Vol. 156 No. 9
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £257,500 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, 1957, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works (1 and 2 Will, 4, c. 33, Secs. 5 and 6; 5 and 6 Vict., c. 89, Secs. 1 and 2; 9 and 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 the erection 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 Estimate for Vote 8 shows a net increase of £38,400 on the Estimate for 1955-56, due principally to an increase of £51,500 for salaries, wages and allowances, offset by additional receipts of £15,700 by way of Appropriations-in-Aid.
The provision under sub-head A for increases in remuneration amounting to £36,500 compared with £13,900 required in 1955-56, accounts for £22,600 of the total increase under this sub-head. The balance of £28,900 while reflecting normal incremental increases and some improvement of the salary scales of certain professional and technical staff, is mainly attributable to additional staff authorised. Specific provision is made for 25 additional heads of staff in the engineering branch including 20 additional engineers for the drainage division. There is also a contingency provision of £2,000 for additional staff for the engineering branch.
Sub-head B (travelling expenses) and sub-head D (telegrams and telephones) show increases of £2,000 and £750, respectively, which are due to general expansion of the activities of the Office.
As will be seen from the printed details, the bulk of the additional Appropriations-in-Aid is due to increased receipts from agency services and services rendered on behalf of other Departments, and to the recovery from the National Development Fund of the salaries and expenses of engineering staff employed on certain drainage schemes the cost of which will be met from that fund.
Vote 9. The Estimate of £3,540,000 for public works and buildings for this year is reduced by £353,410 compared with last year's Estimate. This is mainly attributable to reductions of £302,000 in sub-head B—New works, alterations and additions, and of £35,000 in sub-head K—Purchase and maintenance of engineering plant and machinery and stores. There are increases amounting to £36,650 in other sub-heads mainly of a maintenance nature, but these are balanced approximately by anticipated increased receipts under sub-head L—Appropriations-in-Aid.
In their order of sub-heading, the following are the variations from the provisions of the Estimate for last year:—Sub-head A—Purchase of sites and buildings, is increased by £15,000 on the basis of expected requirements. Sub-head B—New works, alterations, and additions. The provisions proposed which show a decrease of £302,000, are estimated requirements for this year for works actually in progress or in immediate prospect. Details are given in the statement which has been circulated to Deputies. In regard to the provision for the building and improvement of national schools, I might perhaps say that the expenditure fell short of our expectations last year, the total figure being approximately £1,042,000 out of £1,350,000 voted. Progress was impaired somewhat by a trade dispute in the builders' supplies trade. The provision of £1,350,000 is being repeated in this Estimate.
On sub-head C—Maintenance and supplies, there is an increase of £16,000 which is largely occasioned by recent wage increases.
The increase of £3,000 under sub-head D (1)—Furniture, Fittings and Utensils, is in part due to increased costs and partly to additional requirements. The provisions for sub-head D (2)—Central Furniture Stores and sub-head E—Rents, Rates, etc., are unchanged. Under sub-head F—Fuel, Light, Water, Cleaning, etc., there is an increase of £15,000 due to the increased cost of solid fuels, and of gas and electricity. In the minor provisions for sub-heads G, H. and I the only change is in that relating to sub-head H—River Shannon Works, where the increase of £1,350 is required to meet extensive reconstruction of one of the bridges over the drainage cut at Meelick.
Outlay in 1956-57 on arterial drainage operations chargeable to this Vote is expected to be on a similar scale to that provided for last year. Increased engineering staff will, however, permit of a wider programme of arterial drainage surveys, and the sub-head J (1) provision, which relates to this work, shows an increase of £1,300. Sub-head J (2)—Arterial Drainage—Construction Works, is unchanged in total amount, but the details are different. A decrease of £34,000 in the provision for the Glyde and Dee catchment drainage scheme, on which construction work is expected to be completed this year, is balanced by increases on the other schemes in hand. The provision for the Brosna is intended to meet some liabilities which were outstanding when the construction works were completed. The increases in the provisions for the Corrib-Clare, Feale and Nenagh schemes are due to expansion of work on these schemes. The cost of the drainage works which are in progress on the Rye River and the Owenogarney Embankments, and of those proposed to be carried out on the River Deale and Swillyburn catchment will be met from the National Development Fund.
There is a net provision of £18,000 under sub-head J (5) for Arterial Drainage—Maintenance. The certificate of completion for the Brosna scheme, pursuant to the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, was issued in December, 1955, and this Estimate provides for a full year's maintenance. The gross cost is estimated at £21,000, which is recoverable from the county councils concerned and will be brought to account as an Appropriation-in-Aid.
The provisions amounting to £315,000 made under sub-head K—Purchase and Maintenance of Engineering Plant and Machinery, and Stores, are £35,000 less than the sum provided last year. The main reduction is in respect of purchases of spare parts and stores, the stocks of which were supplemented last year by the transfer of supplies originally acquired for land rehabilitation work. Purchases of plant and equipment for the central engineering workshop also require a reduced provision as the immediate requimements of the workshop have largely been met, and there is a reduction in the provision for wages of workshop staff— based on the expected staff requirements. The combined reductions are partly offset by an increase of £35,000 in purchases of engineering plant and machinery. The provision under this head is required mainly for additional dragline excavators, air compressors, tractors, and transport vehicles to meet the requirements of arterial drainage construction works in progress.
Receipts expected to be realised this year under sub-head L—Appropriations-in-Aid, the details of which are given in the printed volume, show an increase of £35,560, principally in respect of the recoupments which, as already mentioned, will be payable by the county councils concerned, of arterial drainage maintenance expenditure incurred under sub-head J (5). Also contributing appreciably to the increase are estimated additional receipts from the hireage of plant, mainly as recoupments from the National Development Fund in respect of the services of plant employed on the arterial drainage construction works to be financed from that fund, and by the Department of Industry and Commerce for hireage of plant to be employed on harbour works. The only category of receipts under this sub-head in which a decrease is anticipated are the recoveries from other Departments. This is due to reductions in the work expected to be undertaken at the central engineering workshop for the Department of Agriculture in connection with land rehabilitation, and for the Forestry Division of the Department of Lands.
I move:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
I do so in order to give an opportunity to all the Deputies to seek whatever information they require in respect of the many matters concerning them which are covered by this Vote. I feel that this Vote has never been given the importance to which it is entitled. The Office of Public Works deals with very many important aspects of the people's lives. I do not propose to go very much into the increases or decreases mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, but to speak more or less on general lines.
Arterial drainage, of course, is one of the problems that most of the rural Deputies are concerned with. For that reason more than any other, I put down a motion to refer the Estimate back, to elicit information regarding the progress of arterial drainage. As is customary, of course, the Parliamentary Secretary gave only a brief outline of the activities of his section of the Department of Finance, but there are questions that I should like to put to him.
Probably it might be helpful if I were to give an outline to the House now, if the Deputy does not mind.
I do not mind; I am quite agreeable.
The position at the moment as regards arterial drainage— and I am thankful to Deputy Beegan for allowing me to give the details now, as they may help Deputies—is that, in the case of the Deale and Swillyburn in Donegal, the survey has been completed and the scheme is virtually ready and expected to be exhibited next month. All going well, we expect to start that scheme at the end of this year.
The Maine, in Kerry, survey has been completed and the scheme should be ready, we hope, at the end of this year, If not, we hope it will be ready very early next year. The Moy survey has been completed and the design is in hands. Might I say in regard to the Moy that my predecessor watched it very closely and I am sure he will be as sorry as I am that certain fishery rights which have arisen have been causing delay. However, we hope to get over them. At the moment, that is the way it stands.
The Inny, in Cavan and Longford, survey has been completed and the design is in hands. The Ballyteigue, in County Wexford, survey is completed and the design is in hands. The Cahore, in Wexford, survey has been completed and the design is in hands. The Suck, in Galway and Roscommon: we expect to complete the survey early this year. The Boyne: our engineering party are just going out to start the survey. I am thankful to Deputy Beegan for allowing me to come in, because it may give a line to people to come at me.
I am thankful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving us an outline of the progress that has been made. The Deale and Swillyburn, in Donegal, is to me a kind of new scheme. I knew that it had been pressed by the Donegal Deputies very strongly, but it was not very high, I think, on any tentative priority list, but I am glad that pressure has seemingly brought it forward a long way.
It is a minor scheme.
It was the Deputy who got it surveyed.
Yes, but I take it from the Parliamentary Secretary that it is going to be given priority now over all the others. I do not mind that.
It is a small scheme.
I know it is. On the Maine, I am sure the Kerry Deputies here are very glad to know that it is being pushed forward also.
We hope the Maine will be restored to the priority list.
If we get it going, that is all that matters.
The Moy, to my mind, is a very important drainage area, and it is as much a social problem as an economic one. The Inny is another, and the Boyne, where I believe you have turf schemes for various bogs. If both those rivers were drained, the people working them would be very delighted. That was represented to me, and I had letters from Bord na Móna in respect of them when I was in the office, urging that we should hasten the completion of the survey and the carrying out of the work. I cannot understand why the survey of the Suck has been delayed. I know that it was in progress and was being actively pursued up to a point. I think the staff was taken away from it, and it was postponed for a time. In my opinion, last season was an ideal one for survey work, because it was very fine. The season before was not so good, and that held it up considerably.
With regard to this question of arterial drainage, the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that he used to harry me in the Dáil about getting these schemes going and the delay in carrying them through. He made a statement recently with regard to the Corrib, that it will take, according to what has been told to him, as was told to me, ten years to complete. I wonder is there any hope of accelerating the work on the Corrib and having it completed in from five to seven years, instead of ten? He mentioned getting additional staffs, if it is possible to get them. The feeling is, I am sure, shared in many parts of the country, as in the Suck area, that if the Corrib takes ten years, there is no hope for any of the others being undertaken until it is completed.
That would not be so.
I am giving the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity, when replying, to clarify the position, as far as that is concerned. There is another river in Connacht where no survey has been commenced as yet, but it is an important river. There it would be more an economic problem than a social one. It is a minor drainage district, and I think there are files in the Department in connection with it over the past 30 or 35 years, even more than in regard to the Corrib or any of the big major schemes. That is the river known as the Killimor river. I know very well that there is difficulty in suggesting that it be taken well up in the list, but there is good land there, and very valuable crops have been lost there, year in and year out. I should like to remind him of that river, so that he will not forget it, if he has sufficient survey staff to go around as the other schemes are completed. The survey is one thing, and I have a good idea of the length of time it takes afterwards, to complete the design and the plotting before the work can be got going. Then there is the question of the machinery and having it properly dispersed and properly supervised.
There is one suggestion I should like to make to the Parliamentary Secretary and it is that, if at all possible, he should have not less than six schemes going simultaneously—four major and two minor. I know very well that he will not be looked upon in a friendly way by his Department if he suggests that, but it is most important. Arterial drainage is most important. We hear a lot spoken about land reclamation, but the only manner in which land reclamation can be carried out properly is where the main drainage arteries are in a condition to take away the water drained into them. That is the real state of affairs in that matter.
I also want to ask from the Parliamentary Secretary a progress report with regard to the rivers Glyde, Dee and Nenagh, rivers where the work is being carried out over a number of years. I should like to know if the work is near completion in these cases, or what would be the likely date of completion. I think the House is entitled to that information. I also think that when he has given us the list of schemes under the survey, the ones where the survey is completed, and the ones which he proposes to undertake in the near future, he should then give us a tentative list of the next five or six schemes, say, three major and three minor, in the order of priority in which he proposes to undertake the work.
I am as well aware as any Deputy of the importance of drainage. It is not necessary to impress it on the Parliamentary Secretary because he is interested in it, but at the same time it is no harm to approach him to hurry up the Department that controls the finances. I have a fair idea of the Department of Finance and how niggardly it is as regards arterial drainage. It is well to be quite outspoken on that matter and that outlook on the part of the Department of Finance as far as the country is concerned, is penny wise and pound foolish.
I hold that if it was possible to complete arterial drainage in ten or 15 years, a great deal of the elaborate reclamation work that is being carried out on land all over the country at the present time could be dispensed with. A much less elaborate scheme would serve the purpose and give a better return than the big elaborate scheme. I agree with the expenditure on land reclamation in the cases where the return will be such as to repay, within a reasonable period, the amount expended. I know cases, however, without mentioning any specific case, where reclamation is being carried out under the land reclamation scheme and where the land is of such a type, in my opinion, that it is never going to repay the amount of money expended.
I believe that mole drainage—and I mentioned this on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture—would give a bigger and a better return than this big elaborate reclamation that is now being carried out. The type of land I have in mind is the land that carries the surface water and that has a hard pan of marl or gravel three or four inches down. Where that is dug up and mixed up in the top soil, I do not think that top soil is improved. If you had mole drainage in these cases, arteries capable of taking away the water, and if the land was either reseeded or fertilised, the return would be much better.
Would this not be a matter for the Minister for Agriculture?
Perhaps it would, but at the same time I hold that you cannot have proper land reclamation in many parts of the country, without first having good drainage. Good drainage is arterial drainage and no piecemeal work will get over that.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned something about an increase in the Estimate in connection with some bridge on the Shannon down at Meelick. I should like him to tell the House what is the whole position regarding the Shannon. We have heard a lot about the Shannon, particularly at the end of 1954 and the beginning of 1955. We were then informed by the Minister for Agriculture that an American expert was being brought over, a man who had experience of controlling flooding. I understand that this gentleman from the States examined the position at the Shannon, but it would be interesting to know if he has sent a preliminary report to the Department of Finance and if he has done that, when it can be expected that he will issue his full report on the matter. The people down there are expecting to hear of it, and if the report is adverse and nothing can be done, they will be looking to this Government or some other Government to relieve the situation in some way or other. I should like very much to know if the Parliamentary Secretary has that information and if he would place it at our disposal.
There are certain other matters about which I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a few questions. One is the question of the improvements to Dublin Castle. We were castigated very severely for embarking on improvements to Dublin Castle so as to make proper provision and to give proper accommodation to the civil servants who are housed there. It was generally believed that, with the change of Government, considering all the criticism there was, that scheme was to be abandoned.
I should like to know if that is the position. If it has happened, I think it was very unwise and very foolish, because I had a report as to the condition of the Castle and of the way the work was to proceed. All this big expenditure which we were told was luxury spending is, in my opinion, expenditure which would be fully justified, particularly as it was to be spread over a number of years and would better the conditions and give better accommodation to the people who have to work in the Castle. In addition to that, of course, it would give a certain amount of employment to skilled tradesmen here in the city of Dublin. I hope that the scheme is being proceeded with, because, if proceeded with, it would ease to some extent the unemployment caused as a result of the housing crux in Dublin.
There is another matter about which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some information. I know very well that it is not exactly his sole responsibility, that there is another side to it. I refer to the Custom House Memorial. I was led to believe that the scheme was at an advanced stage before I left office, but, then, of course, you had the Old I.R.A. Association and you had the sculptor and others to contend with. If anything goes wrong, or if there is any alteration proposed in the design, I realise that that would hold the matter up, but I do know that the people, and I know they are the vast majority, have respect for those who took a part in that glorious activity; that, not merely in Dublin City, but all over the country, people are eagerly looking forward to the time when that memorial will be unveiled and are anxious that the day should be hastened.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there was not as much expended on school building in the past year, owing to some trade dispute. If that is over now, it is not, I think, unfair to suggest that whatever loss of time and whatever delay there was in carrying on with the work will be overtaken in the present year, if it is at all possible to do so, because every other day we hear from various parts of the country that the schools programme is not being pushed forward as well as it might. One of the things I do not like about it is this threatening to strike. If the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Works, and, of course, the Department of Education, give an assurance that all Departments are doing their best, I think that this thing of calling a strike is, to say the least of it, a very bad example to the youth of the country. If there is any deliberate delay in getting on with the work, then, of course, the people have a right to voice their feelings but to voice them in the proper way.
I think the Minister for Education is primarily responsible for the erection of schools.
I agree, but it is not the Minister who very often gets the blame for any delay there is. It is passed on from the Minister for Education and it is placed on the Board of Works. I know very well that, if the whole thing were inquired into, in nine cases out of ten, the Board of Works is not to blame for any delay there may be, and that very often it is some of the people who allege delay on the part of the Board of Works who are themselves responsible for the delay, through the putting up of new plans or the rejecting of plans, or asking to have a plan already agreed on amended.
There is another matter the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned last year in connection with the furniture section of the Department. It is a very important section. I remember when I was Parliamentary Secretary that the Public Accounts Committee sent out a deputation to the engineering works at Inchicore and carried out an inspection. I often wondered why they did not do the same as regards the furniture section of the Board of Works. That section has very valuable furniture stored under conditions that are anything but healthy and proper and in places where the tradesmen maintaining that furniture cannot do their work properly. I have heard that some building was being acquired to house the furniture, and the staff which are dealing with this at present in Coleraine House and in the other places in which this furniture is scattered around the city. I hope they have succeeded in getting that building, if not in a central place, at least in a place where there can be proper supervision in which those concerned can carry out their work efficiently. A very considerable amount of money is expended on that section of the Department because it caters for every other Department by way of providing furniture for them.
There is another matter on which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some information, and that is the question of the maintenance of the arterial drainage scheme on the Brosna. The Parliamentary Secretary has told me that the maintenance work will be carried out this year, but that, as was provided in the Act, the Board of Works will be recouped the outlay by the county councils concerned. I should like to know what is the estimate for the maintenance of the Brosna at the moment and what is likely to be the amount that the ratepayers of Offaly, Westmeath and Meath and the counties through which it goes will have to pay.
I think it is £21,000 this year.
In what way is it made out? How much will Offaly have to pay, how much will Westmeath have to pay, and how much will Meath have to pay? That will give an indication of what the increase will be on the rates. I am not here to say that that should not be, because I think it is quite all right, when the initial work was carried out and the expenditure required for carrying out that work was made a national charge, that there is nothing very wrong in asking them——
Are you suggesting it should be a national charge?
I did not mean that. What I mean is that it is quite likely that, after the fine work that has been carried out, the next thing we will have is an agitation of that kind. I would not agree with that kind of thing, because, after all, a very fine work has been accomplished. If we contribute a certain amount for the maintenance of highways all over the country I see no reason why we should not also contribute for the maintenance of the arterial drainage schemes which have been carried out and which are so beneficial to the country in general. That is a type of information I should like to elicit from the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not intend on this occasion to hold up the Parliamentary Secretary very long, but I am giving an opportunity to Deputies, many of whom have come to me and asked when certain schemes can be undertaken, to get the information for themselves.
When Deputies have asked me these things, I have told them that they should make their inquiries in the Office of Public Works, where I am sure they would be very happy to give the information. Those Deputies have told me that, when they have made these inquiries, or have put down a question in the Dáil, they have been told that work is going on in some other place, and, because of the schemes with which the Department was dealing, the Parliamentary Secretary was not in a position to make a statement as to when exactly the works about which the Deputies were inquiring would be carried out.
As I say, this question of arterial drainage is one of greatest concern to rural Deputies and we when we were in Government were held up as being people who were wilfully retarding and slowing up the whole scheme of arterial drainage. The difficulties entailed in this work were concealed from the people who were led to believe that it was in fact plain sailing, if Fianna Fáil would get down to the work. All the difficulties of the length of time it takes to survey a river and the length of time it takes to complete a scheme were concealed from the people. They were told, at that time, that it was only a matter of taking off one's coat and getting down to work. I think there is a different viewpoint now amongst the people who were criticising us then and any arguments which I advanced for delays or any reasons which I gave for the difficulties are now being advanced, repeated and reiterated and very fully emphasised by the Parliamentary Secretary. Whether that satisfies the rest of the House or not I do not know, but I do believe that this is one of the problems to deal with which an organisation has now been established. The whole question of arterial drainage has passed the experimental stage and it is one problem that should receive the attention of this and every other Government. Everything possible should be done to speed up the work.
I suggested the carrying out of six schemes simultaneously and I think it would be even better if we had ten schemes—six and four—being carried out simultaneously. If it is not possible to do that, then we should be fair and just with the people and tell them that we cannot do it and that they cannot expect the completion of arterial drainage in every area in this country inside the next 75 years. Very few of us will be alive or be troubled by arterial drainage or flooding by that time.
That is all I have to say on this matter, but, as I stated earlier, I am affording an opportunity to all those Deputies interested in the matter to express their views and elicit any information they wish. This is the time for them to do that.
I am very glad to know that good progress is being made towards the completion of the memorial at Arbour Hill as a fair tribute to the 1916 patriots. The construction and establishment of that memorial to these men was long overdue, and I was glad to learn that this memorial is now being constructed, and that we may expect its completion in a reasonable time.
This Estimate deals mainly with the construction and maintenance of public offices, buildings, parks, harbours, barracks and schools. I feel that the taxpayers should not be required to subscribe so much towards the provision of these new offices and buildings and schools. I believe these works should be regarded as national development and the taxpayers should be expected to contribute only a substantial amount towards the maintenance of the services that are provided by these offices, buildings and harbours.
A great part of this Estimate is also associated with national drainage, mainly under the Arterial Drainage Act. It was hoped, when that Act was passed through this House, that the drainage of all major rivers would be completed within a reasonable time, but that has not occurred. I believe that the approach to the programme, while it may have been great, has not brought the results we might have expected. I would say that we have had something in the nature of a Rolls Royce approach and it is no wonder, therefore, that we hear Deputy Beegan saying that, at our rate of progress, it may be 75 years before we have made our mark in this matter of national drainage, which is an urgent problem.
Most Deputies appreciate the urgency of having a national drainage programme implemented not for a few major or minor rivers but for every river in the country which it is considered necessary to have properly drained. I feel that if we pursue the policy of doing one river well at a time, whether it be large or small, and leaving the rest aside, we will not bring to the country all the advantages which might be expected from a less elaborate drainage scheme in respect of all the rivers.
Deputy Beegan's suggestion that major and minor schemes should go hand-in-hand is a very fair one. It must be appreciated that many minor rivers are causing extensive damage throughout the country. Yet we concentrate all the time on one or two major rivers. I am in agreement with the view that it would be better for us to start work simultaneously even in a small way, on as many major and minor rivers as possible. The beds should be cleared of obstructions so that the water can drain out more rapidly than it does at present. Most of the obstructions could be removed very quickly with the aid of excavators and the other machinery now available for that purpose. Instead of that being done, the obstructions are allowed to remain and the land along these rivers is subject to flooding and becomes impoverished. If the obstructions were removed we could then proceed at a later date with more elaborate schemes of drainage in relation to all the aspects that have to be considered in such a matter.
There are a few rivers urgently in need of attention in County Dublin. If the present priority list is pursued, no work will be done on these rivers for quite a considerable time. First of all, there is the Tolka which flows through a rather flat hinterland. It is subject to extensive flooding at times of heavy rainfall. Lands in Mulhuddart, Blanchardstown and Castleknock are affected. So, too, is the city itself, as was proved in the not so distant past. I am anxious that something should be done about the Tolka. There are obstructions in the river bed, especially from Castleknock outwards. These could be removed very easily thereby ensuring a more rapid flow towards the river mouth.
There is also the Broadmeadow river in North County Dublin. I understand it is placed No. 4 on the priority list of minor drainage schemes. When No. 4 will be reached I do not know. There, too, there are obstructions in the river bed and it is these obstructions which are the main cause of flooding on the contiguous lands at times of heavy rainfall. Considerable losses to farmers ensue as a result of such flooding. I think County Dublin is entitled to urgent attention from the Board of Works and a definite effort should be made, so far as the Broadmeadow and the Tolka are concerned. If some minor schemes are carried out without delay, the more elaborate schemes can be entered upon at a later date. Steps could be taken to prevent widespread flooding and, if such steps are taken, we will be doing the kind of work envisaged under the Arterial Drainage Act.
In relation to the Broadmeadow, efforts were made to have drainage work carried out on it under the Local Authorities (Works) Act; but it was pointed out that money could not be made available for that purpose under the Act because the river figured on the arterial drainage list. In North County Dublin, therefore, we have been suffering from extensive flooding at certain times because of the position of the Broadmeadow river on the list. I wish the Board of Works, appreciating that we are deprived of having this work done under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, would do something to alleviate the present position. We are not asking for much because there are only two or three rivers which cause loss and extensive damage. But these few need to be drained as quickly as possible in order that our farmers may avail to the full of the land rehabilitation project. The surrounding land in many cases cannot be drained under land reclamation because these rivers are not being done.
The drainage programme is too slow. I agree with the view that work should be commenced, even in a small way, on a larger number of rivers in order to bring immediate benefits to the land and to the people residing along the banks.
Attention should also be given to both Howth Harbour and Balbriggan Harbour. There is frequent silting in both of these and it takes a considerable time to have a dredger sent down to bring relief to the fishermen who use these harbours. From experience, the Board of Works ought to know now how frequently the services of a dredger are required in both these harbours. They ought to know from their own records how often these services should be rendered instead of waiting for a complaint to be made, and all usual routine and formality before the dredger eventually arrives.
Finally, I would like to deal with the approach of the Board of Works in relation to our primary schools; the design appears to be altogether too conservative.
I have already pointed out to another speaker that the question of national schools is primarily one for the Minister for Education. I cannot see how it can be debated on this Estimate. Delay in erection might be relevant, but not design.
I have not got the Book of Estimates before me but I think the money for national schools is provided under the Vote for the Office of Public Works. Certainly the designing of national schools is carried out by the Office of Public Works. It is on that aspect I want to refer to national schools. I know that the Minister for Education deals with the policy pursued in relation to education; but it is the Board of Works which deals with school buildings. The point I want to make is that a long period elapses between the time when the school is designed and the relevant data got together and the time when construction commences. Recent experience is that a larger number of children are now attending the national schools more regularly and, for that reason, more accommodation is required.
Would it not be a question for the Minister for Education to point out what type of school is required in the first instance?
Very well. If you insist, Sir, I will not refer to the national schools any longer.
The Deputy is entitled to refer to the delay in the erection of a national school that has been approved by the Department of Education. I am not ruling the Deputy out on that aspect.
I am not going to complain regarding the delay in providing national schools. I appreciate there are formalities to be completed. The Board of Works co-operate and have co-operated in every way possible towards having these schools provided. I realise that not alone are the Board of Works concerned in the provision of a national school but so also is the local community. It is necessary for both interests to be co-ordinated before a national school can be provided. Although we may be critical of national schools we must admit that, in the long run, the Board of Works have done their part in helping to make available many national schools, replacing old buildings in many areas. But many new schools are required throughout the country still. Now I feel we cannot place a great amount of the blame on the Board of Works for the delay in having those schools provided just because there are other interests to be considered, apart from the Board of Works, when the provision of such a school arises. Finally, the Board of Works also have the duty of providing Garda barracks in various parts of the country. In doing so, I should like them to consider the possibility of providing a smaller type of building instead of the big central building which we have at present for the purpose of housing large numbers of Gardaí.
The size of barracks would be a matter for the Minister for Justice, I take it.
I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary—if he does not mind telling me—what function has he so far as the provision of Garda barracks is concerned.
When we get the order, my function is to carry it out.
I take it the Office of Public Works are acting as agents for the other Departments in the matter of building schools and Garda barracks; they do not take the initiative without the sanction of the respective Ministers.
The only point I wanted to make is that in many parts of the country the accommodation provided for the Garda Síochána by the Board of Works, as agent for the authority which gives them the instructions, sometimes leaves a lot to be desired. I hope that a survey of those buildings will be carried out with a view to providing modern amenities.
I should like to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on the speed with which the details of sub-head B. were made available this year; it is a bit disarming for a Deputy who would perhaps have liked a little more time to examine the Parliamentary Secretary's Estimate. At any rate, I said a good deal last year on the central engineering workshop and stores and I do not propose to pursue that matter this year, except to say that, if the Parliamentary Secretary did not reply to me specifically, I was at least able to get a good deal of information subsequently which relieved my mind very much of some of the doubts I had.
I appreciate fully the difficulties the office has in planning such an enormous undertaking—the difficulties in the way of getting qualified staff. Deputy Beegan referred to the new central furniture stores and workshop and it is very gratifying that a start is being made. I understand that the necessity was very great and that a good deal of valuable furniture was in jeopardy. I hope this undertaking will be pursued vigorously.
Other Deputies have already been in difficulty with this Estimate because the Office of Public Works, being the agent for other Departments, it is difficult to know where to criticise. Of course, the list as now given of their operations is confined to works actively in progress. I will probably be out of order in referring to it but I should just like to ask—I am not doing any more than asking—if there is any plan to be carried out at a future date for the improvement of some of the customs posts in Donegal? I notice that Muff is to have a small extension. There is at least one which is very much worse; it is at Carrigans Road station. I referred to it last year. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he would be good enough to tell me later on if there are plans for the replacement of that very unworthy edifice on the roadside by something more in keeping with the dignity of the State.
There is a reference to dredging operations by the Fisheries Branch. I am not quite sure what has gone wrong, but I understand that already there is some difficulty in Greencastle where dredging and the renewal of the pier has only recently been completed. I am not sure of the precise difficulty, but, if some repairs are necessary already, it does not look too good for what was supposed to be a complete plan. The Parliamentary Secretary might look into that and see that something is done.
I know that in respect of all these works carried out, the local authority is left the job of maintenance, but surely if something has gone wrong within 12 months, it will require careful examination to make sure that that is not a matter of ordinary maintenance. Unfortunately, I have not the details of what has gone wrong. I am merely taking this opportunity of drawing attention to my case which I make in advance. If trouble has arisen because of defective work, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not be very strict on ruling that it is maintenance work which is now required. Those are the only points in sub-head B to which I wish to refer.
Naturally, most of the debate on these Votes will centre around arterial drainage. Might I say how welcome it is to hear that the Deale river and Swillyburn will so soon be brought into active work? The area covered by these two streams is not very big, but a tremendous amount of it is affected badly by the lack of drainage, and it could be first-class land. I do not believe there is a drainage scheme in operation in the entire country which would produce such marked results. I wonder, since the drainage machinery is in the county, will an effort be made to clear up one or two other minor drainage schemes? I am not quite sure whose responsibility these schemes will be. I know that the Arterial Drainage Act proper puts a limiting figure in regard to the size of a catchment area, but it would be a pity that elaborate machinery should be brought so far north and turned away again, without doing other minor works, if they can be fitted in. I should like an inquiry to be made on these lines.
The River Swilly which runs through Letterkenny is certainly in serious need of drainage and the Rivers Lennon, Finn and Culdaff have all been sources of trouble to those who live near them from flooding. I am not sure whether they comply with the requirements of the Arterial Drainage Act, but some authority presumably will be found to deal with them or supply the money. If the Parliamentary Secretary gets the money I am sure he will not mind the machinery. On the subject of maintenance, I know that, under the Act, maintenance is a matter only for the local authority. Deputy Beegan seemed to be slightly confused in his outlook——
It is not exactly a matter for the local authorities.
The charge would fall on them.
Yes.
That is what I am getting at.
I do not think I was confused.
Deputy Beegan had a somewhat confused outlook when he spoke about arterial drainage being of benefit to the country in general. He was in process of defending the local charge in regard to maintenance. There is a point about maintenance which is similar to the point I made in regard to Greencastle Harbour. I have not seen a great deal of it as it has not started in my constituency and it is only at the headwaters of the Glyde and Dee I have seen it. Last year and this year I noticed while passing on the road, that many of the banks were left very steep. The banks have already been affected. Where minor landslides occur, is the charge regarded as maintenance or as part of the original work? It might be possible at places where there is a danger of the sides sliding in to have the sides spiled, that is, stakes of wood employed to support the banks. That was commonly done in regard to drainage in England for many centuries. The use of stakes along the sides would help to preserve the bank. It would be most unfair to local ratepayers to have the work done in such a way as would lead to early deterioration.
I would not agree with the Deputy. We even had to put in concrete.
A stitch in time saves nine.
I can appreciate that you cannot concrete all the banks. I noticed, in connection with the place I speak of, that the only amount of land I could see drained seemed to be offset by arable land buried under spoil:
What does the Deputy want us to do with it?
I admit there is a difficulty. Surely some better method could be found for the disposal of the spoil?
The owner of the land can give it away. It is his problem.
That is nice for him. The particular case I am talking about is on the Glyde and Dee. Right alongside the road, quite a considerable acreage has been buried under the spoil and the only thing I can see drained is an area about as large as that buried by the spoil. The Parliamentary Secretary might look into the matter to make sure that an acre is not being drained and an acre buried at the same time. The same drain may drain other areas, but the topographical nature of the land would not lead one to think so in this case.
Deputy Rooney seemed to me to be confusing himself a bit. He was talking about taxpayers and the State and he wanted the State to pay for the work, instead of the taxpayer. I hope he meant "instead of the ratepayer".
He complained that the general system of drainage was wrong. Instead of making a complete job on the one river, he thought it would be better to spread the job all over the country. With that, I would profoundly disagree and I would remind Deputy Rooney that bad and all as the flooding in Dublin was from the Tolka, it would be very much worse if the obstacles had been cleared without the river having been properly prepared. Indeed, the last state of Dublin would have been worse than the first. The present policy, whatever else may be said about it, requiring a river to be completed is the right one. Most serious damage can be done in the lower reaches if only a half-job is done here and there, however tempting it may be. At the same time, it is possible that there are places where some advantage might accrue. For instance, in the case of the Swillyburn river, if an obstruction near the mouth had been removed, a good deal of temporary benefit would have accrued.
The possibility might be examined in some cases where there are obstructions near the mouth either of the tributaries of a large river or of small rivers which run into the sea. An examination should be made to ensure that flooding is not being caused by a simple obstruction reasonably near the mouth, where the removal of that obstruction would give better flow on the main stream; but if the obstruction is upstream and there is an insufficient channel near the mouth of the tributary or small river, I would be against its being done. But where the contrary is the case, a quick survey could be made and I feel sure the county engineer would be able to give assistance in his area where immediate help would be beneficial. If necessary, money should be made available from this Vote as a kind of preliminary stage in arterial drainage. I congratulate the office on the fact that they are setting out to make a job of each river as they take it. With that policy I am in entire agreement because anything else would lead only to confusion.
There is very little left for me to say because the greater part of the Parliamentary Secretary's functions is to carry out the orders of other Departments, and, except for arterial drainage, he has not by any means a free hand. Nevertheless, the details as supplied in sub-head B are most illuminating and I think Deputies should welcome the amount of information that is made available. I did suggest last year that a clearer picture might be obtained by some slight changes, but looking at it this year, I think it is satisfactory enough. The picture that is given by the three columns of figures here gives a reasonable view of what the office proposes to do in regard to these various matters. The only difficulty with which one is now left is that there might be things on hands which do not appear here at all because it is not proposed to spend any money on them in the present year.
Apart from that, I should like to give my blessing to the Parliamentary Secretary. After all the hard things I possibly said about his office last year, I was very glad later on to discover that a great number of my complaints were due to a misunderstanding of the circumstances and of the difficulties, but I do not know that it did any harm to give them the opportunity of proving themselves right. Most Deputies seem to spend their time trying to find the office in the wrong, but I think it is a pleasant thing to examine the difficulties and find that the office is working reasonably well and that however it may appear on the surface—and we must remember the Board of Works usually comes in for a great deal of criticism—things are a great deal better than they are sometimes thought to be.
I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary this evening repeat what he said a few weeks ago, that the Boyne survey is about to start. Most of us have been hearing for years, according to the county you were in, as to which river was to get priority. It suited sometimes to say one river and sometimes another, and, until I came into this House, I did not discover what the facts were. It was heartening to hear that something would be done about the Boyne. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will see to it that, when the survey is completed, the actual planning of the work will start without any undue delay.
I am afraid I cannot agree with Deputy Sheldon that it is not a good thing for a Department to be criticised. I am one of the people who were very critical of the speed at which this body, the Board of Works, dealt with the work before them. Maybe I am wronging them, but it is my opinion that they have got into a very slow tempo, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he is the man who can quicken that tempo a little. Surely it is ridiculous to find the survey of a river taking several years and the planning taking a couple of years more, with all sorts of obstacles cropping up before the actual work commences. This sort of thing has gone a little too far and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that the survey and planning will be finished in a much shorter time than the several years which so far it has taken to survey the major rivers of this country.
Might I also make the suggestion that there is nothing at all wrong with the idea that far more schemes could be in progress at the one time? I do not know why Deputy Beegan fixed on the figure of six; he said four and two; then three and three; and he eventually agreed that six was about the right number. Is there any reason why that number should not be increased? Is there any reason why the number of minor schemes at least should not be increased considerably? The Parliamentary Secretary may say the cost, but surely this is one worthwhile project for which money could and should be made available.
For years we have had experience on the Boyne, as in the case of many other rivers, of seasonal flooding. Not alone has it become a problem as far as agricultural land is concerned, but it also has become a social problem. It is deplorable that year after year the same or perhaps an ever-increasing number of families have to leave their homes because a river at certain times of the year will flood them out. I wonder does it ever strike the gentlemen who are responsible for all the planning that the cost of the damage which must be borne annually from public funds would pay for a great deal of the work which needs to be done? In my own area, there is the example of the River Nanny. On 8th December, 1954, this river in spate pulled down three bridges and the cost of the replacement of those bridges would, I feel confident, carry out the entire drainage scheme on the Nanny. We should not wait until the same amount of damage is done on every river in the country before something is done about it.
I was interested to hear Deputy Rooney speaking about the Tolka. We in Meath have a grudge against the County Dublin authorities in regard to the Tolka. The Tolka flows into the sea at Dublin but it runs through a large portion of Meath. Meath County Council decided to do something about the Tolka, but they could only go as far as the Dublin border, and nothing has been done at the other end. That is a very serious problem which should be tackled very quickly. It should not be left for five, ten, or as Deputy Beegan said, 75 years to have the Tolka attended to. In cases like that, where a serious problem is presented, it should be given priority and be attended to once and for all. It is too bad that whole villages should be under water for several days a couple of times a year just because there is no outlet for the water which flows near them. That applies to the Boyne and other rivers.
I do not know whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary can help me in regard to the question of coast erosion. Parts of Meath suffer greatly from coast erosion. At the mouth of the River Nanny there is a wall which was built some years ago by the Board of Works. The Board of Works did a very good job. The wall prevented the sea from washing away any more of the land. The Parliamentary Secretary might be able to have the wall extended and thus save two houses which are further out on the beach and which are in danger of being washed away in the next year or so both by the tide and by the river in flood. The county council say they have no jurisdiction or responsibility in the matter. The Board of Works might possibly take some action, particularly in view of the fact that they have already built a wall.
I put down a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce the other day about two walls running from Drogheda Harbour to the harbour bar. I suggested their extension and the rebuilding of the portion that has fallen down. My reason for making that suggestion is that Drogheda Harbour Board have been suggesting the purchase of a dredger. The cost of the dredger would probably be £200, £300 or £400. They appear at times to be prepared to purchase the dredger in order to keep the Port of Drogheda clear. There is a small dredger operating there but it is not able to do the job as effectively as they would wish. I understand from local people who know the area very well that if the walls were rebuilt, as suggested, the river would scour itself and a £300 dredger would not be required to keep the port clean, that it would be cleared by the action of the water. At present, every change of tide brings mud and other stuff into the river and also some sand from both banks which fills up the river bed. Possibly the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to give me some information on that matter, when he is replying.
In connection with arterial drainage, there is one matter which should be in the forefront of the Parliamentary Secretary's mind. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is a very reasonable and fair-minded man and I am sure it gives him no pleasure to have to answer the charge that the Board of Works, in connection with arterial drainage, pay the lowest rate of wages to labourers that is being paid in Europe at the present time. It is a common disgrace that labourers employed on arterial drainage schemes cannot be paid a higher wage than £4 16s. for a 48 hour week, to work not only on dry land but often up to their hips in mud. The amazing thing is that, slightly up the scale, the recognised rates for the job are being paid and everybody gets the correct rate except the man at the bottom who, apparently, can do nothing for himself. It is a shame that that state of things should be allowed to continue and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to use whatever influence he can to have the position remedied.
A few years ago, I, as a trade union official, attempted to have something done about the matter. I interviewed persons who I thought were responsible for fixing the wages. Their answer astounded me as it would anyone who heard it. They gave as their reason for not giving a better rate of wages to these labourers the argument that if their standard was raised, when the scheme was finished, the local farmers might find it difficult to pay the wages that these men would expect. If there is anything more ridiculous than that argument I should like to hear it. That argument was made in all seriousness. When I pointed out that the rate of wages paid to farm labourers in the area was higher than that being paid by the Board of Works, it did not change their idea. They wanted to keep down the standard and made no secret of the fact. The position has gone a bit too far. If the Board of Works intend to continue major drainage schemes, they must pay their labourers and give them better conditions than they are getting now.
Some of these men work during the summer months from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. not because they like wallowing in mud or being in water all day but because it is the only way in which they can get a decent week's wages. The people senior to these labourers, who are better paid than they are, are paid for Church holidays on which they do not work. That is only right. Yet the labourers who receive only a bare minimum wage are not paid for Church holidays. We are supposed to be a Christian country. Something must be done about this matter. I think something will be done in the near future. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see to it that these men are looked after before they have to take much stronger action in order to get what is their right.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me if there is any possibility of having some of the money which is expended on this building used for the purpose of improving the "dog box," as it has been called, at the main gate? People coming from all over the country and all over the world to visit this House must wait at the gate in what is the nearest approach to a night watchman's hut that can be found anywhere in the country. The small amount of money which would be entailed could very easily be found and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the money is found.
For some time past we in Meath have been making arrangements to make a national park in Tara. I feel sure the Board of Works will do its share. Tara was the ancient seat of the High Kings of Ireland. It does not look much like a royal establishment now. It does not look much like anything except a green field fit for grazing. It would be a good idea if the Board of Works would lend their aid in the erection of a suitable monument on Tara.
I intend to be very critical on this occasion because I feel that the Board of Works is not meeting the national demands. In every other country throughout the world, similar problems exist, but in these countries they have departments of public works which at least try to do something, from the national planning aspect, to relieve unemployment and to do work for the national benefit. The Board of Works here at the present time is too slow, too tied up and is not getting enough money to meet the problems with which it is faced.
I have been trying to get little jobs done during my time here and I am afraid I will be over 100 years of age and growing a beard before they are reached. We are told about priority lists, and, in the same breath, we hear misrepresentation about what Fianna Fáil are said to have failed to do during the years. An effort should be made to get the Board of Works to do something in the national interest. They should be asked to meet the needs of the nation in a more reasonable way.
Efforts have been made to deal with arterial drainage, but it will be 75 years at least before anything of importance has been attained in that field. Meanwhile, flooding occurs throughout the country and damages the people socially as well as in their property. Can we not get away from all this and see that works are carried out with more speed and that there is more extensive planning on a national scale? I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary or the officials of the Board of Works, but I think that provision should be made whereby more money would be made available to him. I am not agitating for higher taxation, but, as the adage says, when times change, the people must change with them. I am afraid we do not follow that adage to any great length.
What I am advocating is that this office should be raised to ministerial level and should be called the Department of Public Works. I feel such a step is necessary.
I wonder would that be any addition to it.
At least the Parliamentary Secretary would then be able to throw more of his weight around at the Cabinet meetings. He would be able to meet the Minister for Finance at Cabinet meetings and to demand the necessary money from him. We have the position at the present time where numerous fathers of families have to emigrate to England and to try to keep two homes. We have this unemployment side by side with the need for greater national development. I have been trying for years to get various little things done for County Dublin. There is one river there that I have been mentioning for years. Its flooding every year affects the people living near it, both economically and socially. But I am told it is on a priority list and that it cannot be attended to until it is reached. I am afraid that if I am here another 30 years, it will not be reached. We are told there are 12,000,000 acres of arable land in this country; yet nothing is being done to see that their fertility is not wasted by the flooding of these rivers. I have also mentioned the Broadmeadow and Tolka Rivers.
I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary is doing his best to try to deal with arterial drainage problems. So are the officials of his Department, but the system under which they work is much too slow. Meanwhile, considerable damage is being done by flooding. We have experts saying that this and that should be done, but all their planning is thrown back to the Board of Works who have no money at their disposal and this eyewash goes on year in, year out. The same delays apply to the improvement of harbours, although that is a problem that needs urgent attention. Deputations have gone to different Departments about Loughshinny Harbour.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the maintenance and dredging of harbours?
For the harbours directly under his control. I am not trying to put on his shoulders things for which he is not responsible. He has enough to bear without that. The question of the Loughshinny Harbour has been brought to the attention of various Ministers.
We do only the work that we are ordered to do by the Fisheries Branch.
I am addressing these remarks to the Parliamentary Secretary, because he has a partial responsibility.
The Parliamentary Secretary says he has no responsibility, except as the Fisheries Branch direct him.
The engineers came down there. Deputies might as well be idle as talking here about things like that. When they ask Peter he says the responsibility is that of Paul. I am not blaming the Ceann Comhairle because he has his job to do, too.
I do not know whether I am Peter or Paul in this case.
I am suggesting that there should be more co-ordination between Ministers. When you want harbour works done, the Board of Works say they cannot do it unless the Fisheries Section are satisfied. The Fisheries Section say that the Board of Works engineers will go there and when you ask the Board of Works engineers they will put you on to somebody else. Surely we should do something really constructive. It is a matter for the Government to see that this sort of codology is ruled out. From my point of view, as a Deputy in the area I have the honour to represent, I am tired of it.
I want to refer to a harbour for which the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department are responsible. A dredger comes to Howth Harbour for a short while and, just when the work is started, it is wanted some place else. When work of that kind is started, surely the dredger should be allowed to remain there until the job is at least reasonably well done instead of making a few holes here and there, going away and only coming back again when you push the Parliamentary Secretary or the Board of Works. The same consideration applies to Balbriggan Harbour. All this bears out the point I am making that the present set-up of the Board of Works does not seem to meet the needs of the nation and, until such time as it is put on a proper footing, the people who are trying to make a living and contribute something worth while to the nation, so far as the fishing industry is concerned, will not have proper harbour facilities.
Some time ago I received quite a few complaints regarding the engineering works at Inchicore. This is an internal matter and I have already reported it to the Parliamentary Secretary but I have to refer to it here in a general way. In my opinion, this is one of our finest engineering works, and it is doing a very good job. Some day when the Parliamentary Secretary has time may I suggest that he should give a call there and see that workshop?
I was there several times.
I am asking that because there is a lack of the human approach there and somebody is responsible for causing a lot of turmoil and internal dissatisfaction among the workers. I do not know who is responsible but I am constantly getting reports about it. We are living in an age when it is easier to lead men than it is to drive them, and until we get that human approach I do not think we will get the best results possible. I do not say that the men are blameless or that the bosses are blameless but somebody is responsible for the trouble that is going on. I do not think any boss is worth his salt if he cannot lead men without driving them. Men that have to be driven are no use. While I do not wish to interfere in things that do not concern me, I do feel that I have a duty to try to eliminate this trouble.
Did the Deputy write to me about it?
I did, and marked it "personal."
When?
As a matter of fact I have a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary on the matter. I am very anxious in the national interest that there should be a spirit of goodwill there and not a spirit of disunity. I want to speak on another point and I will have to claim your indulgence, a Cheann Comhairle, to some extent.
I am very soft-hearted.
I have been told by the Minister for Education that certain schools have been referred to the Board of Works for inspection. I am dealing with one school at Brittas and I have been told the Board of Works has to inspect the site. Here again it appears the Board of Works is not able to meet the needs of the nation. If we are to advance at all, we should at least be able to advance without having to wait all this time for a small staff to do a certain job. The attitude, "if you do not do it this year, it will be all right; it may be done in 20 years' time," should be eliminated. We should have sufficient staff to meet the immediate needs of the people because children are having to go to school under shocking conditions. Matters of that kind should be dealt with expeditiously. The Minister for Education must accept responsibility. I do not say that the managers of the schools and all the others will say they have no responsibility, but at least when the responsibility is turned over to the Board of Works they should be in a position to discharge it as soon as possible.
We had a lot of talk during the 1954 election about what Fianna Fáil was anxious to do as regards public works. I put it to the House that it would have been cheaper for the nation if those public works had been carried out instead of having men emigrating, breaking up Christian homes or allowing whole families to go to other countries. We were criticised for many of our plans by the then Opposition. They always took the short view which went down very well for a time but, if by our economies we are to stop all progress, then we are doing something that is unheard of in any advanced nation of the world, in any nation where there is a pride in public buildings and a pride in doing something for the nation.
According to the inter-Party Government we were wrong. They said we were anxious to spend money. We were anxious to do this, that and the other thing. We were trying to do these things in order to create employment and to succeed in doing what every other nation had succeeded in doing. But here it was completely wrong. Looking across the House, I do not see the archangels of the workers here at the moment to deal with matters which are essentially their bailiwick. Until such time as we can approach these matters from the national viewpoint, do what we believe should be done in the best interests of the nation and have a Department that will meet the needs of the nation, we shall not progress as a nation.
I will close on the same note as I opened by saying that the present set-up of the Board of Works is unable to meet national needs and that a number of us will be dead and gone before the small schemes they are alleged to be undertaking will be carried out.
I am not too sure if Deputy Burke expected us to cry with him in his peroration which, of course, had nothing at all to do with the work of the Board of Works. He has been entirely critical of the work that has been done not only for the past couple of years, but for the past 30 years since this State was created. If the Board of Works is so incompetent as he suggests, I wonder why it was not entirely abolished in some past years. Certainly we all have grievances against it, but this is a young State and the Board of Works is more or less a new institution; and, while we may criticise it, I always believe in the old adage: "Mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí."
I am perfectly certain that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of what I am going to say now. As regards priority, certainly the little river to which Deputy Burke refers must be very low in the priority list for arterial drainage. We in Kerry have the grievance that the River Maine, which divides North and South Kerry, has been lost in the priority list. We were led to believe that it was in fourth place, but unfortunately for the present Parliamentary Secretary, he is held responsible for bringing it back to fifth or sixth place. It was unfortunate for us again that, when he left office in 1951, another Galway man from the same constituency, or the next one, came after him and so, of course, the Corrib replaced the Maine.
It was a "maine" trick.
I will not go into all the facts and figures of what is supposed to have taken place, because we have been assured to some extent that when the drainage of the Brick and Cashen—the Feale—river in Northern Kerry takes place, then the drainage of the Maine will be carried out.
I should like at this stage, since I have mentioned the Feale, to compliment the Board of Works on the splendid work done there during the past two or three years. I only hope that when the work on the Maine will be commenced, it will be done as expeditiously and as efficiently as it has been done so far as I can see on the Feale. I can understand the people living along the Maine, whose lands have been flooded, feeling aggrieved and feeling uncertain that the drainage of the Maine will follow the drainage of the Feale, because some of the machinery at present in North Kerry has been removed somewhere else— presumably to the Corrib. We are assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that the type of machinery required for the Maine will be entirely different in some cases from that required on the Feale. We will take it that he is correct in that and that there is no subterfuge in his actions in shifting the machinery away.
I think I stated here 12 months ago in speaking on this Estimate that, having regard to the fact that the drainage of the Maine is being postponed longer than it should be and that it has lost its place to the Corrib, if in about a year's time when the drainage of the Feale is completed, the drainage of the Maine is not then undertaken, the people living along the Maine, whose lands and houses have been flooded, will, I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary on their behalf, no longer pay rates or annuities, until the drainage on the Maine begins and until they feel certain that the Government is sincere in carrying out that operation.
In connection with minor relief schemes and rural improvement schemes, I do not think the money spent on minor relief schemes is of really great value. Of course, the money is allocated for a certain purpose, but the work being carried out is not exactly value for the money expended.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for these works? I think they are included in Vote 10.
That is right. In connection with buildings, I think Deputy Burke referred to school buildings and other buildings for which the Board of Works are responsible, in conjunction with the Department of Education. Occasionally, there are some delays on the part of the Board of Works in drawing up plans for schools and putting them into operation.
I have denied that completely.
However, I will say this: Where so many new schools require to be built at the present time and are being built, and where so many old dilapidated schools are being replaced or temporarily renovated, I can understand the reason for the delays; but the schools that have been erected in recent years and the other public buildings erected under the Board of Works are a credit to that office. There is nothing else I wish to say except to remind the Parliamentary Secretary in a special way of the need for the carrying out of the drainage of the Maine.
For the past nine or ten days, we have been listening to a very interesting debate in this House in which Deputies from both sides expounded their views on the agricultural industry of this country. Almost every Deputy in the course of his contribution stressed the importance of improving the land. It is quite true that this is one of the economic problems in this country, but right at the root of our trouble is one important matter and that is drainage, particularly arterial drainage.
Like many other matters concerned with the welfare of this country, we have played with this matter over the years, and have never adopted a realistic approach until the last five or six or perhaps ten years. A lot of time has been spent dreaming over this matter while no action was taken. As a matter of fact, it was a case of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. It is a shame that, having a native Government for the last 30 years, more has not been done, as far as arterial drainage is concerned. We have only a few schemes completed yet, and it is in its infancy. If we continue to go along in this desultory fashion over the years arterial drainage will never become a reality.
I want to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on one item which I have taken out of his statement this evening. That is that he is providing something in the nature of £20,000 for the employment of additional engineers to carry out arterial drainage. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but I would urge that more should be done, if it is possible to obtain in this country additional engineers, because, in my opinion, progress is entirely too slow. I know that one meets with various obstacles in carrying out a very large arterial drainage scheme. A survey entails a lot of labour and time. The preparation of maps and the lodging of objections enter into it, but much of the delay has been caused by apathy and insufficient staff. If I was sure that additional engineers were available in this country, I would say that not alone £20,000 should be asked for to provide additional engineers, but £40,000 or £50,000, in order to speed up matters. Over the last nine or ten days we have been speaking about bringing land into production. The greatest cancer we have in this country is the flooding of land. While the land rehabilitation scheme has worked wonders and brought certain lands back to fertility, producing good crops, it is only a flea-bite to what it could do if arterial drainage were tackled in the proper manner.
I was listening to the former Parliamentary Secretary speaking here, and one phrase he used struck me rather forcibly. He said that one thing is retarding the progress of arterial drainage, the niggardly approach to this matter of the Department of Finance. That is the expression used by a man who has had the experience of being Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Board of Works. If he accuses the Department of Finance of being niggardly in prodiving money for arterial drainage, all I can say is "God help us". If that is a fact, that the problem is not being attacked vigorously and sincerely by the Department of Finance, it is a regrettable state of affairs.
Like every other county in this country, we have our problems in Roscommon, and I was a bit surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening speech, did not refer in some way to the largest river we have in this country, and the largest in the British Isles.
Indeed I did.
I am glad to hear it, but in passing I might refer to it. He did not give any indication of what is going to happen there, and what I want to know is, what is going to happen in the drainage of the River Shannon. If the River Shannon is to be tackled in some kind of comprehensive way, if that is possible—if it is not possible we should forget about it— then the sooner it is done the better. Let us not be tinkering with it.
We were all very vocal and active some short time ago when flooding took place in the Shannon Basin. Ministers, Deputies and various other public representatives went down there and expressed their sympathy with the people of Clonown whose homes, crops and everything they had in this world were flooded; and certain steps were to be taken. The like was never to occur again. It reminds me of a man thatching his house on a wet day, when a neighbour says: "Are you not a foolish man to be thatching to-day? Why do you not thatch on a fine day?" and he says: "We do not have any rain down on a dry day." The attitude towards tackling this Shannon problem appears to me to be something like that old story. Putting it on the long finger when the floods abate, and saying that there is no necessity for drainage, is most unsatisfactory.
Some time ago—I think over a year ago—we were told that a drainage expert came over here from the United States to inspect the Shannon Basin and see if it were possible to do something to alleviate the flooding in that area. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether any report has been furnished by that gentleman.
Yes.
I am glad to hear that. I would also hope that the report is favourable, and that if it is favourable and he considers that the Shannon can be drained or that the flooding can be relieved by certain works carried out, those works will be implemented forthwith and the Shannon will be No. 1 priority in this country, the place which it should be because it is our most important river.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken a keen interest in the Suck, because it also affects my constituency. I know that he has made a very determined effort to put the Suck as high up as possible on the priority list. It is gratifying to know that the survey on the Suck will be carried out this year. That is progress on which I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary.
It will be completed this year.
That is what the Parliamentary Secretary conveyed to me in his statement. I compliment him on having gone so far. It is certainly a move in the right direction.
I have just a word or two to say about schools. Drainage is, perhaps, the most important item on which we speak in this debate but I do not believe in long padded-out speeches and I have said what I have had to say as briefly as possible. On the question of schools, I want also to pay a compliment to the Board of Works in regard to the many schools that have been completed all over the country but I cannot pay that compliment in regard to some of the schools as yet incomplete. The Parliamentary Secretary smiles. I think he knows something about a school or two in regard to which I have complaints. Any school completed has been a very good job but some of them, which have neither been completed nor properly started, are in a very deplorable state.
I have in mind two such schools. It is the responsibility of the Board of Works and its engineers to supervise the construction of schools. However, where you have a contractor who evades his responsibilities in some rather astute way, it is difficult for either an engineer or a clerk of works to pin-point the faults of such a contractor. That has been happening. It has happened in two cases I know of. I believe the contractor may be penalised but that does not satisfy me. I would be sorry for any man who would be penalised to a very great amount but it is no satisfaction to have the contractor penalised and at the same time to have the school unfinished and in a bad condition. The withholding of a certain amount of money from the contractor will not help. I know of a case where £200 or £300 was withheld from a contractor because he failed to complete the work and there is so much work to be done that it would be far more profitable for that contractor not to go back to the job. Two hundred or £300 would not go far towards completing that school so that, if he is a wise man, the further he keeps away from the completion of that school, the better for himself.
However, it is an unfortunate matter for the people who are liable for a local contribution to that school. I think that the penalty is too heavy on them and I think the school should be completed without any further delay or dilly-daily. There has been too much of that. If penalties are to be imposed on a contractor they should be imposed but when a new man is brought in to complete the work the amount of work to be done is more than double the amount that would be withheld from the contractor. I think that is bad business. Whoever is responsible, I do not know but I want to focus the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary on the matter.
I would also like to say a word about the reception room at the gate in front of Leinster House. I think it is a desperate eye-sore and not in line or in keeping with the building surrounding it. It is regrettable that we, in this stage of our history, are not able to provide a reception room worthy of the Parliament of this country. We have, down there, a hut which is comparable to a night watchman's hut. I think that hut is out-dated and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that immediate steps are taken to have erected there a suitable reception room for both Deputies and their friends who call on them.
I will conclude by saying that, as far as the activities of the Board of Works are concerned, I have the utmost confidence in the Parliamentary Secretary not because he is a colleague of mine but because I believe he is a man who will put his full force behind any measures that are put up to him. I look forward with confidence to good work being done by the Board of Works in the future. I hope my anticipations will be fulfilled.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, as is usual after debates on this Estimate, will arrive home with the mixed bag of praise and abuse. It is only natural to expect quite a lot of both, because, looking through the Book of Estimates, one can see the vast amount of operations, the great amount of work, and the various aspects of the activities of the Office of Public Works. It certainly does carry with it very diversified operations and it is only natural for the Parliamentary Secretary to get both praise and criticism. All these activities cannot be carried out 100 per cent. satisfactorily for everybody.
I will give some of both, starting off with some praise for the Office of Public Works. I want to join with other Deputies who have given credit for the fine job of work they are doing in connection with the erection of new schools and the renovation of old schools. It is a credit to see such fine, well-built, well-ventilated and well-lighted schools, not alone in our towns and villages and bigger centres of population, but in backward rural districts. I think it is an enticement to the people in those areas to co-operate in the work of school building and to have their children avail of the facilities thus being given to them.
It is a pity that, especially in our towns and villages, all these new schools have not got playing grounds. That is possibly something that is outside the ambit of the Board of Public Works but, if it is at all possible, and God knows we have enough idle land in this country, to provide such playing grounds for all schools, the engineers of the Board of Works should provide for them in their plans.
That would be a matter for the Minister for Education.
Perhaps the Office of Public Works could suggest that a certain piece of land should be included in school plans for such a purpose.
It is very hard to get the acre in some cases.
Half an acre would be better than none at all. Vast progress has been made in the provision of water supplies both in towns and country districts and it is a pity that some schools have not yet had water supplies made available to them.
That, again, would be the responsibility of the Minister for Education.
It would come into the drafting and the planning of a school to have water supplied. I suppose the Department of Education would have to stump up the money but it would not amount to so very much, where there is a convenient water supply, to have a line taken from the local supply. I am afraid that that is some praise and I am glad that that good work is going on.
I am afraid we have criticism to offer and that there are cases where money is wasted. Take, for example, one small item, the case of the door in the restaurant. First of all, a door was put in there and after some time that door was taken out and a double door put in. The whole thing had to be ripped away again and a double door inserted due to a mistake somewhere. It was found that waitresses going in and out, using a single door, would be in endless trouble and hot water, and, I suppose, tea. It was found necessary afterwards to put in a double door. That is only a small thing but if that is repeated very often in all the operations throughout the whole gambit of work done by the Office of Public Works, if there is carelessness, minor though it might be, repeated very often it will amount over the whole field of operations to something substantial at the end of the year. Great care should be taken that these wastages should not take place and, when a wastage like that takes place under the very eyes of the people who come in here to provide the money, we can put two and two together and say it is more than likely that a greater number of wastages will take place elsewhere.
It is natural that in an agricultural country like this arterial drainage, the prevention of flooding and the relief of flooding will figure prominently in a debate like this. We do know the difficulties. The main difficulty, of course, is £ s. d. If we had plenty of that we could have lots more drainage carried out. I did make a suggestion here a few years ago in connection with arterial drainage. I know there is a priority list and that that priority list is supposed to be based on the extensiveness of the catchment area and that, if things went as they should go, the biggest catchment area would be done first and the next and the next and so on. If that policy, which I think is adhered to fairly well, is to be continued I am afraid counties like Donegal will suffer because there are many counties in Ireland and we have no great rivers, although we have very productive land. I am afraid it would be some time, if the ordinary sequence were followed, before a major drainage scheme would be carried out in Donegal.
For that reason I suggested a few years ago that, running concurrently with a major arterial drainage scheme, we should have smaller drainage schemes, and a large number of those drainage schemes running at the same time. I am glad to say that recently there is a tendency to devote attention to rivers in counties where the catchment area is not large but where it is important from the point of view of the production of crops. You can have a situation, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, where in one catchment area ten acres might be equal in productivity to half an acre in another catchment area which would be very much smaller. Therefore, it is not fair to base priority on the acreage, and the acreage only, of a catchment area.
A fairer way of dealing with it would be to get an indication of the productivity of a certain area and compare it with the total productivity of another area and to base priority on the result. For that reason, we in Donegal are glad to note that a decision, as a result of a survey carried out about four years ago, has been taken to deal, under the arterial drainage scheme, with the rivers Deale and Swillyburn. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that the machinery required there will be, possibly, somewhat smaller than that required to deal with larger and more complicated rivers in other parts of the country. I am sure that that is why it has been found possible to deal with these rivers at a much earlier date than would ordinarily be possible.
Now that machinery will, I understand, be sent to Donegal somewhere around the end of the year or in the early part of the coming year. While that machinery is in Donegal it would be a pity if, during the time that some of the machines may be idle, having completed a certain type of work, the drainage of another river nearby could not be undertaken. I refer to the drainage of the Swilly, which is a very important river but which does cause flooding of land which is highly valued and which is highly productive. It passes through the town of Letterkenny and I hope it will be possible for the Department of Public Works to have the drainage of that river done in conjunction with the other two, and, if not in conjunction, then before the machinery goes back to Dublin or to some other place.
As a result of that change in the Department's attitude I would advocate a further development so that the bigger arterial drainage schemes and the smaller arterial drainage schemes could be carried on at the same time. It would be necessary to get a lighter type of drainage machine for the smaller schemes but they will be cheaper and more readily available.
In connection with harbours, piers and so on, it is very hard to find out where the Department of Public Works begins and where the Fishery Section of the Department of Agriculture ends. Perhaps I have put the cart before the horse. It is very hard to pin down a particular harbour either to the Office of Public Works or to the Fisheries Section of the Department of Agriculture. I am afraid that, while one or the other have responsibility, they might each deny responsibility but they will not clearly and categorically state that the other is the one that should hold that particular baby.
We have in Donegal a lot of harbour and pier problems and to-day we gave the final reading of the Act setting up a Gaeltacht Ministry. A good part of Donegal will come under that Act. There are several parts of Donegal where fishing has been carried on, is carried on and will be carried on, despite the difficulties which exist, and it is only right that whoever is responsible should come to the assistance of these people by providing proper harbours.
The Deputy may not discuss that point on this Vote. It is a matter for the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture.
I wonder could I get the Parliamentary Secretary to comment on what the position is in regard to these piers and harbours and to say whether there are piers which are the responsibility of the Fisheries Section of the Department of Agriculture and others that are solely and completely the responsibility of the Office of Public Works? It would sove me threshing around a good deal if I got an answer to that.
They are at sea on that question!
The Office of Public Works is responsible for State harbours only, such as Dún Laoghaire and Howth.
I see in the Estimates—"Fisheries, etc., Harbours". This is under sub-head B and I was going to raise a couple of matters on this sub-head. There is an item: dredging operations, £950. I see somebody has made a note on this in which there is the word "Greencastle". That is noted here and I wonder does that refer to the harbour in Inishowen. I intended to refer to that, but possibly the Parliamentary Secretary has given the information to a previous speaker when this was mentioned.
In this sub-head, there is a reference to "works of economic development— £5,000." I am afraid I do not know much about that and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate what that is. There is also the item "major fishery harbour surveys". I take it that it is the duty of the Office of Public Works to carry out a survey when that is required at any harbour or pier and in that respect I should like to mention Glengad Harbour. That harbour was surveyed some time ago, but it was found that the cost of that scheme would be somewhere in the region of almost £500,000, and I think it was the Office of Public Works that asked that a scheme be put forward by the county council. Such a survey was carried out by the county council and plans of a milder and less expensive type were submitted by the Donegal county engineer some time ago.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of all the visits made both by the Parliamentary Secretary's Branch and the fisheries section of the Department of Agriculture over the years to Glengad Harbour, to give us a definite statement in his reply that this is certainly one of the things that will be attended to. It is one of the most northerly harbours in the country, and, despite the losses which they have suffered in fishing boats, the people there have continued with fishing. Five or six boats were lost last year and 30 have been lost over the past ten years. It is necessary that something should be done to provide shelter at that harbour. This is something on which Deputies of all political Parties in the constituency are agreed, as well as the clergy, laity and others and it is not from any political motive that I am raising it here. I am mentioning the case of Glengad merely to ensure that it will not be forgotten.
On the question of Greencastle, some money was expended there, and I understand that a local development committee has been on to the Office of Public Works recently about the type of work it is expected will be carried out. I should like that matter to be attended to soon and especially not later than the present financial year.
I notice that another item under sub-head (b) is that dealing with customs and provision is made for additions to the Muff frontier post. I understand that that extension will be carried out during the year. I do not see any mention of Killea or Kildrum customs posts. Some time ago, a site was acquired for the erection of a new customs frontier post and for the provision of dwelling accommodation for the officers there. It was to be something similar to what they have on the frontier post at Bridgend. I do not see any provision made here for any work on that project this year.
I did understand that the matter was fairly well advanced in the planning stage. Perhaps the planning has been completed, and, if that is so, I urge that the completion of the plans should be proceeded with as soon as possible and that a start should be made at an early date, because the customs post is bad at that place. Unfortunately, the officers of the Revenue Commissioners there find it very difficult to get accommodation. It is only single men who can be sent to that area because it is impossible to find housing accommodation and even single people find the matter of accommodation a great problem at times.
That is a problem for the Minister for Finance, and not for the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of this Vote.
In connection with sub-head (b), there is provision for a new post office in Letterkenny. We are glad to see that there is some chance of finality being reached in this matter and that a start will be made this year. A figure of £2,000 appears in the Estimate. I am afraid the start that will be made with £2,000 will be a rather small one. This matter has been on the carpet for years and years. We have had very definite assurances for some years past that plans were ready and that the building would come into being at some stage; it is very disappointing to me now to find a sum of only £2,000 provided for this purpose. Perhaps this is merely a token Estimate and it will be possible to find more money. I hope that is the position. I had thought that a stage would have been reached by now wherein the whole picture would be quite clear-cut and the exact amount which would be expended in this year on that particular project would have been indicated.
I join with Deputy Beirne in his query as to the progress made on the work done by the engineer from the Tennessee Valley project in America. He was brought over here to "have a go" at the Shannon. I know Deputy McQuillan is interested in this, and I shall leave the matter to him. I think the Parliamentary Secretary did indicate that there was a report.
That is right.
It will be interesting to know what the result of that is.
Is it a final report?
No.
The Office of Public Works generally comes in for a very heavy "slating" from the Opposition and I am rather wondering at the apparent loss of interest to-day. Generally, on this Estimate, we have a rehash of previous speeches. Now, every county has its own problems. As far as drainage is concerned, my county has the same problem as other counties. I am glad to know that the drainage of the Boyne is getting early consideration and that a survey will be carried out and levels taken in the present year. I hope I shall not have to get up here next year to ask why that work has not been done. I hope the work will start immediately.
The Boyne is of tremendous importance not only to my own county but to the Midlands as a whole. The Bog of Allen and the central plain of Ireland drains into the River Boyne. At the moment it is one of the most sluggish rivers in the country. Salmon fishing there, and it was a very important salmon river in the past, is negligible. Young salmon fry and young trout fry, too, are destroyed in the beds because the beds are silted up with anything from nine to 18 inches of bog mould. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will get going on the drainage of the Boyne. I am told by those with experience that at one time salmon fishing on the Boyne was quite unique and the Boyne was one of the most glorious rivers from the point of view of sport and quality. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of that.
It must be remembered too that Meath, Kildare and Dublin are important counties from the point of view of finishing cattle. Land reclamation is held up because river drainage is not being done. As well as the Boyne, we have two Blackwaters, the Tolka and the Rye, plus three or four others. All these rivers are affected because the Boyne is not being done. In the last 30 years, the river has changed its course in many places between Trim and Navan because large islands have been allowed to form. Drainage will constitute a major work and it will require a considerable sum of money to put the Boyne back on its proper course.
We are all very fond of criticising the Office of Public Works. It is interesting to go back over the past 30 or 40 years to find out the constitution of the Board of Works. We all know, whether we like it or not, that the Board of Works has to carry a vast quantity of deadwood in many of its sections. While it has some of the best officials in the country——
The Deputy may not discuss officials. The Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for the Vote.
I want to refer to the slow motion. Too many people get into the Board of Works by the back door. I would like every officer in that office to go in by the front door. I believe the present situation has a good deal to do with the slow motion. I hope there will be a full reorganisation and that the Office of Public Works will be put on a businesslike basis, the same as every other Department of State. If that is not done, we will have too much money lying there, not expended in the right way or at the right time.
I assure the Deputy it is not lying there.
A great deal of waste could be cut out. I know the Office of Public Works does a vast amount of good work. We have very little to complain of in relation to schools. Our schools are excellent. I would appeal to those who deal with school buildings to ensure that in future they do not build just for the present population.
The size of the school required for a particular district is a matter for the Minister for Education.
Too many small schools are being built.
That, again, is the concern of the Minister for Education.
All new schools should be built with proper water and sanitation facilities. The dry closet should be abolished. Unfortunately, even some new schools in my county still have the old primitive sanitation. I think that is a shame.
That is the responsibility of the school authorities.
It is the Board of Works which plans and designs the buildings, and they should not allow any school to be built unless flush lavatories are incorporated in the scheme.
The provision of water is a matter for the school authorities and not for the Office of Public Works.
The question of a national memorial has come up here for quite a number of years. Such a memorial should have been tackled years ago. It should be given prior consideration because such a memorial will do much towards uniting our people and our country. We owe it to the living and the dead to erect such a memorial. Were it not for the men who died we would not have the right to sit here to-day. Neither would we have the freedom we have to-day. We owe a proper memorial to the living and to the dead. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will get working on that national memorial and have it erected with the utmost speed.
The Government have approved of such a scheme.
I am glad to hear that. I have not much further criticism to make on this Estimate. I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the River Boyne will get prior consideration. That is my principal concern at the moment. In County Meath, we get as much flooding as the people of Dublin or Galway. However, we get no compensation although our people suffer as much damage as the people of Dublin or Galway who do get compensation.
I suggest that the drainage of the Tolka should also get prior consideration by the Board of Works, the Dublin County Council and the Meath County Council. We in Meath are prepared to do our share so far as the Tolka is concerned and we are waiting now for the Dublin County Council to come to a decision. Unless a proper machine is brought there we cannot do anything, with the result that Dunboyne and other villages are flooded for a couple of months practically every year. That should not take place, as it is a small scheme.
I am glad to know that the Board of Works are carrying on the drainage of the River Rye. It will affect many hundreds of acres in my county. I hope that scheme will be put through and that it will not be declared completed until all those acres are fully reclaimed. It is virgin soil and the best of land is lying under water at the present moment—land which can be made arable again.
The drainage of the centre of our country is of vital importance. In my view, the work has been delayed for far too long. As we all know, our country is shaped like a basin; the centre of the country is in a kind of hollow. Until rivers such as the Boyne are drained from the mouth at Drogheda right into the heart of the Midlands, the land cannot be drained and land reclamation work which should be carried out cannot be started. If the drainage of the Boyne gets prior consideration, we in Meath will be satisfied. It is very disheartening to come here year after year and to find that nothing is done. I may tell the House that next year we shall not be satisfied if nothing is done. I have been a member of this House for 20 years and nothing has been done so far about the Boyne. That is far too long a delay. It is rather strange that whenever a Minister is appointed he is always able to get a vast drainage scheme going in a county inside 12 months. For that reason, I think we would require an Office of Public Works Minister for every one of our counties.
First of all, I want to apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for not being present to hear his opening statement. At times, it is very difficult to know when particular debates will end. I may, therefore, mention certain matters which the Parliamentary Secretary may, in fact, have covered in a satisfactory manner in his opening statement.
These two Votes deal principally with public works and with arterial drainage. I propose to say a few words in connection with buildings first, with particular reference to schools. I know that some short while ago the Parliamentary Secretary emphatically denied here that there was any delay in connection with the building or construction of new schools. I took that from the strenuous way in which he shook his head at a Deputy here about ten minutes ago. I am of the opinion that there is considerable delay between the time an application is made for the erection of a new school and the time the work actually commences on that new school. Very often a period of from three to four years elapses before actual construction work takes place. I am puzzled as to where the delay takes place. The extraordinary thing is that, if inquiries are made in the Department of Education, one is informed that "everything is all right with us and you should try the Board of Works." To pin down somebody in the Board of Works to give you definite information is one of the most difficult feats any Deputy could ever try to perform. Very often you are sent back from the Board of Works to the Department of Education on the basis that the Department of Education, perhaps, is the fly in the ointment. Therefore, between hopping and trotting—between the parish, the Board of Works and the Department of Education—a couple of years slide by before an actual grant is made available and before work commences.
When I speak on this subject I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I am well armed with material from various responsible parish priests in rural Ireland on this particular matter. My view is that schools are the most important buildings in the State to-day. There is no use in talking about giving education to the younger generation to enable them to take their rightful place in the guiding of this State, whether in the professions or otherwise, unless the erection of schools is treated as a priority matter. No difficulties with regard to finance, in particular, should be placed in the way of those people who are keenly interested in having new schools erected, particularly in rural Ireland. Between the Department of Education and the Board of Works, the attitude seems to be to pass the buck. I do not know how many people are employed for the sole purpose of passing the buck.
The Deputy seems to be discussing two Departments.
No. I am discussing the delay that takes place in the construction of new schools.
For example?
I want to get this point clear. I do not at this stage want to deal with the Department of Education because there is another day for that. However, there is the suggestion —I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government think it worthy of consideration— that perhaps the Department over which the Parliamentary Secretary has charge has too much to do. Would it be that that Department is overburdened with work? It is a very big undertaking to have the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for arterial drainage and for the construction of public buildings. A vast amount of money and a vast staff are involved. Naturally, the larger the body the slower the movement.
I am sorry the Deputy was not here when I made my opening statement. This year alone, we are spending £1,350,000 on schools.
That figure may appear big but it would be interesting to compare it with the figures in respect of the amount of money spent in the years 1936, 1937 and 1938 on the erection of new schools and to compare, also the value of the £ in those years with the value of the £ to-day.
Now——
That is what I want the Parliamentary Secretary to understand—the actual amount of work that is involved. I should like to compare the figures in respect of the year 1937 with those for 1955—not that I am making any case for what was done in 1937, because I still think it was too slow at that particular stage. The reason I say this is to back up the Parliamentary Secretary himself. I am sure he is just as anxious as any Deputy to ensure that the good work of erecting schools will go ahead as quickly as possible.
The question of building national schools is one for the Minister for Education. The Office of Public Works acts on the instruction of the Minister for Education. Any lack in respect of the building of schools is not the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary on this Vote.
I should not like to blame the Parliamentary Secretary in the wrong. He is blamed for a lot of things without putting that on his shoulder. The point I want to make in connection with the responsibilities that lie on his shoulders is this. It is argued that practically all building, whether in connection with the Department of Justice, the Department of Education or any other Department, should be carried out by the Board of Works. There is a lot to be said for that point of view but there is something to be said also for the point of view that it could be considered the Board of Works could drop this programme of the erection of new schools and have that function handed over to the Department which is responsible in the initial stages for the erection of the schools, namely, the Department of Education.
It may be put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary that that means setting up a separate body and a double set of engineers but I want to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that that is the position with the Land Commission at the present day. It is not the Board of Works which builds the new houses for the Land Commission.
No, thank God.
There is a lot to be said for that. With regard to pinning responsibility on a particular Department and in order to have the responsibility where we can all pin it, I think the planning and the construction of the schools should be all under the one Department. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary in that connection to outline the difficulties involved. I should especially like to know the difficulties with regard to staffing and personnel.
In connection with arterial drainage, I presume the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to the River Shannon in his opening remarks. I could gather from an interjection made by him that an interim report has been submitted. I happen to be quite well aware of that fact for some time. As a matter of fact, I have had, on two or three occasions, raised questions in this House during the past six months as to whether a final report or a preliminary report had been made.
I want to refresh the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary. Is it not 18 months since we had devastation in the Shannon Valley and we had queues of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries chasing one another into the areas where the flooding took place. As a matter of fact, I think a couple of Ministers were nearly drowned on one occasion in their hurry to get in to see how bad these areas were.
I am not sure about that.
The papers, at any rate, pointed out that some of the Ministers had a slight mishap on their way into Clonown. We all know that this problem of flooding in the Shannon Valley did not start during the past two or three years. This is something I do not like to have to repeat in this House because most Deputies were made quite well aware of the hardships involved through the publicity given. I think the daily newspapers did a very good day's work at the time for the unfortunate people in the flooded areas because, no matter what I or any other Deputy in this House said about conditions in the Shannon Valley area, we were never in a position to paint the picture as it really was. I think our national daily newspapers did a very good day's work by bringing the spotlight of publicity on the conditions and hardships of the people in those areas. I only hope that the daily papers will again use their power to ensure that whatever Government is in power within the next two years will carry out the promises made to the thousands of unfortunate families who are in any winter liable to have to leave their houses and lands due to the flooding of the River Shannon.
As a result of the publicity and the spotlighting of conditions, the Government decided that they would not at that stage accept the recommendations of their own engineers in the Board of Works as final but would get a neutral opinion. Many of us attended a meeting in the Midlands at which the Minister for Agriculture proudly announced that the Government had requested the American Government to make available the services of a first-class engineer to survey the River Shannon in the hope that this engineer would be in a position to offer some solution to a problem that had beaten, it seems, our own technical advisers for the past 20 years.
At this stage, I am not in a position to comment upon the preliminary report. I presume that the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, will not be in a position to let the House know what the preliminary report is. If he has the permission of the Government, I should like if he would in his reply give us the text of the preliminary report made by this engineer. The final report will not be made until certain interested groups or associations that function along the Shannon and elsewhere make representations to the engineer himself in connection with certain aspects of his report.
And certain Departments of the Government as well.
Certain other Departments of the Government have to make their report. I am not going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make the preliminary report available. As far as other Departments of State are concerned, some of their reports have been available for the past two years. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that the Department of Lands, according to the Minister, have already submitted their report on the schemes which they consider should be carried out to relieve the conditions of the people who are flooded. Where a State body like that is involved, there should be no delay at this stage in submitting its report to the engineer so that the final report can be made available at the earliest possible stage.
We know perfectly well that when fine weather comes along and when we get a fine winter, human nature is such, whether in case of an individual or a Government, that people say: "We may take it easy and postpone doing anything about the matter and, perhaps, next winter will be as fine." I hope no such mentality reigns in Government circles. That is a pun. I hope that that mentality will not be displayed in Government circles. The people involved for many years past have shown great patience and forbearance, indeed. As dutiful citizens, they have paid their rates faithfully and this in spite of the fact that much of the land for which they were paying those rates was under water for many months of the year.
The greatest weapon available to people in a condition like the Shannon Valley dwellers in getting anything done is publicity. I have already mentioned what the daily papers achieved in that respect. They had another ally and it was Providence that was responsible for it. At that time, when the floods came on the Shannon, these unfortunate people met responsible Ministers in the Clonown area and they were informed by the Minister that it was God's will, that very little could be done for them; but no sooner were those Ministers back in Dublin than the River Tolka decided to change its course and the result of that, we all know, was that the people in Dublin for the first time realised what water could do in their kitchens and in their living rooms. Consequently, every Deputy in Dublin, whether he was Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, rushed pell-mell to the Taoiseach's office and in no uncertain fashion told the Taoiseach: "You must solve this problem here in Dublin of the Tolka."
As far as the Taoiseach and other members of the Government were concerned, it was the first time they had ever realised what damage a flood could do and they were horrified. It was not long until relief measures came into operation for the dwellers along the Tolka. Naturally, when this was done along the Tolka, they could not leave out the Shannon, but I can assure members of the House that were it not for the overflow of the River Tolka—and I am sorry for the people who were affected by it—for which Providence was responsible, the people along the Shannon could go and smoke as far as getting relief is concerned.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is not in a position to give us the final report from this eminent engineer in America, would he give to the House an idea of when some solution or part solution of the Shannon Valley problem will be provided? It is too serious a matter to have put on the long finger for another two or three years, even if we consider only the fact that most members of the present Government committed themselves in no uncertain terms to those people. They have to carry out that promise at least to solve the difficulties, and I think I am as well aware of the difficulties as any other Deputy. It is not an easy problem; the people whose land and whose houses are flooded know it is not an easy problem. As I have said, they have shown patience and resignation for the past 30 years on this matter, what they want now is some hope a specific date when relief measures of a permanent nature will be brought into operation.
Will there be drainage work of an arterial nature carried out, or are there to be limited drainage improvements on the Shannon; or will there be a scheme for the removal of the many families from the various flooded areas, families who have already been promised for a number of years past that they would be removed and who to-day are still waiting? Even if it was the Taoiseach himself who went down to-morrow morning and told those people: "You will be leaving inside of six months," they have become so cynical about the promises that they would not believe the Taoiseach himself. This is a serious situation. Apart from being embarrassing to any public representative, it is a lowering of the standards of public life.
It is all very well to talk about election promises. They are hurled across this House from day to day and from week to week. Those promises, in many cases, I can well appreciate, are made in very vague and general terms. But the promises that were made in the Shannon Valley were not made at election time. These promises were made by Ministers of State and, as such, they have a serious responsibility to the public to ensure that those promises are carried out.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for all the statements that were made at that time?
I would not say he was responsible for all the statements that were made.
If he is not responsible, I cannot see how the Deputy can continue to discuss those statements.
I would just say that the Parliamentary Secretary is charged with responsibility for arterial drainage, and, as the responsible Parliamentary Secretary for drainage, it is his duty to carry out arterial drainage work or minor arterial drainage schemes, if the Government think fit to sanction such schemes.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary merely to tell me at this stage whether the Government have considered the preliminary report made by the American engineer. Have the Government informed the Parliamentary Seccretary that they will carry out the recommendations made or portion of the recommendations? I do not think I am out of order in suggesting to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should be able to give us that information. As you know, it is very difficult at times to raise matters in this House in connection with drainage and the opportunity offered to us is once a year when this Vote comes up. I do not want the situation as it is to drift on until this time next year. What I really want on an occasion like this is to have some good news for the people whose homes, whose property and land have been flooded for so many years. If the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to give some inkling at this stage of the nature of the report made by this American expert it would be some advantage.
