Ba mhaith liom tagairt ghearr a dhéanamh do phointí a luaigh an Teachta Mac Seoin as Luimneach agus an Teachta Mac Cárthaigh ón dtaobh seo i dtaobh na scoileanna. Thaispeáin caint na beirte sin go bhfuil dhá thaoibh leis an gceist seo agus bunús den chiall leo. Mhol an Teachta Mac Cárthaigh agus Teachtaí eile gur cheart páirceanna imeartha a sholáthar, agus rudaí eile. Mar dúirt an Leas-Cheann Comhairle, tá freagracht ar an Aire Oideachais agus ar na bainisteoirí scoile i dtaobh na gceisteanna sin An taobh eile den cheist sin, chuir an Teachta Mac Seoin síos uirthe agus dúirt sé i gcuid mhaith des na scoileanna, go mór mór ins na scoileanna sráidbhaile, go dtéann na daltaí scoile abhaile anois i gcóir lóin agus nach dteastaíonn páirceanna uatha chomh mór agus a bhí ag teastáil roimhe seo agus a bhíonn ag teastáil amnuigh faoin tuaith. Tá an dá thuairm ag an Teachta sin ceart, údarásach, agus taispeáineann sé nach féidir riail deimhin seasmhach a dhéanamh ina thaobh.
The question of schools does not require, I think, any very lengthy reply from me. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle pointed out that a number of the matters referred to are properly for attention by the Department of Education in conjunction with the managers, for example, the provision of playing fields and other matters which should be provided in new schools. The Office of Public Works is the agency through which the plans in relation to the provision of new schools and the reconditioning of the old ones are carried out. The office is merely an agent and carries out the directions given to it. The sum of money available is also decided upon by an authority other than the Office of Public Works.
Deputies will hardly expect me to take the points each Deputy made. If I do not mention Deputies' names, I want them to understand that it would be unduly lengthening the reply to do so because the points made seemed to be similar in all cases. There was the case of playing fields, sanitation and size. Perhaps, again, I may point out one aspect that was stressed by Deputy Jones only, that some estimate should be made, when the size of a school is being decided upon and plans being made accordingly, of the trend of the school population in the district or half-parish. Again, while I think there is a good deal of wisdom behind what Deputy Jones suggests there, I suggest to him that it is not a matter for decision by this office. The managers, in the first instance, in consultation with the Department of Education, might be asked to give their attention to that matter.
A number of miscellaneous matters were mentioned. Deputy Flanagan mentioned the provision of a waiting room at the front gate of Leinster House. That matter was given attention some years ago and plans were drawn up by the Office of Public Works, but, apparently, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges did not approve of the plans and the matter got no further, and there it has lain ever since. If Deputies are still interested in seeing that improvements are carried out there, it seems to me that the matter should first be taken up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I should have replied to another point in relation to schools. It is the global expenditure each year. Complaint has been made that the provision this year is less than last year's provision, but I would direct the attention of Deputies to the experience of the Office of Public Works and of the Department of Education over a number of recent years. The experience is that, generally, more money is provided than the Office of Public Works is able to spend. In one or two years the reverse occurred but, in any event, the Estimate has been prepared this year in the light of the experience of the Commissioners of Public Works in relation to their estimated ability to spend money on this service. Deputies can rest assured that there will not be any diminution in the output of work on these schools for the lack of money. Deputies ought to accept that assurance. There is no intention to let up or ease off in any way on this very important service.
I do not know whether I should describe the drainage service as the most important dealt with by the Office of Public Works. In recent years, it has produced more public speeches than any of the other topics mentioned in the Estimate for the office. I have not been sufficiently long in this office to have acquired any extensive detailed and intimate knowledge of the responsibilities which fall on the Office of Public Works.
In relation to drainage, I should like to say to all Deputies who have spoken, each in favour of his own district, that it is a most invidious task indeed for any Parliamentary Secretary to be asked to arrange a priority of major drainage schemes. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I found when I came into the office that such a priority list had in fact been arranged. If pressure is to be brought to bear on me to alter that arrangement, I am afraid I should have to say to Deputies that it would be a most distasteful task for me to undertake. I would be most disinclined to undertake it and I should not want to undertake it unless under absolute direction from the Government through my own Minister, the Minister for Finance. I know that cases can be made, sometimes with apparent good grounds, that the priority is not the most economic possible, and that better results might be achieved by putting other rivers and catchment areas in a higher or lower order of priority. However, as I have said, it is not for me to choose and it is not my intention to interfere with what has been arranged, not alone by my predecessor, but by a number of Parliamentary Secretaries who have preceded me in this office. I do not propose to interfere with the priority list.
On the general question of drainage my predecessor but one, Deputy Donnellan, started this debate on a rather false note. He said he had been reminded by a friend of his in County Galway that the attitude of the present Parliamentary Secretary is not sympathetic to arterial drainage. As an example of the length of some political memories in this country, he said this particular friend told him that in 1927 I had expressed myself as not being interested in arterial drainage, and that I delivered myself of that opinion at a meeting of Galway County Council. I can recall having taken part in various discussions in Galway County Council as far back as the Deputy has mentioned, but in those days we did not have arterial drainage.
I now distinctly recall having indicated that the area I represented on the Galway County Council did not have arterial drainage problems but that did not indicate that I was not interested in arterial drainage. I was anxious to see that other areas in County Galway got arterial drainage wherever it was wanted, through the county council. Deputy Donnellan should have given the whole story if he wished to go back 31 years to damage the reputation of the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary in this manner. I am sorry he is not here. I did not intend to make any reference to it but it is too important to let pass.
I do not wish to take any of the credit from Deputy Donnellan which he has earned in connection with arterial drainage, but I would remind him that he is not entitled to all the credit. Arterial drainage did not become possible until the 1945 Act was passed. The Government did not wait for the enactment of that legislation. They were planning for arterial drainage as far back as 1942. It was part of the postwar planning activity which went on during the war under Government auspices and, in fact, the first survey scheme was prepared before the Act was passed. Planning began in 1942 and six years later, in 1948, the actual work of drainage was begun. It was enabled to be begun at that time because of the planning which had taken place previously. All Deputy Donnellan had to do to set the wheels in motion was to blow the whistle at the Brosna. He did that with all due pomp and ceremony and, since then, he has shown a very commendable interest in arterial drainage. The commendation which I am fully prepared to give him would come with greater force from this side of the House if he were prepared to concede to us our interest, and give due credit for what was done in this connection by Deputies on this side of the House.
Deputy Lindsay made reference to the service being non-political and that, I think, sums up the position in relation to arterial drainage. If I do not mention any particular catchment area. Deputies will appreciate the reasons why. Comparisons in this matter can be very difficult and people who have as much knowledge as we have ourselves have their own views. As one Deputy in Dáil Éireann recently put into this position of responsibility, I do not wish to express any personal view on the propriety of the present priorities.
I wish to convince Deputy Donnellan that I, as Parliamentary Secretary, will show as avid an interest in promoting this service as he did, and I shall do everything I can to emulate the very commendable efforts of my most recent predecessor, the late Deputy Beegan. During the short period I have been in the Office of Public Works I have secured a very intimate knowledge of his interest and activities in this particular matter. He was every bit as indefatigable as Deputy Donnellan, and the progress that has been achieved up to the present bears witness to his interest in it.
I do not think there are any other matters of a general nature that arose in the debate. There were a good many details in relation to drainage into which it is not necessary to go now. I would suggest to Deputies, who have problems of details of that sort, to put them in writing to me and I promise that I shall see to it that every possible attention is given to these matters. They will be dealt with as sympathetically as possible, and if we can find solutions for these problems we shall do so.