next two or three years we will be able to start and that in 1956 or 1957 that the Parliamentary Secretary will have that drainage undertaken.
I must compliment the staff engaged on this job at Lough Gara. I had the pleasure of seeing the work that was done early this summer. A very fine job has been done there. The under-pinning of the bridges and the blasting of rock for a quarter of a mile was a great engineering achievement. The work done will be of no benefit to the local community, however, unless subsidiary work is carried out, namely the under-pinning of other bridges and the lowering of other rivers in the locality. All the water from East Mayo does not drain into the River Moy. A lot of it drains into Lough Gara and the River Shannon. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to allocate asum of money sufficient to carry out work on the tributaries flowing from Lough Gara into Boyle and on to the River Shannon. Local Deputies, such as Deputy S. Flanagan and Deputy Moran are well acquainted with this locality. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary's engineering staff are even better acquainted with it. I am sure they appreciate the necessity for carrying out the subsidiary works I suggest. The Parliamentary Secretary may not be aware that the land rehabilitation scheme or the farm improvements scheme cannot be availed of at present because the country is flat and low-lying. From Tooreen, near Ballyhaunis town, a very big river flows into Lough Gara and on towards Knock and Kilkelly. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make provision for the completion of the works necessary in these areas. There is no use in under-pinning bridges and blasting rock if the work is not brought to completion. Until these schemes are carried out the people in the West have no very bright future before them. Indeed, we believe down there that we are forgotten and neglected. In the inter-Party Government and in this Government we have members directly connected with the Gaeltacht.
Drainage is very important in the West of Ireland. The farms are small and uneconomic. It is more important there than in the Midlands. But the people in the West complain that they are always left at the back of the class. All they get are the crumbs that fall from the table. The regrettable feature about all this is that there is such a song and dance about the West, about the problem of emigration and about the necessity for preserving the Gaeltacht and keeping the people on the land. Proof of our sincerity in that regard can be demonstrated by initiating schemes to provide employment in these areas. A comprehensive drainage scheme will do that. It will improve small uneconomic holdings and keep the people on the land. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have some favourable replies to make to our observations here this evening.
Provision was made some years ago for the erection of a Garda barracksin Kilkelly, but nothing was ever done. There may be some explanation for that. In 1945 I had occasion to travel to the South of Ireland in connection with a by-election. At 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning I wanted to get some petrol. Petrol was scarce at the time, and I decided to call at the Garda barracks. It took me about two hours to find the building.
Surely the Board of Works is not responsible for that.
It has responsibility for the erection of Garda stations, and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary now to have a light of some kind outside each station.
Would that not be a matter for the Minister for Justice?
I do not wish to disagree with the Chair. The design of these buildings is part of the work of the Office of Public Works. In designing these buildings provision should be made for indicating where the buildings are in the different towns and villages. Very often these baracks are erected in some back street, and a stranger in the locality finds it impossible to discover where they are.
I am gratified at the progress being made in the erection of schools in my constituency. My parish priest informs me that the Office of Public Works has been very considerate.
I understand that there is some suggestion of the renovation of Dublin Castle. I have no objection to the provision of suitable accommodation for civil servants. I believe they should be properly housed. Even here we grumble about the accommodation provided for Deputies although we spend only a few months in the year here; we have reason to complain when we find nine and ten in every room. Dublin Castle, however, represents a very black page in the history of this country. I always believed that a native Government would one day remove it. Instead of renovating it, I suggest that a suitable building should be erected somewhere else inthe country, either Athlone or Castlebar——
Tullamore.
——in order to decentralise offices. The Revenue Commissioners and their officials could carry out their work quite efficiently in the Midlands or the West of Ireland. Such decentralisation would enhance the prestige of the different areas selected, provide employment and a market for consumer goods. I agree it is necessary to house staff properly. No good is achieved by having men and women working in damp or badly-ventilated offices. If proper accommodation is not provided, many of these people may become ill and may have to be maintained in hospital. Instead of spending £1,000,000 in this way, it should be spent in providing suitable accommodation elsewhere. I do not wish to make propadanda out of the fact that we are going to renovate that building. All I wish to suggest is the provision of an alternative site to the site at the top of Dame Street.
I conclude in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some ray of hope that in the not too distant future we will see the drainage of the Corrib-Clare-Dalgan undertaken, followed in a short time by the drainage of the Moy and its tributaries.
I had not intended to take part in this debate, but when Deputy Cafferky mentioned the continuation of the drainage which has been done in the Lough Gara district, I felt I should say that for the past two years I have been urging the Parliamentary Secretary to find money to continue the drainage and in that way to bring in an area up as far as about where I live and thus to provide relief for a very big tract of country where Deputy Cafferky and myself live. For once in a lifetime, I find myself in agreement with the Deputy.
A substantial amount of money has been spent on the Lough Gara development project over the past few years, and in my opinion the amount of extra money needed to clear out the enormous area at the back, allthrough Kilmovee and right up to the parish of Aughamore, would be insignificant compared with what has been already spent. I want again to urge the Parliamentary Secretary to try to find that money in the coming year. Deputy Cafferky may not know that I have been trying to get that done for the past two years. That is the only reason I intervened in this debate.
The only other remark I wish to make concerns the drainage of the River Moy. I think the Parliamentary Secretary has been very honest with the people as far as the progress of the scheme for the drainage of the Moy is concerned. He has not tried to hood-wink or delude them that this will be done to-morrow or the day after. I think I am right in saying that the Parliamentary Secretary stated from a public platform that the most he could hope for was that the actual drainage operation, apart from survey and other work, would commence in or about the year 1956 or 1957. If I am wrong in that, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me.
The amount of preliminary work that has to be done before the actual operation of drainage can commence, apparently, is very great. Unfortunately, during the time that Deputy Donnellan was responsible for the administration of the Board of Works, there was considerable confusion in the minds of the people as to the actual position. It was to start to-morrow; it was to start next year; the Corrib was ahead of it and the Corrib was not ahead of it in order of priority. Now the people do know where they stand. The survey work is to be completed in a couple of years' time and the actual operation of drainage will commence in 1956 or 1957. How many years that will take, I do not know. To be honest with the people and to let them know exactly where they stand, it is only fair to give them those facts. If I am wrong in that—I am speaking without notes and from recollection— I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will put me right.
These matters are of vital importance to the people in my constituency.Countless schemes which would be of immense value to farmers in the area are being postponed until such time as the Corrib drainage is carried out. That applies also to the drainage of the Clare-Dalgan. In the circumstances, many minor schemes cannot be carried out. It is well that the people should realise that these minor schemes cannot be executed by the Board of Works because, if they were attempted, public money would be wasted. The people would prefer that the money should be put into productive work rather than used on work which might have a labour content but which would be uneconomic if carried out before the arterial drainage of these important rivers is effected.
I again urge the Parliamentary Secretary to try to find the necessary money to complete the drainage on the Mayo side of the border, from Greenaun Bridge up, and in that way to make a complete job and relieve the people of my constituency as well as the people in the Roscommon and Sligo areas who have benefited so much from the drainage of Lough Gara.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he hopes to fulfil a promise made a couple of years ago to a late member of this House concerning the provision of playing field pavilions in the Phoenix Park. He promised a few years ago that suitable pavilions, with baths and toilet accommodation, would be erected there for footballers and others. There is a certain number of sites marked out and used by some hundreds of people every Sunday.
Recently, municipal houses have been erected in the vicinity of the Phoenix Park. It has been suggested to me that there are ample sites on which the Board of Works could provide a few small swimming pools for the children from the surrounding area who frequent the park. The Board of Works does big things well. On this occasion we are not asking for very big expenditure. We are merely asking that they should provide in the Phoenix Park, as promised a couple ofyears ago, pavilions and proper toilet accommodation, and also that they should provide a few swimming pools.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the House will agree that there is not a city in Ireland or England that does so little in the way of providing playgrounds and swimming pools for its young people as we do. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to fulfil the promise made two years ago and to include the provision of swimming pools.
It amazes me to hear provincial Deputies attacking the question of the reconstruction of Dublin Castle. We in Dublin feel that its renovation is necessary because it is going to ruin. Whatever about the question of history to which Deputy Cafferky referred, if we can give our civil servants a proper place in which to do their work, possibly they may be able to do it in a more efficient manner. As far as I am concerned, this reconstruction of Dublin Castle will give employment, the great need for which we hear Deputies of all sides of the House speaking about. I think that if the Board of Works would get the work going quite soon on this scheme it would certainly give great relief here in the City of Dublin.
There is one thing I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary when they are going to do that job if it is being given out to contract—that he would insist that the labourers or the men employed on the reconstruction would have a residence qualification and that they should be at least five years in Dublin. Some of the provincial Deputies might not like that. I find there are quite a lot of people coming into Dublin and getting into the building line. You will see those big, hefty country lads coming along and a Dublin fellow like myself, of my size, and the foreman gives a look at him and plumps for the big country chap. I think that is not right, because Dublin labourers and Dublin workmen are every bit as good as the six-footer from Mayo or anywhere else. I think that a residence qualification should be in the contract, because Deputies know that in everyother town where there is a Board of Works job building a school or anything else that clause is in, that local labour must be employed. I regret to say that here it is not always the case, and I make that appeal on behalf of the Dublin building workmen because their reputation is second to none. They give good value for their money, and they are not one bit behind the door when it comes to hard work.
I would like to support Deputy Alderman Byrne in his request for proper facilities in the Phoenix Park. We are far behind many countries when it comes to recreational facilities for our young people. There are some people being transferred from the Phoenix Park to St. Mary's Hospital in the Park due to getting bad wettings playing football there. I played football in the Phoenix Park myself and I got many a good ducking because there were no facilities. Now my young son goes there on a Saturday and many a time he comes home drenched because he could get nowhere to dress or undress properly. It is about time that we stopped talking about this matter and began to get work done. It is not going to cost a great deal of money, but it would be a great benefit to the young people of the city.
The question of swimming pools is another matter where we are very far behind. I happen to be chairman of Dublin Corporation Baths Committee and we are plugging it very hard to get something done. I would even settle for anything, not alone a swimming pool or anything to do with swimming that will teach our young people how to swim and give them the benefits that can be derived from swimming. If the Parliamentary Secretary would do anything like Deputy Alderman Byrne suggests it would certainly be a step in the right direction. I know that the question of swimming baths does not come under his Department, but I do say that if there is a possibility of doing anything in the future it certainly ought to be done.
These are my only reasons for intervening in this debate. Again I say it is all right for the provincial Deputiesto come along here and talk, but the unfortunate Dublin people cannot be blamed for trying to get some work such as would be provided to many of them at Dublin Castle.
This debate, though it has not gone on very long, has ranged over a very wide number of subjects, and if I were expected to answer all the questions and queries that have been put to me I would be nothing short of a human encyclopaedia. I am afraid that I will not be able to satisfy everybody.
A number of the speakers here—the greater number of those who spoke— mentioned drainage. I am very much in sympathy with drainage, as everybody knows, but at all times I have made it quite clear that drainage, particularly comprehensive arterial drainage, is not by any means a matter easy of solution. That was clearly envisaged at the time the Drainage Commission was set up. Their report, if anybody makes a study of it, endorses that view, and what has transpired since makes it all the more apparent that the carrying out of the field survey is not everything. One would imagine, by listening to some of the speakers here to-night, particularly Deputy Blowick and Deputy O'Higgins, of Laois-Offaly, that there was nothing done about drainage in this country until 1948. I intend to make a statement on this very important subject to which so many Deputies have addressed themselves to-night, and I expect that they have addressed themselves to it with sincerity, but that still they did not understand the full facts. As a matter of fact, it is well known that when the Drainage Commission was set up, when its report was brought in, and also when the Drainage Act of 1945 was passed into law, that before the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act became law and in anticipation of it being passed by the Oireachtas, steps were taken for the carrying out of schemes and all the preliminary work had been carried out on at least one scheme and a good deal on two others. I will give the dates.
As far as the Brosna is concerned,the survey was commenced in August, 1942. It was completed in July, 1944. The exhibition was sanctioned on the 6th August, 1946. The scheme was exhibited from the 11th November to the 14th December, 1946, and the scheme was confirmed by the Minister for Finance on the 23rd August, 1947. The actual work commenced on the 29th May, 1948.
The Glyde and Dee survey commenced in July, 1944. It was completed in November, 1945. The exhibition was sanctioned in June, 1949, and it was exhibited from the 12th August to the 3rd September, 1949. The scheme was confirmed on the 16th February, 1950, and the actual work commenced on the 5th June, 1950.
In the same way the Feale survey was commenced in July, 1945, and was completed in August, 1946. The exhibition was sanctioned on the 16th November, 1950, and the scheme was exhibited from the 18th December, 1950, to the 20th January, 1951. The scheme was confirmed on the 4th May, 1951, and the actual work commenced on the 29th May, 1951.
In the Corrib-Clare the survey commenced in June, 1948, and was completed in December, 1951. The exhibition was sanctioned on the 28th May, 1953. The scheme was exhibited from the 21st July to the 22nd August, 1953.
I may be asked, of course, why the long delay between completion of the survey and the sanctioning and the exhibition of the scheme, but anybody who will make a study of that or go to the trouble of inquiring will find out, as I have already stated, that the field survey alone is not all the work. Often much more intricate work, and of just as highly technical a character, has to take place in plotting the data and designing the scheme. Very often it takes much longer to do that particular work than it actually takes to carry out the field survey. That has been the position and consequently there can be no rushing in matters of this kind. It is all very well for Deputies to come to this House—and I do not find any fault with their doing so—and put up their pet scheme, the scheme that isin their constituency or in the constituencies adjoining them, and ask that the survey be proceeded with and that operations begin immediately. Unfortunately, I am not in a free-lance position to be able to meet all the requests at the one time, nor do I propose to be forced to make promises which I know are impracticable and cannot be fulfilled. I believe in being honest with the people.
Deputy McQuillan, speaking here this afternoon, said that money was the whole difficulty. Like many other Deputies, he suggested that all the money that was required for arterial drainage should be readily made available.
With regard to the three schemes on which work has been in operation for some time, the first is nearing completion and will cost in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000. It is estimated that the Corrib will cost over £2,000,000 and that the Moy will cost £2,000,000. I am not sure if it is yet estimated what the other schemes will cost: I do not believe that it has yet been estimated.
There are 28 major catchment areas in the State and 30 minor catchment areas. The 28 major catchment areas are different from the old drainage districts because each of the major catchment areas comprises an area of over 100,000 acres. The minor catchment areas comprise an area of between 25,000 and 100,000 acres. That will give some picture to the Deputies of the magnitude of the job that our engineers have to do when they go out on the survey of a catchment area. That is a very big task and, after they have that done, they have to carry out the plotting of the data and the designing of the scheme and then they have to comply with the Statutory requirements of the Act which was passed by this House, in the discussion of which many of the Deputies here present participated and, I am sure, gave a good deal of attention to. It will be seen, therefore, that a considerable amount of time must necessarily be spent on the work.
If we are to take all the schemes— to commence the surveys and get on with the work—where are all the millions to come from? I am puttingthat question to the Deputies of this House now. What other kinds of work are we to set aside? When the Estimates for other Departments come before this House we are urged to do more and more. Take, for instance, the Estimate for the Department of Local Government. Housing, we are constantly being told, is the most important of all things and there should be no stinting of money on that. No matter what it would cost in any year, we are told that the money should be provided. Then, when we have the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, we hear Deputies stating that where land reclamation, or anything like that, is concerned, there should be no stinting of money and that not nearly enough is provided for the purpose in the Estimate.
We are constantly hearing the same story about drainage, housing, land reclamation, the erection of schools, and so forth. The people who talk so lightly on that line—when it suits their book—will be the very first to go out on the hustings and talk about the steep increase in taxation, and so on. If a penny is put on luxuries of any kind—or what are termed "luxuries" we are told that they are not luxuries at all, that they are necessaries of life and that we are penalising the people —particularly the poorer sections of the community—who can least afford it. All that must be taken into consideration by the Government and the Department of Finance and they have to do the best they can.
I was asked about machinery. I was asked what was the reason for the cut-down in the Estimate. Is it suggested that we are to continue purchasing heavy machinery all over the world and draft it in here and, when we have it in this country—without having the schemes prepared for it, which, after all, takes all the length of time that I have outlined to prepare—what are we to do with that machinery? Are we to leave it there and to employ men to look after it and to see that it does not get rusty? On the other hand, we have to service the machinery that we have and we have not been in a position, up to thepresent, to give it the servicing that we would like to give it. A considerable amount of the machinery that has been employed on the Brosna for a number of years past will have to be taken to our workshop at Inchicore and overhauled there, as soon as it is finished on the Brosna. That is a big job, too, and it takes highly-skilled men with great experience and technical knowledge to do that work. In addition, there is a very big difficulty in regard to the provision of parts. It is not quite as easy as some people imagine to get from abroad the spare parts or the parts that are required for replacements. It is quite difficult and it takes a considerable length of time.
I have been asked for my opinion on the work carried out on the Brosna. I have only the reports of the people who have been carrying out that work, as made to the Commissioners of Public Works. They hold, of course, that they have done an excellent job: I believe they have. They also claim that the work is very beneficial to the farmers of the area. I hope the farmers will take advantage of the benefits that have been conferred on them as far as land rehabilitation is concerned and that they will take full advantage of using extra fertilisers. I believe that that will be done because I know that the farmers there are very keen, hard-working and industrious. Nevertheless, we have complaints. We have even been threatened with legal proceedings by people within that area because we have dried their land too well.
Surely not.
This afternoon, Deputy Blowick was very anxious about the Corrib and other matters. He wanted to know why the work was so slow in getting under way. Our whole drainage work is being pushed forward as rapidly as men and machinery can manage it. We hope to have the Brosna scheme completed within the next 12 months. Considerable progress is being made on the Glyde and Dee. The estuary of the Feale has been opened: that was a very complicated job. We now have 24 excavators movingup the Brick and Cashen rivers. I have told the House the position, though not very fully, about the Corrib-Clare scheme but I will give the Deputies some instances. I have already given the date of exhibition. The period elapsed on the 21st October. It was exhibited from the 21st July to 22nd August, 1953. Then there was the time that had to be given to the three county councils to permit them to furnish their observations and that has been set out in the Act. The Roscommon County Council have unreservedly approved of the scheme. The Mayo County Council have not furnished any observations. The Galway County Manager furnished a number of points with regard to the scheme on (a) piped water supplies; (b) sewerage; (c) fisheries; (d) roads and bridges; (e) navigation; (f) maintenance of existing drainage districts; (g) water power and (h) tourism.
A conference took place in September, 1953, between our engineering officers and the county manager and his engineering advisers, when our officers explained the scheme and dealt with the points raised by the county manager as to its probable effects on the services, etc., mentioned above. Following this conference, the various points were examined more fully by the county engineering officers and, as a result, the county manager has recently furnished observations in relation to public water supplies at Tuam and Galway, and the sewerage installation at Galway which have now to be examined by our engineers.
Regarding the commencement of the works, we had previously estimated that the works could be commenced six months after exhibition, that is, about February, 1954, but that forecast allowed only for objections or observations similar in extent and character to those received following extension of the earlier schemes on the Brosna, Glyde and Dee and Feale. They were, if you like, observations of a minor character that did not involve sewerage schemes, fishing rights, road bridges or matters of that kind to the same extent as the Corrib, and, in view of the number of individual observations received from interested parties, and, inparticular, those of the Galway County Council, more time will be required to consider and dispose of observations received following exhibition of the Corrib-Clare scheme than was contemplated.
It is thought unlikely, therefore, that the works will commence earlier than April, 1954, and perhaps even that date is a little on the over-optimistic side.
We do not know what may yet come forward, but so far as the Government, the Minister for Finance and the Commissioners of Public Works are concerned, there has been no slowing up whatever of the scheme. It has been proceeded with as rapidly as possible and if Deputies will mark the date when the survey commenced, June, 1948, and remember that it will be at least April of 1954 before actual operations can commence, it will give a fair idea to all concerned of the comprehensive nature and magnitude of the drainage of major catchment areas.
With regard to Deputy Blowick's remarks about Lough Gara, it may be of interest to him to know that amongst those who have sent observations—which might, if you like be termed objections—are those who do not want the water level of Lough Gara further reduced. These things have to be taken into consideration, even though they may perhaps be frivolous observations.
So far as the drainage of other rivers is concerned, there is one minor catchment, the Nemagh, which is in the last stages of design. Survey parties are out at the moment on three of the major rivers, the Moy, the Maine and the Inny. The Moy is a very big river and a fairly difficult river, too. As Deputy S. Flanagan has stated, I made the statement that the earliest date at which operations would commence on the Moy would be 1956 and remember that I made that statement when there was a by-election in North Mayo. Perhaps I was giving a date in that case also which was a little over-optimistic, but that is really the position.
So far as the Maine and the Inny are concerned, there was a certain amount of work, as has been mentioned, carried out on the Mainepreviously. Some survey work has been carried out which was helpful and the same applies to the Inny. It was decided that we would go ahead and complete the surveys of both those rivers because it would be a strange thing if we were to switch to some other rivers without completing the surveys of these. I am not going to give any assurance that when the Feale has been completed, we can turn all that machinery over to the Maine, because, from the information I have at my disposal from those in a position and competent to advise me, a good deal of the machinery on the Feale would not be suitable for the Maine.
The Inny is proceeding and, if the weather holds, we expect to have the field survey of both completed this season. I cannot give any assurance or promise as to when the actual works will start. There are demands for drainage work covering the whole country and I fully appreciate the disappointment of many Deputies because I am not in a position to make them a promise that would be more consoling. I do not intend to make promises that I see no hope of fulfilling. I have mentioned the supply position in regard to spare parts and such difficulties, but we are gradually over-coming them.
It has been asked in what way the priority list is made out. There is some notion here that a definite priority list was made out some years ago and that it has been interfered with. Circumstances always alter cases and with the very fast—as I would term it—development of the national resources a river that might be considered suitable for preference away back in 1942 would not be a suitable river now because of the changed order of things and what has been accomplished by the efforts of Bord na Móna, the E.S.B. and others. These are big factors that have to be taken into consideration and weighed against other factors.
I have received representations from Bord na Móna to undertake works in three areas in which they are anxious to extend their activities. One is the Inny catchment which is already undersurvey. The other two are the Suck and the Boyne. In regard to the Suck, I have also received representations from the Sugar Company who are engaged on important experimental work in the nature of bog reclamation. Deputy McQuillan—I suppose it was by way of a compliment —said that perhaps I did not want it to be said that because I represent a constituency adjoining the Suck I would give it any preference. I do not believe I am giving it any preference now, either, nor would I, were it not for the strong case put up by both Bord na Móna and the Sugar Company. The only promise I am going to make is that, in view of the representations made to me, I will make a recommendation to the Government that the Suck be next for survey.
That is the only promise I can make, but, though it is next for survey, it does not mean that the Suck is going to be drained next year or in 1955 or 1956. I believe that if the Suck is under way, if operations are proceeding on it, in 1958 or 1959, even if I am displaced and somebody else is in my place, that is the earliest date by which any physical operations will be carried out on the Suck. The Boyne has been mentioned, but I am not going to go so far ahead as that. I shall not make any promises here that perhaps will be thrown later at my successor, whoever he may be, in the same way as certain promises which my predecessor is alleged to have made have been flung at me. That is the position regarding arterial drainage.
A number of Deputies spoke of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. The Office of Public Works has no responsibility whatsoever for the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That is a matter for the Department of Local Government, and the Estimate for that Department has not yet come before the House.
Another matter mentioned here by Deputies, particularly a few of the Fine Gael Deputies, had reference to the proposed reconstruction of Dublin Castle. They protested against an expenditure, as they said, of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 on Dublin Castle. I should like to know where they gotthat figure and whether they can prove that there was an estimate of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 for the reconstruction of Dublin Castle. It is a fact that the Government have decided to go on with that scheme, which was held up by the previous Government after they had come into office and which had been envisaged by the Fianna Fáil Government before they went out of office in 1948. The present up-to-date estimate for this scheme is £600,000 for the first stage, which will be spread over five years and which will provide continuous employment for 100 skilled and 50 unskilled men. We hear a lot of talk about the relief of unemployment. For the sake of £600,000 spread over a five-year period to carry out the first stage of this work, are the Deputies who object to it going to deprive 150 men in the City of Dublin of employment and 150 households of the wages of these men?
And steal a few more bus stations.
And steal a few more hundreds of thousands from the Local Authorities (Works) Act.
The present estimate of the cost of the entire scheme is £2,750,000.
Good God!
That is very far from the exaggerated statements that have been made here this evening by Deputy Blowick and others.
I did not mention a word about it, but I am sorry I did not now.
That is to be spread over a period of 20 years.
It is £2,750,000, if it was spread over 50 years.
Are you going to deprive 150 men and their families in the City of Dublin of a livelihood for a period of 20 years by refusing to go ahead with this scheme? I do not see in what better way the money could be spent. We hear a lot of talk aboutthe relief of unemployment and about the failure of the Government to make good the Civil Service arbitration award. It is all right to give big money to people, but if they are working under rotten, wretched conditions, money is not much use to them. That is my way of looking at it.
Deputy Blowick wanted to give them £600,000 in excess of the award.
It is only a short time ago since you said that I wanted to give them nothing at all. I am afraid the Minister is wool-gathering.
Deputy Blowick will please restrain himself. The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to speak without interruption.
Deputy Blowick this evening, perhaps in his innocence, criticised me for not giving the items of expenditure under sub-head B, Vote 9. I should like to acquaint Deputy Blowick of the fact that during the Fianna Fáil period of office and previous to that, items of expenditure for every Department used to be given, but the Government to which he belonged changed that system and brought in a figure for each Department without giving the items. I think I gave a very fair explanation and a very fair statement. Many things were introduced into it which were not in the Book of Estimates at all.
So far as schools are concerned, some people seemed pleased with the progress made. Deputy Cafferky seemed very pleased with the work that is being carried out and the grants, which he said, were being made available by the Commissioners of Public Works. However, it is not the Office of Public Works which makes them available at all. In fact, they are only agents for the Department of Education in carrying out that work. We were asked by Deputy Murphy of Cork whether it was the Office of Public Works or the Department of Education that was responsible for the slow rate of progress, so far as school building was concerned. In manyinstances neither Department is responsible. Several factors enter into this matter. You sometimes find interested people sending you plans for school building, apparently having had the plans fully approved, and in perhaps a week or a fortnight after that, they come along and ask you to have the plan changed. When it has been gone over again and after it has been perhaps changed and resubmitted, there is a further change demanded. It is not easy then for the architects and engineers in the Office of Public Works or the commissioners to come to a very speedy decision or to get on with the work as expeditiously as they would wish. I think that the provision in this year's Book of Estimates for the erection of schools, and the statements in my opening remarks about the amount that had been already expended, show that as far as the Office of Public Works and the Department of Education are concerned, there has been no slowing down, that, in fact, there has been a great acceleration.
Deputy Blowick asked in regard to certain expenditure on buildings under sub-head B whether it meant that we were building some special type of stabling for Tulyar. I want again to inform Deputy Blowick that we do not carry out any work whatsoever for the National Stud. I was also queried regarding marine works and harbour works. We have responsibility, so far as I know, only for a certain number of these. The others are the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Some of the smaller ones for which grants have been made are the responsibility, if you like, more or less of county councils, but the work is carried out by our people. The marine works branch is a branch that is highly technical, and there is a difficulty with regard to staff. Steps, however, are being taken, and it is hoped with some success, to have the staff augmented.
Another question was raised by a Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches, Deputy Cunningham, and of course it was taken up by Deputy Flanagan, who is always anxious to get somethingwhich he can make propaganda out of in order to belittle other people and to ascribe to them ulterior motives. That was the question of the Letterkenny and Lough Swilly Railway. I explained the position with regard to that already to Deputy Cunningham. It would take a fairly detailed explanation if I were to go into the whole history of it. I am prepared, however, to give a statement with regard to it, and to explain it to satisfy at least Deputy Hickey's conscience in the matter, because I am sure he was sincere in what he brought up. I will not go so far as to say that I consider Deputy Flanagan is always so meticulous as regards sincerity in matters of that kind.
The fact of the matter is, that were it not for what has been done in the particular circumstances of the case a number of employees on that section of the line when they became redundant could be disemployed and nobody would be responsible for compensating them. Furthermore, the Board of Works took it over many years ago because of the fact that a loan which was advanced was not repaid. The interest was not being paid and the principal was not being repaid and they just took it over as mortgagees. That was before this State was established. I believe there was even a subsequent loan advanced.
As a result, a sum of about £100,000 with interest accrued over the years and had to be written off. After all this business was gone into and that portion of the property had been valued on behalf of Derry-Lough Swilly Railway people, the Dapartment of Industry and Commerce and the Office of Public Works by reputable valuers, it was decided that the only sum they could get after asking for tenders from firms in the business of buying scrap was £12,500 and it was thought better to dispose of it and, as a result of the way it was carried out, ensure that those who would have lost their employment and would not be compensated would be provided for. That is the position. The matter could be gone into more fully but, with the time at my disposal, I do not wish to drag it out any farther than that.
A question was also raised as to whywe were so slow in providing Garda barracks. I think the responsibility as to that is not relevant to this Vote, but we have in the Estimate a sum of £105,000 this year. I understood it was the view and the policy of the previous Government to get rid of a number of the Garda barracks all over the country and not to provide any new ones. Neither was it their intention, I think, to replace to any great extent the number of retiring Guards and to reduce the number.
Who told you that?
Why did you set up a commission?
That is not so.
That is not correct.
I think I am correct in saying that.
You did not recruit a single Guard while you were there.
There was no need for the Guards when we were there.
I think I have dealt with all the matters brought forward and dealt with the more important matters at a fair length. The Office of Public Works cover a multitude of schemes under various headings, but in the main they are only agents for other Departments except in regard to arterial drainage and a few other things like that. I think they are doing a good job of work and that any compliment paid to them was richly deserved, whatever about paying any compliment to me.
I have personal knowledge, in some cases at any rate, that the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with the reconstruction of Garda barracks is not correct.
The Deputy is making a second speech.
Will he tell us what is his authority for that statement?
The Deputy is making a second speech.
The Parliamentary Secretary is after making a statement and has been asked for his authority for it and I am supporting that protest as a member of the last Government.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made a statement which he was quite entitled to make.
So long as it is true.
I have no means of discovering whether the statement is true or otherwise.
Will you take our word for it?
The Chair will perform its duty as it conceives it.
