Vol. 181 No. 5
asked the Minister for Finance the exact wording of and the reasons for the directions given to the Commissioners of Public Works by him or the Parliamentary Secretary in May, 1952, on the question of whether the survey of the Corrib catchment should not be completed.
7.
asked the Minister for Finance what decisions was taken in regard to the Corrib Drainage Scheme after the change of Government in 1951; and in particular whether it was decided that work should be commenced on the Black River side or on the side known as the Corrib.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.
I can find no specific direction on the files of the Office of Public Works in May of 1952, or at any other time, that the survey of the Corrib catchment should not be completed.
A direction was given in that month, however, that four engineers—not a full survey party—who became available should be sent to augment the depleted survey staff on the Moy catchment.
The reasons for the direction are not recorded. On the change of Government, in 1951, Mr. Beegan, Parliamentary Secretary at the time, did not change the decision, taken by his predecessor in office, to proceed with the Corrib-Clare sub-catchment, which did not include the Black River.
How can the Parliamentary Secretary account for the statement of his predecessor, the late Deputy Beegan, on 13th July, 1955, here in this House? Deputy Beegan said that he, and he alone, was responsible, and he gloried in the fact that he was responsible. Could I have a reply to that question, Sir? I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary is badly advised in this matter.
I take it the Deputy is not quoting from the speech made at the time?
It is here, if the Parliamentary Secretary wants it.
The position in regard to the Corrib-Clare catchment, which seems to crop up frequently, is that when Deputy Donnellan was Parliamentary Secretary at some stage, in order to get the work going in his time, he decided to divide the catchment and get on with half of it. It is rather too much for him to expect that, having been facilitated by the carrying out of work on his catchment, the whole survey staff should now be brought back from other jobs to proceed with the second portion, in view of the decision he took to expedite the scheme for his own purposes.
That was the reason for Deputy Beegan's decision?
Deputy Beegan found that the decision to carry on the survey upset the whole organisation.
Where did he get the survey party he sent to the Moy?
A very definite and necessary decision has been taken that the priority list will not be further juggled with, as was done at that time.
Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to have said that if it had not been for the decision to go ahead expeditiously with the Corrib-Clare catchment, it could not have been reached at all in that time?
No. It would have been a few years more.
It could not have been done properly.
The Minister for Defence, as usual, does not know what he is talking about; the Parliamentary Secretary does.
If the full catchment area had been allowed to go ahead as originally proposed, it would have been undertaken in due course as the whole catchment, but somebody was anxious to get it started faster than necessary.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say how long "in due course" would be?
Ten years.
Five years was in the report I saw.
I am giving only my opinion, but I believe the concentration of the survey staff on one portion rather upset the other projects and put work on the sub-catchment of the Corrib-Clare into arrears.
Since the Parliamentary Secretary has admitted that it was Deputy Beegan who changed the survey party, I shall not raise this matter on the Adjournment. I have no need to. Would the Parliamentary Secretary, however, put it in big letters and send it to Deputy Killilea?
And we will show the line the Deputy drew across the map.
