Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 May 1960

Vol. 181 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 8—Office of Public Works (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy T. Lynch).

Mr. Collins

I intervened in this debate for the purpose of taking advantage of the concluding statement of the Parliamentary Secretary. He stated that his was a factual statement and that if Deputies wished him to elucidate any matters he would be only too glad to do so. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can give me information as to when operations will commence on the drainage of the Deale. About two years ago a survey was carried out and I am satisfied that it was completed. The scheme is still in the hands of the Office of Public Works. We are anxious to get a clear indication as to when work will commence in the area. Up to now it has been in the pigeon holes of the Office of Public Works and has not been exhibited or advertised.

I should also like to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that, in regard to the priority list compiled by the Drainage Commission, the people in county Limerick are at a loss to understand why the Rivers Deale and Maigue were relegated to 11th or 14th place. We may not, of course, question their judgment in that matter but other catchment areas that had not the same claim have been drained. There is no comparison between the catchment areas of the Moy, the Corrib, the Brosna and those of the Deale and the Maigue. There would be some similarity between the Feale, the Deale and the Maigue but I cannot see that there would be any comparison between the areas already drained and the areas to which I have referred. In the catchment area of the Deale there is the finest land in Munster, the average valuation of which would be about £30 an acre. The average valuation per acre in the Maigue catchment area would be about the same.

The great amount of money spent over the years on land reclamation is much appreciated. It was expended for the sole purpose of improving the land and bringing the maximum amount of land into production. In the catchment areas of the Deale and the Maigue there is land which is second to none in the world but which has been subject to severe flooding down the years. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is replying, to assure me, so as to satisfy the people in my constituency, that there was not any fiddling within the last nine or ten years with the priority list. I do not believe there was, except in one case which was brought to my notice.

In reply to a Parliamentary Question which I asked about eight or nine months ago, the Parliamentary Secretary assured me that the survey of the Maigue would be undertaken without any undue delay. When he is replying, I should like him to give me some clear indication as to when that survey will commence. These are the two points I wished to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like him to elaborate further and to give more information concerning these schemes.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to another type of drainage which is being transferred from the Department of Local Government under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. He said that for want of a better name he would classify this scheme under the heading "intermediate rivers". By that, he meant small independent catchments with clear outfalls which were not included in the original lists of the other general schemes. I should like to know what progress, if any, has been made in implementing this scheme of intermediate rivers, side by side with the major and minor catchment schemes already listed.

Deputies from West Limerick are very interested in an intermediate scheme at Mellon and Pallaskenry which very seriously affects the agricultural activities and productivity of many farmers in that area. This is quite independent of the catchment area of the Deale and the Maigue. It is classified as having a separate outfall into the river Shannon. We have a unified opinion and unified action on that scheme. In West Limerick, we are very proud of it and Deputy Jones, Deputy Ó Briain and I have already submitted to the Department that this scheme should be examined at the earliest possible moment. It is very important.

There is one other point I should like to bring home to the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that there are 28 major catchment area schemes. He said:

Of the 28 major catchments, schemes for three have been completed, works are in progress in three others, and seven more are at various stages of survey and design. Two minor schemes have been finished, one is in hands and four are at the survey or design stage.

I know that Rome was not built in a day but surely to goodness the Office of Public Works has had well-oiled machinery to put the 1945 Drainage Act into operation since 1950, and it is not very creditable that from 1950 —ten years ago—to 1960, only three major catchment areas have been drained. Three have been completed; three more are in progress; and seven are at various stages of survey and design. Only two minor schemes have been finished; one is in hands; and four are at the survey or design stage. I believe that more could and should have been done over the years with regard to arterial drainage.

I should also like to ask since the implementation of the land rehabilitation scheme, or the Land Project as it is called, what amount of State money, of the taxpayers' money, has been spent since 1950 primarily and solely for the purpose of improving agricultural land. The 1945 Act is second to none in any democratic European country. We should be proud of the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, but still we hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, in introducing this Vote, that only three major catchment areas have been drained. I do not want to repeat myself—repetition is not allowed—but I know a tremendous amount of money has been spent under the headings I have mentioned, and still in the heart of the Golden Vale in county Limerick, the lands of the best dairy farmers in the world—they are second to none—are still subject to flooding. I should like to emphasise again that there is a feeling abroad in Limerick— I am sure it is not correct—that there was some fiddling or interference with the order of priority and when the Parliamentary Secretary is replying I should like him to clarify the position in that respect.

I have already mentioned the intermediate rivers which have been handed over to the Office of Public Works now from the Department of Local Government. Four is the number mentioned in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement as the number of schemes about to be put into operation in 1960. To my mind, more schemes are necessary for the success of the land reclamation scheme as a whole because several schemes are held up due to lack of outfall where such rivers need to be drained in order to add to the value and the productivity of the land.

There is, also, to my mind, undue delay in the Office of Public Works. I was told some time ago that the Office of Public Works is a bullet-proof machine. If that is so, it is the duty of every Deputy to keep sniping at that bullet-proof machine to ensure that what could be done and should be done will be done as expeditiously as possible. I know a lot of blame is directed at the Office of Public Works which I feel is unjustified, but, during the years I have been here—ten or 12 or some such period—I have had personal experience of delays which I thought should not have been so prolonged.

I know if we had to face another emergency in this country how quickly we could gear up every Department— the Office of Public Works, Defence and all the other Departments—to deal with whatever menace or emergency faced us. One thing will always stand to the credit of the Office of Public Works, that is, that their one fundamental idea—and they are probably right to some extent—is that they will not make a mistake, but they are painfully slow in arriving at decisions and painfully slow in other matters and we as the representatives of the people in a democratic Parliament would like to see them going ahead faster.

As I said, there is a feeling that the Office of Public Works is a bullet-proof machine and that they work as they like. Some Deputies are of the opinion that they can make very little headway with that Office. I cannot say that. I find they are a bit slow in arriving at decisions in many cases. There are schemes for schools in West Limerick before the Office at the moment, and I should like to see them expedited as much as possible.

I do not wish to hold up the Parliamentary Secretary any longer, but I should like him to clear up the point about the priority placing of the River Deale, and I should like to hear him say that it was not interfered with by No. So-and-So on the list. That scheme should be put into operation as quickly as possible. Apart from its value to the dairy farmers of the area, it would be of immense help to the whole country. I further ask him to give me some clear indication as to when the survey of the Maigue catchment areas will be undertaken.

Mr. Dillon

I am at somewhat of a loss to understand why Deputy Collins describes the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act as the greatest instrument of democratic legislation in Europe since the net result is that we have only got three arterial drainage areas done in the past 15 years.

Mr. Collins

On a point of explanation, I meant the basis of the 1945 Arterial Drainage Act was as good as there is in any country in the world.

Mr. Dillon

I do not know anything about the basis. The basis can be beautiful but it is the superstructure I am concerned with. You can have a lovely basis if you like, but if you never build anything on it, it is a waste of time and public money. I find myself more in sympathy with Deputy Collins when he deplores the slow and awkward procedure for getting any drainage work done. It is something for which we have to rebuke ourselves, that in 15 years we have only three catchment areas dealt with, at a time when rural unemployment has been very acute, with thousands leaving the land and when any work we could provide in rural Ireland would be very valuable. Here there appears to me to be highly remunerative work at which a great number of people could have been profitably employed and the drift from the land very materially reduced.

I tried to get a great deal more drainage work done when I had some voice in the matter. One of the places the survey for which was pigeon-holed when the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor took office was the River Dromore in county Monaghan. I believe he has a complete survey of that river in his office. All he has to do is to blow the whistle and the drainage on that catchment could proceed forthwith. I do not know why he does not do it. I cannot claim that it is situate in rich and fertile land as is the river to which Deputy Collins referred. It is not. It is situate in relatively poor land where the farmers are small farmers with very small holdings and the flooding of their holdings constitutes an annual disaster for them. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that he is not content with the beautiful foundations but is resolved to build a handsome superstructure and that part of that superstructure will consist of the drainage of the Dromore river in Monaghan. That concession to the small farmers of Monaghan is long overdue. However, I do not want to challenge the Parliamentary Secretary without publicly recording what I know, too, is correct.

I directed the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to an ancient monument which for many years was neglected and which I thought stood in very real danger. To his credit, the matter was immediately taken up with the appropriate division of his Department, the monument was scheduled and is now under protection. I refer to the ancient crowning place of the O'Connors in Roscommon which I think was largely lost sight of. It is now scheduled as an ancient monument and will be given a measure of protection. The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to get credit for that.

Mr. J. Brennan

What about the clock?

Mr. Dillon

That is another matter. It is the story of the clock on Government Buildings, three faces of which have been going for the past 20 years and the fourth face of which has been at 12 o'clock for 20 years. I ventured to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to that anomaly. I am obliged to record that, within a month—after, I understand, a sanguinary struggle within the Office of Public Works which involved several other Departments—the matter was rectified and the fourth face of the clock is now recording. That is something on which I must heartily congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Office of Public Works.

I want seriously to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that to the people of County Monaghan the Dromore river is a very urgent matter. It is one which I think he ought to look into and attend to.

I come now to the question of the National Monuments Grants. I think many people do not fully understand what is happening. Every other country in the world is intensely solicitous to preserve its own national monuments which stretch back into the early history of the nation. Few people in this country realise that, archaeologically, it is estimated that this is the richest country in Europe and that no adequate survey has ever been made of it.

When I was in the Department of Agriculture I wanted to get an aerial survey made of the whole country primarily to facilitate the design of drainage works but, incidentally, to make available to the National Monuments Branch of the Office of Public Work an aerial survey of our archaeological remains. I speak from memory here, but the Parliamentary Secretary can check what I say. I got a test survey done on Croghan in County Roscommon. If you take what is called the peripatetic survey of the Ordnance Survey you will find marked on it about seven archaeological sites in the Croghan area. When we made the aerial survey, we found revealed I think 40 archaeological sites.

The great danger is that by inadvertence many of these sites will be extinguished by ordinary agricultural operations. The only thing that has saved Croghan so long— and Croghan may be a more important site than Tara—is that a variety of circumstances has created a situation in which that part of Roscommon has largely been a sheep walk for many years. However, as the sheep walks are divided up into economic holdings for small farmers, tillage operations will tend more and more to encroach upon that archaeological area and a great deal of very treasured history may disappear unrecorded.

The National Monuments Branch of the Office of Public Works has at its disposal each year a sum of £6,000. With that amount, it is utterly impossible to make any impression whatever on the volume of work that ought to be done if we are to do it before the march of time extinguishes these remains. It is interesting to observe that in the staff provided for the National Monuments Branch there is one archaeologist (unestablished). His remuneration amounts to £1,000 a year without pension.

Quite apart from the archaeological remains of the kind I have described at Croghan, there are situated all over the country a number of old abbeys, castles and other early buildings associated with the pre-Norman period in this country. There is grave danger that these will disappear. I know of one case in my experience, though this was not pre-Norman but post-Norman, where the castle of the O'Garas, in which the Annals of the Four Masters were largely written, very nearly disappeared. It was being rapidly carted away and incorporated in cow houses and walls and being broken up and spread on the roads until we eventually succeeded in getting it scheduled under the appropriate Act. It is now a protected monument but before that was done very material damage had been done to it.

I make the case on the merits of preserving these buildings and archaeological remains for our own benefit but if that argument is not sufficient to carry conviction to the Minister for Finance to the point of persuading him to make sufficient money available, a powerful case could be made from the point of view of tourist revenue. If you bring a group of French people, a group of Spaniards or a group of Americans to this country and you show them the Norman remains of which there are a good many in the form of old castles and so forth, you will frequently hear them ask the question: "Are there no archaeological remains of buildings related to the period prior to the Norman invasion of this country?"

Unfortunately, history has it to tell that there are very few such left because during the seven centuries of the struggle in this country most of the pre-Norman structures disappeared but there are some, and some of great beauty such as those at Cashel. Cashel happens to be a great assembly of such remains but scattered all over the country there are others and it is simply not physically possible for the staff of the National Monuments Branch of the Office of Public Works with the resources available to them to survey them, much less to protect them.

I want to urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that out of a Vote of £634,550 we ought to be able to find more than £6,000 for the protection of a national treasure which is being annually dissipated. The tragedy of it is that, once dissipated, nothing can bring it back. The Parliamentary Secretary already has a voluntary body to assist him called, I think, the National Monuments Advisory Council. I am prepared to leave in their hands the aesthetic question of whether we ought to put roofs on some of those old buildings or whether we ought to take restorative measures to protect them from further deterioration. There can be valid arguments on both sides to that question. Many European countries do not hesitate to carry out certain restoration work on ancient buildings of that character which threaten to disintegrate, even to the point of putting a new roof on them. Others hold the view that it is aesthetically wrong to restore an ancient building of that kind, because it destroys the integrity of its original perfection. I leave that to be determined by the Advisory Body at the Minister's disposal.

I suggest that it would reflect credit on his own name if he woke up the Treasury to the fact that £6,000 out of £635,000 is an altogether inappropriate provision for this important work. If he cannot make more money available purely on the grounds of national interest or on aesthetic considerations, I think there is an important point to be made in connection with the tourist traffic to this country which expects to find, and ought to be able to find, the archaeological architectural remains of the pre-Norman period in this country which they can visit and admire.

Therefore, I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that not only should these buildings be protected, preserved and, if necessary, in some measure restored to protect them from further disintegration, but that they should be marked with some modest panel which would indicate their history and their significance. I remember raising this question here ten years ago. I made some progress and so I do not hesitate to raise the matter again.

If you go to the United States of America, which has a very much shorter history than we have, and if you visit Gettysburg you will find that every incident of the battle of Gettysburg is marked on the battlefield today by artistically designed plaques which tell shortly the story of Piggot's Charge, where it began and where it crumbled; the story of the defence on the ridge and the story of where the Generals commanding the rivals had their headquarters. In fact, with the assistance of these plaques you could reconstruct for yourself the whole story of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Thousands and thousands of people go there to see that scene and to walk over the site of these incidents famous in the history of the United States of America. Of course, millions do not go. Many people are not interested in those kinds of things but I think that the thousands and thousands who do go and want to go ought to be catered for. We have a good many amenities in this country for tourists but we should not hesitate to exploit all of them. It may be that only a relatively small percentage of the tourists coming here will be interested in architecture or archaeology but we ought to be able to tell the world what is unquestionably true, that, archaeologically, this is the richest island in Europe. How many people know that? How many of our own people know it?

To me the tragedy of it is that we are letting this archaeological treasure-house disintegrate. I suppose this was borne in on me in particular because I organised the Land Rehabilitation Project. The first thing I did when I set that on foot was to appoint an archaeologist to the project because I foresaw the danger of archaeological sites being destroyed. We had several such incidents where we would have an archaeological survey and had to review programmes of work in contemplation because they would destroy archaeological remains. In many cases it was sufficient to go to the site to record what was there and, if it was not of enduring interest, to file the report made by the archaeologist and go on with the work.

You frequently found something which you thought was an important archaeological site when it was, in fact, no more than the foundations of a fourteenth century or fifteenth century house. If you found yourself entering a place of prehistoric origin an entirely different procedure had to be adopted. That is not sufficient. That was simply preserving those sites which stood in immediate peril. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to consider doing a great deal more and that is to make available to this section of his Department sufficient sums of money (1) to enable them to survey the archaeological sites more effectively than they have been surveyed, (2) to protect the architectural and archaeological sites of which they have notice and (3) to mark them with some kind of informative plaque and carry out such restoration work as may be requisite to prevent their further deterioration.

That is a specific task which I ask him to undertake. Over and above it there is an urgent necessity that an aerial survey of the country should be made for archaeological purposes. I believe he would find a sympathetic reaction both in the Department of Defence and in the Department of Agriculture for such a survey, but what is everybody's business is nobody's business. I pressed that very strongly and I think the Parliamentary Secretary will find either in the Board of Works or in the Department of Agriculture draft plans for such a survey.

At the time I believe the Department of Defence took exception. They alleged they were taking exception on the highest strategic grounds. I think the real reason was that they could not get the Department of Finance to sanction the purchase of planes which they wanted and they stuck in their heels and said that either the Department of Defence or the Department of Agriculture would have to do the survey as it would not be strategically safe to let anybody outside the country do it. That, I think, was the real reason; they wanted the planes, the Department of Finance would not sanction their purchase and they thought it was a good way of putting on the screws. I do not care a fiddle-de-dee who conducts the survey but I think if the Parliamentary Secretary adopted this plan it would have excellent results.

If he wants confirmation of the survey and of the riches that could be revealed in the pilot scheme which we did at Cong, he will find the relative papers, maps and markings in the Department of Agriculture, where I know them to be, and if he does not know in which section of the Department they are I can tell him that they are in the Land Project Division in Upper Merrion Street. It might interest him to look further and to see the marvellous differences between what is revealed by an aerial survey and a peripatetic survey.

I praise the Parliamentary Secretary for his diligence in attending to the O'Connor site and the clock, and I deplore his indolence in dealing with the Dromore River in the County Monaghan. I await his performance in respect of the matters I have mentioned in relation to the National Monuments Branch of the Board of Works before passing a verdict on his merits or demerits as a Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. MacCarthy

We all deplore the flight from the land about which Deputies repeatedly speak. Public men in various parts of the country are stressing that national loss, but, whilst we are awaiting a solution or a part solution of that problem by the establishment here and there of industries to provide some employment, we have this problem of drainage at our very doors awaiting solution. I do not think half enough is being done in that direction and what is being done is far too slow. I can well understand the delay at times in dealing with large catchment areas, but surely there are smaller primary rivers, or intermediate rivers as they are called, which do not require such extensive surveys and which could be more easily tackled even locally because the suitable machinery is now there, which was not the case before. In addition, the workers are there if there is any hope of getting steady employment on these projects.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to devote—as I think it is his intention—much of his energy and all the resources of his Department towards dealing with that work. In every part of the country something can be done. It is no credit to us as a nation that we have only three or four large projects in progress on the land because even though the country may be considered small, when one travels around, one finds that there is a fair share of it. There is far too much waste of marginal land which is being left without attention. It is too costly a matter for the people concerned to tackle but if it were tackled it would have a splendid result. These lands would be made fertile and the farms along these rivers would become more economic, consequently giving encouragement to the people who are living along them to remain there and work because their efforts would be more profitable. This land is often rough grazing land for part of the year and flooded, needlessly I would say, at other parts of the year because we are too slow to take on these minor drainage schemes, as I would call them.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of roads made by the Board of Works for utility purposes and then left there. The county council will not undertake to maintain them because they are too narrow in some cases to meet the council's engineering requirements. It is a waste of public money to make these roads and then leave them without attention. There are too many of them all over the country and that type of road work should be integrated. Now that the county councils have gone ahead pretty quickly with the improvement of the roads, I think it time that there should be more co-ordination and that some of their efforts should be devoted towards providing better facilities for say three or four farmers or cottiers in particular pockets where there are not link roads and where their problems will never be dealt with unless there is some co-operation and co-ordination in that regard.

The next point with which I should like to deal is the matter of schools. Good progress is being made in this regard, but it amazes me when I consider the period it takes from the time the erection of a new school, or the repair of an old school, is contemplated until there is a start made on the work. Sometimes things take so long that the health of the pupils is endangered. I know of a school in my constituency where the delays have been so long that the primitive toilets which they have there have had to be closed.

The public interest demands speedier attention to these matters. Sometimes a new school is contemplated, say for girls and reconstruction of the old one for boys. Here again, we have the question of co-operation of the local health authority with the schools authorities in getting water to the schools or at least as far as the school grounds and the installation of these facilities which in these modern days are regarded as essential.

Deputy Dillon has mentioned national monuments. I am with him whole-heartedly in the matter he brought to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary, because undoubtedly some of these old castles and monuments will disappear if they do not get attention. Were it not for their attraction to tourists, perhaps, they would not be counted amongst our major problems, but, at the same time, it means the loss of a great national asset if we do not take prompt action. A survey of these monuments was made by the Irish Tourist Association some years ago. It might have been a superficial survey, but at least these monuments are recorded and the survey would show those that require immediate attention and those that are most valuable as a tourist attraction.

These are three or four matters that I want to bring before the Parliamentary Secretary now that he is new in the Board of Works. He will make his mark there and will do something of real value to the country if he undertakes what I have suggested and, as a result, the national economy will benefit and the services that the Board of Works can give in regard to public buildings and schools and so on will be something of real advantage to the rising generation.

Mr. Blowick

I agree fully with the previous speaker about arterial drainage and about the urgency of draining some of the smaller rivers. The officials of the Board of Works who have carried out arterial drainage so far have much to be proud of because the work they have done is stupendous and excellently carried out. Anyone who sees it and knows the difficulties and problems that faced them must take off his hat to them especially when we consider that we are a very young nation and that most of the engineers had no chance of gaining experience of big works in other countries. The interest they have taken and the high standard of the jobs they have so far executed give great hope for the future in spite of the gloomy views of some people about the outlook for the country.

While it is understandable—and correct—that bigger schemes should go ahead first, such as those that have been completed and those being undertaken at present, still, as Deputy MacCarthy has pointed out, some of the smaller rivers are causing great havoc especially to small farmers whose lands are being flooded each year. These people suffer an annual blow or even disaster when their lands are flooded. In the case of the small farmer of say 25, 30 or 35 acres, if five or six acres are flooded in the winter or subject to periodic flooding the whole year round—as happens in many cases—that is a serious drawback and loss. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Works can do an immense amount of good by arterial drainage and by draining the small rivers.

I put these matters to him for consideration; it might be possible for the Board of Works to undertake some of the rivers that would not cost such a lot to do. I have in mind a particular case with which the Parliamentary Secretary is not perhaps familiar. I am referring to the Carrowbeg river that flows through Westport. Under the Local Authorities (Works) Act a very good job was done on part of it, but part was left undone and that has spoiled the whole effect. While talking of the drainage of smaller rivers, I do not envisage any huge scheme of deep cuttings such as have proved necessary in the Corrib and are proving necessary in the Moy but deepening and clearing with ordinary dragline dredgers. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should look into that. I am not asking him to undertake all the rivers at once but if it were possible for the Board to make a rough and ready survey to find out exactly which of the smaller rivers are doing the most damage, I think these could be undertaken in conjunction with the bigger schemes and without taking away the engineers engaged on the bigger schemes at present. If the Parliamentary Secretary did that he would do an immense amount of good.

We cannot help hearing complaints and grumbles from those whose lands are being flooded and who happen to be in the catchment area of a small river. They know that there are 101 or 107 catchment areas all over the country, big and small, and only three of these, as the previous speaker pointed out, have been completed and only three or four have got under way since the passing of the Arterial Drainage Act of 1945. It is very hard to blame those who grumble when they can see very little hope that, in the lifetime of even the very youngest of them, arterial drainage would come their way.

The Parliamentary Secretary will probably tell me when replying that it is not easy to get money for all these schemes but this year, if I read the book of Estimates correctly, I see that £640,000 is all that is provided for arterial drainage under subhead J (2).

Mr. J. Brennan

Construction Works and Maintenance are under separate heads.

Mr. Blowick

No, I am talking of Construction. I take it Construction is what is covered in regard to the Corrib-Clare, the Maine, Inny, Moy, etc. That is not a very big expenditure for such important work. I am not going to blame the Parliamentary Secretary or bring any acrimony into the debate—it would not do any good —but the immense amount of good that arterial drainage does and the employment provided by it, particularly in rural Ireland, I think are two powerful arguments with which the Parliamentary Secretary can tackle his colleague, the Minister for Finance, and get money out of him by fair means or foul, if necessary at the point of the gun. I suggest it is the best possible way in which money can be spent. Much money is very well and usefully spent under these Votes but none better than in arterial drainage. I dare say many arguments and, I am afraid, a lot of nonsense, have been put forward by interests opposed to arterial drainage for selfish or other reasons that I find it hard to understand but I think I know the Parliamentary Secretary well enough to have confidence in him that he will not be caught by chaff of that kind.

I want to repeat that £640,000 is rather small expenditure and if it could be expended to cover some of the smaller rivers it would do a great deal of good. I am not suggesting a major job. Let us take the Carrowbeg which flows through Westport. With the availability of the engineers and machinery from the Board of Works now, a few thousand pounds would make an excellent job of that river and, in the process, would relieve up to 400 or 500 farms of flooding. The Newport river is another. Still another is the Annies River which flows into Lough Carra. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary will be receiving a deputation shortly in regard to that. It is really part of the Corrib catchment area. Indeed, if the Parliamentary Secretary tackles some of the small rivers he will do very useful work.

I want to touch now on maintenance charges following on arterial drainage. I do not think it is fair to put these charges on to the ratepayers. The drainage of the Moy started a short time ago. That scheme will do an immense amount of good where Mayo is concerned, some good where Roscommon is concerned, and a great deal of good where Sligo is concerned. When the work is completed in five, six or seven years' time the cost of maintenance will fall on the ratepayers of county Mayo. People who will derive no benefit from this scheme will have to pay 3/- or 4/- in the £ for maintenance.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that a statutory provision?

Mr. J. Brennan

It is.

Mr. Blowick

Surely I am entitled to bring to the notice of the Government something I regard as an unfair statutory provision? I have no business going out into Kildare Street and shouting in through the gates that it is an unfair provision.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy knows that legislation may not be advocated on an Estimate.

Mr. Blowick

I am not concerned about legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

If there is statutory provision for maintenance and, under that statutory provision, certain people will be called upon to meet maintenance charges, and the Deputy suggests they should not be so mulcted, surely he is suggesting a change in legislation?

Mr. Blowick

I am referring to subhead L. 7 where there is a provision of £52,000 in respect of arterial drainage.

An Ceann Comhairle

That may be, but nevertheless legislation may not be advocated and legislation would obviously have to be introduced in order to bring about a change.

Mr. Blowick

I am not so sure that legislation would have to be introduced.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary tells us this is a statutory provision.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is provided for in the 1945 Act.

Mr. Blowick

Has the Minister for Finance no function in coming to his relief in this matter?

Mr. J. Brennan

It would need an amending Bill to bring about the change advocated by the Deputy.

Mr. Blowick

Cannot the Minister for Finance relieve the burden on the county council by way of grant?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Of course he can.

Mr. J. Brennan

I am not too sure about that. I know there is a specific statutory provision.

Mr. Blowick

I am not positive either, but I was here when the Bill was being piloted through the House. The Minister's predecessor, the Minister for Agriculture now, gave such an assurance to Deputies who questioned him on this very point. That is the reason I raise it now.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy raises it to focus attention on the Act. The Deputy is not advocating anything.

Mr. Blowick

Rural improvement schemes are doing very good work, but I have two minor complaints. First of all, contributors should get first preference. There is a regulation, probably imposed by the Parliamentary Secretary's colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, that only men from the employment exchange can be employed. I do not think that regulation is fair. It is holding up schemes and it is preventing people from availing of schemes because they resent paying a contribution——

Mr. J. Brennan

That is Vote 10. We are discussing Votes 8 and 9 only.

Mr. Blowick

I thought the Taoiseach said Votes 8, 9 and 10.

Mr. J. Brennan

Vote 10 has not been moved yet. The Deputy will have an opportunity later.

Mr. Blowick

Very good. I shall have more to say on that later. Deputy Dillon referred to monuments. I endorse everything he said. It is a pity that some of the more important historical monuments were allowed to fall into decay and be pulled down by people who did not appreciate their value. In the past superstition—to use the local word, "pishrogue"—saved a good many of these monuments. Indeed, this superstition had a beneficial effect from that point of view. Probably these "pishrogues" were first mooted by those who were anxious to save these old monuments. I agree with Deputy Dillon that in many cases valuable archaeological sites were destroyed because the people did not understand their value. In many cases these are a nuisance from a farming point of view, just as great a nuisance as the E.S.B. poles and pylons. A farmer anxious to improve his land would naturally remove these monuments, and he can scarcely be blamed for tidying up the place. The Board of Works has a duty, however, to preserve our important monuments. I agree fully with Deputy Dillon in that.

Mr. Sherwin

The first matter with which I want to deal is the need for an amplification system in this House. I have mentioned that matter a few times in the past year. The Board of Works is arranging for the provision of an intercom. system. They should simultaneously take steps to provide amplification. Some people admittedly can be heard outside on the road. There are others who cannot be heard at all, especially when the House is full. Even the Taoiseach sometimes cannot be heard when he whispers to the Ceann Comhairle. We, on these benches, have to ask one another what he has said. I know the Press find it very difficult to hear. I see the Press reporters cocking their ears to try to catch what is being said. There should be some amplication, if only for those who are known to have low-pitched voices.

There should be amplification on the Front Bench so that certain Ministers who have very low-pitched voices could be clearly heard. What is said here should be heard by everybody, including visitors. Visitors like to hear the debate. On the occasion on which I mentioned this matter before the Press commented on it and said it would be an excellent idea. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the matter.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is already under consideration.

Mr. Sherwin

I am glad to hear it. It might not be a bad idea if we had television too. When we have our own television, there will be occasions on which the House will be televised, special occasions like the Budget, Question Time and important speeches by the Taoiseach. It might not be a bad idea if the public got to know the empty Houses we have here. It might bring members in in case they might lose a few votes through being absent.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is not easy being everywhere.

Mr. Sherwin

I agree it is not.

Mr. J. Brennan

There is plenty of work to be done outside, too.

Mr. Sherwin

I know, but Deputies get paid to work here as well as outside. I could be outside also, but I am here. I could be outside and not bother my head about here.

With regard to schools, I was speaking to Monsignor Glennon last year and I told him I intended to mention the need for schools in Finglas. He said: "Oh, do not; they are doing very well." He was very pleased with the construction of schools in Finglas area. At least 500 children must still come into town to school because there is no room for them in Finglas. The parents complain that they cannot afford the bus fares and quite a number of children miss school because their parents have not got the necessary sixpence bus fare. One man who had two little girls going to Cabra told me that in dark winter evenings he was a bit nervous because his girls had to cross lonely roads to get from Cabra to Finglas and the journey was too far for his wife to travel every day. Anyway there is still need for another school in Finglas.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The provision of schools is a matter for the Minister for Education, not for the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Sherwin

The Parliamentary Secretary's Department builds the schools.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for the erection of the schools.

Mr. Sherwin

In that case I shall ask the Minister for Education. The Corporation proposes to build another 350 houses and there will be no school accommodation for the children of the people who go to live there.

The rivers in this city do not flood agricultural land so it is not the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary but there have been complaints —which have been mentioned by another Deputy—of flooding due to the overflow of the rivers from outside the city area. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give that some thought. I note that £32,000 is being provided to build gates for hangars. They must be "some" gates. The Minister is responsible for military structures, barracks, and so forth, and we hear a great deal about the need for civil defence, but we never hear any talk about the building of shelters.

Deputy Dillon spoke at length on the subject of the Garden of Remembrance, and seems to be very interested in the past. He was wondering why we have done nothing about reconstructing famous battlefields as an attraction for tourists. He mentioned Gettysburg. There is a much better construction of that type, that of the Battle of Waterloo in Belgium. He suggested we should try to save monuments of the pre-Norman era. I do not know if there is anything worthwhile or anything at all of the pre-Norman era. As far as I can judge from my little knowledge or study, the Irish of that period were not townspeople at all. They lived in the country on hills such as the Hill of Tara. They built no monuments or castles. They had only old mud homes of some sort. They certainly did not use stone and that is why there is nothing, certainly nothing of the Norman period, that can be saved. It was the Danes who first built stone structures around Dublin and then the Normans continued to hold the country against the Irish, but the Irish themselves built nothing worthwhile.

From the historic point of view and that of tourism, something should be done in that direction. It is the great spectacle of St. Peter's, the Forum, and so on, that brings so many visitors to Rome. The Italians make a fortune out of them. Even in Paris there is a never-ending flow of people into such places as Napoleon's Tomb; they pay in and the proceeds go to the Old Soldiers' Fund. Westminster Abbey is another place of interest. Whenever I go abroad, which is not often, I always visit these places.

There are a few episodes in our history which are worth bringing into the limelight. We seldom did anything decisive but the Battle of Clontarf was decisive. We defeated the Danes who were trying to muscle in here. Then we had the Boyne and Aughrim. We had great international figures here such as St. Ruth from France, Schomberg from Germany and William of Orange. English people and others would have read at least a little about those episodes and they might be interested in seeing some memorial created around such episodes.

I am wondering what will be the character of the Garden of Remembrance for which £20,000 is being provided. I have seen many plaques around this town, puny things which are seen only when they are erected and then forgotten. They are so small that it is a strain to see the inscription on them. Although the Custom House can be seen in the distance, one has to go inside to find out the history attached to it. The structure may be very impressive but the visitor would not know it was associated with any great military feat. As regards the old days in Wexford, you see a man depicted with a pike and you know he must have been a soldier. I hope the Garden of Remembrance will be a worthy memorial, not just a piece of concrete with a few names.

We ought to have something like Westminster Abbey or the Triumphal Arch in Paris, something that people will be interested in seeing and will even pay to see, something that will inspire people and of which people will be aware in a thousand years from now. As soon as this generation has passed the monuments, stone structures and little plaques we put up will have been forgotten. We ought, for instance, to have some kind of sepulchre like Napoleon's Tomb in which the remains of Wolfe Tone, Collins and Brugha could be interred and which could inspire people. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, to provide something spectacular, something that tourists will consider worth visiting.

I should like to mention the Wellington Monument. Last year I noticed that some big lumps of bronze were missing from it. I do not know whether they have been replaced. If it is the Parliamentary Secretary's responsibility to preserve those monuments, I would ask him to have it inspected. I suppose someone was trying to "pinch" the bronze.

An employee of the Board of Works asked me to mention this point. He said that most of the work of the Board is handed out to contractors and that boys are engaged and dismissed when they reach 18. Those boys get only about £2 per week, whereas the Union wage for boys of that age is £3. They are dismissed because they would have to be paid double the wage. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to inquire into that. It is not fair to give those boys such small wages and then dismiss them. I was also asked to inquire from the Parliamentary Secretary if there was any chance that those boys could be given some official status or given the opportunity of being employed under the Board itself. I have nothing more to add; and as I am not a country Deputy I shall not talk about drainage.

Mr. Loughman

I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of a promise which a deputation from Tipperary, Waterford, and Kilkenny County Councils received from the Minister concerning the start of the survey of the Suir catchment area. We were promised it would be started this year. I wish to remind him of that promise and hope it will be honoured.

I rise particularly to support the plea made by Deputy Dillon for the taking of some greater steps by the Government in connection with the preservation of our monuments, in particular our ancient monuments. I am afraid that, notwithstanding the great knowledge of Deputy Sherwin, I am prepared to accept the statement of Deputy Dillon that this country has a greater store of ancient monuments and antiquities worth preserving than any country in Europe. I think the treatment we mete out to these monuments throughout the country is absolutely deplorable. Some monuments and buildings erected over a thousand years ago, or even more, are being neglected, and as time passes they will disappear completely. I believe that but for superstition connected with the raths scattered throughout the country not one of them would be left today. Since we do set a high value on ancient things, we should do everything in our power to preserve remains of that nature. The fact that we are spending only £6,000 per annum on our ancient monuments is absolutely disgraceful. Even ten times that sum——

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy is like the previous speaker. He is confusing the salaries for the small staff with the overall figure for the preservation of monuments.

Mr. Loughman

I am sorry. I was taking the figures from the previous speaker. However, from my own knowledge I see very little spent at all. That is the reason I was prepared to accept that figure. This will give you an idea of what I mean by preserving the history of the country. I know of a bridge, a very big bridge, which was erected first in the year 1360, which was rebuilt in the year 1660 and which, about seven or eight years ago, underwent a form of reconstruction. A building on the centre arch was demolished and the coping stones on both sides of the bridge were replaced with concrete. For a monument as old as that bridge, I think that was a disgrace to the people of Ireland and particularly to whoever was responsible for carrying out work of that description. I regarded it as vandalism and I think so still. Nothing ancient in the country should be touched without having the most extensive inquiries made to see whether it should be replaced, reconditioned or destroyed. I rise principally to press on the Parliamentary Secretary the desirability of doing everything possible, and even going to the limits as far as expenditure is concerned, to preserve for future generations what has been handed down to this generation from the dim and distant past.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I was interested in the remarks of Deputy Sherwin relative to our public monuments and our history in this country. It is well to remember, though, that other countries have monuments that commemorate great victories and other great national incidents, whereas our history has been entirely different. Our history has been one of a struggle for our independence. Therefore, we cannot show monuments of great victories but we can show that we have fought unceasingly down the ages to secure our freedom. We can put up monuments to people to commemorate the many acts of gallantry and the many lives that have been sacrificed in this country.

That brings me to the Garden of Remembrance. The Parliamentary Secretary purposely in his statement just made a brief statistical survey of everything covered by his Department and indicated that he would reply to the points raised. The point I want to raise about the Garden of Remembrance is this. I take it that this Garden will cover the whole period of Irish history. This is something new in this country and it should cover the entire past, as far back as one can remember, to honour and commemorate all those who have contributed so much to Ireland. In this Garden of Remembrance we shall be creating something not only for our own generation but for the generations that come after us. It is for that purpose I want to raise a small point. I hope this Garden of Remembrance—there is nothing derogatory in the remarks I intend to make —will not be devoted only to the period of history from 1916 on, that it will go right back over the past and pay tribute to all those who played their part in the long struggle for our national existence.

There is one thing that strikes me about the staff in the Board of Works. I should like to pay my tribute to them, as I have always regarded them as an efficient staff and very obliging in every way, but I understand that they have always had difficulty in recruiting engineering staff. I think one of the reasons for that is that people in a professional capacity like to have an opportunity to utilise to the fullest the powers and knowledge that such a profession gives them but, in the Board of Works, they are very often tied to a particular type or section of work and therefore it becomes rather tedious for them. That, as I say, is one of the reasons why the Board of Works have some difficulty in recruiting staff, though they offer rates of pay and conditions comparable with the rates of pay and the emoluments and amenities offered by other organisations. Those who control and run the Board of Works should bear that in mind and, when they recruit engineers, should give them the opportunity of dealing with the many different facets of their profession rather than confine them to one particular section.

Turning to the grants for harbours, while I realise it is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary, I think it must be clear that when the Swedish expert made his recommendations in reference to harbours, consultation must have taken place between the Department of Lands and the Parliamentary Secretary or his Department. If an expert were to suggest that something should be done to any harbours, that proposal would have to be submitted to the Board of Works who are the technical advisers and also the contractors in a great many cases for the different Government Departments. I notice that the Vote of £100,000 this year covers only two harbours and I think both of these are in one county. It does seem to me that the Parliamentary Secretary must have had discussions or been brought into discussions—the officers of his Department, anyway—and other harbours must have been considered.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate to us what are the prospects, in so far as his Department knows, for the other harbours. I do not expect him to be able to tell the House when those harbours will be done, or what is in the mind of the Minister for Lands, but I do suggest that he might let the House know if the different propositions put up to him for some of these harbours were found feasible, acceptable, and economic by his Department. I think I am justified in bringing this matter up because there are two harbours which immediately come to my mind.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter does not really arise on this Vote. It would arise on another Estimate.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I have made it crystal clear that I do not expect the Parliamentary Secretary to do it, but I want to know if these schemes have been put to him and if they were feasible schemes. Then, at a later date, one can raise them with the Department of Lands. It is only because the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that £100,000 is being spent on two harbours that I want to know if other harbours were submitted and considered satisfactory. I am not asking the Parliamentary Secretary to do those harbours. With respect, Sir, I fully agree with you that it is a matter for another Minister but I want to cite the case of Kilmore Quay in my own constituency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If it is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary, I cannot see how the Deputy would be in order in discussing it on this Estimate.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I merely want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Kilmore Quay scheme has been submitted to his Department or not. He himself mentioned the matter on his Estimate; otherwise I would not have raised it.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is discussed with Fisheries first.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Yes, I know.

Mr. J. Brennan

Major harbours —these are a matter for Fisheries.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I know that but it must subsequently be discussed with the Parliamentary Secretary and the Board of Works. The Board of Works are the contractors for it.

Mr. J. Brennan

The decision is theirs.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Yes, I agree. I have made that clear and I am not holding the Parliamentary Secretary responsible in any way for the disposition that has been made already. I am only asking him whether the Kilmore Quay scheme has come before him and if it was considered a practical proposition within his Department.

I now come to the question of monuments. I do not think we have enough money available for our public monuments. I agree with all the Deputies who have spoken that they are important and are part of our national history. I know that the Commissioners of Public Works have a good many of these monuments on hand which they have been asked to take over and maintain in order because, in many cases, it so happens that the private individuals concerned are not able to do so. I cite particularly the case of a very famous Abbey, Tintern Abbey, in my county.

Tintern Abbey is a building that was constructed about 1435 by the Earl of Pembroke in thanksgiving for being saved from shipwreck on the coast of Wexford and was subsequently occupied by the Franciscan Friars. It is an exact replica of a famous Abbey in Wales and, as I say, historically, it goes back many hundreds of years. It is a very fine pile and it is visited by many visitors who come to our area, particularly Americans. Some time recently, I asked if it could be considered and taken over and I was told there were not sufficient funds available and that the Commissioners had too much work on hand at the moment.

That seems to indicate to me that perhaps we are not providing enough funds for this very important work and, even though it is a direct outlay on the part of the State, it will give a remunerative return if it attracts visitors who come in here. It is only right, in the cultural interests of the nation, that we should protect old monuments like that and I would again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say if it would be possible to do something about that historic pile this year.

I see that there is a provision of £6,000 for Rosslare Strand and I also note that experimental work has been going on there over the past two and a half years. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate to the House what is the position there now and if it has been successful or otherwise. It may be early for him to be able to give a dogmatic opinion one way or the other but I do know that 30 or 40 yards have been lost again in the past 12 months on the golf course at Rosslare Strand, down at the end of the Point. If that continues, it means that the Point will eventually disappear altogether. The residents there and I would like to know if this experimental work has been a success. Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider it a success and, being a success, does he consider it desirable to go ahead now with a big scheme for the purpose of preserving this very important Point, because it must be borne in mind that if that Point goes, then the town of Wexford, with a population of 15,000 to 20,000, will ultimately be threatened?

I am a little disappointed, like other Deputies who have spoken, with the amount of money voted for schools. Infra-structure as it is known, is pretty good in this country but I do not think we can say the same of school building, though great advances have been made over the past 20 years or so. I think in his opening statement the Parliamentary Secretary said that there were 700 schools to be built or replaced, and I do not think it is any real economy—in fact, it is a false economy—to save money on schools. The Parliamentary Secretary should use what influence he has with the Government to secure enough money to go ahead with the building of schools, though, of course, I know the Department of Education is responsible for building them, but schools cannot be built unless the Board of Works get the money to build them, so the two things are correlated.

The last point I want to deal with is the question of the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That scheme has been abandoned. The whole situation in regard to drainage is very difficult, particularly for Deputies within their own constituencies. Since the abolition of schemes under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, there are no funds at the disposal of local authorities to deal with emergency work that may arise from time to time. There is really no scheme to deal with such a situation. The Office of Public Works is concerned only with main arterial drainage. If a Deputy is approached about an emergency, such as flooding due to heavy rain or the overflowing of a river, there is nothing he can do about it. He can go to the county council but their only means of dealing with it is to raise it on the rate.

In my view, the Office of Public Works should associate itself in some way with drainage other than arterial drainage. In fact, I have always been in favour of one body being responsible for all drainage and I do not know any body more competent to deal with drainage than the Office of Public Works. It is the only organisation which has the up-to-date skilled engineers who fully understand the problems and who will give maximum value for the money spent.

I should like to conclude by congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a newcomer to political office. I feel sure that it is only a stepping stone, within his own Party, to further promotion. Of course, he may not be there very long. There is always that risk.

Mr. J. Brennan

Thank you very much.

Mr. Everett

I should like to join the other Deputies in extending congratulations to the Office of Public Works for the work they have carried out in my constituency.

I agree with Deputy Esmonde's remarks with regard to the engineering staff. I sympathise with the engineering staff. When I consider the work they have performed, I have no hesitation in saying that if they were operating privately they would receive as much from one job as they would receive by way of salary in two years in the Office of Public Works. I am proud of the fact that we have Irishmen capable of performing such splendid work as they have done on the quays at Wicklow. From time to time officials are criticised. Therefore, it is only right to say that the work that has been performed on the quays of Wicklow for an expenditure of £60,000 is a memorial and a monument to the engineers in charge of it. The Parliamentary Secretary must be very pleased indeed that that wonderful work has been done, without inconvenience to the port, within the space of two years.

I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to allow that good work to be wasted and, before the job is completed, to continue the work another 50 or 60 yards. There is very heavy traffic to the quays of Wicklow, where nearly 400 men are employed. Fortunately, the Harbour Board are in a very secure financial position. We appeal for a continuation of the work for 60 yards while the experienced men of the Office of Public Works are on the quay, so that we shall be in a position to cater for a larger number of the 700 ton boats that are coming into the port.

I would suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary has not already done so, he should visit the place and see for himself the work performed by his engineering staff. He will be the first to agree with me that they deserve the greatest praise and congratulation.

A large number of schools has been erected in my constituency and some schools have been reconstructed. Again, the architects are to be praised. We are proud of the fact that we have men to perform such good work.

With regard to drainage, an appeal has been made to the Office of Public Works. It concerns flooding of land in Newcastle. From the report we have had, I am satisfied that the Office of Public Works are considering the matter. If they do only half as good a job there as has been accomplished on the quays and harbour of Wicklow, we shall have no cause to complain. Inevitably, there is the problem of finance. If portion of the work is carried out in the various areas, we shall be able to satisfy some of the people.

I do not think the question of coast erosion is a matter for the Office of Public Works. That is regrettable because, owing to their experience of the effects of tides and winds and their long experience of marine work, they are as capable as any foreign expert who might come in and make recommendations. Such an expert might recommend something which our own marine engineers would regard as unsuitable, knowing the effect of tides and gales on a particular harbour or pier.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey the best thanks of the Harbour Board to the engineers who were in charge of the work in Wicklow. May I again express the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will use his influence to have that work continued a further 60 yards so that a good job may be completed? There is only one complaint about it, that it was too good a job and will last hundreds of years. If we had spent less money and continued further up the quay, all doubt would have been removed. We are satisfied and delighted with the work that has been done and hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, in the near future, will consider the advisability of extending the work, for the protection of factories.

Mr. Doherty

This, undoubtedly, is a very important Estimate, particularly to rural Deputies. The Estimate does not raise any contentious matter. Everyone interested is anxious to see more of the type of work provided for in the Estimate carried out.

I should like to join with other speakers in complimenting the Parliamentary Secretary on being so practical in his approach to the various problems in relation to drainage and in relation to the schemes to aid small farmers which come under his jurisdiction. Most Deputies agree that excellent work has been carried out under the Arterial Drainage Acts. That being the case, it is no harm to put on record that the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945, which was passed when Fianna Fáil were in power, made it possible to commence drainage work on the River Moy.

I should like to make a few comments on the Moy drainage. First, it is one of the biggest drainage schemes in the country and on behalf of my constituents, I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his assistance in bringing the drainage of the River Moy to its present stage. The Government of the day are to be complimented on their wisdom in speculating £3 million, designed to drain 48,000 acres of land and to put 700 people into employment.

That is a blessing to the people of north Mayo and Mayo in general, not to mention Sligo, Roscommon and part of Leitrim. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government that in an area where there are so many congests and so much poor soil, we very much appreciate the policy of the Government. The scheme is of tremendous benefit to the small farmers and it holds out the greatest possible encouragement to the people who live on the western seaboard.

It is regrettable, therefore, that certain vested interests did their utmost to stop this great scheme. However, this is not the first occasion in my constituency on which attempts were made by certain people to sabotage the most important scheme that ever came west of the Shannon. I was assured that 3,000 families will benefit materially by this mighty scheme and I have already been told by business people in the town of Ballina that they have noticed an upward trend in business since this scheme was started. Naturally I should like to feel that that upward trend will be speeded up.

However, I am satisfied that we in the Government have turned the dangerous bend and are on the road to progress. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of my constituents, that we appreciate every penny that will be sunk in the drainage of the Moy. I want to put on record in this House what the Taoiseach and the Minister for Lands have clearly stated on two occasions, both inside this House and outside it, that is, that the interests of the fisheries will be protected. I am satisfied with that statement and I do not intend to make any further remarks on it.

There is one further aspect of this Estimate to which I should like to refer. I wish to pay a compliment to the Office of Public Works, to their engineers and their architects, on the wonderful job they are doing in the construction of new national schools. I sincerely hope that no slowing down will take place, especially in rural Ireland where national schools are badly needed, and particularly in my own constituency. I compliment those people and I hope they will continue to make provision in the Estimates year after year for the construction and reconstruction of national schools and for the provision of additional rooms, where necessary. Those who go down to the west of Ireland can see for themselves the magnificent job that is being done. Our schools are very modern. They have very modern amenities such as sewerage and water. I hope this good work will continue.

I wish to compliment the Mayo Vocational Committee who have carried out an extensive building programme for Mayo. If I am not mistaken—I am open to contradiction —there are plans in the Office of Public Works for vocational schools in Claremorris and in Kiltimagh. I think those plans have been approved. However, there is one outstanding vocational school in which I am really interested and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the matter. I refer to Geesala vocational school. I do not know if the plans have been approved; I think they have. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to expedite the building of that school.

If I am relevant in doing so on this Estimate, I wish to make a correction of a false statement made in this House on last Thursday evening. It is not the first occasion this statement has been made. If I remember, two years ago in this House, the late Parliamentary Secretary was challenged by the Fine Gael Deputy in my constituency and by Deputy O.J. Flanagan in regard to the erection of a slip at Blacksod Bay. I want to put it on record because I believe in 1960 that Fine Gael or any other body cannot put it across the people of this country. If they make a statement they must back it by hard facts which I intend to do during the course of my remarks.

It is a peculiar coincidence that this statement was made in 1955 for the first time, just before the Mayo County Council election and last week we heard the very same statement made in 1960, just before the county council election. I have here The Western People of June 4th, 1955, a paper with one of the largest circulations of any provincial paper in Ireland. Under the heading “Parliamentary Secretary in Erris”, we read the following statement:

"Since becoming Parliamentary Secretary in charge of a fishing industry I have travelled to almost every important centre in the Republic, and I must say that I am particularly impressed by what I have seen in Blacksod. I am satisfied that despite apparently continuous neglect by the appropriate State Departments a prosperous fishing industry can be developed here, and I am going to take all steps necessary to provide the facilities required to improve the position of the particularly fine type of fishermen I have met in this area."

That statement was made by Deputy O. J. Flanagan, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, when he addressed a meeting of fishermen and others at Blacksod. He also promised to improve Faulmore pier. He also promised a pier or a slip at Graughill. He is further reported as saying:

"I have been completely misled by the information submitted to me in connection with the landing facilities here and the necessity for improving them."

He was referring to Graughill, there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This would seem to be a matter for debate on another Estimate rather than——

Mr. Doherty

I am trying to correct a statement and if the Chair will allow me, I shall complete the correction in a few minutes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the matter is not relevant, it is out of order.

Mr. Doherty

I shall not hold up the Chair or the House. I just want to finish.

Mr. T. Lynch

On a point of order, I endeavoured to speak about Dunmore pier. I was not allowed to do so and I obeyed the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is correct in his statement but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Doherty

Is it relevant to speak on this Estimate in regard to the position of small piers or slips?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is referring to a statement made by a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture which does not seem to have any connection with the Estimate.

Mr. J. Brennan

Minor Marine Works will come up under Vote 10, the Special Employment Schemes Office Vote.

Mr. Doherty

In any case, I just want to correct that statement. I think I have done that, with the exception of one little matter about the Mayo County Council and why that pier was not built.

Mr. T. Lynch

I should like to correct the Deputy. He said that The Western People had the largest circulation of any provincial newspaper in the country. I do not think that is correct. I hope all the Deputy's facts are as correct as that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has any responsibility for the circulation of newspapers.

Mr. Doherty

I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of the fact that the people of Blacksod are making an honest effort to develop the fishing industry in my constituency, to ask the Minister for Finance seriously to consider allocating a grant or at least put the position one way or another and not make false promises as the Fine Gael Party did before the last county council election.

Mr. Cosgrave

I want to refer briefly to a few matters on this Estimate. I understand there is a scheme in the Parliamentary Secretary's Office for the development of Dún Laoghaire Harbour. I need hardly say how necessary it is to proceed with that work. Dún Laoghaire Harbour is one of the major gateways to the country. It is important as a port through which a great number of tourists visit the country. Certain work has already been carried out there. I would urge on the Parliamentary Secretary and the staff of the Office of Public Works the importance of proceeding as rapidly as possible with that development scheme. It is a project which might be regarded as a major scheme. As well as providing an essential service there, it will also give much needed employment.

I should like to say how pleased I am, in common with many other people, at the reconstruction and repair work which the Office of Public Works have done on ancient shrines and monuments. Many of the most famous shrines such as Clonmacnoise, Monasterboice, Glendalough and others have been the subject of great attention by the Office of Public Works for some considerable time. The work done is a tribute to the skill and to the knowledge of the craftsmen concerned. Very satisfactory restoration work has been carried out at each of these places. Another place in which I saw work which was excellent was at Jerpoint Abbey in County Kilkenny.

In addition to what might be described as better-known or more famous shrines or national monuments, work should be carried out on smaller shrines or memorials which are probably not as well known but which have local interest and have historical interest as local shrines. In that way we can preserve some of the best known features of our cultural heritage and can show our own people and visitors memorials of traditions of which we are proud. It is indeed very gratifying to visit any of these places where the work has already been carried out. I understand that great numbers of people have visited these places since the restoration work was undertaken. In collaboration with Bord Failte, plaques have been placed setting out briefly an historical account of the memorial in question.

I would urge on the Parliamentary Secretary the desirability of proceeding wherever possible with smaller work even where the shrines or abbeys or churches, as the case may be, are not as well known as others. We have throughout the country a very rich heritage. Many have significance in their locality. It helps to make people proud of their locality as well as providing an attraction from the tourist point of view.

I notice that, during the course of this discussion, many Deputies have referred to the general satisfaction at the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to his present position. I should like to join in extending my good wishes to him during his term of office.

Mr. Manley

The Office of Public Works comes in for a good deal of criticism here year after year. Personally, I think the greater part of that criticism is entirely unjustifiable and very ill-founded. The Office of Public Works is materially different from the other Departments of State in so far as its activities are not initiated by itself. Its activities depend largely on the demands made on it by the Departments of State. Very often, people wrongly blame the Office of Public Works when moneys are not made available for schools and for various other buildings in the State.

As far as I know, the position is that the Office of Public Works has no responsibility for the provision of money for schools. Its responsibility is to survey the sites, prepare drawings, plans, and so on. In other words, the Office of Public Works is the functional body to provide the service but the money must come from the parent Department of State. The Office of Public Works is responsible for new schools and extensions and renovations to existing schools. It also has responsibility for new Garda Barracks and the maintenance of existing Garda and military barracks and State buildings of all kinds.

While the Office of Public Works has been criticised here for its slowness, I have no doubt but that it could very well increase its pace if its administrative personnel and its technicians were provided with the money to enable them to do so. The provision of money depends entirely on the other Departments of State. In the course of time, it is quite obvious to the ordinary person that the activities of the Board of Works in many directions will taper off. When we have those 700 new schools which the Parliamentary Secretary told us must be replaced and when we have renovated the 300 odd schools which still await renovation, extension and repairs, that side of their activity, if it is activity, will cease.

The major activity of the Office of Public Works will be arterial drainage. I certainly think that will be one of the foremost major activities in this State in future years. I say that because of the possibilities it affords for rural employment. I say it as well because of the possibilities of bringing into production many hundreds of acres of excellent fertile land which are waterlogged for the greater part of the year. I have seen the results of arterial drainage by the Office of Public Works. In the case of one scheme, it was work which I thought was magnificent. After it, the land brought into production grew magnificent crops and relieved the tension that existed among the owners of the land because of the flooding in former years.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us how many are actually engaged in arterial drainage, what the employment roll is and what number of technicians are employed by the Office of Public Works. I ask him that because of the importance of this national activity in order to enable the people properly to assess the value of the work which arterial drainage can do, provided the funds are available. I should say that it is much more important to provide funds for arterial drainage than for alterations and extensions to this House. All these may be necessary in one sense but I think these national matters are of more importance.

I have heard it stated before that the Press representatives in this House are really very badly treated in the way of accommodation. I hope that if there is anything in the way of alterations or extensions, provision will be made for better quarters for the Press representatives. The Parliamentary Secretary is fortunate in having the goodwill of everybody in this House. I am confident that he will retain that goodwill and will face up to all the problems, pleasant or difficult, with that pleasantness and efficiency which he has shown here while a member of this House.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. J. Brennan)

Might I at the outset say that I appreciate the many kind references that have been made to me? I am very unworthy of them and I can only express the hope that Deputies will always feel the same. The debate was, I think, on a very high plane. Most of the Deputies chose to take an objective outlook on the comprehensive work which the Office of Public Works has undertaken. Their criticism, generally, was constructive and that is as good a tribute as they could pay to the Office itself and I accept it as such.

All Deputies showed a keen appreciation of the magnitude of the task which the Office of Public Works has to undertake. They may at times be a little pessimistic if something in their own localities is not going as fast as they would like. In the main, as I am in a position to know, it is agreed that, taking the overall picture into consideration, the Office of Public Works is doing an excellent job.

As one would expect, the main discussion centred around a few items. I want to deal briefly with these in a general way before I refer to any of the various points raised by individual Deputies. I refer to arterial drainage, schools and the Garden of Remembrance and a few other matters which came up for general discussion. I want to say again that, when I came to the Office of Public Works, I found arterial drainage in an organised, progressive state, working to a priority list —a prescribed plan which I have no intention of altering.

It is only in the event of something materialising which would justify taking a very major decision with regard to any of these projects on that list that I would in any way change my mind but I do not expect any such thing is likely to happen. I would point out that in regard to a number of schemes nearing the work stage at the same time, one may by-pass the other by a matter of months as a result of the survey, the design work or the preliminary work necessary before the work stage is reached being undertaken or got through in a more expeditious manner than was anticipated. That does not alter the priority list. We have no intention of altering that.

Having said that, I want to deal with a number of the main criticisms made by Deputies with regard to arterial drainage. The complaints, if we can call them such, from different parts of the House really amount to the fact that each Deputy would like to have some activity commencing in his area before the time already arranged. Deputy Lynch was the first speaker. He deplored, as he did in previous years, when he was on the back bench——

Mr. T. Lynch

He has every reason to.

Mr. J. Brennan

——the lack of activity in his area with regard to all matters pertaining to the Board of Works schemes. I think he was particularly concerned with the Suir. I should say, now that I am dealing with arterial drainage, that the survey, the starting of which he asked about, has already begun.

Mr. T. Lynch

Praises be to God!

Mr. J. Brennan

The Board of Works do not allocate work just on a geographical basis for the sake of satisfying different districts. In many cases, they act as agents for other Departments and undertake the planning and so forth just as the decisions are reached by those Departments and by the Government. Might I digress a little from arterial drainage to answer the point always made and which was made this year again by Deputy Lynch? Perhaps at some other stage all the activities of the Board of Works will be concentrated in Waterford.

Mr. T. Lynch

That will be in old God's time.

Mr. J. Brennan

It could happen. I should like to refer to the few matters that were raised specifically in relation to arterial drainage. I suppose it is no harm to repeat that arterial drainage, as advised by the Drainage Commission, is the only real way of tackling the drainage problem in this country. While Deputies may interject spicy little pieces of propaganda time and again with regard to the suspension of the operation of the Local Authorities (Works) Act, I believe, as I have said before, that the enactment of that measure was putting the cart before the horse. Frequently, we relieved flooding upstream only to aggravate it downstream. We made no provision for maintenance; the river bed silted up and had to be done over again very shortly afterwards. While I am not in any way trying to deprecate the efforts of those who were enthusiastic, on both sides of the House, about the Local Authorities (Works) Act, I believe it was premature in that it was undertaken before arterial drainage had reached an advanced stage and in areas where drainage of a minor nature could be undertaken more successfully. I can see ample opportunities for carrying out local authorities' work in drainage of that type at a future date when we have cleared the big outfalls from the major catchments in the country, and not until then.

Reference was made to the extension of the drainage programme to what are called the intermediate rivers. That is an important extension. It does not mean that we shall tackle every little stream in the country. When that question was being examined by the Government—as to how the drainage programme could be extended to take in a smaller catchment—many Deputies thought that they would have something like a repetition of the local authorities' drainage. That was not intended but it was appreciated by the Government at the time that there were many rivers not included in what we now call the minor catchment priority list which were very much in need of attention. These were visualised under the intermediate rivers programme. Surveys have been carried out on four such schemes at present. I think it cannot be regarded as anything other than a very useful extension of the arterial drainage programme which brings in another category of catchment not already catered for.

I do not know that I should deal with any of the other points raised in regard to arterial drainage. The question of maintenance was raised by some Deputies. It is a point which arises in the case of some Deputies only after they have experience of arterial drainage in their areas and the question of payment arises. Kerry is one such county. Deputy Palmer does not think it right to expect that rated occupiers of holdings in parts of the county far distant from the benefits of the area drained should be asked to contribute to the maintenance of the scheme. That is a decision which was taken when the 1945 Act was going through this House. It was thoroughly debated and discussed and it was finally provided in the Act that maintenance would have to be a county-at-large charge in so far as the scheme affected the county.

As Deputies know, when the catchment extends to two or more counties, the charge is apportioned to the counties in proportion to the amount of benefit to land in each county. I do not think you could have it on the basis of the 1925 Act when you had a charge on the individual owners alone and they were asked to contribute to the scheme. No individual could be expected to provide the necessary contribution for schemes of the magnitude of the present arterial drainage schemes. I agree with those who said that not merely can the direct benefits of drainage be taken into consideration in the arterial drainage but the indirect benefits which are sometimes not foreseen at the time the scheme is carried out.

I do not agree with Deputies who seemed to think we were not making sufficient progress. Some Deputies referred to the few schemes undertaken. They can scarcely have a full appreciation of the magnitude of the task—in the first instance, the preparation of a survey of a large catchment, and secondly the amount of work involved in putting a scheme into operation, the amount of technical staff and machinery required, and so forth. They must remember that while only a certain number of jobs have reached the work stage at the moment there are a few about to reach the work stage and there are others at an advanced stage of survey. There are quite a few more, like the Suir and the Maigue, on which the survey has just begun, so that the programme is considerably advanced and while there may be only a few schemes completed, there are quite a few on hands. There are a big number at the survey stage and there are many moving into that stage so that the programme as a whole is very well in hands.

As time goes on, the cost must grow to a very big figure indeed. Schemes like the Moy, which only started this year, require only a comparatively small provision in the Estimate but when they reach their peak stage— particularly in the case of the Moy where it is estimated there will be 700 men employed at the peak stage—the provision will be huge. At the same time there will be two or three other schemes proceeding simultaneously so that the Estimate will be for a very large figure. People who think we are not making sufficient progress must not appreciate the amount of work involved and must have the idea that we have unlimited resources. The work is proceeding satisfactorily, and I think Deputies will agree that progress is being made.

Moving away from arterial drainage, I think I should say something about schools. Some tribute has been paid to the progress made with school building. Tribute was also paid to the type of school which we are building and there were some contrary views expressed in that regard, too, with respect to the type and standard of schools. It is perfectly obvious that there are two different views in regard to the type and standard of school that we should have. One body of opinion thinks that a school should be an elaborate and substantial type of building, paying due regard to the important work for which it is utilised, the training of youth. There is another section which seems to think that any sort of utility building is sufficient as long as it houses the pupils and provides accommodation so that the work can be carried on.

It is perfectly obvious that the architects of the Commissioners of Public Works have tried to strike a balance between those views. They appreciate that a school cannot be an austere, utility building. They realise that the resources at their disposal must be utilised to provide as many schools as possible but between the two they have struck, as I say, a balance where they build what I consider to be a decent type of school, a well-planned building worthy of the important work for which it is utilised and of which the nation can be proud. We could build a much more elaborate building which could be a much better school if we wanted to spend more money but we have to take the middle of the road as between the question of the funds available for the work and the importance of the architectural design which should, I believe, be applied to school buildings in particular.

The number of schools built during the year just ended was somewhat less than last year's figure. The difference is very little really and the number is not the only measure or yardstick to be applied to progress in regard to schools. The actual amount spent was higher than ever before expended on school building. I would remind Deputies who complained about lack of progress that it was three times what was spent 10 years ago.

There is a better comparison one can make in regard to progress in school building in the past year. The number built is not a real measure because if you are building many large schools naturally the number will be less. I am advised by the Commissioners that the average school built gives accommodation to 104 pupils— 104 places. Taking that average, and applying it to the amount of places we provided last year, we would have 121 such schools. That is a good picture of the progress made last year, a much better picture than the actual number of schools involved. I think it is a very good record and I hope we can maintain it or even surpass it in the present financial year.

The number of schools completed within the year does not itself indicate all the activity in regard to school building during the year. If we were to count the number of schools on which the Office of Public Works were engaged in carrying out work during the year, it would amount to 280 new schools and 165 in respect of major improvements, improvements costing over £1,000. That gives a better picture of actual activity in school work in the year. Sometimes we are inclined to think the number of schools completed represents the total progress in school-building for the year. The number which will reach the completion stage during the year is what we are giving as our programme for the year and we hope that will be in or about the target of 100—or better, if possible.

In passing from schools, I should say that we are at all times concerned with and all those in the Office of Public Works associated with the building of schools are at all times considering, ways and means of expediting school-building. We are going as fast as the technical staff at our disposal permits at the moment. We are not hamstrung for funds; we could get more money to build more schools if we could turn out the plans and get the work going. It is very popular to complain about delay in building schools and those Deputies who complain—as probably I did in the past when I was less intimate with the work of the Office than I am now— should realise that while the Office of Public Works is always the scapegoat, it is not always responsible for the delays. I say that without trying to cast aspersions on any other section or body but, of necessity, from the day the manager decides that he should have a new school until the key is turned in the door, my Office is held to be the cause of the delay. That is far from correct. Many things happen for which we are not responsible—difficulties in procuring sites, getting proper title, decisions as to accommodation to be provided.

Somebody complained that we should always provide extra accommodation. That is a matter for the Department of Education and I understand they always give it the utmost consideration. That necessarily involves a certain amount of delay also. They must take into consideration the pupil potential in the district in the future. They do that and, by and large, they are fairly accurate. It would not be correct, as some Deputies suggested, to build an extra room to the school because we have cases where rooms have to be closed down and we have cases where additional rooms have to be provided, in rural Ireland. I opened an additional room in Galway last year. Even though the school had been built only a short time before, there was an unprecedented increase in the number of pupils coming there. In fact, on that day, the manager suggested that they would probably put on a fourth room, so that it is not always possible to estimate accurately, nor would it be possible to have an extra room because numbers may diminish and you may find the extra accommodation is not necessary.

I want to say something about a matter which is of great importance and was not very much discussed except at the outset of the debate. That is the question of the restoration of Kilmainham Jail. Some Deputies paid tribute to the body undertaking the voluntary work of restoring this great national monument and I was very glad they did so because on the goodwill and enthusiasm of the public will the success of this committee depend. I should like to appeal again, as I did in my opening statement, that the committee be given the full support of everybody for the very worthy project they are undertaking.

I was sorry that Deputy Corish saw fit to make a kind of adverse criticism on the question of voluntary labour. Whether one agrees or not with the propriety of voluntary labour, I think this is one case where sentiment and patriotism should transcend any other consideration. Voluntary labour in this case is purely voluntary and the effort is not prompted by anybody other than those who took a decision— a purely spontaneous decision—to do a job that might not be reached by the Government for a long time, due to the huge programme which the Office of Public Works has in hands.

Kilmainham Jail is a huge building with long associations with Irish history. If this committee succeeds in restoring it as a national monument, and preserving it as an historical museum, it will be one of the greatest national monuments we have. There are very excellent people on this committee, people prompted by nothing more than the highest ideals of patriotism. They deserve the full support of everyone who has any interest at all in the struggle that took place down through the years for freedom.

When Deputy Corish referred to voluntary labour, I know that he was referring to the principle of voluntary labour as such. Every man, whether he be a technician or a labourer, should be anxious, in my opinion, to get his name on the list of those who are aiding the committee, by voluntary effort on their part, to carry out the huge task they have undertaken. All the workers, from the architects down, are voluntary. The Minister has given them a period of five years to see how work will progress. Certain conditions have been laid down. One of these is that the Minister nominates two trustees of his own. There are certain other provisions to ensure that the work for which the committee is organised is the work which will actually be carried out. The work will be subject to review, or examination, as it progresses. I have dealt with it at some length in order to bring home the importance of the kind of co-operation that is needed if the task is to succeed. It will succeed only with the co-operation of all sections and with the assistance of everybody who is in a position to help in any way.

A number of Deputies referred to the Garden of Remembrance and some speakers were anxious to know whether it was to be a Garden of Remembrance commemorating just a section of those who gave their lives for freedom, or whether it would commemorate all who gave their lives. It will commemorate all. It will be a Garden of Remembrance commemorating all those who gave their lives. I do not pretend to be competent to explain the plan fully to the House. It will be cruciform, carrying one large statue and four smaller ones. The sculptured monument will represent Éire and the four supporting warriors will represent the Provinces, with the patriots in the background. From what I know of the plans and the design, I can say that it will be truly worthy of those whom it seeks to commemorate. I believe it will find general approval.

I do not think it will be possible to deal with all the individual matters raised. Indeed, in some cases, had the Deputies seen fit to write to me, I could have given them all the information they required. Deputy Loughman, and some others, were anxious to know the position in relation to the Suir. The survey of the Suir, as I have already stated, has commenced.

Deputy Dillon dealt with national monuments. Like many of those who spoke, he took the figure in the Estimate for salaries and wages, £6,000 odd, as the figure for the upkeep and preservation of these monuments. Under Subhead C. there is a provision of £20,000 for national monuments. It is not, of course, sufficient, but it is far in excess of the £6,000 which some Deputies seemed to believe was the sole provision made for this purpose.

Deputy Dillon put his finger on the position when he said there was no country in the world richer in its archaeology than this country. Remembering that, it is easy to get some grasp of the huge task of preservation. It would be impossible for the Office of Public Works to take over all the monuments and other archaeological treasures. They do the best they can with the staff and funds at their disposal.

It is generally believed that we get considerable assistance in this work from voluntary societies. That is true up to a point. Societies are active in co-operating with the Office of Public Works and bringing to their notice monuments worthy of preservation. In one way, that is not altogether helpful since it makes the task more involved and difficult. In fairness to these societies, they do in their own districts often spend money on preservation or protection work where a monument has not yet been taken over by the Office of Public Works. When the Office of Public Works makes a preservation order, that does not necessarily mean that they undertake to restore the monument or to preserve it. It merely has the result of ensuring that the monument will not thereafter be interfered with.

Deputy Dillon referred to monuments which were carried away to build fences and cowhouses. That has happened, but, by and large, the more important monuments are the subject of preservation orders. Many of them have been restored and a good deal of preservation work has been done on most of them. The amount at the disposal of the Office, £20,000, is nothing like what would be necessary if we were to undertake the entire task of restoration and preservation. One has to consider how far one can go side by side with providing technical staffs and the finances necessary for other work, such as school building, drainage and so forth. However important the archaeological side is, any all-out effort generally to undertake restoration of all the worthwhile monuments we have must wait until other work which is entitled to greater priority is nearing completion or has at least reached the stage where we can say it is no longer a problem.

The National Monuments Advisory Council is a statutory body set up by the Minister to advise him and to advise the Commissioners on the question of national monuments generally. They meet quarterly and have a standing committee which is always available and has done immense work. They are a form of buffer between the public and the Office of Public Works as regards those monuments that are worth while taking over for restoration and preservation and those that are not.

I do not want to talk at any length about the rather veiled reference made by Deputy Lindsay to property disposed of by the Office of Public Works on which he said a profit was made afterwards. Personally I do not know to what property he referred. Possibly it was machinery sold by public auction. I am not quite sure but I shall probably find out later. However, all I can say is that any property disposed of by the Office of Public Works is advertised. When there is any quantity it is disposed of by public auction. If there are only individual items the property would be disposed of by tender, when it would not be feasible or practicable to have an auction. It is always duly advertised and, so far as I am aware, auctions held are, as with all auctions, quite successful. There may be people who would go to these auctions and pick up an item, as one will any time at an auction, and make a profit on it afterwards but I am sure the Minister or myself cannot be blamed for that.

Mr. T. Lynch

As long as you can do that, your auction will be successful and people will come and buy.

Mr. J. Brennan

That is possibly the best advertisement an auctioneer can have. If he has the reputation of giving a bargain people will turn up in greater numbers in future to buy more. However, while there may be an occasional bargain you do not always get a bargain at an auction.

A number of Deputies asked questions about Garda barracks, whether the work had commenced or was about to commence. In some cases it is a question of tenders not yet being invited and in other cases the tenders have been invited and the contract is about to be placed. It would not be possible to deal with all cases individually. If Deputies would drop me a note, as is usual for them to do, I shall be only too glad to give the necessary information. Deputy McQuillan, for instance, inquired about the Roscommon Garda Station. Tenders for the erection of that station have just been received and are being examined.

Deputy Giles was worried about our departure from the priority list in regard to the Boyne drainage scheme. I can assure him, as I assured a deputation in that connection, that there will be no deviation from the priority list as set out. The Boyne will take its place in the list unless something unforeseen happens such as the Summit talks not going according to plan or an atomic bomb dropping on the Boyne.

Mr. Blowick

Has the Boyne survey been commenced?

Mr. J. Brennan

The Boyne survey is nearing completion. I think it will be completed this year.

Mr. T. Lynch

Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary about item No. 5 in the list of new works, Portraits and Busts of National Leaders?

Mr. J. Brennan

Portraits and busts of national leaders have been dealt with time and again by the Office of Public Works. As you know, there are portraits already provided, some of them hanging in the House.

Mr. T. Lynch

By the Board of Works?

Mr. J. Brennan

The Board of Works looks after the provision of portraits and busts and, in addition to those already provided—those of Collins, Griffith and O'Higgins—we are now procuring the portraits of other national leaders: R.C. Barton, the President, Mr. de Valera, the first President of the Executive Council, Mr. W.T. Cosgrave, and Mr. Costello.

Mr. Blowick

What about a previous President Dr. Douglas Hyde, and our last President?

Mr. J. Brennan

We are dealing with former Taoisigh at the moment.

Mr. T. Lynch

It would be a good gesture for a President, since he had the honour of being selected by the Irish people, to donate that portrait to Árus An Uachtarain when leaving us. As regards the Collins, O'Higgins and Griffith portraits, are these the portraits in the hall of the Dáil.

Mr. J. Brennan

Yes.

Mr. J. Lynch

I understood I subscribed to some of those. I do not think the Board of Works——

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy may have subscribed to one of them but——

Mr. T. Lynch

The Collins picture.

Mr. J. Brennan

——at least three of them have been acquired, as far as I know, by State funds. There is a fourth that may have been, and I think was, acquired by public subscription. However those three have been provided and we are now providing portraits of all the former Taoisigh.

Mr. T. Lynch

Did you provide the Wolfe Tone and Emmet portraits?

Mr. J. Brennan

Yes. Deputy Lindsay was one of the Deputies who inquired about portraits and busts of national leaders and I have a summary made out in regard to them. The works include a reproduction in bronze of busts of Cathal Brugha and Austin Stack. The Brugha bust was the work of the late Oliver Sheppard and the Stack bust was the work of the late Albert Power. There is also the casting in bronze from plaster models of busts of Thomas J. Clarke and Seán Mac Diarmada. These models were the work of the late Albert Power. Also included are the design and supply of two copies in bronze of a bust of Thomas McDonagh by Oisin Kelly; the design and supply of two copies in bronze of a bust of Joseph Plunkett by Peter Grant; the design and supply of two copies in bronze of a bust of Eamonn Ceannt by John Bourke; the design and supply of two copies in bronze of a bust of James Connolly by Seamus Murphy; and the purchase of a portrait of the President by the late Leo Whelan. The painting of portraits of Mr. W.T. Cosgrave and Mr. J.A. Costello by Seán O'Sullivan has been commissioned, and the painting of a portrait of Mr. Robert Barton by Mrs. Hilda Robberts Marsh has also been commissioned.

The bronze busts referred to have been completed and delivered and may be seen at the Office of Public Works. Any Deputy may call at any time and we shall show them to him with pleasure.

Mr. T. Lynch

At the outset the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the portraits of Collins, Griffith and O'Higgins.

Mr. J. Brennan

I gave the Deputy the list of those we have, those we are acquiring and those for which commissions have been given to artists.

Mr. T. Lynch

Where are the portraits of Collins, Griffith and O'Higgins?

Mr. J. Brennan

In the corridor of Leinster House.

Mr. T. Lynch

I was under the impression that that portrait of Collins was bought by public subscription.

Mr. J. Brennan

My information is they were bought at State expense. The Deputy can check if I am correct.

Deputy Cosgrave referred to the work at Dún Laoghaire harbour, which we all agree is most necessary work. It has been undertaken in stages and, although only half the work is completed at the moment, already it provides a very necessary amenity for cross-channel passengers. We have heard criticism about the amenities there from time to time. Deputy Jones, I think, complained that he was not permitted to go on the pier when seeing somebody off. Since these works were undertaken, the Office of Public Works have had to make a very hard and fast rule about letting people on the pier while work is in progress. From time to time, Deputies have approached me for permission and we have been able to arrange it specially for some of them. However, if the pier were to be left open to those accompanying passengers, the work could not possibly be carried out. But the work will be completed one day and the amenities there will be considerably enhanced.

One Deputy inquired about the survey of the Maigue catchment. That work has already commenced. A Deputy wanted to know, I think, if the Minister was honouring the pledge given to a deputation some time ago that the survey of the Maigue would start this year. I can assure Deputies that it has already started. It may not be long started but it has started, and that is the important thing.

Mr. T. Lynch

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say a word about major fishery harbours?

Mr. J. Brennan

I did not intend to say anything about that question, but, since Deputy Lynch mentioned it, I want to say this. I should like to accept the accusation that I selected a couple of harbours in Donegal, but I had nothing to do with the selection at all.

Mr. T. Lynch

It was a great coincidence.

Mr. J. Brennan

It was. The Fisheries Section make the selection. The selection was based on the report of the Swedish expert which was supplied to every Deputy. If you look that up, you will find a summary——

Mr. T. Lynch

Experts always confuse me.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy must agree that Killybegs was the obvious place for development as a major fishery harbour?

Mr. T. Lynch

It is very unfortunate that such a lot of fish are being caught in Dunmore.

Mr. J. Brennan

Deputy Lynch might not agree but I think the Swedish consultant was convinced beyond doubt of the merits of developing Killybegs as a major fishery port.

Mr. Palmer

How many ports were selected?

Mr. T. Lynch

Two.

Mr. J. Brennan

Quite a few are under consideration but an actual decision has been taken only in regard to two.

Mr. Palmer

I thought there was a question of five harbours being developed?

Mr. J. Brennan

Harbours are not our primary concern and I do not wish to intrude on the Vote of another Department. When a decision is taken, the Office of Public Works is asked to have the Marine Section make the necessary plans and carry out the work. We do this gladly and expeditiously.

In conclusion, I want to thank Deputies for the very constructive way they approached the Vote generally. They made allowance for the fact that this was my first time introducing this Vote. I am sure there are many matters on which I may not have given them all the information they would have liked, but I hope they will bear with me. I should like to pay a tribute to the staff of the Office of Public Works. They have given me all the co-operation one could wish for. Sometimes they are accused of delay by unthinking people, but I have found every individual, from the top down, most anxious to ensure that the work is carried out satisfactorily and expeditiously. With that approach, I have no doubt that the big programme we have on hand, and which seems to be becoming larger every year, will be undertaken with the utmost expedition.

Mr. Blowick

Would the Parliamentary Secretary make any comment on the suggestion about doing some of the small rivers I mentioned?

Mr. J. Brennan

I dealt with the intermediate rivers in the Deputy's absence.

Mr. Blowick

I shall read it in the Debates.

Question: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration," put and declared negatived.

Vote put and agreed to.